5 ms·

Just positing that these things _might_ be true and should be investigated was a key factor in Larry Summers getting drummed out of his position as President of

Just positing that these things _might_ be true and should be investigated was a key factor in Larry Summers getting drummed out of his position as President of Harvard. The world at large isn't ready to hear these statistics, and overall that is probably a good thing. We shouldn't accept these disparities as driven by natural forces until we've tried everything we can imagine to try to bring the differences in line. Over the course of history, far more bad has been wrought by assuming differences were innate than assuming they were the result of bias. Given that, we should assume and act as though differences are due to bias long after the differences are well proven to be natural. It is a case where being wrong in one direction is not very costly, but being wrong in the other direction (and thus institutionalizing bias) is disastrous. Tldr: we should err on the side of caution.

ninjac0der 13y ago
>far more bad has been wrought by assuming differences were innate than assuming they were the result of bias. I see more people causing harm trying to ignore natural differences, so I must ask, what have you observed that causes you to believe that? "Don't just stand there, do something."
- CJefferson 13y ago
  Looking bad over History, many groups have been denied the right to vote, denied basic human rights, and killed, because it was decided they were different, and therefore this treatment was reasonable. I am unaware of any reasonable comparisons of where trying to ignore natural differences has caused anything resembling the same level of suffering. I would be interested in some examples you could provide.
  - ninjac0der 13y ago
    ...and they were different, culturally, philosophically, in every case I can think of.
- octo_t 13y ago
  pretty much every genocide ever?
  - ivanca 13y ago
    Nope, just the biggest one (Holocaust), the second biggest being Holodomor, an Stalin's attack to Ukranian Nationalism. Genocides in Nigeria and similar ones are ethnic ones for political power, without justification over biological differences.
    - thatthatis 13y ago
      If you're mass murdering without justification in biological/cultural/racial differences, isn't that by definition not a genocide?
      - ivanca 13y ago
        In that case, the grandparent-comment is not actually asking anything and just pointing out that a word for defining such events exists.
        ninjac0der 13y ago
        No, I would argue the holocaust and more are confusing cultural disagreements with racial stereotyping which have more to do with (surprise!) culture than race. I think it's much more believable that a large group of people grew angry with a culture of racial inclusion in financial matters leading toward the ease of hatred of a racial stereotype than the actual genes involved. Race is the identifier, not the cause. If it wasn't race, it would family names or family colors/flags, gender, buck-teeth or what-have-you, as shown throughout history. Bickering and bigotry aren't reason for arbitrarily changing things.
coldtea 13y ago
>The world at large isn't ready to hear these statistics Not the "world at large". Just (provincial) middle/upper class America. >We shouldn't accept these disparities as driven by natural forces until we've tried everything we can imagine to try to bring the differences in line. Shouldn't we in fact try to understand what's going on, instead of trying to change it because of a priori notion that there shouldn't be disparities (which, if disparities exist due to natural forces will be unatural and unjust). Disparity (e.g less women in Tech) is NOT a problem in itself. Obstacles to access is a problem (e.g a woman not being let to work Tech -- eg not being hired because she is a woman). Also, why is IT somewhat different? I don't see much push for more female fishermen or male nurses, to name two random professions with similar disparities.
- harryh 13y ago
  IT is different because that's where the money and the power is (compared to fisherman and male nurses).
  - theorique 13y ago
    Nursing is a well-paid profession that offers flexibility and good benefits. Fishing can also be a very well paid profession (look at Deadliest Catch for example) but the challenges, hardships, and stress are extreme for those challenging fishing crew jobs.
    - harryh 13y ago
      Hey, I'm not saying Nursing & Fishing aren't good jobs. If you're into that sort of thing then go for it! But it's not nurses and fishermen who are drastically pushing up the cost of housing in SF. It's the tech industry.
      - theorique 13y ago
        Ah OK, that is definitely true.
- 13y ago
ivanca 13y ago
>Over the course of history, far more bad has been wrought by assuming differences were innate than assuming they were the result of bias. An obvious counterexample would be sexual orientation: believing that being gay is a choice is used by many as an argument to justify discrimination.
- thatthatis 13y ago
  While it is a good point, I don't think that's directly analogous: I was talking about population statistics and biases that lead to different outcomes in different groups. Two similar but not identical dichotomies: * A population difference is due to innate differences vs a difference is due to systemic biases * An individual difference is due to innate makeup vs a difference is due to individual choices The question: Why is the % of people with X characteristic in Y profession lower than the average. Applying my proposed standard above to that question, assume differences are due to biases until sumarily proven, we still aren't encouraging or abiding discrimination when X characteristic is sexual orientation.
jimboyoungblood 13y ago
> The world at large isn't ready to hear these statistics, and overall that is probably a good thing. I agree. Research and data might make people feel bad, and not making people feel bad is obviously way more important than increasing knowledge. > We shouldn't accept these disparities as driven by natural forces until we've tried everything we can imagine to try to bring the differences in line. I agree. Personally I think we should withhold all math education to males until they are 21. We can discontinue this policy when there is a 50/50 gender split among all STEM workers, educators, and investors. > we should assume and act as though differences are due to bias long after the differences are well proven to be natural Yep. 1+1=3. Doesn't matter if you can prove that 1+1=2. > It is a case where being wrong in one direction is not very costly, but being wrong in the other direction (and thus institutionalizing bias) is disastrous. Yep, unimaginable catastrophes.
- thatthatis 13y ago
  You're responding almost entirely to things I didn't say. > Research and data might make people feel bad, and not making people feel bad is obviously way more important than increasing knowledge. Not what I said at all, I said the standard for proof should be extremely high. High standards for proof != don't do research (though I admit I should have said so more clearly as I used the example of Summers without condemning what happened to him. He shouldn't have been drummed out for asking the questions.) > We can discontinue this policy when there is a 50/50 gender split among all STEM workers, educators, and investors. I assumed that the word "reasonable" was implied in what I was saying. But you're right, some people might propose absurd attempts to bring things in line. > 1+1=3. Doesn't matter if you can prove that 1+1=2. First of all, I was commenting on the standard by which we should accept 1+1=3, and which of the two (1+1=3 or 1+1=2) should be our acting hypothesis until we know. Secondly, I said we should act as if differences are due to bias _until long after_. I was arguing for the default standard, and when it would be acceptable to change the standard. I never said never. > Yep, unimaginable catastrophes. Are you actually ignorant of the human history of genocide, dismissal of female person-hood, and racially driven slavery?
johnbm 13y ago
It's really simple. The more gender equality there is in a country, the more women and men revert to stereotypical occupation choices. That is, there are more female engineers in India or Eastern Europe than in Scandinavia. The countries where the percentage of women pursuing STEM is the highest, are the countries where STEM careers are disproportionately lucrative. These findings have been confirmed by multiple studies with enormous sample sizes (e.g. Richard Lippa's n=200,000 survey of 53 countries). Feminists will spend the next couple of years staunchly denying these findings, while the number of women in STEM has flatlined, and the percentage of students that are female only rises because men are systematically discriminated against.

