Science Denial Won’t End Sexism(quillette.com)
quillette.com
Science Denial Won’t End Sexism
https://quillette.com/2019/03/11/science-denial-wont-end-sexism/
8 comments
Quite a few of my submissions related to sexuality got flagged (e.g. the Dating for Nerds, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15372552). While I didn't like it, I understand the motivation - it attracts the wrong kind of discussion (flame wars, us vs them holy crusade, etc; certainly to kind or illuminating).
A lot of articles on gender get the same flagging treatment. (FWIW Damore is far from uncontroversial here on HN.) I suspect sometimes the flagging treatment is because these articles can attract heated (often emotional) debate, and this might be why some flaggers flag them, to avoid that and just stick to tech stuff.
That said I’m always interested in seeing these articles and debates myself, mostly because it’s a pretty important issue in tech and we won’t resolve it if we don’t talk about it. But it’s hard to do.
This post may have survived this long just by luck, I wouldn’t read to much into it.
But you can certainly talk about it here now since this article is in response to your article. (One question I might’ve asked about your original would be, if male and female brains are really the same then how come rates of certain mental illnesses vary so much between the sexes?)
Edit: I realized I originally wrote “far from contoversial” it should be “uncontoversial” but I think that was understandabld from the context.
That said I’m always interested in seeing these articles and debates myself, mostly because it’s a pretty important issue in tech and we won’t resolve it if we don’t talk about it. But it’s hard to do.
This post may have survived this long just by luck, I wouldn’t read to much into it.
But you can certainly talk about it here now since this article is in response to your article. (One question I might’ve asked about your original would be, if male and female brains are really the same then how come rates of certain mental illnesses vary so much between the sexes?)
Edit: I realized I originally wrote “far from contoversial” it should be “uncontoversial” but I think that was understandabld from the context.
>FWIW Damore is far from controversial here on HN.
Just to be clear, in what way? Anti-Google pro-Damore I presume?
Just to be clear, in what way? Anti-Google pro-Damore I presume?
From what I’ve seen (so it’s anecdotal) they seemed to attract emotional debate, and lots of downvotes, and flags, and people making throwaways before commenting, etc. In that way controversial. To my mind when you see lots of downvoted comments it’s a pretty good sign of a controversial topic because I never usually see that on purely tech topics ok HN. From which I infer on tech topics a bad comment doesn’t get upvoted and sinks because good comments rise. On non tech topics like gender comments (bad or good) can quickly be grayed out by downvotes. I suppose it might be an interesting hypothesis to test somehow if historical HN posts could be classified into topic and we had the voting and flagging data.
While this subject could be interesting, it always degenerate into culture wars (one side vs the other) which could be considered flamebait:
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
One solution for this could be to talk about the subject at a more abstract level than an example.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
One solution for this could be to talk about the subject at a more abstract level than an example.
Does Hacker News have enough users who are knowledgeable about neuroscience to sustain an evidence based discussion of this topic?
tomlock(1)
To those who are put off by the article, it might help to understand that, while Dr. Soh has a PhD in psychology, she is also a political commentator, writes science articles, and is a podcast host.
Like a lot of Intellectual Dark Web folks, it's best to check out a long-form discussion — like a lecture[0] or a podcast[1] — to get a better sense of the ideas they're trying to communicate.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BSb92OYA0g
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zere8WRepGo
EDIT: Add a second podcast link
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkhDZMwR9eQ
Like a lot of Intellectual Dark Web folks, it's best to check out a long-form discussion — like a lecture[0] or a podcast[1] — to get a better sense of the ideas they're trying to communicate.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BSb92OYA0g
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zere8WRepGo
EDIT: Add a second podcast link
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkhDZMwR9eQ
Statements like "In a world where world-class scientists’ merit is now determined by their sex and skin color—with white men’s work being dismissed in the name of promoting women and minorities" have a heavy political bias and the article isn't even concerned with supporting that point, it's just dropped in there like it's a fact.
klyrs(2)
I think I can provide evidence of this, but I'd like to use a double-crux and put both of our beliefs on the table.
If I can show you criticism of a scientists' work in a natural / mathematical science field that emphasizes the (white or male) identity of the scientist in question, would you be prepared to concede that there is progressive scientific denialism and progressivism can be at odds with scientific inquiry?
If I can show you criticism of a scientists' work in a natural / mathematical science field that emphasizes the (white or male) identity of the scientist in question, would you be prepared to concede that there is progressive scientific denialism and progressivism can be at odds with scientific inquiry?
"In a world where world-class scientists’ merit is now determined by their sex and skin color—with white men’s work being dismissed in the name of promoting women and minorities"
A bit off-topic, but talking about 'minorities' when discussing world-wide topics such as science always seemed so bizarre to me. No single race/ethnicity represents over 50% of the world population, so isn't everyone a minority? Or does only the US count?
A bit off-topic, but talking about 'minorities' when discussing world-wide topics such as science always seemed so bizarre to me. No single race/ethnicity represents over 50% of the world population, so isn't everyone a minority? Or does only the US count?
> A bit off-topic, but talking about 'minorities' when discussing world-wide topics such as science always seemed so bizarre to me.
“Minority” in many contexts of discrimination refers to power minorities, not necessarily numerical minorities (the two sometimes align); once you recognize that this is often intended, when it is intended is usually clear from context.
“Minority” in many contexts of discrimination refers to power minorities, not necessarily numerical minorities (the two sometimes align); once you recognize that this is often intended, when it is intended is usually clear from context.
[deleted]
Let's call the country X. In country X, the majority of scientists are of race Y. If scientists are viewed as having more merit because they are not of race Y, that's a problem, no matter what the values of X and Y are.
But the articles (not just this one, but very nearly all of them) don't talk about X and Y - they talk about "white people" and "minorities", and stubbornly pretend the two groups are distinct.
A quick search (though I couldn't find any particularly authoritative sources) says white people are ~16% of the global population, behind both south and east asians. To keep calling everyone else 'minorities' is more than a little US/Eurocentric. Especially when they put phrases such as "In a world where world-class...", implying they're not limiting themselves to 'country X'
A quick search (though I couldn't find any particularly authoritative sources) says white people are ~16% of the global population, behind both south and east asians. To keep calling everyone else 'minorities' is more than a little US/Eurocentric. Especially when they put phrases such as "In a world where world-class...", implying they're not limiting themselves to 'country X'
Oh stop it. Asian here. Discrimination happens in individual societies. The united states and Asian countries do not share societies. It is clear from the language and website of the article that it is targeted towards the USA
> It is clear from the language and website of the article that it is targeted towards the USA
Maybe, but since the author is Canadian, and the website is Australian, I'm surprised you would be so confident of this.
Maybe, but since the author is Canadian, and the website is Australian, I'm surprised you would be so confident of this.
The discrimination isn't worldwide; it's within a country. So, since the conversation we're having is about discrimination within a country, it makes sense that the term "minority" is also to be understood as being within that country. Whether any race has a majority world-wide is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
[deleted]
The more I read these kind of articles the more I realize that it really has nothing to do with science, or science denial. Nobody in these kinds of discussions really cares about the science. It’s all about politics and ideology.
Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change by a huge swath of the US population including the elected (e.g. POTUS)?
Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change by a huge swath of the US population including the elected (e.g. POTUS)?
> Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change by a huge swath of the US population including the elected (e.g. POTUS)?
1. Fallacy of relative privation? Nobody can talk about X because Y is worse. Nobody should fix X until everybody has fixed Y first.
2. Fighting ideologically driven decision should be a good thing if you’re concerned about the ideologically driven decision making going on in our government. Don’t pick and choose. That’s hypocracy. (There’s at least one person sometimes unfortunately (mis?)labeled as being in the IDW who is terrible at this, a big gaping load of hypocracy shows up anytime religion or Israel comes into play. His name rhymes with Sen Bhapiro.)
