Hacker News Reader

Comment by lazyjones | Hacker News Reader

> because his manifesto was a haphazard collection of good points, bad points, good arguments, lousy arguments, misrepresentations of others' views, and unstated implications.

Is this really an honest assessment? I haven't yet seen a single reply to the manifesto that addresses its points and counters the supposedly "lousy arguments" in a neutral tone and objective manner. Please point me to one if you have...

View on HN

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man... - this qualifies for me

This post has been shared widely but I found it offering zero substance but lots of moral preaching. The only thing what this piece had going for it was that it was published early and spoke to the ideological crowd that was unwilling to even factually and constructively engage with the content from the memo.

I found this post to be the only one I saw that actually managed to rebut some of the memo author's conclusions. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/differences-between-men-women...

Have you read this post? It corrects some of the mistakes made by the one you linked: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...

Yes I read this after I posted. It's tough, the whole thing.

Quote from the article:

if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect,¹ and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades, they should go for it. But I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I’ll leave that to someone else.

This article specifically avoids countering the original article point-by-point. I would love to see an article or comment that does that.

Considering it starts with a straw man, continues in a highly emotional tone, doesn't address a single point of the original "manifesto", and is little more than a piece written to prop the author up ("I don't even work at Google anymore but I had to clean up after you, son.."), I fail to see that article as more than an embarrassment for the (very senior) guy who wrote it.

He claims the author is ignorant of gender, yet the person has turned out to be a PhD in a Biology related field from Harvard.

He doesn't have a PhD. https://twitter.com/nitashatiku/status/894939560391565317. He was in the PhD program at Harvard for two years, and published nothing during that time.

Was going to correct (posts don't have edit function), my other posts mention he has a Masters.

How about you write one, then? If you want an assessment that meets your definition of a neutral tone and objective manner, who better to provide it?

Sure, the second paragraph of this is a good example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953024

> It's worth remembering that one of his conclusions was to end or replace gender-based diversity programs at Google. Given that, it's easy to understand why people would be upset. If gender-based diversity programs are responsible for qualified women getting jobs that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten due to bias, then the lack of that program means those women wouldn't have gotten those jobs.

This is not exactly a strong counter-argument.

> If gender-based diversity programs are responsible...

> If...

Nothing empirical in that sentence just assumption. And even if we assume that statement is true, on the other side of same coin are qualified men that didn't get job solely because of their genitalia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com