Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

MRA's, Male Privilege, Men's Issues, etc.

116 replies to this topic
ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#91

Posted 09 August 2017 - 03:31 PM

BTW, here's the "sexist pig" that wrote that memo and got fired for it. Well done, Google.

  • Mister Pink, Eutyphro and Sunrise Driver like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#92

Posted 09 August 2017 - 04:20 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 09 August 2017 - 06:03 PM.

There are literally a few thousand radical feminists world wide. It is the smallest social movement in our society.

And you base that on what really? If you look at the amount of gender studies departments and the amount of women doing courses and getting degrees there, it's really a vast SJW army of women getting indoctrinated there. It's not small at all. And they are often elite and very influential women too.
 

 You probably get the impression that MRAs are a smaller community because they are useless at organising

They are a far smaller group, simply because men aren't susceptible to victimhood narratives. And men historically haven't been marginalized in the ways women have, obviously. The ways in which men are radicalized are more often on the right, and it is usually on the basis of narratives about superiority, not victimhood. And if you think you are superior, you're not prone to complaining about a lack of rights. They are also a small group because they are outcasts and barely any aspect of wider society even accepts MRA's.
 

you just like to point to studies about brain differences and then pretend feminists all deny their existence.

Because they do ignore them.
 

In actuality, they just don't care

Pretending being an expert about 'gender' and ignoring the natural differences between men and women is incredibly intellectually dishonest. Academic feminists are speudoscientific charlatans. What they do is indoctrinate young women with veiled marxism.
 

that pre-natal testosterone and a lack thereof doesn't form the basis of our social structure. 

Who said it did form 'the basis of our social structure'? What a completely irrelevant counter argument.
 

they are basically less-qualified doctors and lifestyle analysts respectively. Social intelligence does not help in either profession, at least not anymore than it hinders you, same as teaching. Teachers spend more time disciplining students than coddling them

The simple fact is that women are drawn to those jobs because it involves working with people rather than things.
 

Editors are always women, same as the mounted police. Speaking of the police, women are better represented on the NSW police force than at Google.

I could try explaining why if I analyze the job and combine it with knowledge about known personality differences between men and women, why it could be understandable women are editors more often (I don't know whether that is even true), or prefer working at the police, a more social job, than writing code all day in a room filled with dudes. But I don't really see why I would make the effort. You've already made up your mind that this is all due to discrimination in society. You can go on believing that. I don't really give a sh*t.

  • Gay Tony and Khephera like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    I'm throwin stones at you man

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#93

Posted 15 August 2017 - 03:11 AM

 

There are literally a few thousand radical feminists world wide. It is the smallest social movement in our society.

And you base that on what really?

Uhh, being in the movement? I see the same people everywhere. It's tiny. 

 

 

 

 If you look at the amount of gender studies departments and the amount of women doing courses and getting degrees there, it's really a vast SJW army of women getting indoctrinated there. It's not small at all. And they are often elite and very influential women too.

hahah okay well this menacing army of women are all liberal feminists. Or are you just using radfem to mean 'nasty women'?

 

 

 

Because they do ignore them.

Not really. Again, they just don't come up. You think these studies (that have been taken so far out of context that they're rendered meaningless) have debunked feminism or something. Literally they are just not a problem for feminism. 

 

 

 

Who said it did form 'the basis of our social structure'? What a completely irrelevant counter argument.
 

You have been saying that, repeatedly. Like do you really not see what you're doing here? The fact that women have better empathising pathways or whatever is of passing interest, it does not explain the massive divisions between men and women. 

 

 

 

 You've already made up your mind that this is all due to discrimination in society. You can go on believing that.

Actually I believe it's mostly down to socialisation. There's ample evidence that being bad at math is a way of cultivating femininity. I actually don't give a f*ck one way or the other about women's special empathising pathways, because anyone who knows anything about human cognition can tell you that such things won't shape too much of your life.

 

And now that you're saying women are just better at dealing with people generally, you surely think women must be better leaders? I don't know what's so important about women being bad at math to the extent you'd throw the rest of your gender politics in the bin. 


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#94

Posted 15 August 2017 - 04:14 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 15 August 2017 - 04:55 AM.

 

 

There are literally a few thousand radical feminists world wide. It is the smallest social movement in our society.

And you base that on what really?

Uhh, being in the movement? I see the same people everywhere. It's tiny.

The people who have the influence to spread these ideas don't stand on the street with signs. They work in important positions.Probably the people deciding these ideas should be spread are men in suits. But it is very harmful for women as individuals to believe such bitter poison.
 

hahah okay well this menacing army of women are all liberal feminists. Or are you just using radfem to mean 'nasty women'?

