6 ms·

There's definitely a stronger inclination within the "left" to attribute sex-/gender-specific trait differences to culture/environmental causes rather than gene

by n4r9 8y ago

There's definitely a stronger inclination within the "left" to attribute sex-/gender-specific trait differences to culture/environmental causes rather than genetics. I'm kind of interested in the challenge of picking out how far genetics predetermines things but as far as I know there's not really a scientific consensus - at least nowhere near as much as for climate change or GMOs?

repolfx 8y ago
There is absolute scientific consensus with regards to the things the left routinely rejects, e.g. different interests in different job roles are biological and not cultural, men earn more (collectively) because they make different choices and not due to discrimination, that there is no sexism against women during job hiring, etc. You can find studies that back these things up everywhere, yet the Damore incident showed a huge propensity to not only ignore or deny this science but actively persecute anyone who pointed it out. Another hot button trigger for the left is false rape allegations. Multiple studies (with replications) have shown the figure is extremely high, like 50% or more. Studies that claim otherwise invariably have severe flaws that render them unscientific (e.g. dropping huge numbers of data points). Good luck debating those studies with anyone who wanted Bernie Sanders. One more example: for the longest time psychologists ignored the question of stereotype accuracy, because psychology is dominated by left-wing academics (this is itself studied). Eventually a small number of conservative academics started examining this and discovering that stereotypes are extremely and surprisingly (?) accurate. Of course many stereotypes associate negative traits with various subgroups which is anathema to certain political orientations, so this sort of science is often also instinctively rejected. edit: ahaha, voted down within 60 seconds, on a topic about how whether people reject scientific consensus about political hot button topics or not. What a shock.
- n4r9 8y ago
  I didn't down-vote you, but for someone who's talking about how easy it is to find studies backing up what you're saying, you haven't been very forthcoming with citing any of those studies. Also, you went off on a bit of a wild tangent about how awful the left are. HN doesn't generally like politically-motivated rants.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    I was responding to a post that started by talking about the left, in a thread that is entirely about political differences in what science is accepted. That's hardly a wild tangent unless the entire thread is. Indeed the reaction to this post is perfect validation of the original claim. What I'm claiming here is not obscure, weird, or hard to find. Would you expect me to cite a claim that scientists generally agree that climate change is man made? So why should I be expected to cite studies, when my claim is literally that they all say the same thing? Anyway, I can see that we're deep in the thick of science denial in this thread, so fine. Damore already did cite studies, go read his memo to find the links. Or read this story by scientists saying that scientists agree with him: https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists... Or this article about the replicability of stereotype accuracy: http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-res... Again, I should not have to cite studies when there is a scientific consensus about something. It should be up to you to cite studies showing the opposite.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - n4r9 8y ago
      You turned a relatively neutral discussion about left vs right attitudes into a vitriolic attack on one side. I read the Damore memo carefully when it came out and several times since. He never explicitly claims that gender differences in career choices are entirely down to biological rather than cultural differences. Instead he posits biology as a "possible explanation". Damore later said (my emphasis) > I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. ...implying that he leaves open the possibility that some are. Just linking an article (from a website with a clear ideological bent) with a few scientists that support Damore's claims to varying degrees doesn't cut it. If there was the sort of scientific consensus you suggest about the content of the memo then I wouldn't expect Wikipedia to list a series of scientists both for and against, nor would I expect to see articles like the following: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-arguments-james-damore-has-yet-to-respond-to.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-argum...
- dang 8y ago
  Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN? We've already asked you, you've been doing it a lot, and it is not ok to have accounts for this purpose, regardless of your ideology or how wrong you feel others are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - repolfx 8y ago
