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

281–290 of 443 posts

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#281

Post by sheepmullet »

vkou wrote: post #263
rcoveson wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the author used dubious rhetorical tactics (e.g. stating scientific "facts" without citation), he was never hostile towards any one person or group of people. Even if the argument he was making was that Google should fire or cut the pay of its female software engineers (which it wasn't), it wouldn't necessarily be aggressive. That word is not applicable here. And yes, I have been in a situation where my merit a…

> he was never hostile towards any one person or group of people. Even if the argument he was making was that Google should fire or cut the pay of its female software engineers (which it wasn't), it wouldn't necessarily be aggressive. Let me present an argument: "Black people are killers, thieves, and lazy layabouts. Statistics [Citation, Citation, Citation] support me. The only reason employs black people is affirma…

> Let me present an argument:

Are you suggesting the author put forward a similar argument?

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#282

Post by PrimalDual »

When I first read the manifesto, It sounded like a regurgitation of Jordan Peterson's content. After being immersed in his lectures I found it very hard to contradict his points not just because of his eloquence but also because of his method for vetting ideas. I am very glad that his stuff has gained so much popularity because I may finally find counterpoints stick against his arguments.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#283

Post by andkon »

dionidium wrote: post #273
andkon wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The summary you've provided here leaves me with no confidence that you understand even the very basics of the topic at hand. Your apparent level of confidence and outrage, in light of that fact, is truly remarkable.

I noticed that you edited your post to add a comment about my level of confidence and outrage, and I thank you for using your outrage to better clarify your concerns.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#284

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Fang_ wrote: post #258
andkon wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, it's not what he wrote. But it's how he's going to be painted.

Which, ironically, confirms one of his main arguments...

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#285

Post by therebedragons »

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…

> but that it doesn't convincingly argue why these difference are relevant to what is being suggested.

This is the most honest critique I have seen, and that speaks to the audience far more than the author. I agree 100% with you on the unconvincing nature, and that TERRIFIES me.

I don't think the argument was convincing either, where I'd wager we differ is that I think that is because the audience just wasn't ready for the argument. That is clear in every strawmanning of a word like "empathy", of the emotional responses and the complete denial that there is any science supporting his claims - and I know this hyperbole is rhetoric, but consider this direct quote form the rebuttal "... and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades". ALL research for DECADES. All of it. DECADES. That a PhD in biology from Harvard is willfully ignorant of ALL the research FOR DECADES seems... unlikely?

When someone can make a calm, rational, thought out argument and be yelled out and mocked with no evidence he has the science wrong or even, heaven forbid, that his counter-proposals are less likely to help, what is left? When no attempt was made to meet the author even 10% of the way, and consider he has some supporting evidence, how CAN one make a convincing argument? Will every argument use confirmation bias pandering to pre-existing ideals? I fear this is the moment when we lose the ability to convince with reason, or facts, or evidence, and begin a scary world on in-group biases and walled off intellectual forts immune to new ideas or even being challenged.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#286

Post by Barrin92 »

s73ver wrote: post #16
jerrylives wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have there been any articles / pieces about it from women working at Google? I'd be interested in hearing that perspective.

Several of them have tweeted about it.

And they all were all pretty mad. Which naturally nobody here seems to care about while everyone is busy writing up ten paragraphs of apologia about this stupid mess of an essay.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#287

Post by AnimalMuppet »

rhapsodic wrote: post #246
jmull wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fight angry outrage with threats of angry outrage? It's hard to see how that makes sense. Personally, I hope Google ignores the angry people on all sides and does the right thing. I think it's ok to have principles and standards and to stick by them when the situation is tough. (Otherwise, what's the point?)

>Fight angry outrage with threats of angry outrage? It's hard to see how that makes sense. Not threats of angry outrage, actual angry outrage. The left's tactics should be used against them, in greater degrees, until they cease using those tactics.

Show them how wrong they are by becoming like them? That's... not very wise. Also cowardly.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#288

Post by vkou »

sheepmullet wrote: post #281
vkou wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he was never hostile towards any one person or group of people. Even if the argument he was making was that Google should fire or cut the pay of its female software engineers (which it wasn't), it wouldn't necessarily be aggressive. Let me present an argument: "Black people are killers, thieves, and lazy layabouts. Statistics [Citation, Citation, Citation] support me. The only reason employs black people is affirma…

> Let me present an argument: Are you suggesting the author put forward a similar argument?

It's the same category of argument. It also has 'indisputable' statistics supporting it. It does not attack particular persons, just the policy of hiring them. It disparages their co-workers for being born wrong. Much like the manifesto, it's a slam-your-head-into-the-textbook example of racism.

People have also made that exact same argument for decades. Racism was not a moustache-twirling Klanner setting crosses afire (Although it was that, too.) It was the reasoned, fact-supported argument for why people of colour are not as good as Real Americans. Ever since the civil rights movement, it has somewhat fallen out of fashion in the workplace - possibly because most of us accepted the radical notion that the color of your skin has no influence on the quality of your work.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#289

Post by mempko »

Just as he has a right to say it, I have a right to argue, complain, ridicule, etc. Why should his view be given a platform while mine is denounced. Seems people want to silence his critics. Controversial views are not safe from criticism just as any other views.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#290

Post by alpsgolden »

AlexCoventry wrote: post #154
grey-area wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since most of these threads are pretty content free, and you asked for it, here's a rebuttal, by a woman who's good at math. https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/slideshow/embed_code/key/3... Of course men and women are different on average, but are they different enough to justify the massive disparity in tech? No.

That is a lazy slide deck. From the paper it cites ( http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-14384-001 ): > It is important for us to know that females begin in high school to perform less well than males on mathematical problem-solving tasks. Problem solving is critical for success in many mathematics-related fields, such as engineering and physics. In this sense, mathematics skills may continue to be a critical filter.…

Yeah, just reading the abstract tells a different story than the graph she uses.

Google or a college level computer science course is specifically pulling from adults who are in the very top percentiles in logical/quantitative skills.

The abstract of the paper notes that while the math difference is small among the total population: "differences favoring men emerged in high school and college" and "grew larger with increasingly selective samples, and were largest for highly selected samples and samples of highly precocious persons."

So the slide deck obscures the fact that in the relevant sample, men have better skills, by including the general population (women, average folks) where there is no difference.

Post reply on HN