|
Post by Vince524 on Aug 9, 2017 17:12:22 GMT -5
Isn't is also true that more men might simply be attracted to a certain field, while more women to others? There are plenty of male nurses and teachers, but it's still probably more female than male. The important part is that if person A wants a job and their qualified, that they're hired based on merit, not gender, race, religion, etc, etc, so forth and so on. Actually, the fact that women are over-represented in those two fields is evidence--imo--for almost the opposite of what you are supposing. There aren't more women in teaching and nursing because of simple choice; there are more women in this fields because of gender-based assumptions about what women can/should do (across time, to be sure). There are more women nurses largely because of the military. There are more women teachers (now*) largely because of the way public education has been set-up, which includes the pay scale (which is, to be far, no longer what it once was). Secretarial work is the same sort of thing. Women are not happier/better at getting coffee, typing, and answering phones, it's just that such work was initially accessible to women who wanted/needed to work, so they filled the void. All that said, I do agree with the idea that men and women are different in ways that can have a general impact on career choices/preferences,** but as Opty says these differences fall apart at a strictly individual level, meaning--imo--that the only legitimate goal of programs seeking diversity would be making sure opportunity is the same for all (i.e. things like sex, gender, race, and so forth shouldn't play any role in the hiring and promoting processes). * Once upon a time, teaching and tutoring at any level was a job for men, alone. ** We had a related conversation here on the thread about chess players. Sure, it's gender roles, but in part it's because men don't think to apply for those positions as much. And if you can get more women to apply, great. But to insist you're going to hire 50% is wrong. If you ever saw the Ben Stiller movie with Dinero, he was teased for being a male nurse. So it's evident still today. If a woman said she wants to get into nursing, it's fine. If a man says it, it's "Why not be a doctor?" All I'm saying is that it factors in, and the way to fix it isn't by insisting on a specific % but rather enticing young women to get into that field and make sure they have an equal chance if they apply.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 9, 2017 18:06:22 GMT -5
My opinion: it's not about "biological sex differences," and yeah, that raises my hackles. Always has, always will. It's not "totally" about biological sex difference. But the Google guy didn't say that it was. In fact, he gave a pretty thorough and wide-ranging list of possible explanations for differences, ranging from biological, to psychological, to sociocultural factors. I think he got some of it somewhat wrong in a few places, and drew some questionable conclusions in others, but even I can admit that he wasn't presenting the one-sided argument that you seem to be implying that he did. Even you can admit it? No idea what that means, but no, I'm not implying he made a one-sided argument. I don't even know on what "side" such an argument would exist, were I implying one was being made. Here's a tip: a guy should not write a manifesto about how women are biologically or otherwise incapable of being engineers. Oh sure, not all of them, there are some "exceptions." But you know, by and large, women are all about people. We need our feelz and stuff. Objects are so, you know, boring. And math? Ermigerd. It's so haaaard. Can I be the door greeter so I can smile at and chat with all the people and make sure everyone is happy and stuff? Yeah, that's obviously hyperbole. But gah. Did you notice footnote #4? Gah. And you yourself pointed out the weirdness of the "women are supposed to be protected" bit. You had issues with some of his arguments (as did Amadan) but now suddenly you need me list those issues? Kindly skip the part where you tell me what I should and should not worry my pretty little head about, mkay? Thanks. (1) see above (2) he is claiming that women prefer people over objects. (And preference, stated as biologically derived, is pretty much a dog-whistle for aptitude.) He is saying that, really, only around 20% of women, since Google's female employees apparently accurately represent women, like objects, systemizing, coding, etc., over things that involve, well, people, I guess. (And it's probably not even 20%. How many women are actually coders? Why Google is apparently doing what they're doing--and I'm not saying they're not doing it wrong, or that they couldn't do it better--is because STEM is one those last bastions where "the good ol' boys" sexist atmosphere has remained and flourished. STEM is a "guy" thing. I've read several articles, some linked to by women who work in STEM fields, on the subject. I'm sure you have too.) Other fields where this has proven not to be the case are, for one, my own profession. I rarely deal with people. I deal with numbers, concepts, data, laws, computer programs, and there are equal if not more female accountants than males these days. So yeah, last bastion seems more likely than womenz just don't like teh objects k. (3) OFFS You are 100% incorrect. I read at least 20 paragraphs of it. I got the gist. One study you cited compared a study on human children from 1992 with the one on monkeys a decade ago. There was also the study on the kids with abnormal gender whatever. I've already said my piece about monkeys. The one with the children - do you really think those children weren't already culturally influenced before being studied? Jesus Christ, we COLOR-CODE infants. We buy them infant "boy" or "girl" toys before they're even born. The infant gaze study you linked to, I admit, I skimmed. The idea that a human face, versus a mobile with facial features mixed up, and the differing number of SECONDS that a boy vs. a girl infant looks at each one indicates anything meaningful seems preposterous to me. Have you ever had a baby? Sometimes they stare at walls. Or at their own hand, like, WTF is this thing? These scientists interacted with babies for approximately 90 seconds per baby and made determinations of what boy babies like versus what girl babies like. Okay but since I didn't really look at that one before, I looked at it again. I looked at the results chart more closely. Did you see that almost 47% of girl babies had no preference (human face versus mobile)? For boys, 32% had no preference. Boys who preferred mobiles - 43%. But boys who preferred faces - 25% A full quarter of the boys preferred faces. And yet, the "conclusion" is put out that "boys prefer objects; girls prefer humans. But this is not true, not just for a "few" boys/girls - for a substantial number of them. In fact, if you add the boys' no preference with the preference of faces, the majority of boys do not prefer objects. Same with girls: no preference plus preference of objects exceeds preference of faces.
