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

131–140 of 161 posts

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

#131

Post by imminentviolet »

matchu wrote: post #100
Danihan wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I haven't decided yet whether I think the memo is sexist. But I'm confident that, because of how it's written, sexist people who read it will feel validated in their sexism. It uses the same core argument as sexism: women are less suited to certain tasks, perhaps biologically. And it reaches the same conclusion: we should roll back our pro-diversity and pro-empathy programs. A sexist person who reads this will theref…

Grow up. That telling the truth may help your enemies means that there is something wrong with your position, not that you should eliminate the messenger. This is a basic life lesson you should've learned in grade school.

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

#132

Post by michaelchisari »

canoebuilder wrote: post #122
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this, is that the alt-right have made a habit of this "look how rational I am as i call you subhuman, why are you so upset by rational truth" thing. Milo Yianoppolos, who most of the time markets himself as an anarchistic troll, will put on his serious face and claim that he is worried about trans people because it's a mental illness and he just wants them to be treated, rather than play along with t…

Here's the book, it's an interesting premise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment Murray ranks the leading 4,000 innovators in several fields of human accomplishment from 800 BC to 1950. In each field Murray identifies a number of sources (leading encyclopedias, histories and surveys) providing information about the leading figures in the field. The rankings are made from information in these sources.…

> The only instruments native to the continent are unpitched percussion.

Talking drums, djembes, balafons, xalams, koras.

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

#133

Post by ZeroGravitas »

canoebuilder wrote: post #122
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this, is that the alt-right have made a habit of this "look how rational I am as i call you subhuman, why are you so upset by rational truth" thing. Milo Yianoppolos, who most of the time markets himself as an anarchistic troll, will put on his serious face and claim that he is worried about trans people because it's a mental illness and he just wants them to be treated, rather than play along with t…

Here's the book, it's an interesting premise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment Murray ranks the leading 4,000 innovators in several fields of human accomplishment from 800 BC to 1950. In each field Murray identifies a number of sources (leading encyclopedias, histories and surveys) providing information about the leading figures in the field. The rankings are made from information in these sources.…

How many books about rich, white, christian men being genetically, culturally and morally better than those that don't fall into those groups does someone need to write before your crank detector goes off?

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

#134

Post by tnone »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #91
spookyuser wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So true, I thought the last paragraph of the article was particularly apt. >When journalistic institutions widely publicize material of this sort, only to abdicate the vital work of rigorously addressing its substance, they make its least plausible claims more likely to be normalized. They leave the project of assessing its merits and flaws to Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and other venues where the loudest voices tend…

Yes, and exacerbating the problem is that the original memo, even with its citations included, was sloppy and not rigorous, and should have been like shooting fish in a barrel for all the media covering it. But instead most of the media coverage seemed to be coming from a frame of, "don't validate fringe viewpoints by actually addressing their arguments", rather just ignore their arguments and use other tactics to un…

It wasn't an academic paper, it was an internal memo posted to a discussion forum. Even then, it was well structured, moderating in its commentary, and peppered with links to support its arguments.

This sort of criticism seems like motivated reasoning to me, and only comes out when current progressive dogmas are being challenged. When HN applies a scalpel the way you describe to the opposite viewpoint, often supported only with anecdotes, out come the complaints how people's lived experiences are being ignored, how it's proof of a cultural problem, and so on. Not to mention the flagging. It's rigor for thee and not for me.

The media and Google are the echo chamber when it comes to this topic, that's been demonstrated plenty. If they were capable of intellectually reasoning about it, they wouldn't be lumping together reasonable criticism with that of the fringe in the first place.

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

#135

Post by throwawayjava »

zbyte64 wrote: post #116
pdkl95 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>> 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

This is not a recommendation, and it is not a value judgement. It's just a reality.

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

#136

Post by slavak »

matchu wrote: post #100
Danihan wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I haven't decided yet whether I think the memo is sexist. But I'm confident that, because of how it's written, sexist people who read it will feel validated in their sexism. It uses the same core argument as sexism: women are less suited to certain tasks, perhaps biologically. And it reaches the same conclusion: we should roll back our pro-diversity and pro-empathy programs. A sexist person who reads this will theref…

This idea of avoiding saying something because of how horrible people might choose to interpret it is something I find, frankly, terrifying. This is going beyond just censorship and going into the realm of trying to censor reality.

