4 ms·

Why are you answering nature vs nurture with (I paraphrase) "100% nature and anyone who says otherwise is an irrational charlatan"? This debate is cliched at th

by smadge 10y ago

Why are you answering nature vs nurture with (I paraphrase) "100% nature and anyone who says otherwise is an irrational charlatan"? This debate is cliched at this point. From the study you linked to: "As suggested by previous literature and the present study, interests stabilize at an early age. Given the essential role of family and other environmental influences in the socialization process of children and their interest development, it may be important for parents, educators, and counselors to be involved early on, when interests seem more malleable." i.e. the study accepts the theory that environment, family and in general socialization, contribute to a child's interests. This is the exact opposite of what you claim in your comment "It is important to note that group differences do not speak for every individual within a group,and it is not the purpose of the present study to reify the stereo-types that men and women are interested in their “traditional”areas." The study is talking about d < 1 effect sizes. That means that there is a still a significant part of the group that is more interested in a subject than a significant part of the other group. Think of two mostly overlapping normal curves. "it is beyond the scope of the present study to provide a detailed exploration of the environmental, social, and biological factors that have contributed to the development of these sex differences" The study makes no claim as to the cause of these sex differences. They only point out that there is a difference and suggest "environmental, social, and biological factors" as the cause. Again, the opposite of what you claim.

omginternets 10y ago
>100% nature and anyone who says otherwise is an irrational charlatan What a strange comment (you don't paraphrase; you caricature)! I'm not saying any of this! Where did you get the impression that I was? I agree with all your points, btw. The existence of these differences doesn't enlighten us as to their causes, proximal or distal. Rather, we have much evidence showing that anatomy and physiology influence cognition. Does this explain the gender gap completely? That's unlikely, but it's equally unlikely that the gender gap would disappear if only the "mean old white men stopped being jerks". tl;dr: if we're going to have an honest debate, we have to entertain the notion that at least part of the gender gap is the result of "nature".
- smadge 10y ago
  I'm sorry I caricatured your position. I think we agree that the assumption that "removing interviewer/managerial bias will result in a gender ratio of 50%" is false. The variability of sex differences in vocational interests probably accounts for more of the gap than bias in the hiring process, i.e. "mean old white men". I can also accept that physiology influences cognition, although where we disagree is how much of a factor that is in the gender gap, or how relevant it is to any sort of policy decision. Removing bias in the hiring process wont solve the gender gap entirely, but it will help it. Telling girls that they can do and be whatever they want wont solve the gender gap entirely, but it will help it. Changing the masculine and sexist culture in STEM wont completely solve the issue either. There is basically nothing that can remove the hypothetical physiological factors contributing to gender disparity in STEM fields. So why are we even talking about it? It derails the conversation. There are things that can be done, and we should do them. Until we reach the limit of what is possible according to your hypothetical physiological explanation, why bother even bringing it up?

by smadge 10y ago

omginternets 10y ago

>100% nature and anyone who says otherwise is an irrational charlatan What a strange comment (you don't paraphrase; you caricature)! I'm not saying any of this! Where did you get the impression that I was? I agree with all your points, btw. The existence of these differences doesn't enlighten us as to their causes, proximal or distal. Rather, we have much evidence showing that anatomy and physiology influence cognition. Does this explain the gender gap completely? That's unlikely, but it's equally unlikely that the gender gap would disappear if only the "mean old white men stopped being jerks". tl;dr: if we're going to have an honest debate, we have to entertain the notion that at least part of the gender gap is the result of "nature".

smadge 10y ago
I'm sorry I caricatured your position. I think we agree that the assumption that "removing interviewer/managerial bias will result in a gender ratio of 50%" is false. The variability of sex differences in vocational interests probably accounts for more of the gap than bias in the hiring process, i.e. "mean old white men". I can also accept that physiology influences cognition, although where we disagree is how much of a factor that is in the gender gap, or how relevant it is to any sort of policy decision. Removing bias in the hiring process wont solve the gender gap entirely, but it will help it. Telling girls that they can do and be whatever they want wont solve the gender gap entirely, but it will help it. Changing the masculine and sexist culture in STEM wont completely solve the issue either. There is basically nothing that can remove the hypothetical physiological factors contributing to gender disparity in STEM fields. So why are we even talking about it? It derails the conversation. There are things that can be done, and we should do them. Until we reach the limit of what is possible according to your hypothetical physiological explanation, why bother even bringing it up?