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

141–150 of 161 posts

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

#141

Post by wu-ikkyu »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #88
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>MSM has mostly abrogated it's responsibility to inform the public. That's a myth. The only real responsibility they have is to maximize profits for their shareholders.

I dispute that. Most major newspapers in the states have existed long before it was common for media outlets to be publicly traded companies. The term "fourth estate" dates back almost to the time of the French Revolution so while it's always been expected that newspapers need be profitable to exist, the interests of its readers and those that stand to profit from the paper have not always been so far apart as they a…

It would seem that not much has really changed since then:

"To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, `by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.' Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowlege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Norvell, June 14th, 1807

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

#142

Post by MaysonL »

tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #98
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…

> Fool me once.. Except this only works with subsequent encounters with the same trickster. Those across your side of the political aisle are not a monolith, yet you assume they are all just a few shades off from Milo. If that's your impression, you should diversify your reading selections. Try John McWhorter, for example.

John McWhorter? In what way is he anywhere near the same side of the aisle as Milo?

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

#143

Post by TheCondor »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #61

I generally liked the memo, and I'm pretty aggressively pro-affirmative action. Some of the memo is factually wrong, but I think he tried to be measured, and I'm proud of him. The sentence that popped out at me is this one: "I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principled reasons for why it…

What solicited the memo?

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

#144

Post by tenaciousDaniel »

MaysonL wrote: post #142
tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fool me once.. Except this only works with subsequent encounters with the same trickster. Those across your side of the political aisle are not a monolith, yet you assume they are all just a few shades off from Milo. If that's your impression, you should diversify your reading selections. Try John McWhorter, for example.

John McWhorter? In what way is he anywhere near the same side of the aisle as Milo?

He's conservative and almost invariably disagrees with social justice activists.

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

#145

Post by tenaciousDaniel »

MBCook wrote: post #125
tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fool me once.. Except this only works with subsequent encounters with the same trickster. Those across your side of the political aisle are not a monolith, yet you assume they are all just a few shades off from Milo. If that's your impression, you should diversify your reading selections. Try John McWhorter, for example.

> Except this only works with subsequent encounters with the same trickste At some point you have to risk and generalizing when you see similar arguments brought up over and over otherwise "the other side" could continue to use the same tactic as long as they cycle through different people that haven't done it before.

I don't see that as a useful strategy when dealing with political opinions. If you look at how ideas become distributed among large groups of people, it seems clear to me that if someone is being honest, they will likely have something unique to add to the conversation.

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

#146

Post by wry_discontent »

throwawayjava wrote: post #135
zbyte64 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This could be overcome by and large with a modicum of research and critical thinking.

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

#147

Post by pdkl95 »

wry_discontent wrote: post #146
throwawayjava wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

This could be overcome by and large with a modicum of research and critical thinking.

No, it can't. This is a fundamental limit of language, because language itself - which you're using to accomplish your research - requires using imperfect symbols.

If you don't mind 100% spoilers for Davey Wreden's game "The Beginner's Guide", I highly recommend watching "The Artist is Absent"[1]. It's a surprisingly good introduction to semiotics, death of the author, and enunciation theory, which together explain why you can interpret the narrator of a work, which should never be confused with the author.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N6y6LEwsKc

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

#148

Post by matchu »

slavak wrote: post #136
matchu wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not saying don't have these conversations. Rather, have them carefully, and choose your words with the consequences in mind. There are many good and thoughtful ways to talk about potential issues with Google's gender diversity programs, but instead this memo made some especially bad choices.

For one thing, the memo focuses on needlessly contentious issues, instead of sticking to actionable arguments. It's valid to say that decreasing stress in engineering and leadership positions might attract more women, because modern women tend that value that more. But framing it as a biological issue is hard to prove, and doesn't help support his logistical point. It only has the consequence of hurting people.

The memo also presumes that Google's full-time diversity experts haven't even thought of his concerns. He asserts that seeking out women necessarily lowers the hiring bar for them, instead of asking "How are we mitigating the risk that our pro-diversity push might itself introduce bias into our ideally gender-agnostic perf evaluations?" That's a valid question, and I'm sure Google's diversity team has answers, and I'm sure that some people wouldn't be satisfied with those answers. But jumping to the conclusion that Google's women must be less qualified than the men, just because he can't think of a way to mitigate bias in the hiring pipeline, is self-centered and disrespectful.

I'm very much in favor of a world where it's equally okay to express all ideas! But that doesn't mean we should be equally okay with all modes of expression. No matter which side we're on, we need to think first, then speak. Given the meta-thesis of the memo (especially the "prioritize intent" section), I'm not convinced that the author took much time to consider needs beyond his own.

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

#150

Post by SkyMarshal »

tnone wrote: post #134
SkyMarshal wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 supporte…

>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.

I'm all for challenging the orthodoxy, any orthodoxy, and I sense the gender diversity one has been constructed on not perfectly rigorous foundations and deserves to be challenged. But when you challenge an orthodoxy, fairly or not you're held to a higher standard of rigor, simply as a matter of effectiveness - come up short and you're easily discredited and dismissed. It's like you have to have PhD or equivalent level knowledge of something before your critiques can't be dismissed out of hand. That's at least part of what happened here, the memo just wasn't at that level, and thus was easily dismissed. Maybe the author will now use his in/fame/my to write a more comprehensive and rigorous paper (or book deal) on the topic.

>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

Repeat after me: "HN is not one person or one voice". At least some of us here apply this standard to everything.

Post reply on HN