
Statistics, we have a problem - stablemap
https://medium.com/@kristianlum/statistics-we-have-a-problem-304638dc5de5
======
dang
We changed the URL from
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-16/google-
re...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-16/google-researcher-
accused-of-sexual-harassment-roiling-ai-field). Some of the comments below
make less sense as a result, which is bad. But the blog post is well-written,
substantive, and brings considerable clarity as the original source—which is
what the site guidelines ask for. People should probably read both articles
since the Bloomberg one adds follow-up info.

While I have you: if you're commenting here, please keep this guideline in
mind too: _Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a
topic gets more divisive._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
jimnotgym
I am not an academic and not in this field. I have dealt with harrassment
issues in business though. I hear do much nonsense about 'grey areas' and 'men
and women would never meet if we followed HR'.

I hereby advance my theory that it is rather simpler than that. 'If you are in
a position of power over the other party, then you should keep some social
distance'.

Don't smack their bum, don't message them about their holiday photos on FB. If
they come to you tired and emotional, sit them down on the other side of your
desk and ask them what is wrong. Tell them you are sorry they feel that way.
Talk for hours if you need to...at work. Keep your trousers zipped up.

Is it that hard? If your team socialize, then by all means go with them. If
you find there is only two of you left, then go home.

I think it is very easy for a decent human being to avoid.

~~~
thomasahle
> I hereby advance my theory that it is rather simpler than that. 'If you are
> in a position of power over the other party, then you should keep some
> social distance'.

> If you find there is only two of you left, then go home.

This seems dangerously close to the Pence view of not socializing alone with
women.

Is your view actually stronger? That a person should not socialize alone with
_anyone_ they have power over, rather than just women?

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
I'm not sure what Pence's view is. But as a married man, I absolutely believe
the best policy for myself, and probably most married men, is to avoid
situations that increase the odds of my infidelity. And yes, the includes not
developing close friendships with anyone I find attractive.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> And yes, the includes not developing close friendships with anyone I find
> attractive.

Which brings in all the problems with the Pence view. It reinforces the glass
ceiling / old boys club, because friends talk about business on the golf
course (or at the LAN party), and then women get excluded from that.

Worse, it's a policy adopted only by the self-conscious people who wouldn't
otherwise have crossed the line anyway, and not the bastards going around
groping people left and right, which _increases_ the proportion of
interactions with the latter category.

The problem seems to be that there are obvious benefits to standing right on
top of the line (increased probability of friendship/romance) but nobody wants
anybody to cross it, and that can't happen. If you tell everybody to stand as
close as they can to an invisible line that nobody can quite agree on the
exact contours of, every time a moderate person actually draws their version
of the line you'll find a whole slew of people standing on the wrong side of
it, because it's everyone even slightly less moderate than that. Ask a
conservative (i.e. puritan) person to draw the line and _everybody_ will be
standing on the wrong side of it.

Rejection sucks. Nobody wants to get rejected, so nobody wants to be thrust
into the position of the villain who has to reject someone. But the world
where nobody ever has to reject someone is the completely sterile one.

The uncomfortable no is the price of the opportunity for yes. Nobody who
internally knows that the answer is no wants that "opportunity" thrust on
them, but how is the other party supposed to know that ahead of time?

And it's no help to point out the obvious cases. There are things that 99.99%
of people agree are over the line. The problem is the things that 75% of
people agree are over the line, because then 25% of people are doing them.

~~~
jimnotgym
> It reinforces the glass ceiling / old boys club, because friends talk about
> business on the golf course (or at the LAN party), and then women get
> excluded from that.

Some might, I don't. Some crap people do crap things. I discuss work issues in
work. Out of hours work discussions exclude all kinds of people, people with
families, women (again in particular) with children and those who prefer work
situations to social ones. I occasionally meet male and female colleagues one-
to-one in coffee shops during work hours, to talk things through, but I don't
drink alcohol with them.

I haven't studied Pence's view, but I am a married man and I rarely meet women
socially one-on-one. I socialize very occasionally with my team . I have seen
so many times where a manager socializes with his team, then they do a bit of
texting, then one hits on hard times and needs a shoulder to cry on, then they
fall out and the company has a sexual harassment case to deal with where maybe
it is just a 'lovers quarrel'.

I agree with the other poster that said that having sex with close colleagues
is wholly unprofessional. There are plenty of people on earth.

~~~
GhostVII
> Some might, I don't. Some crap people do crap things. I discuss work issues
> in work.

What is so bad about talking business outside of work?

------
sytelus
This doesn't seem to be minor one time thing...

 _Right before I ever attended my first conference, one of the women who was a
year ahead of me in my program pulled me aside to warn about him. She told me
to do my best to avoid him at the conference but “every woman has a story
about him, so it’s only a matter of time.” Of course, she was right. Months
before my defense, while at a poster session to present my dissertation work,
he touched me on the leg and told me that my dress was “way too sexy for a
poster session.” I remember feeling deflated.

In the years since, he’s sent me several inappropriate private Facebook
messages. In the first, he responded to a Facebook post I had made asking for
people’s experiences with Lasik eye surgery with a message that some
activities would become much better. Trying to deflect what I thought was
going to be an awkward interaction, I responded that I was looking forward to
better bird watching. He followed up with a private message that “the activity
[he was] thinking about was sex, but bird watching would be better too ;)”. I
ignored him. On another occasion, I posted about some data visualizations
using data from a medical journal that involved the relationship between age
and pubic hair. He sent me a private message explaining how the data is
corroborated by his own experiences watching a certain genre of porn. What his
personal preferences regarding porn are is something I definitely did not want
to know. Perhaps I shouldn’t have posted about the data given the racy topic,
but I thought it was in-bounds since it was a comment on data in a medical
journal. I guess I was wrong. I responded but tried to end the conversation
quickly. On another occasion, he sent me a private message out of the blue to
let me know that there was another researcher with a name very similar to my
own who published an article that “is even about sex, broadly defined
(fecundity). You guys related?”_

...and it goes on.

~~~
mirimir
>... he touched me on the leg and told me that my dress was “way too sexy for
a poster session.”

This seems to have been their first interaction. Touching her was plainly a
dumb-ass move. Plus his consistent deafness to her repeated "I'm not
interested" feedback.

But his comment about professional dress could have been made far more
constructively. When I encounter provocatively-dressed women in professional
contexts, I'm immediately suspicious. Are they stylishly clueless? Are they
trying to manipulate others? Are they making a point about women being free to
dress as they like?

I mean, I invite you to log about outfits worn by your male and female
professional colleagues. Assess overall tightness, especially legs, butt and
breasts. Estimate percentage of bare skin, especially cleavage.

For example, you may see women in tight sleavless tshirts aka wifebeaters,
plus short skirts. How many men will be wearing tight wifebeaters with short
pants and sandals? Not many, I bet.

~~~
zbentley
> For example, you may see women in tight sleavless tshirts aka wifebeaters,
> plus short skirts. How many men will be wearing tight wifebeaters with short
> pants and sandals? Not many, I bet.

So . . . burqas for everyone, then?

Seriously, if you can't recognize that fashion norms for women and men are
different, and can't tell the connotative difference between a sleeveless
shirt on a woman and a tank top on a man, I cannot help you.

~~~
mirimir
Yes, "fashion norms for women and men are different" in modern American
culture. Of course. That's rather my point. But what's up with that?

Please say more about "the connotative difference between a sleeveless shirt
on a woman and a tank top on a man". I don't see much substantive difference.
They're both an assertion of physical power.

I actually do think that "burqas for everyone" might be a good fashion trend.
For privacy, given that there are cameras everywhere. But in professional
American culture, it's actually men who are more constrained to dress
modestly.

------
imh
For everyone who seems to be skeptical of this article or skeptical of
overreaction, it's just a shitty article. Read the blog post it's reporting
on. It's much more damning than 'he made off color jokes' or 'he flirted
awkwardly' or anything like that: [https://medium.com/@kristianlum/statistics-
we-have-a-problem...](https://medium.com/@kristianlum/statistics-we-have-a-
problem-304638dc5de5)

~~~
ColinWright
This is an example of the "doesn't make sense" referred to by dang above[0] -
the original pointed to the "shitty article" and now it points to the
recommended blog post.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15938382](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15938382)

~~~
noobermin
Hate to go further meta, but a number of the comments that "don't make sense"
were made after the switch, and it's bothersome that these are still their
takeaways.

------
aceon48
This is getting crazy. Guilty until proven innocent. Seems overly sensitive to
me.... there's a huge different between rape / assault and crude jokes or
attempted flirting.

Maybe I just don't understand the other perspective enough.

~~~
aaron-lebo
Isn't the other perspective having a stranger touch your thigh and send you
unwanted messages during and after a professional conference?

Is that flirting or a joke? Would you want that?

He's not guilty by law, he's been accused, and it's very possible there is
enough evidence behind the accusations to make it warranted. Most people don't
want to go out of their way to pretend to be the victim (not great word, but
nothing more appropriate) of sexual harassment or assault.

~~~
tigershark
To me it seems like a witch hunt nowadays. You need just an _unverified_
comment to get fired and to wear a mark of blemish for life. When the mobs
filled with "righteous hatred" are judge and jury of a non-existent trial we
know that there is something scarily wrong with our society.

~~~
1024core
I hear these kinds of comments _every time_ there's some pushback against such
behavior.

Despite your shrill protestations, there is no "mob filled with righteous
hatred" going around. Where action is being taken, it is with a preponderance
of evidence.

Only those who have actually indulged in such behavior need to worry.

~~~
tigershark
Excuse me? How would you find "preponderance of evidence" for a leg touch? I'm
genuinely curious. Once while I was stretching on my chair in the office I
bumped inadvertently with one colleague that was passing behind me. Do you
think that I should be fired and my career ended if she suddenly wrote in a
blog post that I touched her?

~~~
dang
The blog post now linked to above describes much more and much worse than a
"leg touch".

~~~
candiodari
Plus it's not like for this individual there is any shortage of women
testifying publicly and privately to his behavior.

------
nerdponx
_One night after the conference talks were over, a bunch of conference
participants and I went for a swim in the ocean. While I was swimming around,
S repeatedly grabbed me under the water, putting his hands on my torso, hips,
and thighs. I tried to play it off and swim away. He picked me up and pulled
me into his chest. He then started to carry me away from the rest of the
group, presumably to have some sort of private moment with me that I had
absolutely no interest in sharing with him. I struggled, gently at first and
then more forcefully, and he let me go._

