5 ms·

The existence of sexism and the existence of sex-specific biases in interests are not mutually exclusive. Also note that biological biases does not mean behavio

The existence of sexism and the existence of sex-specific biases in interests are not mutually exclusive. Also note that biological biases does not mean behavior is hard-wired, nurture (societal influence) and nature can both play a role at different weights. If such a natural bias exists and all and sexism is eliminated then there will still be a gender gap among the employees. And forms of affirmative action that aim for 50:50 balance will either have to attract an unusually large number of above-average talent for that specific gender (this strategy can only work locally but not globally) or will result in equally-talented people being disfavored based on their gender. And if there is an assumption that the gender gap is caused by sexism but it is also arises due to natural biases then some people may feel slandered as sexists when they're already acting as gender-neutral as possible. This can breed resentment when you (or your group as a whole) get blamed for something that you're not causing. Disclaimler, this post contains little original thought, most arguments are stolen from https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/gender-imbalances-are-mostly-not-due-to-offensive-attitudes/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/gender-imbalances-are-...

ubernostrum 9y ago
Well you see, brand-new account created to hide from those scary terrible lefties who'd obviously ruin you otherwise, the probability that the distribution we observe today matches the "natural" distribution is, how shall I put this, very low. Now you might ask how I know this, and the answer is simple: open society-wide legally-endorsed discrimination is a thing within living memory here in the US, and a thing that is the present-day situation in quite a few parts of the world. It is simply unreasonable to expect that all consequences of it have been perfectly eliminated by now in order to justify "but women didn't hunt wooly mammoths back in the day, so their brains evolved different from men" as an explanation for why women are underrepresented in tech compared to the general population.
- anon0394678 9y ago
  > Well you see, brand-new account created to hide from those scary terrible lefties who'd obviously ruin you otherwise I am not exactly hiding my intent here, so I am not sure what there is to gain from pointing out the obvious. And no, I do not think that there is someone out there hellbent on ruining my life. It's just a simple countermeasure against a low-probability, high-impact event. And real life conversations are naturally ephemeral, the internet on the other hand does not forget and may randomly amplify whatever I am saying beyond the level I am comfortable with. Throwaway accounts restore some of that natural communication. > It is simply unreasonable to expect that all consequences of it have been perfectly eliminated by now I did not say that this is the case. Sexism and natural biases can exist at the same time. But some people might find it more difficult to be a good and tolerant citizen if the sexism hammer gets wielded against the whole group on every occasion even though only some fraction of the group is actually sexist and another part of the issue stems from natural causes. You also have to consider that some people may agree that sexism is a problem but disagree on what exactly constitutes sexism. Are crude, offensive jokes made in private sexism? What if it is accidentally overheard by the other gender, even though it was not meant to? Like video games some people may enjoy those jokes but never act on the surface message conveyed by the joke in real life. And thus they do not consider it sexist. Others disagree, that much is obvious, but if that disagreement can not even be discussed openly then there's a problem. Anyway, I do agree with the googler that the current overton window is heavily slanted to the point where quite a big fraction of the population feels uncomfortable and excluded, otherwise trump would never have gotten that much support.
  - bitlax 9y ago
    Post your LinkedIn or GTFO! /s
- dionidium 9y ago
  Well you see, brand-new account created to hide from those scary terrible lefties who'd obviously ruin you otherwise Is this supposed to be funny? Google employees (not to mention lots of other folks) are publicly calling for the author's firing. This is not a topic you're allowed to disagree about in good faith. I am nervous even saying this much, for fear that you'll attack me as a defender of what you imagine to be the worst ideas of your opponents.
- humbug471 9y ago
  You know what, buddy? Go choke on your own dick.

ubernostrum 9y ago

Well you see, brand-new account created to hide from those scary terrible lefties who'd obviously ruin you otherwise, the probability that the distribution we observe today matches the "natural" distribution is, how shall I put this, very low. Now you might ask how I know this, and the answer is simple: open society-wide legally-endorsed discrimination is a thing within living memory here in the US, and a thing that is the present-day situation in quite a few parts of the world. It is simply unreasonable to expect that all consequences of it have been perfectly eliminated by now in order to justify "but women didn't hunt wooly mammoths back in the day, so their brains evolved different from men" as an explanation for why women are underrepresented in tech compared to the general population.

anon0394678 9y ago
> Well you see, brand-new account created to hide from those scary terrible lefties who'd obviously ruin you otherwise I am not exactly hiding my intent here, so I am not sure what there is to gain from pointing out the obvious. And no, I do not think that there is someone out there hellbent on ruining my life. It's just a simple countermeasure against a low-probability, high-impact event. And real life conversations are naturally ephemeral, the internet on the other hand does not forget and may randomly amplify whatever I am saying beyond the level I am comfortable with. Throwaway accounts restore some of that natural communication. > It is simply unreasonable to expect that all consequences of it have been perfectly eliminated by now I did not say that this is the case. Sexism and natural biases can exist at the same time. But some people might find it more difficult to be a good and tolerant citizen if the sexism hammer gets wielded against the whole group on every occasion even though only some fraction of the group is actually sexist and another part of the issue stems from natural causes. You also have to consider that some people may agree that sexism is a problem but disagree on what exactly constitutes sexism. Are crude, offensive jokes made in private sexism? What if it is accidentally overheard by the other gender, even though it was not meant to? Like video games some people may enjoy those jokes but never act on the surface message conveyed by the joke in real life. And thus they do not consider it sexist. Others disagree, that much is obvious, but if that disagreement can not even be discussed openly then there's a problem. Anyway, I do agree with the googler that the current overton window is heavily slanted to the point where quite a big fraction of the population feels uncomfortable and excluded, otherwise trump would never have gotten that much support.
- bitlax 9y ago
  Post your LinkedIn or GTFO! /s
dionidium 9y ago
Well you see, brand-new account created to hide from those scary terrible lefties who'd obviously ruin you otherwise Is this supposed to be funny? Google employees (not to mention lots of other folks) are publicly calling for the author's firing. This is not a topic you're allowed to disagree about in good faith. I am nervous even saying this much, for fear that you'll attack me as a defender of what you imagine to be the worst ideas of your opponents.
humbug471 9y ago
You know what, buddy? Go choke on your own dick.