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

The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 161 posts

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#111

Post by jshevek »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #95
jshevek wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only seems relevant if you think that these examples justify refusing to listen to the rational of those you disagree with.

I've listened to all of the above, enough to spot glaring inconsistencies lurking behind their rational facade. What more do you want from me? Automatic agreement with disingenuous trolls and madmen just because they can write fully formed paragraphs and link to cherry picked science?

> What more do you want from me?

I want you to be cautious about generalizing your past experience to future events.

And if you are (understandably, maybe) unwilling to carefully read, with an open mind, documents like the diversity memo - then maybe you should refrain from criticising it.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#112

Post by sn9 »

peterwwillis wrote: post #44

Language and gender nit-pick: having men and women at 100% parity is not gender diversity, it is gender-binary. You would have to hire a lot more non-binary-gendered people for it to be diverse.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if non-binary-gendered people are over-represented in tech.

(This is just an impression I have based on things I've read in the past, so I can't be sure.)

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#113

Post by malandrew »

matchu wrote: post #74

It's important to distinguish between what the memo's author says, and what effect his words actually have. It is an anti-diversity memo, even if it isn't intended as one. The author makes shaky statements about gender, reinforcing sexist stereotypes. The author applies rationalist disclaimers, which enables already-sexist readers to feel that their sexism is rational. And, most distressingly, the author asserts that…

https://status451.com/2017/08/06/judging-things-by-their-sid...

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#114

Post by 4bpp »

eli wrote: post #22

It's ironic that many of the comments here assume Gizmodo and others were acting out of malice to intentionally mislead their audience.

The use of "malice" here seems ambiguous, and I'm having trouble finding an interpretation that makes sense to me. If you say that X does A out of malice, I can see it meaning

(1) X does A, and X expects that X doing A will have an outcome that is morally bad from X's point of view

(2) X does A, and if an arbitrary other person Y did A, X would expect it to have an outcome that is morally bad from X's point of view

(3) X does A, and you (the commenter) expect A to have an outcome that X would find morally bad

(4) X does A, and you (the commenter) expect A to have an outcome that you (the commenter) would find morally bad

(any others I missed?)

(1) seems like a strict definition of malice that is actually extremely rare in the wild (and I don't think anyone here has accused Gizmodo of), whereas (4) is catch-all but seems nearly indistinguishable from "Gizmodo did a bad thing" which is not a very ironic thing to say. (3) sounds more like an accusation of stupidity than of malice. (2) seems pretty close, but one might want to label it "hypocrisy" and it's not clear that it applies here - after all, it's not like the 10-something media outlets in the list who did roughly the same thing were visibly appalled at each other.

Maybe the interpretation should actually be something like

(2') X does A, and if an arbitrary other person Y did a thing A' that (you, the commenter? X?) deem(s) similar to A, then X would expect an outcome that X deems morally bad

(and natural candidates for A' would be right-wing "fake news" or HBD-style cherrypicking in the class of what the perpetrator themselves would perceive as "artistic embellishment and hyperbole to get across an essentially true and important point" but opposed parties would perceive as "intentional misleading"), but then the accusation of malice completely hinges on getting X themselves to agree that A and A' are actually similar. As far as I can tell, rejecting equivocation between extraordinary measures for the Good Cause and extraordinary measures for the Evil Cause is known to be fairly standard for the Social Justice movement, so it's unlikely that the comments in question would expect X to agree, and hence unlikely that the comments in question are implicitly accusing Gizmodo of acting out of malice.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#115

Post by matchu »

malandrew wrote: post #113
matchu wrote: post #74

It's important to distinguish between what the memo's author says, and what effect his words actually have. It is an anti-diversity memo, even if it isn't intended as one. The author makes shaky statements about gender, reinforcing sexist stereotypes. The author applies rationalist disclaimers, which enables already-sexist readers to feel that their sexism is rational. And, most distressingly, the author asserts that…

https://status451.com/2017/08/06/judging-things-by-their-sid...

Yeah, that's a good point! It's important to consider the truth of the underlying idea, as well as the consequences of how it was expressed—though I don't like that the blog post seems to give up on the latter problem just because it's less objective. Discussions about social values and social consequences are worth having, despite not being subject to pure rationalism.

Still, while both lenses are valid, I'm focusing on the consequences lens, because we're discussing an Atlantic article that tries to invalidate it. It's not misleading to call the memo "anti-diversity", if you're focusing on the memo's role as a social artifact rather than as a dissertation, and that's a valid perspective. Words often serve both roles, and it's important to consider both.

(Incidentally, I don't find the memo's argument to be especially sound, either, so it's not just that it was expressed carelessly—but that's sorta beyond the scope of this thread.)

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#116

Post by zbyte64 »

pdkl95 wrote: post #90
matchu wrote: post #74

It's important to distinguish between what the memo's author says, and what effect his words actually have. It is an anti-diversity memo, even if it isn't intended as one. The author makes shaky statements about gender, reinforcing sexist stereotypes. The author applies rationalist disclaimers, which enables already-sexist readers to feel that their sexism is rational. And, most distressingly, the author asserts that…

> I don't claim to know the author's intent What so many comments about this memo don't seem to understand is that it it isn't possible to derive the author's intent from the text of their work. The intent of the author isn't included when the reader interprets their work, because the author isn't there [1] to explain their intent. The reader only sees the work. As you said, intent doesn't matter. When authoring a wo…

One of his recommendations was to emphasize intent over unintended offenses.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#117

Post by zbyte64 »

Danihan wrote: post #96
matchu wrote: post #74

It's important to distinguish between what the memo's author says, and what effect his words actually have. It is an anti-diversity memo, even if it isn't intended as one. The author makes shaky statements about gender, reinforcing sexist stereotypes. The author applies rationalist disclaimers, which enables already-sexist readers to feel that their sexism is rational. And, most distressingly, the author asserts that…

Define sexism... Is believing men and women on average have different hormone levels and generally speaking, this leads to different behaviors and proclivities, sexist? Is admitting there is any difference between the two sexes, sexist? Is using different pronouns for men and women sexist? I honestly don't know where someone draws the line who finds this memo "sexist."

s/sexist/racist/g

Weird how race realists use the same template.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#120

Post by wcummings »

gozur88 wrote: post #105
mentat wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens with all the correct things that are now inappropriate to say in this brave new world?

"When"? We're pretty much already there now. Thank God I'm getting old and will be exiting the workplace (relatively) soon. Repeating lies out of fear for your job is corrosive to the soul.

Glad to see you leave.
Post reply on HN