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

On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 443 posts

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#251

Post by cwkoss »

yesbabyyes wrote: post #181
cm2187 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And calling "fake news" any opinion they disagree with. I find it pretty problematic that Facebook wants to police the political debate. Kind of like if gmail started blocking emails sent to a gmail account if it disagrees with its content.

> Kind of like if gmail started blocking emails sent to a gmail account if it disagrees with its content. I'm pretty sure that gmail's superior spam filter was one of its big initial selling points?

If 30+% of the country passionately supported penis-enlargement pills, it would have been received much differently.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#252

Post by blusterXY »

dieterrams wrote: post #232
blusterXY wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tediously counter-argue every single argument I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism"). Instead we get what you offer: off-hand casual assertions that there must exist research which runs against large-n…

> I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism"). I've seen that research. What conclusions do you think you can draw from it?

The author of the paper is well-read, and the people criticizing his science understand neither the underlying science, nor what it implies for the problems they profess to care about.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#253

Post by tptacek »

geggam wrote: post #219
Impossible wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is constantly brought up as a counterpoint to women in tech on HN and it seems like no one that uses this argument ever does any research. Trying to get more men in nursing has been a thing for a very long time, in many ways its like the inverse of tech. A quick Google of "men in nursing" would show you a ton of resources and opinion pieces that look like a mirror of women in tech initiatives. Just because you a…

Yet with constant and proactive pushes to increase women in tech and men in nursing it doesn't happen. Ever think maybe men generally dont want to be a nurse and women generally dont want to be a nerd ?

No.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#254

Post by andkon »

rhapsodic wrote: post #179

No matter what side of this debate you're on, I don't think you can argue against the notion that there is only one side of it whose adherents can feel completely free to express their opinions or argue their case without fear of retaliation. Many stupid, unsupportable statements have been made by people on the left side, but I've yet to see much in the way of internet rage mobs formed against them. I think if google…

Let's be super clear: if this guy gets fired, it would not be because he expressed his opinions. It would be because he has abhorrent opinions that will forever affect his ability to work with women, whom he has decided are inherently incapable of working at Google.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#255

Post by mcguire »

bassman9000 wrote: post #157
kristianc wrote: post #27

The major elephant in the room here, which the memo doesn't seem to address, is that as late as the 1960's, computer programming was seen as a natural career for young women. Has biology changed that much in the last fifty years?

This is blatantly misleading. computer programming was mostly typewriting back then.

Whereas now it's mostly moving a mouse around and clicking.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#256

Post by nowo »

blusterXY wrote: post #213
blablabla123 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's great that the person stated his opinion. I regard him much higher than hypocrites who think and act the same, but pretend to be 1000% pc. It's not necessary to tediously counter-argue every single argument the author made. I'm sure you don't expect people to counter-argue overly long badly written texts by various political ideologists from today or the past. I'm convinced it suffices to just argue why summary…

> tediously counter-argue every single argument I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism"). Instead we get what you offer: off-hand casual assertions that there must exist research which runs against large-n…

> I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism").

Because it isn't relevant. The major weakness of the paper isn't that there are studies suggesting some differences between men and women, but that it doesn't convincingly argue why these difference are relevant to what is being suggested.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#257

Post by Houshalter »

nancye wrote: post #132
kristianc wrote: post #27

The major elephant in the room here, which the memo doesn't seem to address, is that as late as the 1960's, computer programming was seen as a natural career for young women. Has biology changed that much in the last fifty years?

The chart from this article is worth looking at: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-... It wasn't just in the sixties - women's participation in computer science was growing until the mid eighties. As a woman who's helped other women learn to code, all I can say is that the interest is certainly still out there.

I recall reading a study somewhere that showed by High School, there are about the same percentage of girls interested in computers as the percentage of women in the tech industry. This article seems to present the same hypothesis, that girls are less likely to have access to a computer and develop an interest in programming.

If this is the case, then the gender imbalance has nothing to do with sexism in the tech industry or hiring practices. Google's efforts to hire more women is doomed to failure if there aren't an equal percentage of women coming in the first place.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#258

Post by Fang_ »

andkon wrote: post #254
rhapsodic wrote: post #179

No matter what side of this debate you're on, I don't think you can argue against the notion that there is only one side of it whose adherents can feel completely free to express their opinions or argue their case without fear of retaliation. Many stupid, unsupportable statements have been made by people on the left side, but I've yet to see much in the way of internet rage mobs formed against them. I think if google…

Let's be super clear: if this guy gets fired, it would not be because he expressed his opinions. It would be because he has abhorrent opinions that will forever affect his ability to work with women, whom he has decided are inherently incapable of working at Google.

> women, whom he has decided are inherently incapable of working at Google.

But that's not at all what he wrote?

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#260

Post by blusterXY »

nowo wrote: post #256
blusterXY wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tediously counter-argue every single argument I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism"). Instead we get what you offer: off-hand casual assertions that there must exist research which runs against large-n…

> I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism"). Because it isn't relevant. The major weakness of the paper isn't that there are studies suggesting some differences between men and women, but that it doesn't co…

What you just wrote is the equivalent of a climate change denier writing:

"The major weakness of the paper isn't that there are studies suggesting climate change exists, but it doesn't convincingly argue why these difference are relevant to environmental policy."

The author doesn't need to "prove" the science he references is real any more than I have to "prove" that climate change exists in order to discuss it. At a certain point, people are either educated or ignorant. And ignorance may be bliss, but there is zero reason for anyone grounded in rational skepticism to take the people attacking this guy on science any more seriously than they would take climate change deniers or anti-vaxxers, etc.

Post reply on HN