Hacker News Reader

Comment by macspoofing | Hacker News Reader

>He discredits one of Sandberg's scientifically verified claims that women take criticism worse than men,

I don't know about the "scientifically verified claim". In general, scientific claims made in scientific journals are nuanced, and context sensitive. I would be wary of a lay person with a particular position weaving attributions to journal papers indiscriminately in their essays. Furthermore, Humanities research is notoriously error-prone and lacking in rigor. In this respect, I'd say Greenspun is probably close to the truth.

View on HN

that's not the point. saying left-handed people make 20% more than right-handed people is equally (if not much more) dubious.

you can't argue that someone's references are possibly fabricated, and then support your own point with your own "scientific" reference.

really it comes down to: if you ever find yourself arguing that someone's references are likely wrong because they are in the humanities... well...that's a conversation ender.

and i have a phd in math. believe me sometimes humanities people rub me the wrong way. but i would never make a general statement like that, and especially not to "prove a point."

it's the refuge of a scoundrel.

> saying left-handed people make 20% more than right-handed people is equally (if not much more) dubious.

That was his point! Sheryl Sandberg has a particular thesis and cherry picked some numbers from some study to support her assertion. He mocked this by cherry picking another. I'm pretty sure he doesn't particularly know (or care) if right-handed people are more successful in their careers.

This may be fair or it may be unfair criticism, but the fact that Sandberg threw a whole bunch of references in doesn't automatically mean her assertions are supported by science.

>if you ever find yourself arguing that someone's references are likely wrong because they are in the humanities... well I just want to punch you in the face really..

Your reading comprehension is suspect. I certainly didn't argue this, and neither did Greenspun.

> that's not the point. saying left-handed people make 20% more than right-handed people is equally (if not much more) dubious.

The sentence before that is "Hardly anybody knows anything about why some workers succeed more than others." His citation of the US News report is meant as an example that there is a lot of confusion on the subject. He is using it specifically to illustrate that dubious claims are flying around.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com