7 ms·

Yes, and the variety that you get will not look like 50%/50% gender spread in every single field and profession, because there are innate differences between ge

Yes, and the variety that you get will not look like 50%/50% gender spread in every single field and profession, because there are innate differences between genders that come to the surface the more you remove social pressure and tyranny. That's literally the core argument of what Jordan B Peterson has been saying, and he has been getting a lot of flak in the mainstream media for that. So it's a controversial topic for some reason.

vmception 6y ago
which has nothing to do with video games, investment banking, and identifying capital misallocation in certain sectors for maximum money
watwut 6y ago
You won't get the 93%/7% split either in most non physical professions. The small differences that are there can explain the massive differences.
- yakshaving_jgt 6y ago
  What are you basing this claim on? What is the right split for a given profession, and how do you know?
  - Shugarl 6y ago
    Not op, but what difference between men and women would justify such a gap, if not a cultural one ? We can't know for sure what's the right split, But I'd argue it's as unlikely to be 50/50 than it is to be close to 100/0 in fields where women aren't at a physical disavantage.
    - yakshaving_jgt 6y ago
      I don't study this, but as far as I'm aware there are biological differences between men and women on average that are neither physically advantageous nor disadvantageous. This appears to be supported by this study[0]. [0]: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaas9899 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaas9899
    - roenxi 6y ago
      There is a slight biological bias in favour of men (105 men for every 100 women at birth) and that, combined with the whole womb thing, give women a lot of short term say over the circumstances where families are established. It is enough of an imbalance to cause fierce competition amongst the men. Assuming a nuclear family and sensible family planning, it is highly likely that a bunch of men will not get to have families. The men working hard to make money are in a fairly high-stakes game to break into the gene pool, biologically speaking. It isn't surprising to me that the men take working a lot more seriously. Every generation nature is roughly planning to cull ~1 man in 20 before life even starts. Individually it might not get acknowledged but that is a mighty biasing force over even 2 generations of cultural development. Being the lowest status man in the room has an implicit evolutionary threat in the way that being the lowest status woman doesn't.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        > Being the lowest status man in the room has an implicit evolutionary threat in the way that being the lowest status woman doesn't. What perceptible "evolutionary threat" could there possibly be in a 105:100 imbalance, which is so low as to be pretty much unknown to everyone who doesn't follow demographic data?
        yakshaving_jgt 6y ago
        The mortality rate for COVID-19 is far lower than ~1 in 20, and yet we take that awfully (and justifiably) seriously.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        1 in 20 don't usually die of COVID-19, but nearly a third of Americans never marry. I think it's obvious why the effect is much less noticeable in one case, notwithstanding that one literally ends up with people dead.
        roenxi 6y ago
        1:20 is detectable in everyday life. If you know more than around 20 young men the realities of balance equations will have kicked in.
supergirl 6y ago
Jordan is a hack. he just makes up explanations to fit what we observe. “women don’t go into tech careers”. jordan: “oh that could be because women are interested in people and men are interested in objects”. what bs. spoiler: if that’s the case then it’s still a problem we created
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  > f that’s the case then it’s still a problem we created Why? Why can't there just be innate biological differences in what people are interested in, between the genders, as a lot of data suggests. Also if that is your hypothesis, how do you explain the data point that shows that the more egalitarian (free and fair) a country is, the higher the differences between the gender interests? Also JBP is simply quoting the research in the social and psychological and psychometric fields that already exists, and is being done by a lot of other scientists. Isn't that the exact opposite of being "a hack"?
  - bildung 6y ago
    > Also JBP is simply quoting the research in the social and psychological and psychometric fields that already exists He isn't, that is the main criticism. He usually uses actual research, yes, but then extrapolates widely and without empirical support. For example he uses observed gender differences in the Big Five traits (which are actually there, though keep in mind the Big Five traits by themselves are already about 50% society, not genes), but then postulates differences in e.g. natural sciences, which cannot reasonably derived from this base. His postulations often also actually stand in contrast to empirical evidence. For example in eastern Germany, the area of the former GDR, where gender equality was officially mandated and thus stronger than it is even now in Germany, girls had on average better math grades than boys in the 90s and early 2000s (see the national TIMSS data for these periods. This effect only disappeared in generations born after German reunification. All this isn't surprising as Peterson is a Jungian (which is quack psychology), and to my knowledge has no empirical background.
    - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
FabHK 6y ago
FWIW, those views are held not just by Peterson (who is easy to dismiss for his more extreme and loony views), but many if not most reputable researchers in the field, as far as I can tell.

