5 ms·

If only he was "exploring the question in what appears to be a very scientific manner based on the latest academic research into these questions". The FIRST war

by cSoze 9y ago

If only he was "exploring the question in what appears to be a very scientific manner based on the latest academic research into these questions". The FIRST warning sign to anyone reading his manifesto should have been how woefully undercited it was. He revealed that he really doesn't understand, much less has read, the science. http://www.epi.org/publication/womens-work-and-the-gender-pay-gap-how-discrimination-societal-norms-and-other-forces-affect-womens-occupational-choices-and-their-pay/ http://www.epi.org/publication/womens-work-and-the-gender-pa...

Joky 9y ago
How is this link related to the bulk of his claims?
- cSoze 9y ago
  There is significant scientific evidence that most of the differences in employment observed between women and men and minorities and white men can be explained by socialization. When conditions are set that reduce or control for these social factors (including implicit bias) the differences in performance that James Demore attributes to "biological" factors disappear. How is this not related to the bulk of his claims?
  - galacticpony2 9y ago
    > When conditions are set that reduce or control for these social factors (including implicit bias) the differences in performance that James Demore attributes to "biological" factors disappear. That's a bold prediction supported by no real-world evidence whatsoever. Where's your control group? Where's the retort society that has all this bias removed or even quantified? Of course societal effects affect the outcome of a person's career, but the idea that there is absolutely zero influence of biological differences is pure dogma. However, it's convenient (if not imperative) to believe, if you're a strong social constructivist.
    - cSoze 9y ago
      Or... you know, you've actually got a PhD in sociology and have read the research. This is armchair-pundit-bullshit akin to climate change denial. Everyone knows better than the researchers who've actually done the work and are immersed in the field. How about we accept the consensus of the scientists? Rather than calling it dogma because it doesn't agree with YOUR world view.
      - galacticpony2 9y ago
        First of all, you didn't answer my question. Where is your research that brings evidence to support your prediction? Sociology in particular isn't very diligent in actually applying the scientific method. Secondly, you're making an "argument from authority", which is an intellectual embarrassment. Scientific knowledge is not based on consensus, but on evidence. The theory behind climate change is not supported by the amount of scientists that "believe" in it, but by the evidence they bring forth.
      - JakeAl 9y ago
        csoze: "Rather than calling it dogma because it doesn't agree with YOUR world view." galacticpony2's statement was valid, csoze, yours is not. As Damore and the scientists who have done the research have stated is biology is PART of the reason. The social constructivists TEND to say the opposite, meaning they TEND to say it's entirely social and literally deny any evidence of a role played by biology even when the evidence is undeniable, such as when experiments involve manipulation of brain chemistry, or control for social influence. That's dogma, and validates galacticpony2's assertion.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - JakeAl 9y ago
    If you watch Peterson's video, or more importantly looked at the links in the description, the theory of social constructivism has been disproven through experimentation. The more gender equity there is in a social, the more disparity there is between the interests of men and women and this is universal across all cultures. And what you said about conditions that reduce social factors is false. As Peterson explained there's no reproducible valid science showing that what you say is true.
Jach 9y ago
Assuming you've looked at the actual document (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...) and not redacted/censored versions of it, it does in fact have a lot of links...[0] How many citations would you expect though? He's not publishing for an academic journal. He's not even publishing for an audience outside of coworkers. [0] Links from the paper in order not counting internal g/ go/ links, whatever those are (not all of them technically citations, but some are; many just to help point out that a technical definition is being used and a common parlance one the reader may have in mind shouldn't be used): https://www.jstor.org/stable/25098770?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/25098770?seq=1#page_scan_tab_co... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism http://righteousmind.com/largest-study-of-libertarian-psych/ http://righteousmind.com/largest-study-of-libertarian-psych/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#... 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.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf (My favorite in-context just because the link text is "research suggests", a common phrase that all too commonly lacks any sort of citation or link of any kind.) http://quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-world-gender-gaps/ http://quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-wor... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality#Risk_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality#Risk_fac... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230959290021U?via%3Dihub http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/01623095929... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068300/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068300/ https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim_2006.pdf https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim... https://groups.google.com/a/google.com/d/msg/coffee-beans-discuss/UVqCTkWXyZ4/ZwpFrceJCQAJ https://groups.google.com/a/google.com/d/msg/coffee-beans-di... http://www.businessforum.com/WSJ_Race-on-Campus-05-06-2016.pdf http://www.businessforum.com/WSJ_Race-on-Campus-05-06-2016.p... https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.htm... https://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/ http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psyc... https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/a-non-feminist-faq/#addressing https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/a-non-femini... http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/ http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-personality-of-political-correctness/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-per... http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.00139 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.00139 https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201209/liberal-privilege-in-psychology https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201209/li... https://nypost.com/2016/04/17/conservative-professors-must-fake-being-liberal-or-be-punished-on-campus/ https://nypost.com/2016/04/17/conservative-professors-must-f... https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/08/18/4462041-liberals-conservatives-and-personality-traits https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/08/18/44... https://www.google.com/search?q=political+correctness https://www.google.com/search?q=political+correctness https://bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-against-empathy https://bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-against-empathy https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-its-a-bad-idea-to-tell-students-words-are-violence/533970/?utm_source=twb https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-it... http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691616659391?journalCode=ppsa http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691616659391... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jjycJDLHc9oixA7FiG3-M2yJ2GNbPmaDxzLpMYPO0PA/preview https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jjycJDLHc9oixA7FiG3-M2yJ... http://www.spsp.org/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response http://www.spsp.org/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response
galacticpony2 9y ago
Given how strongly he's had his view misrepresented, I don't think giving references would've helped him. He was very careful to pick his words, to no avail. It's the science itself that these people don't want to accept, if it doesn't support their idea that people and society are malleable enough to solve all these unequal distributions. You probably heard of research that shows that the female population clusters towards to the mean in various features, IQ being one: http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-are-there-so-few-women-in-sciences.html http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-a... If we suppose that being successful in STEM correlates strongly with a high IQ, the mere fact that there exist fewer females with a high IQ would be one reason why there would be fewer females in STEM. That's just an objective, logical conclusion. Another logical conclusion would be that no diversity program could change this discrepancy. The sound way to challenge this would be to challenge the research here, i.e. the foundation of the argument, instead of persecuting a person making such an argument. In other words: "Don't shoot the messenger".
- cSoze 9y ago
  Are you seriously implying that IQ tests are a clean measure of a biological trait? Heritability for IQ ranges from ~40-60% That's pitiful.
  - galacticpony2 9y ago
    No, I'm not. I didn't mention the word "biological", I'm not making any claim on what the underlying reasons for the distributions are. Does it have to be "clean" anyway? What does "clean" even mean? Do you believe society creates this distribution? If so, I'd be interested by which mechanism. Secondly, heritability may only account for 40-60%, but that's more than zero. Now, how many percentage points do you suppose could be influenced by diversity programs over at Google?
- tptacek 9y ago
  This attempt at summarizing the research is innumerate, disconnected from empirical data, and offensive. Research on gender and IQ does not show that "there exist fewer females with high IQ" --- even stipulating the validity of the research Damore is leaning on, that's now how the statistics work. And there are an enormous number of women in STEM: the concern is that there are few of them in computer science. Before you attempt to reason from basic principals to a defense of the status quo, you should attempt to fully understand those principles.
Jabanga 9y ago
The EPI is heavily funded by labour unions which have a major stake in the continued acceptance of central tenets of Marxist/postmodernist ideology, like the existence of race/gender/class based social dominance hierarchy and the importance of creating laws that discriminate against the identity group that is perceived to be at the top of this hierarchy. For a scientist's analysis of the memo, see this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifes...

by cSoze 9y ago

Joky 9y ago

How is this link related to the bulk of his claims?

cSoze 9y ago
There is significant scientific evidence that most of the differences in employment observed between women and men and minorities and white men can be explained by socialization. When conditions are set that reduce or control for these social factors (including implicit bias) the differences in performance that James Demore attributes to "biological" factors disappear. How is this not related to the bulk of his claims?
- galacticpony2 9y ago
  > When conditions are set that reduce or control for these social factors (including implicit bias) the differences in performance that James Demore attributes to "biological" factors disappear. That's a bold prediction supported by no real-world evidence whatsoever. Where's your control group? Where's the retort society that has all this bias removed or even quantified? Of course societal effects affect the outcome of a person's career, but the idea that there is absolutely zero influence of biological differences is pure dogma. However, it's convenient (if not imperative) to believe, if you're a strong social constructivist.
  - cSoze 9y ago
    Or... you know, you've actually got a PhD in sociology and have read the research. This is armchair-pundit-bullshit akin to climate change denial. Everyone knows better than the researchers who've actually done the work and are immersed in the field. How about we accept the consensus of the scientists? Rather than calling it dogma because it doesn't agree with YOUR world view.
    - galacticpony2 9y ago
      First of all, you didn't answer my question. Where is your research that brings evidence to support your prediction? Sociology in particular isn't very diligent in actually applying the scientific method. Secondly, you're making an "argument from authority", which is an intellectual embarrassment. Scientific knowledge is not based on consensus, but on evidence. The theory behind climate change is not supported by the amount of scientists that "believe" in it, but by the evidence they bring forth.
    - JakeAl 9y ago
      csoze: "Rather than calling it dogma because it doesn't agree with YOUR world view." galacticpony2's statement was valid, csoze, yours is not. As Damore and the scientists who have done the research have stated is biology is PART of the reason. The social constructivists TEND to say the opposite, meaning they TEND to say it's entirely social and literally deny any evidence of a role played by biology even when the evidence is undeniable, such as when experiments involve manipulation of brain chemistry, or control for social influence. That's dogma, and validates galacticpony2's assertion.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- JakeAl 9y ago
  If you watch Peterson's video, or more importantly looked at the links in the description, the theory of social constructivism has been disproven through experimentation. The more gender equity there is in a social, the more disparity there is between the interests of men and women and this is universal across all cultures. And what you said about conditions that reduce social factors is false. As Peterson explained there's no reproducible valid science showing that what you say is true.

Jach 9y ago

Assuming you've looked at the actual document (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...) and not redacted/censored versions of it, it does in fact have a lot of links...[0] How many citations would you expect though? He's not publishing for an academic journal. He's not even publishing for an audience outside of coworkers. [0] Links from the paper in order not counting internal g/ go/ links, whatever those are (not all of them technically citations, but some are; many just to help point out that a technical definition is being used and a common parlance one the reader may have in mind shouldn't be used): https://www.jstor.org/stable/25098770?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/25098770?seq=1#page_scan_tab_co... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism http://righteousmind.com/largest-study-of-libertarian-psych/ http://righteousmind.com/largest-study-of-libertarian-psych/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#... 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.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf (My favorite in-context just because the link text is "research suggests", a common phrase that all too commonly lacks any sort of citation or link of any kind.) http://quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-world-gender-gaps/ http://quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-wor... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality#Risk_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality#Risk_fac... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230959290021U?via%3Dihub http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/01623095929... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068300/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068300/ https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim_2006.pdf https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim... https://groups.google.com/a/google.com/d/msg/coffee-beans-discuss/UVqCTkWXyZ4/ZwpFrceJCQAJ https://groups.google.com/a/google.com/d/msg/coffee-beans-di... http://www.businessforum.com/WSJ_Race-on-Campus-05-06-2016.pdf http://www.businessforum.com/WSJ_Race-on-Campus-05-06-2016.p... https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.htm... https://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/ http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psyc... https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/a-non-feminist-faq/#addressing https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/a-non-femini... http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/ http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-personality-of-political-correctness/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-per... http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.00139 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.00139 https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201209/liberal-privilege-in-psychology https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201209/li... https://nypost.com/2016/04/17/conservative-professors-must-fake-being-liberal-or-be-punished-on-campus/ https://nypost.com/2016/04/17/conservative-professors-must-f... https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/08/18/4462041-liberals-conservatives-and-personality-traits https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/08/18/44... https://www.google.com/search?q=political+correctness https://www.google.com/search?q=political+correctness https://bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-against-empathy https://bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-against-empathy https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-its-a-bad-idea-to-tell-students-words-are-violence/533970/?utm_source=twb https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-it... http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691616659391?journalCode=ppsa http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691616659391... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jjycJDLHc9oixA7FiG3-M2yJ2GNbPmaDxzLpMYPO0PA/preview https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jjycJDLHc9oixA7FiG3-M2yJ... http://www.spsp.org/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response http://www.spsp.org/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response

galacticpony2 9y ago

Given how strongly he's had his view misrepresented, I don't think giving references would've helped him. He was very careful to pick his words, to no avail. It's the science itself that these people don't want to accept, if it doesn't support their idea that people and society are malleable enough to solve all these unequal distributions. You probably heard of research that shows that the female population clusters towards to the mean in various features, IQ being one: http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-are-there-so-few-women-in-sciences.html http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-a... If we suppose that being successful in STEM correlates strongly with a high IQ, the mere fact that there exist fewer females with a high IQ would be one reason why there would be fewer females in STEM. That's just an objective, logical conclusion. Another logical conclusion would be that no diversity program could change this discrepancy. The sound way to challenge this would be to challenge the research here, i.e. the foundation of the argument, instead of persecuting a person making such an argument. In other words: "Don't shoot the messenger".

cSoze 9y ago
Are you seriously implying that IQ tests are a clean measure of a biological trait? Heritability for IQ ranges from ~40-60% That's pitiful.
- galacticpony2 9y ago
  No, I'm not. I didn't mention the word "biological", I'm not making any claim on what the underlying reasons for the distributions are. Does it have to be "clean" anyway? What does "clean" even mean? Do you believe society creates this distribution? If so, I'd be interested by which mechanism. Secondly, heritability may only account for 40-60%, but that's more than zero. Now, how many percentage points do you suppose could be influenced by diversity programs over at Google?
tptacek 9y ago
This attempt at summarizing the research is innumerate, disconnected from empirical data, and offensive. Research on gender and IQ does not show that "there exist fewer females with high IQ" --- even stipulating the validity of the research Damore is leaning on, that's now how the statistics work. And there are an enormous number of women in STEM: the concern is that there are few of them in computer science. Before you attempt to reason from basic principals to a defense of the status quo, you should attempt to fully understand those principles.

Jabanga 9y ago

The EPI is heavily funded by labour unions which have a major stake in the continued acceptance of central tenets of Marxist/postmodernist ideology, like the existence of race/gender/class based social dominance hierarchy and the importance of creating laws that discriminate against the identity group that is perceived to be at the top of this hierarchy. For a scientist's analysis of the memo, see this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifes...