
Cern scientist: 'Physics built by men – not by invitation' - ksajadi
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45703700
======
tomp
Fake news written to shock, not to inform.

> In 2015, Nobel laureate Prof Tim Hunt resigned from his position at
> University College London after telling an audience of young female
> scientists at a conference in South Korea that the "trouble with girls" in
> labs was that "when you criticise them they cry".

Why was this mentioned, right at the end of the article? Also, the author
conventiently ommitted that Tim was _joking_ , the audience _laughed_ (i.e.
got the joke) and the joke was about his wife, whom he met in his lab.

In addition, the article doesn't even try to substantiate or explain why CERN
considers the presentation as "highly offensive" \- facts can clearly be
_wrong_ , but can they be _offensive_?

~~~
posterboy
A fact is not offensive, but can be used offensively in an offensive argument.
By some school of logic - so I learned recently but forgot what school that
was - an argument consists at least of premises and conclusion. If the
premises is underspecified, the conclusion can be wrong even if the premises
is factual. That is, the correlation suggested by the data might not lead to
the conclusion when more data is considered. The fallacy here might be _post
hoc ergo propter hoc_ (a term I also learned only recently).

He was basically arguing outside of his field of expertise. I'm not inclined
toward gender studies either, but if addressing their conclusions, that women
are confronted with unintentional bias, then that argument needs to be taken
up. The career argument is the premises, not the conclusion.

Edit: If there is a bias, that would necessarily show up in statistics. Even
if the initial data point doesn't show that bias. If there are two data
points, one showing bias, one not, that's simply not enough to draw a
conclusion either way. A physicist should know that. Anecdotal evidence of
course does not count as additional data point.

------
jonas_b
\- The guy presenting this might be wrong. \- He may be an asshole and/or have
resentful intentions with making this presentations.

However, none of the people who disagree with him in this article engage with
any of these things. They're just angry that he's saying this at all! Their
upset emotions seems to be the only case against what he's saying.

~~~
simonrobb
It's not the right forum to express this evidence/conclusions. It's
insensitive, and entirely without empathy. People have good reason to be
upset.

~~~
repolfx
People have expressed these arguments in:

\- Conference talks

\- Essays posted to libertarian blogs

\- Private corporate memos written after feedback was explicitly requested

Probably others.

The same thing was said in every case: "it's not the right forum, it's
insensitive and without empathy".

How incredibly surprising that there doesn't seem to be any right forum or
right time for expressing opinions about anti-male bias. Somehow it's always
offensive and it's always terrible that women were upset.

It looks almost as if some people want to shut that conversation down wherever
it happens.

~~~
posterboy
It seems as if that conversation was part of the bias in the first place, so
there's two sides of the same medal.

One right place would have been the room where the anti-male/pro-female
responsibility was decided. Now that the decision is through, it's just
bickering and not constructive to oppose it, ignoring it denigrating it in
public as if that was outside the assumed responsibility for the forum (the
institution).

------
rayiner
None of these “facts” refute the hypothesis that “physics is built by men”
because that’s who has been allowed into the field to date. For example, the
points about citations can be explained by the fact that male authors are much
more likely to cite themselves, and the fact that social networks play a role
in how often works are cited:
[https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2017/05/female-authors-
ge...](https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2017/05/female-authors-get-fewer-
citations-astronomy). It also ignores that the citation gap has narrowed
dramatically over the past decades, which is the opposite of what you’d expect
if measures to admit more women into the field led to underqualified women
entering the field.

This ia just lazy reasoning from people who should know better.

~~~
posterboy
> that male authors are much more likely to cite themselves

did you mean: _each other_?

self-cites need to be discounted all the more.

~~~
rayiner
No, themselves.

------
aklemm
You either have to believe that there is a meritocracy and that it's under
attack by an unnamed mob of truth-haters or you have to believe there is a
pattern of shitty behavior (against women in this case) that people are--
sometimes clumsily--trying to rectify so that anyone with a contribution to
make to physics (or computer science, etc.) gets a decent chance at it.

I believe the latter.

~~~
dexen
I'd love to agree with you, but the science provides us[1] with a clear trend:
the freer the women and the more equal they are culturally and legally, the
lower their participation in STEM. That doesn't agree too well with the
"shitty behavior" scenario, putting me in a "we need a better explanation with
more predictive power" camp for now.

[1] off of the top of Google:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-
more...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-
equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/)

~~~
mrhackerpoland
There are female influencer making lot of money on Instagram by posting photos
of their bodies, makeup kits, outfits etc.... who are making way more than
median pay in STEM career.

I don't understand why would any woman choose STEM when batter paying gigs are
available to them.

~~~
cimmanom
Um, is this sarcastic?

Maybe because Instagram millionaires are about as common as sports
millionaires?

Maybe because beauty fades, and doesn’t make for much of a career past age 35?

Maybe because not every woman is conventionally beautiful?

Maybe because some of us couldn’t care less about fashion or makeup?

Maybe because we enjoy technical work?

Maybe because some of us are damn good at it?

Maybe because we enjoy producing value with - and being valued for - our
brains instead of our bodies?

“Look at the salaries pro football players make. I don’t understand why any
man would choose STEM when better paying gigs are available to them.”

~~~
mrhackerpoland
> Maybe because Instagram millionaires are about as common as sports
> millionaires?

If you enjoy it, that's good. But not everyone enjoys it and that's why STEM
has lower praticipation from females and that's what we are discussing here.

I didn't say millionaire anywhere. Many modeling gigs pay more than entry
level median salaries in STEM.

It's about efforts vs reward. People in STEM require years of education
compared to posting a product review on Instgram which doesn't even require a
high school certificate.

Don't compare it to Pro football players either which is very risky and
requires years of training and money.

------
janlukacs
We live in a post truth world. Instead of accepting men and women as
complementary we're forced into "competition", yet another way of dividing
society.

------
guard0g
If you missed the link, here's the actual presentation:
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA9...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view)

------
DoreenMichele
_He also said that he himself was overlooked for a job that he was more
qualified for, which was given to a woman._

So, basically, he got burned -- or feels he did -- and he wants justice of
some sort. Which is not unreasonable per se, but this is not really the way to
go about trying to get that.

------
Rotdhizon
Good on this guy for speaking some truth, even if he faced flak for it all
around. He had the statistics to prove it, and he was discredited. He had the
anecdotal experience to back his story, and he was discredited. By daring to
say that people should be admitted based on merit and not given free passes
into the field based on gender, he was lambasted. There was no rebuttal, the
only responses were basically 'I don't like what he said'.

~~~
simonrobb
Let's just ignore whether this guy's arguments are valid or not for a second,
why, why would you present them in a room full of young, presumably
aspirational, predominately female scientists at a conference focussed on
getting more women to science? You can question whether such a conference
should exist, but this isn't the way to make your point. Particularly when
bringing up studies suggesting women like working with people and men like
working with things - all those women in the room seemingly don't fit into
that reductionist rule, so it's irrelevant in the context at best, and flat
out wrong at worst. He's not a crusader, he just seems like a bit of jerk.

> given free passes into the field based on gender

Free passes aren't given based on gender, though preferential treatment might
be given as part of an affirmative action program. Personally I think that is
absolutely necessary, in all of STEM, because I believe there is a structural
imbalance in our society against women. I'm open to the idea there isn't, and
there are immutable biological differences at play, but unless we do something
meaningful to correct the societal factor we'll never know. But it's super
easy to say there's no chance of that and we should treat everybody totally
equal, when you're not the one with the disadvantage.

As to his arguments, so much of the evidence he points to can be shaped by the
same societal forces he is trying to dismiss. "I made some simple checks and
discovered that it wasn't, that it was becoming sexist against men and said
so." Anybody who thinks they can unravel this in a evening on google is
arrogant, and totally wrong.

> speaking some truth

Real scientists don't talk in terms of absolute truth, they deal in scientific
consensus given the available evidence. Please consider being less dismissive,
when almost 50% (and in some ways, 100%) of the world's population is affected
by how we view and respond to gender.

~~~
tomp
> Free passes aren't given based on gender, though preferential treatment
> might be given as part of an affirmative action program

Isn't that one and the same?

~~~
dawax_
> Isn't that one and the same?

What if they are the same. Is that really an issue? Poor children get a "Free
Pass" or (preferential treatment) by going to school for free. Seems like the
right thing to do to me because their experience should not be decided by
factors they can't control (in this case the financial situation they were
born in). Same with gender "Free Passes" if one accepts the premise that it is
a disadvantage to be born a woman and want to make it in STEM. If one does not
believe that (meaning they were not convinced by the evidence), then that's
another discussion and the debate is open.

------
DarkWiiPlayer
This constant "Men vs. Women" narrative really doesn't make any sense to me.
I've always seen people as just that, as individuals, with strengths and
preferences that will most likely decide what they will work as. Making
everything about gender just annoys me, no matter who does it.

Was physics built by men? Sure, probably because women weren't allowed to, or
maybe they really didn't want to, who knows. But this outrage isn't about
those women in the past who _could_ have made it big, is it? It's about the
present day situation where gender is not a deciding factor (or a factor at
all) in who is allowed by society to do what.

~~~
dagw
_I 've always seen people as just that, as individuals_

The problem is that there is lots of research indicating that while many
people will swear up and down that this is what they do, in many cases it
subconsciously isn't the case.

