3 ms·

Since the article looks like it's behind a paywall, can you give us an idea of how the information has been diluted, specifically?

by slvv 13y ago

Jugurtha 13y ago
It's not behind a paywall, slvv. Just clicking on the link opens it. (I haven't paid anything to anyone). Or you can just Google "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences female entrepreneurship", then click on the PDF icon and you got it. For example: There was a HN post here of a blog post wondering why there are very few women led backed venture. They cited the article (well, the journal) but if they had read it, they'd know that the authors hinted at the reason of that: That there are simply way fewer women pursuing this than there are men. And the women who end up being entrepreneurs, mostly focus on women's stuff (cosmetics, etc). It's right there, in the article. But they didn't do their reading. It's like talking about some book character after reading Cliff's Notes. Worse, imagine if Cliff's Notes were written from summaries of summaries of summaries. People are just lazy. This is why "Did You Know" in Facebook is such a hit. They give you pseudo facts (often taken out of context and a lot of times resulting in a superficial reading and a hurry to draw a conclusion from a Wikipedia entry). Most people will read them, accept the fact and think they're smarter by the day.
- slvv 13y ago
  I've read the whole, original PNAS article. I have to say, I don't see a major distortion/dilution of it in the submission's linked article.
  - Jugurtha 13y ago
    I may have been generalizing. But there was a post here on HN with a link to such article about that PNAS one that was a bit selective on the parts it picked and ignoring some answers already in PNAS article to questions it asked, and that's what I don't like. For instance the reason why there wasn't enough backed ventures that were led by women.. The PNAS article hinted that the fact women pursue less (and those who do, do mainly in cosmetics and such matters) has something to do with that.. Yet the article chose to ignore that and asked the question as if there were no answer to it, and then picked the part good-looking men get funding, and used that to answer the question. Sorry for late answer.
- webmaven 13y ago
  "This item requires a subscription to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

Since the article looks like it's behind a paywall, can you give us an idea of how the information has been diluted, specifically?

by slvv 13y ago

Since the article looks like it's behind a paywall, can you give us an idea of how the information has been diluted, specifically?

Jugurtha 13y ago

It's not behind a paywall, slvv. Just clicking on the link opens it. (I haven't paid anything to anyone). Or you can just Google "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences female entrepreneurship", then click on the PDF icon and you got it. For example: There was a HN post here of a blog post wondering why there are very few women led backed venture. They cited the article (well, the journal) but if they had read it, they'd know that the authors hinted at the reason of that: That there are simply way fewer women pursuing this than there are men. And the women who end up being entrepreneurs, mostly focus on women's stuff (cosmetics, etc). It's right there, in the article. But they didn't do their reading. It's like talking about some book character after reading Cliff's Notes. Worse, imagine if Cliff's Notes were written from summaries of summaries of summaries. People are just lazy. This is why "Did You Know" in Facebook is such a hit. They give you pseudo facts (often taken out of context and a lot of times resulting in a superficial reading and a hurry to draw a conclusion from a Wikipedia entry). Most people will read them, accept the fact and think they're smarter by the day.

slvv 13y ago
I've read the whole, original PNAS article. I have to say, I don't see a major distortion/dilution of it in the submission's linked article.
- Jugurtha 13y ago
  I may have been generalizing. But there was a post here on HN with a link to such article about that PNAS one that was a bit selective on the parts it picked and ignoring some answers already in PNAS article to questions it asked, and that's what I don't like. For instance the reason why there wasn't enough backed ventures that were led by women.. The PNAS article hinted that the fact women pursue less (and those who do, do mainly in cosmetics and such matters) has something to do with that.. Yet the article chose to ignore that and asked the question as if there were no answer to it, and then picked the part good-looking men get funding, and used that to answer the question. Sorry for late answer.
webmaven 13y ago
"This item requires a subscription to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."