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

The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 161 posts

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#81

Post by mpweiher »

wcummings wrote: post #71
Chardok wrote: post #6

Regardless on your opinions of the memo, this article nails it right on the head; Gizmodo and other major news outlets handled this very irresponsibly, posting their version that had no citations, and leading the reader, even at the very beginning, into forming the opinion that this was simply a guy being "anti-diversity". Whatever your thoughts on the subject are, it needs to be pointed out that this type of journal…

This article doesn't say anything about citations, unless I'm missing something. I've read the memo, "citations" (some of them hardly qualify) and all. "Anti-diversity" might be a little hyperbolic, but it's hard to argue it is anything else in good faith . The author feels comfortable making the claim women are biologically more neurotic , in a professional setting , no less. His "citation" for this fact is Wikipedi…

> The author feels comfortable making the claim women are biologically more neurotic,

Nope. "Neuroticism" is a technical term, a big-five personality trait. Everyone has it to some degree and having less is not necessarily better, just like all the other traits.

What you are getting all riled about is "neurotic", which is related to a psychiatric condition (although the term is apparently no longer used – who knew?)

> declaring women unfit to work

Yeah, he didn't do that.

Please calm down and read the actual text. If things seem weird or rile-worthy, maybe ask first. Or look.

I did a little writeup, http://blog.metaobject.com/2017/08/the-science-behind-manife... there are probably others that are better.

EDIT: language

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#82

Post by wcummings »

mpweiher wrote: post #81
wcummings wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article doesn't say anything about citations, unless I'm missing something. I've read the memo, "citations" (some of them hardly qualify) and all. "Anti-diversity" might be a little hyperbolic, but it's hard to argue it is anything else in good faith . The author feels comfortable making the claim women are biologically more neurotic , in a professional setting , no less. His "citation" for this fact is Wikipedi…

> The author feels comfortable making the claim women are biologically more neurotic, Nope. "Neuroticism" is a technical term, a big-five personality trait. Everyone has it to some degree and having less is not necessarily better, just like all the other traits. What you are getting all riled about is "neurotic", which is related to a psychiatric condition (although the term is apparently no longer used – who knew?)…

I know what neuroticism is.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#83

Post by mpweiher »

wcummings wrote: post #82
mpweiher wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author feels comfortable making the claim women are biologically more neurotic, Nope. "Neuroticism" is a technical term, a big-five personality trait. Everyone has it to some degree and having less is not necessarily better, just like all the other traits. What you are getting all riled about is "neurotic", which is related to a psychiatric condition (although the term is apparently no longer used – who knew?)…

I know what neuroticism is.

Fantastic!

So why did you then use "neurotic" and get all riled up about it when the document says "neuroticism", which is (a) nothing to get riled up about and (b) a simple scientific fact (as best we know)?

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#84

Post by wcummings »

MountainManMe wrote: post #78
wcummings wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article doesn't say anything about citations, unless I'm missing something. I've read the memo, "citations" (some of them hardly qualify) and all. "Anti-diversity" might be a little hyperbolic, but it's hard to argue it is anything else in good faith . The author feels comfortable making the claim women are biologically more neurotic , in a professional setting , no less. His "citation" for this fact is Wikipedi…

> The author feels comfortable making the claim women are biologically more neurotic, in a professional setting, no less. His "citation" for this fact is Wikipedia. This is unimaginative sexist bullshit that everyone has heard before. That people feel the impulse to defend this is disgusting. Wikipedia might not be the most credible source, but the differences in big 5 personality traits between men and women are wel…

And you believe those differences to be meaningful? To programming? And appropriate to discuss with coworkers?

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#85

Post by wu-ikkyu »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #43

I'm going to join in on the chorus of people here who are voicing their displeasure with the way the modern media works. I'm a left winger but I feel much the same way about the media and the chattering class as the most noxious parts f the right wing. It's not so much that the media is biased in one direction or the other; it's that MSM has mostly abrogated it's responsibility to inform the public. the media, and th…

>MSM has mostly abrogated it's responsibility to inform the public.

That's a myth.

The only real responsibility they have is to maximize profits for their shareholders.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#86

Post by wcummings »

mpweiher wrote: post #83
wcummings wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what neuroticism is.

Fantastic! So why did you then use "neurotic" and get all riled up about it when the document says "neuroticism", which is (a) nothing to get riled up about and (b) a simple scientific fact (as best we know)?

