3 ms·

Boys are born tinkerers,” she said. “They have a deep-seated need to rip things apart, decode their inner workings, create stuff.” Fortunately it was a woman w

by pingou 13y ago

Boys are born tinkerers,” she said. “They have a deep-seated need to rip things apart, decode their inner workings, create stuff.” Fortunately it was a woman who made that statement, it would have been sexist otherwise, right?

cobrausn 13y ago
No, because she immediately points to scientific studies backing up her statements. Facts can't really be sexist, so if there is a problem with the statement, then we need to determine why the study is invalid.
- abracar 13y ago
  Plus she makes it very clear that it's a generalization that doesn't necessarily apply to individuals: "Of course, there are female tinkerers who like to work with things and gladly enter occupations such as pipefitting and metallurgy. But the number of men eager to enter these fields is substantially greater."
- barry-cotter 13y ago
  Please google "hatefacts". Alternatively go to the criticism section of Stephen J. Gould's Wikipedia article or read the article on the Bellcurve followed by the American Psychological Association's statement on same. For a third possible example read the Full Text of the speech that got Larry Summers fired from the presidency of Harvard. Being right and having the evidence on your side will not protect you if the mood of the times is against you. "The truth will set you free" is as true as "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door."
- _delirium 13y ago
  The studies are generally very careful to frame their conclusions narrowly, as pointing out empirically measured differences in particular populations, not showing that something is a "deep-seated need" of boys or that they are "born tinkerers". People doing those studies are usually agnostic on whether the cause is biological, due to parenting, due to other aspects of social environment, etc. The stronger interpretations, like in this article, tend to come from pop-science commentators.
- simias 13y ago
  Evolutionary psychology is always fraught with controversies. I don't know if someone could read the paper referenced [1] and give some insights on the methodology used. I ask because studying the innate differences between men and women is extremely hard, cultural bias is huge. After reading many papers (on both sides of the "women and men are different" fence) I've come to the personal conclusion that you can't really treat evolutionary psychology as a hard science. It's just too controversial as it is, everybody seems to be pushing a personal agenda. Just read the studies if you can access them and make up your own opinion. Maybe in a few decades when the dust has settled we might be able to reach a consensus. As it is, I really wouldn't treat those papers as "facts". [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140 I would like to cite more sources but the only ones that come to my mind right now are in french. Maybe this would be a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psyc...

by pingou 13y ago

cobrausn 13y ago

No, because she immediately points to scientific studies backing up her statements. Facts can't really be sexist, so if there is a problem with the statement, then we need to determine why the study is invalid.

abracar 13y ago
Plus she makes it very clear that it's a generalization that doesn't necessarily apply to individuals: "Of course, there are female tinkerers who like to work with things and gladly enter occupations such as pipefitting and metallurgy. But the number of men eager to enter these fields is substantially greater."
barry-cotter 13y ago
Please google "hatefacts". Alternatively go to the criticism section of Stephen J. Gould's Wikipedia article or read the article on the Bellcurve followed by the American Psychological Association's statement on same. For a third possible example read the Full Text of the speech that got Larry Summers fired from the presidency of Harvard. Being right and having the evidence on your side will not protect you if the mood of the times is against you. "The truth will set you free" is as true as "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door."
_delirium 13y ago
The studies are generally very careful to frame their conclusions narrowly, as pointing out empirically measured differences in particular populations, not showing that something is a "deep-seated need" of boys or that they are "born tinkerers". People doing those studies are usually agnostic on whether the cause is biological, due to parenting, due to other aspects of social environment, etc. The stronger interpretations, like in this article, tend to come from pop-science commentators.
simias 13y ago
Evolutionary psychology is always fraught with controversies. I don't know if someone could read the paper referenced [1] and give some insights on the methodology used. I ask because studying the innate differences between men and women is extremely hard, cultural bias is huge. After reading many papers (on both sides of the "women and men are different" fence) I've come to the personal conclusion that you can't really treat evolutionary psychology as a hard science. It's just too controversial as it is, everybody seems to be pushing a personal agenda. Just read the studies if you can access them and make up your own opinion. Maybe in a few decades when the dust has settled we might be able to reach a consensus. As it is, I really wouldn't treat those papers as "facts". [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140 I would like to cite more sources but the only ones that come to my mind right now are in french. Maybe this would be a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psyc...