5 ms·

Is it really wrong to say that women could be better or worse (in general) at one thing or another? Is it sexist to even point out that men and women are differ

Is it really wrong to say that women could be better or worse (in general) at one thing or another? Is it sexist to even point out that men and women are different? I think my wife is pretty awesome and capable of things I would not be able to do. Am I sexist for talking about it? I think in the source PG even says that women are good (maybe better) than men at business focused startups. Or will the world not be balanced until just as many women are making hot or not for XYZ in the off hours

newnewnew 13y ago
> "Is it really wrong to say that women could be better or worse (in general) at one thing or another? Is it sexist to even point out that men and women are different?" Yes to both questions. On the other hand, it's science[1][2]! There's lots of proven differences in personality and ability between the sexes. When the official ideology is against reality, you have to choose between being a "good person" and a good scientist. It's best for your career to choose the first. [1] http://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/#sex http://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/#sex [2] http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-huge-gender-math-gap-persists-with-a-33-point-advantage-for-high-school-boys/ http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-hug...
- gizmo686 13y ago
  >When the official ideology is against reality, you have to choose between being a "good person" and a good scientist. It's best for your career to choose the first. Unless your career is in something like insurance, medicine, or any field where those differences actually matter.
- ZoFreX 13y ago
  Statistically speaking because I am short I am less likely to do well in my career compared to tall people. If you told me that my code sucked because I was short, I would be pretty mad at you. Yes, there are differences between the genders recorded by science - but you don't have to choose between science and being a good person. Science doesn't compel anyone to attempt to apply statistical differences over a large group to individuals. Furthermore, a difference that is proven now proves nothing other than the current state of affairs. It doesn't dictate what things would be if playing fields were more level, nor does it dictate how things should be or how things will be.
healsdata 13y ago
It can be damaging to talk about what any one group is better or worse at, statistically, because it leads some people to stereotype all members of that group. And I believe that most people that talk about things like this don't actually have statistic to back them up. For example, it's a pretty common to joke about "women drivers" and yet insurance companies, the folks with the most information, tend to charge women less because they're less likely to be in accidents, get speeding tickets, or DUIs. Bone-headed people say bone-headed things and try to back them up with "common knowledge" that's just misinformation rooted in traditional views. In regards to your wife, that can be different. I assume you're aren't saying things like "she's good at juggling because she's a woman" and instead just "she's good at juggling because she, as one individual, is good at juggling." My wife is amazing at art. It's not because she's a woman but because she's spent time practicing.
- lhnz 13y ago
  Our brains are physically different [0]. As much as I believe in the 'nurture' argument, given that our brains are wired very differently based on gender, I find it difficult to believe that this won't cause differences in both desire and aptitude. It seems absurd to me that so many smart people have to make the nurture XOR nature argument, and that there are so few people making nurture AND nature arguments. Adjunct to this is that old chestnut about how we socialise girls to like toys they can care for and boys to like cars. Here we also now have evidence that suggests that we are born this way and the socialisation is just on top of what we started with [1]. I'm not trying to make the argument that it is more nature than nurture or that I know the precise underpinnings of a decent model. I just think that we needlessly politicise something which in my opinion will eventually be in the reach of empiricism. I hope that the open-minded liberals will fare better than traditionalists in managing the separation between science and their own values. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/male-and-female-brains-really-are-built-differently/281962/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/male-and-f... [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
  - erikpukinskis 13y ago
Udo 13y ago
> Is it sexist to even point out that men and women are different? It may not be obvious to you, but there is a huge amount of uncertainty about the actual amount and severity of differences. One of the many problems with even ascertaining the nature of those differences is the inherent difficulty of separating culture from biology, and in biology interpreting the actual meaning of physical differences. Combine that with the fact that most studies conducted in these areas have a huge bias in one way or the other and are designed to mostly further the agendas of certain interest groups, or in the absence of that: to make for interesting headlines in popular magazines. The "pointing out of differences" is mostly an act of voicing a certain kind of opinion at best, sometimes this opinion is disguised as fact-like by meaningless cave-dweller analogies and other unscientific bullshit that is usually trotted out to support the status quo of gender separation. But even if, by some miracle, you could obtain absolutely untainted data on this, it would still be a matter of statistics and there are still way too many variables involved. The insidious nature of differences between men and women is that they become whatever society says they should be. In this way the expectation that CS is uncool and unsuited for women becomes fact simply by virtue of being declared a fact. Social expectations and feedback statistically play a huge role in people's choices. > I think my wife is pretty awesome and capable of things I would not be able to do. This isn't about your wife, but since you brought it up: not all women are good at the things your wife is good at. Conversely, not all men are like you. You are both a product of not only genetics, but also social pressures and expectations, internal mental states, and subject to different kinds of support for capabilities your environment deems appropriate for your roles in society. Even things where you might be convinced they are down to gender differences might conceivably be very different if you had grown up in a different culture. > Am I sexist for talking about it? You are certainly someone with strong opinions about what traits are linked to which gender, so yes, you are sexist in a way that you impose an artificial segregation unto the world that lines up with your values. It seems (although implicitly) that you are more likely to support people doing things you deem to be gender-appropriate and more likely to discourage people from doing something which you judge to be not a good fit because of your sex. If you look at cultures of segregation historically, they often did attribute certain core skills even to the out-group. It was judged that non-whites, non-arians, females, homosexuals, or whatever group was defined as "different" did in fact have certain hard-wired capabilities (although not always good ones). > I think in the source PG even says that women are good (maybe better) than men at business focused startups. It may not sound problematic to have this view, unless you are a woman hacker standing in front of a VC who is predisposed against accepting your company into the program on account of judging you unfit to program. But meeting someone with the power to make decisions about your future who explicitly declared these views beforehand is not even the worst case. The worst case would be meeting someone who holds these views but isn't conscious of them. But, to make sure, this is not a comment intended to be about Paul Graham specifically. I think as far as that interview is concerned, this whole discussion is a huge waste of time. > Or will the world not be balanced until just as many women are making hot or not for XYZ in the off hours It's not just a matter of balance. It's about two things mainly. First, many people (including me) would prefer a world where certain voices and talents are not missing or even actively silenced. Could a world without women hackers succeed? Certainly. By the same token, so could a world without black hackers, gay hackers, or non-american hackers. It's just not the world I'd like to live in, and I do believe such a segregated world would miss out on a lot of important developments. Secondly, taking up the point from above, even in a world where a myriad cultural factors are stacked against them, sometimes women hackers emerge and do make it to critical junctions. At these points it's hugely disappointing to be turned back because they don't fit the profile for some superficial reason.
ZoFreX 13y ago
Why, when assessing people's abilities and shortcomings, do you reach for the two categories "men" and "women"? Why not: Is it really wrong to say that brunettes could be better or worse (in general) at one thing or another? Is it haircolourist to even point out that blondes and brunettes are different? I think my brunette life partner is pretty awesome and capable of things I would not be able to do. Am I haircolourist for talking about it? If we truly were post-sexism, it would be as weird as that ^ to divide people by gender when talking about things that have absolutely nothing to do with their gender. Like programming.
- newnewnew 13y ago
  Sexual dimorphism has large and powerful effects in most sexually reproducing species, including humans. Hair color, as far as we know, is just about pigment. Sex differences go much, much deeper.
bonemachine 13y ago
Is it really wrong to say that women could be better or worse (in general) at one thing or another? Who knows. But is that something PG actually said? Doesn't quite sound like it, from my reading of the interview excerpt.

