6 ms·

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. I

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.
- galacticpony2 9y ago
  > This attempt at summarizing the research is innumerate, disconnected from empirical data, and offensive. Maybe you should elaborate on why it is innumerate and disconnected. As for calling it "offensive", that's entirely irrelevant. It outs you as somebody who is more interested in silencing people than debating them on more objective merits. > Research on gender and IQ does not show that "there exist fewer females with high IQ" Research does show that there exist fewer females at either ends of the distribution and more towards the center, compared to males. http://www.aei.org/publication/statistical-tests-shows-greater-male-variance/ http://www.aei.org/publication/statistical-tests-shows-great... This does mean that there exist fewer female individuals with exceptionally high or exceptionally low IQs. That is indeed how statistics work. If you want to contest that the research is flawed and that the result is wrong, do that. If we suppose the data is valid, then my conclusion is sound. > And there are an enormous number of women in STEM: the concern is that there are few of them in computer science. The broader concern is STEM, not just computer science. Sure, there's an enormous amount of women in STEM, there's also an enormous amount of men in STEM and if you put both in relation, the relative amount of women in STEM is quite low (compared to other fields). The only real argument here is how much (if any) of that is due to causes that aren't social.
  - pcwalton 9y ago
    > The only real argument here is how much (if any) of that is due to causes that aren't social. Negligible, based on the statistics. The differences, if they even exist, are minuscule, while the gender disparity is enormous. It strains credibility to imagine that the root cause of the gender disparity in STEM employment is innate, especially since the disparity varies across cultures and subfields.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      I think it's also worth pointing out that their argument just changed dramatically, and that what they said in their followup can't readily be reconciled with their original claim that studies showed "fewer high IQ women".

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.

galacticpony2 9y ago
> This attempt at summarizing the research is innumerate, disconnected from empirical data, and offensive. Maybe you should elaborate on why it is innumerate and disconnected. As for calling it "offensive", that's entirely irrelevant. It outs you as somebody who is more interested in silencing people than debating them on more objective merits. > Research on gender and IQ does not show that "there exist fewer females with high IQ" Research does show that there exist fewer females at either ends of the distribution and more towards the center, compared to males. http://www.aei.org/publication/statistical-tests-shows-greater-male-variance/ http://www.aei.org/publication/statistical-tests-shows-great... This does mean that there exist fewer female individuals with exceptionally high or exceptionally low IQs. That is indeed how statistics work. If you want to contest that the research is flawed and that the result is wrong, do that. If we suppose the data is valid, then my conclusion is sound. > And there are an enormous number of women in STEM: the concern is that there are few of them in computer science. The broader concern is STEM, not just computer science. Sure, there's an enormous amount of women in STEM, there's also an enormous amount of men in STEM and if you put both in relation, the relative amount of women in STEM is quite low (compared to other fields). The only real argument here is how much (if any) of that is due to causes that aren't social.
- pcwalton 9y ago
  > The only real argument here is how much (if any) of that is due to causes that aren't social. Negligible, based on the statistics. The differences, if they even exist, are minuscule, while the gender disparity is enormous. It strains credibility to imagine that the root cause of the gender disparity in STEM employment is innate, especially since the disparity varies across cultures and subfields.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    I think it's also worth pointing out that their argument just changed dramatically, and that what they said in their followup can't readily be reconciled with their original claim that studies showed "fewer high IQ women".