Hacker Cinema
Brainwashing
Hjernevask
2010 · TV series · documentary · 40 min episodes · 1 season
Interviewing several Norwegian and international scientists, the documentary series asks whether biology has been underestimated in social sciences.
20 positive1 neutralfrom 21 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
23 comments on Hacker News
Ha, Ha; True. For some reason people don't want to face reality but want to believe in fancies/stories which they have picked up from surrounding society.
Related, the Norwegian documentary series "Hjernevask" (i.e. Brainwash) is interesting - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask
It's Norway, not the UK (which doesn't even have a formal constitution), with the 2nd oldest active constitution. [1] And they also have ingrained and well supported freedom of speech dating back to 1814. In fact many regular parts of Norwegian discourse would never be allowed in the US, and would be framed as some sort of ultra radical far whatever blah blah end of the world type stuff.
For instance Hjernevask [2] was an extremely popular series aired on the primary state owned broadcasting channel. It was a documentary that was highly critical of gender studies and a variety of other topics related to identity politics. The title translates to "brainwashing." And in 2011, after the documentary aired, Norway did choose to cease funding Nordic Gender Institute, leading to its closure - though they stated that the documentary was not directly why. Yet, lo and behold, Norway remains one the single most egalitarian and gender equal societies in the world.
Open dialogue is not a threat to anything except bad ideas and bad actors. And it's critical to help ensure everybody has a voice in society, even if what's coming out of their mouth is not what you might want to hear. That said I do agree with you the the US constitution could use some updates, but that would be largely to further these aims. So, for instance, I think proportional representation (as Norway swapped to in 1919) is just objectively better than this district based first past the post nonsense.
But the reason for that change is again precisely to make sure everybody has some representation. For instance, rolling with the Norway theme, here is a list of their political parties currently with representation in Parliament. [3] You've got your religious types, your socialists, your right wing populists, an agrarian party, liberal conservatives, and more. In the US we get to choose between pack of idiots #1, pack of idiots #2, and throwing away your vote.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Norway
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Norway#Parties_currently_in_Parliament
There was an excellent series on this exact question released in Norway called Hjernevask [1]. Linking to Wiki there since it provides a link directly to each video as well as a brief synopsis. It had a profound impact on its release in Norway starting extensive discussion of the topic and ultimately led to the removal of government funding for gender studies programs. The primary methodology was simply approaching researchers with contrary research and seeking their views and opinions.
This is also not an American style documentary where things are taken out of context or efforts made to entrap researchers or anything like that. It's just regular interviews on both sides of the argument alongside giving each side the opportunity to express themselves as well as their views on research that tends to run contrary to their own personal views. But all in all this ultimately serves to greatly emphasize how tenuous the appeals to a social construct are when contrasted against the other option.
It goes without saying, but all episodes are of course also subtitled in English.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask
Norwegian documentary, actually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs&list=PLaJtMuDnR5KLwrt4z1O8tKmHWmUm3nObV
(The links in the Wikipedia article go to videos with a bit higher quality than the Youtube playlist.)
James Damore was fired for citing scientific articles, for example.
You can also watch the swedish documentary Hjernevask which shows what happens when science goes against the PC system, it's fascinating.
I think that's improbable. You have to keep in mind that the US zeitgeist and even the Scandinavian zeitgeist are radically different, and diverging rapidly. For instance there was a 7 part television series published on regular television in Norway called Hjernevask, which translates to Brainwash. [1] (English subs are provided). It was primarily about the absurdities within gender studies and associated social 'sciences.'
If that was published in America, you'd have 'progressive' lynch mobs lining up with torches and pitchforks. Seriously, watch that video and imagine the reaction if that series aired on e.g. NBC in the US. In Scandinavia it instead simply led to an increased discussion of the issues mentioned. One of the major institutes studied, the Nordic Gender Institute', was also defunded shortly after the series ran. The government maintains that it was simply a coincidence. [2]
Speaking critically of systems which are ostensibly about progressive values, and "denigrating others just because you don't like their type" are not the same thing.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E577jhf25t4
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Gender_Institute#Impact_of_Hjernevask
>Dr. Carnevale wouldn’t speculate as to why women make their choices.
I'll help him out. Go watch a Norwegian documentary called Hjernevask (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask). A comedian wonders aloud why, in the most gender-equal country in the world, women still prefer lower-paying jobs. Its success led Norway to shut down its Gender Studies Institute.
Not everything is the cause of rampant misogyny.
I remember this was also the conclusion of the documentary "Hjernevask". I linked to it yesterday at:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15014895
Men and women living in richer and mostly western countries have the luxury to choose the jobs they are attracted to even if that attraction is to some extent based on biological factors and not societal or economic factors.
The following documentary covered it and according to them it is not because bright girls are pushed to "girly" fields:
https://youtu.be/E577jhf25t4
Also watch the other episodes at:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLd9_g7lAICxtlGbxh4_z8ik178o8CDPnv
https://youtu.be/Ve6uK00AvNo
It also covers why women in for example India and the Middle-East are more into computer science.
You can read more about the series at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask
The video is called Hjernevask [1] and it is a Norwegian documentary. Norwegian is one of the highly gender equal countries [2], for your information. The reporter is interviewing Norwegian social scientists about their theories of gender and social constructionism. The documentary generated much public debate in the country.
I knew you weren't calling me stupid. I called you stupid because you weren't able to spend 1 minute to check a reference and decided to throw up all your speech without even knowing what I was talking about.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask
[2] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153857
I recommend this documentary which goes into that question
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask
I wonder if all these politically correct apparatchiks realise that they're creating the roots of their own downfall by attempting to control as much of public life as possible. When the political winds change - which they always do - those in opposition to the current wave of post-modernism will find everything ready to banish them and their ideology to the darkest corners of oblivion. Any complaints from their side will easily be taken care of as they did exactly the same to their opponents.
Also, anyone in favour of these gender-related shenanigans should do a bit more study on the subject. Not a study of the latest fluff piece by the local gender faculty, please. The Norwegian 'Hjernevask' ('Brainwash') [1] series is a good introduction, all 7 episodes are freely available. After the series was aired in Norway the Nordic Council of Ministers closed down the Nordic Gender Institute.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask I recommend watching this, it will shatter some preconceptions.
Maybe they just don't like CS or STEM fields in general? There's something called the Norwegian Gender Paradox. A Norwegian comedian made a documentary about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask.
There are 7 episodes but here is some of it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
Bascially, Norway is/was the most gender equal country in the world according to some index, yet the gender disparity in jobs is still very high. Apparently, the more advanced and gender equal a country is, the greater the disparity. The host of the documentary goes and finds some real scientists and they agree that biology plays a role.
Are we actually going to do further research even if the result is uncomfortable? If we find that biological differences are pushing girls to play with dolls and boys to play with trucks, are we going to stop pushing women to go into STEM fields?
However, equal opportunity does not directly lead to diversity. It's possible, even likely, that genders are biased towards certain careers even when there is no discrimination at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask, a social documentary by Norwegian comedian and sociologist Harald Eia, has a rather interesting segment on this exact issue.
There's a very good Norwegian documentary series Hjernevask ("Brainwash") that tackles this issue in its first episode.
"Why do girls tend to go into empathizing professions and boys into systemizing professions? Why does the labor market become more gender segregated the more economic prosperity a country has?"
It's freely available online if you're interested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask
Not him, but there's a Norwegian documentary series called Hjernevask you might be interested in. It contains interviews with a bunch of gender researchers on both sides. It's on YouTube[1].
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLd9_g7lAICxtlGbxh4_z8ik178o8CDPnv
Thank you for this - a fascinating documentary and I am planning on watching the rest in the series.
(http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8_hjernevask-brainwashing-in-norway-english-part-1-the-gender-equality-paradox_news)
The above link is from Wikipedia and is a English subtitle - the comedian / host wants to know why in Norway there are clear gender divides - 10% women in a construction firm, no men in a hospital maternity ward. He approaches Norwegian researchers who basically say there is no biological difference, but it's cultural (boys clothes in blue etc). He then points at a road sign with a male worker digging.
Then we fly to USA and England, visiting researchers in biological basis of gender difference. And hey presto there are some. He amusingly shows English researchers video of Norwegians and vice versa, running his own academic face-off.
In the end the Norwegians Coke off worse, being dogmatic about there being no biological basis instead of some mixed approach.
Well worth a look.
Does it matter? Is there some (testosterone related) difference in empathy that means jobs with more human to human basis (nursing, pre-school teaching) attract women / reject men and vice versa for construction / IT?
Well, yes.
Does this mean that you and I and every hiring manager and departmental culture is perfect, balanced, diversity friendly,. No of course not.
The biological basis for our geneder differences is valid and (not being an expert) probably unassailable. However if there is some scientifically determined geneder ratio for each industry (or even individual job!) is the firm you work in showing that ratio - or is it biased towards some other ratio?
