Hacker News Reader

Comment by SamReidHughes | Hacker News Reader

Not like it's exclusive to the valley. Like, you'll find it in NYC. I know a girl who could get arrested and smile about it, but will have a meltdown if you say that men and women aren't identically distributed populations of blank slates.

For this reason I don't think all the people who stayed home were fake-offended or scare-quote offended. Some just haven't hit certain developmental milestones, of the sort where you can think about population distributions, probabilities, or think about the universe without an evil genius rewriting everything to fit your fractally wrong worldview.

View on HN

> I know a girl who could get arrested and smile about it, but will have a meltdown if you say that men and women aren't identically distributed populations of blank slates.

Huh? What was she arrested for? And this girl (high school? junior high?) is representative of NYC?

edit: And is she someone who could possibly hired by Google? If not, why would your observed reactions of her be a useful reference in judging whether people at Google were "fake-offended"?

Protesting. She's around 30. She could totally be hired by Google, not for engineering, but could have been a great engineer too if that's what she was interested in doing, she's got better IQ and math ability than most engineers I've worked with. I'll rate her 100% representative.

At the age of 30 she is not literally a girl. So I'm assuming you mean she's as immature and/or intellectually limited as if she were a female child. And that's because she smiles while being arrested for disrupting the peace/resisting arrest+disobeying police (people aren't arrested on allegations of, or arraigned or charges of "protesting")?

Does that make this smiling arrested man a "boy"? http://t.co/9QAI4voo1M

I don't think everyone would agree that someone's opinion of or behavior towards law enforcement implies something useful about their rationality (or lack of) when it comes to gender issues.

But giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming this person truly is an immature fool, why would you think that someone you know in a personal capacity grants you insight to mindsets the Google Mountain View employees whom you don't know at all, or to their reasoning for hating Damore's memo? Just because I know some Asians who are fucking terrible at PHP doesn't bestow me with special insight about Facebook (powered in part by its high proportion of Asian programmers) service outages and security fuckups.

I said the girl could smile about it to indicate that she's one tough bitch. Not some wuss that pisses her pants over breakfast. This increases the plausibility that Googlers who took a day at home really did feel offended, to a substantial degree that made them stay home, and were not " quote offended unquote" as the parent post suggested.

So you know a woman who is tough as nails, but has a "meltdown" when her worldview about gender/feminism is challenged. And from that you infer that some women at Google, despite being Google-caliber (in terms of engineering, or toughness, or whatever) are also prone to have genuine emotional meltdowns because they, like your friend, "just haven't hit certain developmental milestones", which include being able to "think about the universe without an evil genius rewriting everything to fit your fractally wrong worldview"

So where are you on the trail of developmental milestones and worldviews? Because believing that women, whom you know nothing about nor have ever met, can be explained based on your observations of an irrational woman you know in NYC, that seems like a worldview more influenced by solipsism and arrogance than empiricism and logic.

So people who disagree with you "haven't hit certain developmental milestones"?

It's not a matter of disagreement. It's the ability to process statements about population distributions, be they true or false, without being insulted by them.

If you (a woman, let's say) hear Chris say, "fewer women are able to be good engineers than men," and treat that the same as, "You are not a good engineer," then you're wrong about what was said and what was meant. You'd be lacking the ability to perform a basic act of reading comprehension in certain contexts.

Relatedly, many people can't think about population distributions in a sensible way in any context.

Another is the inability to handle a statement like "There might be a smaller proportion of men suitable for engineering because of biology." Clearly there's some chance it's true, but plenty of people will say there's no chance that the proportions aren't identical by gender. Which is an absolutely crazy thing to think, because there's like, some chance you're wrong.

> If you (a woman, let's say) hear Chris say, "fewer women are able to be good engineers than men," and treat that the same as, "You are not a good engineer,"

But Damore didn't say either of those things.

It's not supposed to be, it's an example of a basic innocuous statement about population distributions that will set some people off for some reason. After all, quantitatively that statement just wouldn't explain the gender ratio being as big as it is.

Indeed, and yet I have seen lots of comments on HN that interpreted him as saying something indistinguishable from those things.

On the other hand, I've seen folks from the pro-Damore crowd who think that when someone accuses Damore of something he didn't literally say, then that person did not read his memo or was being maliciously misleading.

That mindset is not particularly more intellectual or rational than not having read the full memo. If a politician says:

I'm not a liberal, and all of my best friends are conservatives, but I'm going to vote in support of abortion rights and universal healthcare

-- are constituents being obtuse if they perceive that their representative is in fact a liberal?

To play devil's advocate for a bit, if someone says

I'm not a man, and all of my best friends are women, but I'm going to have a prostate checkup tomorrow after football training.

then calling them a man instead of a transwoman who happens to enjoy football is definitely inconsiderate.

I agree that you don't always have to believe someone's self-characterization, but it is usually polite to still go along with it.

I'm not sure what your assumptions are. That Pat, who is born a man but who asserts themselves to be a transgender woman, is not objectively a transgender woman, but is just a sadly confused/deluded man? That I'm not obligated to believe that Pat is a transgender woman, nor acknowledge that identity to Pat other than out of polite consideration?