But also, since infants show these so-called face-only vs. object-only preferences, grown ups must too. Because even though we've all been here now for a few decades and experienced a lot of things, really, we're all just infants on the inside. SMDH.I'm glad you quoted this bit. Look at how the claim is presented. He first presents 500,000 adults he studied. He inserts the monkeys and the infant studies. Then he concludes the "gigantic" effect sizes - but he is talking about his study of adults, where culture is a huge consideration, not the monkeys or infants.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 9, 2017 18:14:04 GMT -5
Sure, it's gender roles, but in part it's because men don't think to apply for those positions as much. And if you can get more women to apply, great. But to insist you're going to hire 50% is wrong. If you ever saw the Ben Stiller movie with Dinero, he was teased for being a male nurse. So it's evident still today. If a woman said she wants to get into nursing, it's fine. If a man says it, it's "Why not be a doctor?" All I'm saying is that it factors in, and the way to fix it isn't by insisting on a specific % but rather enticing young women to get into that field and make sure they have an equal chance if they apply. Agree on the percentage stuff, but I think you were off base on what you said, re men be more attracted to a given field and woman being more attracted to other fields. Again, nursing and teaching aren't good examples for this at all, imo. You rightly have just pointed to the condescension men would receive for opting to be a nurse (frankly, this is not so much the case anymore, in my experience, because the numbers are in fact shifting), but that represents something that is an impediment to overcome, in order to exercise their choice. Women faces more impediments in more fields. Many more.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Aug 9, 2017 18:36:13 GMT -5
Sure, it's gender roles, but in part it's because men don't think to apply for those positions as much. And if you can get more women to apply, great. But to insist you're going to hire 50% is wrong. If you ever saw the Ben Stiller movie with Dinero, he was teased for being a male nurse. So it's evident still today. If a woman said she wants to get into nursing, it's fine. If a man says it, it's "Why not be a doctor?" All I'm saying is that it factors in, and the way to fix it isn't by insisting on a specific % but rather enticing young women to get into that field and make sure they have an equal chance if they apply. Agree on the percentage stuff, but I think you were off base on what you said, re men be more attracted to a given field and woman being more attracted to other fields. Again, nursing and teaching aren't good examples for this at all, imo. You rightly have just pointed to the condescension men would receive for opting to be a nurse (frankly, this is not so much the case anymore, in my experience, because the numbers are in fact shifting), but that represents something that is an impediment to overcome, in order to exercise their choice. Women faces more impediments in more fields. Many more. I don't disagree, but the first step is to get more women interested in those fields early on. And yeah, it's not as bad as it used to be for male teachers or nurses. Generation by generation it gets better as people just don't care. I agree it's something to overcome. But it's still a factor, and that cultural factor that makes it unusual may influence how younger people decide what sort of career they'd like to pursue. You can't just roll out of bed and decide you want to be a nurse, or a coder. It takes effort and education. As we go on, that'll probably even out naturally. But not by force.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 10, 2017 20:50:42 GMT -5
The couple of times I read through his Google "manifesto," something in the back of my mind kept bothering me about it. It's not necessarily the scientific points he brought up; I've already mentioned that he got a lot of it right. But...that's what bothered me. He got a lot of it right, but he also didn't. What he got right was only "sort of" right in the way he was applying it. So, as much as it really annoyed me that some people were denying the science (in this thread and in other places I've seen), they also had an undeniable point concerning the way in which he presented the info and crafted his argument around it. It finally dawned on me today what was bothering me about how the science was presented in his document. He got most of the basic science right, but in really broad, rather superficial terms (much to the chagrin of several on the far-left, it seems), but that's the actual issue for me. He ONLY got it right broadly and superficially, which undermines his argument given that he's trying to apply these broad research findings to make claims about a specific workplace context. This made several of his conclusions and suggestions overgeneralized and arguably examples of over-reach. That, to me, is illustrative of a key difference between being aware of the research and actually understanding it. Here's what I mean: the most glaring mistake he made (other than perhaps overemphasizing certain biological aspects in a poorly worded way), in my opinion, was that he didn't consider selection bias. It's true that group sex/gender differences can influence our preferences across a host of categories and that these