4 ms·

Good on this guy for speaking some truth, even if he faced flak for it all around. He had the statistics to prove it, and he was discredited. He had the anecdot

Good on this guy for speaking some truth, even if he faced flak for it all around. He had the statistics to prove it, and he was discredited. He had the anecdotal experience to back his story, and he was discredited. By daring to say that people should be admitted based on merit and not given free passes into the field based on gender, he was lambasted. There was no rebuttal, the only responses were basically 'I don't like what he said'.

simonrobb 8y ago
Let's just ignore whether this guy's arguments are valid or not for a second, why, why would you present them in a room full of young, presumably aspirational, predominately female scientists at a conference focussed on getting more women to science? You can question whether such a conference should exist, but this isn't the way to make your point. Particularly when bringing up studies suggesting women like working with people and men like working with things - all those women in the room seemingly don't fit into that reductionist rule, so it's irrelevant in the context at best, and flat out wrong at worst. He's not a crusader, he just seems like a bit of jerk. > given free passes into the field based on gender Free passes aren't given based on gender, though preferential treatment might be given as part of an affirmative action program. Personally I think that is absolutely necessary, in all of STEM, because I believe there is a structural imbalance in our society against women. I'm open to the idea there isn't, and there are immutable biological differences at play, but unless we do something meaningful to correct the societal factor we'll never know. But it's super easy to say there's no chance of that and we should treat everybody totally equal, when you're not the one with the disadvantage. As to his arguments, so much of the evidence he points to can be shaped by the same societal forces he is trying to dismiss. "I made some simple checks and discovered that it wasn't, that it was becoming sexist against men and said so." Anybody who thinks they can unravel this in a evening on google is arrogant, and totally wrong. > speaking some truth Real scientists don't talk in terms of absolute truth, they deal in scientific consensus given the available evidence. Please consider being less dismissive, when almost 50% (and in some ways, 100%) of the world's population is affected by how we view and respond to gender.
- tomp 8y ago
  > Free passes aren't given based on gender, though preferential treatment might be given as part of an affirmative action program Isn't that one and the same?
  - dawax_ 8y ago
    > Isn't that one and the same? What if they are the same. Is that really an issue? Poor children get a "Free Pass" or (preferential treatment) by going to school for free. Seems like the right thing to do to me because their experience should not be decided by factors they can't control (in this case the financial situation they were born in). Same with gender "Free Passes" if one accepts the premise that it is a disadvantage to be born a woman and want to make it in STEM. If one does not believe that (meaning they were not convinced by the evidence), then that's another discussion and the debate is open.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - simonrobb 8y ago
    I take free pass to imply you don't have to do anything. Preferential treatment is more like - this person is good enough to do the job and do it well, and they have a background we want to support so that's an extra positive. I was once passed over for a job, and I somewhat knew the female candidate who got it. We were equally qualified, and I may have been slightly more experienced. I think it's likely that was preferential treatment (I could be wrong, maybe they just liked her more, maybe it was arbitrary). I think that's awesome. I most definitely wouldn't call it a free pass.
- bassman9000 8y ago
  Free passes aren't given based on gender, though preferential treatment might be given as part of an affirmative action program. That's what free pass means
  - 8y ago
yesitisme 8y ago
Eureka! We have discovered a complete ignorant fucking shithead.
jaemison 8y ago
The rebuttal is “these facts were cherry-picked to support the author’s interpretation of observable events.” From the article: “He also said that he himself was overlooked for a job that he was more qualified for, which was given to a woman.” If we start with a hypothesis of equal capability, his graph shows that women are being passed over for career opportunities in favor of less qualified men more often than the reverse is true. Facts don’t lie, but with subjective context they can be used to tell stories.
1290cc 8y ago
This entire movement is now reminding me of the Kurt Vonnegut short story "Harrison Bergeron" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
1290cc 8y ago
It would be nice to see other scientists contrasting his data points and trying to reconcile why male scientists are able to see this yet everyone does not. If its a fallacy, then help these male scientists see the facts. Why isnt the media presenting the data that refutes his facts! A lost opportunity. We are burning someone at the stake for their ideas in the science community. If he is wrong, so be it. But to burn and punish him because of his research and ideas is taking us back to the dark ages. Due to the media reaction of this, I guarantee we're missing out on significant amounts of research that could cause offense in many areas of society. Today anything to do with the lottery of life (your race, your sex, inherited genes) is nuclear and career ending if it doesnt fit a popular narrative.

simonrobb 8y ago

Let's just ignore whether this guy's arguments are valid or not for a second, why, why would you present them in a room full of young, presumably aspirational, predominately female scientists at a conference focussed on getting more women to science? You can question whether such a conference should exist, but this isn't the way to make your point. Particularly when bringing up studies suggesting women like working with people and men like working with things - all those women in the room seemingly don't fit into that reductionist rule, so it's irrelevant in the context at best, and flat out wrong at worst. He's not a crusader, he just seems like a bit of jerk. > given free passes into the field based on gender Free passes aren't given based on gender, though preferential treatment might be given as part of an affirmative action program. Personally I think that is absolutely necessary, in all of STEM, because I believe there is a structural imbalance in our society against women. I'm open to the idea there isn't, and there are immutable biological differences at play, but unless we do something meaningful to correct the societal factor we'll never know. But it's super easy to say there's no chance of that and we should treat everybody totally equal, when you're not the one with the disadvantage. As to his arguments, so much of the evidence he points to can be shaped by the same societal forces he is trying to dismiss. "I made some simple checks and discovered that it wasn't, that it was becoming sexist against men and said so." Anybody who thinks they can unravel this in a evening on google is arrogant, and totally wrong. > speaking some truth Real scientists don't talk in terms of absolute truth, they deal in scientific consensus given the available evidence. Please consider being less dismissive, when almost 50% (and in some ways, 100%) of the world's population is affected by how we view and respond to gender.

tomp 8y ago
> Free passes aren't given based on gender, though preferential treatment might be given as part of an affirmative action program Isn't that one and the same?
- dawax_ 8y ago
  > Isn't that one and the same? What if they are the same. Is that really an issue? Poor children get a "Free Pass" or (preferential treatment) by going to school for free. Seems like the right thing to do to me because their experience should not be decided by factors they can't control (in this case the financial situation they were born in). Same with gender "Free Passes" if one accepts the premise that it is a disadvantage to be born a woman and want to make it in STEM. If one does not believe that (meaning they were not convinced by the evidence), then that's another discussion and the debate is open.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- simonrobb 8y ago
  I take free pass to imply you don't have to do anything. Preferential treatment is more like - this person is good enough to do the job and do it well, and they have a background we want to support so that's an extra positive. I was once passed over for a job, and I somewhat knew the female candidate who got it. We were equally qualified, and I may have been slightly more experienced. I think it's likely that was preferential treatment (I could be wrong, maybe they just liked her more, maybe it was arbitrary). I think that's awesome. I most definitely wouldn't call it a free pass.
bassman9000 8y ago
Free passes aren't given based on gender, though preferential treatment might be given as part of an affirmative action program. That's what free pass means
- 8y ago

yesitisme 8y ago

Eureka! We have discovered a complete ignorant fucking shithead.

jaemison 8y ago

The rebuttal is “these facts were cherry-picked to support the author’s interpretation of observable events.” From the article: “He also said that he himself was overlooked for a job that he was more qualified for, which was given to a woman.” If we start with a hypothesis of equal capability, his graph shows that women are being passed over for career opportunities in favor of less qualified men more often than the reverse is true. Facts don’t lie, but with subjective context they can be used to tell stories.

1290cc 8y ago

This entire movement is now reminding me of the Kurt Vonnegut short story "Harrison Bergeron" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

1290cc 8y ago

It would be nice to see other scientists contrasting his data points and trying to reconcile why male scientists are able to see this yet everyone does not. If its a fallacy, then help these male scientists see the facts. Why isnt the media presenting the data that refutes his facts! A lost opportunity. We are burning someone at the stake for their ideas in the science community. If he is wrong, so be it. But to burn and punish him because of his research and ideas is taking us back to the dark ages. Due to the media reaction of this, I guarantee we're missing out on significant amounts of research that could cause offense in many areas of society. Today anything to do with the lottery of life (your race, your sex, inherited genes) is nuclear and career ending if it doesnt fit a popular narrative.