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

E Pur Si Muove

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#821

Post by tziki »

bduerst wrote: post #787
ghostcluster wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first link is an article from Stanford Medicine on the overwhelming evidence for the evolved biological cognitive differences between men and women, how this shapes their interests and average cognitive strengths. It's not a paper, it's a comprehensive review of the research presented to inform the public. Did you even read it? > There was too much data pointing to the biological basis of sex-based cognitive diff…

Observational correlation != causation. If you had read the articles you'd posted, you see that neither of them claim attributable biological causes to differences in gender behavior and social biases. From the Stanford article (which is not peer reviewed): >Trying to assign exact percentages to the relative contributions of “culture” versus “biology” to the behavior of free-living human individuals in a complex soci…

> Damore's diatribe was that Google's combating of social bias was wrong

No, it wasn't. In fact, the exact opposite: he literally says "I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that ... we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases".

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#822

Post by ghostcluster »

dguaraglia wrote: post #815
ghostcluster wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason the Damore stuff is so insane is because the science he cited is abundant and well replicated over decades! Look at this piece from Stanford Medical School in the spring! http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-b... Or here, from 2013: http://atavisionary.com/study-index/intelligence-psychometri... There is an abundance of highly cited research that backs up what Damore carefully stated…

There's also an equal or bigger amount of science proving that gender "interests" are driven in a large part by cultural background. As I linked elsewhere, Communist Russia used to have a huge participation of women in "STEM" fields, while Europe and the US were still moving from single-income families to the current standard of working professional women. There's nothing we can do to fix the - alleged - biological d…

Look at the Stanford link.

> There was too much data pointing to the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences to ignore, Halpern says. For one thing, the animal-research findings resonated with sex-based differences ascribed to people. These findings continue to accrue. In a study of 34 rhesus monkeys, for example, males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys likable. It would be tough to argue that the monkeys’ parents bought them sex-typed toys or that simian society encourages its male offspring to play more with trucks. A much more recent study established that boys and girls 9 to 17 months old — an age when children show few if any signs of recognizing either their own or other children’s sex — nonetheless show marked differences in their preference for stereotypically male versus stereotypically female toys.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#823

Post by dguaraglia »

ghostcluster wrote: post #822
dguaraglia wrote: post #815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also an equal or bigger amount of science proving that gender "interests" are driven in a large part by cultural background. As I linked elsewhere, Communist Russia used to have a huge participation of women in "STEM" fields, while Europe and the US were still moving from single-income families to the current standard of working professional women. There's nothing we can do to fix the - alleged - biological d…

Look at the Stanford link. > There was too much data pointing to the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences to ignore, Halpern says. For one thing, the animal-research findings resonated with sex-based differences ascribed to people. These findings continue to accrue. In a study of 34 rhesus monkeys, for example, males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys…

If I were to attribute malice, I'd say that you are actively avoiding the point I've been making to keep pushing your narrative.

The text you quote just says that some behavior might be driven by biological differences. Cool, nobody is arguing that. So what's the point you are trying to make?

The point I'm trying to make is that there's enough evidence that culture plays a major role in behavior and so we should maybe try to make the playing field fairer, so that if there are any biological traits dictating this or that behavior, they can be allowed. You know, work on what we know before we focus on what might be. It's pretty simple, really.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#824

Post by ghostcluster »

dguaraglia wrote: post #823
ghostcluster wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the Stanford link. > There was too much data pointing to the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences to ignore, Halpern says. For one thing, the animal-research findings resonated with sex-based differences ascribed to people. These findings continue to accrue. In a study of 34 rhesus monkeys, for example, males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys…

If I were to attribute malice, I'd say that you are actively avoiding the point I've been making to keep pushing your narrative. The text you quote just says that some behavior might be driven by biological differences. Cool, nobody is arguing that. So what's the point you are trying to make? The point I'm trying to make is that there's enough evidence that culture plays a major role in behavior and so we should mayb…

> The text you quote just says that some behavior might be driven by biological differences. Cool, nobody is arguing that.

This is entirely what the outrage for Damore was about. Entirely.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#826

Post by conanbatt »

dguaraglia wrote: post #817
conanbatt wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please give examples. Mandatory gender quotas. Women-only lectures, events and benefits. > What exactly do you propose was Damore's original intent? Why does it matter. Thats not the point.

> Mandatory gender quotas. Those - as far as I understand - don't exist at Google. I interviewed tons of candidates there. I was never told to benefit this person or the next because they were of a particular gender or ethnic background. In fact, there was mandatory training on how to not fall for your own biases. > Women-only lectures, events and benefits. So you are all for "freedom of thought" but you don't want p…

You keep doing this in all the arguments you have in this thread: you ask a question, and then when you get a response you reframe the question. You are being either dishonest or a zealot.

> Those - as far as I understand - don't exist at Google.

You asked for example of extreme "feminists" opinions that are allowed in the workforce and I gave you some. Also Damore's argument is that google is propping the numbers in a way akin to quotas, by jigging the selection process. (Well, I heard people say that, i haven't read the essay).

> So you are all for "freedom of thought" but you don't want people to be able to group in whatever way they want. That's an interesting take.

