3 ms·

> nature simply is, and doesn't tell us what ought to be A lot of studies have probe the opposite (recent studies, not old ones). > I have trouble understandi

> nature simply is, and doesn't tell us what ought to be A lot of studies have probe the opposite (recent studies, not old ones). > I have trouble understanding why we are approaching the issue from this angle. Because you have cases like Norway, one of the most genre equality countries, where the ratios or men/women in tech are even worse that less genre equality countries. And the most accepted theory for this is based on biology (actually other theories fall apart because they don't have any evidence). > I find this discussion funny in the context of say Israel having countless women serve in the army for decades now. The biology also explain this. Skills are not unique and their values are diffuse. Even if the average men is stronger than the average women, if you select a man and a woman is not always the case the man is stronger than the woman. You can say biology doesn't matter but the facts are that there is a strong correlation and should be taken into account. So I suggest to not to ignore it and read about the topic.

Barrin92 9y ago
>A lot of studies have probe the opposite (recent studies, not old ones). You should familiarise yourself with the philosophical basis of the is/ought distinction. There is no good reason to assume that scientific inquiry, which tells us a fact about the world in any way tells us what we should want or should do. Scientific evidence is a tool to evaluate whether we are effectively pursuing our normative values. Science itself will never be able to set those values for us.
- jorgemf 9y ago
  > You should familiarise yourself with the philosophical basis of the is/ought distinction. don't assume I am not. You could be making a mistake > there is no good reason to assume that scientific inquiry, which tells us a fact about the world in any way tells us what we should want or should do. actually the scientific community has this into their theories. There are two factors: biological factors and the environment. At they beginning they weren't sure about the biological factors so they make test in one day old infants. And there is a high correlation between genre and interest even with one day old.
  - jholman 9y ago
    Respectfully, it very much appears that you do not understand the is/ought distinction. But I assume that you know yourself better than we strangers do. Given that, to most of us, the is/ought distinction makes the sentence "nature simply is, and doesn't tell us what ought to be" a tautology, and given that you say 'a lot of studies' have demonstrated otherwise, I'm super curious what you mean. Could you explain, please?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - jholman 9y ago
    I just wrote the following response to the child comment that you deleted. So here's my response, in case it's useful to you: -------------- That is totally not what "is/ought distinction" is about, at all. Perhaps start your reading with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem , although I'm sure there are better sources. The idea is that the answer to one of the following two questions is of no use in deciding the answer to the other one: Is it the case that X? Should it be the case that X? -------------- Aside from your confusion about what the word "ought" means, I think the rest of your (now-deleted) comment is straightforwardly correct.
    - jorgemf 9y ago
      Ops, I am really sorry. I kept reading and realizing that I was confused and needed to read more. That my comment could be not related and I missunderstood the concept. I wanted to take more time to read and express myself better and so I deleted the comment in order to rewrite it when I came back home after reading more. Your response is useful. Thanks. I don't want this to be out of context. Here exactly my original comment: I assumed in his context he means you are a biological entity but there is not correlation with the abstract entity (the mind). Because of that you can state your personal interests are not linked with your DNA in any way. But this has been probed to be false. Scientist have observed a high correlation between the testosterone and the social skills and interests. As the testosterone that is generated based on our DNA you can link you abstract entity with your physical entity. So scientist can predict how social are you going to be or whether you will be more interested in dolls or mechanical objects before you have even be born. This is the biological factor, and then you have the cultural factor, the one you call "the ought to be". So genetically you have a predisposition to be one way, but this can be shaped by the environment, not only because you can reason about your behavior and change it but because the environment also modifies the DNA and so the levels of testosterone (and more things). How much can you shape the biological predisposition is a good question to answer. For example: I could say that being gay or straight is a biological factor but I doubt any environment factor can change that, maybe you will fake it for the shake of the social acceptance but not changing it. EDIT: I forgot to say that the testosterone has an influence in the plasticity of the brain.
- drspacemonkey 9y ago
  You're completely right - science can't dictate what should be, only what is. But part of the problem, as I see it, is that there are far too many people who dismiss any science that says things are different from the way they think things should be. On the flipside, there's far too many people who do the opposite and ignore what "should be" using "what is" as the excuse.
tepe1 9y ago
> Because you have cases like Norway, one of the most genre equality countries, where the ratios or men/women in tech are even worse that less genre equality countries. And the most accepted theory for this is based on biology (actually other theories fall apart because they don't have any evidence). This is nonsense. There is absolutely no scientific theory that explains how exposure to pre-natal testosterone translates into a gender imbalances in software engineering. There's also no "accepted" theory to explain why the percentage of female computer science graduates has fallen drastically since 1980. Women certainly haven't evolved in the last thirty years. Here's the funny thing: we've all seen this movie before. The script goes like this: 1. An extreme gender imbalance is observed in a field say [science, medecine, law, advertising, banking]. People try to justify that explaining that the imbalance is "natural" because women don't want to be in the field because of X. 2. Corporations work to remove the real barriers -- systemic discrimination. 3. With the discrimination gone women go on to dominate the field. The same thing is likely going to happen to software engineering. The reality is that we can observe this from a very young age: women are better at collaborative knowledge games. They study harder, they ask more questions, they seek out help, and they work better in groups. In other words, they're better students. And in many jobs where the primary task is collaborative knowledge production we've come to see women quickly become a majority. When this happens to software engineering (which has only recently become a high-paying, high-status job with big perks in the last ~20 years) women will come and they will do what they do best. When that happens all those insisting on biology will look pretty damn foolish (just like they have in the past) but the real tragedy is the missed opportunity.

