6 ms·

> 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, an

> 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?

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?