4 ms·

unconscious biases of the reviewers This can of course also be turned the other way around: "less-qualified women are getting more funding over more qualif

unconscious biases of the reviewers This can of course also be turned the other way around: "less-qualified women are getting more funding over more qualified men due to unconscious biases of the reviewers" studies that say this might be the case. Those 'studies' generally suffer from various forms of bias, in particular social desirability bias [1], and never reflect upon their social desirability bias. Often the authors of such studies also have a direct financial in the claimed outcome of the 'studies': To paraphase Upton Sinclair "It is difficult to get a woman to understand something, when her salary depends upon his not understanding it!". I challenge you to show me studie along the lines of what you suggest that even mention social desirability bias and financial interest as threats to validity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
I feel you are making rebuttals to portions of my comment without actually reading the full comment to realize that everything you're rebutting is actually in agreement with your rebuttal. This behavior is confusing. Could you explain yourself? EDIT: In clarification, I'm essentially saying 'Well, X, but Y. On the other hand, P, but Q.' and you're demanding I prove X to arbirary metric M, even though Y evidences that I'm not in the interest of proving X at all.
- mafribe 7y ago
  I apologise if I was unclear. What I tried to do was subtly to entice my readers to reflect on the validity of the ruling beliefs about women in STEM -- knowing full well that I'm flying outside the tech crowd's Overton window. Let me try to express my belief in a different way, using four bullet points. I hope it's more clear this way. (α) All the studies that claim show that the reason we have more men than women is due to malice (eg. misogyny, unconscious bias) are not standing up to scrutiny. They have no scientific validity. (β) The reason that there are so many 'studies' of the kind I criticise as scientifically baseless is political. There is a political will to have more women in STEM positions. (γ) The overt explanation for this political will is structurally rather similar to the explanation given by the early Soviet Union for the promotion of non-Russian ethnicities over Russians in the policy of constructing the New Soviet man (новый советский человек). This reason is cogently described in Marxism and the National Question [1]. (δ) I'm generally worried about policies similar to those carried out by the author of [1]. [1] https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913...
  - mcv 7y ago
    I'd love to see what your basis for your first point is. Misogyny is hardly unproven, and unconscious bias has also been shown through various studies. Sexism is sadly still common in many areas. I think there's mostly an economic need for more people in STEM positions, and with women being underrepresented, that's an obvious place to look for more talent. And there are countries that do have more women in STEM or other scientific positions. So for countries that don't, figuring out what's stopping those women is a valid concern.
    - mafribe 7y ago
      basis for your first point is I have read 100s of such 'studies' over the years, they are not meeting even the most basic scientific standards. I have brought one such case to the attention of the university of its author -- to no avail, the university buried it. Publication hoaxes like [1] don't exactly increase confidence, as far as I'm aware the author who exposed the publishing hoax was punished. And then there's the replication crisis (which is not limited to the question at hand), e.g. try to find a suitable replication of stereotype threat. Misogyny ... Sexism Misogyny and Sexism are political terms, they are "Essentially Contested Concept" [2]. mostly an economic need for more people in STEM I agree with this, but note that this is a political reason in a general sense, not one of 'oppression'. So you seem to be agreeing. countries that do have more women in STEM Yes, and the best example are the former Soviet block countries. Note that they did not engage in modern affirmative action as we now know them for STEM in the west -- they more or less allocated people to jobs. is a valid concern. Indeed, but I don't see any reason to believe that the current approach in the west is the best possible one. Mostly it seems to be creating an unaccountable, non-democratic industry of enforcers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept [2] https://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/07/philosophy-journal-spoofed-retracts-hoax-article/ https://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/07/philosophy-journal-sp...
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    "What I tried to do was subtly to entice my readers to reflect on the validity of the ruling beliefs about women in STEM" This may sound rude, by why are you even talking to me if you're not desiring to engage with me and my literal words? Wouldn't a blog be more suitable for you? Because I'm still not entirely sure how your points interact with me, and why you're responding to me.
- mafribe 7y ago
  everything you're rebutting is actually in agreement with your rebuttal. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. I read your post as: "X is the case, arguments for not-X are anecdata, we have to take not-X on trust, nobody knows if X or not-X but I'm suspicious of not-X" I apologise if that's not what you are trying to say.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

