4 ms·

There's good level of scientific evidence on differences in risk preference, the importance of status, thinking styles(abstract vs concrete), levels of attach

by minthd 12y ago

There's good level of scientific evidence on differences in risk preference, the importance of status, thinking styles(abstract vs concrete), levels of attachment and child care abilities - at least between average males and females. Sorry for not linking papers,but a good start would be this debate[1] between pinker and spelke. And it's clear those things impact participation in startups. [1]http://edge.org/event/the-science-of-gender-and-science-pinker-vs-spelke-a-debate http://edge.org/event/the-science-of-gender-and-science-pink...

pron 12y ago
You are both stretching the definition of "good scientific evidence" as well as completely misunderstanding the very nature of the science producing those studies. First, are you saying that whatever "differences in risk preference" found (for some definition of "good level evidence": I haven't seen the studies, but I'm sure they weren't done on, say, a sample of a ten-thousand people) account for the huge difference seen in SV startups? I mean, I don't know what the effect size was in the studies you were referring to, but I'm sure it was nowhere near that we see in SV. I call such an attitude "sciency" -- ascribing small-n studies with low effect size the scientific rigor of proof or strong evidence to reinforce existing biases. You will never seriously consider this level of evidence "good" if something important to you depended on it. Second, and much more importantly: even pretending those studies were conducted on a billion people and showed a 5x difference (or whatever it is among SV entrepreneurs), all it means is that this is how people behave now. Sociology doesn't purport to be physics, and those aren't laws of nature. I mean, you could have done literacy studies in the 1800s and shown that blacks are illiterate (with much more statistical rigor, BTW); what does that mean? You must remember that sociology (and often psychology) studies snapshots of society that are a result of forces that we have the power to change (and probably the moral obligation to). Sociology studies things so that we could change them. It doesn't claim (in fact, it claims the opposite) to uncover fixed laws of nature.
- minthd 12y ago
  Read the link. It has GOOD scientific evidence, including talking about "a large meta-analysis involving 150 studies and 100,000 participants, in 14 out of 16 categories of risk-taking, men were over-represented. " And secondly i'm not saying they account for all the differences in SV, just that there are large biologically based differences.
  - v13inc 12y ago
    I think the truly important question is: Are those differences caused biology or society?
    - belorn 12y ago
      If it is society, how should it be handled? Should schools educate girls to take more risk while boys are instructed on the negative aspect of risk taking? Or to phrase the question in a different way. If risk behavior is a socially learned behavior, and risk behavior is the cause of gender imbalance in SV entrepreneurs, what would the ethical action be to create equal opportunity for people of both genders?
      - mc32 12y ago
        Inculcating risk could be risky... I'd rather sensitize boys/men to risk than make girls/women risk tolerant. Risk tolerance leads boys and some girls to take stupid risks from adolescence to? Well, for boys, over-representation in correctional institutions. If one could just get all to avoid stupid risks but take other more acceptable risks, I suppose but can they be decoupled? This is not to say that oppotunities should not be there for all to consider and take, if they so desire... just making risk in general more acceptable can have unintended consequences --unless there is a way to direct the risk energy into productive avenues (i.e more job risk tolerance but less risk of engaging in dangerous activities..
      - pron 12y ago
        > Should schools educate girls to take more risk while boys are instructed on the negative aspect of risk taking? Let's ask the question another way: if schools (and parents) are currently educating boys to take more risk (or educating girls to take less risk), should they start treating both sexes the same way?

by minthd 12y ago

pron 12y ago

You are both stretching the definition of "good scientific evidence" as well as completely misunderstanding the very nature of the science producing those studies. First, are you saying that whatever "differences in risk preference" found (for some definition of "good level evidence": I haven't seen the studies, but I'm sure they weren't done on, say, a sample of a ten-thousand people) account for the huge difference seen in SV startups? I mean, I don't know what the effect size was in the studies you were referring to, but I'm sure it was nowhere near that we see in SV. I call such an attitude "sciency" -- ascribing small-n studies with low effect size the scientific rigor of proof or strong evidence to reinforce existing biases. You will never seriously consider this level of evidence "good" if something important to you depended on it. Second, and much more importantly: even pretending those studies were conducted on a billion people and showed a 5x difference (or whatever it is among SV entrepreneurs), all it means is that this is how people behave now. Sociology doesn't purport to be physics, and those aren't laws of nature. I mean, you could have done literacy studies in the 1800s and shown that blacks are illiterate (with much more statistical rigor, BTW); what does that mean? You must remember that sociology (and often psychology) studies snapshots of society that are a result of forces that we have the power to change (and probably the moral obligation to). Sociology studies things so that we could change them. It doesn't claim (in fact, it claims the opposite) to uncover fixed laws of nature.

minthd 12y ago
Read the link. It has GOOD scientific evidence, including talking about "a large meta-analysis involving 150 studies and 100,000 participants, in 14 out of 16 categories of risk-taking, men were over-represented. " And secondly i'm not saying they account for all the differences in SV, just that there are large biologically based differences.
- v13inc 12y ago
  I think the truly important question is: Are those differences caused biology or society?
  - belorn 12y ago
    If it is society, how should it be handled? Should schools educate girls to take more risk while boys are instructed on the negative aspect of risk taking? Or to phrase the question in a different way. If risk behavior is a socially learned behavior, and risk behavior is the cause of gender imbalance in SV entrepreneurs, what would the ethical action be to create equal opportunity for people of both genders?
    - mc32 12y ago
      Inculcating risk could be risky... I'd rather sensitize boys/men to risk than make girls/women risk tolerant. Risk tolerance leads boys and some girls to take stupid risks from adolescence to? Well, for boys, over-representation in correctional institutions. If one could just get all to avoid stupid risks but take other more acceptable risks, I suppose but can they be decoupled? This is not to say that oppotunities should not be there for all to consider and take, if they so desire... just making risk in general more acceptable can have unintended consequences --unless there is a way to direct the risk energy into productive avenues (i.e more job risk tolerance but less risk of engaging in dangerous activities..
    - pron 12y ago
      > Should schools educate girls to take more risk while boys are instructed on the negative aspect of risk taking? Let's ask the question another way: if schools (and parents) are currently educating boys to take more risk (or educating girls to take less risk), should they start treating both sexes the same way?