You're hopeless.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#87

Post by erikpukinskis »

agarden wrote: post #69
erikpukinskis wrote: post #61

I generally liked the memo, and I'm pretty aggressively pro-affirmative action. Some of the memo is factually wrong, but I think he tried to be measured, and I'm proud of him. The sentence that popped out at me is this one: "I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principled reasons for why it…

I think the idea you are advocating, that they should change the nature of the job to make it more accommodating to a more diverse talent pool, is the kind of thing the memo was advocating. See the section titled "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap".[1] In that section, he suggests making the work more cooperative instead of competitive and making part-time work first-class, among other things. He also…

Yes, I think our methodology is the same, but the memo seems to expect that Google will still be <50% women in that scenario, whereas I believe it will be brought to 50%. Which is why I don't see the quota system as a fundamental risk to Google, whereas he does.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#88

Post by alistproducer2 »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #85
alistproducer2 wrote: post #43

I'm going to join in on the chorus of people here who are voicing their displeasure with the way the modern media works. I'm a left winger but I feel much the same way about the media and the chattering class as the most noxious parts f the right wing. It's not so much that the media is biased in one direction or the other; it's that MSM has mostly abrogated it's responsibility to inform the public. the media, and th…

>MSM has mostly abrogated it's responsibility to inform the public. That's a myth. The only real responsibility they have is to maximize profits for their shareholders.

I dispute that. Most major newspapers in the states have existed long before it was common for media outlets to be publicly traded companies. The term "fourth estate" dates back almost to the time of the French Revolution so while it's always been expected that newspapers need be profitable to exist, the interests of its readers and those that stand to profit from the paper have not always been so far apart as they are now.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#89

Post by ZeroGravitas »

Chardok wrote: post #6

Regardless on your opinions of the memo, this article nails it right on the head; Gizmodo and other major news outlets handled this very irresponsibly, posting their version that had no citations, and leading the reader, even at the very beginning, into forming the opinion that this was simply a guy being "anti-diversity". Whatever your thoughts on the subject are, it needs to be pointed out that this type of journal…

The problem with this, is that the alt-right have made a habit of this "look how rational I am as i call you subhuman, why are you so upset by rational truth" thing.

Milo Yianoppolos, who most of the time markets himself as an anarchistic troll, will put on his serious face and claim that he is worried about trans people because it's a mental illness and he just wants them to be treated, rather than play along with their disease. And cite studies etc.

Then he'll have a rally and personally attack a trans student. Which isn't really how a serious scientist approaches the mentally ill.

He also attacks overweight people "for their own good" as they need to get healthy. Then he takes a picture of someone he sees at his gym to mock their weight as they work out.

The Bell Curve is a great proto-alt-right example, where the author will say with a cheeky grin that he never actually said that black people were genetically inferior, even though everyone who read it clearly got that message,whether they agree with it or not. And when he wrote a book saying black people have never contributed anything of any worth to music, why that's just objective science.

The Orwellian double talk of Trump is another classic example. More jobs via trade wars. Yes the author is right, a critique of pointless trade wars shouldn't be called anti-jobs, because journalist should be (and to some degree are) calling Trump's proposals anti-jobs themselves. Why on earth would you think this a valid example to give? It's an obvious con job.

So at some point, you realise that people are just playing a game with you.

But no, surely this man who thinks gay rights are a Marxist plot to take down capitalist America, surely he is only interested in seeking the unvarnished scientific truth?! Fool me once..

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#90

Post by pdkl95 »

matchu wrote: post #74

It's important to distinguish between what the memo's author says, and what effect his words actually have. It is an anti-diversity memo, even if it isn't intended as one. The author makes shaky statements about gender, reinforcing sexist stereotypes. The author applies rationalist disclaimers, which enables already-sexist readers to feel that their sexism is rational. And, most distressingly, the author asserts that…

> I don't claim to know the author's intent

What so many comments about this memo don't seem to understand is that it it isn't possible to derive the author's intent from the text of their work. The intent of the author isn't included when the reader interprets their work, because the author isn't there[1] to explain their intent. The reader only sees the work.

As you said, intent doesn't matter. When authoring a work, it's important to consider how the work might be interpreted.

[1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor (apologies for using a tvtropes link. It was better than Google's other suggestions)

Post reply on HN