differences are influenced by both biological and sociocultural factors. Also true that most men and women *tend to* pursue career fields that broadly fall in line with many of these group-linked preferences, which lead them to choose certain career fields over others (there's a Dan Dennett "hard determinism" argument lying in there somewhere, I'm sure). This is irrespective of *why* those career choices happen (i.e., the influences and motivations behind them), because that's a separate issue. However, it's likely that many if not most of the women who pursue a career in computer sciences, and work for a company like Google, already belong to that smaller percentage of women who defy the group average and instead possess traits that lead them to be more interested in pursuing a career in what is often perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be a more "male-dominated" field. So, most of the group differences cited in Damore's document very likely wouldn't even apply to a very large proportion of the women at Google in the first place. He's incorrectly applying traits of the mean to describe the outliers, which ignores what makes them outliers to begin with. Agree on the percentage stuff, but I think you were off base on what you said, re men be more attracted to a given field and woman being more attracted to other fields. Again, nursing and teaching aren't good examples for this at all, imo. You rightly have just pointed to the condescension men would receive for opting to be a nurse (frankly, this is not so much the case anymore, in my experience, because the numbers are in fact shifting), but that represents something that is an impediment to overcome, in order to exercise their choice. Women faces more impediments in more fields. Many more. I don't disagree, but the first step is to get more women interested in those fields early on. And yeah, it's not as bad as it used to be for male teachers or nurses. Generation by generation it gets better as people just don't care. I agree it's something to overcome. But it's still a factor, and that cultural factor that makes it unusual may influence how younger people decide what sort of career they'd like to pursue. You can't just roll out of bed and decide you want to be a nurse, or a coder. It takes effort and education. As we go on, that'll probably even out naturally. But not by force. Whatever group trait differences there are, it's often tough to determine how much of a particular trait is influenced by biology and how much is influenced by environment and how much of a difference these traits even make when applied to a specific person in a specific context in the first place. That isn't to say that it's impossible to figure out, but it'd be incredibly difficult. If we strip away the more contentious bits from his document, his overall point seemed to be, "let's not fix possible or probable discrimination against some groups by definitely discriminating against others," and I agree completely with that particular stance. I think it's inappropriate and ultimately counterproductive to apply a "top down" solution to a problem resulting from a "bottom up" process. I think society would be much better served if companies like Google spent much more of their resources on promoting and encouraging young girls and minorities to pursue careers in STEM fields, so that the applicant pool is ultimately increased and diversified. If they wait to focus on diversity in this industry until after people have already gotten their degrees, rather than before they enter college to begin with, then we'll continue to have these issues. You'll never fairly diversify an industry by unfairly selecting from a poorly diversified applicant pool.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Aug 10, 2017 21:24:05 GMT -5
I think society would be much better served if companies like Google spent much more of their resources on promoting and encouraging young girls and minorities to pursue careers in STEM fields, so that the applicant pool is ultimately increased and diversified. If they wait to focus on diversity in this industry until after people have already gotten their degrees, rather than before they enter college to begin with, then we'll continue to have these issues. You'll never fairly diversify an industry by unfairly selecting from a poorly diversified applicant pool. This. You want to do 2 things. 1, get more girls interested in it early. For those that are. I don't think I'd like to do it, and it's not gender based. and then 2 once they apply for the job, make sure their judged on merits, not gender. Sink or swim based on talent. Women don't need a man giving her a break because they're a girl, they just need us to get out of their way and they'll take care of the rest. I'll hold their purse, go kick ass.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 10, 2017 22:53:57 GMT -5
Whatever group trait differences there are, it's often tough to determine how much of a particular trait is influenced by biology and how much is influenced by environment and how much of a difference these traits even make when applied to a specific person in a specific context in the first place. That isn't to say that it's impossible to figure out, but it'd be incredibly difficult. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 10, 2017 23:22:17 GMT -5
Side note: in a previous post, I said I'd like to ask manifesto guy how the diversity program was hurting him.
