On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

Re:On managing outrage in Silicon Valley by dieterrams on Monday August 07, 2017 @06:31PM (#14951825)

> I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism").

I've seen that research. What conclusions do you think you can draw from it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On managing outrage in Silicon Valley by blusterXY on Monday August 07, 2017 @06:59PM (#14951995)

The author of the paper is well-read, and the people criticizing his science understand neither the underlying science, nor what it implies for the problems they profess to care about.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On managing outrage in Silicon Valley by sigmar on Monday August 07, 2017 @07:39PM (#14952219)

He doesn't cite any science so it is hard to appreciate that any of it is based on quality research. Seems like a lot of stereotypes mixed in with hedging. For example: suggesting that women are too emotional to "reason about the facts" as well as men do.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On managing outrage in Silicon Valley by slavak on Tuesday August 08, 2017 @07:03AM (#14956507)

He cites plenty of science, it's just that Gizmodo conveniently edited out all of his references when they posted the text. Here's the full memo in its entirety: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On managing outrage in Silicon Valley by roenxi on Monday August 07, 2017 @08:33PM (#14952475)

He didn't say that - he said "Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts".

That might be wrong. I think using emotions as a guide reason can work, sometimes very well. It doesn't link anything to women - women can be disengaged and men can be emotional in the ordinary course of their day.

[ Parent | on HN ]