5 ms·

Please keep in mind that if really true, it is not a binary thing. It’s a distribution. There are going to be plenty of women who are more interested in things

Please keep in mind that if really true, it is not a binary thing. It’s a distribution. There are going to be plenty of women who are more interested in things than the median man, and there are plenty of men who are more interested in people than the median woman.

Laaas 4y ago
Wish people would keep this in mind for everything.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
causi 4y ago
There are going to be plenty of women who are more interested in things than the median man Probably. Distributions don't necessarily have a huge amount of overlap. For example, upper body strength is also a distribution but the overlap is so small that 95% of men have stronger arms than 95% of women. With something as general as aptitude for things vs people the overlap is probably much greater than that but not certain without more data.
- kqr 4y ago
  You're not strictly contradicting GP. "5 % of women" is still "plenty of women".
  - causi 4y ago
    95/95 does not mean 5% of women are stronger than the median man. The group of women stronger than the median man is tiny fractions of a percent. https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-51a4b98a4975f1bc2e68c2c0dc1b5730-lq https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-51a4b98a4975f1bc2e68c... https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c76c62e97e58fe9a64a83dad92a02e89-lq https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c76c62e97e58fe9a64a83...
    - kqr 4y ago
      Oops, my bad. Yes, you're right, of course.
- beebmam 4y ago
  This cannot be the case. More than 5% of the male population is old, weak, and/or disabled that it can't possibly be true that 95% of all men have stronger arms than 95% of women. And if you include children I don't see how this could possibly be true. Unless you mean something else?
  - causi 4y ago
    And if you include children I don't see how this could possibly be true. There are female children too. More than 5% of the male population is old, weak, and/or disabled There are old, weak, and disabled women as well. Additionally, if you think old men are weak I suspect you have never had to wrestle an eighty year old with dementia out of a bath tub. They are remarkably, irritatingly strong.
    - prmoustache 4y ago
      I would argue that one should discern strength when actually caring or not caring to injure someone else in the process.
      - causi 4y ago
        I don't know what you're saying here.
        tmtvl 4y ago
        I think parent is saying something like "rather than measuring strength by wrestling old men out of bathtubs, we should measure it in a way that doesn't get different results based on how much one cares about not hurting another person." I agree, of course, but I believe the wrestling comment did not refer to the methodology used in the research.
        prmoustache 4y ago
        That an old man with dementia who feel he has to defend himself will use full force while the people who the nurse/caregiver will consciently and inconsciently restrain themselves in order to not break any bones or harm the person they are taking care of.
torginus 4y ago
When talking about populations, this should be implicitly assumed - just like that the experiment took place on Earth and the participants were breathing air. I don't know why this isn't burned into peoples brains with a big flashing neon sign, and why someone inevitably comes up with a counterargument of 'but not all X' when these things are discussed.
- stormking 4y ago
  Because they don't want it to be true and will come up with any argument, no matter how stupid, to counter this observation.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    I think that's being too cynical. Most people simply don't think in terms of integrals over probability density functions. We organize our understanding into categories and reason about them using propositions that are either true or false.
postsantum 4y ago
I don't think anyone arguing in good faith would state otherwise. This is too obvious
- tgv 4y ago
  I think it's more of a platitude, hidden behind the vagueness of the word plenty. Is plenty 5%? 10%? 20%? 50%? The linked article doesn't provide the data. In the context of e.g. STEM education, 20% isn't plenty.
nextlevelwizard 4y ago
Yes, yes, standard "not all". However I think the last sentence isn't as true as you make it out to be. I remember seeing statistic couple years back about this very subject and in that data woman had to be in the top 10% of "women who prefer working with things to people" to be as likely to work with things than "men who prefer to work with things to people" and it was pretty much same vice-versa.

Laaas 4y ago

Wish people would keep this in mind for everything.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

causi 4y ago

There are going to be plenty of women who are more interested in things than the median man Probably. Distributions don't necessarily have a huge amount of overlap. For example, upper body strength is also a distribution but the overlap is so small that 95% of men have stronger arms than 95% of women. With something as general as aptitude for things vs people the overlap is probably much greater than that but not certain without more data.

kqr 4y ago
You're not strictly contradicting GP. "5 % of women" is still "plenty of women".
- causi 4y ago
  95/95 does not mean 5% of women are stronger than the median man. The group of women stronger than the median man is tiny fractions of a percent. https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-51a4b98a4975f1bc2e68c2c0dc1b5730-lq https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-51a4b98a4975f1bc2e68c... https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c76c62e97e58fe9a64a83dad92a02e89-lq https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c76c62e97e58fe9a64a83...
  - kqr 4y ago
    Oops, my bad. Yes, you're right, of course.
beebmam 4y ago
This cannot be the case. More than 5% of the male population is old, weak, and/or disabled that it can't possibly be true that 95% of all men have stronger arms than 95% of women. And if you include children I don't see how this could possibly be true. Unless you mean something else?
- causi 4y ago
  And if you include children I don't see how this could possibly be true. There are female children too. More than 5% of the male population is old, weak, and/or disabled There are old, weak, and disabled women as well. Additionally, if you think old men are weak I suspect you have never had to wrestle an eighty year old with dementia out of a bath tub. They are remarkably, irritatingly strong.
  - prmoustache 4y ago
    I would argue that one should discern strength when actually caring or not caring to injure someone else in the process.
    - causi 4y ago
      I don't know what you're saying here.
      - tmtvl 4y ago
        I think parent is saying something like "rather than measuring strength by wrestling old men out of bathtubs, we should measure it in a way that doesn't get different results based on how much one cares about not hurting another person." I agree, of course, but I believe the wrestling comment did not refer to the methodology used in the research.
      - prmoustache 4y ago
        That an old man with dementia who feel he has to defend himself will use full force while the people who the nurse/caregiver will consciently and inconsciently restrain themselves in order to not break any bones or harm the person they are taking care of.

torginus 4y ago

When talking about populations, this should be implicitly assumed - just like that the experiment took place on Earth and the participants were breathing air. I don't know why this isn't burned into peoples brains with a big flashing neon sign, and why someone inevitably comes up with a counterargument of 'but not all X' when these things are discussed.

stormking 4y ago
Because they don't want it to be true and will come up with any argument, no matter how stupid, to counter this observation.
- trashtester 4y ago
  I think that's being too cynical. Most people simply don't think in terms of integrals over probability density functions. We organize our understanding into categories and reason about them using propositions that are either true or false.

postsantum 4y ago

I don't think anyone arguing in good faith would state otherwise. This is too obvious

tgv 4y ago
I think it's more of a platitude, hidden behind the vagueness of the word plenty. Is plenty 5%? 10%? 20%? 50%? The linked article doesn't provide the data. In the context of e.g. STEM education, 20% isn't plenty.

nextlevelwizard 4y ago

Yes, yes, standard "not all". However I think the last sentence isn't as true as you make it out to be. I remember seeing statistic couple years back about this very subject and in that data woman had to be in the top 10% of "women who prefer working with things to people" to be as likely to work with things than "men who prefer to work with things to people" and it was pretty much same vice-versa.