5 ms·

A coherent article trying to establish evidence of a particular argument or claim would include all available studies and weigh them against their various diffe

A coherent article trying to establish evidence of a particular argument or claim would include all available studies and weigh them against their various differences in order to find a viable conclusion. It would, at the very least, attempt to search for alternate explanations and present them, and then make an attempt to debunk them. The article's main problem is it's trying to attack a very specific problem, which is actually part of broader trends in human behavior and culture. It doesn't address that at all. The author claims "gap != discrimination", which is true in basic definition and theory. But if you look at all the other studies that show things like hiring discrimination, discrimination getting into a good school, discrimination based on where/how one grows up, cultural discrimination, etc, gaps immediately form and cause a ripple effect. That there are about as many black men as white women (or less) in a given tech field is one example of this. Pick any other discriminated-against minority and you see the same, except when hiring from overseas (economic benefit) or hiring someone with a preferred social stereotype. If the author's argument is that women simply prefer not to go into this field due to some weird connection between math and speech, then you have to ask why the connection? Is it due to "biology", or social conditioning, or the wariness of sexual harassment in a male-dominated field, or the low pay, or a combination of these things? This article doesn't attempt to look at those, and its limited view of the subject leaves it running into the same correlation-is-causation conclusions it laments.

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
> Pick any other discriminated-against minority and you see the same, except when hiring from overseas (economic benefit) or hiring someone with a preferred social stereotype. So you really think that the huge over-representation of Indians and East Asians (relative to population) in STEM fields is just because people are hiring a preferred social stereotype? Could in perhaps be that they're actually more qualified? That's my main problem with arguments that all numeric disparities are because on discrimination. I've never seen any convincing argument or study that Indians and East Asians suffer less discrimination than, say, Hispanics, but as they are no longer "under-represented minorities", they no longer "count" toward diversity goals.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  More qualified women (and people with "ethnic names" and other discriminators) often get passed over for jobs or promotions by people who are less qualified, but have a preferred social stereotype. So the idea that qualification or merit is going to result in commensurate representation across the board doesn't work. People who self-identify as Asian may be the best qualified for the position, but it doesn't hurt that it also reinforces their social stereotype. Asians are actually significantly over-represented in STEM, and make more money than any other group.
  - yunyu 9y ago
    More money on average, but not necessarily at the top levels.
  - droidist2 9y ago
    > make more money than any other group They also tend to live in the most expensive cities in the country. A lot more Asians live in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles than in other regions that cost less and pay less. I'm not sure if that gets factored into the statistics.
- matt4077 9y ago
  They aren't qualified because they're Asian. Most importantly, you're the victim of selection bias: Only the most-qualified among about 4.4 billion people in Asia end up working IT in the US where you can observe them. Why do they work mostly in STEM/IT? Because their home countries emphasise certain skills in school, because it's much easier to work in IT when you're from a foreign country than law, journalism, or business. And because these things often create feedback loops, because some people return and start teaching, or their stories become examples for others to follow. Compare, for example, the success of Cubans in Baseball.
  - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
    > Why do they work mostly in STEM/IT? Because their home countries emphasise certain skills in school, because it's much easier to work in IT when you're from a foreign country than law, journalism, or business. And because these things often create feedback loops, because some people return and start teaching, or their stories become examples for others to follow. I'm not disagreeing with you. You are saying that there are cultural reasons for why certain groups are over-represented in STEM fields, and that's my point: is quite possible that these cultural reasons are a much larger factor than bias and discrimination.
EGreg 9y ago
Why the connection? http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
macspoofing 9y ago
You and author are spinning in circles as is typical in this discussion. In his post he characterized what you wrote as the sort of thing proponents of the "sexism-is-the-cause-for-no-women-in-STEM" theory would say. You characterized what he said as something a sexist proponent of "sexism-is-NOT-the-cause-for-no-women-in-STEM" theory would say. But here's the crux of his argument that is never answered honestly: >Is it possible that something other than discrimination is a main source of gender gaps in STEM? And I think it's clear that the answer is YES! So what are we talking about here?
hasenj 9y ago
> That there are about as many black men as white women (or less) in a given tech field is one example of this. The problem with your line of thinking is you are looking at the outcome as if it was evidence. The unspoken assumption is that all humans are the same, or if not, then you're assuming that "skills" are distributed the same way across all populations. There's no reason to think this, and there's lots of evidence to the contrary, but it doesn't get any attention because anyone who talks about quickly gets labeled as racist. Which might be true (that scientists and authors who talk about IQ differences across population could be racists), but doesn't make the facts less true.
- tptacek 9y ago
  This is a tire fire of a thread but I'll respond to your concern: the science of heritability, malleability, and measurement of intellect is nowhere near settled, not even close --- we barely understand the populations we've managed to measure. People who attempt to represent the scientific literature as having established a meaningful gap between "races" are misrepresenting the science, and doing so --- intentionally or not --- in the service of a strain of culture that has been persecuting and abusing people for centuries. If you believe there's a "lot of evidence to the contrary", you should take it up with Turkheimer and Nisbett, both of whom have put more time into studying these issues than any combination of HN commenters have, combined. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-...
  - hasenj 9y ago
    Did you even listen to Sam Harris's podcast with Charles Murray? I've seen this vox article before and I think it's a joke. EDIT: To clarify my GP comment, the point is that there are very good reasons to conclude that IQ is not distributed equally across different populations, and so if there are different percentages of developers from X or Y populations it should not be seen as evidence of discrimination because it could very well be the result of IQ distribution. Also, it should not be necessary to point out since it should have no bearing on the discusion, but I am not white (at least not of European ancestry).

