8 ms·

As a woman, the way I feel is whatever the differences are - are hard to prove and isolate outside of our society. Whatever they are makes no difference to me.

by taysic 9y ago

As a woman, the way I feel is whatever the differences are - are hard to prove and isolate outside of our society. Whatever they are makes no difference to me. Every person has a right to pursue their own happiness with their choosing. But delineating or using these differences to justify behavior does not feel appropriate in a work place. If a company could not find many female engineers to hire (I am one) then ok. No need to create a table on why / why not that stands on weak ground anyway.

remarkEon 9y ago
Except they aren't difficult to prove, and this is what really really bothers me. We've got hundreds of thousands of years of innate, biologically formed behaviors that we have because they were evolutionarily advantageous. I'm not saying we should use these differences to discriminate, what I'm saying is that it's pretty easy to observe that they inform behavior and career preference.
- brown9-2 9y ago
  What you keep referring to as "biologically formed behaviors" others see as "formed by society".
  - remarkEon 9y ago
    Right, I know, and my response is that those people are wrong. Yes some behaviors are socially formed. Of course. But "Society" has existed for a trivial amount of time relative to human history. Again, this is weird to pretend behavior isn't informed by biology. I just don't understand it.
- taysic 9y ago
  They are difficult to prove because they are exceedingly general and abstract. Try this one from the article: "Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas." I have to say there could be other reasons for this. A big one is that people gravitate toward things where other people like them already are. They have a tendency to emulate. It takes unique people to break out of molds and do things that others don't expect of them. Or that aren't familiar or socially comfortable to do. Same for men. Now it could be true this is related to an innate trait. But who cares? We're talking about 50% of the population and the differences between people are aplenty. Companies have no business in deciding what's the right thing for any group anyway. Whatever people's motivations are - biological or something they came up with yesterday ultimately isn't anyone else's business.
  - xyzzyz 9y ago
    Try this one from the article: Sure, it has been studied to death. Here's a good summary: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x Check out the Table 1 on page 1104, for summary of different studies. Of particular interest is the people-things orientation the parent poster mentions, with mean effect size across multiple studies so large (d = 1.18) that it almost never occurs for non-tautological research questions.
- acdha 9y ago
  Do you have any peer reviewed citations for those claims? If this is as certain as you're assuming, it should be easy to point to the underlying mechanism and evolutionary underpinnings.
  - remarkEon 9y ago
    Ha. The Evolutionary Psychology wiki is probably a good start, but if you're skeptical of evolution I'm not confident anything I'd link would convince you.
    - acdha 9y ago
      Skeptical of evolution? That's a telling misrepresentation — ask for scientific evidence for random unsupported speculation and be accused of not believing in science? Again: do you have any citations? If this was as well as established as you're claiming they should be easy to provide.
      - remarkEon 9y ago
        Sure, let me google that for you... Quit being weird and pretending males and females are the same.
    - Pulcinella 9y ago
      Why? Evolutionary psychology (even if true) is completely unenlightening. Anyone can be an evolutionary psychologist!: "Men do [thing] because they evolved to." "Women think [this] because women who didn't did not pass on their genes."
      - remarkEon 9y ago
        Not going to engage further if your summation of Evolutionary Psychology is that it's "unenlightening". I can't stand this bizarre trend on the Left that holds up "science" as a vanguard in one context but dismisses it in another if it's politically convenient.

by taysic 9y ago

remarkEon 9y ago

Except they aren't difficult to prove, and this is what really really bothers me. We've got hundreds of thousands of years of innate, biologically formed behaviors that we have because they were evolutionarily advantageous. I'm not saying we should use these differences to discriminate, what I'm saying is that it's pretty easy to observe that they inform behavior and career preference.

brown9-2 9y ago
What you keep referring to as "biologically formed behaviors" others see as "formed by society".
- remarkEon 9y ago
  Right, I know, and my response is that those people are wrong. Yes some behaviors are socially formed. Of course. But "Society" has existed for a trivial amount of time relative to human history. Again, this is weird to pretend behavior isn't informed by biology. I just don't understand it.
taysic 9y ago
They are difficult to prove because they are exceedingly general and abstract. Try this one from the article: "Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas." I have to say there could be other reasons for this. A big one is that people gravitate toward things where other people like them already are. They have a tendency to emulate. It takes unique people to break out of molds and do things that others don't expect of them. Or that aren't familiar or socially comfortable to do. Same for men. Now it could be true this is related to an innate trait. But who cares? We're talking about 50% of the population and the differences between people are aplenty. Companies have no business in deciding what's the right thing for any group anyway. Whatever people's motivations are - biological or something they came up with yesterday ultimately isn't anyone else's business.
- xyzzyz 9y ago
  Try this one from the article: Sure, it has been studied to death. Here's a good summary: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x Check out the Table 1 on page 1104, for summary of different studies. Of particular interest is the people-things orientation the parent poster mentions, with mean effect size across multiple studies so large (d = 1.18) that it almost never occurs for non-tautological research questions.
acdha 9y ago
Do you have any peer reviewed citations for those claims? If this is as certain as you're assuming, it should be easy to point to the underlying mechanism and evolutionary underpinnings.
- remarkEon 9y ago
  Ha. The Evolutionary Psychology wiki is probably a good start, but if you're skeptical of evolution I'm not confident anything I'd link would convince you.
  - acdha 9y ago
    Skeptical of evolution? That's a telling misrepresentation — ask for scientific evidence for random unsupported speculation and be accused of not believing in science? Again: do you have any citations? If this was as well as established as you're claiming they should be easy to provide.
    - remarkEon 9y ago
      Sure, let me google that for you... Quit being weird and pretending males and females are the same.
  - Pulcinella 9y ago
    Why? Evolutionary psychology (even if true) is completely unenlightening. Anyone can be an evolutionary psychologist!: "Men do [thing] because they evolved to." "Women think [this] because women who didn't did not pass on their genes."
    - remarkEon 9y ago
      Not going to engage further if your summation of Evolutionary Psychology is that it's "unenlightening". I can't stand this bizarre trend on the Left that holds up "science" as a vanguard in one context but dismisses it in another if it's politically convenient.