1. Fallacy of relative privation? Nobody can talk about X because Y is worse. Nobody should fix X until everybody has fixed Y first.
2. Fighting ideologically driven decision should be a good thing if you’re concerned about the ideologically driven decision making going on in our government. Don’t pick and choose. That’s hypocracy. (There’s at least one person sometimes unfortunately (mis?)labeled as being in the IDW who is terrible at this, a big gaping load of hypocracy shows up anytime religion or Israel comes into play. His name rhymes with Sen Bhapiro.)
"Nobody in these kinds of discussions really cares about the science"
? I think the point of the article is that we should care about science.
The author is indicating that there seems to be evidence that difference exist in the brain from a pre-natal age, and that the impetus behind the more popularly published stuff is political.
This is not an ideological argument, nor one that has the backing of major news outlets trying to promote a specific agenda - just the opposite - someone saying: "hey, look at the data, why are people being called sexist for reporting the data?"
? I think the point of the article is that we should care about science.
The author is indicating that there seems to be evidence that difference exist in the brain from a pre-natal age, and that the impetus behind the more popularly published stuff is political.
This is not an ideological argument, nor one that has the backing of major news outlets trying to promote a specific agenda - just the opposite - someone saying: "hey, look at the data, why are people being called sexist for reporting the data?"
I made a comment just a couple of days ago comparing the scientific approach of climate change with the scientific approach to pay gap. When climate change scientists get unaccounted data in regard to greenhouse gases it get put on hold until it get accounted. With pay gap the opposite happens where the unaccounted data is used as proof for discrimination.
The unaccounted data in climate change is no more proof of natural phenomenon than unaccounted data in wages is proof of discrimination, and yet scientists in those two fields reach the opposite conclusions. If we really cared about science they should follow the same standard and treat unaccounted data as just that, unaccounted.
The unaccounted data in climate change is no more proof of natural phenomenon than unaccounted data in wages is proof of discrimination, and yet scientists in those two fields reach the opposite conclusions. If we really cared about science they should follow the same standard and treat unaccounted data as just that, unaccounted.
> Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change...
Quillette published an article in January on just that: "The Right Needs To Grow Up On Environmentalism".
Quillette published an article in January on just that: "The Right Needs To Grow Up On Environmentalism".
> Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change
This is called, in layman's terms, "whataboutism". I think each of us is free to pursue a primary interest, and the arguments need to be evaluated in themselves, not in relation to what else the person might be saying or not saying about some other topic.
Anyway, for me this is primarily about science. I can't see any validity in certain arguments and I abhor the idea (which seems to me the only possible justification for them) that we should choose our truths according to how much we like their consequences- real or imagined.
Or, let's put it this way: every time a scientist says that the study of nature provides support for one or another of our current moral values and ethical stances, I cringe.
This is called, in layman's terms, "whataboutism". I think each of us is free to pursue a primary interest, and the arguments need to be evaluated in themselves, not in relation to what else the person might be saying or not saying about some other topic.
Anyway, for me this is primarily about science. I can't see any validity in certain arguments and I abhor the idea (which seems to me the only possible justification for them) that we should choose our truths according to how much we like their consequences- real or imagined.
Or, let's put it this way: every time a scientist says that the study of nature provides support for one or another of our current moral values and ethical stances, I cringe.
> Nobody in these kinds of discussions really cares about the science. It’s all about politics and ideology.
So when someone speaks up to rid science of the ideological influence, then by this definition, they don't care about science either?
> Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change
Who says they don't?
So when someone speaks up to rid science of the ideological influence, then by this definition, they don't care about science either?
> Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change
Who says they don't?
"I don’t deny that sexism exists, but sexism today is not so severe that it stands in the way of a woman achieving a career in science—or any field—if she really wants to."
Uh, source? Seems like the article just throws this out there without any citation, proof, or even argument. I'm not sure I can agree with such a statement.