Barrin92 9y ago

>A lot of studies have probe the opposite (recent studies, not old ones). You should familiarise yourself with the philosophical basis of the is/ought distinction. There is no good reason to assume that scientific inquiry, which tells us a fact about the world in any way tells us what we should want or should do. Scientific evidence is a tool to evaluate whether we are effectively pursuing our normative values. Science itself will never be able to set those values for us.

jorgemf 9y ago
> You should familiarise yourself with the philosophical basis of the is/ought distinction. don't assume I am not. You could be making a mistake > there is no good reason to assume that scientific inquiry, which tells us a fact about the world in any way tells us what we should want or should do. actually the scientific community has this into their theories. There are two factors: biological factors and the environment. At they beginning they weren't sure about the biological factors so they make test in one day old infants. And there is a high correlation between genre and interest even with one day old.
- jholman 9y ago
  Respectfully, it very much appears that you do not understand the is/ought distinction. But I assume that you know yourself better than we strangers do. Given that, to most of us, the is/ought distinction makes the sentence "nature simply is, and doesn't tell us what ought to be" a tautology, and given that you say 'a lot of studies' have demonstrated otherwise, I'm super curious what you mean. Could you explain, please?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- jholman 9y ago
  I just wrote the following response to the child comment that you deleted. So here's my response, in case it's useful to you: -------------- That is totally not what "is/ought distinction" is about, at all. Perhaps start your reading with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem , although I'm sure there are better sources. The idea is that the answer to one of the following two questions is of no use in deciding the answer to the other one: Is it the case that X? Should it be the case that X? -------------- Aside from your confusion about what the word "ought" means, I think the rest of your (now-deleted) comment is straightforwardly correct.
  - jorgemf 9y ago
    Ops, I am really sorry. I kept reading and realizing that I was confused and needed to read more. That my comment could be not related and I missunderstood the concept. I wanted to take more time to read and express myself better and so I deleted the comment in order to rewrite it when I came back home after reading more. Your response is useful. Thanks. I don't want this to be out of context. Here exactly my original comment: I assumed in his context he means you are a biological entity but there is not correlation with the abstract entity (the mind). Because of that you can state your personal interests are not linked with your DNA in any way. But this has been probed to be false. Scientist have observed a high correlation between the testosterone and the social skills and interests. As the testosterone that is generated based on our DNA you can link you abstract entity with your physical entity. So scientist can predict how social are you going to be or whether you will be more interested in dolls or mechanical objects before you have even be born. This is the biological factor, and then you have the cultural factor, the one you call "the ought to be". So genetically you have a predisposition to be one way, but this can be shaped by the environment, not only because you can reason about your behavior and change it but because the environment also modifies the DNA and so the levels of testosterone (and more things). How much can you shape the biological predisposition is a good question to answer. For example: I could say that being gay or straight is a biological factor but I doubt any environment factor can change that, maybe you will fake it for the shake of the social acceptance but not changing it. EDIT: I forgot to say that the testosterone has an influence in the plasticity of the brain.
drspacemonkey 9y ago
You're completely right - science can't dictate what should be, only what is. But part of the problem, as I see it, is that there are far too many people who dismiss any science that says things are different from the way they think things should be. On the flipside, there's far too many people who do the opposite and ignore what "should be" using "what is" as the excuse.

tepe1 9y ago

> Because you have cases like Norway, one of the most genre equality countries, where the ratios or men/women in tech are even worse that less genre equality countries. And the most accepted theory for this is based on biology (actually other theories fall apart because they don't have any evidence). This is nonsense. There is absolutely no scientific theory that explains how exposure to pre-natal testosterone translates into a gender imbalances in software engineering. There's also no "accepted" theory to explain why the percentage of female computer science graduates has fallen drastically since 1980. Women certainly haven't evolved in the last thirty years. Here's the funny thing: we've all seen this movie before. The script goes like this: 1. An extreme gender imbalance is observed in a field say [science, medecine, law, advertising, banking]. People try to justify that explaining that the imbalance is "natural" because women don't want to be in the field because of X. 2. Corporations work to remove the real barriers -- systemic discrimination. 3. With the discrimination gone women go on to dominate the field. The same thing is likely going to happen to software engineering. The reality is that we can observe this from a very young age: women are better at collaborative knowledge games. They study harder, they ask more questions, they seek out help, and they work better in groups. In other words, they're better students. And in many jobs where the primary task is collaborative knowledge production we've come to see women quickly become a majority. When this happens to software engineering (which has only recently become a high-paying, high-status job with big perks in the last ~20 years) women will come and they will do what they do best. When that happens all those insisting on biology will look pretty damn foolish (just like they have in the past) but the real tragedy is the missed opportunity.