3 ms·

It could be that mathematical ability is genetic and normally distributed, but some component of women's underrepresentation is caused by factors other than thi

It could be that mathematical ability is genetic and normally distributed, but some component of women's underrepresentation is caused by factors other than this (e.g., discrimination, personal preferences). I mean this to be evidence against a genetic explanation of under representation. Come on. I know you know better than to draw statistical conclusions from a single event with a sample size of 11. So why do it? Performances like this are more the norm now than ever, but the main reason is that the counterexample is such an extreme outlier that it blows a hole in the gaussian theory of distribution explanation for female under-representation. They are also strongly correlated with various life outcomes in a manner which more or less corresponds to our intuitive intuition about the idea of "intelligence". The Terman study of the gifted missed both future Nobel Prize winners in their sample. The methods used to 'validate' IQ tests are not at all sufficient for equating their results with intelligence, or for arguing that it represents an immutable, genetic, predisposition of groups. As Cosma Shalazi writes: http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/494.html http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/494.html Q: Would you put on your right-thinking left-liberal educated-in-Berkeley-and-Madison hat for a moment? A: I'd find nothing easier. (You left out the dirty hippyprogressive Montessori school where they taught me Pirandello and Diderot.) Q: Very good. (It didn't fit the rhythm, and anyway they get the picture.) How would you react to the idea that a psychological trait, one intimately linked to the higher mental functions, is highly heritable? A: With suspicion and unease, naturally. Q: It's strongly correlated with educational achievement, class and race. A: Worse and worse. Q: Basically nothing that happens after early adolescence makes an impact on it; before that it's also correlated with diet. A: Do you work at the Heritage Foundation? Such things cannot be. Q: What if I told you the trait was accent? A: I'm sorry?

yummyfajitas 15y ago
I mean this to be evidence against a genetic explanation of under representation. It is evidence against such an explanation, but it's very weak evidence. It shows other factors are involved, which no one disputes, but it does not rule out genetics as a factor. Incidentally, your Q&A argument is incomplete. We have data which shows accent is not genetic - correlation between the accent of genetic parent and child is gone if you look at adopted children. If there is a twin study on the topic, I'd give 1/p value of the study odds that identical twins raised apart have minimal correlation of accent. In contrast, identical twins raised apart have a 75% correlation in intelligence and adoptees have a 25% correlation with genetic parents. (I'm working from memory here since I don't have the book with me. The numbers are far from zero, but might be 70% and 20% or 80% and 30%. http://www.amazon.com/Genome-Autobiography-Species-23-Chapters/dp/0060932902 http://www.amazon.com/Genome-Autobiography-Species-23-Chapte... ) The source you cite is simply being dishonest by leaving this part of the dialogue out of his conversation with a straw man. Also, your source has a very different philosophical basis for knowledge than most people. He believes that aggregate quantities (e.g., pressure, temperature, possibly g) are statistical myths. See here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210600 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210600 , which is a response to http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html (which he cites in the article you link to).
- DaniFong 15y ago
  It is evidence against such an explanation, but it's very weak evidence. It shows other factors are involved, which no one disputes, but it does not rule out genetics as a factor. The core of my argument is that other factors have been shown to dominate underrepresentation for some time. While other factors persist and dominate, it is scientifically incorrect, and ethically irresponsible, to continually make reference to innate differences and outmoded, procrustean interpretations of how talent fits a curve. It is genuinely too early, if not simply too brutal, to claim a group's intellectual inferiority. The evidence is flimsy, the mathematical framework naive, the conceptual underpinnings insufficiently examined, the data is simply not in. Worse, people use tiny differences in group performance as justification for wildly unfair stereotypes, as applied to individuals. Even if those supposed group differences withstood criticism at the level of rigor exceeding that accorded to physics or mathematics, it still would be ethically irresponsible to make it publicly and commonly known, or the focus of so much discussion.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    This statement: The core of my argument is that other factors have been shown to dominate underrepresentation for some time... Directly contradicts this one: The evidence is flimsy, the mathematical framework naive, the conceptual underpinnings insufficiently examined, the data is simply not in. You can't have it both ways. Either intellectual inferiority of some groups is a possibility (i.e., "the data is simply not in"), or else it has been accurately measured and shown not to be the case. Pick one. Even if those supposed group differences withstood criticism at the level of rigor exceeding that accorded to physics or mathematics, it still would be ethically irresponsible to make it publicly and commonly known, or the focus of so much discussion. It would be ethically irresponsible to make true facts public? Um, ok. Have you considered the possibility that you don't actually object to the data/methodology, but rather you are seeking justification to reject conclusions that contradict your moral values?
    - DaniFong 15y ago
      I am totally confused by your misunderstanding. It is possible there are intrinsic differences, and anyone insisting that this has been shown through appeals to science is being insufficiently rigorous, and scientifically irresponsible. Where did you get the idea that I was saying it was impossible? "What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth. - Richard Feynman." Appeals to a supposed scientific justification of the inferiority of women in mathematics are extremely weak, and certainly damaging if untrue. The supposed scientific proof is thus pseudo-science - thinly veiled politics. I'm not going to spell it out again.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