Now you are reframing the question as in a constitutional matter. That was not the question you asked. You asked for examples of extreme feminist positions in the workplace and women-only events is an example of one. Man-only corporate events dont exist, and if you called it one, there would also be public outrage. Women-only is actively discriminatory. Some people are fine with that, some aren't. The standard is not the same for everyone.

> That's totally the point. Why on Earth would he write the manifesto otherwise?

So if a feminist had written the essay, you would agree with it and would find it enlightening? Its a simple ad-hominem. It can be true and Damore be the worst person ever born at the same time. Its not an argument of anything.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#827

Post by Houshalter »

observation wrote: post #810
mikeash wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are life extension and genetic engineering really becoming a victim of this? Or is this just a mostly inconsequential reaction by people who have noticed that wealthy Silicon Valley technologists love to talk about improving humanity but mostly end up producing products which make life easier for wealthy Silicon Valley technologists?

I believe that it is a reality that people die through the side affects of political hegemony. I used to be a Jehovah's Witness and am familiar with those outside the religion criticizing it because it frequently occurs that their children die due to the refusal of blood transfusions. However I now think there is a similar type of ignorance which has stemmed out of politically correct thought. I believe biracial chil…

>biracial children have a lower probability of organ donation matches, and a drastically lower probability of bone marrow matches.

Sure, but the vast majority of people will never need this in their lifetime. I doubt this alone would make a noticeable dent in life expectancy statistics. (Also we are within a few decades of being able to clone organs anyway.)

On the other hand biracial people are believed to have stronger immune systems and potentially other characteristics ("heterosis").

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#828

Post by Houshalter »

dguaraglia wrote: post #814
Houshalter wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying the disparity is due to personality difference. Which, even if cultural, can't be changed by the tech industry. I find it very implausible that the differences are cultural at any level. And many possible cultural explanations have been ruled out. Poor and communist countries have less gender disparities because people have less choice over their careers. E.g. poor parents shove their kids into STEM becaus…

> And many possible cultural explanations have been ruled out. You say this, but quote absolutely no science to back it up. Maybe this is just an intuitive perception that you have, rather than a fact? I actually quoted two articles that prove the contrary, and you have no retort for them, but rather just glance over them as if they didn't exist. > Poor and communist countries have less gender disparities because peo…

>You say this, but quote absolutely no science to back it up.

Yes I do, and I've been over some of it with you in this thread.

>I actually quoted two articles that prove the contrary, and you have no retort for them, but rather just glance over them as if they didn't exist.

What, the poor countries have different gender ratios claim? I addressed that.

>So you are going against your previous statement and saying here that culture plays a major role?

In poor countries, yes. How is Russia doing today after a ton of economic growth? I had trouble finding statistics, the only stat I could find is this:

>In 2016 Russia had the highest percentage of patents filed by women, at about 16%.

Which is about the ratio of women in STEM in the West.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#829

Post by Houshalter »

dguaraglia wrote: post #816
Houshalter wrote: post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Give examples. Read page 6 of Damore's memo. He gives a number of very serious examples. >Do you personally feel that a field where 80% of the workforce is male (vs a 50/50 split in overall demographics) is "actively discriminating against hiring males? I find that argument very, very, VERY difficult to defend. What are you not understanding here? If 20% of qualified applicants are female, but 30% of new hires are f…

> What are you not understanding here? If 20% of qualified applicants are female, but 30% of new hires are female, you must be discriminating against men. Thing is, you don't have these numbers. And you are making them up, to push your narrative. Which is another massive flaw on Damore's argument: he's trying to solve a problem he doesn't even know exists. > Damore suggested they were lowering hiring standards and se…

So, can we at least agree that gender quotas etc are bad?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#830

Post by letsbehonest »

dang wrote: post #379
letsbehonest wrote: post #305

If you meant a single word of this essay, HN would not be a place where people are routinely banned for being critical of your portfolio companies, or for expressing any political idea that is even moderately leftist. You're a vile hypocrite. And there's nothing to debate, there. It's just fucking true.

> routinely banned for being critical of your portfolio companies When people say this always I try to point out that the opposite is the truth. Maybe I can't convince you, but I want to reassure any silent readers who might worry about this. Literally the first rule of HN moderation is what we moderate less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is involved. Plenty more on this at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dat…

Sam Altman tried to destroy a Pando writer for writing an article critical of a portfolio company's valuation. He then made spurious accusations and moved the goalposts when they proved he was straight-up lying about his "evidence".

Sam Altman has threatened other people's entire livelihoods as well, threatening to use his connections to blackball them from all of SV because he was unhappy with their decisions.

I get it: you're paid to be the PR guy for him, so you make your money by pretending he's a good dude. But he isn't. He's a rich bully who is comparing himself (and other bigoted trash) to galileo.

I wouldn't really give a shit if he just embraced the fact that he's a rich evil bully who does whatever the fuck he wants... but now he wants us to pretend that he's flawless as well? Screw that. Dude is fucking evil. He should just admit it and own it.

And if you had a single ounce of courage, you'd just admit that you're a fucking proto-fascist who despises freedom; and whose major contribution to the world is that fewer people hear mean things about Paul Graham and Sam Altman because they pay you to silence the voices of critics.

Post reply on HN