Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The power of role models

commandcenter.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 380 posts

Re: The power of role models

#361

Post by discombobulate »

tptacek wrote: post #355
discombobulate wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, name calling doesn't make your argument any more credible. It explains your position. Being meta isn't name-calling. Or if it is it's on the same level of Nietzsche saying philosophers derive philosophy from who they are. 2) You've listed three such subjects yourself: CS, engineering, physics. Not such a high hurdle when there are multiple elements in the set. Which you left out. Strawman. Or is it OK to be…

Paraphrasing: "Computers are different from all the rest of science. That's why there's so few women in the field." How are computers different from the rest of science? "They just are!" That's not an argument. "You're a dishonest jerk!" I think I understand where you're coming from now.

Computers aren't science. Computers compute. Science seeks to error correct toward truth.

I've laid out my logic. If you don't understand any of it, I can expand. If you're unwilling to understand it, that's on you.

You've addressed none of my points. And made no attempt to rephrase my actual position.

If you don't like me saying you are dishonest in your arguments don't be dishonest in your arguments—or explain how you weren't being dishonest.

> I think I understand where you're coming from now.

Do you? I want to critique your arguments, your epistemology, and the way you argue.

You've tried to make it look like I'm making untenable claims, can't justify what I've said, and then an insult for a cherry on top.

Critique what I've said, not some strawman dialogue.

Re: The power of role models

#362

Post by discombobulate »

tptacek wrote: post #355
discombobulate wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, name calling doesn't make your argument any more credible. It explains your position. Being meta isn't name-calling. Or if it is it's on the same level of Nietzsche saying philosophers derive philosophy from who they are. 2) You've listed three such subjects yourself: CS, engineering, physics. Not such a high hurdle when there are multiple elements in the set. Which you left out. Strawman. Or is it OK to be…

Paraphrasing: "Computers are different from all the rest of science. That's why there's so few women in the field." How are computers different from the rest of science? "They just are!" That's not an argument. "You're a dishonest jerk!" I think I understand where you're coming from now.

I get concerned when my interlocutor says something ridiculous (IMO!). I think it may be a pattern to get out of the debate; when things aren't going well.

I'm genuinely interested in integrating ideas. It may get rough. But that's the war of ideas.

Re: The power of role models

#363

Post by geofft »

Shubley wrote: post #290
geofft wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly believe there are physical differences between (biological) men and women, in aggregate across men and women. I do think that the standard deviation is very high, though; I don't think that the vast physical differences make all men more suited to a task than all women, any more than all men are taller than all women. And I think that defining particular "mental tendencies" as favorable or unfavorable to…

Let's compare this to height as you did. Because of how gaussian distributions work, the differences at the outlying values are huge even for small differences in the average. For example, men are taller than women in general, but of course some men are taller than some women. But at the extreme heights, the ratio between men and women becomes stagger. At 6 feet tall, men outnumber women 30:1. At 6'3", 2000:1. Now ap…

Sure. But the point of the height analogy was that, first, you don't need to be 6'3" to reach the top shelf of a kitchen, and second, there are so many skills required to cook, not just reaching the top shelf.

In the same way, even if we assume that women have a lower bell curve than men for, say, ability to focus on some algorithmic problem, first, you don't need to be the equivalent of 6'3" at algorithms to do a good job as a professional programmer, and two, algorithms is only a very small part of what you do.

For the bell-curve hypothesis to work for cooking, women would also have to be weaker at using knives, worse at visually comparing the volume of liquids, worse at keeping track of time, worse at tasting things for flavor balance, etc. etc. - every single one of these axes would need to have a bell curve lower for women than for men. That's just implausible. Same with programming.

Of course, if you set up your hiring / recognition processes to look for the 6'3" algorithmists and not for the 5'10" algorithmists or the people who do any of the other work than algorithms, you'll see a 2000:1 ratio. But I think that's a sign of the hiring and recognition process failing to find truly qualified candidates of any gender, and just using the easiest metrics instead of the best ones.

Re: The power of role models

#364

Post by nielsabel »

dang wrote: post #354
nielsabel wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This aggressive rant crosses the line on HN. If you can't contain your anger I'm not angry at all, really. Merely stating my perspective. > enough to post substantively and with respect for opposing views, you're not welcome to post here. It seems to me that my view is the opposing one. Balancing the different views, in my opinion, is the job of the (critical) reader. How is the reader supposed to do this if all op…

This is like peeing in a swimming pool and concluding people don't like your butterfly stroke.

So far, I only heard complaints about me being not polite enough and not about the actual content of what I said. Why do we always have to put our words into sugar coated ass kissery? Just so that nobody's feelings get hurt? I mean, what I'm trying to point out here is that shouldn't matter how I say what I say.

And, really, what is so vile and offensive about my post? Please, tell me, because I don't see it (really, I'm not being sarcastic here). Was anyone seriously hurt just by reading my post? I find that hard to believe.

Re: The power of role models

#366

Post by grzm »

nielsabel wrote: post #365
pvg wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No.

Oh, I guess you must be right then …

The HN community strongly values civil—even polite—discourse. If that's something you don't feel is necessary and choose to ignore, please refrain from commenting on HN.

Re: The power of role models

#367

Post by nielsabel »

grzm wrote: post #366
nielsabel wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I guess you must be right then …

The HN community strongly values civil—even polite—discourse. If that's something you don't feel is necessary and choose to ignore, please refrain from commenting on HN.

Again, what was so horribly offensive and insulting about my post? I don't see it. Sure, I wasn't sugar coating. But all I'm getting here is: “You're not polite, because ”.

Re: The power of role models

#368

Post by camelite »

tptacek wrote: post #359
camelite wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah engineering is different from science. There's a reason people came up with a whole different word for it. > a math-intensive field with much better gender parity than computer technology Stop saying this. It's not better, it's different. > The pleading here seems to me to get more and more special with each iteration of the argument. It's not special. Look at the tables, practically all engineering professions…

Ok? And? It's also problematic that so few men working in nursing. What's your point?

> It's also problematic that so few men working in nursing.

I don't agree that it is, necessarily. But you're working from the premise that it is inherently discriminatory.

Re: The power of role models

#369

Post by camelite »

tptacek wrote: post #358
camelite wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again, this is what it means for an argument to be a special pleading: we're required to accept an obstacle course of criterion that ignores the simplest, most plausible comparisons. On the contrary, if you look at lists of the representation gap between professions, computer programmers fit right into their surroundings. It requires special pleading to explain why programming is systematically discriminating again…

Something like 35% of mathematics PhDs produced annually are women, and that number is increasing --- it's up from 32% a few years ago. And math is one of the more male-dominated STEM fields. Computer science, physics, and engineering are the three male bastions of STEM. Nothing else in STEM compares. Moreover, the rest of STEM is significantly and increasingly dependent on computer science, so a very large number of…

> It would not challenge my intuitions to find that women in STEM are doing more significant CS work than the overwhelming majority of professional computer programmers.

I would tend to agree. I think that women are not interested in staring at a computer screen and making CRUD apps all day, they do something more interesting or rewarding that require technical skills. That is, the lower aptitude men stick it out, while the lower aptitude women quit and become nurses or whatever. It's just a theory, but plausible right? You seem stuck on a false choice between it there being some simple super-cause or else sexism. It's probably a bunch of things. I mean why else would the most gener-equal societies show the most segregation between professions?

Re: The power of role models

#370

Post by DanBC »

nielsabel wrote: post #367
grzm wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HN community strongly values civil—even polite—discourse. If that's something you don't feel is necessary and choose to ignore, please refrain from commenting on HN.

Again, what was so horribly offensive and insulting about my post? I don't see it. Sure, I wasn't sugar coating. But all I'm getting here is: “You're not polite, because ”.

You've got a new account. Several people are trying to tell you that your posting style is not appropriate for HN.

People are giving you this information by flagging your posts, by downvoting your posts, and by replying to your posts. One of the people replying to your posts is a mod.

You can ignore those people, but that tends to mean your account will end up banned.

> Sure, I wasn't sugar coating.

This is a mistake people often make. You're not being asked to sugar coat anything. You're being asked to stop being rude and to reign in the ranting.

Post reply on HN