vmception 6y ago

which has nothing to do with video games, investment banking, and identifying capital misallocation in certain sectors for maximum money

watwut 6y ago

You won't get the 93%/7% split either in most non physical professions. The small differences that are there can explain the massive differences.

yakshaving_jgt 6y ago
What are you basing this claim on? What is the right split for a given profession, and how do you know?
- Shugarl 6y ago
  Not op, but what difference between men and women would justify such a gap, if not a cultural one ? We can't know for sure what's the right split, But I'd argue it's as unlikely to be 50/50 than it is to be close to 100/0 in fields where women aren't at a physical disavantage.
  - yakshaving_jgt 6y ago
    I don't study this, but as far as I'm aware there are biological differences between men and women on average that are neither physically advantageous nor disadvantageous. This appears to be supported by this study[0]. [0]: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaas9899 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaas9899
  - roenxi 6y ago
    There is a slight biological bias in favour of men (105 men for every 100 women at birth) and that, combined with the whole womb thing, give women a lot of short term say over the circumstances where families are established. It is enough of an imbalance to cause fierce competition amongst the men. Assuming a nuclear family and sensible family planning, it is highly likely that a bunch of men will not get to have families. The men working hard to make money are in a fairly high-stakes game to break into the gene pool, biologically speaking. It isn't surprising to me that the men take working a lot more seriously. Every generation nature is roughly planning to cull ~1 man in 20 before life even starts. Individually it might not get acknowledged but that is a mighty biasing force over even 2 generations of cultural development. Being the lowest status man in the room has an implicit evolutionary threat in the way that being the lowest status woman doesn't.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      > Being the lowest status man in the room has an implicit evolutionary threat in the way that being the lowest status woman doesn't. What perceptible "evolutionary threat" could there possibly be in a 105:100 imbalance, which is so low as to be pretty much unknown to everyone who doesn't follow demographic data?
      - yakshaving_jgt 6y ago
        The mortality rate for COVID-19 is far lower than ~1 in 20, and yet we take that awfully (and justifiably) seriously.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        1 in 20 don't usually die of COVID-19, but nearly a third of Americans never marry. I think it's obvious why the effect is much less noticeable in one case, notwithstanding that one literally ends up with people dead.
      - roenxi 6y ago
        1:20 is detectable in everyday life. If you know more than around 20 young men the realities of balance equations will have kicked in.

supergirl 6y ago

Jordan is a hack. he just makes up explanations to fit what we observe. “women don’t go into tech careers”. jordan: “oh that could be because women are interested in people and men are interested in objects”. what bs. spoiler: if that’s the case then it’s still a problem we created

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
> f that’s the case then it’s still a problem we created Why? Why can't there just be innate biological differences in what people are interested in, between the genders, as a lot of data suggests. Also if that is your hypothesis, how do you explain the data point that shows that the more egalitarian (free and fair) a country is, the higher the differences between the gender interests? Also JBP is simply quoting the research in the social and psychological and psychometric fields that already exists, and is being done by a lot of other scientists. Isn't that the exact opposite of being "a hack"?
- bildung 6y ago
  > Also JBP is simply quoting the research in the social and psychological and psychometric fields that already exists He isn't, that is the main criticism. He usually uses actual research, yes, but then extrapolates widely and without empirical support. For example he uses observed gender differences in the Big Five traits (which are actually there, though keep in mind the Big Five traits by themselves are already about 50% society, not genes), but then postulates differences in e.g. natural sciences, which cannot reasonably derived from this base. His postulations often also actually stand in contrast to empirical evidence. For example in eastern Germany, the area of the former GDR, where gender equality was officially mandated and thus stronger than it is even now in Germany, girls had on average better math grades than boys in the 90s and early 2000s (see the national TIMSS data for these periods. This effect only disappeared in generations born after German reunification. All this isn't surprising as Peterson is a Jungian (which is quack psychology), and to my knowledge has no empirical background.
  - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago

FabHK 6y ago

FWIW, those views are held not just by Peterson (who is easy to dismiss for his more extreme and loony views), but many if not most reputable researchers in the field, as far as I can tell.