9 ms·

New HN rules: Citing science as a defense against the current cultural paradigm is inciting a flamewar. How the mighty have fallen. I actively steer young en

by FD3SA 11y ago

New HN rules: Citing science as a defense against the current cultural paradigm is inciting a flamewar. How the mighty have fallen. I actively steer young entrepreneurs away from YC and HN, as it has become incredibly in tune with the echo chamber of the radical political ideologies of our time. I don't understand how this behavior encourages clear and logical thinking or produces successful entrepreneurs. I would appreciate a response on this topic dang, as I am sincerely amazed by your response to the parent's comment. EDIT: In case anyone wants to start asking for citations, it is equivalent to asking for citations regarding the heliocentric model of the solar system. R/K selection theory, sexual dimorphism, and sex specialization are such well understood topics as to be assumed common knowledge among any educated biologists. It only speaks to the individual's naivete when they bring up the citation requirement. Citations are used for new and ground breaking research, not for common scientific knowledge that has been in the mainstream for a hundred years. I am constantly amazed by the sheer ignorance of the HN crowd on this extremely well understood science.

DanBC 11y ago
> as it has become incredibly in tune with the echo chamber of the radical political ideologies of our time. And yet, in this very thread, the people voicing those "radical"[1] ideologies are downvoted, and the people trotting out MRA talking points are not. [1] How the fuck is "men and women should have equal pay for equal work" radical?
- FD3SA 11y ago
  A perfect illustration of my point. Sexual dimorphism is real. Your impotent rage and ridiculous ideologies will never change that fact. I will be greatly amused by your kind's zealous need to tilt at windmills.
dang 11y ago
> I would appreciate a response on this topic I'm always willing to help clarify how HN works, but the first four sentences of your comment are such wild projections that it's hard for me to read your request as serious. And then you posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11226294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11226294, which flagrantly violates everything HN stands for. It takes a lot of energy to post these responses, and it's hard to justify that investment when you're not making any effort to be civil, and when instead of open-mindedness you display only a desire to score ideological points.
- FD3SA 11y ago
  I have a policy to return hostility in kind. The commenter DanBC was being vulgar without making any points, so I decided to respond in a manner befitting his tone. But since you seem to be a levelheaded individual, I would like to seriously discuss the suppression of critical thought on Hacker News, and why moderators such as yourself enforce it ruthlessly. Let's start with the parent comment: >When those gender roles are all but constant across countless independently developed cultures existent over tens of thousands of years, with distribution of visible physical traits to match them, it's pretty safe to assume that they're baked into our DNA and not some random whim of western culture. Imagine how long a tribe with male caretakers and female warriors (who it cannot be argued are not on average significantly smaller and weaker than men) would survive against a tribe of male warriors and female caretakers. There are species with much less divergence in biology between males and females. We would not have evolved to have such divergence if it were not useful for our fitness to have distinct fighter/protector and caretaker roles. Indeed as K-strategists that take a very long time to mature, having dedicated caretakers was an extremely useful evolution. There is absolutely nothing controversial about this statement to a trained biologist. In fact, you could not get through an undergraduate degree in biology if you did not understand sexual dimorphism, r/K selection theory, and the sexual specialization that results. As such, there is nothing political about the statement. It is merely a statement of the current scientific understanding of the evolutionary history of homo sapiens. Now let's look at your response: >This turn into generic gender-war predictably degenerated into yet another tedious spat. Perhaps elsewhere on the Internet there is a spot where people haven't had enough of these yet, but HN isn't one. Note the guidelines: "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." So, the statement of scientific consensus stated by the original comment is labelled by a moderator as "gender-war" which "predictably degenerated into yet another tedious spat." And you summarise with saying HN has had enough, and the debate is to be ended. So I just want to be clear, which branches of evolutionary biology, and science in general, are off limits to discuss on HN? And how does censoring known science help critical thought and discussions regarding the current entrepreneurial markets in tech? Thank you for your time. EDIT: to address your final statement: >It takes a lot of energy to post these responses, and it's hard to justify the investment when you're not making any effort to be civil, and when instead of open-mindedness you display only a desire to score ideological points. It is a bold assertion that stating known science is "a desire to score ideological points." This line of thinking demonstrates more about the reader, and less about the material. Evolutionary biology is not an ideology, it is a science. Stating it does not make one an ideologue, but an empiricist.

by FD3SA 11y ago

DanBC 11y ago

> as it has become incredibly in tune with the echo chamber of the radical political ideologies of our time. And yet, in this very thread, the people voicing those "radical"[1] ideologies are downvoted, and the people trotting out MRA talking points are not. [1] How the fuck is "men and women should have equal pay for equal work" radical?

FD3SA 11y ago
A perfect illustration of my point. Sexual dimorphism is real. Your impotent rage and ridiculous ideologies will never change that fact. I will be greatly amused by your kind's zealous need to tilt at windmills.

dang 11y ago

> I would appreciate a response on this topic I'm always willing to help clarify how HN works, but the first four sentences of your comment are such wild projections that it's hard for me to read your request as serious. And then you posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11226294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11226294, which flagrantly violates everything HN stands for. It takes a lot of energy to post these responses, and it's hard to justify that investment when you're not making any effort to be civil, and when instead of open-mindedness you display only a desire to score ideological points.

FD3SA 11y ago
I have a policy to return hostility in kind. The commenter DanBC was being vulgar without making any points, so I decided to respond in a manner befitting his tone. But since you seem to be a levelheaded individual, I would like to seriously discuss the suppression of critical thought on Hacker News, and why moderators such as yourself enforce it ruthlessly. Let's start with the parent comment: >When those gender roles are all but constant across countless independently developed cultures existent over tens of thousands of years, with distribution of visible physical traits to match them, it's pretty safe to assume that they're baked into our DNA and not some random whim of western culture. Imagine how long a tribe with male caretakers and female warriors (who it cannot be argued are not on average significantly smaller and weaker than men) would survive against a tribe of male warriors and female caretakers. There are species with much less divergence in biology between males and females. We would not have evolved to have such divergence if it were not useful for our fitness to have distinct fighter/protector and caretaker roles. Indeed as K-strategists that take a very long time to mature, having dedicated caretakers was an extremely useful evolution. There is absolutely nothing controversial about this statement to a trained biologist. In fact, you could not get through an undergraduate degree in biology if you did not understand sexual dimorphism, r/K selection theory, and the sexual specialization that results. As such, there is nothing political about the statement. It is merely a statement of the current scientific understanding of the evolutionary history of homo sapiens. Now let's look at your response: >This turn into generic gender-war predictably degenerated into yet another tedious spat. Perhaps elsewhere on the Internet there is a spot where people haven't had enough of these yet, but HN isn't one. Note the guidelines: "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." So, the statement of scientific consensus stated by the original comment is labelled by a moderator as "gender-war" which "predictably degenerated into yet another tedious spat." And you summarise with saying HN has had enough, and the debate is to be ended. So I just want to be clear, which branches of evolutionary biology, and science in general, are off limits to discuss on HN? And how does censoring known science help critical thought and discussions regarding the current entrepreneurial markets in tech? Thank you for your time. EDIT: to address your final statement: >It takes a lot of energy to post these responses, and it's hard to justify the investment when you're not making any effort to be civil, and when instead of open-mindedness you display only a desire to score ideological points. It is a bold assertion that stating known science is "a desire to score ideological points." This line of thinking demonstrates more about the reader, and less about the material. Evolutionary biology is not an ideology, it is a science. Stating it does not make one an ideologue, but an empiricist.