38 ms·

Those scientists specifically studied gender differences so they can at least confirm the Google author was actually correct in his factual claims. Where anyon

by stoobe 9y ago

Those scientists specifically studied gender differences so they can at least confirm the Google author was actually correct in his factual claims. Where anyone can disagree is how he interprets them, but I am glad to see four experts clarify a little bit about what is true.

mjg59 9y ago
They can confirm that he was correct in a subset of his factual claims, but not in the further factual claims that he builds on those. Implying that they can is bad science.
- stoobe 9y ago
  Perhaps I misread it, but it sounded like all the gender differences he claimed were backed by research. What were the factual claims he got wrong?
  - mjg59 9y ago
    I didn't say that the factual claims were wrong, I said that the scientists quoted in the article were not in a position to confirm them. Someone with appropriate domain expertise would be able to do so, but none appear to have been asked.
  - yawaramin 9y ago
    Also, even if the gender differences were backed by research, what's not backed by research is the assumption that those differences have any significant impact on women's capacity to perform the same work as men. Remember--the scientific method is about making a falsifiable hypothesis and then gathering enough evidence to be able to reject it. In this case the falsifiable hypothesis would have to be that men and women have no significant difference in their ability to perform the same work.
    - renaudg 9y ago
      Strawman. Nobody and especially not the memo made a claim about capacity. It was all about interest on average, which is absolutely backed by research : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/ Abstract : "There is considerable interest in understanding women’s underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Career choices have been shown to be driven in part by interests, and gender differences in those interests have generally been considered to result from socialization. We explored the contribution of sex hormones to career-related interests, in particular studying whether prenatal androgens affect interests through psychological orientation to Things versus People. We examined this question in individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), who have atypical exposure to androgens early in development, and their unaffected siblings (total N = 125 aged 9 to 26 years). Females with CAH had more interest in Things versus People than did unaffected females, and variations among females with CAH reflected variations in their degree of androgen exposure. Results provide strong support for hormonal influences on interest in occupations characterized by working with Things versus People."
      - yawaramin 9y ago
        OK, in the paper you linked to presumably they've classified IT/CS jobs as 'thing-oriented' work. Now, let's classify them as 'people-oriented'. Whoops! Suddenly women are very interested. You see the problem? The study is biased from the outset because it's designed to 'prove' that women aren't interested in IT.
        renaudg 9y ago
        > The study is biased from the outset because it's designed to 'prove' that women aren't interested in IT. No, the study was designed to investigate a potential link between prenatal androgen exposure and a preference for Things vs People work, which it did find. > let's classify [IT/CS] as 'people-oriented'. Whoops! Suddenly women are very interested. But precisely, observation shows they're not, as a group ! That's the very thing we're here discussing, trying to find out why. And yeah, let's just arbitrarily switch jobs classifications like that without any grounding in reality, just because that's the only way your hypothesis will not fall apart. Can you see the extraordinary amount of unlikely premises it takes for your logic to stand, compared to the alternative, simpler explanation ? That is exactly the kind of situation Occam's razor is here for : "among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." This is starting to feel like a flat-earth debate, honestly. I'm pretty sure many people here would engage with the available evidence much more candidly, if this were a less politically charged topic (and I'm a liberal. But science before ideology, always.)

by stoobe 9y ago

mjg59 9y ago

They can confirm that he was correct in a subset of his factual claims, but not in the further factual claims that he builds on those. Implying that they can is bad science.

stoobe 9y ago
Perhaps I misread it, but it sounded like all the gender differences he claimed were backed by research. What were the factual claims he got wrong?
- mjg59 9y ago
  I didn't say that the factual claims were wrong, I said that the scientists quoted in the article were not in a position to confirm them. Someone with appropriate domain expertise would be able to do so, but none appear to have been asked.
- yawaramin 9y ago
  Also, even if the gender differences were backed by research, what's not backed by research is the assumption that those differences have any significant impact on women's capacity to perform the same work as men. Remember--the scientific method is about making a falsifiable hypothesis and then gathering enough evidence to be able to reject it. In this case the falsifiable hypothesis would have to be that men and women have no significant difference in their ability to perform the same work.
  - renaudg 9y ago
    Strawman. Nobody and especially not the memo made a claim about capacity. It was all about interest on average, which is absolutely backed by research : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/ Abstract : "There is considerable interest in understanding women’s underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Career choices have been shown to be driven in part by interests, and gender differences in those interests have generally been considered to result from socialization. We explored the contribution of sex hormones to career-related interests, in particular studying whether prenatal androgens affect interests through psychological orientation to Things versus People. We examined this question in individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), who have atypical exposure to androgens early in development, and their unaffected siblings (total N = 125 aged 9 to 26 years). Females with CAH had more interest in Things versus People than did unaffected females, and variations among females with CAH reflected variations in their degree of androgen exposure. Results provide strong support for hormonal influences on interest in occupations characterized by working with Things versus People."
    - yawaramin 9y ago
      OK, in the paper you linked to presumably they've classified IT/CS jobs as 'thing-oriented' work. Now, let's classify them as 'people-oriented'. Whoops! Suddenly women are very interested. You see the problem? The study is biased from the outset because it's designed to 'prove' that women aren't interested in IT.
      - renaudg 9y ago
        > The study is biased from the outset because it's designed to 'prove' that women aren't interested in IT. No, the study was designed to investigate a potential link between prenatal androgen exposure and a preference for Things vs People work, which it did find. > let's classify [IT/CS] as 'people-oriented'. Whoops! Suddenly women are very interested. But precisely, observation shows they're not, as a group ! That's the very thing we're here discussing, trying to find out why. And yeah, let's just arbitrarily switch jobs classifications like that without any grounding in reality, just because that's the only way your hypothesis will not fall apart. Can you see the extraordinary amount of unlikely premises it takes for your logic to stand, compared to the alternative, simpler explanation ? That is exactly the kind of situation Occam's razor is here for : "among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." This is starting to feel like a flat-earth debate, honestly. I'm pretty sure many people here would engage with the available evidence much more candidly, if this were a less politically charged topic (and I'm a liberal. But science before ideology, always.)