4 ms·

I don't completely understand your argument here, on a purely intellectual level... In a very simple model, going from 0 women to 1 woman should increase the n

I don't completely understand your argument here, on a purely intellectual level... In a very simple model, going from 0 women to 1 woman should increase the number of harassment suits, right? Then going from 1 woman to 2 women should have a similar effect, because all naturally occurring functions are differentiable :-) Intuitively it seems to me that the amount of reported harassment should be proportional to how many opportunities for harassment exist, or (under a different theory) how many opportunities for false claims exist, which is the same number by another name. So it's a little strange to hear you say that anyone who disagrees with you must believe in nasty things like "harassment is made up by women". Do you know how hard it is to figure out causality from observational data? For any possible trend you could find in the data, like "reported harassment scales as the number of women times the square root of the number of men", one could probably make up a just-so story that blames men, and a different just-so story that blames women.

raganwald 14y ago
I think the onus is on you and those who agree with you to discard all this "intuitively" and other hand-wavy stuff and come up with some hard evidence and/or citations, or back down and say, "we're making this shit up because it suits our biases." I wasn't born yesterday. If someone makes a claim without a shred of evidence, it's perfectly legitimate to say, "Well, here's another alternate explanation that's just as unproven, so clearly yours has nothing special going for it." I gave you a Flying Spaghetti Monster, and you're telling me that intuitively, God has a long white beard, not a saucer. I'm perfectly ok with your saying that you choose to believe something without a shred of evidence, to take it as faith. But that won't change the fact that simply making shit up, asking if it's "wrong," and then saying that you'll stick to it unless someone else proves your unsubstantiated prejudices are mistaken is bunkum. That thinking isn't thinking.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  His intuitions are simply basic mathematical intuitions ("natural functions are differentiable") and have nothing whatsoever to do with any prejudices. He isn't "making shit up", he just isn't justifying it with as much mathematical rigor as I did. It really does not help discussions like this to simply assume and accuse those you disagree with are prejudiced and unthinking.
  - raganwald 14y ago
    Sorry, what he and you are doing is starting with assumptions you are making up and then saying GIVEN this shit I'm making up THEN given these mathematical intuitions I cherry-pick as simple demonstrations of the conclusions I've drawn THEN the conclusion I drew before I back-filled my reasoning holds. Again, without even the barest attempt to go out and gather some empirical data. That kind of talk belongs amongst consultants pedalling methodology snake-oil. And yes I am being dismissive of your so-called arguments. Around here we regularly make fun of the "social sciences" for their lack of rigor. Except, it appears, when we want to throw our prejudices around. Shame on you all for treating Hacker News like it's Reddit.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      Which prejudices? I made three assumptions. One was social distance (a harasser will harass only one of the K < N people he has met). The other was your assumption that a harasser always harasses. The third was your assumption that all harassment allegations are true. I assume that the social distance assumption is the one you believe to be prejudiced? I'm also curious why you believe your post is any different. You also posited a mathematical model (exactly like mine, except without the social distance), and hinted that those you disagree with must be sexist. Is it merely the existence of an ad-hominem attack that makes your post more valid?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
Dn_Ab 14y ago
You wish to be clinical about this? Consider. Your statement essentially assumes linearity, when such certainly isn't the case. Look at other industries, harassment lawsuits do not rise in tandem with number of women. This is obvious, one can grow the number of women in an industry far more quickly than harassers. Since these harassers cannot well parallelize their activity, the strongest explanatory variable will be the number of potential harassers. Raganwald's point. We are taking it as a given that most men will not provoke things till disciplinary actions are required and most women are not lying about them. Your post is also highly simplifying - assumes trivial reducibility, homogeneity and ignores the effect of interactions to create emergent modalities. Observe that Not all women will escalate to lawsuits or even disciplinary action first. Lawsuits are a sign of an endemic problem, lack of support - symptom of horrible rot. With more women the support structures would be such that these problems could be nipped in the bud early. Indeed it's very possible that beyond a certain threshold, the number of women in an organization shifts company culture. These two points show why it is not a simple matter of 500% more lawsuits.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

raganwald 14y ago

I think the onus is on you and those who agree with you to discard all this "intuitively" and other hand-wavy stuff and come up with some hard evidence and/or citations, or back down and say, "we're making this shit up because it suits our biases." I wasn't born yesterday. If someone makes a claim without a shred of evidence, it's perfectly legitimate to say, "Well, here's another alternate explanation that's just as unproven, so clearly yours has nothing special going for it." I gave you a Flying Spaghetti Monster, and you're telling me that intuitively, God has a long white beard, not a saucer. I'm perfectly ok with your saying that you choose to believe something without a shred of evidence, to take it as faith. But that won't change the fact that simply making shit up, asking if it's "wrong," and then saying that you'll stick to it unless someone else proves your unsubstantiated prejudices are mistaken is bunkum. That thinking isn't thinking.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
yummyfajitas 14y ago
His intuitions are simply basic mathematical intuitions ("natural functions are differentiable") and have nothing whatsoever to do with any prejudices. He isn't "making shit up", he just isn't justifying it with as much mathematical rigor as I did. It really does not help discussions like this to simply assume and accuse those you disagree with are prejudiced and unthinking.
- raganwald 14y ago
  Sorry, what he and you are doing is starting with assumptions you are making up and then saying GIVEN this shit I'm making up THEN given these mathematical intuitions I cherry-pick as simple demonstrations of the conclusions I've drawn THEN the conclusion I drew before I back-filled my reasoning holds. Again, without even the barest attempt to go out and gather some empirical data. That kind of talk belongs amongst consultants pedalling methodology snake-oil. And yes I am being dismissive of your so-called arguments. Around here we regularly make fun of the "social sciences" for their lack of rigor. Except, it appears, when we want to throw our prejudices around. Shame on you all for treating Hacker News like it's Reddit.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Which prejudices? I made three assumptions. One was social distance (a harasser will harass only one of the K < N people he has met). The other was your assumption that a harasser always harasses. The third was your assumption that all harassment allegations are true. I assume that the social distance assumption is the one you believe to be prejudiced? I'm also curious why you believe your post is any different. You also posited a mathematical model (exactly like mine, except without the social distance), and hinted that those you disagree with must be sexist. Is it merely the existence of an ad-hominem attack that makes your post more valid?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

Dn_Ab 14y ago

You wish to be clinical about this? Consider. Your statement essentially assumes linearity, when such certainly isn't the case. Look at other industries, harassment lawsuits do not rise in tandem with number of women. This is obvious, one can grow the number of women in an industry far more quickly than harassers. Since these harassers cannot well parallelize their activity, the strongest explanatory variable will be the number of potential harassers. Raganwald's point. We are taking it as a given that most men will not provoke things till disciplinary actions are required and most women are not lying about them. Your post is also highly simplifying - assumes trivial reducibility, homogeneity and ignores the effect of interactions to create emergent modalities. Observe that Not all women will escalate to lawsuits or even disciplinary action first. Lawsuits are a sign of an endemic problem, lack of support - symptom of horrible rot. With more women the support structures would be such that these problems could be nipped in the bud early. Indeed it's very possible that beyond a certain threshold, the number of women in an organization shifts company culture. These two points show why it is not a simple matter of 500% more lawsuits.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]