Hacker News Reader

Comment by newswasboring | Hacker News Reader

People keep bringing out that this can be a joke, but he said this two days later

"I did mean the part about having trouble with girls. It is true that I have fallen in love with people in the lab, and that people in the lab have fallen in love with me, and it's very disruptive to the science. It's terribly important that, in the lab, people are on a level playing field. And I found these emotional entanglements made life very difficult. I mean, I'm really, really sorry that I caused any offence – that's awful. I certainly didn't mean – I just meant to be honest, actually." [1]

He was given a chance to clarify, he doubled down. While I'm not saying a joke should cause people to be fired, but this is clearly more than a joke.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33077107

View on HN

So what part of falling in love with people in the lab, people in the lab falling in love with you, and that affecting concentration and productivity, is so evil as to get someone fired?

Sorry, honest question. Being from a different culture, I honestly fail to get this kind of outrage. For me it's just a description of humans being human...

> a description of humans being human...

Precisely. There's some sort of "if you have authority you must be better than me" feeling and "better than me" admits no flaws or human variety at all, apparently. Some folks want perfect Gods to follow and keep failing to make them from people made of meat.

It is difficult to distinguish genuine romantic feelings between two people, from the case of a superior using their position to get their genitals wet and a subordinate capitulating for fear of losing their job.

Since feelings are only a biological impulse, and we humans frequently suppress our impulses in the form of self control, it's much easier to look for that oxytocin fix in a more appropriate arena.

The military has been doing this for ages, forbidding officers from fraternizing with enlisted. And plenty of civilians abusing positions of power have proven the wisdom of such a policy.

It's difficult to distinguish genuine romantic feelings from exploitative lust everywhere. It's a constant of human experience and has very little to do with power dynamics.

>It's difficult to distinguish genuine romantic feelings from exploitative lust everywhere.

Huh?

They're saying people are assholes. For instance, in some American cultures (see my previous comment for which culture), it's a given that perhaps 40-60% of married individuals are cheating on their spouse. That's not love--that's doing what feels good, and then doing someone else that feels good.

Where there's a power imbalance, it's easier to ban a class of abuses than to figure out the small percentage of cases where both parties are genuinely afflicted by mutual biological imperatives.

That's pretty easy to distinguish, I don't see any trouble at all in forming those categories.

Okay, I got a little off track. Let's say you're an HR person (or whoever is at legal risk if an employee decides they've been taken advantage of), and someone come in with just such a complaint.

How would you, an outside party, determine whether the superior was really [infatuated, in love, whatever], and not simply taking advantage of their situation? Or how would a judge determine that? Is it worth it to the company to work through that process every time it happens? What about the people who really were victimized, but the evidence is circumstantial and the court says otherwise? Isn't it easier to exclude the small pool of people that are subordinates and tell the supervisor to find romance anywhere else?

FUnny you leave out the part where he also said if you criticize a woman in the lab they cry...

He made a terribly misogynistic "joke" and paid the consequences for it.

You'd think someone with a Nobel prize wouldn't be so clueless

> FUnny you leave out the part where he also said if you criticize a woman in the lab they cry...

Do you think women in the lab, when criticized, are more likely, less likely, or equally likely to cry?

Is the scientist’s comment mean spirited, or sexist, or just an observation?

I think it’s important to consider what the intent behind these jokes are. The Wikipedia article calls out statements from 29 other scientists that note how women (and men) were advanced within his lab and outside his lab.

So if this person thinks that the women he’s worked with cry when criticized, so we not want him to say that? It seems more like the goal should be to not stigmatize crying as that seems pretty reasonable for all genders, rather than to stigmatize talking about crying.

The rule is really simple: it makes people uncomfortable when you make generalizations about natural traits shared by the group they're in. Period. All groups (even groups people feel proud to be a part of), and all generalizations, even ones that sound positive or don't apply to the listener. I'm not going to list examples but if you're having a hard time thinking of them just imagine overhearing a conversation at a coffee shop about "those <something you are>, they're always <something you do or don't do>."

> it makes people uncomfortable when you make generalizations about natural traits shared by the group they're in.

It does not make everyone uncomfortable, obviously. I thought we were not supposed to resort to stereotypes.

"WHen making terribly misogynistic comments his INTENT wasn't to be misogynistic, it's just based on his experience that women are driven primarily by their emotions and unable to handle pressure!"

Really solid defense!

I’m not defending him and it’s funny you think this is some pro/con situation.

That being said misogyny requires intent, right. It means someone who hates or dislikes women. So if you make a statement that every time you criticize a woman, she cries and don’t have ill intent toward women, then that isn’t a sign of misogyny.

I don’t think women are any more likely to cry than men, but if there’s research that shows it so, is that misogynistic?

If you say “women are shorter than men” is that misogynistic?

I think it largely depends on intent as if someone is trying to demean women or does hate women, that’s a big difference. Saying women are shorter than men as part of some overall argument on inferiority is clearly misogynistic.

That misogyny or bigotry requires "intent" is so ludicrously divorced from reality I don't know where it came from.

I've heard the most ridiculously hateful and racist things prefaced by "I'm not a racist but..."

Clearly in these people's own minds they aren't racist/misogynist, but when you are pushing plainly racist or misogynistic views it doesn't matter.

The statements are misogynistic. If you think you can convince your boss your intent wasn't to be bigoted so your bigoted comments aren't actually bigoted then be my guess. I am confident you are unlikely to succeed.

I’m talking about misogyny, not all bigotry.

The definition of misogyny literally includes intent, perhaps you’re thinking of something other than misogyny.

Here’s the definition from Wikipedia [0]… “ Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It enforces sexism by punishing those who reject an inferior status for women and rewarding those who accept it.”

You also didn’t answer my question of what negative information you wouldn’t interpret as misogynistic. Is it possible to report anything negative based on biological sex or gender that you don’t interpret as misogynistic?

How can these differences be studied and discussed to learn more and overcome harm caused toward women?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

I guess for me the thing that's really crappy about this quote is that it shows his underlying attitude - that women are basically always potential romantic partners.

If he was into men, and he said he didn't want men in the lab because he might fall in love with them, you can sort of see how absurd it is, and how unpleasant it is to be the object of romantic fantasy when you're just trying to get on with your job.

> women are basically always potential romantic partners

Ok, why would that not be the case? Laws? PC? Age difference? Love/biology doesn't care about social rules, and this has been shown time and again in every possible situation you could think of.

> you can sort of see how absurd it is

Huh, no I can't. What makes it different when you reverse the situation?

>Ok, why would that not be the case?

Because of professionalism. The root of term used for “professions” like law, medicine, engineering etc. is that one professes to a code of ethics. That code should overrule base desires.

We generally wouldn’t accept a doctor who views and treats patients primarily as an income stream despite greed being a near-universal human drive and we shouldn’t expect a professor to view subordinates as potential romantic partners. Acknowledging the drive exists isn’t a reason to condone it.

> Acknowledging the drive exists isn’t a reason to condone it.

So, exactly what Hunt said in his speech.

Maybe you can help me understand the context better. From the GP post where he seems to advocate for separate male and female labs he seems to imply there isn’t enough professionalism present to have co-ed labs.

I’m saying that claim is more an implication of the person saying it and their (lack of) professional ethics than an indictment of the subordinates. It’s very similar in my mind to the recent arguments about gender in military units

The context is that he in essence says that this problem has no good solution, but he thinks that the co-ed labs are the best alternative even with all the shortcomings that go with them. Everyone will be perfectly professional until someone falls in love and the PC solution crumbles to dust. And FWIW, I think he's right.

Where do non-straight people fit into this "solution"?

They don't. I fail to see how that's surprising given that straight people don't fit either.

Plenty of us have absolutely no problem working in same-sex environments, and plenty of straight people have no issues working in coed environments.

This is very clearly a case of the professor being unprofessional and exploitative of his position of power.

Plenty and plenty, yes. Now, what's a solution that would work for everyone, males females and others alike?

This is very clearly a professor acknowledging the problems that arise due to interindividual biology in work environments. Unlike PC supporters hiding the issue under the blanket of professionalism.

When you're, like 2 years old, and you want a toy in the sandpit, you grab it. And if some other kid has it, too bad for them, because you want it, and that's what's important.

Somehow, most people manage to figure out that this kind of behavior isn't appropriate, and hide the issue under the blanket of being-a-decent-human-being.

I don't understand how dealing with sexual or romantic feelings is any different.

I think an obvious solution would be to exclude anyone who is incapable of managing the bare minimum level of professionalism that's required in a workplace.

If someone is incapable of managing their feelings in a workplace then maybe they don't belong in one, and their colleagues should not be the ones who are punished for that.

I don't expect you to agree with me here.

>Everyone will be perfectly professional until someone falls in love

Isn’t this the case with everything? I.e., if “everything is fine until it isn’t” it’s not really saying much of anything except he doesn’t think he can create a culture of professionalism within his lab. Does this “welp, we can’t do anything about our base desires” extend outside romantic relations? Would it be acceptable to claim “well, physical altercations are just going to happen because you know people will get mad at each other from time to time”?

I’m not hiding behind professionalism, I’m saying it’s reasonable to acknowledge those base desires while also expecting a higher standard of behavior.

> Would it be acceptable to claim “well, physical altercations are just going to happen because you know people will get mad at each other from time to time”?

Are you willing to punish people with jail time or worse for falling in love and adopting the behaviour that goes with it? This is the other extreme of your argument, and there are many places in the world where this is the social norm.

The PI can do everything he/she wants, love will happen and people will behave accordingly. The point is acknowledging that this is not a problem that arises at a single point in time allowing you to fire the offender, but that it happens along a continuum that will constantly decrease lab efficiency.

>Are you willing to punish people with jail time or worse for falling in love and adopting the behaviour that goes with it?

No, because one is a criminal offense and the other is a breach of ethics. From that standpoint, it was a bad analogy. But I would hold someone accountable for being unprofessional in the workplace. To be clear, I’m not saying to punish people for falling in love, I’m saying you can hold them accountable for letting it affect the workplace and creating an unprofessional environment.

>The PI can do everything he/she wants, love will happen and people will behave accordingly.

This is probably where we disagree. I think the PI holds some responsibility for setting the tone of the work culture. You may not be able to control people’s feelings but you can make it clear that certain actions are not going to be tolerated. That’s especially necessary in cases of fraternization. It’s the PI’s job to maintain the professional standards of the lab.

> Huh, no I can't.

The point is, any human can be a romantic partner to any other. Therefore, his argument should be that no pair of humans should work together ever for risk of romantic entanglements.

Except it doesn't work that way, because we're all really used to the idea that in the workplace, you treat your colleagues as colleagues, not as fantasy-future-partners.

This isn't PC. It's just basic common sense, that he's lost his grip on, because he sees women first as romantic partners or sex objects or whatever, and second as scientists.

“Human nature, is what we are put on earth to overcome.”

--Katherine Hepburn, in The African Queen

A few of the good words to live by

Not really, no. Human nature is what we're dealt, we must embrace both the positive and negative aspects of it. Perhaps the inevitability of two people gravitating towards one another can be leveraged? Perhaps the disparities can elucidate us on unseen proclivities in different populations, things that can also be leveraged and positively.

What we should avoid is cramming people into functionary roles and instruct them they must act as would a machine. No longer can they be compelling or compelled but only impelled as would be a gear turning in the insurmountable forces of the engine that drives.

>>things that can also be leveraged and positively.

And, exactly how is this NOT overcoming human nature?

>> should avoid is cramming people into functionary roles and instruct them they must act as would a machine

What in that quote, or its context, ever suggested cramming people into functionary or mechanical roles?

Should you try to overcome your survival instinct?

Often, yes (though usually not to the point of actually dying). Overcoming survival fears is behind every act of physical courage, e.g., saving a friend or stranger, or exploring any new zone that will normally kill you (mountaineering, undersea, space, etc.).

You have got to suppress your naive survival instinct (or remain massively ignorant) to climb on top of a rocket with thousands of tons of explosive material...

The controversial part is where he suggests that this is a "problem" and might be a good reason to exclude women from working in the lab alongside with males. That looks like he's starting out with a very sexist attitude and trying to justify it with flimsy excuses.

By framing that as “exclusion” are you assuming the women-only labs would be worse places to work than the men-only labs?

As a policy it denies both women and men the opportunity of working together. If you are a man and a woman happens to be working on the same problem that you are investigating, would you like to be excluded from learning from her? And vice versa.

Exactly. So his proposal is not a practical solution to the problem of human behavior affecting productivity, but it’s not “sexist”. Many single-sex schools exist and have strong proponents, but are rarely described as “excluding” people.

That part was the joke. He's saying it's a real problem, but that's clearly the wrong solution. For him, it's obviously a bad solution, and so worthy of ridicule.

It's painfully reductive and one-dimensional. What about envy and hate, hero worship, and other emotional attachments? Those have no effect on working environment?

What about men and women who aren't romantically attracted to (respectively) women and men? Are gay men relegated to the women's lab? But only one per batch, lest they fall in love with each other? (And bisexual people can only be trusted to do science on their own.)

In general don't we expect "professionalism" to include a level of managing your emotions? And this person is basically saying "I can't deal, therefore certain other people must be kept away so I don't get distracted". As well as tarring women in general as not being able to deal, which is unfair. I sure wouldn't want to work with this guy after hearing him say that.

Feelings of love are notoriously hard to "manage". This is the plot line of most Rom-Coms for instance.

Romantic comedies are fiction, though, intentionally exaggerated for entertainment. I don't deny there's a kernel of truth to that kind of story -- or else they wouldn't be interesting at all -- but I hope we're not taking them as a model of workplace behavior.

Right but my point is that love is something you fall into, not a conscious choice (as opposed to making inappropriate comments or non-consensually touching a colleague where you shouldnt. These are things professionals are reasonably expected to manage in the workplace)

Yeah but only women cry when they are criticized, right? Why is everyone glossing over the blatant sexism and discussing something else entirely?

> So what part of falling in love with people in the lab, people in the lab falling in love with you, and that affecting concentration and productivity, is so evil as to get someone fired?

Fundamentally, he is saying that since he has trouble keeping his emotions in check around women, the solution is to not allow women in the lab rather than developing his own managerial or social skills.

It's understandable why some would question the wisdom of having this person responsible for developing the skills of female scientists.

Should he have been fired? I don't know. Certainly not if tis joke was is only "offence", but I suspect there is a bit more history to the situation.

> and that affecting concentration and productivity, is so evil as to get someone fired?

Hard to not assume malice when you accuse someone for implying something they explicitly said they don't want to imply.

‘Doubled down’ on what?

I’m curious if you think any of his statements are untrue?

The one about woman crying when they are criticized? That one is certainly untrue. While some people cry when they are criticized (I personally am severely effected and have cried in the past but afterwards), women have no extra tendency to do this.

> The one about woman crying when they are criticized? That one is certainly untrue.

What makes you so certain?

> women have no extra tendency to do this.

The data say otherwise:

https://www.thecut.com/2015/01/why-do-women-cry-more-than-me...

Honestly, the people who jump to conclusions about him saying this need to read some Berné Brown.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com