Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies • Hacker News Board

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#141

Post by Zetice » Mon, Feb 20, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

fidgewidge wrote: post #139

Zetice wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Tate exists because people want to avoid taking responsibility for their lack of success; anyone who gives them an excuse will be welcomed. I’m not giving examples because I’m replying to you while taking a shit. If you want concrete examples of how misogyny hurts women, thousands of those specific examples are one Google away. The problem you have with claiming I’m “completely disconnected from reality” is that…

[flagged]

Okay so what institutions do you trust? Can you name five?

Also what terms did you Google?

Also also there is no "the rest of us". You don't belong to or speak for a group. It's just you and I talking, so don't think you've got some kind of majority in this conversation or in this idea.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#142

Post by mpweiher » Tue, Feb 21, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

Zetice wrote: post #141

fidgewidge wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Okay so what institutions do you trust? Can you name five? Also what terms did you Google? Also also there is no "the rest of us". You don't belong to or speak for a group. It's just you and I talking, so don't think you've got some kind of majority in this conversation or in this idea.

If you make a claim, it is on you to bring the evidence to support your claim.

"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#143

Post by Zetice » Tue, Feb 21, 2023, 4:34 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #142

Zetice wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay so what institutions do you trust? Can you name five? Also what terms did you Google? Also also there is no "the rest of us". You don't belong to or speak for a group. It's just you and I talking, so don't think you've got some kind of majority in this conversation or in this idea.

If you make a claim, it is on you to bring the evidence to support your claim. "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

a) We both made claims, no sure why I'm the only one being asked to provide evidence, b) I'd love to provide evidence but in order to do so credibly, I need to know which institutions to source that data from, so we don't go back and forth on whether or not the data was collected with bias or some other excuse and, c) this is HN, which is neither equipped for conversations like this nor are they encouraged.

If you actually are interested in learning about the negative impacts of misogyny in the US, there are classes you can take online, people you can talk to, papers to read, etc. Demanding your entire learning experience be run through HN exclusively is only done by folks who have no intellectual curiosity and just want to annoy others.

You'll notice he hasn't responded to my basic question for clarity, as that would require some form of baseline cooperation on his part, which runs counter to his clear desire to be a pain for the sake of it.

It's been three days since this conversation started. Is the expectation that I'm to sit here and engage for eternity with a person who I don't know on a topic it's clear they're not interested in understanding better?

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#144

Post by mpweiher » Wed, Feb 22, 2023, 8:45 PM UTC

Zetice wrote: post #143

mpweiher wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you make a claim, it is on you to bring the evidence to support your claim. "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

a) We both made claims, no sure why I'm the only one being asked to provide evidence, b) I'd love to provide evidence but in order to do so credibly, I need to know which institutions to source that data from, so we don't go back and forth on whether or not the data was collected with bias or some other excuse and, c) this is HN, which is neither equipped for conversations like this nor are they encouraged. If you ac…

> no sure why I'm the only one being asked to provide evidence

You're not. You're just the only one who has refused to provide evidence for your claims.

The root comment provided evidence for a 2:1 hiring advantage for women in STEM fields. And of course there was the fine article itself...

So there's evidence. There's tons more.

You have provided: zero, zip, nada, zilch.

> interested in learning about ... learning experience

You are making several incorrect assumptions. The first is that the people you are talking to are not aware of the evidence. They are. It is you who is not aware of the evidence, despite it being quoted here (see above).

The second incorrect assumption you are making is that your position is obviously correct and does not need to be supported by evidence, but rather that it is simply a matter of the other side being "educated".

This is also not correct, and you are not in that position. You are making a claim, you don't get to adjudicate that your claim is obviously correct and the only remaining work is for others to inform themselves as to the obvious correctness of your claim.

Have a good one.