Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 8:55:43 GMT -5
MOD NOTE:
Dial back the personal rancor in this thread, please. If you can't, walk away.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 11, 2017 8:56:59 GMT -5
But what I was trying to say is how absurd it is to be so insistent about group differences, for two or three days straight, and then come back and say, you know, I realize now what this guy is doing is wrong... he's applying the group science to individuals (a subset of individuals) and acting like that he just came up with that and it wasn't basically what everyone out there has been disgusted by in the first place. Opty previously had his newspaper "article" re: guy with anecdote before the bit I responded to here. He deleted it after I responded. The sarcastic article, posted for a second time is why I said "Yes, that was very clever." ETA: and someone conducting a study does not make their conclusions science, that's why. Opty went so far as to call me a science denialist and allergic to facts. That's wrong. I love science. But just because someone comes along with a few articles and claims SCIENCE doesn't mean I believe them. I don't think that is a fair characterization. Opty had already mentioned (more than mentioned) the problems with applying statistical group trends to individuals. What he pointed out that was "new" was observing that not only did Damore do that, but that the specific pool of individuals he was talking about - Google employees - is more likely to be made up of exceptions to the larger group. Which made his manifesto particularly inapt for what he purported to be addressing. Maybe you think that is a "duh" conclusion too, but it was neither backtracking nor belatedly admitting something he hadn't acknowledged before. As for studies not being science, actually, if it is conducted properly, then it is by definition science. What it is not necessarily is proof, or even evidence of a given hypothesis. No one is saying "Infant gazes, therefore boys-blue/girls-pink is biology." But I think Opty did a reasonable job of explaining why those studies are actually valid and considered credible. (And not that they prove anything about whether or not women can be computer programmers.) You're just being dismissive because you don't like anything that goes anywhere near there, and I can't really blame Opty for calling you a science denialist because you certainly do seem determined to deny (and sneer at) any scientific basis at all for a theory you don't like.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 11, 2017 9:17:28 GMT -5
Sometimes it's necessary to deny and sneer at any scientific basis at all for a theory you don't like. Otherwise there's a risk that people might apply and conform to that theory, as Christine so straightforwardly pointed out, pages ago.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 11, 2017 9:27:09 GMT -5
As for studies not being science, actually, if it is conducted properly, then it is by definition science. What it is not necessarily is proof, or even evidence of a given hypothesis. No one is saying "Infant gazes, therefore boys-blue/girls-pink is biology." But I think Opty did a reasonable job of explaining why those studies are actually valid and considered credible. (And not that they prove anything about whether or not women can be computer programmers.) You're just being dismissive because you don't like anything that goes anywhere near there, and I can't really blame Opty for calling you a science denialist because you certainly do seem determined to deny (and sneer at) any scientific basis at all for a theory you don't like. Can you point to where Opty explained why the infant gaze study is valid? Because, again, I made some points about it and he did not respond.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 11, 2017 9:29:52 GMT -5
As for studies not being science, actually, if it is conducted properly, then it is by definition science. What it is not necessarily is proof, or even evidence of a given hypothesis. No one is saying "Infant gazes, therefore boys-blue/girls-pink is biology." But I think Opty did a reasonable job of explaining why those studies are actually valid and considered credible. (And not that they prove anything about whether or not women can be computer programmers.) You're just being dismissive because you don't like anything that goes anywhere near there, and I can't really blame Opty for calling you a science denialist because you certainly do seem determined to deny (and sneer at) any scientific basis at all for a theory you don't like. Can you point to where Opty explained why the infant gaze study is valid? Because, again, I made some points about it and he did not respond. Aug 8, 2017 23:29:04 GMT -4 Opty said: Differences in toy preference among human babies is a well-established and consistent phenomenon. It is indicative of biological mechanisms that contribute to the significant differences in preferences between males and females in several life areas. This area of study is pretty wide, but well-substantiated. The two studies I cited were just two well-known examples of the types of research that give strong evidence of biologically driven differences in male and female behavior. Girls tend to prefer toys that involve social aspects whereas boys tend to involve things that are more structural and mechanistic (people versus things). Again, I feel I should emphasize that this refers to differences in group means and is not necessarily predictive of behavior at the individual level. A common criticism used to be (and apparently still is for ill-informed gender studies "scholars") that these sex differences found early in life were wholly the result of sociocultural influences. This criticism is factually wrong, so I cited two of the most well-known studies that helped to debunk that myth. One study showed sex differences in eye gaze in neonates (male babies tend to prefer to look at mechanical-type objects; female babies tend to prefer to look at faces and people), thus countering the "culture" claim, given that neonates have no concept of sex or culture. The other study that you seem to not have bothered reading past the title, was demonstrating that sexually dimorphic toy preferences that have been well-documented to exist in human babies are ALSO found in monkeys, giving more evidence contra to the "culture" claim, because monkeys are obviously not significantly influenced by human cultural gender roles. These types of preferences are biological, not sociocultural (they have absolutely nothing to do with "socialization" as you incorrectly tried to claim). That was the entire point of me posting them. I was debunking your false "socialization" argument before you even made it. That's not to say that sociocultural influences don't impact our behavior. It is merely underscoring that much of our behavior is significantly biologically influenced and people who deny that are misinformed/uninformed. Here's another psychologist referencing the exact same studies I brought up (and a meta-analysis). Only difference is that he's a well-known expert in his field and I'm just a schmuck: Gender Differences in Interests Things versus people. Su et al (2009) performed a meta-analysis of studies including a total of over 500,000 people examining gender differences in interests. Despite claims that gender differences are typically “small” (Hyde, 2005), Su et al found a gigantic gender difference in interests. Women preferred working with people, whereas men preferred working with things, a preference that is detectable within the first two days of birth and among our close species relatives, rhesus monkeys! To be sure, these differences were not absolute. Not every man prefers working with things, and not every woman prefers working with people. But the effect size was d= .93, and even if you are not familiar with effect sizes, this would make it one of the largest effects in social psychology; it is gigantic.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 11, 2017 9:32:40 GMT -5
Sometimes it's necessary to deny and sneer at any scientific basis at all for a theory you don't like. Otherwise there's a risk that people might apply and conform to that theory, as Christine so straightforwardly pointed out, pages ago. What I'm saying, and it's been proven by google guy himself, is that people tend to apply statistics incorrectly. People apply them on an individual level, to others and to themselves. Why am I so bad at math? I guess it's because I'm a woman. Why do hate going to social functions? I guess it's because I'm a man. Etc. And I'm not sneering. I'm highly doubtful.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 11, 2017 9:41:55 GMT -5
So who should be the gatekeeper, deciding which scientific facts should be released to the public, and which are to be kept secret because someone might misuse them?
Al Gore, or Donald Trump?
I vote neither, myself.
ETA: Yes the slam on the Algore and his new disaster comedy is intentional, in case anybody wondered. 😬
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 11, 2017 9:42:44 GMT -5
What I'm saying, and it's been proven by google guy himself, is that people tend to apply statistics incorrectly. People apply them on an individual level, to others and to themselves. Why am I so bad at math? I guess it's because I'm a woman. Why do hate going to social functions? I guess it's because I'm a man. Etc. And I'm not sneering. I'm highly doubtful. If someone says "Most women like social functions and men don't, so you must like going to social functions," that's obviously a misapplication of statistics. What you are doing is the opposite: "I hate going to social functions; therefore the claim that women generally like going to social functions and men don't is false."
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 11, 2017 9:50:48 GMT -5
Can you point to where Opty explained why the infant gaze study is valid? Because, again, I made some points about it and he did not respond. Aug 8, 2017 23:29:04 GMT -4 Opty said: Differences in toy preference among human babies is a well-established and consistent phenomenon. It is indicative of biological mechanisms that contribute to the significant differences in preferences between males and females in several life areas. This area of study is pretty wide, but well-substantiated. The two studies I cited were just two well-known examples of the types of research that give strong evidence of biologically driven differences in male and female behavior. Girls tend to prefer toys that involve social aspects whereas boys tend to involve things that are more structural and mechanistic (people versus things). Again, I feel I should emphasize that this refers to differences in group means and is not necessarily predictive of behavior at the individual level. A common criticism used to be (and apparently still is for ill-informed gender studies "scholars") that these sex differences found early in life were wholly the result of sociocultural influences. This criticism is factually wrong, so I cited two of the most well-known studies that helped to debunk that myth. One study showed sex differences in eye gaze in neonates (male babies tend to prefer to look at mechanical-type objects; female babies tend to prefer to look at faces and people), thus countering the "culture" claim, given that neonates have no concept of sex or culture. The other study that you seem to not have bothered reading past the title, was demonstrating that sexually dimorphic toy preferences that have been well-documented to exist in human babies are ALSO found in monkeys, giving more evidence contra to the "culture" claim, because monkeys are obviously not significantly influenced by human cultural gender roles. These types of preferences are biological, not sociocultural (they have absolutely nothing to do with "socialization" as you incorrectly tried to claim). That was the entire point of me posting them. I was debunking your false "socialization" argument before you even made it. That's not to say that sociocultural influences don't impact our behavior. It is merely underscoring that much of our behavior is significantly biologically influenced and people who deny that are misinformed/uninformed. Here's another psychologist referencing the exact same studies I brought up (and a meta-analysis). Only difference is that he's a well-known expert in his field and I'm just a schmuck: Gender Differences in Interests Things versus