5 ms·

Gender Imbalance is a presupposition -- it begins from the place that a "gender imbalance" exists. I can't justify for you your presupposition [nor demonstrate

Gender Imbalance is a presupposition -- it begins from the place that a "gender imbalance" exists. I can't justify for you your presupposition [nor demonstrate the existence of your chosen, yet unjustified presupposition given the evidence], you'll need to do that for yourself. Sounds like the news & entertainment media told you something repeatedly (without evidence), and you accepted it on its face without critical analysis. Now, like many, when presented with evidence, you feel a sense of cognitive dissonance and would prefer to refute clear evidence rather than adjust your public opinion-- as to be expected given human nature of desire to save face. However, what is apparently demonstrated in the studies is that the vast majority of individuals in a normal distribution favor a particular occupational set of interests based on gender: Men -> Things/Systems. Women -> People. "The most relevant finding here is that about 15% of women have the same level of interest in engineering as the average (Read: 50% i.e. 50th percentile) man;" "Straight Talk About Sex Differences in Occupational Choices and Work-Family Tradeoffs" https://ifstudies.org/blog/straight-talk-about-sex-differences-in-occupational-choices-and-work-family-tradeoffs https://ifstudies.org/blog/straight-talk-about-sex-differenc...

Angostura 7y ago
> I can't justify for you your presupposition [nor demonstrate the existence of your chosen, yet unjustified presupposition given the evidence], you'll need to do that for yourself. Sounds like the news & entertainment media told you something repeatedly (without evidence), and you accepted it on its face without critical analysis But you're pointing out the imbalance yourself... > The most relevant finding here is that about 15% of women have the same level of interest in engineering as the average. But when presented with evidence, you feel a sense of cognitive dissonance and would prefer to simply presume some biological effect. Is there any evidence that this is a biological effect?
- pdub123 7y ago
  No, imbalance would presume things are out of balance. Your presumtion is that balance = men and women have the exact same interests and should therefore be represented exactly identically in occupations of things & people. That is an irrational posture, foisted upon you by your media overlords, and accepted by you wholeheartedly without critical analysis. I do not believe men and women are equal-- if they were, we wouldn't have two names for two genders in a dimorphic species. If apples equal oranges, we wouldn't have two names for them. I don't know what sort of mentality you live within, but it isn't a rational nor informed one, in my estimation. Given the psychological science (again, many studies over the course of decades), and given the biological science (hormonal and brain differences between sexes), I think it is very clear: Women prefer working with people, men prefer working with things -- On average. I don't think you understand how statistical distributions work. There are two distributions here: One for men, one for women. They don't both fit onto the same normal distribution-- if they did, it would be bimodal, not normal. Good lord, I see you're trying to argue against biological differences between men and women-- You must not be aware of hormone differences, which in fetal development, yield either a male or female. OK, I am done talking with such a brainwashed person. Your ignorance does not offend me, I just think it's pointless to discuss this with an irrational person who prefers to block out the daylight of reality falling upon their presuppositions, and media-informed (not science-informed) perspective.

Angostura 7y ago

> I can't justify for you your presupposition [nor demonstrate the existence of your chosen, yet unjustified presupposition given the evidence], you'll need to do that for yourself. Sounds like the news & entertainment media told you something repeatedly (without evidence), and you accepted it on its face without critical analysis But you're pointing out the imbalance yourself... > The most relevant finding here is that about 15% of women have the same level of interest in engineering as the average. But when presented with evidence, you feel a sense of cognitive dissonance and would prefer to simply presume some biological effect. Is there any evidence that this is a biological effect?

pdub123 7y ago
No, imbalance would presume things are out of balance. Your presumtion is that balance = men and women have the exact same interests and should therefore be represented exactly identically in occupations of things & people. That is an irrational posture, foisted upon you by your media overlords, and accepted by you wholeheartedly without critical analysis. I do not believe men and women are equal-- if they were, we wouldn't have two names for two genders in a dimorphic species. If apples equal oranges, we wouldn't have two names for them. I don't know what sort of mentality you live within, but it isn't a rational nor informed one, in my estimation. Given the psychological science (again, many studies over the course of decades), and given the biological science (hormonal and brain differences between sexes), I think it is very clear: Women prefer working with people, men prefer working with things -- On average. I don't think you understand how statistical distributions work. There are two distributions here: One for men, one for women. They don't both fit onto the same normal distribution-- if they did, it would be bimodal, not normal. Good lord, I see you're trying to argue against biological differences between men and women-- You must not be aware of hormone differences, which in fetal development, yield either a male or female. OK, I am done talking with such a brainwashed person. Your ignorance does not offend me, I just think it's pointless to discuss this with an irrational person who prefers to block out the daylight of reality falling upon their presuppositions, and media-informed (not science-informed) perspective.