2 ms·

> Are you assuming that there is some genetic or evolutionary reason for men to like cars? That somehow it is hard-coded into the Y chromosome to like cars? Th

by Lio 10y ago

> Are you assuming that there is some genetic or evolutionary reason for men to like cars? That somehow it is hard-coded into the Y chromosome to like cars? There does seem to be some supporting evidence for this theory over social conditioning. Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children[1] [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08000949 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08... [edit] I'm actually rather uncomfortable posting this paper as I don't feel I personally have enough expertise to draw any conclusions from it. I'm just posting it as it seems to directly address the parent's question.

gspetr 10y ago
I think the issue here is that society sets a taboo on certain views, no matter if they make sense or not. In a sense we have gone back to believing that the Earth is flat when we deny uncomfortable conclusions based on society's (implicit) pressure.
- Lio 10y ago
  I hope that's not the case here. My reluctance to give my own conclusions about paper is that I don't have the background to interpret the observations properly. I didn't want my posting of it to be taken as a statement of a poorly informed opinion one way or another, rather than me feeling pressured by society not to discuss it. I personally don't have anything objective to contribute to discussion that wouldn't be distracting.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    The problem as always is that, every time a field or industry has tried to argue "well, (insert underrepresented group here) just aren't interested in/aren't as good at what we do", no matter how many attempts they make to justify it with weird evolutionary arguments, they usually end up being proven wrong when someone finds a way to remove bias from the entry process of that field or industry. Seriously, go read about stuff like the blind auditions for orchestras (and applications of the same technique to other fields) and how they blew up any notion of meritocratic processes and gender/racial imbalance being purely due to lack of interest or ability from the groups being excluded.
    - gspetr 10y ago
      This is an interesting analogy and there is evidence that it works, as long as you somehow negate the gatekeeper: Biases from interviewers. Does it still hold when there is no gatekeeper? I'm not seeing that many minority or women as entrepreneurs. Can you hypothesize why is that? For example if the oft cited gender pay gap is really as wide as 23%, where are the all female companies with female CEOs exploiting the market inefficiencies?
      - ubernostrum 10y ago
        You really really really want to read this: http://danluu.com/tech-discrimination/ http://danluu.com/tech-discrimination/
        gspetr 10y ago
        I have read your comment's link. I wish I hadn't. Why? Because you haven't read mine. You replied to a strawman. I was talking about female CEOs, not female employees. Where are the female Zuckerbergs and Bill Gates' who dropped out of college and went on to build tech empires?

by Lio 10y ago

gspetr 10y ago

I think the issue here is that society sets a taboo on certain views, no matter if they make sense or not. In a sense we have gone back to believing that the Earth is flat when we deny uncomfortable conclusions based on society's (implicit) pressure.

Lio 10y ago
I hope that's not the case here. My reluctance to give my own conclusions about paper is that I don't have the background to interpret the observations properly. I didn't want my posting of it to be taken as a statement of a poorly informed opinion one way or another, rather than me feeling pressured by society not to discuss it. I personally don't have anything objective to contribute to discussion that wouldn't be distracting.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  The problem as always is that, every time a field or industry has tried to argue "well, (insert underrepresented group here) just aren't interested in/aren't as good at what we do", no matter how many attempts they make to justify it with weird evolutionary arguments, they usually end up being proven wrong when someone finds a way to remove bias from the entry process of that field or industry. Seriously, go read about stuff like the blind auditions for orchestras (and applications of the same technique to other fields) and how they blew up any notion of meritocratic processes and gender/racial imbalance being purely due to lack of interest or ability from the groups being excluded.
  - gspetr 10y ago
    This is an interesting analogy and there is evidence that it works, as long as you somehow negate the gatekeeper: Biases from interviewers. Does it still hold when there is no gatekeeper? I'm not seeing that many minority or women as entrepreneurs. Can you hypothesize why is that? For example if the oft cited gender pay gap is really as wide as 23%, where are the all female companies with female CEOs exploiting the market inefficiencies?
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      You really really really want to read this: http://danluu.com/tech-discrimination/ http://danluu.com/tech-discrimination/
      - gspetr 10y ago
        I have read your comment's link. I wish I hadn't. Why? Because you haven't read mine. You replied to a strawman. I was talking about female CEOs, not female employees. Where are the female Zuckerbergs and Bill Gates' who dropped out of college and went on to build tech empires?