4 ms·

Are you sure about that? Consider the following non-inclusive list: 1. Differences in hormonal expression and response affecting behavior and interests, e.g. t

Are you sure about that? Consider the following non-inclusive list: 1. Differences in hormonal expression and response affecting behavior and interests, e.g. testosterone and competitiveness (biological) 2. Measured differences in performance in different types of intelligence, e.g. spatial reasoning (statistical) 3. Consistent differences in achievement and specialization between men and women across almost all societies and all of human history (circumstantial) The truth may be inconvenient but the idea that men and women are on average equally suited to all tasks doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

AlexCoventry 7y ago
The studies I've looked at for 1. aren't convincing. If you have any in mind and want to share, I might take a look, because I find the topic mildly interesting. 2. and 3. can be explained by structural issues, as I said. It's not really a question of the distribution of capabilities in men and women today which interests me the most, but the potential malleability of those capabilities given the right social structures, because if there's a way to bring a larger fraction of the population into STEM work, we'll have a much more creative and prosperous society.
deyouz 7y ago
If you are going to claim something as harmful as that, I want you to present clear evidence and peer reviewed studies to support your claims. What you were suggesting is that men are better than women at STEM. Simplg saying men have more testosterone doesn't cut it as evidence. (Besides, competitiveness doesn't make you a better researcher or employee, and can even be harmful in a team). I also need data for the number 2 in that list. At what are men better at than women by a significant ammount? And how does that thing relates to STEM? And number 3 doesn't prove absolutely anything. Women were subjugated throught history and basically no opportunity to do anything. Even with their limited possibilities, you still have women like Hatshepsut, Ada Lovelace, Marie Currie, Sappho, Ann Lister, Hypathia of Alexandria, etc. And now that they are finally allowed in higher education they outperfom men in terms of degree gained. So there is clearly not something that holds them back from studying. If they have the ability to get a PhD, then they can also be good researchers. Simple as that. If you are going to continue with this subtle sexist talk (implying men are better than women at STEM), I want clear examples. Thanks.
- allovernow 7y ago
  Start here [1]. This is delving dangerously close to flame war territory, so I probably won't respond further. But I'd like to point out that because of attitudes like this >If you are going to continue with this subtle sexist talk (implying men are better than women at STEM) You're probably unlikely to find too much on the subject - it's dangerous to academic careers to even propose research which could potentially justify any aspects of classical sexism. I'd just like to point out three things: 1. You're aware of the massive differences in physical capabilities, on average, between men and women, right? Which make men and women better suited, on average, to certain tasks? Why would sexually dimorphic specialization stop above the shoulders? 2. This isn't about inferiority, it's about specialization over thousands of generations. We see it in practically every other sexually reproducing species. The fact that humans have some ability to override instinct doesn't preclude gendered differences in average behavior. 3. This doesn't say anything about individual ability. We are talking about distribution statistics. What that means is that differences in average performance lead to different proportional representations in various fields. That doesn't justify discrimination or mistreatment, but it does suggest that, say, forcing gender parity in industry is unrealistic and potentially harmful. 1. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/male-female/201910/men-s-advantages-in-spatial-cognition-mechanical-reasoning https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/male-female/201910/m...
  - rixed 7y ago
    Regarding 1: Sexual dymorphism in hominids is not regarded as large compared to other close primates. I don't know where you take this opinion that physical abilities between males and women are "massive", but certainly not from actual measurements. Here are some, conveniently in a single table, for those interested: https://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/00lect13dimorph.html https://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/00lect13dimorph.h... (Note: We are homo sapiens, pan troglodites is our closest relative still alive the social ape chimpanzee, pongo pygmaeus is the solitary orangutan, gorilla gorilla is the small group living usual gorilla, others are extinct relatives)
    - allovernow 7y ago

AlexCoventry 7y ago

The studies I've looked at for 1. aren't convincing. If you have any in mind and want to share, I might take a look, because I find the topic mildly interesting. 2. and 3. can be explained by structural issues, as I said. It's not really a question of the distribution of capabilities in men and women today which interests me the most, but the potential malleability of those capabilities given the right social structures, because if there's a way to bring a larger fraction of the population into STEM work, we'll have a much more creative and prosperous society.

deyouz 7y ago

If you are going to claim something as harmful as that, I want you to present clear evidence and peer reviewed studies to support your claims. What you were suggesting is that men are better than women at STEM. Simplg saying men have more testosterone doesn't cut it as evidence. (Besides, competitiveness doesn't make you a better researcher or employee, and can even be harmful in a team). I also need data for the number 2 in that list. At what are men better at than women by a significant ammount? And how does that thing relates to STEM? And number 3 doesn't prove absolutely anything. Women were subjugated throught history and basically no opportunity to do anything. Even with their limited possibilities, you still have women like Hatshepsut, Ada Lovelace, Marie Currie, Sappho, Ann Lister, Hypathia of Alexandria, etc. And now that they are finally allowed in higher education they outperfom men in terms of degree gained. So there is clearly not something that holds them back from studying. If they have the ability to get a PhD, then they can also be good researchers. Simple as that. If you are going to continue with this subtle sexist talk (implying men are better than women at STEM), I want clear examples. Thanks.

allovernow 7y ago
Start here [1]. This is delving dangerously close to flame war territory, so I probably won't respond further. But I'd like to point out that because of attitudes like this >If you are going to continue with this subtle sexist talk (implying men are better than women at STEM) You're probably unlikely to find too much on the subject - it's dangerous to academic careers to even propose research which could potentially justify any aspects of classical sexism. I'd just like to point out three things: 1. You're aware of the massive differences in physical capabilities, on average, between men and women, right? Which make men and women better suited, on average, to certain tasks? Why would sexually dimorphic specialization stop above the shoulders? 2. This isn't about inferiority, it's about specialization over thousands of generations. We see it in practically every other sexually reproducing species. The fact that humans have some ability to override instinct doesn't preclude gendered differences in average behavior. 3. This doesn't say anything about individual ability. We are talking about distribution statistics. What that means is that differences in average performance lead to different proportional representations in various fields. That doesn't justify discrimination or mistreatment, but it does suggest that, say, forcing gender parity in industry is unrealistic and potentially harmful. 1. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/male-female/201910/men-s-advantages-in-spatial-cognition-mechanical-reasoning https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/male-female/201910/m...
- rixed 7y ago
  Regarding 1: Sexual dymorphism in hominids is not regarded as large compared to other close primates. I don't know where you take this opinion that physical abilities between males and women are "massive", but certainly not from actual measurements. Here are some, conveniently in a single table, for those interested: https://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/00lect13dimorph.html https://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/00lect13dimorph.h... (Note: We are homo sapiens, pan troglodites is our closest relative still alive the social ape chimpanzee, pongo pygmaeus is the solitary orangutan, gorilla gorilla is the small group living usual gorilla, others are extinct relatives)
  - allovernow 7y ago