I use it to mean women who believe in a leftist identity politics where all forms of victimhood (a potentially infinite amount of categories) are glorified as the pinnacle of moral relevance. Most of these women are completely uninterested in economic systems, so that disqualifies them for your definition of leftism. But their morality is maybe the most extreme form of leftism, considering how much importance it gives to victimhood. A very misinformed idea of victimhood actually, concerning how it compares the privilege of males and females. But there's a form of fact avoidance and cognitive dissonance in there to pursue female supremacy, sometimes quite openly with the 'the future is female' slogan. If women do better then men, to radfems it is equality. If men do better it is oppression.

I don't want to throw too much negativity towards the term feminist, because many decent well intentioned people identify that way, so therefore radfem is better.
 

You think these studies (that have been taken so far out of context that they're rendered meaningless) have debunked feminism or something.

Yeah, they do, because they prove the opposite is true from what feminists believe. Like that there are larger, not smaller, sex differences in more gender egalitarian countries.
 

Katz-Gerrog (2000): http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4
Costa (2001): http://bit.ly/2utaTT3
Schmitt (2008): http://bit.ly/2p6nHYY
Schmitt (2016): http://bit.ly/2wMN45j
 

it does not explain the massive divisions between men and women. 

It does. It explains the different outcomes quite well. Women consistently choose 'people' in stead of 'thing' oriented jobs, with individual exceptions of course. https://www.dol.gov/...em_1020_txt.htm
https://www.research...emale-Brain.pdf
 

Actually I believe it's mostly down to socialisation. There's ample evidence that being bad at math is a way of cultivating femininity.

Well, yeah. These are the countries where women choose computer classes most often: Thailand with 55%, Guyana with 54%, Malaysia with 51%, Iran with 41%, Zimbabwe with 41%, and Mexico with 39%. Needless to say, Zimbabwe is not exactly famous for its deep commitment to gender equality. http://homepages.inf...1/ps/Gal02a.pdf

But are you opposed to cultivating femininity? The different outcomes are not strongly caused by ability. They are most strongly caused by interest.

 

And now that you're saying women are just better at dealing with people generally, you surely think women must be better leaders?

If I say 'women are bad leaders' that's unnecessarily stigmatizing. But a stereotypical leader is probably low on agreeableness and low on neuroticism. Women score higher on agreeableness and neuroticism (vulnerability to negative emotion) than men cross culturally. Men are also more assertive than women, whereas women are more gregarious. Furthermore, women judge men more on status than the other way around, which makes status more important for men from an evolutionary perspective:

Consistent with the model, it was found that (a) men (but not women) of higher social status acquire more mating partners, suggesting that male status is an important criterion in female choice.
https://link.springe...1007/BF02692154

  • Gay Tony likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    I'm throwin stones at you man

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#95

Posted 15 August 2017 - 02:25 PM

The people who have the influence to spread these ideas don't stand on the street with signs. They work in important positions.Probably the people deciding these ideas should be spread are men in suits. But it is very harmful for women as individuals to believe such bitter poison.

 

 

okay.

 

 

[bizarre rant]

I don't want to throw too much negativity towards the term feminist, because many decent well intentioned people identify that way, so therefore radfem is better.

Uhh radfem already refers to something specific. You know that. 

 

 

 

Yeah, they do, because they prove the opposite is true from what feminists believe. Like that there are larger, not smaller, sex differences in more gender egalitarian countries.

lol you know absolutely nothing about feminism, it is incredible. Women in STEM almost never comes up in feminism. It isn't the number one issue, f*cking sexual violence is, followed by domestic labour, body image issues, healthcare and a host of other things. If you made everyone in the movement accept your dressed up complementarianism surrounding women in STEM, the movement wouldn't change one iota. 

 

Those studies don't prove much either. You don't seem to understand how to apply these findings. They're to contribute to an overall picture painted by a multitude of different studies. They aren't for you to use as ammo in political debates, hence you see this google memo guy being disowned by the authors of the studies he cited. Seriously, email one of these authors and ask if they see themselves as having 'debunked feminism' and they'll probably get pretty pissed off. Especially when Schmitt only ever says social role theory is insufficient (rather than total bollocks as you seem to think) and acknowledges universal socialisation processes as being hard to untangle from biological predispositions.

 

 

 

It does. It explains the different outcomes quite well.