Where do you draw the line on something like this? Are we allowed to publish statistics that show black people are proportionally more involved in crimes, or is this taboo because a white supremacist might use it to claim blacks are inherently criminal? What if you write something apparently neutral but some terrible person somehow finds a way to twist it to their ends? Do we get to condemn you ex-post-facto over this?

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

#137

Post by Cozumel »

moxious wrote: post #46
Chardok wrote: post #6

Regardless on your opinions of the memo, this article nails it right on the head; Gizmodo and other major news outlets handled this very irresponsibly, posting their version that had no citations, and leading the reader, even at the very beginning, into forming the opinion that this was simply a guy being "anti-diversity". Whatever your thoughts on the subject are, it needs to be pointed out that this type of journal…

I found this entire row to be just depressing. Earlier today there's a medium post about a guy who won't read the memo -- absolutely refuses -- because he doesn't want this "anti-diversity" message polluting him. This, when one of the memo's explicit points was about excessive dogma around the issue, and inability to have an open and honest conversation about it. The opposition isn't all shrill politically correct au…

'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.' - Aristotle

I can't imagine been so insecure in my beliefs that I'd actively refuse to engage with opposing viewpoints, in case I got 'polluted'!

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

#138

Post by Cozumel »

canoebuilder wrote: post #122
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this, is that the alt-right have made a habit of this "look how rational I am as i call you subhuman, why are you so upset by rational truth" thing. Milo Yianoppolos, who most of the time markets himself as an anarchistic troll, will put on his serious face and claim that he is worried about trans people because it's a mental illness and he just wants them to be treated, rather than play along with t…

Here's the book, it's an interesting premise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment Murray ranks the leading 4,000 innovators in several fields of human accomplishment from 800 BC to 1950. In each field Murray identifies a number of sources (leading encyclopedias, histories and surveys) providing information about the leading figures in the field. The rankings are made from information in these sources.…

>'No written language was ever devised in sub-Saharan Africa prior to outside influences.'

Is just plain wrong, see ( https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nz7k6/were_... ) also it depends on what you mean by language, Genevieve Petzinger has shown a fully formed written cave art language going back since man (or woman) first started drawing in caves.

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

#139

Post by anon12345690 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #133
canoebuilder wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the book, it's an interesting premise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment Murray ranks the leading 4,000 innovators in several fields of human accomplishment from 800 BC to 1950. In each field Murray identifies a number of sources (leading encyclopedias, histories and surveys) providing information about the leading figures in the field. The rankings are made from information in these sources.…

How many books about rich, white, christian men being genetically, culturally and morally better than those that don't fall into those groups does someone need to write before your crank detector goes off?

so basically the more you read about reality, the more you disbelieve it because it cant possibly be true?

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

#140

Post by wrren »

omikun wrote: post #68
Chardok wrote: post #6

Regardless on your opinions of the memo, this article nails it right on the head; Gizmodo and other major news outlets handled this very irresponsibly, posting their version that had no citations, and leading the reader, even at the very beginning, into forming the opinion that this was simply a guy being "anti-diversity". Whatever your thoughts on the subject are, it needs to be pointed out that this type of journal…

There are no neutral journalism. If you want a reporting of facts unbiased by opinions, it would be "viral Google employee memo on the subject of diversity recruitment." Any editorial on the matter would necessarily make a subjective evaluation. I'm torn by the two sides. On one hand I see the rational and level headed language in the memo versus the reactionary bait-click headlines. On the other hand I sense a mens'…

It's a bit disingenuous to say that those who agree with the memo focus only on individual merit and not team fit. Regardless of the importance of diversity to a given organization, every good interview process will evaluate how well a candidate will fit with an existing team and try to understand how that person will improve the team's performance.

Also, if I replace the term 'sausage fest' in your last sentence with 'clam bake' (apparently the opposite meaning), then it definitely comes off as sexist in my mind. I've worked with both genders throughout my career, and the only truth I've found is that you can't count on anyone to fit their gender's stereotypes with regards to personality. I've met plenty of men who are shy and quiet and plenty of women who are aggressive or assertive; counting on a person's gender to mix things up in a group setting is, in itself, sexist.

Post reply on HN