Had you asked me two years ago or so I would have absolutely sworn that I was
no way biased with regards to gender, but about a year and a half ago I
started to seriously introspect on these issues, specifically trying to focus
on my subconscious actions and running through past interactions, and now I
honestly don't feel confident claiming that anymore. I obviously never
actively discriminate and try to be aware of my action, but the subconscious
is a hard thing to control.

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
Sure, everybody is biased in many ways. I am not claiming I don't have any
bias, but those become irrelevant if you make an effort to decide things
rationally. And in my opinion, when judging other people, we should _always_
make sure we're basing our decision on rationality, not what feels better to
us.

This obviously requires some work to train yourself to notice when you're
lying to yourself or making up reasons to go with the decision that feels
better when you should really know it's not the correct one.

------
Insanity
Why was this flagged?

I don't think it deserves to be flagged - even if the opinion the person holds
is unconventional.

OT: He does say his conclusions might not be fully right. But that the
assumption of identical brains is ideology. Now, I agree with this but it does
not mean one is better than the other.

The fact that women might produce _less_ output (as shown in the stats?) does
not mean they produce less valuable work. They might just get their priorities
different later in life, as opposed to men.

But again, those are generalisations and you probably should not try to
generalize these kinds of things to apply to _all women_.

It was also not the right place to make those comments I think.

~~~
tomp
Controversial non-PC opinions are often flagged on HN, because no productive
discussion usually results (not just gender, but also politics).

~~~
Insanity
Seems to me that the comments of such a discussion ought to be flagged rather
than the entire article.

But that can grow out of hand more quickly, unfortunately.

~~~
tomp
Yeah the second thing is the problem... You also often see like 100 upvotes
and 300 comments and many comments downvoted... HN algorithms recognize such
articles/threads as "flame wars" so they demote (but not flag) them.

------
gdhbcc
And he is absolutely correct

------
gerland
A fragment of email that was sent to CERN emploees: We have therefore decided
to remove the slides from Indico, in line with our Code of Conduct that does
not tolerate personal attacks and insults. Diversity is a strong reality at
CERN, and is also one of the core values underpinning our Code of Conduct. The
Organization is fully committed to promoting diversity and equality at all
levels.

------
mattdeboard
I sure this thread is going wonderful places.

------
growlist
I do wonder whether humanity will suffer through us aiming for equality of
outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Won't we inevitably end up with
less talented/innovative/productive/etc people at the top since some will have
come through purely to meet a quota?

------
unfamiliar
Why was this flagged?

------
wellboy
So facts are offensive? I don't see any rebuttal to the facts presented in the
article unfortunately.

Anyone knows facts that disprove his?

~~~
awild
I'm just speculating, but network effects are extremely important in science
and I see it as very possible that women might have a harder time networking
(presenting their papers, talking to peers, given benefit of the doubt by
peers, etc.) in a field that is dominated by men. My SO did her bachelors on
AA in big corps and found a lot of studies that supported the hypothesis that
males bosses statistically tend to promote and acknowledge the work of other
males more than of their peers. (Though I have to concede that it was just a
bachelors degree and could also have been badly/unbalanced researched and that
I am too lazy to find citations, as I have no clue of where she got them.)

~~~
wellboy
Do you also have facts?

~~~
ziheck
how are the numerous studies not facts?

------
guard0g
I can sympathize with the lack of EQ, but this is ridiculous and also poor
data science.

~~~
traverseda
Can you clarify on that a bit? Obviously no one would expect his detractors to
spend a _bunch_ of time discrediting him, but at least a cursory explanation
of the flaws in his methodology/data is kind of necessary.

Why is this "poor data science"?

~~~
guard0g
Validaton of hypotheses by data should consider the explanatory power of
variables and possible presence of confounders. Does the distribution of
inSPIRE citations reflect the lack of women in HEP, or does the lack of women
in HEP result in the distribution of inSPIRE citations due to other
confounders? What is the R^2 of the gender-equality-paradox line? Given that
citations accumulate over 20-30 years, and the prevalence of men in HEP in the
past, is it statistically significant to use gender citation ratios?
Experimental research is often authored by the entire lab team, and a gender
imbalance in the lab could account for greater gender disparity w.r.t.
individuals with significant citation counts. Just saying, proper (data)
science should validate a hypothesis and include a discussion of potential
confounders and limitations in the data.

------
mrhackerpoland
I come from Poland where girls either choose a) medicine b) pyscology c)
fashion related gig like hair dressers, tailor d) modeling (often most pretty
girls choose this)

Here in Poland, entry level gigs in technology companies pay way less than
modeling gigs these days.

I asked many of those girls who went into modeling and fashion related jobs,
they always said, they found it easier and more rewarding than jobs where
someome else might steal their credit.

