Why Men Don't Believe the Data in the Gender Gap in Science
1–8 of 8 posts
Re: Why Men Don't Believe the Data in the Gender Gap in Science
#2I've seen this posted at least twice already this week. Both times it got upvited enough that it should have made the front page but was instead flagged to oblivion. Don't know why people are finding this article so offensive.
Re: Why Men Don't Believe the Data in the Gender Gap in Science
#3I've seen this posted at least twice already this week. Both times it got upvited enough that it should have made the front page but was instead flagged to oblivion. Don't know why people are finding this article so offensive.
Sadly this is such a fraught subject that it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion of it. Two camps are definitely present, and seem to be concerned primarily with stamping one another out.
I would cite examples, but it would get me banned from hacker news and/or fired from my job. Ha ha.
Re: Why Men Don't Believe the Data in the Gender Gap in Science
#4I've seen this posted at least twice already this week. Both times it got upvited enough that it should have made the front page but was instead flagged to oblivion. Don't know why people are finding this article so offensive.
The study in question seems to be here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/43/13201.full
I wouldn't say that the Wired article explains what the study found all that well. (It involves asking participants to read one of two different versions of a scientific abstract and judging the study's quality.) Maybe discussing the paper would be more useful?
Re: Why Men Don't Believe the Data in the Gender Gap in Science
#5I've seen this posted at least twice already this week. Both times it got upvited enough that it should have made the front page but was instead flagged to oblivion. Don't know why people are finding this article so offensive.
They probably have no faith that it isn't voxplaining and everybody's sick of talking about it since the James Damore event of the summer - the well is truly poisoned.
By somebody else;
> I would cite examples, but it would get me banned from hacker news and/or fired from my job. Ha ha.
Mostly that, and without the ha ha.
Re: Why Men Don't Believe the Data in the Gender Gap in Science
#6I've seen this posted at least twice already this week. Both times it got upvited enough that it should have made the front page but was instead flagged to oblivion. Don't know why people are finding this article so offensive.
It seems pretty straight forward if you ask me.
You want an open discussion. James Demore wanted an open discussion...and was fired for his opinion. I personally find the biological argument hard to swallow, but I am strongly against firing people who have a different point of view.
Now - one wants to get fired = no open discussion.
Re: Why Men Don't Believe the Data in the Gender Gap in Science
#7I've seen this posted at least twice already this week. Both times it got upvited enough that it should have made the front page but was instead flagged to oblivion. Don't know why people are finding this article so offensive.
They probably have no faith that it isn't voxplaining and everybody's sick of talking about it since the James Damore event of the summer - the well is truly poisoned. By somebody else; > I would cite examples, but it would get me banned from hacker news and/or fired from my job. Ha ha. Mostly that, and without the ha ha.
What do you mean by "voxplaining"?
Re: Why Men Don't Believe the Data in the Gender Gap in Science
#8I've seen this posted at least twice already this week. Both times it got upvited enough that it should have made the front page but was instead flagged to oblivion. Don't know why people are finding this article so offensive.
It seems pretty straight forward if you ask me. You want an open discussion. James Demore wanted an open discussion...and was fired for his opinion. I personally find the biological argument hard to swallow, but I am strongly against firing people who have a different point of view. Now - one wants to get fired = no open discussion.
HN is paeudonymous and even allows one-off throwaway accounts for those who think their main account is too easily traced to their real world identity. What's so dangerous about discussing the topic here?