3 ms·

I think you may be confusing me for someone who believes in 50:50 ratios for their own sake. I do not. > Would you apply the same reasoning to prisons then? I

I think you may be confusing me for someone who believes in 50:50 ratios for their own sake. I do not. > Would you apply the same reasoning to prisons then? In prisons I expect more male inmates for biological reasons: men are on average more inclined to commit imprisonable offenses. Here is the model. It's the same for tech jobs and prisons: 1. A population of 50:50 red and blue things exists. 2. Some of them approach the gates. The ratio of red and blue approaching the gates may not be 50:50 3. Of those that approach the gates, a subset are admitted. The red/blue ratio among those admitted may again differ from those at the gates. So there are two points at which the proportions change. At stage (2) we call this a "pipeline effect". At stage (3) we call this "discrimination". In the case of both prisons and tech jobs, there is a large pipeline effect. Therefore, in neither case do we need to posit discrimination to explain skewed ratios behind the gates. Furthermore, we both agree that discrimination's not desirable. We don't need to consider it further. The difference is that in the prison case, it is right and normal that the ratios approaching the gates should be different, because of human biology. Whereas in the tech case, it is more complex. Perhaps there are some biological differences making males more attracted to tech jobs. But there is also a huge cultural/environmental component: teenage girls are not attracted to tech at the same rates as teenage boys partly because of role models and societal norms. A few years ago it became popular among progressives to repeat the mantra: "Don't blame it on the pipeline: the problem is discrimination". But of course, that was complete nonsense. As usual, left-wing progressives were unable to distinguish between a description of how they want the world to be versus a description of how the world is. There is in fact an enormous "pipeline problem". In tech. But not so much in prisons with respect to sex. (Sure, there are some male groups in society that could probably benefit from some attention.) > "societal pressure" is an example of discrimination. So it looks like we have a terminology disagreement. Could I ask you to consider whether it might make more sense to make a verbal distinction between the pipeline effect (societal pressure) and discrimination?

Zababa 5y ago
> The difference is that in the prison case, it is right and normal that the ratios approaching the gates should be different, because of human biology. Whereas in the tech case, it is more complex. Perhaps there are some biological differences making males more attracted to tech jobs. But there is also a huge cultural/environmental component: teenage girls are not attracted to tech at the same rates as teenage boys partly because of role models and societal norms. That sounds right to me. Biological differences will mean that even if in general men and women are close, in extreme cases (ex: prisons), there will be a very large difference between men and women. I also think that "tech" in general is less extreme than prisons, and thus should have a lower difference in ratio than prisons. That assumption may be false though. But outside of tech, that reasoning would also explain for me why men are at top positions in society. It's not discimination or society, it's just that we're biologically different, and men show up at the extremes (prisons and the top). > So there are two points at which the proportions change. At stage (2) we call this a "pipeline effect". At stage (3) we call this "discrimination". > So it looks like we have a terminology disagreement. Could I ask you to consider whether it might make more sense to make a verbal distinction between the pipeline effect (societal pressure) and discrimination? That's a fair distinction. If I understood correctly, your point is that if we only focus on discrimination without changing the culture, we can still have a pipeline problem? I think one of the thing causing confusion is that I was using "discrimination" in the neutral sense, whereas you were using it in the negative sense. For example, wikipedia has "Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong.", which would be what I call "neutral discrimination". Google has "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability.", which would be what I call "negative discrimination". I agree that making a distinction between neutral discrimination (societal pressure, pipeline effect) and negative discrimination is useful here. So to restate my position, I think focusing on removing pipeline effect and negative discrimination is more important than focusing on having a 50:50 ratio at the end. But I think at this point we agree?
- da39a3ee 5y ago
  > I think focusing on removing pipeline effect and negative discrimination is more important than focusing on having a 50:50 ratio at the end Yes it sounds like we're in agreement. We both think the ratio in tech "should" be closer to 50:50 than it is, in the sense that we think that biological differences are not sufficiently pronounced to explain the currently observed skew, and we should get rid of the bad pipeline effects and negative discrimination. > it's just that we're biologically different, and men show up at the extremes (prisons and the top). I haven't said I agreed with this. I said men show up in prison for biological reasons, but I haven't said men show up at the top of technical subjects for biological reasons. Is your claim that men also show up more at the bottom of technical subjects for the same reasons? (and is that empirically true?)
  - Zababa 5y ago
    > Yes it sounds like we're in agreement. We both think the ratio in tech "should" be closer to 50:50 than it is, in the sense that we think that biological differences are not sufficiently pronounced to explain the currently observed skew, and we should get rid of the bad pipeline effects and negative discrimination. Exactly how I think about this too. > Is your claim that men also show up more at the bottom of technical subjects for the same reasons? (and is that empirically true?) My claim is that men tend to show up at the extremes of society for biological and societal reasons. The way I usually put it is "the glass ceiling comes with a glass floor". From my limited understanding of biology, one cause could be the higher testosterone in men which makes them more aggressive. This can lead to someone "crushing the competition", or someone living a life of crime and violence. I would imagine that men show up at the bottom of technial subjects too. Women in general succeed more in high school and college, but the top spots are still taken by men. From what I understand, the bottom spots are taken by men too.

