6 ms·
> Even if there are measurable statistical differences in competence at various activities between the sexes (which is far from proven), the average variation b
by 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.