Today, I read the post of a friend of a friend on Facebook, who had this to say:
This from a 70-something retired male trial lawyer.
I think he said what I was trying to say much better. I was being much too empathetic. Woman and all that.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 10, 2017 23:29:14 GMT -5
Whatever group trait differences there are, it's often tough to determine how much of a particular trait is influenced by biology and how much is influenced by environment and how much of a difference these traits even make when applied to a specific person in a specific context in the first place. That isn't to say that it's impossible to figure out, but it'd be incredibly difficult. 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. Earlier in the thread, you were whining that Damore had tried to make the case that women were inferior to men, which is not what he said or did and thinking that he did is an opinion detached from reality. In fact, here are his exact words on that very issue: Bolding is mine, for emphasis. I had already addressed some of the science behind some of his references, but from my very first post I stated that he got some of it wrong and that I disagreed with several of his conclusions. I was also clearly talking about the research on GROUP differences, not individual differences. You then summarily dismissed everything I said and called it "bullshit" and "completely irrelevant." Not sure if you said that because you're a science denialist or you're just allergic to facts. Either way, you were 100% wrong. You then blathered on with some other unsupported claims about general human behavior, and you were completely wrong on those also, which I already pointed out. The totality of your false arguments, alternative facts, and erroneous opining were written by you with language that refers to groups (e.g., "women are..."; "Our capacity to think..."; "There is NO DIFFERENCE...in this regard...between men and women," etc.). Each of my responses and, indeed, my posts before you responded to me, were also referring to GROUP tendencies, not individuals, because the science the guy was referencing applied to GROUPS and his entire argument rested on research about GROUPS. I even explicitly pointed this out to you on page two of this thread when you were trying to argue against claims about GROUPS (based on research data about GROUPS) with your own INDIVIDUAL personal anecdote: Women are more empathetic, as though they could not possibly be empathetic and anything else. Utter nonsense. I'm extremely competitive. So much so that I'm hard pressed to let my own kids win at monopoly. But I am also very empathetic. I cry easily. I cry when other people cry. I cry at sappy movies. And guess what, I get that FROM MY DAD. Who rose to the level of executive VP of new plant operations for Florida Power & Light and built power plants in foreign countries and earned seven figures doing it. My mom never cries. Ever. FWIW. The Google guy's "manifesto" was specifically referencing group tendencies. He wasn't trying to make the case that it applied to all individuals. The entire time that I've been refuting your total lack of acceptance and understanding of scientific facts, I've been referring to GROUP differences. My previous post to this one is the only one that I have really addressed what his claims might mean on the individual level. Yet, here we are anyway, somehow, with you demonstrably lying about my position.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 10, 2017 23:51:17 GMT -5
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. You do this a lot. You either claim people haven't read something, or you suggest they should go read it again. It's an attempt to dismiss, or gaslight, someone who DISAGREES with what you've said. Which they've read. You know, you could try to state what you were *trying* to say again (especially now that your opinion has changed). You could do that, or you could lash out, as you did. He got some of it wrong. You disagreed with several of his conclusions. And most recently, you've stated that he misapplied whatever "science" you believe in (rhesus monkeys, infant gazes, etc), in the first place. His argument is invalid. And yet, you are sitting here arguing that I was still wrong and why it was totally correct for you to require me to explain why I thought his argument is invalid. Wow. That was a stunning display of what happens with you when you have no argument and cannot concede that fact. Your rhetoric is always toeing the line at personal attack. That is a reflection of a fault in your character, imo, and you should correct it. So you are defending manifesto guy. He was totally right in his facts, he just applied them wrongly. About those "facts"...there's a post sitting up there toward the top of the page, which you didn't respond to. It's my rebuttal to the "facts" of the infant gaze study. Care to respond? Yes, that was very clever. I was using anecdotal evidence. And yet, you JUST STATED that all of your "science" (rhesus monkeys, infant gazes, etc.) can't be proven to apply to any individual. It would be "very difficult" to determine whether a woman is being influenced by your "science" or by, oh, I dunno, aliens or something. Well if you're just now figuring that out, you're blind, because I saw it from paragraph #1 of the manifesto. Maybe it's because I'm a woman or something.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 11, 2017 0:04:36 GMT -5
