6 ms·

He stated on Tucker Carlson that he has based his argument on what he referred to as scientific consensus. I'm not making any endorsement of the comment or of

by ovao 9y ago

He stated on Tucker Carlson that he has based his argument on what he referred to as scientific consensus. I'm not making any endorsement of the comment or of the science, since it isn't my field, but just relaying what he said.

Diederich 9y ago
> I'm not making any endorsement of the comment or of the science, since it isn't my field, but just relaying what he said. Perhaps this is an off-topic question, if you don't mind responding: why did you feel the need to emphasize this, after your initial sentence: > He stated on .... Thanks!
- AlexCoventry 9y ago
  > why did you feel the need to emphasize this Not the author, but: The psychology research literature is mostly garbage.[0] It's surprising to me that through all this, hardly anyone has dug into the supposedly scientific papers behind Damore's claims. Ultimately they come down to a massive leap of faith that job aspirations of psychology-major undergraduates can be generalized to a somehow biologically-driven preference for "people" jobs vs "things" jobs.[1] [0] https://hardsci.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/everything-is-fucked-the-syllabus/ https://hardsci.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/everything-is-fucke... [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38061313_Men_and_Things_Women_and_People_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Sex_Differences_in_Interests https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38061313_Men_and_Th...
  - kansface 9y ago
    Your cited study is certainly not the only one that exists on the topic. See http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/#comment-533594 http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger....
    - AlexCoventry 9y ago
      It's completely unclear how any of that generalizes to a biologically driven human female preference for "people" vs "things."
      - kansface 9y ago
        Sorry, you would probably need to read through the parent article (from the comment) for the broader context ...in which Scott makes the claim in the form of a rebuttal to another article by Grant, to which Grant replied (who also did not find biologically driven human female preference for "people" vs "things." convincing), and I gave you the link to Scott's reply to that!
        AlexCoventry 9y ago
        Can you please recapitulate Scott's argument, in a few words, and the scientific evidence it's based on?
        kansface 9y ago
        Alright: A forward: Grant is a professor of Economics at Wharton, and Scott is a Psychiatrist and author of a popular blog - both agree that biological differences in ability are small (for the field of CS at large). Scott contends: > It’s a very common and well-replicated finding that the more progressive and gender-equal a country, the larger gender differences in personality ... become (aggressiveness, horniness, language abilities, mechanical abilities, visuospatial skills, mechanical ability, tendermindness, assertiveness, comfort with body, various physical abilities ...) Concomitantly, those countries display the worst gender imbalance in CS graduates while the countries with poor GDI do well on their ratios! Outright discrimination does not look plausible. Maybe its just socialization? Scott looks backwards in time. Only 20% of high school students who take AP CS are women... which is about the number of US CS graduates. You can trace roughly equal numbers (in terms of interest) back to middle school and even earlier... and even to Rhesus monkeys apparently! However, > One subgroup of women does not display these gender differences at any age. These are women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition that gives them a more typically-male hormone balance Scott then applies the theory of preferences (objects versus systems) to other professions, such as medicene, where roughly equal numbers of women and men exist, but they dominate different specialties (women in Obstetrics, Pediatrics, Physciatry, Family Medicene, and men in Surgery, Radiology, etc). Women make up ~40% of US math grads, but they mostly go on to teach math! He contends women have left CS since the 70s out of personal preference, as it was one of only a few socially acceptable jobs for women at the time. Instead, they now choose to be a doctor or lawyer, and this OK. edit: I also forgot to mention that he asks if discrimination/socialization are the chief culprit, why do they only affect CS and not other high status/high paying jobs (like being a doctor) which previously exhibited the same gender ratio.
  - seany 9y ago
    There are plenty of articles that touch on this. https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what...
    - AlexCoventry 9y ago
      What's the most relevant one, in your opinion?
      - seany 9y ago
        The heterodox article is one of them, but they also link to several others they saw as reasonably backed up by the literature cited. The included counter points as well if they were written by people in that field.
        AlexCoventry 9y ago
        I meant the most relevant one cited by the Heterodox Academy in the blog post you linked.
        seany 9y ago
        I've only read one of them [1] in full, so it's hard to say with any depth my opinions of the others. Some of the findings listed in the abstracts have varying mentions of biological involvement. The larger point they were trying to make is that there are differences _now_, and given some of the research that's influenced as far back as at least middle school for the cultural part of it. Where the ratio is for nature/nurture they leave open for a future post (which they claim to be working on). 1) http://sci-hub.io/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x http://sci-hub.io/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x
  - rurounijones 9y ago
    https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what... seems to be attempting to dig into the relevant science.
- saganus 9y ago
  Not the OP, but more and more it seems that if you are not 100% unequivocally clear, someone will attack you as if you agreed with a polemical point. I think this is in part due to the "chilling effect". I've been there myself. I have to be super clear that I don't endorse nor necessarily agree with some point lest I find myself being equated with the worst of the worst...regardless if I agree or not with said point. It's very sad actually.
  - ovao 9y ago
    That's it in a nutshell, yes. And I agree that it's sad, but it's something I only tend to feel compelled to do on very divisive political topics, so it's not too bad, really.
    - saganus 9y ago
      Agreed that it's not too bad because as you say, only a few topics warrant such a reaction. Unfortunately... it seems like, as time passes by, more and more subjects require such careful treatment. I absolutely hate it...
- ovao 9y ago
  Sure! It's solely based on my experience with commenters, who sometimes view statements like that as endorsements or as indicators that personal beliefs align with those who are being quoted or described. So it's sort of a disclaimer.
  - Diederich 9y ago
    That's what I thought...and, as is stated elsewhere, it's a pretty unfortunate state of affairs. I'll go further and say that it's close to something like a real root problem, that exhibits symptoms in various ways. The overall 'noise level' is so high, and most everyone is so 'high strung'....that assuming the worst appears to be the default.

by ovao 9y ago

Diederich 9y ago

> I'm not making any endorsement of the comment or of the science, since it isn't my field, but just relaying what he said. Perhaps this is an off-topic question, if you don't mind responding: why did you feel the need to emphasize this, after your initial sentence: > He stated on .... Thanks!

AlexCoventry 9y ago
> why did you feel the need to emphasize this Not the author, but: The psychology research literature is mostly garbage.[0] It's surprising to me that through all this, hardly anyone has dug into the supposedly scientific papers behind Damore's claims. Ultimately they come down to a massive leap of faith that job aspirations of psychology-major undergraduates can be generalized to a somehow biologically-driven preference for "people" jobs vs "things" jobs.[1] [0] https://hardsci.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/everything-is-fucked-the-syllabus/ https://hardsci.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/everything-is-fucke... [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38061313_Men_and_Things_Women_and_People_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Sex_Differences_in_Interests https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38061313_Men_and_Th...
- kansface 9y ago
  Your cited study is certainly not the only one that exists on the topic. See http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/#comment-533594 http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger....
  - AlexCoventry 9y ago
    It's completely unclear how any of that generalizes to a biologically driven human female preference for "people" vs "things."
    - kansface 9y ago
      Sorry, you would probably need to read through the parent article (from the comment) for the broader context ...in which Scott makes the claim in the form of a rebuttal to another article by Grant, to which Grant replied (who also did not find biologically driven human female preference for "people" vs "things." convincing), and I gave you the link to Scott's reply to that!
      - AlexCoventry 9y ago
        Can you please recapitulate Scott's argument, in a few words, and the scientific evidence it's based on?
        kansface 9y ago
        Alright: A forward: Grant is a professor of Economics at Wharton, and Scott is a Psychiatrist and author of a popular blog - both agree that biological differences in ability are small (for the field of CS at large). Scott contends: > It’s a very common and well-replicated finding that the more progressive and gender-equal a country, the larger gender differences in personality ... become (aggressiveness, horniness, language abilities, mechanical abilities, visuospatial skills, mechanical ability, tendermindness, assertiveness, comfort with body, various physical abilities ...) Concomitantly, those countries display the worst gender imbalance in CS graduates while the countries with poor GDI do well on their ratios! Outright discrimination does not look plausible. Maybe its just socialization? Scott looks backwards in time. Only 20% of high school students who take AP CS are women... which is about the number of US CS graduates. You can trace roughly equal numbers (in terms of interest) back to middle school and even earlier... and even to Rhesus monkeys apparently! However, > One subgroup of women does not display these gender differences at any age. These are women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition that gives them a more typically-male hormone balance Scott then applies the theory of preferences (objects versus systems) to other professions, such as medicene, where roughly equal numbers of women and men exist, but they dominate different specialties (women in Obstetrics, Pediatrics, Physciatry, Family Medicene, and men in Surgery, Radiology, etc). Women make up ~40% of US math grads, but they mostly go on to teach math! He contends women have left CS since the 70s out of personal preference, as it was one of only a few socially acceptable jobs for women at the time. Instead, they now choose to be a doctor or lawyer, and this OK. edit: I also forgot to mention that he asks if discrimination/socialization are the chief culprit, why do they only affect CS and not other high status/high paying jobs (like being a doctor) which previously exhibited the same gender ratio.
- seany 9y ago
  There are plenty of articles that touch on this. https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what...
  - AlexCoventry 9y ago
    What's the most relevant one, in your opinion?
    - seany 9y ago
      The heterodox article is one of them, but they also link to several others they saw as reasonably backed up by the literature cited. The included counter points as well if they were written by people in that field.
      - AlexCoventry 9y ago
        I meant the most relevant one cited by the Heterodox Academy in the blog post you linked.
        seany 9y ago
        I've only read one of them [1] in full, so it's hard to say with any depth my opinions of the others. Some of the findings listed in the abstracts have varying mentions of biological involvement. The larger point they were trying to make is that there are differences _now_, and given some of the research that's influenced as far back as at least middle school for the cultural part of it. Where the ratio is for nature/nurture they leave open for a future post (which they claim to be working on). 1) http://sci-hub.io/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x http://sci-hub.io/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x
- rurounijones 9y ago
  https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what... seems to be attempting to dig into the relevant science.
saganus 9y ago
Not the OP, but more and more it seems that if you are not 100% unequivocally clear, someone will attack you as if you agreed with a polemical point. I think this is in part due to the "chilling effect". I've been there myself. I have to be super clear that I don't endorse nor necessarily agree with some point lest I find myself being equated with the worst of the worst...regardless if I agree or not with said point. It's very sad actually.
- ovao 9y ago
  That's it in a nutshell, yes. And I agree that it's sad, but it's something I only tend to feel compelled to do on very divisive political topics, so it's not too bad, really.
  - saganus 9y ago
    Agreed that it's not too bad because as you say, only a few topics warrant such a reaction. Unfortunately... it seems like, as time passes by, more and more subjects require such careful treatment. I absolutely hate it...
ovao 9y ago
Sure! It's solely based on my experience with commenters, who sometimes view statements like that as endorsements or as indicators that personal beliefs align with those who are being quoted or described. So it's sort of a disclaimer.
- Diederich 9y ago
  That's what I thought...and, as is stated elsewhere, it's a pretty unfortunate state of affairs. I'll go further and say that it's close to something like a real root problem, that exhibits symptoms in various ways. The overall 'noise level' is so high, and most everyone is so 'high strung'....that assuming the worst appears to be the default.