Comment by blusterXY | Hacker News Reader

Comment by blusterXY | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> tediously counter-argue every single argument

I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism"). Instead we get what you offer: off-hand casual assertions that there must exist research which runs against large-n and replicable science-driven studies using the only mainstream and empirically-supported model of personality that seems to work.

Basically, this makes criticisms like yours on-par with climate change denial in the sense that they either fail to grasp the point being made or offer personal observations on irrelevant points as rebuttal. It is bad news for Google either way, since the author is correct to point out among many other things that high levels of "agreeability" are demonstrably bad for anyone to have in corporate environments, and if this affects men in the same way it affects women then why are the solutions gender-excluding? Anyway, perhaps you should research the Big-5 model if you aren't familiar with it: very interesting new research coming out on it continually.

> I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism").

Because it isn't relevant. The major weakness of the paper isn't that there are studies suggesting some differences between men and women, but that it doesn't convincingly argue why these difference are relevant to what is being suggested.

What you just wrote is the equivalent of a climate change denier writing:

"The major weakness of the paper isn't that there are studies suggesting climate change exists, but it doesn't convincingly argue why these difference are relevant to environmental policy."

The author doesn't need to "prove" the science he references is real any more than I have to "prove" that climate change exists in order to discuss it. At a certain point, people are either educated or ignorant. And ignorance may be bliss, but there is zero reason for anyone grounded in rational skepticism to take the people attacking this guy on science any more seriously than they would take climate change deniers or anti-vaxxers, etc.

You totally missed the point. So here it is again: even if all the research he cites is real and well-supported, he makes a logical leap that is not substantiated by any evidence he cites. There's nothing in his evidence about women's personality traits that can lead you to the conclusion that they're necessarily underrepresented in STEM and in computer science.

There's also no support for his conclusion that Google therefore doesn't have an obligation to improve diversity measures (which, as a normative claim, can't be negated by citing scientific research).

And above all, there's zero support for his positive claim that Google has a real obligation to adopt a definition of diversity that benefits him and not women, nor that Google has an obligation to defend and make accommodations for his (abhorrent) opinions.

Thank you for your (abhorrent) attempt at belittling someone who is trying to educate you about what is actually mainstream science:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812... https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201...

As for the rest of your comment, it perfectly illustrates my comment above about critics having no clue what this guy is saying. At the very minimum, you are dead wrong to claim the author does not say that diversity is important and that Google should not address it. He simply says it should be addressed in non-discriminatory ways, something any sensible reader should have noticed had they read the ENTIRE SECTION he included titled "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap".

And with that, I'm jumping out of this discussion: it pollutes the HN discussion section to have to repeatedly state what the article under discussion actually says.

The parent’s comment, which you claim is “abhorrent” and ignoring science, states:

> There's nothing in his evidence about women's personality traits that can lead you to the conclusion that they're necessarily underrepresented in STEM and in computer science.

Please explain where in either of your sources it says that women should be underrepresented in STEM and computer science - at all (why not the other way around?), let alone to anywhere near the extent seen today.

Hint: nowhere. Getting to there from personality quizzes is the unsubstantiated logical leap the parent was talking about.

> ...he makes a logical leap that is not substantiated by any evidence he cites

Where does he do that? If I recall correctly, he mostly wanted to discuss the company culture. There were policies that were mentioned, but only to support his position that the company culture was supported by company policy.

It's much closer to arguing that homosexuality is wrong because biological reproduction supports only heterosexual relationships.

There is strong scientific evidence of at least a partial genetic/prenatal basis for homosexual expression. If this were a discussion on that topic, the writer would be pointing this out and criticizing discriminatory policies that adversely affect homosexuals.

You've missed the point. The point is that just because you've pointed out a biological fact doesn't mean that you can extend that to societal truths. Cancer also has a genetic basis. Does that mean we should stop researching how to cure it? The point is that arguing over how Homosexuality is like or unlike Cancer is completely pointless and irrelevant to the wider conversation.

Likewise, biological arguments are irrelevant to the overall conversation about diversity in tech. And I'm speaking as someone who thinks that there are a lot of flaws with the current attempts to solve these problems. I think diversity policies are often misguided and lead to suboptimal solutions. But I think this is a hard problem, and there are not going to be any easy solutions. The argument that women aren't biologically suited for working in tech is the lazy and stupid solution. All it does is draw lines between us and them and give newspapers a bunch of trash to print.

> The argument that women aren't biologically suited for working in tech is the lazy and stupid solution

This is not what the writer says.

> I think... there are not going to be any easy solutions.

The article suggests a number of non-discriminatory solutions Google could easily implement.

> What you just wrote is the equivalent of a climate change denier writing:

I think if you want your argument to be more convincing, it would be nice to spend less effort on trying to brand the opponents "climate change denier", which sounds like a thinly veiled attempt to capitalize on a tribal thought-terminating cliche - basically a highbrow structural equivalent of calling someone a Nazi - if you're in any way like a Nazi, you can't win an argument, whatever the argument is about, because that would mean being a Nazi is good, and we all agree it can't be true! Addressing the argument directly instead of trying to affix the killer label is what should distinguish a reasoned rational discussion from a televised political debate.

> but there is zero reason for anyone grounded in rational skepticism to take the people attacking this guy on science any more seriously than they would take climate change deniers or anti-vaxxers, etc.

There is also zero reason to consider comparing somebody do anti-vaxxers or any other outgroup a rational argument. You have many good points here, you don't have to boost them with irrational appeals to tribal cliches (even if you assume everybody is in the same tribe as you, it's still not rational argument). Pleading the rational arguments is better than pounding the table.

> There is also zero reason to consider comparing somebody do anti-vaxxers or any other outgroup a rational argument.

I took it as an argument by analogy. A more analytical approach like listing logical errors and fallacies wouldn't go over well either. I'm curious how someone else would phrase those points without neutering them.

If you see the specific fallacy, you can just point out the fallacy, you don't have to affix label like "you're just like $outgroup!". Mentioning $outgroup doesn't add anything to a rational argument. However, it frequently (though, of course, not always) betrays the weakness of the rational part and the desire to plug the hole by the emotional part.

No. If anything it is the equivalent of writing:

“The major weakness of the paper isn’t that there are studies showing a natural variability in Earth temperatures over time, but it doesn’t convincingly argue why that variability is the cause of recent sharp temperature increases.”

Well, the grammar of the sentence doesn’t really make sense (even in the original), but you get the point.

Intrinsic gender differences exist, like natural temperature changes exist. But in both cases, they do not explain all or even most of the observed variation; the rest is caused by society.

> I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism").

I've seen that research. What conclusions do you think you can draw from it?

The author of the paper is well-read, and the people criticizing his science understand neither the underlying science, nor what it implies for the problems they profess to care about.

He doesn't cite any science so it is hard to appreciate that any of it is based on quality research. Seems like a lot of stereotypes mixed in with hedging. For example: suggesting that women are too emotional to "reason about the facts" as well as men do.

He didn't say that - he said "Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts".

That might be wrong. I think using emotions as a guide reason can work, sometimes very well. It doesn't link anything to women - women can be disengaged and men can be emotional in the ordinary course of their day.

He cites plenty of science, it's just that Gizmodo conveniently edited out all of his references when they posted the text. Here's the full memo in its entirety: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com