3 ms·

>You say this, but quote absolutely no science to back it up. Yes I do, and I've been over some of it with you in this thread. >I actually quoted two articles

>You say this, but quote absolutely no science to back it up. Yes I do, and I've been over some of it with you in this thread. >I actually quoted two articles that prove the contrary, and you have no retort for them, but rather just glance over them as if they didn't exist. What, the poor countries have different gender ratios claim? I addressed that. >So you are going against your previous statement and saying here that culture plays a major role? In poor countries, yes. How is Russia doing today after a ton of economic growth? I had trouble finding statistics, the only stat I could find is this: >In 2016 Russia had the highest percentage of patents filed by women, at about 16%. Which is about the ratio of women in STEM in the West.

dguaraglia 9y ago
> Yes I do, and I've been over some of it with you in this thread. I looked for all your comments with your name in my history. Not a single one of them links to anything. > What, the poor countries have different gender ratios claim? I addressed that. You haven't addressed it, though. You claim it's based on economic growth, yet cite no evidence. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary: the UK has a bigger (and more advanced) economy than India, and a bigger participation of women in STEM. The same goes for Norway vs. US. In fact, Latin America has a much higher participation when compared with, say, Asia for comparable economic growth. Even if we take the US in isolation, your claim doesn't hold up: we have grown at a relatively steady pace for the past few decades and more women participate on STEM fields today that they did in the 80s and 90s. If "economic growth" was the one driving factor, you'd see the exact opposite. Again, are you sure you are putting enough effort into validating your statements? Here are two sets of statistics you might want to consider [1][2] > How is Russia doing today after a ton of economic growth? Russia has gone through a huge amount of "Westernization" since the Berlin Wall came down, so trying to make the case that economic growth or cultural shift are 100% to account for the changes is a fool's errand. > In 2016 Russia had the highest percentage of patents filed by women, at about 16% What makes you think that patent filings of all things represents industry participation? You have to be careful, you could easily conclude there are no males younger than 24 in a given industry if you used patents filed as your only data source. I think the links I posted above, in particular [2] are a better reference. [1] https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-inclusive-growth-and-development-report-2017 https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-inclusive-growth-and-dev... [2] http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs43-women-in-science-2017-en.pdf http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs43-wom...
- Houshalter 9y ago
  Your hypothesis doesn't explain the data any better than mine. Would you really predict the Arab states, with their incredibly progressive views on feminism, to have higher percentage of female researchers? It really isn't weird to you that Russia, in just 20 years, went back to the same levels of everyone else after all the "progress" they made? Cultures don't change that quickly. The statistics are nearly useless anyway because of how differently they are measured. Women are much more represented in "soft sciences" like biology. But in math etc, the percentage has been pretty consistent. Math majors show a huge increase in women. But when you dig into it, it turns out that they are going into it to become math teachers. And the actual percentage of female Math researchers is the lowest of all of STEM. And pretty consistent through time. And our culture has changed a hell of a lot. Why is it so implausible to you that it's biology? You want some links and statistics? Try reading this: http://www.sci-hub.la/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x http://www.sci-hub.la/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x >gender differences on the people–things dimension of interests are ‘very large’ (d= 1.18), with women more people-oriented and less thing-oriented than men. Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender- inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolution- ary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences. d=1.18 is one of the largest effect sizes I've seen in a social science. It means something like 93% of men are more "thing oriented" than the average woman.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    > Your hypothesis doesn't explain the data any better than mine. My "hypothesis" is that without trying to eliminate the cultural factors, we'll never be able to actually measure how strongly the alleged biological factors affect behavior. So no, my hypothesis doesn't explain anything, because it doesn't try to. > And our culture has changed a hell of a lot. Our academic scientific culture is barely 200 years old. Female participation in academic culture is way younger than that, with most of the earlier examples (like Marie Curie) being known as "weirdos" in their time because they didn't behave like "normal women". Our current cultural system is thousands of years old, yet you expect that the last 100 years of science to have fixed all disparities accrued over millennia. Doesn't sound very realistic. > Why is it so implausible to you that it's biology? Why is it implausible to you that it is culture, when there are reams of data showing that different cultures perform differently? You are cherrypicking data that supports your thesis and completely ignoring everything else. Why? Notice that even the paper you link is hedging when making the claim: "In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences." But you, somehow, are 100% sure. Weird. Makes me think you have an agenda first, and look for evidence to back it up second, just like Damore did.

dguaraglia 9y ago

> Yes I do, and I've been over some of it with you in this thread. I looked for all your comments with your name in my history. Not a single one of them links to anything. > What, the poor countries have different gender ratios claim? I addressed that. You haven't addressed it, though. You claim it's based on economic growth, yet cite no evidence. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary: the UK has a bigger (and more advanced) economy than India, and a bigger participation of women in STEM. The same goes for Norway vs. US. In fact, Latin America has a much higher participation when compared with, say, Asia for comparable economic growth. Even if we take the US in isolation, your claim doesn't hold up: we have grown at a relatively steady pace for the past few decades and more women participate on STEM fields today that they did in the 80s and 90s. If "economic growth" was the one driving factor, you'd see the exact opposite. Again, are you sure you are putting enough effort into validating your statements? Here are two sets of statistics you might want to consider [1][2] > How is Russia doing today after a ton of economic growth? Russia has gone through a huge amount of "Westernization" since the Berlin Wall came down, so trying to make the case that economic growth or cultural shift are 100% to account for the changes is a fool's errand. > In 2016 Russia had the highest percentage of patents filed by women, at about 16% What makes you think that patent filings of all things represents industry participation? You have to be careful, you could easily conclude there are no males younger than 24 in a given industry if you used patents filed as your only data source. I think the links I posted above, in particular [2] are a better reference. [1] https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-inclusive-growth-and-development-report-2017 https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-inclusive-growth-and-dev... [2] http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs43-women-in-science-2017-en.pdf http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs43-wom...

Houshalter 9y ago
Your hypothesis doesn't explain the data any better than mine. Would you really predict the Arab states, with their incredibly progressive views on feminism, to have higher percentage of female researchers? It really isn't weird to you that Russia, in just 20 years, went back to the same levels of everyone else after all the "progress" they made? Cultures don't change that quickly. The statistics are nearly useless anyway because of how differently they are measured. Women are much more represented in "soft sciences" like biology. But in math etc, the percentage has been pretty consistent. Math majors show a huge increase in women. But when you dig into it, it turns out that they are going into it to become math teachers. And the actual percentage of female Math researchers is the lowest of all of STEM. And pretty consistent through time. And our culture has changed a hell of a lot. Why is it so implausible to you that it's biology? You want some links and statistics? Try reading this: http://www.sci-hub.la/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x http://www.sci-hub.la/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x >gender differences on the people–things dimension of interests are ‘very large’ (d= 1.18), with women more people-oriented and less thing-oriented than men. Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender- inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolution- ary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences. d=1.18 is one of the largest effect sizes I've seen in a social science. It means something like 93% of men are more "thing oriented" than the average woman.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  > Your hypothesis doesn't explain the data any better than mine. My "hypothesis" is that without trying to eliminate the cultural factors, we'll never be able to actually measure how strongly the alleged biological factors affect behavior. So no, my hypothesis doesn't explain anything, because it doesn't try to. > And our culture has changed a hell of a lot. Our academic scientific culture is barely 200 years old. Female participation in academic culture is way younger than that, with most of the earlier examples (like Marie Curie) being known as "weirdos" in their time because they didn't behave like "normal women". Our current cultural system is thousands of years old, yet you expect that the last 100 years of science to have fixed all disparities accrued over millennia. Doesn't sound very realistic. > Why is it so implausible to you that it's biology? Why is it implausible to you that it is culture, when there are reams of data showing that different cultures perform differently? You are cherrypicking data that supports your thesis and completely ignoring everything else. Why? Notice that even the paper you link is hedging when making the claim: "In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences." But you, somehow, are 100% sure. Weird. Makes me think you have an agenda first, and look for evidence to back it up second, just like Damore did.