Zababa 5y ago

> The difference is that in the prison case, it is right and normal that the ratios approaching the gates should be different, because of human biology. Whereas in the tech case, it is more complex. Perhaps there are some biological differences making males more attracted to tech jobs. But there is also a huge cultural/environmental component: teenage girls are not attracted to tech at the same rates as teenage boys partly because of role models and societal norms. That sounds right to me. Biological differences will mean that even if in general men and women are close, in extreme cases (ex: prisons), there will be a very large difference between men and women. I also think that "tech" in general is less extreme than prisons, and thus should have a lower difference in ratio than prisons. That assumption may be false though. But outside of tech, that reasoning would also explain for me why men are at top positions in society. It's not discimination or society, it's just that we're biologically different, and men show up at the extremes (prisons and the top). > So there are two points at which the proportions change. At stage (2) we call this a "pipeline effect". At stage (3) we call this "discrimination". > So it looks like we have a terminology disagreement. Could I ask you to consider whether it might make more sense to make a verbal distinction between the pipeline effect (societal pressure) and discrimination? That's a fair distinction. If I understood correctly, your point is that if we only focus on discrimination without changing the culture, we can still have a pipeline problem? I think one of the thing causing confusion is that I was using "discrimination" in the neutral sense, whereas you were using it in the negative sense. For example, wikipedia has "Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong.", which would be what I call "neutral discrimination". Google has "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability.", which would be what I call "negative discrimination". I agree that making a distinction between neutral discrimination (societal pressure, pipeline effect) and negative discrimination is useful here. So to restate my position, I think focusing on removing pipeline effect and negative discrimination is more important than focusing on having a 50:50 ratio at the end. But I think at this point we agree?

da39a3ee 5y ago
> I think focusing on removing pipeline effect and negative discrimination is more important than focusing on having a 50:50 ratio at the end Yes it sounds like we're in agreement. We both think the ratio in tech "should" be closer to 50:50 than it is, in the sense that we think that biological differences are not sufficiently pronounced to explain the currently observed skew, and we should get rid of the bad pipeline effects and negative discrimination. > it's just that we're biologically different, and men show up at the extremes (prisons and the top). I haven't said I agreed with this. I said men show up in prison for biological reasons, but I haven't said men show up at the top of technical subjects for biological reasons. Is your claim that men also show up more at the bottom of technical subjects for the same reasons? (and is that empirically true?)
- Zababa 5y ago
  > Yes it sounds like we're in agreement. We both think the ratio in tech "should" be closer to 50:50 than it is, in the sense that we think that biological differences are not sufficiently pronounced to explain the currently observed skew, and we should get rid of the bad pipeline effects and negative discrimination. Exactly how I think about this too. > Is your claim that men also show up more at the bottom of technical subjects for the same reasons? (and is that empirically true?) My claim is that men tend to show up at the extremes of society for biological and societal reasons. The way I usually put it is "the glass ceiling comes with a glass floor". From my limited understanding of biology, one cause could be the higher testosterone in men which makes them more aggressive. This can lead to someone "crushing the competition", or someone living a life of crime and violence. I would imagine that men show up at the bottom of technial subjects too. Women in general succeed more in high school and college, but the top spots are still taken by men. From what I understand, the bottom spots are taken by men too.