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

What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#41

Post by kybernetikos »

jardaroh wrote: post #18
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but she uses counterarguments based on relevant past studies rather than empty "everyone knows it's just sexism" style of arguing that we've seen so far in the media.

But most of her counter arguments are against arguments the original author never made or at best against misrepresentations.

It's inevitable that even good faith counterarguments will occasionally mistake exactly what the original argument was. Especially when the participants start with such different viewpoints and on topics that they obviously feel strongly about. The way to continue the argument (if that's what you want to do) is to point out what the stronger (and perhaps more correct/original) version of the point being countered is and how it differs from the version that was countered.

Simply dismissing counterpoints without engaging to make sure you understand them runs the risk of falling for the exact thing you're criticising.

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#42

Post by kybernetikos »

orthoganol wrote: post #10
s_kilk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy is absolutely pushing an alt-right agenda, it's plain to see in the manifesto, and that's before we get to his guest appearance on a prominent alt-right YouTube show.

> absolutely You don't know that, and I get little impression of such from his Bloomberg appearance today: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-08-10/fired-engin... Even so you are aware the Quora question is "What do scientists think about the biological claims?", so the ad hominem is not only a distracting annoyance but is also undermining of one's claim to objective impartiality.

I doubt the respondant would claim objective impartiality, and if they did, their article would quickly make clear that they have a background and situation that colours their view of the issue and that they feel very strongly about it and are emotionally engaged with it.

None of this means that they are wrong on the substantive points they make though, even though you're right that the alt-right claim isn't helpful. In fact I got the impression of someone who feels very strongly about the issues, but who is still trying to engage logically and reasonably and in good faith, even if they slip occasionally. Much the same can probably be said for the original memo author.

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#43

Post by nicolashahn »

craigsmansion wrote: post #37
zimablue wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that he stated some science, which you're not disputing, and then made an argument from those grounds that moved from science into politics, and you don't agree with the argument he made. That's not anti-science, attempting to root your discourse in science is absolutely pro-science. At best you can say that the parts which led on from the science were "non=science" - well yeah, by definition.

> then made an argument from those grounds Except that's exactly what he didn't make. It severely lacked implications that tied his facts and arguments to his conclusion(s). > you don't agree with the argument "Since in the original memo a conservative argued towards a conservative point of view, and you oppose that, you must be a non-conservative arguing towards a non-conservative point of view." That doesn't follow…

Your Plato metaphor is unfair, because we already know Plato is a man, not a goat, from fairly conclusive evidence before you present your statements. However, Damore has put forth that the current societally accepted reason for the skewed IT gender distribution (prejudice against women) has less than conclusive evidence backing it up.

Your assertion of the memo's claim:

-Fact: Women are different than men. -Observation: There is a difference between men and woman in IT. -Conclusion: this difference in IT must be based on the primary difference between men and women.

This is close to what I believe Damore was saying, only replace 'must be' with 'may in part be and we shouldn't rule out the possibility just because it's politically incorrect to discuss.'

Here's what I claim the current politically correct claim is:

-Fact: There have been cases of sexism found in IT. -Observation: IT as a whole is a sexist industry. -Conclusion: this gender difference in IT must be based primarily on this sexism.

However, is this a foregone conclusion, given the current studies found on it? I know of several attempts which have been made but none are any more persuasive to me than Damore's theory, either being too small, flawed(often for the same reason Damore felt the need to write the memo and why he was fired), or just inconclusive. And it seems anecdotal evidence makes up a large part of our reason for believing it as a society.

It's quite possible the truth lies in a mixture of both, in fact I'd say I'm almost certain of it. However, for some reason everyone is outraged at the suggestion that there might be a drop of truth behind what Damore was saying even though he wasn't claiming gender inferiority, merely preference.

Additionally, I don't believe he was misusing the conclusions of the scientific studies he cited. The prime example is his claim of women being more 'neurotic,' and people immediately assume he's calling them inferior. Whereas there was no value judgment in the original scientific study (which was widely accepted prior to the memo) or his application of it and may very well indicate a preference not to work in IT.

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#44

Post by IshKebab »

nippples wrote: post #8

> what scientists think > one scientist's opinion We're reaching "both sides of the climate change debate" levels of spinning here.

Yeah this must be how climate change deniers feel about the scientific view of climate change. It really feels like it's just one scientist's work against another. I don't have time to actually read their studies so how should I know who to believe?

Of course this is much worse than climate change because that's 'hard science' where it's relatively easy to get good evidence. Psychology seems to be barely better than guesswork.

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#45

Post by nippples »

IshKebab wrote: post #44
nippples wrote: post #8

> what scientists think > one scientist's opinion We're reaching "both sides of the climate change debate" levels of spinning here.

Yeah this must be how climate change deniers feel about the scientific view of climate change. It really feels like it's just one scientist's work against another. I don't have time to actually read their studies so how should I know who to believe? Of course this is much worse than climate change because that's 'hard science' where it's relatively easy to get good evidence. Psychology seems to be barely better than…

> Psychology seems to be barely better than guesswork.

It depends on the school of thought and experimentation methods.

Some, for example, will focus almost exclusively in easily measurable physiological responses to stimuli and draw very restricted conclusions on their experimental results.

Others will sit on a desk, reflect on their past and speculate extensively about human nature based on that.

But yeah, it's a rather soft science.

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#46

Post by Klockan »

kybernetikos wrote: post #40
Klockan wrote: post #5

> argues that cognitive sex differences influence performance in software engineering. Damore never argued for this, he argued that cognitive sex differences could possibly influence interest in software engineering work as it done today and that difference in interest could partially explain the gender gap in tech. He then suggest that we try alternate approaches when we try to increase women's representation since…

> Damore never argued for this Is the articles quote unfair then? It explicitly calls out an apparent jump from preferences to abilities in the original. (My emphasis) >>I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these…

Difference in preferences usually results in difference in abilities due to a difference in life choices, that is how I interpreted it. So if biology has any effect on preferences then biology indirectly influences ability but it is still nothing that can't be overcome by someone who likes the subject.

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#47

Post by kybernetikos »

Klockan wrote: post #46
kybernetikos wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damore never argued for this Is the articles quote unfair then? It explicitly calls out an apparent jump from preferences to abilities in the original. (My emphasis) >>I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these…

Difference in preferences usually results in difference in abilities due to a difference in life choices, that is how I interpreted it. So if biology has any effect on preferences then biology indirectly influences ability but it is still nothing that can't be overcome by someone who likes the subject.

> Difference in preferences usually results in difference in abilities due to a difference in life choices, that is how I interpreted it.

Indeed, but the relationship is not necessarily simple and requires argumentation rather than handwave.

Post reply on HN