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

When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 150 posts

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#111

Post by rukuu001 »

ElEmEnOhP wrote: post #91
rukuu001 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies, I could have been more clear. What I mean is that I haven't heard of guys receiving death, rape etc threats accompanied by doxxing (ie 'this is his address, let's go get him') at the levels I've heard about with women[0]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

What does this have to do with gamergate? If you've never seen guy/gal on guy death threats/doxxing, then I'd say you're just being will fully ignorant.

I can be ignorant without being wilful about it :) TBH, I avoid forums where that kind of thing goes on.

But what I'm doing here is drawing parallels between large groups of people self-organizing against a prominent, successful person.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#112

Post by danso »

jmull wrote: post #99
srtjstjsj wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Andrew Gelman is a rare breed -- he's brilliant, hard working, engages with the public, writes both technical and (semi-)pop articles, and isn't an asshole. And we works in a field -- mathematics -- where there is very little confusion as to whether a result is right or wrong. This makes lesser people working in dirtier subjects very uncomfortable: when he hits them they have nothing of substance to hit back with exc…

> ...and isn't an asshole... I just read his blog for the first time and thought he’s a huge asshole. It seems to me the primary effect of science-shaming on the blog is to rally the pitchforks, something he can’t possibly be ignorant of. But he apparently keeps on doing it. No doubt it’s good for the hits, but doesn’t contribute to a dynamic that leads to good science. Oh wells.

Out of curiosity, what did you read?

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#113

Post by rukuu001 »

asdf2341 wrote: post #79
rukuu001 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do strongly believe that Cuddy was overly punished for being a woman, and being prominent in the field. Theres a pattern of successful women receiving extreme levels of hate (Kathy Sierra et al). I'm not aware of this happening to guys.

I'm in an adjacent academic field and know some of the principals in the story. Based on private conversations with mutual friends, the reason Cuddy received so much heat is that she continues to profit off the mistaken findings and refuses to disavow them, despite overwhelming evidence. She embodies everything wrong with the popular discussion of science. The only analogue I can think of is Brian Wansink, whose scan…

That's enlightening, and Brian Wansink is a great example, thank you.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#114

Post by mikebenfield »

jmull wrote: post #99
srtjstjsj wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Andrew Gelman is a rare breed -- he's brilliant, hard working, engages with the public, writes both technical and (semi-)pop articles, and isn't an asshole. And we works in a field -- mathematics -- where there is very little confusion as to whether a result is right or wrong. This makes lesser people working in dirtier subjects very uncomfortable: when he hits them they have nothing of substance to hit back with exc…

> ...and isn't an asshole... I just read his blog for the first time and thought he’s a huge asshole. It seems to me the primary effect of science-shaming on the blog is to rally the pitchforks, something he can’t possibly be ignorant of. But he apparently keeps on doing it. No doubt it’s good for the hits, but doesn’t contribute to a dynamic that leads to good science. Oh wells.

I don't know. A lot of the people Gelman complains about are, in my opinion, building their career on fraudulent work. They are undermining science. If there was ever any doubt that they were deliberately deceiving people, that doubt disappeared upon seeing their response to simple and legitimate criticism.

A little needling on Gelman's blog is not too harsh, all things considered.

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#116

Post by [deleted] »

rukuu001 wrote: post #111
ElEmEnOhP wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this have to do with gamergate? If you've never seen guy/gal on guy death threats/doxxing, then I'd say you're just being will fully ignorant.

I can be ignorant without being wilful about it :) TBH, I avoid forums where that kind of thing goes on. But what I'm doing here is drawing parallels between large groups of people self-organizing against a prominent, successful person.

[deleted]

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#117

Post by leereeves »

rukuu001 wrote: post #86
gt_ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not aware of this happening to guys. Can you be more specific? Or do you mean this in a general sense? Because isn't this obvious ignorance if so?

Apologies, I could have been more clear. What I mean is that I haven't heard of guys receiving death, rape etc threats accompanied by doxxing (ie 'this is his address, let's go get him') at the levels I've heard about with women[0]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

You haven't heard of it because the reporting and coverage is biased, not because it doesn't happen.

That's similar to the situation with sexual harassment, sexual assault, and domestic violence.

It's not that men aren't often the victims of these things (studies report that they are, at nearly the same rate as women[1, 2]). It's that men rarely report these things, and when they do, receive little sympathy, coverage, or justice.

1: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_...

2: http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/men-the-overlooked-vic...

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#118

Post by mattmcknight »

throwawayjava wrote: post #87
mattmcknight wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's this- Fiske publishes a letter critical of Gelman, with no peer review of said letter, in her journal. She then claims her letter is "science" because it is in a scientific journal, while his self-published piece is "methodological terrorism." In a sense, both pieces are self-published, and she is using the mantle of Science to falsely claim that her self-publishing is superior because of the authority of her p…

> She then claims her letter is "science" Please link to the place where she actually makes this claim. > in her journal Not hers, and not a journal. > while his self-published piece is "methodological terrorism." She actually outlines the practices that ought to be singled out as unprofessional and unacceptable in the second to last paragraph, and none of those are mere self-publication. Have you considered the poss…

I talk about the problems with Fiske and you say:

"Cuddy herself, in the linked article, even asks: "Why not come to a conference or hold a seminar?""

I am not criticizing Cuddy. Fiske is editor of PNAS, former president of APS, and is putting her criticisms in APS Observer. The difference between a journal and an official magazine of a scientific organization is irrelevant in this concept, in that the supposed superiority of an edited journal is what is in question here when the editor is not good, and is not considering the context of the discussion.

I am pointing out the utter hypocrisy in her argument that you shouldn't point out statistical errors on blogs, while she is pointing this out in a publication she controlled. She wants people to be able to protect their undeserved status, it is clear.

The entire idea that science needs to be locked up in limited access journals (or magazines) is not a good one. The real issue is that the quality of PNAS has been pretty low. Fiske's response to that is to try to discourage open criticism. Open data is one of the reasons that people were able to find these errors. Resistance to publishing failed replications is not proper behavior. We have now seen PNAS publish a few letters describing errors, and hopefully the standards will improve. However, it hardly seems like a person whose response is to lean toward hiding the discourse is the right person to do it?

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#119

Post by leereeves »

rukuu001 wrote: post #111
ElEmEnOhP wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this have to do with gamergate? If you've never seen guy/gal on guy death threats/doxxing, then I'd say you're just being will fully ignorant.

I can be ignorant without being wilful about it :) TBH, I avoid forums where that kind of thing goes on. But what I'm doing here is drawing parallels between large groups of people self-organizing against a prominent, successful person.

A few examples come immediately to mind: Adam Orth, Tim Hunt, donglegate, and shirtgate.

It's interesting that (except for Adam Orth) the men involved, who were factually the victims of massive harassment, were portrayed as the villains by most of the media for minor infractions of progressive political values.

Edit: Just found another, an electoral college member who received death threats for voting for Trump (as he was required to).

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/308226-elec...

Re: When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy

#120

Post by rukuu001 »

leereeves wrote: post #117
rukuu001 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies, I could have been more clear. What I mean is that I haven't heard of guys receiving death, rape etc threats accompanied by doxxing (ie 'this is his address, let's go get him') at the levels I've heard about with women[0]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

You haven't heard of it because the reporting and coverage is biased, not because it doesn't happen. That's similar to the situation with sexual harassment, sexual assault, and domestic violence. It's not that men aren't often the victims of these things (studies report that they are, at nearly the same rate as women[1, 2]). It's that men rarely report these things, and when they do, receive little sympathy, coverage…

Thanks. Amazing stats in the Slate article. And the Adam Orth example in particular has strong parallels with high-profile examples of attacks on women.

Given the level of heat these discussions arouse, I understand the comments re modding in the item earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15507821

Post reply on HN