undefined | Better HN

0 pointsantics11y ago0 comments

I take it from your response that you entirely ignored my response about targeting outreach at demographics that have high attrition and low entrance rates. Specifically those groups. That's what we do when we do outreach.

I don't know what else to say. It's extremely simple. Targeted outreach works. You pick groups you want to include, and you target them for outreach.

Why are you making this so hard? Honestly, I question whether you're really interested. You do this on literally every thread where sexism comes up. It sounds to me like you really just want an argument.

EDIT: And, your insinuation that it's all tribal politics, instead of a very careful investigation of what outreach methods work for getting disadvantaged people into programs they wouldn't normally have access to is in such bad faith it's hard to even muster up the will to reply.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

yummyfajitas11y ago· 2 in thread

I'm not asking for empirics. The question cannot be resolved by empirics alone. I'm asking for your normative principle. You are ducking the question if you throw more positive statements at me.

Concretely: Empirical claim (a) + normative claim (b) + reasoning (c) = normative conclusion.

You can't get a normative ("we should" or "it's acceptable to do") conclusion without a normative principle. The empirical claim "Ebola causes death" alone is not a justification for preventing ebola. You need the normative principle "death is bad". If I ask for a normative principle and you tell me about experiments with monkeys, you are missing the point.

I understand (a). I understand your normative conclusion (racially biased decisions in favor of women are good). I'm asking you to explain (b), and maybe (c) if it is not obvious. And I have no idea why this is such a ridiculous thing to ask.

anticsOP11y ago

Let's do an exercise.

We say we're interested in targeted outreach to demographics whose attrition rates are especially high, and whose entrance rates are especially low.

You come up with the normative claim. Because the normative claim should be obvious.

Ok, now that you've made your guess, let's see what you've written down. If you guessed that the normative claim is that "we should consider it bad to have an industry so vile that (e.g.) competent female engineers exit the field at many times the rate of male engineers", then you win your gold star.

If you did not guess that this is the normative claim, then it is time to retire all this philosophy and set theory that you have going, because you clearly don't have the basics down.

yummyfajitas11y ago

I'm asking about this because my views are very confused. I don't have a good normative principle to appeal to.

On the one hand, I lean towards "you shouldn't make racially biased decisions". On the other hand, while I'm intuitively disliking the criteria for these scholarships, I impose more or less the exact same criteria when deciding if a woman is worth dating.

Unlike most of the people here, I'm completely willing to admit that my views are rather confused. And I don't understand the resulting hostility - why does asking questions make me a villain?

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse