Hacker News Reader

Comment by meredydd | Hacker News Reader

Aside, and not meant at you specifically, but: Next time you hear "a constant murmur" of harassment, racism, or other bad behaviour, _believe it_.

That constant murmur is the sound of a thousand stories like this that don't (yet) have the coordination to hit the pages of the NYT at the same time and become "credible". A month ago, there were dozens of female founders sitting on stories like this who were still afraid to go public. And they were afraid because good, decent people like you, who "had never seen anything like it" would "dismiss it out of hand" if they told.

(Obligatory disclaimers: You don't need to believe every story 100% unconditionally, but "a constant murmur" = "multiple corroborating sources" and should not be ignored. Also, I want to praise rather than criticise the parent comment, because acknowledging why we were ignoring these stories is a vital first step to not ignoring the next one we hear.)

View on HN

While there's something to your comment, and I fully recognize I was in the wrong here, I would still have a really hard time believing in a constant murmur of bad behavior. Give credence enough to investigate and consider much more fully that I would have previously, absolutely, but I draw the line before "believe." Maybe that's just semantics.

Yep. What I'm saying we should learn from this, and Uber, and all the rest is that we should treat "a constant murmur" as much stronger evidence than we currently do. (Not necessarily a slam dunk - but, in Bayesian terms, it should shift your priors much more now than it would have before these stories came out.)

Edit: Although really, what stronger evidence will you ever get? I suppose you could get a personal account from someone you trust (but that's not something you're going to hear if you're in the habit of brushing off such stories - most commonly, "honey, are you sure you're not just misinterpreting him?"). Barring that, a constant stream of similar rumours is the only evidence of a problem like this you will ever hear - until there is a "Susan Fowler event". Update accordingly.

Agreed

It can't really be treated as "evidence". Maybe it's "probable cause" for looking into something -- but that's different in a couple of important ways:

* One needs real and credible evidence to carry through with depriving another person of any liberty or property.

* Probable cause never trumps or adds to evidence -- if you investigate and find nothing, that's it.

One of the most confusing and unfortunate memes of the past year is this "believe women" stuff, because it confuses strong suspicion with proof. If these cases show us anything, it's that there is plenty of real and credible evidence -- no need to go on intuition or suspicion.

In a court of law, personal testimony is evidence. It isn't necessarily compelling by itself, but the idea that it isn't evidence because you don't like it is not actually how the legal system (or culture) works.

A "constant murmur" isn't testimony. Testimony includes specifics like the people involved, the time and place of the incident, and what precisely happened. A murmur doesn't need any of that. Not the least, because no one goes on the record for a murmur.

    ...the idea that it isn't evidence because you don't
    like it is not actually how the legal system (or
    culture) works.

What does this have to do with whether I like it or not?

Regarding the edit:

It certainly depends on your position relative to the person; but many people who are in a position to do something are also in a position to investigate -- they can take correspondingly stronger action, on the basis of an investigation.

For example, Teo had plenty of resources available to him, if he wanted to follow up on the rumors he had heard. He just chose not to do so.

The same is true at Uber: within the company there was a wealth of information available, and it was certainly feasible for Kalanick and many other people to look into the available complaints, emails, performance reviews and transcripts to determine if something was amiss.

It is true that people outside of Uber, and people not as well connected as Teo, would not have these resources available -- but then again, those people are not actually going to go into Uber and start firing people (for example), though they might refuse to associate with people they had heard rumors about.

When you say "we should treat 'a constant murmur' as much stronger evidence than we currently do.", I would ask you, evidence with regards to what? What would you do based on this kind of evidence?

> Next time you hear "a constant murmur" of harassment, racism, or other bad behaviour, _believe it_.

Um, no?

There's a constant murmur of racism in SV companies. I haven't seen that at all. In fact, the opposite. Doesn't mean there's no racism, but I'd rather have actual examples before I buy into that line.

There's a constant murmur of ageism in tech companies. I haven't seen that either. Plenty of people over 40, over 50 in tech. Fewer over 60, but this is a newish field still.

I've managed to go some 20 years in tech without seeing hardly any guys openly hit on girls at work -- except a couple of cases where they're now married. So why should I just "_believe it_", before reading stories like these recent articles?

Because these stories are an object demonstration that this sort of thing can be happening in a blatant, undeniable way - seriously, read those texts - and the men around can never see it. So, "never seeing it" isn't really strong evidence that isn't happening.

(Compare catcalls. Female friends I trust tell me this happens to them all the time. Around me? ~Never. But that's cause it happens when I'm not there. Extrapolate.)

I don't see any texts that people around me send each other privately, so as far as 1:1 private communication goes, yes I'll "never see it."

I'm not doubting the stories posted in these articles. But I'm not going to believe something just because there's a "constant murmur." There was also a constant murmur that Obama hated America, etc.

Your catcalls example is not a "murmur," it was people you know, telling you what happened to them. That's different.

Believe it or not, there is stuff happening that you are not aware of. If your first reaction to hearing such things is "Well I've never seen it, therefore it probably doesn't exist", maybe some self-reflection is in order.

Thanks for the tip. I didn't realize other stuff happens around me.

But still, there's lots of "constant murmurs" that don't pan out, and in many cases they're driven by agendas. It's easy to make or perpetuate claims when there's no attribution, no specific examples, etc. Just vague innuendos.

So if some vague innuendo is contrary to my personal experience, yeah I won't believe it as fact.

Kudos to these women for bringing VC sexism out of the realm of murmurs.

Sure, I'm not saying you should 100% believe everything you hear. Just that dismissing such things outright based on a lack of personal experience is also not the right way.

Dismissing would be wrong. Absolutely!

The poster above me said (and emphasized) that when there's constant murmurs, you should _believe it_. Very wrong. Keep an open mind, but don't "believe" it outright just yet.

You're not from the US (originally), are you :) Polarising is a cultural thing there. "You're either with us or against us".

(I guess it's a cultural thing from their two-party system or something)

because things happen outside your immediate circle? Like maybe you work at a better company than most?

For example, if on your team of 20 engineers you have 3 women, then your team is already above the national average.

It's for the same reason you can think there's systemic racism in the American policing system without thinking that your cousin is racist because they're a cop.

yeah i'd heard constant murmurs about uber for over a year but never knew they were true either until the recent events which came to light

Reply on news.ycombinator.com