29 ms·

Yes, when affirmative action becomes status quo, you get a stable population of whoever you are affirming into the profession. However, that is not removing an

Yes, when affirmative action becomes status quo, you get a stable population of whoever you are affirming into the profession. However, that is not removing an explicit form of discrimination but rather introducing one. Certainly, it is quite difficult to predict what psychological profile will succeed in a particular profession. But observing that males tend to succeed in programming is not begging the question whether males have relative genetic predisposition to programming (especially at the top 0.1% google level) but rather serves as evidence for the proposition. When we observe for instance that Asians are overrepresented as programmers, we don't use that to infer that non-Asians are discriminated against, but rather that for whatever reason Asians seem to possess some trait profile, possibly genetic, possibly not, advantageous for programming work. I'm not claiming that women were never discriminated against, just that it does not appear to be the best explanation for the observed large trends in gender ratios. For instance it doesn't explain male/female behavior differences in other arenas like criminality while genetic differences does.

elefanten 9y ago
>Yes, when affirmative action becomes status quo, you get a stable population of whoever you are affirming into the profession. However, that is not removing an explicit form of discrimination but rather introducing one. This is super clearly not what GP was talking about. Removing implicit and explicit barriers to participation is not affirmative action. You are asserting the opposite of history here. >Certainly, it is quite difficult to predict what psychological profile will succeed in a particular profession. But observing that males tend to succeed in programming is not begging the question whether males have relative genetic predisposition to programming (especially at the top 0.1% google level) but rather serves as evidence for the proposition. It in no way serves as evidence for that proposition. By logic, quite the opposite is happening: you are proposing that as an explanation for the observation. There is no inherent connection between them. >When we observe for instance that Asians are overrepresented as programmers, we don't use that to infer that non-Asians are discriminated against, but rather that for whatever reason Asians seem to possess some trait profile, possibly genetic, possibly not, advantageous for programming work. Such a "trait profile" could include things like contemporary trends in national cultures, economic development policies, attitudes toward education, random vagaries of history and much much more. Anecdotally, I don't think I've ever heard someone, with a straight face, include genetics in such a discussion. But just as broad a spectrum of influences could be at play with the current gender balance of a given profession. And that's exactly the point: we don't have the clean data to make ANY strong claims about how much of the status quo was shaped by genetics. >I'm not claiming that women were never discriminated against, just that it does not appear to be the best explanation for the observed large trends in gender ratios. For instance it doesn't explain male/female behavior differences in other arenas like criminality while genetic differences does. It doesn't have to be the "best" or only explanation. But if there's good reason to believe that it's a factor, it should be taken into consideration and attempts should be made to solve it just like any other problem.
rayiner 9y ago
> yes, when affirmative action becomes status quo, you get a stable population of whoever you are affirming into the profession You ignored the “self perpetuating” part. The even gender ratio stayed stable long after those measures were removed. > But observing that males tend to succeed in programming is not begging the question whether males have relative genetic predisposition to programming (especially at the top 0.1% google level) but rather serves as evidence for the proposition. What? No. That’s textbook begging the question. You’re trying to explain the overrepresetnstion of men in programming, by pointing to that overrepresentation as evidence of predisposition. Textbook begging the question.

elefanten 9y ago

>Yes, when affirmative action becomes status quo, you get a stable population of whoever you are affirming into the profession. However, that is not removing an explicit form of discrimination but rather introducing one. This is super clearly not what GP was talking about. Removing implicit and explicit barriers to participation is not affirmative action. You are asserting the opposite of history here. >Certainly, it is quite difficult to predict what psychological profile will succeed in a particular profession. But observing that males tend to succeed in programming is not begging the question whether males have relative genetic predisposition to programming (especially at the top 0.1% google level) but rather serves as evidence for the proposition. It in no way serves as evidence for that proposition. By logic, quite the opposite is happening: you are proposing that as an explanation for the observation. There is no inherent connection between them. >When we observe for instance that Asians are overrepresented as programmers, we don't use that to infer that non-Asians are discriminated against, but rather that for whatever reason Asians seem to possess some trait profile, possibly genetic, possibly not, advantageous for programming work. Such a "trait profile" could include things like contemporary trends in national cultures, economic development policies, attitudes toward education, random vagaries of history and much much more. Anecdotally, I don't think I've ever heard someone, with a straight face, include genetics in such a discussion. But just as broad a spectrum of influences could be at play with the current gender balance of a given profession. And that's exactly the point: we don't have the clean data to make ANY strong claims about how much of the status quo was shaped by genetics. >I'm not claiming that women were never discriminated against, just that it does not appear to be the best explanation for the observed large trends in gender ratios. For instance it doesn't explain male/female behavior differences in other arenas like criminality while genetic differences does. It doesn't have to be the "best" or only explanation. But if there's good reason to believe that it's a factor, it should be taken into consideration and attempts should be made to solve it just like any other problem.

rayiner 9y ago

> yes, when affirmative action becomes status quo, you get a stable population of whoever you are affirming into the profession You ignored the “self perpetuating” part. The even gender ratio stayed stable long after those measures were removed. > But observing that males tend to succeed in programming is not begging the question whether males have relative genetic predisposition to programming (especially at the top 0.1% google level) but rather serves as evidence for the proposition. What? No. That’s textbook begging the question. You’re trying to explain the overrepresetnstion of men in programming, by pointing to that overrepresentation as evidence of predisposition. Textbook begging the question.