How is this not outright assault? Why are the police not involved and why is
this guy not being charged with anything? Why is anyone concerned about
protecting his privacy?

~~~
graeme
It is assault (and in Canada at least, would be sexual assault).

The trouble with both offenses is that 1. They are broad, 2. They are hard to
prove criminally

Broad isn't a problem per se. What I mean is that the system is set up to make
the offense as wide as possible, but not to prosecute every case.

This occurs with regular assault, not just sexual. For example, I'm sure most
people reading this have had someone shove them at one point. I'm also sure
that crime was not reported to the police. Even most cases of punching
probably aren't reported.

Next, the proof. The problem with both types of assault is that generally
there is no evidence other than the words of the victim. Convictions can
happen, but it makes it hard to do so in the less serious cases, which leave
no mark.

So apart from non-seriousness, that's why shoving isn't prosecuted. Whereas
attacking someone and leaving cuts, bruises or broken bones provides definite
evidence something happened. It both increases the gravity of the case _and_
the provability.

I've used examples from regular assault to show that low rates of
prosecution/conviction aren't merely an issue of sexism. Assault/sexual
assault are fundamentally hard offenses.

However, this absolutely has a disproportionate effect on women. Generally
speaking, people don't go around assaulting people, and so low rates of
prosecution for assault is not really a problem in most cases. (What I mean
here is that not enough people commit unprovoked common assault for it to be a
common experience on the receiving end. Domestic abuse is likely the biggest
place our system has a gap in this regard.)

But, enough people sexually assault women that it is a common experience,
especially for offenses which fit the category of: 1. Leaves no mark or
lasting physical harm, 2. Has no outside evidence, 3. Is nonetheless
psychologically traumatic.

I don't know what to do about this. I think the solution probably starts by
recognizing the nature of the situation, which is why I've spelled it out.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Generally speaking, people don't go around assaulting people, and so low
> rates of prosecution for assault is not really a problem in most cases. But,
> enough people sexually assault women that it is a common experience

That can't be the right distinction, because with that broad a definition of
assault, people _do_ go around assaulting each other all the time.

~~~
graeme
Thanks, I updated my comment. I meant that due to the comparatively low number
of aggressors, most people aren't on the receiving end of common assault. At
least, not assaults serious enough to worry about. (Poking is also assault, if
unwanted)

To clarify, in high crime jurisdictions, lack of prosecution for common
assault or petty robbery actually _does_ become a societal problem. It's still
not the case that most people commit crimes, but _enough_ do that all people
worry about it.

In most parts of North America, crime has dropped enough that common assault
and muggings aren't realistic worries for most people, most of the time.
Sexual assault is still done by enough people that all women have to worry
about it on a regular basis.

So I think the distinction depends on how many people commit the offense,
which affects the percentage of the relevant population which is a victim of
the offense or realistically has to worry about it.

------
sho_hn
It's interesting how the tenor of comments suddenly becomes "wait a moment"
when it's hitting our own industry.

~~~
mc32
I don't agree with that take, but I'd like to hear of another industry which
has taken a harder stance against SH than tech.

Even progressive Hollywood, as progressive as they are, have not even
scratched the surface. I don't doubt there is a reason for the "casting couch"
cliché/meme/stereotype. I'm sure there is a lot of housecleaning to be had
that's yet to begin.

This is a new consciousness and it will take some time to work things out and
figure out how we go forward without going overboard.

~~~
Synaesthesia
I wouldn’t call Hollywood “progressive”.

~~~
mc32
If Hollywood isn't composed of progressive people who like the Vision set
forth by the Soros funded causes[1] and donate to progressive causes, etc., I
don't know who is.

Maybe you're saying they only talk the talk... That might be fair to say.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_projects_supported_by_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_projects_supported_by_George_Soros)

~~~
jacobolus
Why does support for voting rights, civil liberties, human rights, government
transparency, media fact-checking, public education, international cooperation
and cultural exchange, campaign finance reform, etc. now constitute one man’s
capitalized “Vision”? In general those are fundamental western values
supported by broad majorities of the American public since long before Soros.

Hollywood is somewhat unique in that (a) it is located in a region with
center-left politics relative to the USA, and (b) it has a concentration of
rich celebrities who come from an arty background rather than a business
background, and therefore have different values and priorities, and use their
personal public stature to promote those. That doesn’t mean that it is
politically monolithic, or that local businesses and other institutions are
particularly “progressive”.

~~~
mc32
Are you saying Hollywood is not in the 80th or 90th percentile of progressive
jurisdictions in the US, cuz I'd stand corrected. All I'm saying is they and
the industry composed of progressive types, but you seem to be telling me,
they are not progressive. As if they are Biloxi MS.

My point about Soros is he's considered progressive or representative of it.

------
jstewartmobile
What depresses me the most about this is that most people, even ones with
elite degrees in stats, are not actually _free_ people.

If this were a free woman, she would have raised her voice, made a scene, and
possibly even delivered a well-deserved slap to professor creepy. Instead,
there was "struggling", "humiliation", "embarrassment", etc. She didn't even
name names in the Medium post!

As to why she is not free, I do not know. Escalation of commitment? Prestige?
Financial insecurity?

What I do know is that this is a _terrible_ example for the ladies out there.
Saving it for a cryptic blog post and waiting for some godless HR department
to mete out justice is a shit plan, even if it did work this time. If this
were a rougher crowd than a bunch of stats nerds, this could have ended very
badly...

------
fullshark
I expected this to be the millionth blogpost about p-values.

It's pretty clear that any organization is gonna have some powerful men
(people?) in it who sexually harassed people. I don't think any industry is
free from it, though some industries may more conducive to it (hollywood and
academia for example are industries with cults of personality, and a lot of
people desperate to be involved in it).

------
vowelless
I initially laughed at Pence as described in this article:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2017/03/30/mi...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2017/03/30/mike-pence-doesnt-dine-alone-with-other-women-and-were-all-
shocked/)

Now I think he might have been on to something. Is it really common to go
_swimming_ at a conference with others attendees of a different sex? Crazy
_parties_ with booze et al at a conference like NIPS? What is going on here?
Why even have these non-professional outlets, distracting from the
professionalism of the conferences themselves?

~~~
pkd
Or maybe he's not onto something and it's totally possible to not be an
asshole and try to take advantage of the situation when left alone with a
person of the other sex?

I don't see how Pence's comment makes any good sense. If you do what he says,
you either:

\- Don't trust yourself (or don't care) to demonstrate appropriate behavior

\- Don't trust women to respect you if you respect them back.

~~~
squeeeeeeeeeee
If you don't see the "good sense" then maybe the problem is in you.
Politicians should probably watch what they say, but they should definitely
watch what they do. In the age of a random accusation ending people's careers
(this year's events made this painfully obvious to anyone even outside of the
college space, the #metoo overreaction and what happened to James Damore being
prime examples), it makes perfect sense to watch who you're meeting with and
under what circumstances. Don't "trust women"? What about just don't trust
people. Blindly trusting women, as if they're a special case of a human,
that's like something from a neo-marxist book of a social justice activist.
Nonsense. Defending yourself from an accusation is infinitely easier when you
can prove that you in fact weren't at the place at the time.

The other side of why this makes "good sense" is the temptation angle - you
can't get tempted if you don't have an opportunity. Unlike what the lefties
think, Christians are people too and they get tempted just like other people,
especially when drunk. Men are like recovering addicts when it comes to mating
(all heterosexual or homosexual men with regular levels of libido are like
that, if you say this doesn't apply to you, you are a liar). Resisting a
beautiful woman/man flirting with you is like being a heroin addict trying to
not shoot up a dose in front of you. Of course you can resist, but it's hard,
requires a lot of self control and most people are incapable of doing it
without first experiencing the drawbacks. Is there another option? Don't put
yourself into that situation in the first place... if you're married, there's
no reason for you to be alone with likely sexual partners when alcohol is
involved. All the cries about "sexism" of what Pence said are absolute
nonsense and probably stem from the left's disrespect of traditional family
values and marriage (they don't see having 50 partners in a year as a problem
and an "open relationship" is almost a goal for them). There were multiple
cases this year (not two, but like a dozen) of self-proclaimed male feminists
who supposedly "trusted women" and "trusted themselves to demonstrate
appropriate behavior" who should be the beacons of proper behavior when it
comes to "respecting women" who ended up being sexual harassers, rapists or
even murderers in one case. Does this prove anything? No, but it illustrates
that "trusting yourself" is easy to say and hard to do even if your stated
goal is exactly that.

Not that it matters, but since this accusation is very likely - no, I'm not a
Christian... or a Republican... or an American.

~~~
mcguire
" _In the age of a random accusation ending people 's careers (this year's
events made this painfully obvious to anyone even outside of the college
space, the #metoo overreaction and what happened to James Damore being prime
examples),_"

Do you have any specific examples of "a random accusation ending people's
careers"? As far as I know, all of the recent media activity has had
confirmative evidence and Damore 1) was never accused of anything other than
being none-too-bright, 2) is a significantly different case, and 3) was hardly
a random accusation.

P.S. The sexism of Pence's statement probably has more to do with the part
about requiring any aides that work late with him to be men. Rather limits the
career of any female aide, no?

P.P.S. Don't forget that lefties don't have blood like normal humans; they
have a thick, black tarry substance that smells of sulphur.

------
czep
> I felt that this was evidence that, like S, all of the other more senior men
> who had showed interest in my research must actually have only been trying
> to sleep with me.

This is one of the intangible yet insidious impacts of harrassment that men
really need to stop and take notice of. As a man, I've been fortunate enough
never to have been put in a situation where I've had to doubt that interest in
my work was merely a ploy to get me in bed. Think of the massive impact such a
doubt can have on a young scholar, struggling to prove onesself, fighting self
doubt and imposter syndrome. Then when senior colleagues pay attention to your
work, and you find out that their interest was more salacious than
professional, it must be hugely demoralizing. I'm sure this accounts for at
least some of the gender disparity in technical fields, how many women simply
vacated the field after people would only use their work as a pick-up line?

> We need to start holding prominent individuals accountable for how their
> inappropriate behavior negatively impacts the careers of their junior
> colleagues.

Holding them accountable is not enough, we need to _ruin_ them. Everyone in
S's group at Google should submit their resignation, conferences should
blacklist him, editors should reject his manuscripts, grant money should be
withdrawn, and the entire field should shun him and his kind until the message
is clear that science will not tolerate this behavior.

I don't care how good of a researcher he is, how much of a "Bayesian expert"
he claims to be, I could never read a paper of his or hear him talk without
feeling disgust that here's yet another ego-consumed hyper-nerd who exploits
his talents to gain power that he can use as leverage to satisfy his lust.
Screw you, S, and the Bayesian prior you rode in on.

~~~
bonniemuffin
Everyone in his group should lose their job? That seems like an awful lot of
collateral damage.

~~~
czep
I was suggesting they should _voluntarily_ resign, in the current market they
will have no shortage of opportunity. It would send a strong message to Google
(and others) that the behavior is not acceptable.

~~~
dna_polymerase
> I was suggesting they should voluntarily resign

No you were not. You are full in line with fascists when writing:

> Holding them accountable is not enough, we need to ruin them.

~~~
andars
In that sentence, I am fairly confident that by "them", 'czep is referring to
S and others like him. In the next sentence, 'czep is suggesting that the
other members of S's group voluntarily resign to "ruin" S.

------
imartin2k
Two patterns emerge which can be found in many of the stories that one hears
about these days.

1\. A certain type of man who has developed highly problematic habits in
regards to repeated, if not very frequent inappropriate (sexual) harassment,
and who essentially has been rewarded for this for a long time.

2\. A type of person (mostly women, but as far as my observation goes, this
general trait is common regardless of gender) who has failed to speak up and
push back, often for many many years - who only now that everyone does it,
feels "comfortable" enough to speak up.

