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

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: undefined

#31

Post by eesmith »

charmides wrote: post #29
eesmith wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you describe is your boss's boss exercising power within his job position. That is not the case Kuhn describes. When someone comes to you to have handle something which should be handled by your boss's boss, do you go ahead and do it? Even if you don't want to, and it's outside of your job description? I have read about Kuhn and Sandler. I have also listened to most of their oggcasts. You write "The reputation a…

>You write "The reputation alone is the reason why the donor wants to speak with him" >Do you have evidence that that is the case? OP does not have the burden to prove something about the donor's motives. The burden is on the author who wrote this inflammatory article, because he is the person who is making a claim that the donor is sexist.

What level of evidence is enough?

Why can we not accept what the author writes? What motive does he have to tell something other than his best interpretation of the evidence?

I have read and listened to far more from Kuhn than I have of you or the other commenters here on HN. That has lead me to conclude that this is not something he makes lightly or for ulterior motives.

Re: undefined

#32

Post by eesmith »

charmides wrote: post #28
eesmith wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got zero sense of a 'highly submissive (almost grovelling) attitude'. I got a strong sense of irritation and annoyance that people still, after many years, have not understood the organizational structure. He's using repetition to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that his boss really is his boss. Kuhn writes "I can't think of a single reason this donor could want to speak to me that would not be more productiv…

>Since you don't know what he's done, why do you second-guess his explicit statement by positing "is it unfathomable that he has accomplished something that some donor would like to speak to him about privately." >Apparently yes, it is unfathomable to Kuhn and Sandler. I am second-guessing it because it obviously not unfathomable that the author, who has many years of experience in his field, has accomplished somethi…

Please explain your use of the term "unfathomable."

I interpret it to mean that there is no possible, conceivable reason other than the one given.

I believe this term is inappropriate, as it implies that "unfathomable" is somehow an appropriate guideline.

The guideline should be "reasonable". Otherwise, I pointed out a 'fathomable' but unreasonable scenario. I can easily create more 'fathomable' but unreasonable scenarios.

I believe the use of an extremist term like "unfathomable" serves to trivialize the topic made by making the goal posts too high.

What is a reasonable scenario where a potential donor to the Conservancy, when told several times they should be dealing with Sandler, still insists on a private meeting with Kuhn (and not Sandler) as condition of the donation?

I can fully understand why someone might want a private conversation with Kuhn, because of his background and experience.

The question at hand, however, is why a private conversation with Kuhn is a gating condition for the donation. I strongly doubt that the only way to have a private conversation with Kuhn is by contributing to the Conservancy.

So, what scenario do you propose which is more reasonable than institutional sexism?

Re: undefined

#33

Post by charmides »

eesmith wrote: post #31
charmides wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You write "The reputation alone is the reason why the donor wants to speak with him" >Do you have evidence that that is the case? OP does not have the burden to prove something about the donor's motives. The burden is on the author who wrote this inflammatory article, because he is the person who is making a claim that the donor is sexist.

What level of evidence is enough? Why can we not accept what the author writes? What motive does he have to tell something other than his best interpretation of the evidence? I have read and listened to far more from Kuhn than I have of you or the other commenters here on HN. That has lead me to conclude that this is not something he makes lightly or for ulterior motives.

>What level of evidence is enough?

Much more than what the author presented.

>Why can we not accept what the author writes?

Because when people make ugly accusations against others, they need to show evidence.

>I have read and listened to far more from Kuhn than I have of you or the other commenters here on HN.

Your perceived intimacy with the people in question does not work in your favor. On the contrary, it is more likely to make you biased.

Re: undefined

#34

Post by eesmith »

charmides wrote: post #33
eesmith wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What level of evidence is enough? Why can we not accept what the author writes? What motive does he have to tell something other than his best interpretation of the evidence? I have read and listened to far more from Kuhn than I have of you or the other commenters here on HN. That has lead me to conclude that this is not something he makes lightly or for ulterior motives.

>What level of evidence is enough? Much more than what the author presented. >Why can we not accept what the author writes? Because when people make ugly accusations against others, they need to show evidence. >I have read and listened to far more from Kuhn than I have of you or the other commenters here on HN. Your perceived intimacy with the people in question does not work in your favor. On the contrary, it is mor…

"intimacy"? What a delightful word. I am intimate with my partner. I have intimate friends.

This is the first time I've ever been told I'm intimate with someone who I've never met, who I only know about through public writings and talks, and to whom I've never communicated.

My circle of intimacy instantly expanded as it now includes Richard Feynman, Freeman Dyson, Eugene Garfield, and Donald Knuth. Though to be fair, I have communicated with the latter two.

And all those people who write critical biographies of dead people - surely we can't trust them now as they are too intimate to the person in question, and thus more likely to be biased.

Indeed, the only people we can trust are those who know nothing at all.

Re: undefined

#35

Post by smsm42 »

eesmith wrote: post #23
smsm42 wrote: post #15

Can somebody explain me why the situation described in the tweet is an example of sexism? The person wants to donate, and wants to speak with some other person about it with which he is comfortable dealing. That person happens to be male and his boss (the author of the tweet) happens to be female. Why does it make the situation sexist? Is there an obligation that if I contact somebody in the organization to make a do…

There are many ways it can be sexist. Let's start with "which he is comfortable dealing". There can be many reasons why a person could be uncomfortable. One could be that he does not believe women are not authority figures, and that Sandler's role as director is a figurehead. So, if he is "comfortable" dealing with Kuhn, but not with Sandler, simply because Sandler is a women, then actions which make him more comfort…

> The obligation is to speak with the person who is most appropriate for what you want to do

What is the objective criteria of who is the most appropriate? I.e. if I think person A is the most appropriate and somebody thinks it's person B, is my opinion sexist if A is male and B is female? I.e., is there a place for reasonable disagreement which is not sexist? I mean, if the sole reason he prefers Kuhn to Sandler is because of her gender, this is obviously sexist, by definition, but why the assumption is it's the sole reason? Is there anything indicating it is so?

