3 ms·

>Do you have any evidence to back up that opinion The very article we're discussing? Remember, it shows 7 times as many women give up as men do. A generaliza

>Do you have any evidence to back up that opinion The very article we're discussing? Remember, it shows 7 times as many women give up as men do. A generalization is not contradicted by one example to the contrary, it would need a majority of examples to the contrary. Obviously some men do give up. But only 1/7th as many as with women. I am simply supporting the explanation someone else offered: that this is because women have inherent value and men's value is purely based on their current level of success. So men have an additional strong incentive to not give up. And when they do give up, it is often just to pursue another avenue where they feel success is more likely, rather than just giving up altogether.

morgante 10y ago
All that is evidence of is that women give up more often than men. That doesn't provide any evidence that it's because men's value is tied to achievement. I could just as readily argue that women give up more than men because they have stronger priors of tech not being for them (fewer peers and role models, less experience, etc.) so any evidence they get confirming that hypothesis is more likely to push them into giving up. We could, in fact, have both things happening simultaneously: some men giving up to protect their ego, but even more women giving up because they think it's not for them.
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  >All that is evidence of is that women give up more often than men Yes, that's the point. >That doesn't provide any evidence that it's because men's value is tied to achievement. Indeed, that's what we're offering a potential explanation for. >I could just as readily argue that women give up more than men because they have stronger priors of tech not being for them Then do so. Saying "I could make a bunch of other arguments but won't because I know they are contradicted by evidence" is not compelling. In fact, I find it inherently dishonest, in that you are trying to rely on the assumption that any other random explanation you could put forth is just as good, but you won't put them forth because then they would be demonstrated to not be just as good.
  - morgante 10y ago
    > Then do so. Sorry, I should have been clear: I do believe that my explanation (women quit more because they have a stronger prior of tech not being for them) is much stronger and more likely than yours. At the very least, its assumptions are backed by basic evidence (that there are fewer women in tech to look up to as role models).
    - MustardTiger 10y ago
      Except they are more likely to give up in other fields too. Even fields with lots of women in them. So no, your assumption is not backed by basic evidence.

morgante 10y ago

All that is evidence of is that women give up more often than men. That doesn't provide any evidence that it's because men's value is tied to achievement. I could just as readily argue that women give up more than men because they have stronger priors of tech not being for them (fewer peers and role models, less experience, etc.) so any evidence they get confirming that hypothesis is more likely to push them into giving up. We could, in fact, have both things happening simultaneously: some men giving up to protect their ego, but even more women giving up because they think it's not for them.

MustardTiger 10y ago
>All that is evidence of is that women give up more often than men Yes, that's the point. >That doesn't provide any evidence that it's because men's value is tied to achievement. Indeed, that's what we're offering a potential explanation for. >I could just as readily argue that women give up more than men because they have stronger priors of tech not being for them Then do so. Saying "I could make a bunch of other arguments but won't because I know they are contradicted by evidence" is not compelling. In fact, I find it inherently dishonest, in that you are trying to rely on the assumption that any other random explanation you could put forth is just as good, but you won't put them forth because then they would be demonstrated to not be just as good.
- morgante 10y ago
  > Then do so. Sorry, I should have been clear: I do believe that my explanation (women quit more because they have a stronger prior of tech not being for them) is much stronger and more likely than yours. At the very least, its assumptions are backed by basic evidence (that there are fewer women in tech to look up to as role models).
  - MustardTiger 10y ago
    Except they are more likely to give up in other fields too. Even fields with lots of women in them. So no, your assumption is not backed by basic evidence.