4 ms·

That is not, in any way, sufficient evidence.

globular-toast 5y ago
I didn't say it was. But it is evidence for my hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis is that women don't go into management positions because of maternity. I am merely applying Occam's razor here. It's really difficult to have conversations with people who hear something different to what is said every single time. I say "people with good leadership skills tend to be male", you hear "men make better leaders". I say "this is evidence to support my hypothesis", you hear "my hypothesis is irrefutable because of this evidence". I say "men and women aren't the same", you hear "men are better than women" (because everything needs to be ranked, things can't simply be different).
- dmos62 5y ago
  I think you might have some fundamental problems with how you phrase and present your points, because a lot of people are misunderstanding you. You might also just be backtracking on what you said. That said, just because you present something as evidence, doesn't mean that it actually supports your hypothesis.
  - globular-toast 5y ago
    This whole thread started with me asking for evidence to support an alternative hypothesis given that there is a perfectly simple and obvious theory available. Nobody provided such evidence. People intentionally or unintentionally hear what they want to hear all the time, especially on these kinds of issues. It's sometimes called a straw man argument, although in this case nobody even bothered to argue against the straw man after erecting it.
    - dmos62 5y ago
      > I think what's more likely is people who are good leaders go into leadership and good leaders are far more common in men. This thread is a reaction to this statement. You didn't really back it up, so no-one bothered to pick at it with any care. People tending to pursue leadership because they're skilled at it is an ok statement. But, you saying that that's why there's more men in leadership positions is a leap. For starters, you're ignoring the possibility of a patriarchal society, and gender roles more specifically, limiting the choices of the men and women involved. As long as gender roles affect the participants, actions between genders cannot be directly compared. Imagine a woman thinking that she shouldn't be a leader, due to social conditioning, even though her faculties are otherwise suited for it. Imagine an older white male being perceived as leadership material, not due to true merit, but because of social conditioning.
      - globular-toast 5y ago
        Why is it a leap? Why do you think gender roles exist? Do you really think men have enslaved women? Look around you. Do you really think that? In our highly competitive world do you really think "patriarchy" or "gender roles" would trump merit? That not a single company in the history of the world would have got a competitive edge by shunning gender roles and having more women in charge? Now that's a leap.
        dmos62 5y ago
        You should have started with that. No one would have had any doubts about your viewpoints. I'm tired of you walking your position back and forth between ambiguity and sexism. It's a leap, because there's other possibilities you don't account for. I don't pretend to know why we have a patriarchal society, but I do believe that history is largely random and far from optimal, which is what you argue for. That is what I think is naive. You describe the world as a meritocracy, governed by the skilled. Believe me, you're in the minority in thinking that. > do you really think [...] That not a single company in the history of the world would have got a competitive edge by shunning gender roles and having more women in charge? Do you really see companies as the pinacles of human history? What if we still had racial slavery? Would you argue in favor of that as well? Is history the true judge of what is a good idea? History is what we do. To say that something is right, because it's prevalent in history, is to say that what we do is right, because we do it. If you want your close ones to fulfill some social dictates, I find it sad, but it's fine. I'm not interested in that, and I don't see it as anything more than useless dogma.
        globular-toast 5y ago
        Apparently some leaps are more acceptable than others. At the end of the day, it was my comment asking for evidence that was flagged.

I didn't say it was. But it is evidence for my hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis is that women don't go into management positions because of maternity. I am merely applying Occam's razor here. It's really difficult to have conversations with people who hear something different to what is said every single time. I say "people with good leadership skills tend to be male", you hear "men make better leaders". I say "this is evidence to support my hypothesis", you hear "my hypothesis is irrefutable because of this evidence". I say "men and women aren't the same", you hear "men are better than women" (because everything needs to be ranked, things can't simply be different).

dmos62 5y ago
I think you might have some fundamental problems with how you phrase and present your points, because a lot of people are misunderstanding you. You might also just be backtracking on what you said. That said, just because you present something as evidence, doesn't mean that it actually supports your hypothesis.
- globular-toast 5y ago
  This whole thread started with me asking for evidence to support an alternative hypothesis given that there is a perfectly simple and obvious theory available. Nobody provided such evidence. People intentionally or unintentionally hear what they want to hear all the time, especially on these kinds of issues. It's sometimes called a straw man argument, although in this case nobody even bothered to argue against the straw man after erecting it.
  - dmos62 5y ago
    > I think what's more likely is people who are good leaders go into leadership and good leaders are far more common in men. This thread is a reaction to this statement. You didn't really back it up, so no-one bothered to pick at it with any care. People tending to pursue leadership because they're skilled at it is an ok statement. But, you saying that that's why there's more men in leadership positions is a leap. For starters, you're ignoring the possibility of a patriarchal society, and gender roles more specifically, limiting the choices of the men and women involved. As long as gender roles affect the participants, actions between genders cannot be directly compared. Imagine a woman thinking that she shouldn't be a leader, due to social conditioning, even though her faculties are otherwise suited for it. Imagine an older white male being perceived as leadership material, not due to true merit, but because of social conditioning.
    - globular-toast 5y ago
      Why is it a leap? Why do you think gender roles exist? Do you really think men have enslaved women? Look around you. Do you really think that? In our highly competitive world do you really think "patriarchy" or "gender roles" would trump merit? That not a single company in the history of the world would have got a competitive edge by shunning gender roles and having more women in charge? Now that's a leap.
      - dmos62 5y ago
        You should have started with that. No one would have had any doubts about your viewpoints. I'm tired of you walking your position back and forth between ambiguity and sexism. It's a leap, because there's other possibilities you don't account for. I don't pretend to know why we have a patriarchal society, but I do believe that history is largely random and far from optimal, which is what you argue for. That is what I think is naive. You describe the world as a meritocracy, governed by the skilled. Believe me, you're in the minority in thinking that. > do you really think [...] That not a single company in the history of the world would have got a competitive edge by shunning gender roles and having more women in charge? Do you really see companies as the pinacles of human history? What if we still had racial slavery? Would you argue in favor of that as well? Is history the true judge of what is a good idea? History is what we do. To say that something is right, because it's prevalent in history, is to say that what we do is right, because we do it. If you want your close ones to fulfill some social dictates, I find it sad, but it's fine. I'm not interested in that, and I don't see it as anything more than useless dogma.
        globular-toast 5y ago
        Apparently some leaps are more acceptable than others. At the end of the day, it was my comment asking for evidence that was flagged.