Hacker News Reader

> While there's no doubt that self-optimization topics seem to attract more men than women, why is it that people who are into gender, equality and "toxic masculinity" topics … always have to put a label on everything, such as "This is male, this is female." They seem to be falling into exactly the trap they are criticizing.

I would disagree pretty strongly that men are more into self-optimization than women. Instead, I’d wager men are more into “Self Optimization,” which is more a unique subculture than a goal or activity, and societal ideas of masculinity get a lot of play in that space. I find it pretty understandable that people interested in gender would have something to say about the way gender interacts with that space as well.

Honestly I don’t think that people are always being deeply normative when they talk about these things, they can just see features of the culture around them they find interesting and may dislike, and say so.

For example, for the bro culture comment - I think most people would agree bro culture exists, that it’s male dominated, and that concepts of masculinity have a lot to do with it. I’ve had lots of discussions with people, men and women, who feel excluded by that culture. It feels counterproductive to take “masculinity” and what comes with it off the table for that discussion in the name of the ideal of equality, especially if that discussion might win you some real equality. An example I’ve encountered in real life was my universities chemical engineering program being know for a “bro” culture, and they had some real conversations about it and the reality that it might exclude some people, and they made changes because of it.

To be fair, I’m not sure what role the gender discussion played in this piece, and I’d probably say it detracted from the point overall, so I can understand your response to it. But I don’t think that makes the practice wrong, and perhaps both a couple of bros not aware of who it is we’re excluding?

Thanks for the thoughtful response!

> I would disagree pretty strongly that men are more into self-optimization than women.

Sure, it very much depends on how you define "self-optimization". Let's just say there is a group of people interested in certain (selected?) topics related to self-optimization that predominantly attracts men.

> I find it pretty understandable that people interested in gender would have something to say about the way gender interacts with that space as well.

I have no issue if someone says "This and that subculture attracts mostly men [with certain character traits] and here's why this is problematic" and then goes on to explore this topic in detail. But carelessly throwing around stereotypes of masculinity and feminity doesn't help anyone.

> I’d probably say it detracted from the point overall

Yes, I would say so as well.

> It feels counterproductive to take “masculinity” and what comes with it off the table for that discussion in the name of the ideal of equality, especially if that discussion might win you some real equality.

I'm not really sure I subscribe to this idea/desire of "real equality" (which I interpret as "equality of outcome", i.e. in this case a 50-50 representation of genders), at least not on a general basis. Different people have different interests and propensities, and it seems these are controlled by biological factors (e.g. sex) to some degree[0], though it is not clear how much exactly. In any case, not only does achieving a 50-50 gender distribution across all groups seem unrealistic, it would also go against freedom of will of the individual.

Now this is not to say that making a given group (e.g. a university's chemical engineering program) more inclusive and welcoming to all kinds of people (and all genders) doesn't have benefits. It does. But if, at the end of the day, we don't reach a 50-50 gender distribution everywhere, I don't think this is an issue, either.

[0]: See the debates about "systemizing vs. empathizing" and "people vs. things".

Respectfully put so I’ll offer what helps me. Political Correctness is for politicians, policy professionals and people writing about policy.

This blog author may be someone prominent. If you feel their speech has outsized influence and is using it to push stereotypes that harm vulnerable people, that’s a fair criticism.

There is no PC police that’s going to arrest you, seize your property and beat you with batons. People make money convincing people there is.

> an individual's personality traits can be far away from the average

Yeah, but it's a bell curve pair - distance from the mean only increases the discrepancy.

Huberman is slightly more right wing which is more masculine. I could be wrong. I can’t name any of his views off the top of my head but he is considered one of the new gatekeepers of the intellectual dark web alongside contemporaries like Lex Fridman.

Women are normally considered more egalitarian. I believe there’s studies on this. I run an online coworking community and keeping people who present as men is harder than people presenting as women. It’s been an issue with people noticing and commenting on the patterns of the community wrt genders. I try not to care about gender personally.

> always have to put a label on everything

> Ergo, women must be gentle but not aggressive.

> “X is clearly male”

This isn’t what people like the author who complain about “bro-ey” are normally trying to say. I don’t think they meant any extreme stuff like the above. I agree their tone could be better.

I don’t think it’s fair to say Huberman is right wing. Can you point to any evidence from things he has said or published that aligns with the right wing? Every time I’ve listened to him it’s been factual/anecdotal talking about the topic at hand which is not political.

I’m saying he as a person leans to the right. That includes if he says things that are status quo and not considered right wing to a minority of the world. For example many Americans believe liberals are leftists and vice versa.

Someone who replied to me pointed to what others have seen. There’s overlap between other right leaning people and Huberman. Their comment is deleted now though.

It was me. I decided to delete because the supplement and conflict of interest discussion derailed into politics, but I basically said I don’t know if _he_ leans, but after watching Huberman, YouTube started recommending me Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, with a couple of Ben Shapiro videos in there. At least the YouTube algo thinks there’s an overlap.

Brought it up again because didn’t want to leave you hanging in there, but other than a comment either about YT algo or audience overlap, I didn’t want to make the whole thing too much about USA politics.

That makes sense. Thanks. I thought yours was a valid comment that gave a diff perspective without assuming anything.

I try to see politics from an economic perspective first. That usually isn’t appreciated on HN.

I didn’t realize we are talking US politics. I try to be understanding and talk about things from an international perspective. I see the world unfairly revolves around the US and I’m American myself.

That might be just signal boosting, no? I mean all those people are on each others podcasts often and also have a large number of common guests. So yeah - YT thinks they’re all into the same thing but I’ve never heard Huberman get into politics.

Huberman usually does not interact with people who don't at least lean right.

I think I could look around and list 100 people on the left and right. Various small or big time streamer sort of people. The overlap is minimal.

Bill Maher for example appears on leaning right stuff nowadays not left leaning things since politics and socialism have become clearer and more mainstream since Bill Maher was incorrectly seen as a Huberman type character. Some one in the middle. Not leaning right.

Tldr: People who don't believe in the virtues of capitalism are not interacting much with Huberman and vice versa. Same with the leaning right people listed.

Huberman usually interacts with other researchers. So your conceit is that most of those are right wing. Again, unsubstantiated and likely false.

And bill Maher interacts with other intellectuals. It doesn’t make things incorrect. I never said Huberman doesn’t usually interact with other researchers. I didn’t say most were right wing. I don’t know most of them.

Also how about any other part of my post? Besides doing what someone else did and bringing up how I’m a bully or conceited while being far more dismissive than myself.

You have a short memory. If you glance up, this is what you wrote:

> Huberman usually does not interact with people who don't at least lean right.

> I didn’t say most were right wing.

You contradict yourself. Pick one.

> Besides doing what someone else did and bringing up how I’m a bully or conceited while being far more dismissive than myself.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conceit

Leaning right is not the same as right wing. Based on the word “lean”. If someone believes in capitalism as a positive concept then they lean right based on the meaning of what right politics are.

That’s confusing. Let me use another word: Huberman and Joe Rogan are liberals. So are a lot of the researchers and other people he brings on. If we agree then we are discussing semantics. Any conceit was a misunderstanding of me using words that you disagree with because of your world perspective vs mine.