I feel you are making rebuttals to portions of my comment without actually reading the full comment to realize that everything you're rebutting is actually in agreement with your rebuttal. This behavior is confusing. Could you explain yourself? EDIT: In clarification, I'm essentially saying 'Well, X, but Y. On the other hand, P, but Q.' and you're demanding I prove X to arbirary metric M, even though Y evidences that I'm not in the interest of proving X at all.

mafribe 7y ago
I apologise if I was unclear. What I tried to do was subtly to entice my readers to reflect on the validity of the ruling beliefs about women in STEM -- knowing full well that I'm flying outside the tech crowd's Overton window. Let me try to express my belief in a different way, using four bullet points. I hope it's more clear this way. (α) All the studies that claim show that the reason we have more men than women is due to malice (eg. misogyny, unconscious bias) are not standing up to scrutiny. They have no scientific validity. (β) The reason that there are so many 'studies' of the kind I criticise as scientifically baseless is political. There is a political will to have more women in STEM positions. (γ) The overt explanation for this political will is structurally rather similar to the explanation given by the early Soviet Union for the promotion of non-Russian ethnicities over Russians in the policy of constructing the New Soviet man (новый советский человек). This reason is cogently described in Marxism and the National Question [1]. (δ) I'm generally worried about policies similar to those carried out by the author of [1]. [1] https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913...
- mcv 7y ago
  I'd love to see what your basis for your first point is. Misogyny is hardly unproven, and unconscious bias has also been shown through various studies. Sexism is sadly still common in many areas. I think there's mostly an economic need for more people in STEM positions, and with women being underrepresented, that's an obvious place to look for more talent. And there are countries that do have more women in STEM or other scientific positions. So for countries that don't, figuring out what's stopping those women is a valid concern.
  - mafribe 7y ago
    basis for your first point is I have read 100s of such 'studies' over the years, they are not meeting even the most basic scientific standards. I have brought one such case to the attention of the university of its author -- to no avail, the university buried it. Publication hoaxes like [1] don't exactly increase confidence, as far as I'm aware the author who exposed the publishing hoax was punished. And then there's the replication crisis (which is not limited to the question at hand), e.g. try to find a suitable replication of stereotype threat. Misogyny ... Sexism Misogyny and Sexism are political terms, they are "Essentially Contested Concept" [2]. mostly an economic need for more people in STEM I agree with this, but note that this is a political reason in a general sense, not one of 'oppression'. So you seem to be agreeing. countries that do have more women in STEM Yes, and the best example are the former Soviet block countries. Note that they did not engage in modern affirmative action as we now know them for STEM in the west -- they more or less allocated people to jobs. is a valid concern. Indeed, but I don't see any reason to believe that the current approach in the west is the best possible one. Mostly it seems to be creating an unaccountable, non-democratic industry of enforcers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept [2] https://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/07/philosophy-journal-spoofed-retracts-hoax-article/ https://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/07/philosophy-journal-sp...
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "What I tried to do was subtly to entice my readers to reflect on the validity of the ruling beliefs about women in STEM" This may sound rude, by why are you even talking to me if you're not desiring to engage with me and my literal words? Wouldn't a blog be more suitable for you? Because I'm still not entirely sure how your points interact with me, and why you're responding to me.
mafribe 7y ago
everything you're rebutting is actually in agreement with your rebuttal. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. I read your post as: "X is the case, arguments for not-X are anecdata, we have to take not-X on trust, nobody knows if X or not-X but I'm suspicious of not-X" I apologise if that's not what you are trying to say.