4 ms·

"Following the end of Clinton's term, Summers served as the 27th president of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. Summers resigned as Harvard's president in t

by dmbche 3y ago

"Following the end of Clinton's term, Summers served as the 27th president of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty, which resulted in large part from Summers's conflict with Cornel West, financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer, and a 2005 speech in which he offered three reasons for the under-representation of women in science and engineering, including the possibility that there exists a "different availability of aptitude at the high end", in addition to patterns of discrimination and socialization.[8]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers I think we're quite far from "strong evidence" anyway if you want to argue that there's "less aptitude at the high end" of either gender. I'm more thinking of something falsifiable maybe? You know, strong evidence? Ps: He's still employed by Harvard, I'm not seeing a ruined career here. Edit: "The company fired Damore for violation of the company's code of conduct.[2] Damore filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, but later withdrew this complaint. A lawyer with the NLRB wrote that his firing was proper.[3][4][5][6] After withdrawing this complaint, Damore filed a class action lawsuit, retaining the services of attorney Harmeet Dhillon,[7][8] alleging that Google was discriminating against conservatives, whites, Asians, and men.[9][10] Damore withdrew his claims in the lawsuit to pursue arbitration against Google.[11]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_... This guy is not a scientist and was fired by a private company for his conduct - has nothing to do with the subject.

leereeves 3y ago
> A 2021 review investigating different hypotheses behind the discrepancy of sexes in STEM jobs summarizes the greater variability research with respect to this question. Given that research finds greater variability in males with in quantitative and nonverbal reasoning,[32] they hold that this can explain some, but not all of the difference seen in STEM occupations.[33] With regard to the question of whether these results are due to societal influences or of biological origins, they hold that the results showing greater variance at a very young age (for instance IQ differences in variability between the sexes is visible from a young age on [34]) lend credence to the theory that biological factors might explain a large part of the observed data. It's certainly falsifiable. Research could have shown no evidence of the variability. That didn't happen. What are you looking for? Evidence as strong as the evidence in physics? No one gets that in the social sciences.
- dmbche 3y ago
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5141512/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5141512/ IQ tests are not reliable when not heavily weighted on the culture of the person taking them (and even then - the same people taking the same tests get different results). Translating a test induces a bias. Even in the same language, cultural differences can make questions more or less difficult to understand. The simple fact of being in a "test" environnement is something that will be more comfortable to some than others - based on background. Meaning if you even believe IQ tests are somewhat valid on an individual basis, it's ludicrous to draw conclusions on comparisons between groups; they have to take the same test to be comparable, but giving the same test to groups of different backgrounds will yield different results, because tests aren't weighted. That's all separate from the current replication crisis in psychology and the fact that intelligence is not even a clearly defined trait (thus we cant test for it). So yeah no - no strong evidence in sight.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    You're looking for a level of evidence that doesn't exist in any social science. So I suppose I have to concede your original claim (now that we've narrowed it down): if someone somehow established a level of evidence that revolutionized social science and rendered all previous work meaningless, then they probably could get away with offending powerful groups. Until then, scientists are wise to tread carefully.
    - dmbche 3y ago
      Hence why there is a replication crisis. There are many claims can be proven that aren't social science, you're the one unable to show an example of a scientist that had solid evidence of something and ruined their career and artififially confining it IQ - one of the most contentious subjects you can look for. I'm sure there are falsifiable claims in social sciences too. Maybe look into something like medecine or physics? Something falsifiable, following the sientific method.
      - 3y ago

by dmbche 3y ago

leereeves 3y ago

> A 2021 review investigating different hypotheses behind the discrepancy of sexes in STEM jobs summarizes the greater variability research with respect to this question. Given that research finds greater variability in males with in quantitative and nonverbal reasoning,[32] they hold that this can explain some, but not all of the difference seen in STEM occupations.[33] With regard to the question of whether these results are due to societal influences or of biological origins, they hold that the results showing greater variance at a very young age (for instance IQ differences in variability between the sexes is visible from a young age on [34]) lend credence to the theory that biological factors might explain a large part of the observed data. It's certainly falsifiable. Research could have shown no evidence of the variability. That didn't happen. What are you looking for? Evidence as strong as the evidence in physics? No one gets that in the social sciences.

dmbche 3y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5141512/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5141512/ IQ tests are not reliable when not heavily weighted on the culture of the person taking them (and even then - the same people taking the same tests get different results). Translating a test induces a bias. Even in the same language, cultural differences can make questions more or less difficult to understand. The simple fact of being in a "test" environnement is something that will be more comfortable to some than others - based on background. Meaning if you even believe IQ tests are somewhat valid on an individual basis, it's ludicrous to draw conclusions on comparisons between groups; they have to take the same test to be comparable, but giving the same test to groups of different backgrounds will yield different results, because tests aren't weighted. That's all separate from the current replication crisis in psychology and the fact that intelligence is not even a clearly defined trait (thus we cant test for it). So yeah no - no strong evidence in sight.
- leereeves 3y ago
  You're looking for a level of evidence that doesn't exist in any social science. So I suppose I have to concede your original claim (now that we've narrowed it down): if someone somehow established a level of evidence that revolutionized social science and rendered all previous work meaningless, then they probably could get away with offending powerful groups. Until then, scientists are wise to tread carefully.
  - dmbche 3y ago
    Hence why there is a replication crisis. There are many claims can be proven that aren't social science, you're the one unable to show an example of a scientist that had solid evidence of something and ruined their career and artififially confining it IQ - one of the most contentious subjects you can look for. I'm sure there are falsifiable claims in social sciences too. Maybe look into something like medecine or physics? Something falsifiable, following the sientific method.
    - 3y ago