4 ms·

I don't see many references. I just see a lot of stereotyping with no citations at all. Eg: > Women, on average, have more: > ● Openness directed towards feel

I don't see many references. I just see a lot of stereotyping with no citations at all. Eg: > Women, on average, have more: > ● 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) > ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. > ● Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). A bit further down: > Men’s higher drive for status > We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. Holy crap! - Edit below this line - This is not expressing a different opinion based on facts, but pure stereotyping. As a person who appreciates logic in arguments, I wouldn't like to work or have an argument with someone who presents his views of the world as axioms without data to support them.

onli 9y ago
The very exact text you are citing has links that lead to sources. Why would you ignore them?
- noncoml 9y ago
  OK, I see now. I was expecting citations in the usual academic-paper form as they were in other parts of the document. Didn't notice they were inline links. My bad. Thanks for correcting me.
  - onli 9y ago
    You're welcome :) If you are a bit interested in more references (those claims sound horrible, but they are not as far-fetched as they sound), have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw. It's a presentation by Steven Pinker that explains a lot about what science actually has to say about biological differences, and in an aside at the end even mentions stereotypes. I already mentioned it in a subthread to this post, no harm intended.
jorgemf 9y ago
Hey, from the original document (I have added the references for you): - Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things [1], relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing [2]) - Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. - Neuroticism [3] (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). Now what do you think about it, now you know the real references of the article? [1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism EDIT: noncoml I wanted to reply you (but I cann't I don't know why) and apologize because my comment sound like an attack when It wasn't my intention. I just wanted to provide the references and know your opinion. Take your time to check them.
- noncoml 9y ago
  > Now what do you think about it, now you know the real references of the article? I think that a quick dismissal is not appropriate, that it is the right basis for a discussion and would definitely like to take some time and look at the citations and how they tie up and support the arguments.
  - jorgemf 9y ago
    Now I can reply: I apologize because my comment sound like an attack when It wasn't my intention. I just wanted to provide the references and know your opinion. Take your time to check them.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      For hot-button issues (or maybe just for heavily-commented articles?), HN sometimes limits the reply rate.
      - 9y ago
tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
There were references that were removed by Gizmodo. The list above refers to the big 5 personality traits, which I believe is standard in psychology. Also, there is a clear difference between discussing average qualities of a group vs declaring that every individual in that group shares those qualities. It's also clear from reading the document that he's engaged in the former, and anyone pretending otherwise is being blatantly dishonest.

onli 9y ago

The very exact text you are citing has links that lead to sources. Why would you ignore them?

noncoml 9y ago
OK, I see now. I was expecting citations in the usual academic-paper form as they were in other parts of the document. Didn't notice they were inline links. My bad. Thanks for correcting me.
- onli 9y ago
  You're welcome :) If you are a bit interested in more references (those claims sound horrible, but they are not as far-fetched as they sound), have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw. It's a presentation by Steven Pinker that explains a lot about what science actually has to say about biological differences, and in an aside at the end even mentions stereotypes. I already mentioned it in a subthread to this post, no harm intended.

jorgemf 9y ago

Hey, from the original document (I have added the references for you): - Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things [1], relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing [2]) - Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. - Neuroticism [3] (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). Now what do you think about it, now you know the real references of the article? [1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism EDIT: noncoml I wanted to reply you (but I cann't I don't know why) and apologize because my comment sound like an attack when It wasn't my intention. I just wanted to provide the references and know your opinion. Take your time to check them.

noncoml 9y ago
> Now what do you think about it, now you know the real references of the article? I think that a quick dismissal is not appropriate, that it is the right basis for a discussion and would definitely like to take some time and look at the citations and how they tie up and support the arguments.
- jorgemf 9y ago
  Now I can reply: I apologize because my comment sound like an attack when It wasn't my intention. I just wanted to provide the references and know your opinion. Take your time to check them.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    For hot-button issues (or maybe just for heavily-commented articles?), HN sometimes limits the reply rate.
    - 9y ago

tenaciousDaniel 9y ago

There were references that were removed by Gizmodo. The list above refers to the big 5 personality traits, which I believe is standard in psychology. Also, there is a clear difference between discussing average qualities of a group vs declaring that every individual in that group shares those qualities. It's also clear from reading the document that he's engaged in the former, and anyone pretending otherwise is being blatantly dishonest.