> An organization depends on a long-term continuity of structure. If that structure is undermined by doing whatever is necessary for the short-term gain of a single donation, then it risks the organization as whole.

How donating after speaking with her employee undermines the organization? From my experience, that's how a lot of donations happen - people speak to the employees of the NGO, understand that the mission of the org is the one they want to support and donate. Many times it's not the CEO - the CEO can't possibly meet with all donors. And sometimes donors meet with specific people doing things, just to understand that things that are being done are those they indeed want to support.

> suppose I were to offer $10M to the Conservancy, but gate it on having a date with Kuhn, then one view is that Sandler should pressure Kuhn to go on a date with me, because it will result in a donation.

"Pressuring" anyone might be a wrong move, no doubt, but even if it happened - which I don't see any indication it did - how it is sexist?

> Also, regarding "that is his job" - how do you know that private meeting with a potential donor is part of Kuhn's job?

I didn't know. I assumed it is since otherwise it'd be very weird from the side of the donor to request it and I prefer not to assume bad behavior without evidence. And since he has the CEO job before, which means he met with a lot of people and had established old relationships. In case it is not his job, it's indeed weird, but still doesn't answer why it is sexist.

Re: undefined

#36

Post by [deleted] »

charmides wrote: post #33
eesmith wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What level of evidence is enough? Why can we not accept what the author writes? What motive does he have to tell something other than his best interpretation of the evidence? I have read and listened to far more from Kuhn than I have of you or the other commenters here on HN. That has lead me to conclude that this is not something he makes lightly or for ulterior motives.

>What level of evidence is enough? Much more than what the author presented. >Why can we not accept what the author writes? Because when people make ugly accusations against others, they need to show evidence. >I have read and listened to far more from Kuhn than I have of you or the other commenters here on HN. Your perceived intimacy with the people in question does not work in your favor. On the contrary, it is mor…

[deleted]

Re: undefined

#37

Post by charmides »

eesmith wrote: post #34
charmides wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What level of evidence is enough? Much more than what the author presented. >Why can we not accept what the author writes? Because when people make ugly accusations against others, they need to show evidence. >I have read and listened to far more from Kuhn than I have of you or the other commenters here on HN. Your perceived intimacy with the people in question does not work in your favor. On the contrary, it is mor…

"intimacy"? What a delightful word. I am intimate with my partner. I have intimate friends. This is the first time I've ever been told I'm intimate with someone who I've never met, who I only know about through public writings and talks, and to whom I've never communicated. My circle of intimacy instantly expanded as it now includes Richard Feynman, Freeman Dyson, Eugene Garfield, and Donald Knuth. Though to be fair,…

First, I am an ESL speaker. If you have nothing left to contribute except to nitpick my choice of words ('unfathomable' and 'pereived intimacy'), then you have obviously lost this debate.

Second, I don't believe that you have never met those people. Based on your activity here and emotional investment, I find it more likely that you are affiliated with the charity or maybe even the author himself. Notice that there isn't a single other person in this comment section who is defending the author, but you are responding to everything.

Re: undefined

#38

Post by eesmith »

smsm42 wrote: post #35
eesmith wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many ways it can be sexist. Let's start with "which he is comfortable dealing". There can be many reasons why a person could be uncomfortable. One could be that he does not believe women are not authority figures, and that Sandler's role as director is a figurehead. So, if he is "comfortable" dealing with Kuhn, but not with Sandler, simply because Sandler is a women, then actions which make him more comfort…

> The obligation is to speak with the person who is most appropriate for what you want to do What is the objective criteria of who is the most appropriate? I.e. if I think person A is the most appropriate and somebody thinks it's person B, is my opinion sexist if A is male and B is female? I.e., is there a place for reasonable disagreement which is not sexist? I mean, if the sole reason he prefers Kuhn to Sandler is…

"What is the objective criteria of who is the most appropriate?"

The people who are receiving the funding usually get to decide what they consider to be the appropriate mechanism.

That's pretty objective, yes?

"how it is sexist?"

Unwelcome sexual advances are covered under EEOC guidelines regarding hostile workplaces, under US civil rights laws. In this case, the pressure to go on a date would be described as an implicit term or condition of an individual's employment.

I enjoyed reading the EEOC guidelines on sexual harassment, some years back. It was a real eye-opener to have relatively objective descriptions of what sexual harassment in the workplace means, and to read case stories of what was judged to be sexual harassment.

Re: undefined

#39

Post by eesmith »

charmides wrote: post #37
eesmith wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"intimacy"? What a delightful word. I am intimate with my partner. I have intimate friends. This is the first time I've ever been told I'm intimate with someone who I've never met, who I only know about through public writings and talks, and to whom I've never communicated. My circle of intimacy instantly expanded as it now includes Richard Feynman, Freeman Dyson, Eugene Garfield, and Donald Knuth. Though to be fair,…

First, I am an ESL speaker. If you have nothing left to contribute except to nitpick my choice of words ('unfathomable' and 'pereived intimacy'), then you have obviously lost this debate. Second, I don't believe that you have never met those people. Based on your activity here and emotional investment, I find it more likely that you are affiliated with the charity or maybe even the author himself. Notice that there i…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN