4 ms·

> This attempt at summarizing the research is innumerate, disconnected from empirical data, and offensive. Maybe you should elaborate on why it is innumerate a

> 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".
  - galacticpony2 9y ago
    How so? You're evading supporting your argument. You just make claims.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      I'm not sure you even realized you changed arguments when you switched from "there aren't as many high-IQ women" to "there is a higher variance in the distribution of male intelligence as there is in women". I'm curious to see how you'll rebut, and, if you do, will use your rebuttal to gauge how detailed my response will be. (Obviously, there is a [weak] rebuttal that preserves the original claim with the new distributional argument).
      - galacticpony2 9y ago
        I never switched anything. The conclusion that "there aren't as many high-IQ women" comes from "there is a higher variance in the distribution of male intelligence". It's been there from the beginning. You have to actually follow the links I give and pay attention during reading.
        dang 9y ago
        This crosses into personal attack and violates the HN guidelines. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
        galacticpony2 9y ago
        Oh really? How about these statements that I had to "endure": "Before you attempt to reason from basic principals to a defense of the status quo, you should attempt to fully understand those principles." "This is armchair-pundit-bullshit akin to climate change denial." Aren't they worth personal warnings? If so, I'd really like it if you could give them out, just so that there isn't any injustice here.
- galacticpony2 9y ago
  > Negligible, based on the statistics. This isn't something that's actually known. > The differences, if they even exist, are minuscule, while the gender disparity is enormous. Small differences can dramatically change outcomes. > 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. "It strains credibility" is another veiled argument from authority. The "root cause" can be different for every culture. Let's imagine that a culture forces STEM to be disproportionately desirable because of societal/economic pressure. It will push more people into the STEM field that wouldn't have joined "naturally". Then, let's imagine a culture where there are no pressures either way whatsoever. The "innate" differences (if they are allowed to exist) will dominate the outcome completely. Now let's look at some real-world examples: https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-professional/2015/jun/24/why-women-in-stem-may-be-better-off-working-in-india-and-latin-america https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-professional/2015/jun/2... Would you suspect that more societal pressure (in either direction) is applied in Europe/USA or in China/India/Latin America?
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Small differences can sometimes dramatically change outcomes, but that's not a response, it's just handwaving. You have to specify the mechanism by which that particular small difference would result in an 82/18 split for CS, but a 65/35 split for mathematics.
    - galacticpony2 9y ago
      Why? I'm not the one making strong claims, why should the burden of proof rest on me? My "opponent" maintains that any "non-social" causes are "neglible". He doesn't have to explain what exact social mechanism causes one split for CS and another split for mathematics. I think that's entirely besides the point anyway. My point is merely that because even small differences in variance can dramatically change outcomes, the differences can't be disregarded just because they are small. My point also is not that the social effects are neglible! I'm sure they're quite significant, in fact.

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".
- galacticpony2 9y ago
  How so? You're evading supporting your argument. You just make claims.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    I'm not sure you even realized you changed arguments when you switched from "there aren't as many high-IQ women" to "there is a higher variance in the distribution of male intelligence as there is in women". I'm curious to see how you'll rebut, and, if you do, will use your rebuttal to gauge how detailed my response will be. (Obviously, there is a [weak] rebuttal that preserves the original claim with the new distributional argument).
    - galacticpony2 9y ago
      I never switched anything. The conclusion that "there aren't as many high-IQ women" comes from "there is a higher variance in the distribution of male intelligence". It's been there from the beginning. You have to actually follow the links I give and pay attention during reading.
      - dang 9y ago
        This crosses into personal attack and violates the HN guidelines. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
        galacticpony2 9y ago
        Oh really? How about these statements that I had to "endure": "Before you attempt to reason from basic principals to a defense of the status quo, you should attempt to fully understand those principles." "This is armchair-pundit-bullshit akin to climate change denial." Aren't they worth personal warnings? If so, I'd really like it if you could give them out, just so that there isn't any injustice here.
galacticpony2 9y ago
> Negligible, based on the statistics. This isn't something that's actually known. > The differences, if they even exist, are minuscule, while the gender disparity is enormous. Small differences can dramatically change outcomes. > 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. "It strains credibility" is another veiled argument from authority. The "root cause" can be different for every culture. Let's imagine that a culture forces STEM to be disproportionately desirable because of societal/economic pressure. It will push more people into the STEM field that wouldn't have joined "naturally". Then, let's imagine a culture where there are no pressures either way whatsoever. The "innate" differences (if they are allowed to exist) will dominate the outcome completely. Now let's look at some real-world examples: https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-professional/2015/jun/24/why-women-in-stem-may-be-better-off-working-in-india-and-latin-america https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-professional/2015/jun/2... Would you suspect that more societal pressure (in either direction) is applied in Europe/USA or in China/India/Latin America?
- tptacek 9y ago
  Small differences can sometimes dramatically change outcomes, but that's not a response, it's just handwaving. You have to specify the mechanism by which that particular small difference would result in an 82/18 split for CS, but a 65/35 split for mathematics.
  - galacticpony2 9y ago
    Why? I'm not the one making strong claims, why should the burden of proof rest on me? My "opponent" maintains that any "non-social" causes are "neglible". He doesn't have to explain what exact social mechanism causes one split for CS and another split for mathematics. I think that's entirely besides the point anyway. My point is merely that because even small differences in variance can dramatically change outcomes, the differences can't be disregarded just because they are small. My point also is not that the social effects are neglible! I'm sure they're quite significant, in fact.