As a man I am frustrated about group 1) because they are a pain in the ass to
women and fuck it up for all other men, and I am frustrated about persons from
group 2) who selectively deny their personal ethical/moral responsibility as
adults and their ability to use free will ("I was too feared to speak up")-
which they of course in all other scenarios would insist in - when it suits
them - but still now, that they finally tell their stories, ask for full
retribution.

Fear of losing a job/allies/opportunities for not having spoken up over long
amounts of time is not a valid excuse, in my eyes. It's more a sign of lack of
integrity. And lack of integrity seems to be the big problem here anyway, for
everyone involved.

How many of those misbehaving men could have been stopped from doing what they
have done over decades if they'd have received clear, unambiguous feedback on
the inappropriateness of their actions, instead of "rewards" for their bad
actions? Many of these might be better men today (as long as you don't think
they are born that way), and there would not be a need to publicly shame all
those men (which will probably come at a cost to society in some form of
backlash, making everybody worse off).

Julia Galef just did a podcast interview with Timur Kuran about "preference
falsification" which touches on this topic .
[http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs-198-timur-
kuran...](http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs-198-timur-kuran-on-
private-truths-and-public-lies.html)

I know men who have an extremely hard time to speak up when things happen that
they disagree with, and I know women who are very good at clearly, ambiguously
showing boundaries as soon as someone attempts to overstep them (note: I am
writing here about these sexual harassment cases related professional
environments, not about physical attempts of rape). So as far as I can tell,
the root of this mess is not a gender-related problem, but a general problem
of learned social behavior and compulsive conflict aversion.

~~~
larrydag
I have to agree with the assertions that 2. is victim blaming. The group 1.
needs to do everything in their power, which they control quite a bit, to stay
away from the possibilities of a group 2. situation. People, mostly men, in
power need to have the moral and virtuous fortitude to promote an environment
for collaboration and camaraderie of work. It is incumbent of those in power
to create a culture of cooperation. If that culture does not exist and bad
behavior ensues than it is not incumbent of the victim to improve the culture.
Especially if that victim is a junior professional.

I'm saddened that this topic even needs to be part of our discourse in our
culture today. Perhaps this is a sad old story. Yet we see this all the time
of people in power in the news. I hope that we can come to a collective
realization that this is doing no one any good to behave irresponsibly.

~~~
imartin2k
Your assumption is that group 1. is (or at least has been until 2017) aware of
the huge problem of their behavior. I think this is wrong, and this a
prerequisite for my comment.

Imagine this: You are John Smith and since you were young, you have been
taught that as a man, you have to get laid as much as possible, that women are
sex objects, that your self-worth depends on your success as a sexual
predator. Your friends happened to think the same (you maybe picked your
friends even based on these value, subconsciously), and so, while you grew up,
this is how you lived and acted. And it worked. You had sex with a lot of
women, you received praise and acknowledgement from your peers, you felt like
a real man and so on. And you gt comparatively little push back. Sure, there
was something in you which might have told you that you over and over again
hitting on the same girl must have been annoying for her - but as every human,
you saw things from your perspective, and from that one - which you have
learned and internalized over decades - this is what women wanted, and how it
was supposed to be.

Couldn't this be how the men from group 1 became those who there are? And
wouldn't this mean that what they in fact would have needed was to learn a
different way of behavior, through feedback when they stepped over the lines?

Following your logic, decades of social conditioning would automatically
disappear. You are using the word "need" multiple times. Of course. But what
if they actually really didn't get the memo? Because this is more likely than
these men sharing your value set (or mine, for that matter) but violating it
constantly and deliberately.

Some would call this behavior "toxic masculinity". And it is. But exactly like
the social conditioning that other groups were exposed to doesn't just fall
off of people in a second, toxic masculinity does neither.

~~~
ashwinpp
I like nuanced comments and you make cogent arguments. However, I believe that
most people in group 1, are in fact aware of the problem of their behaviour
and are willingly ignorant of it. This is because if they made any unwanted
advances against women, even if the women didn't tell them to stop or publicly
humiliate them, they surely ignored or tried to get away from the situation.
At the very least the victim did not enjoy it and that is feedback enough.
Anywhere in the course of history where there was a stronger party forcing
themselves on a weaker party, the pain of the weaker party is visible in plain
sight and ignored by the stronger party.

Now the question boils down to whether a perpetrator considers the victim to
be a human with a standing equal to his/her own. The answer to that question
has been a resounding no, whether it was slavery or war crimes or sexual
assault.

To summarize, lack of feedback cannot be the reason, willful ignorance and
dehumanization perhaps is and that is something the victim cannot be tasked
with rectifying.

~~~
imartin2k
I still think you seem to lack the willingness to engage in exploring how
these type of men think, which also means that your verdict about lack of
feedback not being the reason doesn’t appear too convincing to me. Otherwise
you would be aware that “being ignored” is widely considered “playing hard to
get” among men with this mindset. Emphasis on “play”. If one has been exposed
to a certain type of mindset and has internalized it, this person’s viewpoint
and their perception of reality might be absolutely different than yours (and
mine).

This of course is a re-occuring theme of the past year(s). People not making
the effort to understand why others act/behave/vote radically different. It
seems to be unbelievably hard to acknowledge that what might be despicible
from one’s own viewpoint might appear completely reasonable from someone
else’s in their specific context. Which doesn‘t excuse their actions but
explains why they have not been seeing/noticing the obvious damage of their
behavioral patters.

In order to change that person’s viewpoint requires work from the ground up.

------
mc32
It's easy for companies to fire people at the lower levels or even top
management who are for the most part replaceable.

The question will become more difficult when people who are essential to the
success of a company or product become entangled in allegations (and perhaps
eventual convictions). But let's forget the high bar of convictions, for a
moment.