ninjac0der 13y ago

>far more bad has been wrought by assuming differences were innate than assuming they were the result of bias. I see more people causing harm trying to ignore natural differences, so I must ask, what have you observed that causes you to believe that? "Don't just stand there, do something."

CJefferson 13y ago
Looking bad over History, many groups have been denied the right to vote, denied basic human rights, and killed, because it was decided they were different, and therefore this treatment was reasonable. I am unaware of any reasonable comparisons of where trying to ignore natural differences has caused anything resembling the same level of suffering. I would be interested in some examples you could provide.
- ninjac0der 13y ago
  ...and they were different, culturally, philosophically, in every case I can think of.
octo_t 13y ago
pretty much every genocide ever?
- ivanca 13y ago
  Nope, just the biggest one (Holocaust), the second biggest being Holodomor, an Stalin's attack to Ukranian Nationalism. Genocides in Nigeria and similar ones are ethnic ones for political power, without justification over biological differences.
  - thatthatis 13y ago
    If you're mass murdering without justification in biological/cultural/racial differences, isn't that by definition not a genocide?
    - ivanca 13y ago
      In that case, the grandparent-comment is not actually asking anything and just pointing out that a word for defining such events exists.
      - ninjac0der 13y ago
        No, I would argue the holocaust and more are confusing cultural disagreements with racial stereotyping which have more to do with (surprise!) culture than race. I think it's much more believable that a large group of people grew angry with a culture of racial inclusion in financial matters leading toward the ease of hatred of a racial stereotype than the actual genes involved. Race is the identifier, not the cause. If it wasn't race, it would family names or family colors/flags, gender, buck-teeth or what-have-you, as shown throughout history. Bickering and bigotry aren't reason for arbitrarily changing things.

