5 ms·
source? (not trying to be snide or anything, I'm actually curious if there's a source for that)
by stryk 9y ago
source? (not trying to be snide or anything, I'm actually curious if there's a source for that)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- waterhouse 9y agoFor context, one should note that the word "neuroticism" is not used as a regular English word, but is one of the "Big Five" traits in psychology, which comes from factor analysis of personality surveys. Its "definition" would be something like "An underlying quality that correlates with answering 'Agree/Strongly Agree' on these questions and 'Disagree/Strongly Disagree' on those questions". Damore did not note this in his memo, which made the statement more offensive than it should have been. With that established, if we go to Wikipedia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Age,_sex_and_geographic_patterns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Age,_sex_and_geogr... "A 2013 review found that groups associated with higher levels of neuroticism are young adults who are at high risk for mood disorders and women.[22] For sex, the same review found that "research in large samples has shown that levels of N (neuroticism) are higher in women than men. This is a robust finding that is consistent across cultures. This is especially the case during the reproductive years, but is also visible in children and elderly." It furthermore said that EEG responses showed clear differences between the sexes in individuals with high N levels, but no functional MRI studies have yet been performed to investigate the differences in sex regarding N. However, there is a reason to suspect physiological differences to play a role because of previous studies that showed for example, a correlation between the size of the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex and N in female teenagers, so "the issue of sex differences in N and the implications for understanding N’s neurobiological basis deserve more detailed and systematic investigation."[22] A 2010 review found personality differences between genders to be between "small and moderate," the largest of those differences being in the traits of agreeableness and neuroticism.[37] Many personality traits were found to have had larger personality differences between men and women in developed countries compared to less developed countries, and differences in three traits—extraversion, neuroticism, and people-versus-thing orientation—showed differences that remained consistent across different levels of economic development, which is also consistent with the "possible influence of biologic factors."[37] Three cross-cultural studies have revealed higher levels of female neuroticism across almost all nations.[37]" The abstracts of both of the cited studies are visible, though the full articles seem to be behind paywalls.
- imron 9y ago> Damore did not note this in his memo, He kind of did - in fact when he used the word 'Neuroticism' he linked to the exact article you linked to above (the main article, not the sub section on age sex and geographic differences). Unfortunately Buzzfeed (edit: got this wrong, it was actually Gizmodo) decided to strip all the links (and a few charts) out of the version of the document they published, and so many people didn't realise that was what he was talking about.
- gaius 9y agoTo be fair to Buzzfeed (can’t believe I just wrote that) we don’t know if they did, or if the mystery person who leaked it did.
- imron 9y agoTo be fair to Buzzfeed it turns out I remembered it wrong and it was Gizmodo who originally published the memo, I've corrected that in my comment, but we do know that they stripped it on purpose, stating in the article: "The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted."
- stryk 9y agoWow I've only just seen this part (i was only familiar with the headlines of this story I never bothered to look into it until now) Whatever anyone's feelings on the issue one way or another, Gizmodo totally fucked this Damore over and I have to think it was deliberate, it doesn't make sense otherwise. I just browsed the original paper and there are citations all over the place - to strip those out is a deliberate move to influence the narrative, it has to be, I mean hell they edited it. They changed the nature of the guy's argument and there's no way in hell they didn't realize how big of an impact that would make (they're not going for a Pulitzer @ gizmodo, and they never claimed to that i know of, but still they aren't total journalistic imbeciles they had to have thought about it)