Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1) • Hacker News Board

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#291

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 23, 2014, 4:08 AM UTC

Sssnake wrote: post #290

stephp wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really want to present this law as a matter of women wanting an "out"? You have no idea why anyone is advocating for this. I have no problem talking "men's issues." I have a problem, though, talking about men's issues with a person who hasn't even investigated the very foundation of what is happening in a situation before jumping to "me, me, me." Women are regularly-- constantly-- kidnapped and sexually/emotional…

Literally nothing you said has anything to do with me, or anything I said. Did you reply to the wrong post by accident or something?

[deleted]

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#292

Post by elohesra » Thu, Jan 23, 2014, 5:02 PM UTC

mtrimpe wrote: post #261

elohesra wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I took it and it determined that I don't associate gender with science or liberal arts. It also felt extremely contrived, and felt as though it functions largely on cheap tricks, like building a clear pattern of a theme being presented on one side of the screen for a long while and then suddenly switching it to the other side. To be frank, it seemed like the purpose of it was to induce cognitive stress from try…

The IAT is the bread-and-butter technique for determining implicit associations and are probably the best technique we have for assessing personal bias. When you try it out for a topic where you do have a strong association you'll actually feel directly what it's measuring and why it's relevant. P.S. Did you really try to answer as fast as possible? If you take your time it won't be able to measure much.

Yes I really did try to answer as soon as possible. Why would I not? Because it might give me a 'bad' evaluation? Why would I care when I don't even feel that it's valid?

In fact, attempting to answer quickly is what lead me to feel it was largely a trick, because it switched up locations of gender after consistent streaks of a given gender (or other metric) being presented solely in one place. Several times I'd be just about to click something and then think "Hey, what the heck? Why did it suddenly move the answer?". This represents a confounding variable in the experiment, because it no longer strictly measures beliefs, but instead measures a mixture of beliefs and motor ability (ability to react quickly to the changing locations of answers), so the test can't determine if an answer was due to belief or motor ability.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#293

Post by _bfhp » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 11:27 PM UTC

theorique wrote: post #270

_bfhp wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men always become very nervous when women try to have their own spaces, talk amongst themselves, organize into groups, etc. It's like reality can't pass the Bechdel Test.

The opposite is also true. Women (and some men) tend to be very suspicious of male-only spaces because they think that said men are plotting to reestablish the Patriarchy. Not really, though. Sometimes it's nice to have a safe space where you don't have to police yourself for the opposite sex and risk being misunderstood by them. I don't begrudge women their own space, and I would hope that women, feminist and otherw…

"they think that said men are plotting to reestablish the Patriarchy"

hahahaha you have no idea what I'm talking about or what you're talking about

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#294

Post by mtrimpe » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 6:40 PM UTC

elohesra wrote: post #292

mtrimpe wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IAT is the bread-and-butter technique for determining implicit associations and are probably the best technique we have for assessing personal bias. When you try it out for a topic where you do have a strong association you'll actually feel directly what it's measuring and why it's relevant. P.S. Did you really try to answer as fast as possible? If you take your time it won't be able to measure much.

Yes I really did try to answer as soon as possible. Why would I not? Because it might give me a 'bad' evaluation? Why would I care when I don't even feel that it's valid? In fact, attempting to answer quickly is what lead me to feel it was largely a trick, because it switched up locations of gender after consistent streaks of a given gender (or other metric) being presented solely in one place. Several times I'd be j…

Wasn't implying anything ... just making sure you did the test correctly.

And I think you were reading too much into the random placement. The test just picks a number of words for each category at random and then determines whether it's easier for you to categorize certain things together.

You'll be able to respond faster to 'good & saint' and 'bad & killer' than 'good & killer' and 'bad & saint' because your brain categorizes them differently and that difference in performance is what this test measures.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#295

Post by theorique » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 7:34 PM UTC

_bfhp wrote: post #293

theorique wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opposite is also true. Women (and some men) tend to be very suspicious of male-only spaces because they think that said men are plotting to reestablish the Patriarchy. Not really, though. Sometimes it's nice to have a safe space where you don't have to police yourself for the opposite sex and risk being misunderstood by them. I don't begrudge women their own space, and I would hope that women, feminist and otherw…

"they think that said men are plotting to reestablish the Patriarchy" hahahaha you have no idea what I'm talking about or what you're talking about

Try to establish a club, organization, or group for men only, and you'll face suspicion and criticism from women.