Hacker News Reader

Comment by enraged_camel | Hacker News Reader

This constant insistence on "hard data" is extremely tiresome, and throws a wrench in what would otherwise be interesting debates. I think, as intelligent people, we should be able to reason ourselves out of a disagreement without relying on data that may or may not exist.

View on HN

Logic is a wonderful vehicle for arriving at good conclusions, but without the fuel of accurate data, it is mostly useless for going anywhere but downhill.

We cannot confidently reason about reality without some hard data to use as a premise. We need that connection to reality. By trying to go without it, we are essentially constructing a fantasy universe. It might be a very elaborate and intelligently constructed fantasy, but it is still ultimately disconnected from reality.

But anyway, there is some hard data for this, so we don't need to worry about it not existing. It's already been offered earlier in the thread.

My post is off topic, but anecdotes are data. Poor data to make decisions about systemic changes, but good data to make decisions about individual choices and policies. A single instance of a wrong is enough to discuss how it might have been avoided.

Yes, it's possible to have a conversation without data. Yes, sometimes it's all you can do, if the hard data doesn't exist, so "hard data or GTFO" is untenable. But you started slinging anecdotes, and that's a path to sloppy reasoning. Either stick to the abstract, or provide data that's useful. No reasonable person would be persuaded by your "I was getting lunch with a female coworker/friend" story. It was obviously selected with bias, by both your friend and yourself. It doesn't make you wrong... it makes your reasoning unconvincing.

>>No reasonable person would be persuaded by your "I was getting lunch with a female coworker/friend" story.

No reasonable person would dismiss it as just an anecdote, because no reasonable person would be so blind to the fact that this type of stuff is extremely common. Providing data to state just how common is unnecessary for a good discussion.

What I find especially tiresome in the sexism discussions here is that hard data only seems to be a requirement for those saying something that questions the status quo.

It's never, "Well, there's no hard data on this, but we are just coming out from a multi-millennial period of discrimination against women, so let's assume we have a little further to go."

Instead, all I see is on the order of, "You have no hard data that women are treated poorly this month so I'm going act like there couldn't possibly be a problem."

>It's never, "Well, there's no hard data on this, but we are just coming out from a multi-millennial period of discrimination against women, so let's assume we have a little further to go."

That's because you have to start with a false premise, and then make a completely arbitrary leap in logic. It seems entirely reasonable to consider the possibility that given the evidence shows equality, that baring evidence to the contrary, things are probably pretty equal.

The evidence shows that there is no gender difference in how seriously people are taken in all professional situations? I look forward to you posting links.

This is about how likely people are to suffer from impostor syndrome, not "how seriously people are taken in all professional situations."

From my comment that you seem to have been calling "tiresome"†:

> though I agree that women have to fight harder for recognition in many fields, there is no evidence that this means they are more subject to impostor syndrome.

† At least, it was the parent of the comment you were sympathizing with.

It shows that men and women have equal prevalence of imposter syndrome, which is the discussion at hand. Links had already been provided before you posted.

That is not in fact the discussion at hand.

Enraged_camel complained that men are taken more seriously than women, and gave an anectote in support:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5280061

Chc responded that anecdotes were not hard data:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5280329

Enraged_camel called requests like that tiresome:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5280329

I agreed and shared my observation that on HN, requests for data in sexism discussions are generally used to defend the status quo:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5281860

Then you chimed in to suggest that evidence showed equality.

Do you have it? I'm guessing not.

>That is not in fact the discussion at hand

Yes it is.

>Then you chimed in to suggest that evidence showed equality.

Read the post I replied to again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com