4 ms·

Who gives a crap? Even if there are measurable statistical differences in competence at various activities between the sexes (which is far from proven), the ave

by lukev 16y ago

Who gives a crap? Even if there are measurable statistical differences in competence at various activities between the sexes (which is far from proven), the average variation between two individuals is far, far more than the average variation between the sexes at large. In other words, treat people like the individuals and stop ANY form of discrimination based on irrelevant categories, sex-based or otherwise. Also, the article makes much of the fact that women are getting more education. But this is probably because it is both harder and less necessary for them to jump into the workforce straight out of high school, not because they're any better or more prone to academia. I have no hard data to back this up, but I strongly suspect that your average woman in her 20s is FAR more likely to be at least partially dependent on a husband or parents than a man of the same age.

Eliezer 16y ago
> the average variation between two individuals is far, far more than the average variation between the sexes at large You might want to stop and think about how the world would have to look for the above statement not to be true. I don't think it's as strong as you think it is.
- lukev 16y ago
  I didn't intend it to be a strong point. It's actually more of a truism. But you'd never know it from reading the subject article, so I felt it needed to be restated.
Qz 16y ago
> Even if there are measurable statistical differences in competence at various activities between the sexes (which is far from proven), the average variation between two individuals is far, far more than the average variation between the sexes at large. This is has no bearing on the issue. Yes, two individuals are probably measurably more different than the average woman vs the average man, but the qualities of the individual tend to balance out to a middle point in the larger picture. While variation is high, there is a single locus. With gender, the average woman compared to the average men may be less different than any two random individuals, but there are nonetheless two loci for gender. > But this is probably because it is both harder and less necessary for them to jump into the workforce straight out of high school, not because they're any better or more prone to academia. I have no hard data to back this up, but I strongly suspect that your average woman in her 20s is FAR more likely to be at least partially dependent on a husband or parents than a man of the same age. And maybe Unicorns are making all the girls smarter, and flying spaghetti monsters are distracting all the men from studying and doing homework. I have no hard data to back that up. I'm just saying. Seriously though, if you don't have at least some kind of evidence to back up what you're saying, you're better off just not saying it. (p.s. the data says you're wrong.)
- lukev 16y ago
  > This is has no bearing on the issue. Yes, two individuals are probably measurably more different than the average woman vs the average man, but the qualities of the individual tend to balance out to a middle point in the larger picture. If the average difference between all men and all women on Skill X is 3%, and the average difference between any two given individuals is 30%, then even though there are two distinct loci, gender is still an extremely weak indicator. Sure, it shows up on statistical charts, but for that to be a meaningful "larger picture" means it should be able to inform our actions as a society. But the huge intra-group variation means that any action we do take based on this data is necessarily unfair to a large number of individuals. > (p.s. the data says you're wrong.) Please, I love to see it. I would have researched it myself except didn't have time to dig around right now and a quick Google search turns up nothing on the subject.
  - Qz 16y ago
    > If the average difference between all men and all women on Skill X is 3%, and the average difference between any two given individuals is 30%, then even though there are two distinct loci, gender is still an extremely weak indicator. This assumes that all qualities are perceived equally. The fact is that humans are biologically and socially predisposed to pay more attention to gender cues than almost everything else. Gender matters a lot more to basic reproduction than whether you like country and I like rap. Besides, the fact that more women are getting bachelor's degrees, etc, says nothing about which gender has more skill (which btw is taught rather than inherent), and the article never made implied that anyway. The point is, gender matters, and the fact that humans on the whole are more diverse from each other than one gender is from the other does nothing to change that.
acid_bath 16y ago
> I have no hard data to back this up, but I strongly suspect that your average woman in her 20s is FAR more likely to be at least partially dependent on a husband or parents than a man of the same age. Careful with your selection bias, though. My experience mirrors yours (all my male friends are completely independent, many female friends are dependent on boyfriend or parents), but almost all my male peers are software developers, engineers, some PhDs, etc. My female peers, on the other hand, are from a more diverse pool of people.
willchang 16y ago
> Who gives a crap? I would agree if 'male' and 'female' were arbitrary labels. But they're not. Gender is far less arbitrary than, say, race. It is reasonable to suppose that even a small shift in power between the sexes might affect how they interact, and by extension, society (and not necessarily for the worse, of course). In other HN articles it has been claimed that big changes happen when the sex ratio is put out of balance by even small amounts. > In other words, treat people like the individuals and stop ANY form of discrimination based on irrelevant categories, sex-based or otherwise. This is beside the point. As a demographic, men are becoming less privileged without there being overt discrimination against them. This is newsworthy.

by lukev 16y ago

Eliezer 16y ago

> the average variation between two individuals is far, far more than the average variation between the sexes at large You might want to stop and think about how the world would have to look for the above statement not to be true. I don't think it's as strong as you think it is.

lukev 16y ago
I didn't intend it to be a strong point. It's actually more of a truism. But you'd never know it from reading the subject article, so I felt it needed to be restated.

Qz 16y ago

> Even if there are measurable statistical differences in competence at various activities between the sexes (which is far from proven), the average variation between two individuals is far, far more than the average variation between the sexes at large. This is has no bearing on the issue. Yes, two individuals are probably measurably more different than the average woman vs the average man, but the qualities of the individual tend to balance out to a middle point in the larger picture. While variation is high, there is a single locus. With gender, the average woman compared to the average men may be less different than any two random individuals, but there are nonetheless two loci for gender. > But this is probably because it is both harder and less necessary for them to jump into the workforce straight out of high school, not because they're any better or more prone to academia. I have no hard data to back this up, but I strongly suspect that your average woman in her 20s is FAR more likely to be at least partially dependent on a husband or parents than a man of the same age. And maybe Unicorns are making all the girls smarter, and flying spaghetti monsters are distracting all the men from studying and doing homework. I have no hard data to back that up. I'm just saying. Seriously though, if you don't have at least some kind of evidence to back up what you're saying, you're better off just not saying it. (p.s. the data says you're wrong.)

lukev 16y ago
> This is has no bearing on the issue. Yes, two individuals are probably measurably more different than the average woman vs the average man, but the qualities of the individual tend to balance out to a middle point in the larger picture. If the average difference between all men and all women on Skill X is 3%, and the average difference between any two given individuals is 30%, then even though there are two distinct loci, gender is still an extremely weak indicator. Sure, it shows up on statistical charts, but for that to be a meaningful "larger picture" means it should be able to inform our actions as a society. But the huge intra-group variation means that any action we do take based on this data is necessarily unfair to a large number of individuals. > (p.s. the data says you're wrong.) Please, I love to see it. I would have researched it myself except didn't have time to dig around right now and a quick Google search turns up nothing on the subject.
- Qz 16y ago
  > If the average difference between all men and all women on Skill X is 3%, and the average difference between any two given individuals is 30%, then even though there are two distinct loci, gender is still an extremely weak indicator. This assumes that all qualities are perceived equally. The fact is that humans are biologically and socially predisposed to pay more attention to gender cues than almost everything else. Gender matters a lot more to basic reproduction than whether you like country and I like rap. Besides, the fact that more women are getting bachelor's degrees, etc, says nothing about which gender has more skill (which btw is taught rather than inherent), and the article never made implied that anyway. The point is, gender matters, and the fact that humans on the whole are more diverse from each other than one gender is from the other does nothing to change that.

acid_bath 16y ago

> I have no hard data to back this up, but I strongly suspect that your average woman in her 20s is FAR more likely to be at least partially dependent on a husband or parents than a man of the same age. Careful with your selection bias, though. My experience mirrors yours (all my male friends are completely independent, many female friends are dependent on boyfriend or parents), but almost all my male peers are software developers, engineers, some PhDs, etc. My female peers, on the other hand, are from a more diverse pool of people.

willchang 16y ago

> Who gives a crap? I would agree if 'male' and 'female' were arbitrary labels. But they're not. Gender is far less arbitrary than, say, race. It is reasonable to suppose that even a small shift in power between the sexes might affect how they interact, and by extension, society (and not necessarily for the worse, of course). In other HN articles it has been claimed that big changes happen when the sex ratio is put out of balance by even small amounts. > In other words, treat people like the individuals and stop ANY form of discrimination based on irrelevant categories, sex-based or otherwise. This is beside the point. As a demographic, men are becoming less privileged without there being overt discrimination against them. This is newsworthy.