5 ms·

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 c

by 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?
    - belorn 12y ago
      I have heard of no school that has a program to increase risk taking in boys, nor do I know of any teacher education that instruct teachers to teach boys in taking more risk. Could you explain why you are suggesting that some do? What schools could do is educate about actually risks, so that any personal or cultural level of risk aversion is confronted with reality. That would be treating children of both genders equally and could mitigate differences between genders.
      - pron 12y ago
        > I have heard of no school that has a program to increase risk taking in boys Those biases are subtextual, but very powerful. There's a nice recent article demonstrating some of them: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/women_in_tech_and_the_sciences_how_to_make_sure_your_daughter_knows_she.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wom...
pron 12y ago
I have. The figures aren't included, but by what statistical reasoning do you interpret "men were over-represented" and "highly significant sex differences" as "large biologically based differences"? I mean, even supposing those studies proved biological difference, where do you learn about the large effect size? It's not mentioned in the article at all (except in those studies showing biases). It is also true that studies showing cultural biases find significant ones, usually with far, far higher effect sizes. What I find most disturbing is the "sciency" reliance of people on studies showing small effect size as an excuse to not even try to change an unfair power structure, and ignore the findings showing cultural impact. I mean, even if it's not possible to erase any-and-all difference, shouldn't we at least try to eliminate some? If anything, you're showing a clear cultural bias by treating this situation differently from other scientific findings. Also, how do you explain the constant decline, since at least the 1980s, of women participation in CS?

by minthd 12y ago

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?
  - belorn 12y ago
    I have heard of no school that has a program to increase risk taking in boys, nor do I know of any teacher education that instruct teachers to teach boys in taking more risk. Could you explain why you are suggesting that some do? What schools could do is educate about actually risks, so that any personal or cultural level of risk aversion is confronted with reality. That would be treating children of both genders equally and could mitigate differences between genders.
    - pron 12y ago
      > I have heard of no school that has a program to increase risk taking in boys Those biases are subtextual, but very powerful. There's a nice recent article demonstrating some of them: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/women_in_tech_and_the_sciences_how_to_make_sure_your_daughter_knows_she.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wom...

pron 12y ago

I have. The figures aren't included, but by what statistical reasoning do you interpret "men were over-represented" and "highly significant sex differences" as "large biologically based differences"? I mean, even supposing those studies proved biological difference, where do you learn about the large effect size? It's not mentioned in the article at all (except in those studies showing biases). It is also true that studies showing cultural biases find significant ones, usually with far, far higher effect sizes. What I find most disturbing is the "sciency" reliance of people on studies showing small effect size as an excuse to not even try to change an unfair power structure, and ignore the findings showing cultural impact. I mean, even if it's not possible to erase any-and-all difference, shouldn't we at least try to eliminate some? If anything, you're showing a clear cultural bias by treating this situation differently from other scientific findings. Also, how do you explain the constant decline, since at least the 1980s, of women participation in CS?