4 ms·

Then isn't https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x also 'dressing up political views as scientific

by deogeo 8y ago

Then isn't https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x also 'dressing up political views as scientific'? But that stirs far less controversy. At the very least, no-one ever got fired for claiming there are no differences.

acdha 8y ago
> But that stirs far less controversy. There's a difference between claiming that there are no difference and critically examining specific claims to see how well supported they are by the scientific evidence. The book review you linked to appears to fall in that tradition of critically examining claims and looking at sources of systemic error. > At the very least, no-one ever got fired for claiming there are no differences. Nobody has been fired for relevant scientifically-supported claims, either. What has happened is that some guys have spouted off outside of their areas of competency and tried to avoid the consequences by handwaving something about engaging in science. Science is a tool for becoming less-wrong over time, not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
- deogeo 8y ago
  Yet there are no consequences to avoid when people 'spout off outside their area of competency' and claim everyone is equal. Look at e.g. Damore's memo. It was relevant and cited peer reviewed research in support of its claims. Whether those claims were true is another matter, but they were "scientifically supported" by any sensible standard. Yet he was fired, while all the people claiming the exact opposite, even when they did not cite any research, and just as much "outside their areas of competency", were not. In that sense, you're very much correct - if you say something sufficiently unpopular, no matter how well scientifically supported, science won't act as a get-out-of-jail-free card, and won't save you from the backlash. At best it might provide a Nobel prize you can sell for cash when things get dire.
  - acdha 8y ago
    Having read Damore’s memo, I would not describe it that way. He was spouting off outside of his area of competency or job and in particular never established a link between the few cited papers and his claims. Linking a study about toy preferences in monkeys (no matter its merits) is a long way from supporting the claim that Google’s management stats were just reflecting a shortage of qualified people.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Having read Damore’s memo, I would not describe it that way. Odd, but I saw videos of Google and YouTube execs soon afterwards talking at conferences saying some of the same things that were somehow so terrible in the Damore memo. In particular, they stated that they were doing about as well as the education pipeline could allow, and they also speculated that there might be changes to the work environment which could make jobs more desirable to women. Linking a study about toy preferences in monkeys (no matter its merits) is a long way from supporting the claim that Google’s management stats were just reflecting a shortage of qualified people. That hardly strikes me as an intellectually robust summary of the memo.
      - acdha 8y ago
        > That hardly strikes me as an intellectually robust summary of the memo. Try going through it to extract a coherent thesis and then look for the citations, noting how few of them there are at all, how many are secondary sources, and especially how big the gaps are between the things being claimed and what the cited evidence actually supports. Damore is not a very good writer but he’s proficient in the Gish Gallup – if you’re not reading carefully easy easy to careen from point to point without asking how well each one is argued.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        It's like we're reading two different memos. I'm going to guess you're one of those "all gender differences are machinations of the patriarchy" ideologues? There are plenty of intelligent people who are fine with the idea that there are biological gender differences. There is plenty of evidence, the balance of which also finds that men and women are equally intelligent on average. https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagge... http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/09/sexism-inflation.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/09/sexism-inflation.html Here's an interview by James Damore by feminist LianaK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SFLoKa8FdA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SFLoKa8FdA He's not a monster or a raging sexist. He and his memo certainly didn't warrant the hysterical mass staying-home that happened shortly after the media kerfuffle. (In retrospect, I'm actually happy the whole reaction happened, though it is a shame an innocent man lost his job. This event can be preserved for future generations and studied and evaluated for what it really was -- and for how ridiculous and dishonest it was.)

by deogeo 8y ago

acdha 8y ago

> But that stirs far less controversy. There's a difference between claiming that there are no difference and critically examining specific claims to see how well supported they are by the scientific evidence. The book review you linked to appears to fall in that tradition of critically examining claims and looking at sources of systemic error. > At the very least, no-one ever got fired for claiming there are no differences. Nobody has been fired for relevant scientifically-supported claims, either. What has happened is that some guys have spouted off outside of their areas of competency and tried to avoid the consequences by handwaving something about engaging in science. Science is a tool for becoming less-wrong over time, not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

deogeo 8y ago
Yet there are no consequences to avoid when people 'spout off outside their area of competency' and claim everyone is equal. Look at e.g. Damore's memo. It was relevant and cited peer reviewed research in support of its claims. Whether those claims were true is another matter, but they were "scientifically supported" by any sensible standard. Yet he was fired, while all the people claiming the exact opposite, even when they did not cite any research, and just as much "outside their areas of competency", were not. In that sense, you're very much correct - if you say something sufficiently unpopular, no matter how well scientifically supported, science won't act as a get-out-of-jail-free card, and won't save you from the backlash. At best it might provide a Nobel prize you can sell for cash when things get dire.
- acdha 8y ago
  Having read Damore’s memo, I would not describe it that way. He was spouting off outside of his area of competency or job and in particular never established a link between the few cited papers and his claims. Linking a study about toy preferences in monkeys (no matter its merits) is a long way from supporting the claim that Google’s management stats were just reflecting a shortage of qualified people.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Having read Damore’s memo, I would not describe it that way. Odd, but I saw videos of Google and YouTube execs soon afterwards talking at conferences saying some of the same things that were somehow so terrible in the Damore memo. In particular, they stated that they were doing about as well as the education pipeline could allow, and they also speculated that there might be changes to the work environment which could make jobs more desirable to women. Linking a study about toy preferences in monkeys (no matter its merits) is a long way from supporting the claim that Google’s management stats were just reflecting a shortage of qualified people. That hardly strikes me as an intellectually robust summary of the memo.
    - acdha 8y ago
      > That hardly strikes me as an intellectually robust summary of the memo. Try going through it to extract a coherent thesis and then look for the citations, noting how few of them there are at all, how many are secondary sources, and especially how big the gaps are between the things being claimed and what the cited evidence actually supports. Damore is not a very good writer but he’s proficient in the Gish Gallup – if you’re not reading carefully easy easy to careen from point to point without asking how well each one is argued.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        It's like we're reading two different memos. I'm going to guess you're one of those "all gender differences are machinations of the patriarchy" ideologues? There are plenty of intelligent people who are fine with the idea that there are biological gender differences. There is plenty of evidence, the balance of which also finds that men and women are equally intelligent on average. https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagge... http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/09/sexism-inflation.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/09/sexism-inflation.html Here's an interview by James Damore by feminist LianaK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SFLoKa8FdA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SFLoKa8FdA He's not a monster or a raging sexist. He and his memo certainly didn't warrant the hysterical mass staying-home that happened shortly after the media kerfuffle. (In retrospect, I'm actually happy the whole reaction happened, though it is a shame an innocent man lost his job. This event can be preserved for future generations and studied and evaluated for what it really was -- and for how ridiculous and dishonest it was.)