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago

> Pick any other discriminated-against minority and you see the same, except when hiring from overseas (economic benefit) or hiring someone with a preferred social stereotype. So you really think that the huge over-representation of Indians and East Asians (relative to population) in STEM fields is just because people are hiring a preferred social stereotype? Could in perhaps be that they're actually more qualified? That's my main problem with arguments that all numeric disparities are because on discrimination. I've never seen any convincing argument or study that Indians and East Asians suffer less discrimination than, say, Hispanics, but as they are no longer "under-represented minorities", they no longer "count" toward diversity goals.

peterwwillis 9y ago
More qualified women (and people with "ethnic names" and other discriminators) often get passed over for jobs or promotions by people who are less qualified, but have a preferred social stereotype. So the idea that qualification or merit is going to result in commensurate representation across the board doesn't work. People who self-identify as Asian may be the best qualified for the position, but it doesn't hurt that it also reinforces their social stereotype. Asians are actually significantly over-represented in STEM, and make more money than any other group.
- yunyu 9y ago
  More money on average, but not necessarily at the top levels.
- droidist2 9y ago
  > make more money than any other group They also tend to live in the most expensive cities in the country. A lot more Asians live in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles than in other regions that cost less and pay less. I'm not sure if that gets factored into the statistics.
matt4077 9y ago
They aren't qualified because they're Asian. Most importantly, you're the victim of selection bias: Only the most-qualified among about 4.4 billion people in Asia end up working IT in the US where you can observe them. Why do they work mostly in STEM/IT? Because their home countries emphasise certain skills in school, because it's much easier to work in IT when you're from a foreign country than law, journalism, or business. And because these things often create feedback loops, because some people return and start teaching, or their stories become examples for others to follow. Compare, for example, the success of Cubans in Baseball.
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  > Why do they work mostly in STEM/IT? Because their home countries emphasise certain skills in school, because it's much easier to work in IT when you're from a foreign country than law, journalism, or business. And because these things often create feedback loops, because some people return and start teaching, or their stories become examples for others to follow. I'm not disagreeing with you. You are saying that there are cultural reasons for why certain groups are over-represented in STEM fields, and that's my point: is quite possible that these cultural reasons are a much larger factor than bias and discrimination.

EGreg 9y ago

Why the connection? http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

macspoofing 9y ago

You and author are spinning in circles as is typical in this discussion. In his post he characterized what you wrote as the sort of thing proponents of the "sexism-is-the-cause-for-no-women-in-STEM" theory would say. You characterized what he said as something a sexist proponent of "sexism-is-NOT-the-cause-for-no-women-in-STEM" theory would say. But here's the crux of his argument that is never answered honestly: >Is it possible that something other than discrimination is a main source of gender gaps in STEM? And I think it's clear that the answer is YES! So what are we talking about here?

hasenj 9y ago

> That there are about as many black men as white women (or less) in a given tech field is one example of this. The problem with your line of thinking is you are looking at the outcome as if it was evidence. The unspoken assumption is that all humans are the same, or if not, then you're assuming that "skills" are distributed the same way across all populations. There's no reason to think this, and there's lots of evidence to the contrary, but it doesn't get any attention because anyone who talks about quickly gets labeled as racist. Which might be true (that scientists and authors who talk about IQ differences across population could be racists), but doesn't make the facts less true.

tptacek 9y ago
This is a tire fire of a thread but I'll respond to your concern: the science of heritability, malleability, and measurement of intellect is nowhere near settled, not even close --- we barely understand the populations we've managed to measure. People who attempt to represent the scientific literature as having established a meaningful gap between "races" are misrepresenting the science, and doing so --- intentionally or not --- in the service of a strain of culture that has been persecuting and abusing people for centuries. If you believe there's a "lot of evidence to the contrary", you should take it up with Turkheimer and Nisbett, both of whom have put more time into studying these issues than any combination of HN commenters have, combined. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-...
- hasenj 9y ago
  Did you even listen to Sam Harris's podcast with Charles Murray? I've seen this vox article before and I think it's a joke. EDIT: To clarify my GP comment, the point is that there are very good reasons to conclude that IQ is not distributed equally across different populations, and so if there are different percentages of developers from X or Y populations it should not be seen as evidence of discrimination because it could very well be the result of IQ distribution. Also, it should not be necessary to point out since it should have no bearing on the discusion, but I am not white (at least not of European ancestry).