    Which of the last 20 comment threads I started do you consider "ideological flamewar"? Many of them have been voted up. Quite a few of them are on technical topics. And why is my comment "flamewar" when the other 3 replies to that post all make similar points, but aren't? This is a discussion thread about reasoning around controversial topics. I cited several examples of controversial topics where there is in fact either scientific consensus that is controversial or where there's a lack of consensus despite being presented as the opposite. That seems highly relevant to me - the fact that these topics of scientific exploration are unpopular is not sufficient to justify downvotes, let alone flagging or a finger-wagging.
aidenn0 8y ago
A few points: 1) Whether or not such a consensus exists is somewhat orthogonal to the question "Would any evidence convince you to change your mind" 2) There is complete consensus that there are morphological differences between the sexes; this consensus extends to neurology. To what degree these morphological differences are genetic is up for debate (remember that brain morphology is absolutely environmentally affected), but most of the time we have studied traits for nature vs. nurture, the answer has been "both." 3) For some mental traits (e.g. IQ) it is well established that the difference, if any between the means of men and women is quite small. For other mental traits it is well established that the difference is quite significant, and the question is to what degree it is genetic versus environmental. 4) Many people on the left have argued that any investigation into innate differences between men and women should not be allowed, under the theory that any positive result would be co-opted by misogynists. That might be true and even be a good reason to avoid the research in today's cultural climate, but it's definitely fallacious as an argument that there are no inherent differences; this study was specifically about fallacious reasoning, not correct reasoning.
- n4r9 8y ago
  I get what you're saying with (1). I'm saying I don't think it's quite justified to draw the comparison between "right-wing vs climate change" and "left-wing vs sex differences". All you have at the moment is a counter-factual about what you think left-wingers would believe if there was a scientific consensus.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"There's definitely a stronger inclination within the "left" to attribute sex-/gender-specific trait differences to culture/environmental causes rather than genetics. " No, it's the opposite. 'Born that way' was a positioning effort discovered in tye 90's by gay advocacy groups. When social conservatives believe that 'gay is a choice' - then they are against it, but if social conservatives can be convinced that people are simply 'born that way' i.e. inherently gay, and it's not a behavioural thing, then clear majorities of them are accepting of it. It's the biggest factor in determining a social conservatives tolerance towards gays. The science I think is still out on that, but there's no doubt that the community marketing objectives are oriented towards 'inherent'. When Cynthia Nixon decided in later life that she was gay - and then virulently said that she was in fact straight before, i.e. not 'coming out' but rather 'becoming gay' - it upset the gay community a lot because this is inconsistent with the marketing by the gay community. This is one of a few topics that tend to be twisted by all sides. The science is vague.
- n4r9 8y ago
  I was talking about attitudes towards sex differences, not sexual orientation differences.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Oh, sorry. Then yes, absolutely. Totally agree.
sheepmullet 8y ago
> as far as I know there's not really a scientific consensus - at least nowhere near as much as for climate change Why do you think that?
- n4r9 8y ago
  Not sure what you're looking for. After Damore's memo came out I carefully read it along with statements from scientists both in support and opposition, and I have the impression that there is no broad scientific consensus about the extent to which gender-specific career choices are biologically innate.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > I have the impression that there is no broad scientific consensus about the extent to which gender-specific career choices are biologically innate. You are shifting the goalposts. We were discussing traits/personality differences. Gender differences in the big 5 personality traits for example have broad scientific consensus. Tying that to career choices isn’t really scientific AFAIK.
    - n4r9 8y ago
      You're the one shifting goalposts. I stated that there's no scientific consensus regarding how far genetics predetermines things. Career choices is one thing where the consensus is not there.
      - sheepmullet 8y ago
        If you meant how much genetics determines overall outcomes then I agree there isn’t a scientific consensus. In your first paragraph you were clearly talking about traits and not outcomes: > attribute sex-/gender-specific trait differences to culture/environmental I missed where you changed to outcomes in your second paragraph.

