3 ms·

There's no question that women and men face different barriers in startups and tech. The null hypothesis is thus (a) differences in reactions to a competitive

There's no question that women and men face different barriers in startups and tech. The null hypothesis is thus (a) differences in reactions to a competitive environment are partially due to differences in how women and men are treated. There's also no question that women and men differ biologically. The null hypothesis is thus (b) differences in reactions to a competitive environment are partially biological in origin. We thus have joint null hypotheses. Most commentators focus on a for obvious political reasons. Most contrarians focus on b, partially because a receives most of the attention, thus perhaps discounting a unfairly. But both a and b deserve consideration, and the burden of proof is on those asserting either ¬a or ¬b. By stating that women are "victimized by the perception that their gender prevents them from being competitive", you've implicitly asserted that women are not in fact less competitive because of their gender, but rather are merely perceived to be so. You have thus placed the burden of proof on those who claim otherwise. In other words, by asserting a while discounting b, you have implicitly asserted ¬b as the null hypothesis. You're in good company, of course: virtually the entire mainstream treats ¬b as the null hypothesis. Indeed, publicly supporting anything other than ¬b in the workplace is not only socially unacceptable, it is probably illegal. Unfortunately, it is also fallacious. The burden of proof is on those who assert that women's biology doesn't make them less competitive in startups and tech. So, what evidence is there that women and men are equally well-suited to highly competitive environments? Bear in mind that nearly every highly competitive field (not just startups and tech) is now, and has historically been, dominated by men—including in far-flung locations without significant cultural contact. Contra the mainstream, ¬b is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence.

tptacek 12y ago
It's interesting that it's only during discussions of race and gender that male nerds suddenly become receptive to social science. But in any other discussion, it's their rhetorical whipping boy. How convenient for them.
- lexcorvus 12y ago
  I'm receptive to social science in all relevant areas, but I don't particularly trust it, especially on politically sensitive subjects. (After all, even ultra-precise, mostly apolitical subjects like physics and chemistry often have trouble with replication.) The untrustworthiness of empirical evidence in social science makes deduction especially important. In the case of sex differences, we need only one empirical result to determine the null hypothesis: male and female members of H. sapiens have different reproductive incentives. The null hypothesis then follows from an application of simple logic. That I do find convenient. This doesn't mean the null hypothesis is always correct, of course. For example, there is strong evidence that mean IQ for men and women is virtually the same, which suggests the null hypothesis in this case is wrong. Neither need the null hypothesis conform to a "sexist" narrative; e.g., credible studies in cognitive neuroscience show that women are better on average at multitasking and verbal fluency. But the entire mainstream is committed to marginalizing the null hypothesis whenever it contradicts the politically correct narrative, logic be damned. You are evidently a supporter of the mainstream, which is why you deride my [use of mathematical notation](https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/493116213803757568 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/493116213803757568) instead of addressing the content of my comment. My respect for your technical work is high, though, and I know you're smart and thoughtful. I suggest grappling with the strongest arguments of those you disagree with rather than resorting to such puerile snark.

tptacek 12y ago

It's interesting that it's only during discussions of race and gender that male nerds suddenly become receptive to social science. But in any other discussion, it's their rhetorical whipping boy. How convenient for them.

lexcorvus 12y ago
I'm receptive to social science in all relevant areas, but I don't particularly trust it, especially on politically sensitive subjects. (After all, even ultra-precise, mostly apolitical subjects like physics and chemistry often have trouble with replication.) The untrustworthiness of empirical evidence in social science makes deduction especially important. In the case of sex differences, we need only one empirical result to determine the null hypothesis: male and female members of H. sapiens have different reproductive incentives. The null hypothesis then follows from an application of simple logic. That I do find convenient. This doesn't mean the null hypothesis is always correct, of course. For example, there is strong evidence that mean IQ for men and women is virtually the same, which suggests the null hypothesis in this case is wrong. Neither need the null hypothesis conform to a "sexist" narrative; e.g., credible studies in cognitive neuroscience show that women are better on average at multitasking and verbal fluency. But the entire mainstream is committed to marginalizing the null hypothesis whenever it contradicts the politically correct narrative, logic be damned. You are evidently a supporter of the mainstream, which is why you deride my [use of mathematical notation](https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/493116213803757568 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/493116213803757568) instead of addressing the content of my comment. My respect for your technical work is high, though, and I know you're smart and thoughtful. I suggest grappling with the strongest arguments of those you disagree with rather than resorting to such puerile snark.