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

What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#31

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

pdkl95 wrote: post #26
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be far more interesting to see him on a Progressive YouTube show, however, as he says, few people who criticized him contacted him personally. I don't think he'd avoid such a confrontation if he was given a chance, but my feeling is that in current PC climate some people would be offended just by hearing what he says, so it's unlikely he'd even get invited.

> however, as he says, few people who criticized him contacted him personally According to the Guardian[1], "Damore initially told the Guardian he would answer questions by email on Monday, but then stopped responding to inquiries. He had a few brief email exchanges with reporters, including at the New York Times, Bloomberg and the rightwing site website Breitbart." Giving an extended interview with Molyneux instead…

It's interesting to see that he apparently prefers video interviews than written statements. Maybe he feels if he says something in writing, his words can be twisted by being used out of context? Whereas if he appears live, it will be more difficult to manipulate. I notice he basically appears almost exclusively on video now.

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#32

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

slindz wrote: post #25
slindz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many levels until we're talking about the fair points he made, along with the well-intentioned suggestions he was making?

> We don't live in an ideal world. People have their own agendas, obsessions, feelings etc. that obscure their judgement. It will definitely take a long while. Well, when you put it like that, firing the guy was clearly the best decision..... edit: formatting

I'm not sure if it's the best for the guy, but definitely for the advancement of the general discussion about the limits of political correctness and freedom to express one's opinions, or even scientific research not in line with mainline views.

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#33

Post by cerealbad »

Boothroid wrote: post #17

Am I the only one that sees an inconsistency between the touchy feely world of inclusiveness and diversity within these US tech companies, and the Darwinian harshness of life outside them in the US? I'm thinking of what seems to an outsider like a generally held callousness towards those that fall through the cracks, and a focus on individual agency as being the sole determinant of success, ignoring very real factors…

american civilization lacks the maturity of foresight. their this permeates all levels of their culture and cements company ethos as a race between employees rather than a collaborative endeavor in profit sharing, stable growth, harmonious balance. you should look at it as a sandbox environment to test out human ingenuity, everything else be damned. americans are ephemeral, they don't exist as a collective. despite the quasi-fascist 100 year long effort to build militaristic patriotism into the hearts and minds of the young.

how many american politicians have been educated in the far east? asia is the biggest threat to american dominance in the next century and americas role in world government is only nascent. they will have a clear road towards leadership and development of the human race going forward. yet their business, cultural and political thinkers have no experience with half of the worlds population.

everyone says one thing and does something else. it's more transparent and sleazy in america. give them another few hundred years to refine their technique.

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#34

Post by craigsmansion »

zimablue wrote: post #28
craigsmansion wrote: post #27

It's great that someone took the time and had the peace of mind to write down this firm rebuttal. Sexist or not, the original manifesto was anti science. How so many whose paycheck depends on the implementation of logic got hoodwinked into defending what basically amounts to an political pamphlet by a couple of references baffles me.

More scientists have written in defense than opposition, and even the most hardened opposition concedes the validity of some of his sources.

> More scientists have written in defense than opposition

Yes, and all of them underlining the argument that women are indeed different from men, which isn't contested in the slightest.

What remained uncontested is the sloppy science. In science you present a claim, construct an argument, and reach a conclusion.

You can't construct an argument that doesn't support your conclusion and then proclaim it must be valid because it has something to do with the initial claim.

What happened here was:

-Fact: Women are different than men.

-Observation: There is a difference between men and woman in IT.

-Conclusion: this difference in IT must be based on the primary difference between men and women.

or

-Fact: all goats breathe

-Observation: Plato breathes

-Conclusion: Plato is a goat.

I hope everyone recognises this fallacy.

It's pointless to keep presenting evidence for the initial fact. What you need to do is introduce new facts that construct a solid argument that includes your observation and logically binds it into the conclusion.

As the quora article points out, that's not what happened.

On top of that (or underneath) there's also some political la-ti-da going on, which is fine for a memo, and if it had been restricted to that, I doubt it would have caused this much commotion.

TL;DR (also, don't use that term in any sort of treatise that you want to sound scientific) if you want to use science to shield you from negative reactions to postulating an unpopular idea, make sure it's sound.

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#35

Post by zimablue »

craigsmansion wrote: post #34
zimablue wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More scientists have written in defense than opposition, and even the most hardened opposition concedes the validity of some of his sources.

> More scientists have written in defense than opposition Yes, and all of them underlining the argument that women are indeed different from men, which isn't contested in the slightest. What remained uncontested is the sloppy science. In science you present a claim, construct an argument, and reach a conclusion. You can't construct an argument that doesn't support your conclusion and then proclaim it must be valid be…

So you're saying that he stated some science, which you're not disputing, and then made an argument from those grounds that moved from science into politics, and you don't agree with the argument he made.

That's not anti-science, attempting to root your discourse in science is absolutely pro-science. At best you can say that the parts which led on from the science were "non=science" - well yeah, by definition.

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#36

Post by IshKebab »

I got as far as this:

> > On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed ...

> His implicit model is that cognitive traits must be either biological (i.e. innate, natural, and unchangeable) or non-biological (i.e., learned by a blank slate).

Within a few lines of each other. I think she is reading what she wants to read.

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#37

Post by craigsmansion »

zimablue wrote: post #35
craigsmansion wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More scientists have written in defense than opposition Yes, and all of them underlining the argument that women are indeed different from men, which isn't contested in the slightest. What remained uncontested is the sloppy science. In science you present a claim, construct an argument, and reach a conclusion. You can't construct an argument that doesn't support your conclusion and then proclaim it must be valid be…

So you're saying that he stated some science, which you're not disputing, and then made an argument from those grounds that moved from science into politics, and you don't agree with the argument he made. That's not anti-science, attempting to root your discourse in science is absolutely pro-science. At best you can say that the parts which led on from the science were "non=science" - well yeah, by definition.

> then made an argument from those grounds

Except that's exactly what he didn't make. It severely lacked implications that tied his facts and arguments to his conclusion(s).

> you don't agree with the argument

"Since in the original memo a conservative argued towards a conservative point of view, and you oppose that, you must be a non-conservative arguing towards a non-conservative point of view."

That doesn't follow.

> attempting to root your discourse in science is absolutely pro-science.

New Earth creationism, anti-evolution, etc. Let's try and be realistic here. Interpreting conclusions of actual science to derive truths that were never implied by said conclusions to further base your own argument on is intellectually dishonest and not "pro-science".

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#38

Post by vixen99 »

pawadu wrote: post #30
dublinclontarf wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author has misread, misunderstood, and misrepresented manifesto guys doc, attributed motives AND tried to tie this into the alt-right.

I think at this point we can all agree that Damore tied himself to alt-right by doing those interviews. edit: I find it interesting that most comments criticizing the guy is heavily downvoted while his supporters claim they are being gagged

Given that 'The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people' it's great for suggestive hinting while not having to bother to define terms.

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#39

Post by LyndsySimon »

pawadu wrote: post #30
dublinclontarf wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author has misread, misunderstood, and misrepresented manifesto guys doc, attributed motives AND tried to tie this into the alt-right.

I think at this point we can all agree that Damore tied himself to alt-right by doing those interviews. edit: I find it interesting that most comments criticizing the guy is heavily downvoted while his supporters claim they are being gagged

> I think at this point we can all agree that Damore tied himself to alt-right by doing those interviews.

I don't think we can.

There is no consensus regarding what the "alt-right" is, even among those who self-identify as members.

Re: What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee?

#40

Post by kybernetikos »

Klockan wrote: post #5

> argues that cognitive sex differences influence performance in software engineering. Damore never argued for this, he argued that cognitive sex differences could possibly influence interest in software engineering work as it done today and that difference in interest could partially explain the gender gap in tech. He then suggest that we try alternate approaches when we try to increase women's representation since…

> Damore never argued for this

Is the articles quote unfair then? It explicitly calls out an apparent jump from preferences to abilities in the original. (My emphasis)

>>I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

>

> At what point did we jump from talking about personalities to abilities?

Post reply on HN