newnewnew 13y ago

> "Is it really wrong to say that women could be better or worse (in general) at one thing or another? Is it sexist to even point out that men and women are different?" Yes to both questions. On the other hand, it's science[1][2]! There's lots of proven differences in personality and ability between the sexes. When the official ideology is against reality, you have to choose between being a "good person" and a good scientist. It's best for your career to choose the first. [1] http://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/#sex http://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/#sex [2] http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-huge-gender-math-gap-persists-with-a-33-point-advantage-for-high-school-boys/ http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-hug...

gizmo686 13y ago
>When the official ideology is against reality, you have to choose between being a "good person" and a good scientist. It's best for your career to choose the first. Unless your career is in something like insurance, medicine, or any field where those differences actually matter.
ZoFreX 13y ago
Statistically speaking because I am short I am less likely to do well in my career compared to tall people. If you told me that my code sucked because I was short, I would be pretty mad at you. Yes, there are differences between the genders recorded by science - but you don't have to choose between science and being a good person. Science doesn't compel anyone to attempt to apply statistical differences over a large group to individuals. Furthermore, a difference that is proven now proves nothing other than the current state of affairs. It doesn't dictate what things would be if playing fields were more level, nor does it dictate how things should be or how things will be.

healsdata 13y ago

It can be damaging to talk about what any one group is better or worse at, statistically, because it leads some people to stereotype all members of that group. And I believe that most people that talk about things like this don't actually have statistic to back them up. For example, it's a pretty common to joke about "women drivers" and yet insurance companies, the folks with the most information, tend to charge women less because they're less likely to be in accidents, get speeding tickets, or DUIs. Bone-headed people say bone-headed things and try to back them up with "common knowledge" that's just misinformation rooted in traditional views. In regards to your wife, that can be different. I assume you're aren't saying things like "she's good at juggling because she's a woman" and instead just "she's good at juggling because she, as one individual, is good at juggling." My wife is amazing at art. It's not because she's a woman but because she's spent time practicing.

