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

I'm not a Woman in Tech

communequation.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 621 posts

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#611

Post by richmarr »

richmarr wrote: post #599
Nadya wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can agree insofar as that. Although I don't think Dunning-Kruger applies, I do understand what you're trying to convey. But I don't feel it is a strong argument. You would have to show that the individual is not "well informed" about discrimination in order to make that argument. Which is not an easy task and is also not what is commonly done. The common thing to do is to claim that they can't possibly be informed,…

> Although I don't think Dunning-Kruger applies... Based on your extensive qualifications in behavioural science I assume? ;) Sorry, that was a cheap laugh... but you don't get to brush it off without reasoning though, and Dunning-Kruger isn't the only confidence bias on the table. For example; system justification bias, state and national-scale in-group bias, and the ubiguitous availability of white male role models…

[Update - by all means reply and address these questions, but in the absence of that I'm going to interpret your silence as an admission that actually you're not as informed on the subject of discrimination as you initially argued. Which would kinda prove my point about overconfidence in your own opinion when you don't know very much. Wouldn't it.]

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#612

Post by Doxin »

Mithorium wrote: post #523
unidentified103 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, why take things like that personally? Why liken it to a ghetto ? Is your pride really so hurt that someone wanted to help you out around the office that you refuse to believe that you could have learned anything useful from it? You can't even come out of it with another friend, a future business contact, an interpersonal skill, deeper knowledge of a workplace tool? It's great if some people don't think they…

I wish more people were like you. If everyone tried to assume the best of others until proven otherwise instead of assuming the worst we would all be much happier as a group

Sure, but that buddy system sure sounds a lot like pushing someone in a wheelchair, them asking you to stop, and you going on regardless. Unwanted help is unwanted.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#613

Post by richmarr »

mindcrime wrote: post #591
richmarr wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think we're just talking around each other here. No, we aren't talking around each other at all, but I can understand why you might feel uncomfortable discussing your motivations so by all means let's stop.

I'm not uncomfortable about anything, but this clearly isn't productive.

Uh huh, sure.

So to try and make your next discussion productive, maybe try using evidence, try not creating straw-man arguments, try not deflecting or changing the subject in response to points made by other people.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#614

Post by and0 »

iamatworknow wrote: post #569
and0 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been in enough of these conversations to know replies like this are just trolling and/or white-noise. Why NOT separate yourselves into an "us" vs "them"? Why should oppressed people try to "work together" with their oppressors? If you're so interested the effectiveness of social movements, why haven't you looked at cases like Susan Fowler's to see how little it accomplishes to "work together", or within the syst…

We live in a society. If we don't work together to solve our issues then we'll languish and die apart.

This is meandering, meaningless point. I have no idea what you actually mean here.

How exactly do support groups for women in STEM tear at the fabric of society? How does it do so in such a way that actively excluding them doesn't (via harassment and other boundaries), and why aren't you equally critical of those people?

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#615

Post by someguydave »

adventured wrote: post #96

edit Why did my comment get dislodged from being underneath another comment that I was replying to? It's now showing as a stand-alone comment under the thread. ------------------------------------------- I'm doing a similar thing. I stopped posting anything personal on Facebook about a year ago and I never post to Twitter. I'll never go back to posting personal thoughts on social media, not under any circumstances. I…

1) Do you find your trust ("only place I post") in HN to be well-placed given what happened with this subthread? 2) >US, society has become so aggressively censorship-by-threat & political correctness oriented, I agree, but wouldn't you also agree that withdrawing your opinion "pre-emptively" contributes to observed censorship and tribalism through self-censorship?

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#616

Post by adrienne »

dang wrote: post #250
zzalpha wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the minority that holds you back. It's a class system. Well, I'd counter that and claim it's actually both, and the former frequently contributes to the latter.

Your comments are beginning to make a habit of being uncivil. Would you please fix that? In particular, please edit the gratuitous provocations like "Hate to break it to you" and "Huh?" out of your comments here. Those things are (minor) violations of HN's civility rule in any thread, but when it comes to flamewar-prone topics like this one they're particularly harmful.

I have zero idea how you can say these things to one of the most civil people on here who isn't expressing truly odious ideas, and still believe in your heart that your moderation is content-neutral.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#617

Post by Nadya »

richmarr wrote: post #599
Nadya wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can agree insofar as that. Although I don't think Dunning-Kruger applies, I do understand what you're trying to convey. But I don't feel it is a strong argument. You would have to show that the individual is not "well informed" about discrimination in order to make that argument. Which is not an easy task and is also not what is commonly done. The common thing to do is to claim that they can't possibly be informed,…

> Although I don't think Dunning-Kruger applies... Based on your extensive qualifications in behavioural science I assume? ;) Sorry, that was a cheap laugh... but you don't get to brush it off without reasoning though, and Dunning-Kruger isn't the only confidence bias on the table. For example; system justification bias, state and national-scale in-group bias, and the ubiguitous availability of white male role models…

Sorry for the late reply, but it seems you misunderstood what I meant about Dunning-Kruger in that it has to do with ability or perhaps knowledge in a defined field but not in something like a subjective experience.

It'd be confirmation bias or some other thing but not Dunning-Kruger.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#618

Post by Nadya »

richmarr wrote: post #611
richmarr wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although I don't think Dunning-Kruger applies... Based on your extensive qualifications in behavioural science I assume? ;) Sorry, that was a cheap laugh... but you don't get to brush it off without reasoning though, and Dunning-Kruger isn't the only confidence bias on the table. For example; system justification bias, state and national-scale in-group bias, and the ubiguitous availability of white male role models…

[Update - by all means reply and address these questions, but in the absence of that I'm going to interpret your silence as an admission that actually you're not as informed on the subject of discrimination as you initially argued. Which would kinda prove my point about overconfidence in your own opinion when you don't know very much. Wouldn't it.]

