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

What I Didn't Say

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 601 posts

Re: What I Didn't Say

#531

Post by skylan_q »

dschiptsov wrote: post #461

Oh, this American sexism nonsense again. Why, btw, no one is complaining that women have no predispositions for "autistic traits" ("being a male is to have some slight form of autism", like they said) and that girls with Asperger's, like, supposedly, Ayn Rand, is one for a billion. Why no one is protesting against the facts that men are much worse in caring for babies, because they have not enough "non-verbal communi…

Why, ... Because absolute egalitarianism is dogma. Evidence of anything is just evidence of the capitalist patriarchs running everything.

Re: What I Didn't Say

#532

Post by visakanv »

ryguytilidie wrote: post #420
visakanv wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a problem with the term "pseudo-intellectual". What's an intellectual, and what's a psuedo-intellectual? Please define your terms.

If you have some sort of actual experience in Philosophy and enter an opinion on a subject relating to Philosophy, that is an intellectual argument. If you are an entrepreneur with no training in Philosophy and enter an opinion on a subject relating to Philosophy that is a pseudo-intellectual argument. Pretty simple really. Note: I don't think that he actually is a pseudo-intellectual, just giving you the example you…

Hm. So you're saying that the distinction betwen "intellectual arguments" and "psuedo-intellectual arguments" is the experience and/or training of the arguer? Isn't it possible for an experienced, trained philosopher to make psuedo-intellectal arguments? Isn't it possible for an inexperienced, untrained person to make a valid argument?

I would think that the validity of the argument is what matters!

Re: What I Didn't Say

#533

Post by reledi »

grinich wrote: post #506
jcc80 wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YC has 3 female partners. http://ycombinator.com/people.html

Sure, but none of them are "hackers" in the current context. Carolynn is a lawyer, with a bachelors is in political science. Jessica previously worked at an investment bank, and has a BA in English. Kirsty is an accountant, and although she holds an MEng in electrical and information sciences, it's not clear that she ever worked as an engineer. This discussion is about young girls hacking with computers, which (I'm a…

I think it's unfair to describe those women as non-hackers without knowing them well.

FWIW, pg can be described in a similar (limited) manner to argue that he's not a hacker: a venture capitalist with a degree in philosophy.

And I don't think pg meant that you have to be hacking since age 13 to be a "hacker" (it was an extreme example), but that you have to be passionate about it.

From his essay:

> What I was talking about here is the idea that to do something well you have to be interested in it for its own sake, not just because you had to pick something as a major.

Re: What I Didn't Say

#534

Post by aetimmes »

argumentum wrote: post #527
ericabiz wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those statements don't conflict. Not surprisingly, the female founders I talked to who felt that YC is a "frat house" did not apply or go to YC.

What does YC being a "frat house" have to do with applying though? I can understand why that perception may discourage someone from participating in YC, but the acceptance rate is so low that it seems like premature optimization to think beyond the application.

It affects the opportunity cost.

Re: What I Didn't Say

#535

Post by onebaddude »

Perihelion wrote: post #133
kremlin wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is undeniably the case that men are more...cautious about what they say and how they behave around women, particularly in the workplace. As a man, I'd have to say that such caution has precedent - you may be an exception, but (this incident being a great example) in my experience women are much more easily offended. And I could see how that could make things less enjoyable for women who aren't so up tight; women w…

You're exactly the sort of person I'm talking about. People like you are afraid to be comfortable in a work environment for fear that they'll be fired for saying or doing the wrong thing. Provided you aren't a sexist/rapist, I see no reason why you need to be walking on eggshells all the time at a place where you spend a large percentage of your day. It makes me sad that my presence would make you uncomfortable when…

>"Provided you aren't a sexist/rapist"

Well, rapist is easy. But me and you may have very different ideas as what constitutes a "sexist". That's the crux of the problem; that's what causes men to walk on eggshells.

>it would be awesome if you gave women the benefit of the doubt because we're not all this way

Most people are not willing to risk their job to find out.

Re: What I Didn't Say

#536

Post by Perihelion »

onebaddude wrote: post #535
Perihelion wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're exactly the sort of person I'm talking about. People like you are afraid to be comfortable in a work environment for fear that they'll be fired for saying or doing the wrong thing. Provided you aren't a sexist/rapist, I see no reason why you need to be walking on eggshells all the time at a place where you spend a large percentage of your day. It makes me sad that my presence would make you uncomfortable when…

> "Provided you aren't a sexist/rapist" Well, rapist is easy. But me and you may have very different ideas as what constitutes a "sexist". That's the crux of the problem; that's what causes men to walk on eggshells. > it would be awesome if you gave women the benefit of the doubt because we're not all this way Most people are not willing to risk their job to find out.

"Most people are not willing to risk their job to find out."

And that's the part that makes me sad about all of this. People are all about "Consider the woman's feelings here!" but no one wants to consider how men feel about it because they're "privileged."

Re: What I Didn't Say

#537

Post by MartinCron »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #445
wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't be hiding biases, it would be making them inconsequential. That's pretty much the best you can hope for, once you admit the possibility that there's no such state as bias-free.

So what, you're going to get all the way to the job offer without knowing their name?

Let's imagine an totally awesome resume from this candidate:

- Kaytlyn (female, youngish, spelled unconventionally)

- who graduated from WSU (the rival of my alma matter)

- who has a 253 area code (my least favorite suburb)

- who uses Papyrus for headings (my least favorite font)

- with the email address belieber69@aol.com (triple yuck)

I would want to get that person in for an interview and explicitly check the subtle biases of me and other people who are making hiring decisions.

True story: when I was in college I had a classmate in my database class who was so good-looking it kind of hurt to look at her. I never once explicitly thought that she was a dumb blonde, but I was surprised when I found out that she was just brilliant. Similarly, I worked on a group project with a few prototypical "frat boys" with their Abercrombie sweaters and backwards baseball caps, and found myself surprised that they were smart as hell, too.

I just want to give people an honest chance to be brilliant and not have their resumes passed over for bullshit reasons, even subconsciously.

Re: What I Didn't Say

#539

Post by yarou »

It's a shame how easily people get offended these days. Calling PG sexist is totally unwarranted, especially when what he said was taken out of context. I suppose these days certain kinds of people get off on controversy, especially when there's none to begin with.

Re: What I Didn't Say

#540

Post by jebblue »

It seemed like a thoughtful and appropriate response to what almost looks like an intentional misrepresentation of his comments; or at least of the purpose of the discussion.
Post reply on HN