If we soon begin to embroil anyone and everyone who may have said something
inappropriate or who had someone interpret something as inappropriate, we'll
end up including people who are _essential_ to a company or companies.

When that time comes, I think companies and society will have to reach a
consensus on how to deal with borderline cases (things uncouth but not
illegal). Will society ostracize and black ball all cases, or pursue ways to
rehabilitate people --like they rehabilitate drunk drivers, etc.

Else, a less discerning competitor could scoop up problematic talent.

~~~
aaron-lebo
_The question will become more difficult when people who are essential to the
success of a company or product become entangled in allegations (and perhaps
eventual convictions). But let 's forget the high bar of convictions, for a
moment._

You mean like Weinstein, Spacey, and Singer?

 _When that time comes, I think companies and society will have to reach a
consensus on how to deal with borderline cases (things uncouth but not
illegal). Will society ostracize and black ball all cases, or pursue ways to
rehabilitate people --like they rehabilitate drunk drivers, etc._

I haven't seen people get fired for just saying the wrong thing. These cases
are mostly way beyond that. Some people have gotten accused (Affleck) but they
have been brushed off as either not having evidence or not being serious.

This isn't "oops I made a mistake" behavior, it's predatory behavior and
predators are hard to rehabilitate.

~~~
mc32
Of course, Weinstein, Spacey are pretty clear-cut predatory [I think]. On the
other hand someone who "hits on" or "chats up" colleagues because they are
single or because they are cads, isn't necessarily predatory --however can
become harassment, non-sexual as well as sexual, if boundaries are crossed.

My point isn't that this case isn't bad behavior, it's that we will get closer
to a grey area or undefined area and will have to have a more nuanced response
to those (mis)behaviors.

~~~
discoursism
That's . . . not what happened in this article, though. The individual
supposedly grabbed her around her waist, torso, and thighs without permission
while in a swimming pool. This in addition to his other comments seems
reasonably clear cut to me.

~~~
mc32
You're right. This person did more then chat up and allegedly continued with
unwanted physical sexual advances.

Never the less, I think we will come to a time when companies will have to
come up with something beside "zero tolerance". It's not a forgone conclusion,
but I think we will come to a more nuanced approach as more people get caught
up in these scandals.

Certainly the likes of Weinstein and Spacey have very little redeemability
(However, we see Polanski had some abroad if not at home) but there is another
class of people who do act "ungentlemanly/unladily" whatever, but not all the
way to sexual harassment. For example, if we take Dustin Hoffman at his word,
yes, it's uncalled for, but is it beyond the pale, given the times it took
place?

~~~
mcguire
Have you got any specific examples of a "zero tolerance" response to something
that wasn't "pretty clear-cut predatory"?

I think companies and society have always had a clear consensus on these
issues; the recent events have merely been pointing out that 'ignore and
suppress' isn't a very good response.

~~~
lightcatcher
This is the closest to a zero tolerance response to something not clear-cut
predatory that I've seen:

[https://www.facebook.com/Pinegroveband/posts/101557485055597...](https://www.facebook.com/Pinegroveband/posts/10155748505559774)

Musician cancels his band's tour because of non-public accusation of "sexual
coercion" in a relationship. What were his other options when someone
presented this claim to him, presumably with some probability of the claim
going public?

~~~
discoursism
Who is the party who is imposing zero-tolerance here? The band leader
disclosed the problem and also decided the "punishment," such as it was. I
understand that you're just one person and are not representing this finding
as the maximally bad situation. But I would say that if this is the worst that
can be found, it's clear to me that we're in no immediate danger of jump-the-
gun, zero-tolerance situations becoming common.

------
SubiculumCode
While men are often perpetrators, and may have predisposition to do so, I
believe a large driver of sexual harassment is power relationships. This means
men over women, but increasingly,also power relationships involving a female
over male subordinates. Sure some male subordinates might receive it gladly,
and women often think that offering themselves sexually is doing a male a
favor, not all male subordinates will perceive it this way. Anyway, I just
wanted to chime in about how central power relationships are to these things,
and how they often lead to abuse, and also abnormal behaviors in people with
power.

~~~
crimsonalucard
How can you say men have predisposition to be perpetrators? How come men
aren't rallying and getting outraged? What if I said men are predisposed to be
better at science and technical careers? Men are predisposed to being better
leaders?

By using the word predisposition on sex, are you implying that men and women
aren't equal?

~~~
SubiculumCode
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. Across many species, males
exhibit forceful sex behaviors. Those behaviors increased fitness.

~~~
crimsonalucard
Science can be immoral at times. When science and morality are at odds, the
right thing to do is to make the moral choice. One just needs to look at the
holocaust to see the perils of placing science first.

What you state is a true scientific fact. However, it is immoral because it
implies that men and women aren't equal. Thus because it is immoral, the fact
cannot be true. Women are equal to men in both intelligence, aggression,
height, size, strength, ability and penis length. To imply otherwise is to be
sexist.

~~~
cgmg
I'm not sure the holocaust did anything good for science.

~~~
crimsonalucard
[https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nazi_human_experimentation](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nazi_human_experimentation)

Read the bottom.

------
ashwinpp
I think there are two orthogonal issues in the discussion which I would like
to untangle. Some of the proposed solutions have been about maintaining a
"social distance"
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15939009](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15939009))
to "reduce the odds" of sexual attraction [Pencesque]
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940041](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940041))
and consequently sexual harassment at the workplace. Another comment asked
about whether pool parties at a conference make sense
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15937938](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15937938))

The orthogonal issues are

1) Non-consensual unwanted advances

2) Curbing avenues for sexual attraction

I call them orthogonal because,

\- A person with enough avenues for sexual attraction at workplace or
otherwise and choose not to do anything non-consentual and to recognize the
people he/she feels attracted towards as equal humans even if they are his/her
superiors or juniors.

