4 ms·

The left uses any inequality of outcome, like the unequal representation of minorities and women in the software development industry, as evidence of discrimina

The left uses any inequality of outcome, like the unequal representation of minorities and women in the software development industry, as evidence of discrimination without allowing for the possibility these differences are due to different abilities, choices, or desires. And if anyone challenges the belief that all outcomes should be equal, they retreat behind the very different argument you've just made, which nearly everyone agrees with. The motte and bailey tactic.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The left uses any inequality of outcome, like the unequal representation of minorities and women in the software development industry, as evidence of discrimination without allowing for the possibility these differences are due to different abilities, choices, or desires. No, the left doesn't. On a number of levels; as well as not ruling out the possibility of non-discriminatory causes (while being skeptical of handwaves in that direction), the left broadly recognizes that differences in choices and desires are natural and obvious consequences of visible discrimination in society, and thus even when they are direct factors not inconsistent with discrimination as root cause.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- leereeves 8y ago
  I'm as skeptical as you are of "handwaves", and I'd like to see definitive research into this very important topic. Government intervention should be based on proof, not skepticism or bias. But the left won't allow research or even discussion of the topic, so we don't know whether IQ, for example, is actually a cause of the unequal outcome in software development. Merely discussing the greater male variability hypothesis is enough to cause research to be disappeared. [1] And suggesting that IQ may be unequal between groups is enough to end careers. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938318
  - repolfx 8y ago
    Greater male variability isn't a hypothesis, is it? It's clear in the data from longitudinal IQ studies, or so I thought. It's more a fact than a hypothesis.
goldcd 8y ago
Hold on, I'm a lefty - and don't particularly like that brush you're tarring me with. Now before we go on, I do agree with some of your points. The results we observe are driven by many factors and individual choice is one of them. I object to 'positive discrimination' and the like as it's personally unfair. However, I do have that deep troubling feeling that there is bias all over the place. I'll just go with gender, as you mentioned it (and yes, this is all anecdotal). I'm in the UK, working for an Israeli company. The UK office (and US) is a veritable 'sausage-fest' - however Israel and India have a far higher proportion of women doing these technical roles. My point is that these "personal desires" seem to vary by geography, rather than gender. Now, why would this matter, if everybody gets to do what they want? Well, income. Many western industries seem to have massive gender bias within them - and women always seem to end up in the ones that pay less (which for want of a better metric is our best indicator of 'value' we have). Now within a job role, once you balance in hours worked/flexibility/anything-you-care to include the gender pay gap isn't too bad. It's there, but not enough to annoy me. My quibble is that if you/I had two children, one male, one female, equal in every way - the male child is going to earn more.
- leereeves 8y ago
  That's another area that merits research beyond simply assuming that an unequal outcome implies discrimination, and research to-date isn't entirely supportive of that assumption: > A massive study that looks worldwide at how national wealth and gender equality affect the choices men and women make ... found greater national wealth and gender equality are tied to bigger differences in preferences between men and women. 1: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-times-are-good-the-gender-gap-grows/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-times-are-go...
- belorn 8y ago
  Lets imagine you do a human study that measure the incentives and disincentives of seeking high income job, based on gender. What would the results be? How does society treat men who do not prioritize work income in life vs men who prioritize work income over other aspects in life. How does society treat women who prioritize other aspect of life over work income vs women who prioritize work income? After measuring that and how high the amplitude is, we can rather easily see the building blocks of the pay gap. To take a bit of data from Sweden, a man who is in the bottom 50% of the income pool has less than half the probability of having children of his own. Increased income has a very strong correlation with fathering children. For women this is the opposite with fewer children at higher income, but the amplitude is significant smaller than for men. The difference in children between high income and low income women exist but is comparable small. If we could align those incentives so they point in the same direction and with the same amplitude then those two children, one male, one female, would likely end up with the same income later in life.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The left uses any inequality of outcome, like the unequal representation of minorities and women in the software development industry, as evidence of discrimination without allowing for the possibility these differences are due to different abilities, choices, or desires. No, the left doesn't. On a number of levels; as well as not ruling out the possibility of non-discriminatory causes (while being skeptical of handwaves in that direction), the left broadly recognizes that differences in choices and desires are natural and obvious consequences of visible discrimination in society, and thus even when they are direct factors not inconsistent with discrimination as root cause.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
leereeves 8y ago
I'm as skeptical as you are of "handwaves", and I'd like to see definitive research into this very important topic. Government intervention should be based on proof, not skepticism or bias. But the left won't allow research or even discussion of the topic, so we don't know whether IQ, for example, is actually a cause of the unequal outcome in software development. Merely discussing the greater male variability hypothesis is enough to cause research to be disappeared. [1] And suggesting that IQ may be unequal between groups is enough to end careers. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938318
- repolfx 8y ago
  Greater male variability isn't a hypothesis, is it? It's clear in the data from longitudinal IQ studies, or so I thought. It's more a fact than a hypothesis.

goldcd 8y ago

Hold on, I'm a lefty - and don't particularly like that brush you're tarring me with. Now before we go on, I do agree with some of your points. The results we observe are driven by many factors and individual choice is one of them. I object to 'positive discrimination' and the like as it's personally unfair. However, I do have that deep troubling feeling that there is bias all over the place. I'll just go with gender, as you mentioned it (and yes, this is all anecdotal). I'm in the UK, working for an Israeli company. The UK office (and US) is a veritable 'sausage-fest' - however Israel and India have a far higher proportion of women doing these technical roles. My point is that these "personal desires" seem to vary by geography, rather than gender. Now, why would this matter, if everybody gets to do what they want? Well, income. Many western industries seem to have massive gender bias within them - and women always seem to end up in the ones that pay less (which for want of a better metric is our best indicator of 'value' we have). Now within a job role, once you balance in hours worked/flexibility/anything-you-care to include the gender pay gap isn't too bad. It's there, but not enough to annoy me. My quibble is that if you/I had two children, one male, one female, equal in every way - the male child is going to earn more.

leereeves 8y ago
That's another area that merits research beyond simply assuming that an unequal outcome implies discrimination, and research to-date isn't entirely supportive of that assumption: > A massive study that looks worldwide at how national wealth and gender equality affect the choices men and women make ... found greater national wealth and gender equality are tied to bigger differences in preferences between men and women. 1: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-times-are-good-the-gender-gap-grows/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-times-are-go...
belorn 8y ago
Lets imagine you do a human study that measure the incentives and disincentives of seeking high income job, based on gender. What would the results be? How does society treat men who do not prioritize work income in life vs men who prioritize work income over other aspects in life. How does society treat women who prioritize other aspect of life over work income vs women who prioritize work income? After measuring that and how high the amplitude is, we can rather easily see the building blocks of the pay gap. To take a bit of data from Sweden, a man who is in the bottom 50% of the income pool has less than half the probability of having children of his own. Increased income has a very strong correlation with fathering children. For women this is the opposite with fewer children at higher income, but the amplitude is significant smaller than for men. The difference in children between high income and low income women exist but is comparable small. If we could align those incentives so they point in the same direction and with the same amplitude then those two children, one male, one female, would likely end up with the same income later in life.