Uh, source? Seems like the article just throws this out there without any citation, proof, or even argument. I'm not sure I can agree with such a statement.
I took that as her speaking from her own personal experience. She's a doctor of psychology who specialized in sex research — her PhD thesis was titled "Functional and Structural Neuroimaging of Paraphilic Hypersexuality in Men". She worked in academia for about ten years until she became dissatisfied with the influence that political correctness had on her ability to fund her research. So you could say that she achieved a career in science, until she no longer wanted to.
You could argue that she failed to account for the fact that readers of this article don't necessarily know who she is or what her own experience has been.
You could argue that she failed to account for the fact that readers of this article don't necessarily know who she is or what her own experience has been.
Or the fact that just because she did it doesn't mean that anyone can do it? I guess if you haven't, you just need to "want it more."
Sure, that too. Standing on its own, it's purely anecdotal.
If it was standing in the way, no women could achieve a career in science. Since some women have achieved just that, it can be concluded that it doesn't stand in the way.
She got a PhD in science, so she's at least speaking from experience.
[deleted]
I stopped reading at "social justice bandwagon".
Without interacting with the central claims of this article, which seem to hark back to the breathless realm of nineties _Psychology Today_ grade neursci, I believe I can safely ignore any discussion about science that is basically just more culture war conturbations in sci-sauce.
If your concern is that science is being polticized, don't lead with your politics. It's just a food fight at this point.
Without interacting with the central claims of this article, which seem to hark back to the breathless realm of nineties _Psychology Today_ grade neursci, I believe I can safely ignore any discussion about science that is basically just more culture war conturbations in sci-sauce.
If your concern is that science is being polticized, don't lead with your politics. It's just a food fight at this point.
Except that the term 'social justice bandwagon' is perfectly apt in the context of the article.
It's at the very premise of the argument.
Articles declaring that 'science indicates sexes are the same and anyone who hints otherwise is sexist' are taken at face value and published in the Guardian, CNN etc..
Contrasting opinions hardly exist in the mainstream.
The author is not trying to create a culture war, they are trying to negate it.
This is not a 'brains are the same' vs 'brains are different' argument. This is a 'let's look at the material evidence' argument. The brain same/different is just an example.
It's at the very premise of the argument.
Articles declaring that 'science indicates sexes are the same and anyone who hints otherwise is sexist' are taken at face value and published in the Guardian, CNN etc..
Contrasting opinions hardly exist in the mainstream.
The author is not trying to create a culture war, they are trying to negate it.
This is not a 'brains are the same' vs 'brains are different' argument. This is a 'let's look at the material evidence' argument. The brain same/different is just an example.
That phrase doesn't appear until nearly the end of the article. It read to me as not particularly political.
I don't see how either how (a) where it occurs in the article body or (b) what flavours of politics are vivid to you, and which, in David Foster Wallace's memorable phrase, taste like the inside of your own mouth, would be relevant to whether this aricle constitutes unbiased scientific discourse on the matter at hand. I don't mean to be rude.
You said "don't lead with your politics." The author did not lead with their politics. (And IMO didn't include politics at all, other than to say politics don't belong in science.
For what it's worth, the inside of my mouth tastes like meat.
anth_anm(3)
For the record, I posted that article on HN 9 days ago. It was almost immediately flagged (going by the fact it collected 18 points). This one seems to have lasted at least twice as long - and I don't understand why. In terms of a controversy, an article in Nature is the definition of an uncontroversial, respected source, whereas Quillette is rather the exact opposite. If a serious debate can be had, it should be over an article on Nature, not an article on Quillette.
I don't want to put this in words like "why was my article downvoted", which would sound too much as if I'm nursing some kind of petty grudge, but the same thing has happened to other articles I've posted previously on matters of gender equality in the sciences, while, for example, articles about James Damore are left alone. Is James Damore less controversial than Gina Rippon?
I must say that I do get a strong feeling that one side of this issue is treated very differently than the other by a significant proportion of users on HN.