7 ms·

> 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 e

> 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.
        dang 9y ago
        You're asking for a level of consistency that's impossible with HN moderation. I wrote about this here if anyone's interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14977025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14977025. Nevertheless, as most of our mothers taught us, two wrongs don't make a right, and someone else violating the rules is no excuse. If you do that repeatedly (and you have), you're going to get banned here for obvious reasons.
        galacticpony2 9y ago
        ... replying here instead because replying @dang is locked: I'm not asking for a "two wrongs make one right" defense, I'm asking for equal treatment. You flagged my comment even though it was arguably much less of an "attack" than what I quoted. I don't fault you for not catching those quotes early, I'm faulting you for not flagging those comments as well now that you have been made aware. In the time you wrote your reply, you could've easily copy pasted a warning to those comments as well. If you really don't want to give the impression that you're singling out me and my position for suppression, that's what you could still do.
        reitanqild 9y ago
        You flagged my comment even though it was arguably much less of an "attack" than what I quoted. dang most likely didn't flag you. Everybody can flag (just click in the x minutes ago link and you'll see that post as top leveel including a link to flag it). I think dang and other mods looks for flagged posts in the backend. That said: don’t abuse flags like some other people around here do (IMO). Also: don’t argue with the mods. They have enough to deal with a few people on both sides :-/
    - blahblah3 9y ago
      If M ~ N(u,v_m) and W ~ N(u,v_w) [where N refers to the normal distribution], with v_m > v_w, then P(M > T) > P(W > T) for all T > u. I.e if the trait is approximately normally distributed with equal means among two groups, the group with the higher variance will exhibit more extreme values. Why is this a change in argument?
- hackinthebochs 9y ago
  His argument from the wider variance in male IQs directly supports the statement of "fewer high IQ women", given some definitions of that term (i.e. where exactly you place the cutoff for high IQ). His follow up served to clarify the ambiguous term. I'm not sure where you're coming from 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.

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.
        dang 9y ago
        You're asking for a level of consistency that's impossible with HN moderation. I wrote about this here if anyone's interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14977025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14977025. Nevertheless, as most of our mothers taught us, two wrongs don't make a right, and someone else violating the rules is no excuse. If you do that repeatedly (and you have), you're going to get banned here for obvious reasons.
        galacticpony2 9y ago
        ... replying here instead because replying @dang is locked: I'm not asking for a "two wrongs make one right" defense, I'm asking for equal treatment. You flagged my comment even though it was arguably much less of an "attack" than what I quoted. I don't fault you for not catching those quotes early, I'm faulting you for not flagging those comments as well now that you have been made aware. In the time you wrote your reply, you could've easily copy pasted a warning to those comments as well. If you really don't want to give the impression that you're singling out me and my position for suppression, that's what you could still do.
        reitanqild 9y ago
        You flagged my comment even though it was arguably much less of an "attack" than what I quoted. dang most likely didn't flag you. Everybody can flag (just click in the x minutes ago link and you'll see that post as top leveel including a link to flag it). I think dang and other mods looks for flagged posts in the backend. That said: don’t abuse flags like some other people around here do (IMO). Also: don’t argue with the mods. They have enough to deal with a few people on both sides :-/
  - blahblah3 9y ago
    If M ~ N(u,v_m) and W ~ N(u,v_w) [where N refers to the normal distribution], with v_m > v_w, then P(M > T) > P(W > T) for all T > u. I.e if the trait is approximately normally distributed with equal means among two groups, the group with the higher variance will exhibit more extreme values. Why is this a change in argument?
hackinthebochs 9y ago
His argument from the wider variance in male IQs directly supports the statement of "fewer high IQ women", given some definitions of that term (i.e. where exactly you place the cutoff for high IQ). His follow up served to clarify the ambiguous term. I'm not sure where you're coming from 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.