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

Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

blogs.law.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 112 posts

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#21

Post by furyofantares »

dmvaldman wrote: post #16
macspoofing wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He discredits one of Sandberg's scientifically verified claims that women take criticism worse than men, I don't know about the "scientifically verified claim". In general, scientific claims made in scientific journals are nuanced, and context sensitive. I would be wary of a lay person with a particular position weaving attributions to journal papers indiscriminately in their essays. Furthermore, Humanities research…

that's not the point. saying left-handed people make 20% more than right-handed people is equally (if not much more) dubious. you can't argue that someone's references are possibly fabricated, and then support your own point with your own "scientific" reference. really it comes down to: if you ever find yourself arguing that someone's references are likely wrong because they are in the humanities... well...that's a c…

> that's not the point. saying left-handed people make 20% more than right-handed people is equally (if not much more) dubious.

The sentence before that is "Hardly anybody knows anything about why some workers succeed more than others." His citation of the US News report is meant as an example that there is a lot of confusion on the subject. He is using it specifically to illustrate that dubious claims are flying around.

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#22

Post by dmvaldman »

jerrya wrote: post #10
dmvaldman wrote: post #7

This is so embarrassingly bad...it starts bad, and then gets worse... examples: He discredits one of Sandberg's scientifically verified claims that women take criticism worse than men, by referencing "as John Ioannidis notes, “Most Published Research Findings are False.” Yet he begins his review with a US News report: "This US News article describes research that found that, among college graduates, left-handed men e…

Philip Greenspun used sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire.

ah. so being methodically retarded is all part of his plan. how clever!

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#23

Post by tks2103 »

macspoofing wrote: post #15
zurn wrote: post #4

People should read (if they must) this in context of Greenspun's rather fanatical political ideology. His blog has plenty of samples, I don't want to link to it.

I've never read anything of Greenspun, other than this review. I don't know, or particularly care, what his "fanatical political ideology" is. As far as I'm concerned this essay is perfectly capable of being judged on its own merits. I am however greatly annoyed whenever someone thinks they are doing everyone else a favour by trying to dissuade others from reading an opinion (especially through vague ad hominem attac…

"I didn't want to say anything, but, I heard this Greenspun guy is a maaaaaaaaaaaajor douche."

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#24

Post by macspoofing »

dmvaldman wrote: post #16
macspoofing wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He discredits one of Sandberg's scientifically verified claims that women take criticism worse than men, I don't know about the "scientifically verified claim". In general, scientific claims made in scientific journals are nuanced, and context sensitive. I would be wary of a lay person with a particular position weaving attributions to journal papers indiscriminately in their essays. Furthermore, Humanities research…

that's not the point. saying left-handed people make 20% more than right-handed people is equally (if not much more) dubious. you can't argue that someone's references are possibly fabricated, and then support your own point with your own "scientific" reference. really it comes down to: if you ever find yourself arguing that someone's references are likely wrong because they are in the humanities... well...that's a c…

> saying left-handed people make 20% more than right-handed people is equally (if not much more) dubious.

That was his point! Sheryl Sandberg has a particular thesis and cherry picked some numbers from some study to support her assertion. He mocked this by cherry picking another. I'm pretty sure he doesn't particularly know (or care) if right-handed people are more successful in their careers.

This may be fair or it may be unfair criticism, but the fact that Sandberg threw a whole bunch of references in doesn't automatically mean her assertions are supported by science.

>if you ever find yourself arguing that someone's references are likely wrong because they are in the humanities... well I just want to punch you in the face really..

Your reading comprehension is suspect. I certainly didn't argue this, and neither did Greenspun.

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#26

Post by vrotaru »

dmvaldman wrote: post #7

This is so embarrassingly bad...it starts bad, and then gets worse... examples: He discredits one of Sandberg's scientifically verified claims that women take criticism worse than men, by referencing "as John Ioannidis notes, “Most Published Research Findings are False.” Yet he begins his review with a US News report: "This US News article describes research that found that, among college graduates, left-handed men e…

This is bad???

Sandberg confirms that “A is Average” at Harvard. Her brother David, a neurosurgeon whom Sandberg admires because currently “he splits child care duties with his wife fifty-fifty”, was also a Harvard undergrad. He takes “a class in European intellectual history”, skips all but two lectures and all but one book, gets tutored for three hours and receives an A for the semester (p32-33). The guy’s success is attributed to the general confidence of men. Sandberg does not consider how likely it is that her brother’s confidence would have resulted in an A in a physics class at Caltech.

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#28

Post by thatswrong0 »

cma wrote: post #13
shmulkey18 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And exactly what "fanatical political ideology" is that? Must be pretty horrible mind-poisoning stuff if you feel compelled to warn people off of his blog ("if they must"), eh?

ayn rand inanity

Are you seriously (and erroneously) conflating libertarianism with Ayn Rand's Objectivism? And do you honestly think that, should someone have libertarian political views, we should disregard their opinion?

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#29

Post by dmvaldman »

vrotaru wrote: post #26
dmvaldman wrote: post #7

This is so embarrassingly bad...it starts bad, and then gets worse... examples: He discredits one of Sandberg's scientifically verified claims that women take criticism worse than men, by referencing "as John Ioannidis notes, “Most Published Research Findings are False.” Yet he begins his review with a US News report: "This US News article describes research that found that, among college graduates, left-handed men e…

This is bad??? Sandberg confirms that “A is Average” at Harvard. Her brother David, a neurosurgeon whom Sandberg admires because currently “he splits child care duties with his wife fifty-fifty”, was also a Harvard undergrad. He takes “a class in European intellectual history”, skips all but two lectures and all but one book, gets tutored for three hours and receives an A for the semester (p32-33). The guy’s success…

Yes it is. Because Sandberg never says she admires her brother because of that fact. She says she admires her brother, and then states that fact about the brother. Greenspun is the one who makes the false connection. Here is the full quote:

I should have understood that this kind of self-doubt was more common from females from growing up with my brother. David is two years younger than I am and one of the people in the world whom I respect and love the most. At home, he splits child care duties with his wife fifty-fifty; at work, he's a pediatric neurosurgeon whose days are filled with heart wrenching life-and-death decisions…

With Greenspun's logic, you could equivalently claim Sandberg admires her brother because he is a neurosurgeon.

Re: Philip Greenspun Reviews “Lean In”

#30

Post by philwelch »

hkmurakami wrote: post #9
therealarmen wrote: post #6

Those who enjoy this review will also enjoy Philip's review [1] of "Straight from the Gut" by Jack Welch (former CEO of GE): If you want to learn the names of every person who ever worked at GE during Jack Welch's 40 years there, you'll find this book invaluable. If you want to learn something about what made GE successful, however, good luck picking out the few saplings of wisdom from the thick forest of names. Golf…

Wow, I'm flabbergasted that Greenspun has authored over 250 reviews on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1TNG2A1GAG14B/ref=cm_c...

What else are you going to do when you retire early? (cf http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/)
Post reply on HN