3 ms·

I didn't down-vote you, but for someone who's talking about how easy it is to find studies backing up what you're saying, you haven't been very forthcoming with

by n4r9 8y ago

I didn't down-vote you, but for someone who's talking about how easy it is to find studies backing up what you're saying, you haven't been very forthcoming with citing any of those studies. Also, you went off on a bit of a wild tangent about how awful the left are. HN doesn't generally like politically-motivated rants.

repolfx 8y ago
I was responding to a post that started by talking about the left, in a thread that is entirely about political differences in what science is accepted. That's hardly a wild tangent unless the entire thread is. Indeed the reaction to this post is perfect validation of the original claim. What I'm claiming here is not obscure, weird, or hard to find. Would you expect me to cite a claim that scientists generally agree that climate change is man made? So why should I be expected to cite studies, when my claim is literally that they all say the same thing? Anyway, I can see that we're deep in the thick of science denial in this thread, so fine. Damore already did cite studies, go read his memo to find the links. Or read this story by scientists saying that scientists agree with him: https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists... Or this article about the replicability of stereotype accuracy: http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-res... Again, I should not have to cite studies when there is a scientific consensus about something. It should be up to you to cite studies showing the opposite.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- n4r9 8y ago
  You turned a relatively neutral discussion about left vs right attitudes into a vitriolic attack on one side. I read the Damore memo carefully when it came out and several times since. He never explicitly claims that gender differences in career choices are entirely down to biological rather than cultural differences. Instead he posits biology as a "possible explanation". Damore later said (my emphasis) > I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. ...implying that he leaves open the possibility that some are. Just linking an article (from a website with a clear ideological bent) with a few scientists that support Damore's claims to varying degrees doesn't cut it. If there was the sort of scientific consensus you suggest about the content of the memo then I wouldn't expect Wikipedia to list a series of scientists both for and against, nor would I expect to see articles like the following: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-arguments-james-damore-has-yet-to-respond-to.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-argum...
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > nor would I expect to see articles like the following: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-argum.. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-argum.... That article is a great example of swaying people by pretending the scientific consensus is inconclusive. Yet if you read what they are actually saying none of them are disagreeing with Damore.
    - n4r9 8y ago
      Most of them have mild to strong disagreement with the memo, on the basis of poor/biased research, weak argumentation or unfounded/irrelevant conclusions. Suzanne Sadedin: > TL;DR: Yes, men and women are biologically different — which doesn’t mean what the author thinks it does. The article perniciously misrepresents the nature and significance of known sex differences to advance what appears to be a covert alt-right agenda. > It argues for biologically determined sex differences in personality based on extremely weak evidence > It completely fails to understand the current state of research on sex differences, which is based in neuroscience, epigenetics and developmental biology. > It argues that cognitive sex differences influence performance in software engineering, but presents no supporting evidence. Available evidence does not support the claim. Rosalind C. Barnett and Caryl Rivers: > Much of the data that Damore provides in his memo is suspect, outdated or has other problems. > Baron-Cohen’s study had major problems. It was an “outlier” study. No one else has replicated these findings, including Baron-Cohen himself. It is so flawed as to be almost meaningless. Why? The experiment lacked crucial controls against experimenter bias and was badly designed. > Many of Damore’s controversial conclusions rest heavily on one recent study and much older, now-discredited research, ignoring reams of data that tell a very different story. David P Schmitt: > It is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. Cynthia Lee: > Regardless of whether biological differences exist, there is no shortage of glaring evidence, in individual stories and in scientific studies, that women in tech experience bias and a general lack of a welcoming environment, as do underrepresented minorities.
      - sheepmullet 8y ago
        > Most of them have mild to strong disagreement with the memo A scientific disagreement? I’m not seeing any links to any recent meta analysis etc. Nor even any strong claims like “there are no major biological sex differences in personality”. The only strong assertion is that a paper Damore used about intelligence differences has major flaws. But then if you have read the memo you know that that was hardly the main thrust. The scientists who were quoted were being deliberately content-free.

by n4r9 8y ago

repolfx 8y ago

I was responding to a post that started by talking about the left, in a thread that is entirely about political differences in what science is accepted. That's hardly a wild tangent unless the entire thread is. Indeed the reaction to this post is perfect validation of the original claim. What I'm claiming here is not obscure, weird, or hard to find. Would you expect me to cite a claim that scientists generally agree that climate change is man made? So why should I be expected to cite studies, when my claim is literally that they all say the same thing? Anyway, I can see that we're deep in the thick of science denial in this thread, so fine. Damore already did cite studies, go read his memo to find the links. Or read this story by scientists saying that scientists agree with him: https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists... Or this article about the replicability of stereotype accuracy: http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-res... Again, I should not have to cite studies when there is a scientific consensus about something. It should be up to you to cite studies showing the opposite.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
n4r9 8y ago
You turned a relatively neutral discussion about left vs right attitudes into a vitriolic attack on one side. I read the Damore memo carefully when it came out and several times since. He never explicitly claims that gender differences in career choices are entirely down to biological rather than cultural differences. Instead he posits biology as a "possible explanation". Damore later said (my emphasis) > I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. ...implying that he leaves open the possibility that some are. Just linking an article (from a website with a clear ideological bent) with a few scientists that support Damore's claims to varying degrees doesn't cut it. If there was the sort of scientific consensus you suggest about the content of the memo then I wouldn't expect Wikipedia to list a series of scientists both for and against, nor would I expect to see articles like the following: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-arguments-james-damore-has-yet-to-respond-to.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-argum...
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > nor would I expect to see articles like the following: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-argum.. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-argum.... That article is a great example of swaying people by pretending the scientific consensus is inconclusive. Yet if you read what they are actually saying none of them are disagreeing with Damore.
  - n4r9 8y ago
    Most of them have mild to strong disagreement with the memo, on the basis of poor/biased research, weak argumentation or unfounded/irrelevant conclusions. Suzanne Sadedin: > TL;DR: Yes, men and women are biologically different — which doesn’t mean what the author thinks it does. The article perniciously misrepresents the nature and significance of known sex differences to advance what appears to be a covert alt-right agenda. > It argues for biologically determined sex differences in personality based on extremely weak evidence > It completely fails to understand the current state of research on sex differences, which is based in neuroscience, epigenetics and developmental biology. > It argues that cognitive sex differences influence performance in software engineering, but presents no supporting evidence. Available evidence does not support the claim. Rosalind C. Barnett and Caryl Rivers: > Much of the data that Damore provides in his memo is suspect, outdated or has other problems. > Baron-Cohen’s study had major problems. It was an “outlier” study. No one else has replicated these findings, including Baron-Cohen himself. It is so flawed as to be almost meaningless. Why? The experiment lacked crucial controls against experimenter bias and was badly designed. > Many of Damore’s controversial conclusions rest heavily on one recent study and much older, now-discredited research, ignoring reams of data that tell a very different story. David P Schmitt: > It is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. Cynthia Lee: > Regardless of whether biological differences exist, there is no shortage of glaring evidence, in individual stories and in scientific studies, that women in tech experience bias and a general lack of a welcoming environment, as do underrepresented minorities.
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > Most of them have mild to strong disagreement with the memo A scientific disagreement? I’m not seeing any links to any recent meta analysis etc. Nor even any strong claims like “there are no major biological sex differences in personality”. The only strong assertion is that a paper Damore used about intelligence differences has major flaws. But then if you have read the memo you know that that was hardly the main thrust. The scientists who were quoted were being deliberately content-free.