people. Su et al (2009) performed a meta-analysis of studies including a total of over 500,000 people examining gender differences in interests. Despite claims that gender differences are typically “small” (Hyde, 2005), Su et al found a gigantic gender difference in interests. Women preferred working with people, whereas men preferred working with things, a preference that is detectable within the first two days of birth and among our close species relatives, rhesus monkeys! To be sure, these differences were not absolute. Not every man prefers working with things, and not every woman prefers working with people. But the effect size was d= .93, and even if you are not familiar with effect sizes, this would make it one of the largest effects in social psychology; it is gigantic. This was all before my post about the infant gaze study (I've read all of this two or three times, I swear) and nothing here responds to my objections about the infant gaze study. Unless something is considered valid because "scientists and experts I've selected and linked to say so." Look, I would never argue that little boys don't, on average, tend to be more rough-and-tumble than little girls, or that little girls don't, on average, tend to be more talkative than little boys. I understand that hormones affect us differently. But to extrapolate cognitive ability in men and women based on this is not logical. I think culture plays the hugest part here - it perpetuates minor, on-average tendencies and that's why we end up with studies that "prove" women prefer working with people and men prefer working with things. Here's another anecdote, because I'm so good at them. I have never been a mechanical person. Not because I'd tried and failed, but because I was never taught to work with things. I never even got to try. And if you'd asked me a year ago, was I good at working with mechanical things, I'd have said, Oh God no. That's what plumbers, electricians, mechanics are for. Thank God for them! So then I bought a house. And there were suddenly a lot of things that needed to be done, and I didn't have a husband or a landlord to take care of them. So over the last six months I have learned to amd successfully installed a five-light bathroom fixture, closet doors, a patio screen, cabinet knobs, and probably more I'm not remembering. I hung a 80-pound mirror (after the guy I hired hung it crooked and then the anchor ripped right out of the wall leaving a giant hole, which I patched and painted). And the best part? It was so much fun. I loved doing these things. I look forward to doing these things in the future. But again, a year ago, I'd have said, I don't know how; I'm not a mechanical person. Those are guy-things. Which is also what I mean when I say people tend to apply statistics incorrectly. I did it to my own damn self.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 11, 2017 9:53:09 GMT -5
So who should be the gatekeeper, deciding which scientific facts should be released to the public, and which are to be kept secret because someone might misuse them? Al Gore, or Donald Trump? I vote neither, myself. ETA: Yes the slam on the Algore and his new disaster comedy is intentional, in case anybody wondered. 😬 Nothing should be suppressed from the public. I'm sorry I made it sound like I would prefer that. More education and context and even public debate on it is the way to go. Like we're doing, I think, in this tiny little corner of the internet?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 11, 2017 10:05:13 GMT -5
What I'm saying, and it's been proven by google guy himself, is that people tend to apply statistics incorrectly. People apply them on an individual level, to others and to themselves. Why am I so bad at math? I guess it's because I'm a woman. Why do hate going to social functions? I guess it's because I'm a man. Etc. And I'm not sneering. I'm highly doubtful. If someone says "Most women like social functions and men don't, so you must like going to social functions," that's obviously a misapplication of statistics. What you are doing is the opposite: "I hate going to social functions; therefore the claim that women generally like going to social functions and men don't is false." That's not what I meant. What I meant is that people may use statistics to "explain" why they themselves or others are the way they are. E.g., I want to work with people because I'm a woman. You're not mechanical because you have a woman brain. Etc. ETA: Also, it is scientifically TRUE that women generally like going to social functions more than men. What I don't agree with is that this is due to biology, rather than cultural, learned behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 11, 2017 10:14:19 GMT -5
This was all before my post about the infant gaze study (I've read all of this two or three times, I swear) and nothing here responds to my objections about the infant gaze study. Unless something is considered valid because "scientists and experts I've selected and linked to say so." Look, I would never argue that little boys don't, on average, tend to be more rough-and-tumble than little girls, or that little girls don't, on average, tend to be more talkative than little boys. I understand that hormones affect us differently. But to extrapolate cognitive ability in men and women based on this is not logical. I think culture plays the hugest part here - it perpetuates minor, on-average tendencies and that's why we end up with studies that "prove" women prefer working with people and men prefer working with things. Here's another anecdote, because I'm so good at them. I have never been a mechanical person. Not because I'd tried and failed, but because I was never taught to work with things. I never even got to try. And if you'd asked me a year ago, was I good at working with mechanical things, I'd have said, Oh God no. That's what plumbers, electricians, mechanics are for. Thank God for them! So then I bought a house. And there were suddenly a lot of things that needed to be done, and I didn't have a husband or a landlord to take care of them. So over the last six months I have learned to amd successfully installed a five-light bathroom fixture, closet doors, a patio screen, cabinet knobs, and probably more I'm not remembering. I hung a 80-pound mirror (after the guy I hired hung it crooked and then the anchor ripped right out of the wall leaving a giant hole, which I patched and painted). And the best part? It was so much fun. I loved doing these things. I look forward to doing these things in the future. But again, a year ago, I'd have said, I don't know how; I'm not a mechanical person. Those are guy-things. Which is also what I mean when I say people tend to apply statistics incorrectly. I did it to my own damn self. I'm sorry, but your objection to the infant gaze study (and basically any studies suggesting that cognitive differences might have a biological basis) appears to be "Nuh-uh!" To my knowledge, no one has extrapolated cognitive abilities from infant gaze studies. What they have extrapolated is that men and women think differently and focus on different things. Which may - combined with social factors - have an impact on cognitive abilities. It's a lot more complicated than the straw man you keep sneering at, that little girls are more attuned to faces and feelings and therefore they can't grow up to be mechanics. By the way, can you come and do some work on my house? I hate handi-work. That's not what I meant. What I meant is that people may use statistics to "explain" why they are the way they are. E.g., I want to work with people because I'm a woman. I'm not mechanical because I have a woman brain. Etc. Saying "You can't be a mechanic because you're a woman" is obviously dumb and would be a misapplication even if we had proof that women have a lower average mechanical aptitude than men. Saying "There are many more male mechanics than female, and this because of sexism and if we didn't live in a society that discouraged girls from being mechanics, 50% of all mechanics would be women; therefore, we should try to increase the number of women mechanics" is a political statement, not a scientific one.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 11, 2017 10:31:12 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but your objection to the infant gaze study (and basically any studies suggesting that cognitive differences might have a biological basis) appears to be "Nuh-uh!" This is what I said: To my knowledge, no one has extrapolated cognitive abilities from infant gaze studies. What they have extrapolated is that men and women think differently and focus on different things. Which may - combined with social factors - have an impact on cognitive abilities. It's a lot more complicated than the straw man you keep sneering at, that little girls are more attuned to faces and feelings and therefore they can't grow up to be mechanics. Again, I'm not sneering. I'm also not arguing the strawman. I am fully aware that no one here is saying no little girl can grow up to be a mechanic. I am pushing back against the idea that the infant gaze study is evidence of a biological contribution to cognitive ability. Look at the logical progression here: Ha! Of course! But I'm very expensive. Saying "You can't be a mechanic because you're a woman" is obviously dumb and would be a misapplication even if we had proof that women have a lower average mechanical aptitude than men. Saying "There are many more male mechanics than female, and this because of sexism and if we didn't live in a society that discouraged girls from being mechanics, 50% of all mechanics would be women; therefore, we should try to increase the number of women mechanics" is a political statement, not a scientific one. But is it wrong?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 11, 2017 11:35:26 GMT -5
That's a fairly common total mischaracterization that I keep seeing regarding the memo. The far left is frothing at the mouth over this, ready and more than willing to totally misrepresent and lie about the contents of the memo in order to further their narrative, as you have done here.You don't say. You know, I read the first part of your post as rather impressive backtracking, what with the covering up all of the footprints of everything you were insisting on in your previous posts--but hey, I have no problem with people changing their minds. I'm cool with it, even if you have to kind of make it seem like you were just somehow (as a cognitive psychologist) "forgetting" some basic things. But this bit right here? Fuckingly craptastic bullshit. The science is real, because rhesus monkeys and infant gazes and nervous systems, but it's incredibly difficult to figure out whether it applies to any woman, anywhere, ever. Color me shocked. You're being blatantly, and unsurprisingly, disingenuous. You're either purposely distorting and lying about what I've said, or you really didn't comprehend it at all and need to go back and read it a few more times. Yet, here we are anyway, somehow, with you demonstrably lying about my position. MOD NOTE:
Dial back the personal rancor in this thread, please. If you can't, walk away.
A Question for the Moderator. Is the personal rancor in this thread an example of this... sarcasm or disparagement directed at the character of another member.... or this? sarcasm or disparagement directed at a particular argument a member has made in that particular thread.Opty has now accused both Christine and myself of lying. Where I'm from calling someone a liar is a personal attack on someone's character and not their argument. A clarification is requested.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Aug 11, 2017 11:44:23 GMT -5
So who should be the gatekeeper, deciding which scientific facts should be released to the public, and which are to be kept secret because someone might misuse them? Al Gore, or Donald Trump? I vote neither, myself. ETA: Yes the slam on the Algore and his new disaster comedy is intentional, in case anybody wondered. 😬 Nothing should be suppressed from the public. I'm sorry I made it sound like I would prefer that. More education and context and even public debate on it is the way to go. Like we're doing, I think, in this tiny little corner of the internet? Well, that there's the rub, isn't it.
Person A says something. It could be used as a moment to invite thoughtful discussion and maybe everyone will learn something.
Or, just shame him, fire him, and prove his point about echo chambers.
|
|