4 ms·

Blame the "left leaning zeitgeist" all you want, I've seen no such evidence. What I have seen is a Hacker News thread full of people misunderstanding statistics

by gbrown 7y ago

Blame the "left leaning zeitgeist" all you want, I've seen no such evidence. What I have seen is a Hacker News thread full of people misunderstanding statistics and machine learning, advocating for bad models, and obsessing about biological explanations for the crazy gender disparity in tech. Whatever real, fundamental differences exist, it's preposterous to assert that our current situation is entirely biological in nature - especially when the toxicity is on such full and self-assured display.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
iknowalot 7y ago
The thing is most of these people who dont see flaws in the model were raised by women, probably have sisters, and probably have girlfriends or wives. Wait until they start applying these models and ignorance takes flight against groups that they don't associate with, Muslims (most Americans don't personally know one), blacks (most Americans don't have a solid grasp of their history in this country and the resulting outcomes they now suffer), etc....
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
stevenhuang 7y ago
> it's preposterous to assert that our current situation is entirely biological in nature Careful on misframing the thought experiment: no such assertion was made. The assertion through this thought experiment was that biological nature has an effect, no more no less. The degree to which the effect matters is uncertain, but it is reasonable to expect it does play a role. The reason biological explanation is mentioned at all is because many seem determined to think that no such effect is possible, full-stop. If you agree that biological differences has a non-zero effect on preference, then there shouldn't be anything to disagree with here.
- gbrown 7y ago
  I disagree with your reading entirely: "It may well be the case that the gender split is 80% / 20%" That's a preposterous hypothetical. You're also incorrect in your implication - the existence of minor (and as yet unsubstantiated) fundamental differences in propensity to pursue technology in no way precludes the (well established) social biases and inequities that result in the same. Neither would it prevent these issues from being reflected in statistical models. Thought experiments about magical perfect AIs are completely and totally irrelevant to this real problem which everyone who uses models should be aware of. To get on my cranky, gatekeeping high horse, I find it super frustrating to see people who call themselves data scientists misunderstanding this problem. I teach this in introductory statistics to non-technical audiences. I'd hope for better from engineers and computer scientists.
  - Excel_Wizard 7y ago
    It's interesting that this thread is still going today, and I'm glad that it is civil. Thought experiments are relevant because they can tease out our moral intuitions. Calling it a preposterous hypothetical is not useful. gbrown- I think that you have read my original post with a hostile interpretation. I left open the possibility of biological differences in preferences OR zero biological differences in preference. You act as if there is scientific consensus that biological difference in preference is impossible, and that all current differences in outcomes are based on culturally-imposed biases. This is not the case. >You're also incorrect in your implication - the existence of minor (and as yet unsubstantiated) fundamental differences in propensity to pursue technology in no way precludes the (well established) social biases and inequities that result in the same. I or other posters did not imply this. You are conflating my hypothetical case (where cultural bias was made irrelevant as much as possible) with real life. Real life does have bias. The reason the hypothetical was presented was for comparison. I've got a couple (low-ball, civil) questions as a sanity check- 1. Would you agree that men have a stronger biological preference to be warriors than women? 2. Would you agree that there is a greater cultural expectation for men to be warriors than for women?
    - gbrown 7y ago

by gbrown 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

iknowalot 7y ago

The thing is most of these people who dont see flaws in the model were raised by women, probably have sisters, and probably have girlfriends or wives. Wait until they start applying these models and ignorance takes flight against groups that they don't associate with, Muslims (most Americans don't personally know one), blacks (most Americans don't have a solid grasp of their history in this country and the resulting outcomes they now suffer), etc....

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

stevenhuang 7y ago

> it's preposterous to assert that our current situation is entirely biological in nature Careful on misframing the thought experiment: no such assertion was made. The assertion through this thought experiment was that biological nature has an effect, no more no less. The degree to which the effect matters is uncertain, but it is reasonable to expect it does play a role. The reason biological explanation is mentioned at all is because many seem determined to think that no such effect is possible, full-stop. If you agree that biological differences has a non-zero effect on preference, then there shouldn't be anything to disagree with here.

gbrown 7y ago
I disagree with your reading entirely: "It may well be the case that the gender split is 80% / 20%" That's a preposterous hypothetical. You're also incorrect in your implication - the existence of minor (and as yet unsubstantiated) fundamental differences in propensity to pursue technology in no way precludes the (well established) social biases and inequities that result in the same. Neither would it prevent these issues from being reflected in statistical models. Thought experiments about magical perfect AIs are completely and totally irrelevant to this real problem which everyone who uses models should be aware of. To get on my cranky, gatekeeping high horse, I find it super frustrating to see people who call themselves data scientists misunderstanding this problem. I teach this in introductory statistics to non-technical audiences. I'd hope for better from engineers and computer scientists.
- Excel_Wizard 7y ago
  It's interesting that this thread is still going today, and I'm glad that it is civil. Thought experiments are relevant because they can tease out our moral intuitions. Calling it a preposterous hypothetical is not useful. gbrown- I think that you have read my original post with a hostile interpretation. I left open the possibility of biological differences in preferences OR zero biological differences in preference. You act as if there is scientific consensus that biological difference in preference is impossible, and that all current differences in outcomes are based on culturally-imposed biases. This is not the case. >You're also incorrect in your implication - the existence of minor (and as yet unsubstantiated) fundamental differences in propensity to pursue technology in no way precludes the (well established) social biases and inequities that result in the same. I or other posters did not imply this. You are conflating my hypothetical case (where cultural bias was made irrelevant as much as possible) with real life. Real life does have bias. The reason the hypothetical was presented was for comparison. I've got a couple (low-ball, civil) questions as a sanity check- 1. Would you agree that men have a stronger biological preference to be warriors than women? 2. Would you agree that there is a greater cultural expectation for men to be warriors than for women?
  - gbrown 7y ago