5 ms·

Why has this sort of article become anathema?

by pmarreck 7y ago

brighton36 7y ago
Charisma is telling people what they want to hear. The uncharismatic, pragmatic as they may be, are thus unpopular.
viburnum 7y ago
It’s usually paired with a rationalization of some kind of domination or abuse.
allovernow 7y ago
I'd answer but I don't want to get banned. Unfortunately the subject of this article is begging to be discussed because the corporate world that we are all a part of is structuring itself to fix a "problem" by essentially denying human nature in favor of some unsubstantiated tabula rasa propaganda that has been fed to at least two generations of westerners. And websites like HN really feed into the status quo, likely unintentionally, by flagging related comments/articles and banning accounts which discuss the so called anathema. People are touchy about the subject because, for feminists in particular, this is a heavily moral issue and the alternative view may indicate that, yes, women really are on average less suited for many technical pursuits, a conclusion which some people are simply unwilling to accept, even though such an assertion actually says little about individuals. I guess when you're heavily invested in an identity, you take anything that might paint the identity negatively rather personally.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > women really are on average less suited for many technical pursuits I see nothing in the article that suggests this.
- kwhitefoot 7y ago
  > women really are on average less suited for many technical pursuits Do you have any pursuits in mind? And numbers to back it up?
  - klyrs 7y ago
    Replying here because GP is dead... > yes, women really are on average less suited for many technical pursuits, a conclusion which some people are simply unwilling to accept, even though such an assertion actually says little about individuals. The discussion of nurture and nature here is extremely important. Also on the front page of HN today: an exposition of the treatment that young girls are subjected to on the internet. Girls are "nurtured" (abused) into the belief or understanding that they are first and foremost sex objects. Of the women I work with: over 90% in technical roles were told that "math/science isn't for girls" by at least one teacher in grade school, around 70% were told something similar in university. Of those with PhDs, more than half were told that women aren't cut out for academia by their supervisor. So whenever folks claim "even though such an assertion actually says little about individuals," it's ignorant, at best, to how our society talks about this. I'm willing to accept that "on average" adult women aren't cut out for technical roles. But given my experience at the helm of university calculus classes, I must say that "on average," adult men aren't cut out for technical roles either. But unlike women, they haven't been told repeatedly by parents, teachers, advisors, pastors, supervisors, that they're incapable on account of their gender. With all that "nurture" it's incredible that folks are inclined to make such strong assertions about "nature."
    - kwhitefoot 7y ago
      > Of those with PhDs, more than half were told that women aren't cut out for academia by their supervisor. I want to respond to this but I'm having a hard time thinking of a response that isn't profane. I don't mean to aim my ire at you, the messenger, of course. But seriously, is it really that bad? I mean when I did my degree ('74-'77 Exeter Uni., Physics) out of about forty of us only three got firsts and one was a woman, she went on to do a Ph. D. I'm pretty sure no one said any such thing to her. Does it depend on which country you are in? I know of plenty of women in high technical positions in industry in Norway and I can't imagine that they suffer from this, at least not to that degree. I also can't imagine them suffering in silence.
Thriptic 7y ago
Typically intent and ramifications. I don't think it's a problem to point out that there are measured differences in the sexes; truth is truth if they've got high quality data to back up assertions. The danger is twofold. First, people forget that these are population level trends and that it is bad reasoning to automatically assume every individual in a given group conforms with these trends. Second, a lot of people believe dumb and backward ideas about other groups, and they'll twist and cherry pick the data to try to back up their biases without the nuance of presentation shown here. In fact, most of the articles broaching this topic are doing so from a position of malice rather than truth seeking; trying to justify some sort of discrimination or poor treatment of another group.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  Interesting phraseology there. Truth is truth ... unless it supports "dumb and backwards ideas", in which case it's being twisted and/or cherry picked? (I'm not picking on your viewpoint in particular; all sides do exactly the same thing.)
  - Thriptic 7y ago
