5 ms·

I'm not convinced that there still is that full sense of "freedom to choose" that you suggest. In your argument that genders naturally tend towards certain care

by jaaron 9y ago

I'm not convinced that there still is that full sense of "freedom to choose" that you suggest. In your argument that genders naturally tend towards certain careers, how certain are you that you've eliminated systemic bias that may still cause inequalities in occupation and opportunity? For example, I suspect a similar argument could have been made a few decades ago about why women tend to be nurses not doctors, or why women tend to teach only in elementary but not university settings. For your argument to have full merit, you'd have to run an experiment in a truly unbiased, gender equal culture. One does not exist. Therefore, your argument rests largely on a hypothesis that, "see, this is the way things are and that says something about the innate nature of gender." To really challenge yourself, take your comment and swap out gender for race. Would you still feel as comfortable to suggest that, "... where all races have the highest levels of equality of opportunity, education, and choice in the world...is that that racial effects are actually maximized. Whites tend to choose professional careers and competitive paths because they are free to choose, and Mexicans tend to choose to become gardeners and low wage workers of any kind, because they are also free to choose." If that feels uncomfortable, then perhaps your premise needs reevaluated.

asabjorn 9y ago
What is it about Scandinavia that you believe does not give equal opportunity and choice? Norway’s current and many of the previous prime ministers were female, there is generous social support for working parents, most women get a college degree, etc Women are still free to choose the kind of job they desire, and they do so. It is incredibly undesirable to force women and men to choose different jobs because of an ideological desire for equal outcome. There is no way to achieve that without tyranny and without hurting equal opportunity. With regards to high value jobs that women have chosen due to equal opportunity you have to look no further than doctors. It used to be a mainly male occupation in the western world, and it’s now dominated by women.
stcredzero 9y ago
For your argument to have full merit, you'd have to run an experiment in a truly unbiased, gender equal culture. One does not exist. Therefore, your argument rests largely on a hypothesis that, "see, this is the way things are and that says something about the innate nature of gender." But for the opposite position to make sense, the more egalitarian a society becomes, the fewer gender differences would show. Studies show that the opposite is the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8
09bjb 9y ago
> I'm not convinced that there still is that full sense of "freedom to choose" that you suggest. I don't, and I wouldn't! The Scandinavian countries are much further along on this, but probably still don't constitute a perfectly level playing field where being a man or a woman doesn't confer advantages in certain disciplines. I'm just not holding my breath for perfect equality of outcome once the playing fields are fully level; in fact, the science points to it being pretty likely that the only way you'll get men and women to do exactly the same things in exactly the same way in exactly the same proportions is by tyrannical force, which I don't think helps either sex. > Would you still feel as comfortable to suggest that, "... where all races have the highest levels of equality of opportunity, education, and choice in the world...is that that racial effects are actually maximized. Sure! This one is trickier as I can't point to any society that's very far along the path of actually leveling the playing fields between races. Certainly in the U.S. the stakes are stacked abhorrently high against blacks in particular (the drug war in particular is disgustingly deliberate legislative racism, in my opinion). Many Mexicans in the U.S. are not free to choose. However, we've already run a lot of well-designed experiments that show that race is not at all correlated with intelligence, drive, job choice independent of other factors (family, education, and level of poverty, for example). Gender, on the other hand, has been shown to correlate not at all with things like intelligence, and correlate fairly tightly with things that affect your work and your choice of occupation, such as: disagreeableness (one of the strongest predictors of ending up in a leadership position), empathy, interest in people vs. interest in ideas, etc. All categories should be open for discussion, and additional good science will gradually wither the fields/distinctions that have no predictive ability or bearing on reality (phrenology, eugenics, antiquated theories of physics, etc.). This last statement is subjective opinion, but my assessment of the science (plus my real-world experience and fallible human schemas) tell me that we won't find perfect equality between genders once we have perfect equity between genders. That equity is absolutely worth striving for but not at the expense of good science, healthy debate, and dialogue itself, things that are at times threatened in these emotionally-charged discussions.

by jaaron 9y ago

asabjorn 9y ago

What is it about Scandinavia that you believe does not give equal opportunity and choice? Norway’s current and many of the previous prime ministers were female, there is generous social support for working parents, most women get a college degree, etc Women are still free to choose the kind of job they desire, and they do so. It is incredibly undesirable to force women and men to choose different jobs because of an ideological desire for equal outcome. There is no way to achieve that without tyranny and without hurting equal opportunity. With regards to high value jobs that women have chosen due to equal opportunity you have to look no further than doctors. It used to be a mainly male occupation in the western world, and it’s now dominated by women.

stcredzero 9y ago

For your argument to have full merit, you'd have to run an experiment in a truly unbiased, gender equal culture. One does not exist. Therefore, your argument rests largely on a hypothesis that, "see, this is the way things are and that says something about the innate nature of gender." But for the opposite position to make sense, the more egalitarian a society becomes, the fewer gender differences would show. Studies show that the opposite is the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8

09bjb 9y ago

> I'm not convinced that there still is that full sense of "freedom to choose" that you suggest. I don't, and I wouldn't! The Scandinavian countries are much further along on this, but probably still don't constitute a perfectly level playing field where being a man or a woman doesn't confer advantages in certain disciplines. I'm just not holding my breath for perfect equality of outcome once the playing fields are fully level; in fact, the science points to it being pretty likely that the only way you'll get men and women to do exactly the same things in exactly the same way in exactly the same proportions is by tyrannical force, which I don't think helps either sex. > Would you still feel as comfortable to suggest that, "... where all races have the highest levels of equality of opportunity, education, and choice in the world...is that that racial effects are actually maximized. Sure! This one is trickier as I can't point to any society that's very far along the path of actually leveling the playing fields between races. Certainly in the U.S. the stakes are stacked abhorrently high against blacks in particular (the drug war in particular is disgustingly deliberate legislative racism, in my opinion). Many Mexicans in the U.S. are not free to choose. However, we've already run a lot of well-designed experiments that show that race is not at all correlated with intelligence, drive, job choice independent of other factors (family, education, and level of poverty, for example). Gender, on the other hand, has been shown to correlate not at all with things like intelligence, and correlate fairly tightly with things that affect your work and your choice of occupation, such as: disagreeableness (one of the strongest predictors of ending up in a leadership position), empathy, interest in people vs. interest in ideas, etc. All categories should be open for discussion, and additional good science will gradually wither the fields/distinctions that have no predictive ability or bearing on reality (phrenology, eugenics, antiquated theories of physics, etc.). This last statement is subjective opinion, but my assessment of the science (plus my real-world experience and fallible human schemas) tell me that we won't find perfect equality between genders once we have perfect equity between genders. That equity is absolutely worth striving for but not at the expense of good science, healthy debate, and dialogue itself, things that are at times threatened in these emotionally-charged discussions.