>but in the absence of that I'm going to interpret your silence as an admission that actually you're not as informed on the subject of discrimination as you initially argued.

HN just ate my post I spent the last hour on. So in lieu of that, here's the TL;DR

I only post on weekdays, and usually during work hours while I mull over some problem or another at work. If you look at my post history there is almost always a 2-day gap for the weekend. I rarely, if ever, post after PMT work hours, on Saturdays, or on Sundays. I simply don't go on HN at those times and as such wouldn't have seen your post to respond to. While HN doesn't timestamp posts with the hours - you can at least check and verify the days and then choose to trust me on the hours.

I try to limit the PII I put on the internet, but I grew up in a town that is part of Los Angeles County. Statistics for the town are not so readily available as they are for the county as a whole. The town I lived in is meth head central with lots of gangs. Mostly MS13 and Blood offshoots, so Hispanic and Black gangs - there's a few skinhead/lowrider groups.

I'll try to find actual statistics - but do know that statistics won't tell you of the white kid growing up in MS13/Bloods territory anymore than they'd tell you the story of a black kid growing up in Aryan Brotherhood territory. Do you agree that "growing up in the wrong neighborhood" where gangs are divided among racial lines means that you're far more likely to be discriminated against on the basis of your race?

I don't want to research these statistics at work - and am in the middle of moving countries (I depart on the 28th of this month) so don't exactly have the free time to provide you with any research. Feel free to reach out to me on Twitter or via email as I am interested in defending myself, but I'm not certain if I actually have the time to do so this month.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#619

Post by richmarr »

Nadya wrote: post #617
richmarr wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although I don't think Dunning-Kruger applies... Based on your extensive qualifications in behavioural science I assume? ;) Sorry, that was a cheap laugh... but you don't get to brush it off without reasoning though, and Dunning-Kruger isn't the only confidence bias on the table. For example; system justification bias, state and national-scale in-group bias, and the ubiguitous availability of white male role models…

Sorry for the late reply, but it seems you misunderstood what I meant about Dunning-Kruger in that it has to do with ability or perhaps knowledge in a defined field but not in something like a subjective experience . It'd be confirmation bias or some other thing but not Dunning-Kruger.

So you're drawing a distinction between expertise and experience and saying Dunning-Kruger applies to one not the other. Huh. Perhaps we could dig into that at some point, but you can't ignore the parts of my comment that you don't like.

Can you demonstrate that a good portion of the indicators I listed in my previous comment are reversed to favour minorities over whites in white-minority areas?

If you can't, then your claim to have experienced equivalent discrimination is incorrect, and uninformed. Perhaps you have a deeper understanding of discrimination (personal or institutional) than being "beaten up" but so far you've not shown or hinted at it.

Without that evidence, your argument falls apart, and you come across as an uninformed white man arguing that uninformed white men should be encouraged to ignore others. It's an argument with no credibility.

Do you see the problem?

(I'm not being unreasonable, I know getting evidence is work and my offer to help with some legwork stands, although I suspect it'd be an eye-opening experience for you)

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#620

Post by richmarr »

Nadya wrote: post #618
richmarr wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Update - by all means reply and address these questions, but in the absence of that I'm going to interpret your silence as an admission that actually you're not as informed on the subject of discrimination as you initially argued. Which would kinda prove my point about overconfidence in your own opinion when you don't know very much. Wouldn't it.]

>but in the absence of that I'm going to interpret your silence as an admission that actually you're not as informed on the subject of discrimination as you initially argued. HN just ate my post I spent the last hour on. So in lieu of that, here's the TL;DR I only post on weekdays, and usually during work hours while I mull over some problem or another at work. If you look at my post history there is almost always a…

> ...but do know that statistics won't tell you...

I don't dispute that some or all of your childhood sucked. I understand and sympathise. You've landed that point.

> Do you agree that "growing up in the wrong neighborhood" where gangs are divided among racial lines means that you're far more likely to be discriminated against on the basis of your race?

The question is ambiguous. I'll break it out.

More likely to experience racially-aggrevated violence than a white kid in a white neighbourhood? Yes, I'd agree.

More likely to experience racially-aggrevated violence than a black kid in a black/latino neighbourhood? Not sure; you probably know better than I do. I'd need to see data. If I was forced to guess I'd expect it to depend on severity; higher chance of assault than a black kid, lower chance of fatality... but that's a total guess.

More likely to "be discriminated against" generally than a black kid in a black/latino neighbourhood? No, but it'd vary across the type of interaction so maybe some types of interaction might be equivalent... maybe.

More likely to "be discriminated against" generally than a black kid in a white neighbourhood? No way. Not even close.

Physical danger is one dimension, amongst MANY (and there's a significant difference between being afraid of criminals and being afraid of the state; you'd be comparatively less likely to be shot by the police, even assuming equivalent circumstances).

The USA is a country that only ended racial segregation within living memory. Evidence of significant bias against minorities at a federal and state level is still very strong. The specific demographic breakdown of an individual neighbourhood is a small part of a very big picture.

Even the existence of a black neighbourhood in Los Angeles is because of the black exodus from the South during the segregation era, when young boys such as Emmett Till were lynched for crimes like whistling at white women (turns out he was innocent even of that). Yes, that's somewhat historical, but it's still within living memory and you don't undo that kind of societal damage easily.

Post reply on HN