    Not at all. At the end of the day the truth is the truth regardless of whether we like it or not. An idea isn't dumb or backward if it has proper validation. The problem is that most people bringing this up are not doing so in an intellectually rigorous way. They are coming to the table with a pre-existing conclusion and then trying to fit data to support that conclusion. Both sides do this in fact, and approach / intent matters because doing this creates bias even if people try to stay neutral. That is a poor way to try to discover or talk about the truth. That's what I mean to say.
  - escape_goat 7y ago
    That's not at all what he said. What he said was "truth is truth if they've got high quality data to back up assertions," and "a lot of people believe dumb and backward ideas about other groups, and they'll twist and cherry pick the data to try to back up their biases without the nuance of presentation shown here." The difference is clear enough that your response appears a bit twisted and cherry-picked. I have no idea why anyone could think that such a vastly sweeping generalization such as "all sides do exactly the same thing" might be anything other than false, but what is contrasted here is exactly two instances, two sides, in which people are not doing exactly the same thing. There is, on the one hand, the careful presentation of nuanced data in good faith — without a witting ulterior motive — and on the other hand, the selection of data on the basis of its ability to appear supportive of an a priori conclusion, something that can be done unwittingly, but which is just as often done wittingly.
blotter_paper 7y ago
I speak only for myself. I find differences in human categories fascinating on some level, but I don't think we (humanity, HN, or even myself) are mature enough to discuss them without impacting the way we see and treat ourselves and others. Women score lower on math tests when reminded that they are women[0]. That's a horrible thing for a culture to do to an individual, and if women are sexist against themselves to the extent that it causes them to be worse at math then it seems obvious to me that men are expecting less of them as well (whether they're aware of it or not). I'm not saying discussion of gender differences should be censored, but I personally tend to not engage in them these days because I worry that propagating my views on gender differences will cause differences in both ability and treatment of individuals in ways that are hard to even measure or know whether you yourself are engaging in. This is one of those topics that might be best left to academics and future generations, depending on your goals and in what proportions you care about raw information v.s. treating humans kindly. [0]: https://web.stanford.edu/group/ipc/pubs/2006Steele.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/group/ipc/pubs/2006Steele.pdf
- sn 7y ago
  Thank you for bringing this up. The specific term, also a keyword in your linked paper, which describes this is "stereotype threat" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat . I'm calling it out specifically only because it's handy to have a short phrase to describe the phenomenon, and I'm not sure if everyone is aware of it or not.
  - extempore 7y ago
    Stereotype threat is a product of publication bias. It doesn’t replicate. https://replicationindex.com/2017/04/07/hidden-figures-replication-failures-in-the-stereotype-threat-literature/ https://replicationindex.com/2017/04/07/hidden-figures-repli...
dang 7y ago
That's a subtle subject change from the article itself to the inflammatory ideological climate, which guarantees a repetitive flamewar. Please don't do that on HN. We want curious conversation here. Going on generic ideological tangents guarantee reruns of same-old, increasingly nasty, arguments, which is why the site guidelines ask users not to do that: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- pmarreck 7y ago
  I asked a sincere question because I learned a lot of that stuff in evo psych classes in the 2000's (as a Psych major) and am a bit confused as to what has transpired the past few years to draw such negative attention from some circles. I did not intend to start an "ideological flamewar" and I apparently have much more faith in other HN users to conduct themselves with peace and patience when discussing... whatever the heck this is at this point. Sorry.
egdod 7y ago
There are just certain things you aren’t allowed to think about, if you’re a good little progressive.
- tchaffee 7y ago
  This is HN, not Reddit. Take your politics and condescension elsewhere please.
  - egdod 7y ago
    Reddit wouldn’t tolerate any political opinions that go against the Virtuous Left either.
bsder 7y ago
Because generally people use these kinds of articles to extrapolate from group to individual--and that's generally not a good idea. Individuals break "typical" all the time. If I'm interviewing you for a job, I shouldn't apply "group stereotype" as I'm specifically looking for your individual traits that break the norm. I don't want the "average" from your group--I probably want someone far from it.

Why has this sort of article become anathema?

brighton36 7y ago

Charisma is telling people what they want to hear. The uncharismatic, pragmatic as they may be, are thus unpopular.

viburnum 7y ago

It’s usually paired with a rationalization of some kind of domination or abuse.

allovernow 7y ago

I'd answer but I don't want to get banned. Unfortunately the subject of this article is begging to be discussed because the corporate world that we are all a part of is structuring itself to fix a "problem" by essentially denying human nature in favor of some unsubstantiated tabula rasa propaganda that has been fed to at least two generations of westerners. And websites like HN really feed into the status quo, likely unintentionally, by flagging related comments/articles and banning accounts which discuss the so called anathema. People are touchy about the subject because, for feminists in particular, this is a heavily moral issue and the alternative view may indicate that, yes, women really are on average less suited for many technical pursuits, a conclusion which some people are simply unwilling to accept, even though such an assertion actually says little about individuals. I guess when you're heavily invested in an identity, you take anything that might paint the identity negatively rather personally.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
saagarjha 7y ago
> women really are on average less suited for many technical pursuits I see nothing in the article that suggests this.
kwhitefoot 7y ago
> women really are on average less suited for many technical pursuits Do you have any pursuits in mind? And numbers to back it up?
- klyrs 7y ago
  Replying here because GP is dead... > yes, women really are on average less suited for many technical pursuits, a conclusion which some people are simply unwilling to accept, even though such an assertion actually says little about individuals. The discussion of nurture and nature here is extremely important. Also on the front page of HN today: an exposition of the treatment that young girls are subjected to on the internet. Girls are "nurtured" (abused) into the belief or understanding that they are first and foremost sex objects. Of the women I work with: over 90% in technical roles were told that "math/science isn't for girls" by at least one teacher in grade school, around 70% were told something similar in university. Of those with PhDs, more than half were told that women aren't cut out for academia by their supervisor. So whenever folks claim "even though such an assertion actually says little about individuals," it's ignorant, at best, to how our society talks about this. I'm willing to accept that "on average" adult women aren't cut out for technical roles. But given my experience at the helm of university calculus classes, I must say that "on average," adult men aren't cut out for technical roles either. But unlike women, they haven't been told repeatedly by parents, teachers, advisors, pastors, supervisors, that they're incapable on account of their gender. With all that "nurture" it's incredible that folks are inclined to make such strong assertions about "nature."
  - kwhitefoot 7y ago
    > Of those with PhDs, more than half were told that women aren't cut out for academia by their supervisor. I want to respond to this but I'm having a hard time thinking of a response that isn't profane. I don't mean to aim my ire at you, the messenger, of course. But seriously, is it really that bad? I mean when I did my degree ('74-'77 Exeter Uni., Physics) out of about forty of us only three got firsts and one was a woman, she went on to do a Ph. D. I'm pretty sure no one said any such thing to her. Does it depend on which country you are in? I know of plenty of women in high technical positions in industry in Norway and I can't imagine that they suffer from this, at least not to that degree. I also can't imagine them suffering in silence.

Thriptic 7y ago

Typically intent and ramifications. I don't think it's a problem to point out that there are measured differences in the sexes; truth is truth if they've got high quality data to back up assertions. The danger is twofold. First, people forget that these are population level trends and that it is bad reasoning to automatically assume every individual in a given group conforms with these trends. Second, a lot of people believe dumb and backward ideas about other groups, and they'll twist and cherry pick the data to try to back up their biases without the nuance of presentation shown here. In fact, most of the articles broaching this topic are doing so from a position of malice rather than truth seeking; trying to justify some sort of discrimination or poor treatment of another group.

ThrowawayR2 7y ago
Interesting phraseology there. Truth is truth ... unless it supports "dumb and backwards ideas", in which case it's being twisted and/or cherry picked? (I'm not picking on your viewpoint in particular; all sides do exactly the same thing.)
- Thriptic 7y ago
  Not at all. At the end of the day the truth is the truth regardless of whether we like it or not. An idea isn't dumb or backward if it has proper validation. The problem is that most people bringing this up are not doing so in an intellectually rigorous way. They are coming to the table with a pre-existing conclusion and then trying to fit data to support that conclusion. Both sides do this in fact, and approach / intent matters because doing this creates bias even if people try to stay neutral. That is a poor way to try to discover or talk about the truth. That's what I mean to say.
- escape_goat 7y ago
  That's not at all what he said. What he said was "truth is truth if they've got high quality data to back up assertions," and "a lot of people believe dumb and backward ideas about other groups, and they'll twist and cherry pick the data to try to back up their biases without the nuance of presentation shown here." The difference is clear enough that your response appears a bit twisted and cherry-picked. I have no idea why anyone could think that such a vastly sweeping generalization such as "all sides do exactly the same thing" might be anything other than false, but what is contrasted here is exactly two instances, two sides, in which people are not doing exactly the same thing. There is, on the one hand, the careful presentation of nuanced data in good faith — without a witting ulterior motive — and on the other hand, the selection of data on the basis of its ability to appear supportive of an a priori conclusion, something that can be done unwittingly, but which is just as often done wittingly.

blotter_paper 7y ago

I speak only for myself. I find differences in human categories fascinating on some level, but I don't think we (humanity, HN, or even myself) are mature enough to discuss them without impacting the way we see and treat ourselves and others. Women score lower on math tests when reminded that they are women[0]. That's a horrible thing for a culture to do to an individual, and if women are sexist against themselves to the extent that it causes them to be worse at math then it seems obvious to me that men are expecting less of them as well (whether they're aware of it or not). I'm not saying discussion of gender differences should be censored, but I personally tend to not engage in them these days because I worry that propagating my views on gender differences will cause differences in both ability and treatment of individuals in ways that are hard to even measure or know whether you yourself are engaging in. This is one of those topics that might be best left to academics and future generations, depending on your goals and in what proportions you care about raw information v.s. treating humans kindly. [0]: https://web.stanford.edu/group/ipc/pubs/2006Steele.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/group/ipc/pubs/2006Steele.pdf

sn 7y ago
Thank you for bringing this up. The specific term, also a keyword in your linked paper, which describes this is "stereotype threat" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat . I'm calling it out specifically only because it's handy to have a short phrase to describe the phenomenon, and I'm not sure if everyone is aware of it or not.
- extempore 7y ago
  Stereotype threat is a product of publication bias. It doesn’t replicate. https://replicationindex.com/2017/04/07/hidden-figures-replication-failures-in-the-stereotype-threat-literature/ https://replicationindex.com/2017/04/07/hidden-figures-repli...

dang 7y ago

That's a subtle subject change from the article itself to the inflammatory ideological climate, which guarantees a repetitive flamewar. Please don't do that on HN. We want curious conversation here. Going on generic ideological tangents guarantee reruns of same-old, increasingly nasty, arguments, which is why the site guidelines ask users not to do that: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

pmarreck 7y ago
I asked a sincere question because I learned a lot of that stuff in evo psych classes in the 2000's (as a Psych major) and am a bit confused as to what has transpired the past few years to draw such negative attention from some circles. I did not intend to start an "ideological flamewar" and I apparently have much more faith in other HN users to conduct themselves with peace and patience when discussing... whatever the heck this is at this point. Sorry.

egdod 7y ago

There are just certain things you aren’t allowed to think about, if you’re a good little progressive.

tchaffee 7y ago
This is HN, not Reddit. Take your politics and condescension elsewhere please.
- egdod 7y ago
  Reddit wouldn’t tolerate any political opinions that go against the Virtuous Left either.

bsder 7y ago

Because generally people use these kinds of articles to extrapolate from group to individual--and that's generally not a good idea. Individuals break "typical" all the time. If I'm interviewing you for a job, I shouldn't apply "group stereotype" as I'm specifically looking for your individual traits that break the norm. I don't want the "average" from your group--I probably want someone far from it.