That's my point - no matter if biology says 50/50 or 80/20 , I refuse to believe every tech firm out there is perfectly gender balanced and has nothing to learn.
Oddly enough, one thing that shines through is that in "poorer countries" (India, Eastern Europe) gender preferences are over-ridden by the simple desire to get lucrative jobs. And anecdotally, there are more non- western women in my Fortune 500 workplace than western.
And this leaves the last question - what should be the ratio of men/women in software? 10% like construction firms? 50/50 like medicine?
I doubt this is a simple or solvable question - but Inwoukd always suggest that if you think you are doing it all right and have nothing to learn - you are wrong.
There is an excellent Norwegian documentary, Hjernevask, that explores this question and many others like it. The premise is set up in the first couple minutes of the first episode: why is it that in one of the most gender equal countries in the world that women and men still flocked to traditional jobs? It had such an impact that the government decided to shut down their Gender Studies Institute.
But you won't see these kinds of things discussed on HN. I'll be surprised if I don't get any ad hominems lazily labeling me as a redpiller.
>The left wing, whatever it's worth, is certainly not rejecting the theory of evolution. Just because men are evolutionarily predisposed to go to war doesn't mean that not wanting them to go to war is rejecting the theory of evolution.
There is definitely a bias in academia against explaining why the world is the way it is in biological terms. Look at what happened to Larry Summers. Watch the Norwegian documentary Hjernevask (Brainwash) (it's on the net with English subtitles). The psychologist Robert Plomin said this in an interview:
>‘My very first conference was by this old guy Leon Kamin, the author of a book called The Science and Politics of IQ,’ says Plomin. ‘Kamin came back to academia just so as to stop this pernicious stuff about genetics entering psychology.
>...Then he started saying: “We’ve got to stop this talk of genetics now!” And I realised it didn’t matter to Kamin what was true. He believed in what he called “science for the people”, which was what he thought it would be useful for the people to know. I mean, that killed me because it was Kamin and these elite Harvard professors deciding what’s for the people! The idea was that science should serve politics.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/
Suggesting that violence may have a biological basis is a taboo for many people. For example, consider this commentary on a recent study on Chimpanzee violence. The popular explanation has been that the reason they do it is because of human interference, not biology:
>Prof Frans de Waal, an animal behaviour expert from Emory University in the US, said the new study was an important contribution.
>"I'm very glad they're publishing this," he told BBC News. It answers a "long, long history of resistance", Prof de Waal explained, to the idea of natural, inter-community violence in chimpanzees.
>"It has always been contentious - we've had meetings where people screamed at each other.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29237276
If those on the left are fine with accepting evolution, then why would the biological explanation have a long history of resistance? Why would it be contentious?
Plenty on the left do deny/ignore evolution when it comes to topics in human society.
The documentary series is Hjernevask and is amazing, not just the episode on gender: http://vimeo.com/user5971760/videos
My counter to this, is the documentary "Brainwashing" from Norway.
It's quite likely and the conclusion of this Norwegian documentary (well worth watching if only to see Sacha Baron Cohen smarter brother (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask)
You can think of it in terms of Maslow's Pyramid.
Societies at the top of the pyramid are filled with individuals that no longer need to take the highest paying jobs, but can now take jobs that uniquely fulfill their interests and desires. And it could very well be that taken as two bell curves, the interests of women are different from the interests of men, two overlapping bell curves, but with different means, and different variances. Concluding that try as hard as you might, it just may be that women do not want to work in tech and preferentially prefer different sorts of occupation.
There's a story about boxing in America, and that is as various poor immigrant groups came to America, they each in their time rose to the tops of boxing. The Irish, the Jews, the Italians, & the African Americans. These groups saw boxing as a way to rise above their income levels. And as the various groups either assimilated or as a group rose above their resources, their interest in boxing waned.
http://voices.yahoo.com/ethnic-boxers-america-part-i-105696.html
Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, boxing has been a sport dominated by men of meager means and questionable sanity. Who in their right mind would choose to pursue an occupation in which you expose yourself to habitual beatings? Such a calling speaks to men who possess an overabundance of rage, and a dearth of opportunities. Historically, ghettoes are the environment most likely to produce such men. These are neighborhoods where too many people compete for too few resources, and the inhabitants face daily frustrations more profound than those known by more prosperous men.
Something similar could be happening in tech as women in general might prefer occupations that are more female friendly, more family friendly, more human centric, more social, etc., like medicine, or law.
I am explaining this theory, I am not necessarily supporting it. I have no idea why their is a dearth of women in programming. I know in the places I have worked, as a whole there are many women who are often lead developers and managers.