\- A person with few avenues for sexual attraction can choose to be non-
consentual and delegitimize the humanity of his/her victims despite the lack
of abundance of opportunity.

Mixing up these issues ends up confusing infidelity and sexual harassment. A
person who seeks and engages in consensual sex outside his/her marriage is
guilty of infidelity but not guilty of sexual harassment. A person who makes
unwanted advances towards a married partner is guilty of sexual harassment
irrespective of the fact that the victim is a married partner.

Note that I would categorize anything that makes the other person
uncomfortable as an unwanted sexual advance. If a person talks about his/her
pornography fetishes, but the other isn't interested, it is unwanted. If a
person grabs the other other by the waist, while the other does not like it
and tries to wriggle free, it is unwanted. If a person asks a subordinate for
drinks and the subordinate is unwilling but pressured into accompanying, it is
unwanted. Being unwanted is a clear signal for a person to not engage in a
certain activity in the future and the victim should not be expected to create
a ruckus in order to reject unwanted advances.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
>> Since then, I have heard one professor who witnessed the incident openly
lament that he’ll have to find a way to delicately advise his female students
on “how not to get raped by S” so as not to lose promising students.

I mean, that's a start, but maybe the most general solution in this case is to
make sure S doesn't actually try to rape anyone?

------
a_puppy
On the one hand, the behavior she describes is unambiguously sexual
harassment, and no well-meaning person would behave like "S" did by accident.

On the other hand, I still remember Donglegate, so this trend towards more men
being accused of sexual harassment makes me nervous.

------
crimsonalucard
What about the instances when men are harassed by women? It must happen to men
in equal amounts because for this not to happen would mean that men and women
are unequal which is sexist and wrong.

------
grondilu
I don't use facebook so I'm wondering : isn't there a way to turn a private
message into a public one, so that users think twice before sending an
offensive one?

~~~
bonniemuffin
Well, you can screenshot it and share the screenshot, but that doesn't seem to
stop people apparently.

------
crimsonalucard
Nothing is wrong with statistics. This is just a sexual harasser. Why frame it
as a new social issue in statistics when this is a very well known general
problem in society?

------
catnaroek
If there was any harassment on online media, the right course of action is to
screenshot everything the mofo says and only then publicly shame them _with
evidence_.

------
hetspookjee
It's as if his great work contribution warrant some kind of free pass for
abhorrent and unacceptable behaviour.

------
hal9000xp
In the past, there was another extreme in societies when raped woman could be
considered guilty for inappropriate seduction of a men. So those victims could
be crucified by society and in some cases even sent to prison.

There were some important changes in societies which made women in many modern
countries much more emancipated. This is no doubt was very positive change for
economies (more educated workforce) and live in general (free love versus
arranged marriage).

In recent decade or two, third wave-feminism took off and ballooned to the
point when it became pretty ugly and full of systemic-hate towards males. What
I mean by systemic-hate is that under the flag of gender equality, feminists
try to explain _any disparity_ between men and women as systemic oppression
and discrimination driven by men.

So now, we can see _overstretched definitions_ of rape and harassment and
absurd claims that 25% of women experienced sexual assault etc (so called
"rape culture", a bizzare term on its own). Just making sexual harassment
_allegations_ is enough to consider a person _guilty_. So any woman can
forever destroy carrier of any man just by making such allegations. I can
easily imagine situation where socially awkward male tries to make awkward
flirt with female and, in response, she will easily destroy his career and
life.

I can imagine that sexual self-esteem of young males could be massively
degraded in hostile environment created by third-wave feminists. I'm so glad I
lived my 20ties in Russia and not being influenced by this bizarre new leftist
culture.

As one friend of mine called - _horizontal totalitarianism_ : anyone who
question third-wave feminism's _dogmas_ would be crucified/banned and fired
for being sexist, supportive of rape (what an absurd!!!!), and against gender
equality, considering women as inferior to men etc

When I lived in Russia, I romanticized western world based on movies and
politics of 80s and 90s. I imagined western world as individualist and free-
market paradise free from government's heavy hand. I imagined that people in
the west are open minded and _I looked at feminism positively_. Now, I'm
deeply disappointment by what I see...

~~~
imh
I agree that there are some oversteps in the current atmosphere (e.g. equating
asking someone out for drinks with harassment [0]), but this doesn't seem like
that kind of case at all.

>One night after the conference talks were over, a bunch of conference
participants and I went for a swim in the ocean. While I was swimming around,
S repeatedly grabbed me under the water, putting his hands on my torso, hips,
and thighs. I tried to play it off and swim away. He picked me up and pulled
me into his chest. He then started to carry me away from the rest of the
group, presumably to have some sort of private moment with me that I had
absolutely no interest in sharing with him. I struggled, gently at first and
then more forcefully, and he let me go.

Serious question, is that (a quote from OP) something you'd call overreach?

[0]
[https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-...](https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-
chart-14)

------
SubiculumCode
Misleading title.

------
robot197
Given all the events happening in society regarding sexual assault, I think I
need to point out something.

These men who abuse their positions are repugnant creatures.They are worthless
animals incapable of controlling their instincts. Grown ass men, who haven't
yet learned to control their mind. Somehow they achieved success without any
significant strengthening of their mind. Pathetic.

But I don't think this portrayal of all women as innocent angels who these
evil men are out to abuse isn't right. There are pathetic men, just as there
are pathetic women. It might not be the case here, but women use these
powerful men, give them sexual favors, so that they can accumulate power for
themselves.

