Hacker News Reader

Comment by t2015_08_25 | Hacker News Reader

t2015_08_25

Fascinating results, I would only caution people before taking this article's results to apply to "all" women. IME, approximately 10% of women desire employment success way more than the others.

View on HN

So what on Earth is objectionable in my comment? I speak from a moderate viewpoint, to take the study seriously, but not apply it blindly, apply my own small amount of experience, and get downvoted to -4?

Did this offend anyone? Please explain how. Otherwise I would perceive the downvotes to be the work of trolls.

Might be this:

> IME, approximately 10% . . .

How is this substantive?

Ah you're right. Thanks. That was driving me crazy. I should have learned by reading substantive comments found elsewhere. This one below, for example, struck me as exceptionally substantive and now I can see why it hasn't been voted below zero:

"I don't want to show up to work sweaty. And I want the utility of a vehicle if my plans change. So I'll drive regardless."

I didn't downvote you. You asked.

Don't be so worried about internet points.

BTW, that comment netted several magical internet points for whatever reason.

Women can be opinionated, especially feminists. I'm going to avoid ever bringing this up with one.

How rational of you. After all, nothing is more unpleasant than a woman rejecting one's opinion.

Oh is that what happened to Tim Hunt?

And here's a reference for hoopd's comment: https://reason.com/archives/2015/07/23/sexist-scientist-tim-...

edit// okay, here's another article that dives into the nuance and doesn't just try to plaster Tim Hunt. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-timothy-hunt...

reason.com follows the same naming convention as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Attacking the source rather than the content is usually the mark of a poor debating position. If the content is good, the source doesn't matter. If the content is bad, the source's badness will be self-evident.

A debate is a formal event with rules. These are Internet comments. I'm not debating a position. I'm expressing myself. If you think my observation is nonconstructive, that's fine, but it's not because if I were debating I would have made a blunder, it's because we have different expectations and desires in this conversation.

That's fine, I'm just pointing out that your expression is incompatible with basic logic. Saying "this source sucks because x" does not address in any way what they actually said.

It's actually completely compatible with logic:

Source X claims Y.

I know very little about Y.

I know a fair amount about X, and what I know indicates that X is an unreliable source.

Therefore, I will not significantly alter my beliefs about Y until a more reliable source than X comes around.

Fortunately in this year 2015 we have a thing called hyperlinks via which evidence for assertions can be easily provided. If you treat op-eds from 'unreliable' sources as unreliable, fine. If you refuse to even check well-cited articles from 'unreliable' sources, you're probably more interested in ideological correctness than truth.

There is a nonzero cost of verifying, analyzing, and engaging with any text. The more substantial the text, the larger the cost. I don't have to read another Reason article to know that it's got the same systematic blindspots Reason articles have, and I don't think I could convince anyone of that, so I just communicated my stance and went on. There's nothing 'illogical' about it. I did not state my argument; I just stated my position. I think the charge that this violates basic logic is making a poor assumption: that absence of my argument is the same thing as not having an argument.

I don't want to make the argument. I want to snark about Reason. So I did. Shrug.

Cool, then maybe you should go to reddit.com/r/politics?

There was a nonzero cost to making this post. Why did you bother?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com