5 ms·

You've shown that merit isn't a simple cardinal value; I buy that. You've also shown that outcomes aren't equal. You haven't provided any reason to believe tha

You've shown that merit isn't a simple cardinal value; I buy that. You've also shown that outcomes aren't equal. You haven't provided any reason to believe that the outcomes should be equal - in particular, that a comparable number of women are actually competing with the men. There's a fundamental assumption here that women have the same goals as men, and prioritize them against other life choices in the same way. There's a lot of reason to think that both of those things are false.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
> You've also shown that outcomes aren't equal. You haven't provided any reason to believe that the outcomes should be equal - in particular, that a comparable number of African Americans are actually competing with whites. There's a fundamental assumption here that African Americans have the same goals as whites, and prioritize them against other life choices in the same way. There's a lot of reason to think that both of those things are false. By subtly changing a few words, I've replicated the same sentiment against African Americans. And before that, the Irish immigrants. And Chinese immigrants. You come from a superiority position, and that the "inferiors" don't really want nor care. I reject that worldview wholeheartedly.
- CWuestefeld 8y ago
  Reject away, but your counterexample doesn't prove anything. Once again, you're continuing to make the assumption that all outcomes should, prescriptively, be equal for any demographic you might care to examine. There's no reason to believe that everyone is identical. That idea is a religion to some people, but it's all based on faith with no real evidence. People are free to pursue different goals, and to prioritize different things. For your argument to prevail, you've got to get past that as an assumption. You need to actually demonstrate that for completely equivalent cases, some demographics are being held back. That's remarkably difficult to do. Otherwise, I can do this: women compromise 56% of college enrollees, with men only at 44%. There's clearly some kind of superiority position with an interest in keeping men out of college. I'm not claiming that's a problem, but with your model of presumptive discrimination, you're going to have to come up with an explanation.
pseudalopex 8y ago
The issue isn't that current outcomes aren't exactly equal. The inequality is larger than typical sex differences can explain. If current outcomes reflect an innate difference, the separation between the median woman and the median man has to be exceptionally large, the trait has to be exceptionally more variable in men, organizations have to be far more selective than other evidence suggests, and/or the trait must not be normally distributed.
- _dps 8y ago
  I don't know what standard you have for "exceptionally more variable" but in a normal population you only need a 33% difference in standard deviation to get a ratio of 2x at +2stdev or almost 4x at +3stdev (here stdev is of the less-variable population). I think relative to the population at large it's reasonable to think a programming career is a +2stdev event in inclination and skill toward abstract systems (programmers are ballpark 5% of the working population). I don't mean to suggest that the male variability hypothesis is all or even most of the story, but to me a 33% difference in variability, while substantial, doesn't sound impossibly large — and it suggests male:female ratios that are in line with what we see in the industry.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

> You've also shown that outcomes aren't equal. You haven't provided any reason to believe that the outcomes should be equal - in particular, that a comparable number of African Americans are actually competing with whites. There's a fundamental assumption here that African Americans have the same goals as whites, and prioritize them against other life choices in the same way. There's a lot of reason to think that both of those things are false. By subtly changing a few words, I've replicated the same sentiment against African Americans. And before that, the Irish immigrants. And Chinese immigrants. You come from a superiority position, and that the "inferiors" don't really want nor care. I reject that worldview wholeheartedly.

CWuestefeld 8y ago
Reject away, but your counterexample doesn't prove anything. Once again, you're continuing to make the assumption that all outcomes should, prescriptively, be equal for any demographic you might care to examine. There's no reason to believe that everyone is identical. That idea is a religion to some people, but it's all based on faith with no real evidence. People are free to pursue different goals, and to prioritize different things. For your argument to prevail, you've got to get past that as an assumption. You need to actually demonstrate that for completely equivalent cases, some demographics are being held back. That's remarkably difficult to do. Otherwise, I can do this: women compromise 56% of college enrollees, with men only at 44%. There's clearly some kind of superiority position with an interest in keeping men out of college. I'm not claiming that's a problem, but with your model of presumptive discrimination, you're going to have to come up with an explanation.

pseudalopex 8y ago

The issue isn't that current outcomes aren't exactly equal. The inequality is larger than typical sex differences can explain. If current outcomes reflect an innate difference, the separation between the median woman and the median man has to be exceptionally large, the trait has to be exceptionally more variable in men, organizations have to be far more selective than other evidence suggests, and/or the trait must not be normally distributed.

_dps 8y ago
I don't know what standard you have for "exceptionally more variable" but in a normal population you only need a 33% difference in standard deviation to get a ratio of 2x at +2stdev or almost 4x at +3stdev (here stdev is of the less-variable population). I think relative to the population at large it's reasonable to think a programming career is a +2stdev event in inclination and skill toward abstract systems (programmers are ballpark 5% of the working population). I don't mean to suggest that the male variability hypothesis is all or even most of the story, but to me a 33% difference in variability, while substantial, doesn't sound impossibly large — and it suggests male:female ratios that are in line with what we see in the industry.