Hacker News Reader

> 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?

View on HN

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