by n4r9 8y ago

repolfx 8y ago

There is absolute scientific consensus with regards to the things the left routinely rejects, e.g. different interests in different job roles are biological and not cultural, men earn more (collectively) because they make different choices and not due to discrimination, that there is no sexism against women during job hiring, etc. You can find studies that back these things up everywhere, yet the Damore incident showed a huge propensity to not only ignore or deny this science but actively persecute anyone who pointed it out. Another hot button trigger for the left is false rape allegations. Multiple studies (with replications) have shown the figure is extremely high, like 50% or more. Studies that claim otherwise invariably have severe flaws that render them unscientific (e.g. dropping huge numbers of data points). Good luck debating those studies with anyone who wanted Bernie Sanders. One more example: for the longest time psychologists ignored the question of stereotype accuracy, because psychology is dominated by left-wing academics (this is itself studied). Eventually a small number of conservative academics started examining this and discovering that stereotypes are extremely and surprisingly (?) accurate. Of course many stereotypes associate negative traits with various subgroups which is anathema to certain political orientations, so this sort of science is often also instinctively rejected. edit: ahaha, voted down within 60 seconds, on a topic about how whether people reject scientific consensus about political hot button topics or not. What a shock.

n4r9 8y ago
I didn't down-vote you, but for someone who's talking about how easy it is to find studies backing up what you're saying, you haven't been very forthcoming with citing any of those studies. Also, you went off on a bit of a wild tangent about how awful the left are. HN doesn't generally like politically-motivated rants.
- repolfx 8y ago
  I was responding to a post that started by talking about the left, in a thread that is entirely about political differences in what science is accepted. That's hardly a wild tangent unless the entire thread is. Indeed the reaction to this post is perfect validation of the original claim. What I'm claiming here is not obscure, weird, or hard to find. Would you expect me to cite a claim that scientists generally agree that climate change is man made? So why should I be expected to cite studies, when my claim is literally that they all say the same thing? Anyway, I can see that we're deep in the thick of science denial in this thread, so fine. Damore already did cite studies, go read his memo to find the links. Or read this story by scientists saying that scientists agree with him: https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists... Or this article about the replicability of stereotype accuracy: http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-res... Again, I should not have to cite studies when there is a scientific consensus about something. It should be up to you to cite studies showing the opposite.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - n4r9 8y ago
    You turned a relatively neutral discussion about left vs right attitudes into a vitriolic attack on one side. I read the Damore memo carefully when it came out and several times since. He never explicitly claims that gender differences in career choices are entirely down to biological rather than cultural differences. Instead he posits biology as a "possible explanation". Damore later said (my emphasis) > I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. ...implying that he leaves open the possibility that some are. Just linking an article (from a website with a clear ideological bent) with a few scientists that support Damore's claims to varying degrees doesn't cut it. If there was the sort of scientific consensus you suggest about the content of the memo then I wouldn't expect Wikipedia to list a series of scientists both for and against, nor would I expect to see articles like the following: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-arguments-james-damore-has-yet-to-respond-to.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-argum...
dang 8y ago
Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN? We've already asked you, you've been doing it a lot, and it is not ok to have accounts for this purpose, regardless of your ideology or how wrong you feel others are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- repolfx 8y ago
  Which of the last 20 comment threads I started do you consider "ideological flamewar"? Many of them have been voted up. Quite a few of them are on technical topics. And why is my comment "flamewar" when the other 3 replies to that post all make similar points, but aren't? This is a discussion thread about reasoning around controversial topics. I cited several examples of controversial topics where there is in fact either scientific consensus that is controversial or where there's a lack of consensus despite being presented as the opposite. That seems highly relevant to me - the fact that these topics of scientific exploration are unpopular is not sufficient to justify downvotes, let alone flagging or a finger-wagging.

aidenn0 8y ago

A few points: 1) Whether or not such a consensus exists is somewhat orthogonal to the question "Would any evidence convince you to change your mind" 2) There is complete consensus that there are morphological differences between the sexes; this consensus extends to neurology. To what degree these morphological differences are genetic is up for debate (remember that brain morphology is absolutely environmentally affected), but most of the time we have studied traits for nature vs. nurture, the answer has been "both." 3) For some mental traits (e.g. IQ) it is well established that the difference, if any between the means of men and women is quite small. For other mental traits it is well established that the difference is quite significant, and the question is to what degree it is genetic versus environmental. 4) Many people on the left have argued that any investigation into innate differences between men and women should not be allowed, under the theory that any positive result would be co-opted by misogynists. That might be true and even be a good reason to avoid the research in today's cultural climate, but it's definitely fallacious as an argument that there are no inherent differences; this study was specifically about fallacious reasoning, not correct reasoning.

n4r9 8y ago
I get what you're saying with (1). I'm saying I don't think it's quite justified to draw the comparison between "right-wing vs climate change" and "left-wing vs sex differences". All you have at the moment is a counter-factual about what you think left-wingers would believe if there was a scientific consensus.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"There's definitely a stronger inclination within the "left" to attribute sex-/gender-specific trait differences to culture/environmental causes rather than genetics. " No, it's the opposite. 'Born that way' was a positioning effort discovered in tye 90's by gay advocacy groups. When social conservatives believe that 'gay is a choice' - then they are against it, but if social conservatives can be convinced that people are simply 'born that way' i.e. inherently gay, and it's not a behavioural thing, then clear majorities of them are accepting of it. It's the biggest factor in determining a social conservatives tolerance towards gays. The science I think is still out on that, but there's no doubt that the community marketing objectives are oriented towards 'inherent'. When Cynthia Nixon decided in later life that she was gay - and then virulently said that she was in fact straight before, i.e. not 'coming out' but rather 'becoming gay' - it upset the gay community a lot because this is inconsistent with the marketing by the gay community. This is one of a few topics that tend to be twisted by all sides. The science is vague.

n4r9 8y ago
I was talking about attitudes towards sex differences, not sexual orientation differences.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Oh, sorry. Then yes, absolutely. Totally agree.

sheepmullet 8y ago

> as far as I know there's not really a scientific consensus - at least nowhere near as much as for climate change Why do you think that?

n4r9 8y ago
Not sure what you're looking for. After Damore's memo came out I carefully read it along with statements from scientists both in support and opposition, and I have the impression that there is no broad scientific consensus about the extent to which gender-specific career choices are biologically innate.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > I have the impression that there is no broad scientific consensus about the extent to which gender-specific career choices are biologically innate. You are shifting the goalposts. We were discussing traits/personality differences. Gender differences in the big 5 personality traits for example have broad scientific consensus. Tying that to career choices isn’t really scientific AFAIK.
  - n4r9 8y ago
    You're the one shifting goalposts. I stated that there's no scientific consensus regarding how far genetics predetermines things. Career choices is one thing where the consensus is not there.
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      If you meant how much genetics determines overall outcomes then I agree there isn’t a scientific consensus. In your first paragraph you were clearly talking about traits and not outcomes: > attribute sex-/gender-specific trait differences to culture/environmental I missed where you changed to outcomes in your second paragraph.