[eevilspock]

I'd love it if someone with the skills could do a sentiment analysis of all the comments under SV sexism/sexual harassment articles posted to HN, and quantify the amount of denialism versus recognition there is, as well as graph whether there is at least a downward trend in denialism, whether the tipping point mentioned in the article is happening.

On this topic I've been disappointed in HN more often than not. HN users pride themselves on objectivity, but sadly much of it is ditched in favor of defensiveness (or the other dismissive reactions mentioned in the article) when SV culture is put under a critical microscope.

[Sacho]

> HN users pride themselves on objectivity, but sadly much of it is ditched in favor of defensiveness (or the other dismissive reactions mentioned in the article) when SV culture is put under a critical microscope.

Can you clarify how exactly objectivity clashes with opinions on fairly subjective matters(e.g. sexism)? Is there an objective standard of sexism that was applied in a rigorous analysis of "SV culture"(whatever that is..) that HN users are being defensive about? Can you provide some examples to what you mean?

[twobyfour]

What's necessarily subjective about sexism?

[Sacho]

I had two objections to parent's point, so forgive me for ranting on a bit here.

The strict definition of sexism is a mindset, and the only way to reliably determine that mindset is to have a mind-reading device. That means that almost every time we evaluate sexism, we use a heuristic, and choosing which heuristics to apply is necessarily subjective. For example, I find most of the sexism controversies do not have clear indicators of sexism, but I acknowledge that I applied my own opinion to determine those, and opinions can differ.

Since the strict definition of sexism is difficult to apply, it's also possible to use an operative definition and still remain objective. If we could agree to a set of heuristics, a set of measurable actions through which we can objectively determine that something is "sexism", then we could use that to make our judgement calls. However, I don't see such a standard proposed and agreed upon - in fact, the reason the issue is so controversial is that it seems there is very little "standard" about sexism that we agree on, and opinions about it have a lot of variance. I think it's normal for HN users to then express skepticism and criticize an ad-hoc application of rules to slap a label on someone when we can't agree on what that label means.

This is why I was looking for an objective standard to replace the dictionary definition of the word, which HN users agreed upon and then failed to apply when "SV culture" was put under a microscope.

EDIT: reduced repetition and improved wording.

[macspoofing]

Lots. Interpretation of some specific event, action, or person as sexist (or not) can be very subjective. For example, if a woman applies for a job and is rejected, she may think it was due to sexism, whereas the interviewer may not.

[naravara]

Can't you just approximate the result by finding the most upvoted comments?

[eevilspock]

HN doesn't expose vote counts

[aaron695]

I've never seen a graph or attempt of proof that SV has an issue any worst than normal society.

There is denialism and lack of objectivity going on, but I'm not sure you get what side it is.

Until we see the science, many of us think articles like these specifically blaming the Valley are just tabloid fodder.