4 ms·

[flagged]

by louwrentius 2y ago

[flagged]

whatsupdog 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rowanG077 2y ago
Why would anyone need to have expertise in a topic to be allowed to say anything? Sounds like a very dark path to walk to just ban discussion on a topic.
- antisthenes 2y ago
  Because the opposite end of that is having thousands of people drown out any nuanced discussion in their low-brow reactionist takes and "folk wisdom".
- citadel_melon 2y ago
  Non-experts can chime in and can often glean insights experts miss. I conjecture -- as a non-expert -- for this article, most laymen will probably come to wackier conclusions than the research really permits. There is a common (and I believe fallacious) conflation between brain size and intelligence. There is also a common (and I believe fallacious) conflation between quick early development and lifelong intelligence. If brain size alone meant anything, sperm whales and elephants would be rulers of the world. If brain-body proportion alone meant anything, ants would be rulers of the world. Also, brains at birth and speedy early development can be misleading. Pigeons develop physically and mentally very quickly when born, while crows take much longer to become self-sufficient. Once fully developed, crows are much more intelligent than pigeons. If anything, there may generally be an inverse correlation between taking longer to develop and smarts. Humans take years to start walking and feed themselves, while giraffes take less than a minute to take their first steps. The research linked in this thread is probably useful to experts in the field. Without further expert interpretation, I am not sure what value laymen could glean from this study other than a factoid or two. However, I think my comment and a couple of others may be insightful, so sharing the article to start a conversation is not meritless.
Chance-Device 2y ago
I think we should probably just let people discuss it, and study it, and find out what the truth is, whatever that might be. A conclusion reached before considering the evidence isn’t really a conclusion. Edit: but now I see that this thread has disappeared from the front page, so I guess letting people discuss it is off the table…
lapcat 2y ago
> This is a tech website, most people here have no relevant expertise to say or think anything meaningful about this. To be fair, this is true of almost every article submitted to HN, even the "tech" articles. Tech is a massive field with countless subspecialties.
hulitu 2y ago
> to make claims about how suitable women are to tech jobs. ? How many % women are employed at Microsoft, Google or Apple ? Are the women to blame that Windows, Android and iOS are crap ?
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >How many % women are employed at Microsoft, Google or Apple ? I don't remember but it is more than the average in the rest of the industry. >Are the women to blame that Windows, Android and iOS are crap ? Generally not, and neither are men as a whole as you seem to imply.

[flagged]

whatsupdog 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rowanG077 2y ago

Why would anyone need to have expertise in a topic to be allowed to say anything? Sounds like a very dark path to walk to just ban discussion on a topic.

antisthenes 2y ago
Because the opposite end of that is having thousands of people drown out any nuanced discussion in their low-brow reactionist takes and "folk wisdom".
citadel_melon 2y ago
Non-experts can chime in and can often glean insights experts miss. I conjecture -- as a non-expert -- for this article, most laymen will probably come to wackier conclusions than the research really permits. There is a common (and I believe fallacious) conflation between brain size and intelligence. There is also a common (and I believe fallacious) conflation between quick early development and lifelong intelligence. If brain size alone meant anything, sperm whales and elephants would be rulers of the world. If brain-body proportion alone meant anything, ants would be rulers of the world. Also, brains at birth and speedy early development can be misleading. Pigeons develop physically and mentally very quickly when born, while crows take much longer to become self-sufficient. Once fully developed, crows are much more intelligent than pigeons. If anything, there may generally be an inverse correlation between taking longer to develop and smarts. Humans take years to start walking and feed themselves, while giraffes take less than a minute to take their first steps. The research linked in this thread is probably useful to experts in the field. Without further expert interpretation, I am not sure what value laymen could glean from this study other than a factoid or two. However, I think my comment and a couple of others may be insightful, so sharing the article to start a conversation is not meritless.

Chance-Device 2y ago

I think we should probably just let people discuss it, and study it, and find out what the truth is, whatever that might be. A conclusion reached before considering the evidence isn’t really a conclusion. Edit: but now I see that this thread has disappeared from the front page, so I guess letting people discuss it is off the table…

lapcat 2y ago

> This is a tech website, most people here have no relevant expertise to say or think anything meaningful about this. To be fair, this is true of almost every article submitted to HN, even the "tech" articles. Tech is a massive field with countless subspecialties.

hulitu 2y ago

> to make claims about how suitable women are to tech jobs. ? How many % women are employed at Microsoft, Google or Apple ? Are the women to blame that Windows, Android and iOS are crap ?

wakawaka28 2y ago
>How many % women are employed at Microsoft, Google or Apple ? I don't remember but it is more than the average in the rest of the industry. >Are the women to blame that Windows, Android and iOS are crap ? Generally not, and neither are men as a whole as you seem to imply.