lhnz 13y ago
Our brains are physically different [0]. As much as I believe in the 'nurture' argument, given that our brains are wired very differently based on gender, I find it difficult to believe that this won't cause differences in both desire and aptitude. It seems absurd to me that so many smart people have to make the nurture XOR nature argument, and that there are so few people making nurture AND nature arguments. Adjunct to this is that old chestnut about how we socialise girls to like toys they can care for and boys to like cars. Here we also now have evidence that suggests that we are born this way and the socialisation is just on top of what we started with [1]. I'm not trying to make the argument that it is more nature than nurture or that I know the precise underpinnings of a decent model. I just think that we needlessly politicise something which in my opinion will eventually be in the reach of empiricism. I hope that the open-minded liberals will fare better than traditionalists in managing the separation between science and their own values. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/male-and-female-brains-really-are-built-differently/281962/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/male-and-f... [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
- erikpukinskis 13y ago

Udo 13y ago

> Is it sexist to even point out that men and women are different? It may not be obvious to you, but there is a huge amount of uncertainty about the actual amount and severity of differences. One of the many problems with even ascertaining the nature of those differences is the inherent difficulty of separating culture from biology, and in biology interpreting the actual meaning of physical differences. Combine that with the fact that most studies conducted in these areas have a huge bias in one way or the other and are designed to mostly further the agendas of certain interest groups, or in the absence of that: to make for interesting headlines in popular magazines. The "pointing out of differences" is mostly an act of voicing a certain kind of opinion at best, sometimes this opinion is disguised as fact-like by meaningless cave-dweller analogies and other unscientific bullshit that is usually trotted out to support the status quo of gender separation. But even if, by some miracle, you could obtain absolutely untainted data on this, it would still be a matter of statistics and there are still way too many variables involved. The insidious nature of differences between men and women is that they become whatever society says they should be. In this way the expectation that CS is uncool and unsuited for women becomes fact simply by virtue of being declared a fact. Social expectations and feedback statistically play a huge role in people's choices. > I think my wife is pretty awesome and capable of things I would not be able to do. This isn't about your wife, but since you brought it up: not all women are good at the things your wife is good at. Conversely, not all men are like you. You are both a product of not only genetics, but also social pressures and expectations, internal mental states, and subject to different kinds of support for capabilities your environment deems appropriate for your roles in society. Even things where you might be convinced they are down to gender differences might conceivably be very different if you had grown up in a different culture. > Am I sexist for talking about it? You are certainly someone with strong opinions about what traits are linked to which gender, so yes, you are sexist in a way that you impose an artificial segregation unto the world that lines up with your values. It seems (although implicitly) that you are more likely to support people doing things you deem to be gender-appropriate and more likely to discourage people from doing something which you judge to be not a good fit because of your sex. If you look at cultures of segregation historically, they often did attribute certain core skills even to the out-group. It was judged that non-whites, non-arians, females, homosexuals, or whatever group was defined as "different" did in fact have certain hard-wired capabilities (although not always good ones). > I think in the source PG even says that women are good (maybe better) than men at business focused startups. It may not sound problematic to have this view, unless you are a woman hacker standing in front of a VC who is predisposed against accepting your company into the program on account of judging you unfit to program. But meeting someone with the power to make decisions about your future who explicitly declared these views beforehand is not even the worst case. The worst case would be meeting someone who holds these views but isn't conscious of them. But, to make sure, this is not a comment intended to be about Paul Graham specifically. I think as far as that interview is concerned, this whole discussion is a huge waste of time. > Or will the world not be balanced until just as many women are making hot or not for XYZ in the off hours It's not just a matter of balance. It's about two things mainly. First, many people (including me) would prefer a world where certain voices and talents are not missing or even actively silenced. Could a world without women hackers succeed? Certainly. By the same token, so could a world without black hackers, gay hackers, or non-american hackers. It's just not the world I'd like to live in, and I do believe such a segregated world would miss out on a lot of important developments. Secondly, taking up the point from above, even in a world where a myriad cultural factors are stacked against them, sometimes women hackers emerge and do make it to critical junctions. At these points it's hugely disappointing to be turned back because they don't fit the profile for some superficial reason.

ZoFreX 13y ago

Why, when assessing people's abilities and shortcomings, do you reach for the two categories "men" and "women"? Why not: Is it really wrong to say that brunettes could be better or worse (in general) at one thing or another? Is it haircolourist to even point out that blondes and brunettes are different? I think my brunette life partner is pretty awesome and capable of things I would not be able to do. Am I haircolourist for talking about it? If we truly were post-sexism, it would be as weird as that ^ to divide people by gender when talking about things that have absolutely nothing to do with their gender. Like programming.

newnewnew 13y ago
Sexual dimorphism has large and powerful effects in most sexually reproducing species, including humans. Hair color, as far as we know, is just about pigment. Sex differences go much, much deeper.

bonemachine 13y ago

Is it really wrong to say that women could be better or worse (in general) at one thing or another? Who knows. But is that something PG actually said? Doesn't quite sound like it, from my reading of the interview excerpt.