In the case of Weinstein, so many famous actress, kept quiet and let him do
what he wanted, simply for the pursuit of fame, money etc, and now when it
became safe to accuse him, after they acquired their fame, they did.

Of-course, these creeps are repugnant, but the women who keep quiet, use them
and enable their behavior are pretty immoral too.

So kudos to this women for speaking out.

Some posters where saying, that any scientific progress he makes should be
ignored, that is pretty stupid. I think the women should name him, so that
their will be atleast a social cost for him, if not legal.

------
randyrand
when will these stop making news headlines? i look forward to it.

~~~
muglug
When powerful men stop abusing their power?

~~~
sampo
When powerful _people_ stop abusing their power.

A large majority of harassing is probably done by men, but it's not 100% men.

~~~
krapp
Part of the problem here is the culture of toxic masculinity and the
acceptance of harassing behavior by men as being normal, even expected.

Even though it's not 100% about men, it still being _almost entirely_ about
men and the culture among men which equates sexual aggression with status and
power still makes the discussion worth framing in those terms.

~~~
sampo
> it still being _almost entirely_ about men

We cannot know that. It has not been researched, and the victims don't talk
about it.

There was a time, in Finland, when everyone assumed that domestic violence is
"almost entirely about men", research proposals were ridiculed and not funded.
When they eventually studied the topic, 20% of the perpetrators turned out to
be women, and in aggravated assaults 50%.

------
microcolonel
This is why, jurisdiction providing, you always record everything at work
these days. Don't leave it to chance. Whether you need to make an accusation,
or you need to defend against one, records clear things up spectacularly fast.

P.S. I recognize that California generally requires two-party consent for
recording.

~~~
haZard_OS
I have been recording the vast majority of my conversations with people for
about a year now.

Doing so has saved me not once, not twice, but three times from blatantly
false allegations regarding my speech/behavior.

I HATE living my life this way...but what choice do I have?

~~~
yesenadam
Well, you could _not_ do it, like most people.

..after I wrote that, I remembered I do know something about that. A few years
ago, I was arrested and lost my relationship and was made homeless etc when
the police believed false allegations about my behaviour, made by my partner's
11-yr old daughter. (Nothing sexual or too terrible, just that I'd done overly
threatening things one night, enough to make her feel afraid.) But I still
wouldnt record everything. Sometimes in disagreements with my current partner
we wish we had recorded the whole argument; _that_ would be very useful.

------
dontnotice
I'm not totally okay with blackballing brilliant people for touching someone's
thigh.

~~~
treebog
I'm not okay with letting brilliant people be harassed. Even from a purely
cost/benefit standpoint, allowing a toxic environment will drive out more
talent than we'd lose by eliminating the harassers.

~~~
RyanZAG
Agreed, but at the same time I think this matter shouldn't be broadcast
publicly until the investigation finishes. If he did do what he said, then the
investigation should confirm it, and then he should get blackballed for
harassment because it's not ok.

But first step should be proving it, not blackballing someone because of
allegations. I think we can all agree that removing someone who harassed is a
good thing, while removing someone who is only alleged to have harassed is a
bad thing. And that distinction probably needs to be made by someone
qualified, not an activist or the general public.

~~~
muglug
> Agreed, but at the same time I think this matter shouldn't be broadcast
> publicly until the investigation finishes.

As we've seen over and over, very often there's no investigation unless the
matter is broadcast publicly. So much easier to sweep things under the rug.

~~~
RyanZAG
Good point.

Still, maybe we should publicize that allegations have occurred without
specifying against who? And making it public if an organisation refuses to
investigate. That should give the same public result without the need to
attack someone who is only alleged.

------
freedomben
I'm glad that people are beginning to stand up to this type of behavior. It is
completely unacceptable and has no place in our society, let alone the
workplace.

That said, I do fear we may take it too far. Unwanted touching is _never_ OK,
and abusive/hurtful language is not OK either. However, I saw a poll the other
day where a significant number of respondents said that asking someone on a
date was sexual harassment.

There have also been a lot of cases where sex was consensual, but later on one
of the parties had regrets, and now it was considered rape (even though it was
consensual at the time it was happening). This sort of thing is what happened
with Louis C.K. What he did was sick and weird IMHO, but the women actually
consented to watching him pet his monkey, but then later after the fact had
regret, and what in the moment was fine suddenly became a heinous act. If this
is the standard, I think we're all screwed, because we have all undoubtedly
"raped" or at least "sexually harassed" somebody.

~~~
muglug
> There have also been a lot of cases where sex was consensual, but later on
> one of the parties had regrets, and now it was considered rape

Sure, "a lot". But it is a very small percentage of all rape reports
(obviously not counting the millions of rapes that are never reported).

> This sort of thing is what happened with Louis C.K

No it's not. Not in the least.

> the women actually consented to watching him pet his monkey

No they did not.

~~~
freedomben
> Sure, "a lot". But it is a very small percentage of all rape reports
> (obviously not counting the millions of rapes that are never reported).

Fair enough, "a lot" is most likely not accurate. It's probably a small
percentage of all rape reports.

> No it's not. Not in the least. > No they did not.

Yes, they did. His mea culpa was essentially a statement that he believed that
his asking for and receiving consent wasn't valid because he didn't realize
that the women's respect and admiration for him would cause them to feel
pressured to consent. I don't fully disagree with his analysis there, but if
the standard is that anybody who has respect for you cannot consent, we are in
some trouble.

~~~
aidenn0
The standard is more closely "anybody that works for you cannot consent,
especially when you make the first advances" which makes more sense, because
it's not always possible to tell if "I want you to have sex with me" includes
the subtext "Have sex with me or I'll fire you"