Oh and does it explain all the other factors that have been noted to contribute to it? Evidence of brain differences and evidence of socially constructed roles both exist and have to be considered in tandem, y'know, like the authors of these studies you love misrepresenting. 

 

 

 

But are you opposed to cultivating femininity?

Am I opposed to women purposefully doing poorly on math tests? Yeah, I am. 

 

 

 

But a stereotypical leader is probably low on agreeableness and low on neuroticism. Women score higher on agreeableness and neuroticism (vulnerability to negative emotion) than men cross culturally. Men are also more assertive than women, whereas women are more gregarious. 

 

I was referring more to leadership generally than politicians specifically. Agreeableness is good in management. Either way, your views are: men are better at things women are better at people, except where men seem to be better at people. It's gibberish.

  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#96

Posted 15 August 2017 - 03:43 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 15 August 2017 - 03:49 PM.

Women in STEM almost never comes up in feminism. It isn't the number one issue,

It is just one of the many equality of outcome subtopics they can talk about, but one of the lesser credible ones, because the postmodern university feminists say everything is equally subjective, and thus don't even respect scientific objectivity.
 

If you made everyone in the movement accept your dressed up complementarianism surrounding women in STEM, the movement wouldn't change one iota. 

The movement doesn't change because it is based on a sort of fundamentalist dogmatism.
 

hence you see this google memo guy being disowned by the authors of the studies he cited.

You just seem to repeat something sivispacem lied about. That's not true.
 

acknowledges universal socialisation processes as being hard to untangle from biological predispositions.

I would agree with that actually. I'm not claiming the science gives us crystal clear answers and solutions. The relation between socialisation and biology is very complex.
 

Oh and does it explain all the other factors that have been noted to contribute to it? Evidence of brain differences and evidence of socially constructed roles both exist and have to be considered in tandem, 

It's like you want to strawman me into the claim that culture, or social constructs in general, don't exist. What can be understood from the studies though is that many things feminists think are 'harmful stereotypes' are culturally universal, and are coherent with known biological differences.

 

Am I opposed to women purposefully doing poorly on math tests? Yeah, I am. 

I don't know if girls really purposefully fail math. But it would depend on what you consider purposefully. It rather seems that in the more developed countries there's no necessity for girls to master subjects they are not interested in in order to survive economically, so their priorities change.
 

Agreeableness is good in management.

It's actually not. Managers need to be able to tell people harsh truths and fire people that are incompetent. That comes easier if you are disagreeable.
 

Either way, your views are: men are better at things women are better at people, except where men seem to be better at people. It's gibberish.

That's gibberish, because that's not what I said. I continually pointed out it is generally not about ability. The known differences in ability between men and women are better verbal ability for women, better spatial ability for men, and a higher standard deviation in IQ for men. And the personality differences do also seem to cause certain abilities and weaknesses. The difference in choice of work between men and women is based on differences in interests. If you want to understand more about the biological cause of the difference in interests, then I recommen Baron-Cohen's work.

  • Khephera likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#97

Posted 15 August 2017 - 06:27 PM

hence you see this google memo guy being disowned by the authors of the studies he cited.

You just seem to repeat something sivispacem lied about. That's not true.
It's absolutely true. In fact, not just an author he cited but someone he quoted verbatim:

https://www.psycholo...sex-differences

Perhaps you should do one iota of due diligence before accusing people of lying?
  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#98

Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:36 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 16 August 2017 - 09:49 PM.

Perhaps you should do one iota of due diligence before accusing people of lying?

You wanted to move the discussion about your lying here, so why not. Well, let's look at your original claim:
 

Pretty much every academic subject matter expert condemned the Google manifesto as being scientifically inaccurate and misrepresenting the studies it cited- including the very authors of the studies.

Let's first look at the claim of scientific inaccuracy. You yourself have now conceded this is wrong, but you don't concede that you lied, or at least bluffed, about it before. You have conceded that part was false by changing your claim to this:


As I pointed out, the disconnect here is not that the science is inaccurate, but that the conclusions drawn from it are.

So supposedly 'conclusions' are false. You don't specify which conclusions he made are false though. But you try to substantiate that the conclusions are false by providing two articles, to also support the part of your claim that "pretty much every academic subject matter expert condemned it". If you run through the subject matter experts that I have posted, and that you have posted, actually none condemn the manifesto for scientific inaccuracy. The scientific content of the memo has widely been supported by subject matter experts actually.