About those "facts"...there's a post sitting up there toward the top of the page, which you didn't respond to. It's my rebuttal to the "facts" of the infant gaze study. Care to respond? No, because as you've just proven (yet again), responding to you is a total waste of time. I'll try to avoid doing so in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 11, 2017 0:11:42 GMT -5
Well that's sad, because my points regarding the infant gaze study are something I'd like to hear a response to. Oh well. About those "facts"...there's a post sitting up there toward the top of the page, which you didn't respond to. It's my rebuttal to the "facts" of the infant gaze study. Care to respond? No, because as you've just proven (yet again), responding to you is a total waste of time. I'll try to avoid doing so in the future. Point of clarification: I did not engage you in this thread; you engaged me, and I responded. Your avoidance in the future will mean not starting a conversation with me, as opposed to not responding to me. Kthxluvyabai
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 11, 2017 8:12:42 GMT -5
You do this a lot. You either claim people haven't read something, or you suggest they should go read it again. It's an attempt to dismiss, or gaslight, someone who DISAGREES with what you've said. Which they've read. You know, you could try to state what you were *trying* to say again (especially now that your opinion has changed). You could do that, or you could lash out, as you did. Sorry, but no. I've read everything you and Opty have posted, and he's right and you're wrong. Not necessarily about the topic - that's still up for debate. But about what he did and didn't say and whether you're lying about it. I realize you'll probably dismiss this because Opty and I generally have the same opinion on the topic itself and you violently disagree with that opinion, but I think I have a good record of calling out people even if I agree with them when they are spouting BS or using disingenuous tactics. You're just wrong here, and your characterization of Opty as "backtracking" and then claiming he didn't acknowledge things he pointed out earlier in the thread is extremely disingenuous. And if you're going to keep using sarcastic "Must be because I'm a woman" snarks, you are really begging for rejoinders in the same vein. Might want to knock that off.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 11, 2017 8:21:21 GMT -5
Yes, that was very clever. I was using anecdotal evidence. And yet, you JUST STATED that all of your "science" (rhesus monkeys, infant gazes, etc.) can't be proven to apply to any individual. It would be "very difficult" to determine whether a woman is being influenced by your "science" or by, oh, I dunno, aliens or something. I mean, this for example. Do you really not get that "anecdotal evidence" does not mean that individual exceptions disprove conclusions about groups? And what is with "science" in scare quotes?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 11, 2017 8:36:11 GMT -5
You do this a lot. You either claim people haven't read something, or you suggest they should go read it again. It's an attempt to dismiss, or gaslight, someone who DISAGREES with what you've said. Which they've read. You know, you could try to state what you were *trying* to say again (especially now that your opinion has changed). You could do that, or you could lash out, as you did. Sorry, but no. I've read everything you and Opty have posted, and he's right and you're wrong. Not necessarily about the topic - that's still up for debate. But about what he did and didn't say and whether you're lying about it. I realize you'll probably dismiss this because Opty and I generally have the same opinion on the topic itself and you violently disagree with that opinion, but I think I have a good record of calling out people even if I agree with them when they are spouting BS or using disingenuous tactics. You're just wrong here, and your characterization of Opty as "backtracking" and then claiming he didn't acknowledge things he pointed out earlier in the thread is extremely disingenuous. And if you're going to keep using sarcastic "Must be because I'm a woman" snarks, you are really begging for rejoinders in the same vein. Might want to knock that off. Thank you for at least mentioning that I'm not necessarily wrong in my opinion on the topic. Opty has continually psycho-analyzed me as a person, so I decided to do it back to him. The sarcastic rejoinders are due to being sick to fucking death of it. Yes, that was very clever. I was using anecdotal evidence. And yet, you JUST STATED that all of your "science" (rhesus monkeys, infant gazes, etc.) can't be proven to apply to any individual. It would be "very difficult" to determine whether a woman is being influenced by your "science" or by, oh, I dunno, aliens or something. I mean, this for example. Do you really not get that "anecdotal evidence" does not mean that individual exceptions disprove conclusions about groups? And what is with "science" in scare quotes? Yes, I do understand that anecdotes are not proof for or against theories regarding group characteristics. Neither are rhesus monkeys and infant gazes. 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. ETA2: and again, this is always how it goes with Opty. I end up talking about myself in defense of his assload of personal critiques, and all I want to do is talk about the topic. It's so fucking tiring.
|
|