OK, we don't need to get into a debate about transgender issues and laws. Your analogy feels deeply flawed in several other ways, though. If someone's best friends are all women, that has...what exactly to do with whether that person is a man or a woman? If you see someone playing football who looks and claims to be a woman, you'd still think that her playing football is evidence that she might possibly be a man? Seriously?

In any case, someone's gender identity is not something likely that directly impacts me. If someone claims to be a man, I have the option of being "polite" and to "go along with it", whatever the hell that means. Or I don't even have to bring the issue up at all.

But if I'm a conservative voter whose Republican House member keeps voting for universal health care and limitations on gun ownership, the situation isn't one where politeness is part of my decision making process. My Congressmember's behavior and beliefs, unlike Pat's gender identity, affects my rights and livelihood as an American citizen. I don't have to believe he is truly represents my Republican preferences on the basis of his stated party affiliation, or him swearing on his Bible that he truly is a Republican even as he votes against gun rights/abortion regulations/lower taxes/etc, etc.

Likewise, Google's management does not have to believe that Damore sincerely values diversity, if they believe what he actually says in his memo reflects someone hostile to Google's diversity efforts and goals. It is not "inconsiderate" for Google's execs to read between the lines of Damore's various claims and rhetorical arguments. Damore is a Google employee who believes he is doing the right thing by taking a moral stand against Google's management, he didn't ask to be politely coddled.

I agree that my analogy was flawed, but it doesn't matter, since you responded with a bunch of arguments that you hopefully think are convincing. I will now proceed to invert them right back at you. Maybe you don't think they actually apply in that way (some definitely don't). That would be totally fine, I just want to know what you think about that.

I'm not sure what your assumptions are. That James Damore, who is politically conservative but who asserts themselves to be pro-diversity, is not objectively pro-diversity, but is just a sadly confused/deluded conservative? That I'm not obligated to believe that James Damore is pro-diversity, nor acknowledge that identity to him other than out of polite consideration?

OK, we don't need to get into a debate about political discrimination issues and laws. Your analogy feels deeply flawed in several other ways, though. If someone's best friends are all conservatives, that has...what exactly to do with whether that person is a liberal or a conservative? If you see someone voting for universal healthcare who claims to be a conservative, you'd still think that them voting for universal healthcare is evidence that they might possibly be a liberal? Seriously?

In any case, someone's political affiliation is not something likely that directly impacts me. If someone claims to be a liberal, I have the option of being "polite" and to "go along with it", whatever the hell that means. Or I don't even have to bring the issue up at all.

But if I'm a woman whose fitness club member keeps suggesting having a football game and uses the showers with obviously male anatomy, the situation isn't one where politeness is part of my decision making process. My fitness club member's behavior and beliefs, unlike Damore's political affiliation, affects my comfort and virtue as a loving wife. I don't have to believe she is truly a woman on the basis of her stated gender, or her pointing out her choice of dress even as she engages in all kinds of inappropriate behavior.

Likewise, the National Organization for Women's management does not have to believe that Pat is sincerely a woman, if they believe what she actually does reflects someone hostile to NOW's female empowerment efforts and goals. It is not "inconsiderate" for NOW's execs to read between the lines of Pat's various activities. Pat is a NOW employee who believes she is doing the right thing by taking a moral stand against NOW's management, she didn't ask to be politely coddled.

Huh? Sorry, one of the problems with your analogy was that it seemed to presume the legitimacy of transgender identity. I personally recognize it, so if Pat, born a man, tells me that they're a transgender woman, I would say, "Good to know Pat". If Bob thinks transgenderism is total bullshit, I'd disagree with that, but if that Bob told Pat, "I still think you're a man" -- I'd understand Bob's line of reasoning.

Not sure what we're arguing about anymore. You said [0] you've seen "lots of comments on HN that interpreted [Damore] as saying something indistinguishable from those things [e.g. fewer women are able to be good engineers than men)."

I replied with what was not meant to be a direct disagreement (I don't doubt you've seen those comments), but to suggest that someone can read Damore's memo and by reading between the lines , argue that Damore was asserting/implying things even as he didn't literally say them. This includes thinking that Damore is anti-diversity even if he claims to be pro-diversity, because some people who act very racist have been known to claim that they are not racist and that they have many friends of different racial groups. That's all.

I get that Damore supporters don't have to agree with how anti-Damore folks have chosen to interpret and paraphrase Damore's memo. I argue only that it's hypocritical to dismiss such arguments-via-interpretation (especially since Damore used it when referring to articles and studies).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14986958

Because anyone who shuts down and screams in response to a well thought out document, no matter how ridiculous, is not a well formed adult.

You know, I really don't think that's fair. You've got [The Document] -> [What people read or misread from the document, what they infer in other's motives, others' mental framework, etc] -> [Reaction].

I know if I thought everybody thought I was stupid because of my race, or gender, or some other crap like that, because "Science," and they were forming expectations by it and were wrong but there was nothing I could do about it... it would really suck, and I might want to stay home. (It would be stupid to stay home, because there's a perfectly good golf course across the street from HQ, but I digress...) The magnitude of their reaction is very understandable.

Also, while my response focused on one example I personally experienced, to discredit claims about fake-taking-offense, it's not necessarily the case that others are staying home solely because people hold beliefs. There's also, presumably, a general atmosphere of drama to avoid, stress and the like. So it's not merely a document.

At the very least it's a childish reaction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com