coldtea 13y ago

>The world at large isn't ready to hear these statistics Not the "world at large". Just (provincial) middle/upper class America. >We shouldn't accept these disparities as driven by natural forces until we've tried everything we can imagine to try to bring the differences in line. Shouldn't we in fact try to understand what's going on, instead of trying to change it because of a priori notion that there shouldn't be disparities (which, if disparities exist due to natural forces will be unatural and unjust). Disparity (e.g less women in Tech) is NOT a problem in itself. Obstacles to access is a problem (e.g a woman not being let to work Tech -- eg not being hired because she is a woman). Also, why is IT somewhat different? I don't see much push for more female fishermen or male nurses, to name two random professions with similar disparities.

harryh 13y ago
IT is different because that's where the money and the power is (compared to fisherman and male nurses).
- theorique 13y ago
  Nursing is a well-paid profession that offers flexibility and good benefits. Fishing can also be a very well paid profession (look at Deadliest Catch for example) but the challenges, hardships, and stress are extreme for those challenging fishing crew jobs.
  - harryh 13y ago
    Hey, I'm not saying Nursing & Fishing aren't good jobs. If you're into that sort of thing then go for it! But it's not nurses and fishermen who are drastically pushing up the cost of housing in SF. It's the tech industry.
    - theorique 13y ago
      Ah OK, that is definitely true.
13y ago

ivanca 13y ago

>Over the course of history, far more bad has been wrought by assuming differences were innate than assuming they were the result of bias. An obvious counterexample would be sexual orientation: believing that being gay is a choice is used by many as an argument to justify discrimination.

thatthatis 13y ago
While it is a good point, I don't think that's directly analogous: I was talking about population statistics and biases that lead to different outcomes in different groups. Two similar but not identical dichotomies: * A population difference is due to innate differences vs a difference is due to systemic biases * An individual difference is due to innate makeup vs a difference is due to individual choices The question: Why is the % of people with X characteristic in Y profession lower than the average. Applying my proposed standard above to that question, assume differences are due to biases until sumarily proven, we still aren't encouraging or abiding discrimination when X characteristic is sexual orientation.

jimboyoungblood 13y ago

> The world at large isn't ready to hear these statistics, and overall that is probably a good thing. I agree. Research and data might make people feel bad, and not making people feel bad is obviously way more important than increasing knowledge. > We shouldn't accept these disparities as driven by natural forces until we've tried everything we can imagine to try to bring the differences in line. I agree. Personally I think we should withhold all math education to males until they are 21. We can discontinue this policy when there is a 50/50 gender split among all STEM workers, educators, and investors. > we should assume and act as though differences are due to bias long after the differences are well proven to be natural Yep. 1+1=3. Doesn't matter if you can prove that 1+1=2. > It is a case where being wrong in one direction is not very costly, but being wrong in the other direction (and thus institutionalizing bias) is disastrous. Yep, unimaginable catastrophes.

thatthatis 13y ago
You're responding almost entirely to things I didn't say. > Research and data might make people feel bad, and not making people feel bad is obviously way more important than increasing knowledge. Not what I said at all, I said the standard for proof should be extremely high. High standards for proof != don't do research (though I admit I should have said so more clearly as I used the example of Summers without condemning what happened to him. He shouldn't have been drummed out for asking the questions.) > We can discontinue this policy when there is a 50/50 gender split among all STEM workers, educators, and investors. I assumed that the word "reasonable" was implied in what I was saying. But you're right, some people might propose absurd attempts to bring things in line. > 1+1=3. Doesn't matter if you can prove that 1+1=2. First of all, I was commenting on the standard by which we should accept 1+1=3, and which of the two (1+1=3 or 1+1=2) should be our acting hypothesis until we know. Secondly, I said we should act as if differences are due to bias _until long after_. I was arguing for the default standard, and when it would be acceptable to change the standard. I never said never. > Yep, unimaginable catastrophes. Are you actually ignorant of the human history of genocide, dismissal of female person-hood, and racially driven slavery?

johnbm 13y ago

It's really simple. The more gender equality there is in a country, the more women and men revert to stereotypical occupation choices. That is, there are more female engineers in India or Eastern Europe than in Scandinavia. The countries where the percentage of women pursuing STEM is the highest, are the countries where STEM careers are disproportionately lucrative. These findings have been confirmed by multiple studies with enormous sample sizes (e.g. Richard Lippa's n=200,000 survey of 53 countries). Feminists will spend the next couple of years staunchly denying these findings, while the number of women in STEM has flatlined, and the percentage of students that are female only rises because men are systematically discriminated against.