I mean this to be evidence against a genetic explanation of under representation. It is evidence against such an explanation, but it's very weak evidence. It shows other factors are involved, which no one disputes, but it does not rule out genetics as a factor. Incidentally, your Q&A argument is incomplete. We have data which shows accent is not genetic - correlation between the accent of genetic parent and child is gone if you look at adopted children. If there is a twin study on the topic, I'd give 1/p value of the study odds that identical twins raised apart have minimal correlation of accent. In contrast, identical twins raised apart have a 75% correlation in intelligence and adoptees have a 25% correlation with genetic parents. (I'm working from memory here since I don't have the book with me. The numbers are far from zero, but might be 70% and 20% or 80% and 30%. http://www.amazon.com/Genome-Autobiography-Species-23-Chapters/dp/0060932902 http://www.amazon.com/Genome-Autobiography-Species-23-Chapte... ) The source you cite is simply being dishonest by leaving this part of the dialogue out of his conversation with a straw man. Also, your source has a very different philosophical basis for knowledge than most people. He believes that aggregate quantities (e.g., pressure, temperature, possibly g) are statistical myths. See here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210600 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210600 , which is a response to http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html (which he cites in the article you link to).

DaniFong 15y ago
It is evidence against such an explanation, but it's very weak evidence. It shows other factors are involved, which no one disputes, but it does not rule out genetics as a factor. The core of my argument is that other factors have been shown to dominate underrepresentation for some time. While other factors persist and dominate, it is scientifically incorrect, and ethically irresponsible, to continually make reference to innate differences and outmoded, procrustean interpretations of how talent fits a curve. It is genuinely too early, if not simply too brutal, to claim a group's intellectual inferiority. The evidence is flimsy, the mathematical framework naive, the conceptual underpinnings insufficiently examined, the data is simply not in. Worse, people use tiny differences in group performance as justification for wildly unfair stereotypes, as applied to individuals. Even if those supposed group differences withstood criticism at the level of rigor exceeding that accorded to physics or mathematics, it still would be ethically irresponsible to make it publicly and commonly known, or the focus of so much discussion.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  This statement: The core of my argument is that other factors have been shown to dominate underrepresentation for some time... Directly contradicts this one: The evidence is flimsy, the mathematical framework naive, the conceptual underpinnings insufficiently examined, the data is simply not in. You can't have it both ways. Either intellectual inferiority of some groups is a possibility (i.e., "the data is simply not in"), or else it has been accurately measured and shown not to be the case. Pick one. Even if those supposed group differences withstood criticism at the level of rigor exceeding that accorded to physics or mathematics, it still would be ethically irresponsible to make it publicly and commonly known, or the focus of so much discussion. It would be ethically irresponsible to make true facts public? Um, ok. Have you considered the possibility that you don't actually object to the data/methodology, but rather you are seeking justification to reject conclusions that contradict your moral values?
  - DaniFong 15y ago
    I am totally confused by your misunderstanding. It is possible there are intrinsic differences, and anyone insisting that this has been shown through appeals to science is being insufficiently rigorous, and scientifically irresponsible. Where did you get the idea that I was saying it was impossible? "What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth. - Richard Feynman." Appeals to a supposed scientific justification of the inferiority of women in mathematics are extremely weak, and certainly damaging if untrue. The supposed scientific proof is thus pseudo-science - thinly veiled politics. I'm not going to spell it out again.