3 ms·

> The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. This is the assumption being made by diversity hiring and diversity advocates. That some races/gend

> The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. This is the assumption being made by diversity hiring and diversity advocates. That some races/genders have different perspectives and viewpoints than others. It can quickly follow that some of these viewpoints may make a person more or less fit for certain careers.

Quarrelsome 9y ago
The difficulty is whether those differences are biological, social or cultural. Its hard to tease those differences apart with our current tools. I'll stick with the assumption that its the latter two just because its more convenient and diplomatic. Maybe the genetic data we mine in future generations will give us the real answers but I don't see any advantage in pressing the biological argument until then (as I'm not working directly in that field).
- renaudg 9y ago
  We don't need to wait for genetic data mining, this has been widely studied already. Differences are visible within the first two days of birth : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Differences_in_Human_Neonatal_Social_Perception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Diffe... and are present in monkeys too : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ I'll let you draw the conclusion.
  - Quarrelsome 9y ago
    Yes but to speculate that a baby's desire to look at a face more means they're less able to negotiate their pay is a bit of a leap (as opposed to that being social or cultural). Sure there are literal differences between gender but one still has to ask that if those differences are big enough to make a difference following the YEARS of nurture or not. I'll wait till the genetic data mining transitions this from speculation to fact thank you very much.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    Table 2: Mean percent looking times (and standard deviation) for each stimulus. Face Mobile Males (n = 44) 45.6 (23.5) 51.9 (23.3) Females (n = 58) 49.4 (20.8) 40.6 (25.0) That's quite a difference to be hanging the nature of society on.

Quarrelsome 9y ago

The difficulty is whether those differences are biological, social or cultural. Its hard to tease those differences apart with our current tools. I'll stick with the assumption that its the latter two just because its more convenient and diplomatic. Maybe the genetic data we mine in future generations will give us the real answers but I don't see any advantage in pressing the biological argument until then (as I'm not working directly in that field).

renaudg 9y ago
We don't need to wait for genetic data mining, this has been widely studied already. Differences are visible within the first two days of birth : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Differences_in_Human_Neonatal_Social_Perception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Diffe... and are present in monkeys too : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ I'll let you draw the conclusion.
- Quarrelsome 9y ago
  Yes but to speculate that a baby's desire to look at a face more means they're less able to negotiate their pay is a bit of a leap (as opposed to that being social or cultural). Sure there are literal differences between gender but one still has to ask that if those differences are big enough to make a difference following the YEARS of nurture or not. I'll wait till the genetic data mining transitions this from speculation to fact thank you very much.
- mcguire 9y ago
  Table 2: Mean percent looking times (and standard deviation) for each stimulus. Face Mobile Males (n = 44) 45.6 (23.5) 51.9 (23.3) Females (n = 58) 49.4 (20.8) 40.6 (25.0) That's quite a difference to be hanging the nature of society on.