Furthermore, you say 'the authors of the cited studies have condemned it for misrepresentation'. You provide an article by one author of a study mentioned in the memo as proof for this. So that claim is already untrue by you only providing one author, which is this this article:

 

https://www.psycholo...sex-differences

Well, what does this subject matter expert, who I had already read before you posted him, because I had posted him myself, say? The main theme in this article is really not condemnation, and it is completely intellectually dishonest to claim it is. But who on this forum is going to read it and find out that what you are saying is just pure rubbish anyway right? So why not keep up the bluff really? The author has a recurring question for the google writer, which is "Still, it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace." Hardly a condemnation, but a good question actually. Because, for example, the difference in neuroticism between men and women might not be that relevant. But it seems to me the memo writer mentioned it because it is just one of many differences possibly leading to different outcomes, and the ideal of equality of outcome was the main object of criticism. Asking for the relevance of certain parts of the memo certainly seems fair though.

 

The rest of the critical discussion, also in another article you posted by Adam Grant, seems concentrated on the fact that many differences between men and women are small, and that we should not treat women and men as monoliths, because in many cases the differences between the groups are smaller than between individuals within the group. The memo itself explicitly agrees with this claim "Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."

In the article that criticizes Grant the author provides a good counterargument: "Suppose I wanted to convince you that men and women had physically identical bodies. I run studies on things like number of arms, number of kidneys, size of the pancreas, caliber of the aorta, whether the brain is in the head or the chest, et cetera. 90% of these come back identical – in fact, the only ones that don’t are a few outliers like “breast size” or “number of penises”. I conclude that men and women are mostly physically similar. I can even make a statistic like “men and women are physically the same in 78% of traits”. Then I go back to the person who says women have larger breasts and men are more likely to have penises, and I say “Ha, actually studies prove men and women are mostly physically identical! I sure showed you, you sexist!”"

So let's summarize fact checking your claim:

 

Pretty much every academic subject matter expert condemned the Google manifesto as being scientifically inaccurate and misrepresenting the studies it cited- including the very authors of the studies.

The claim is overwhelmingly false. Firstly, the scientific content was widely supported by subject matter experts discussing the memo, secondly, the author mentioned in the memo, who reflected on the memo, nowhere claimed he had been misrepresented. He had some relevant comments and questions though, that were rather nuanced. He also came out in support for one of the most significant arguments in the memo namely: "Now, treating people as dichotomous sexes is exactly what many affirmative action policies do."

 

Now my claim was that you lied. You seem to have at least bluffed, and then kept bluffing when being pointed to being wrong, to the point of so consciously bluffing with falsehoods that it qualifies as lying actually. So there you go. A diligent effort at pointing out how you have been lying and bluffing.

 

I actually wanted to expand and elaborate on how you have been consistently dishonestly misrepresenting me for the sake of performance of virtue, and just all round dishonest sophistry, but by now I've gotten too bored to continue with that actually.

Well, for fun, let's discuss this:
 

More generally, though- and not that it's at all relevant to this topic- the narrative falls apart when you look at societies where the cultural association between men and technology is nonexistent or diminished (like India and Malaysia) and note that gender representation is much more even. I think this is something you've quietly conceded yourself.

Because it is in fact on topic. The claim that this makes 'the narrative', I'm unsure what narrative specifically, fall apart, is because you are looking at it through your peculiar cognitive bias. What I have pointed out many times now, is the relevant difference in ability and interest. The biological evidence for the fact that pre natal testosterone causes male typical interests is very well established by Baron-Cohen. That does not mean that women have less ability at male typical interests. Like I pointed out in the previous comment:

The known differences in ability between men and women are better verbal ability for women, better spatial ability for men, and a higher standard deviation in IQ for men. And the personality differences do also seem to cause certain abilities and weaknesses. The difference in choice of work between men and women is based on differences in interests. If you want to understand more about the biological cause of the difference in interests, then I recommend Baron-Cohen's work.

What is an obvious speculation is that in poorer countries like India and Malaysia women will more often act on economic necessity than in Western countries. That's a reasonable speculation, and the point that Melchior made that "socialisation processes are hard to untangle from biological predispositions" is also relevant. Most likely India and Malaysia still generally conform to gender typical occupation choices, and women are almost all nurses for instance. That's very unlikely to be different.

  • Khephera likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    I'm throwin stones at you man

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#99

Posted 16 August 2017 - 09:48 AM

David Schmitt does not agree with you or the author of the google memo. He said right there and black and white that if you are trying to apply his work to make a political point, you are wrong to do so, which is exactly what I've been trying to explain to you. He. Is. Not. Giving. You. Ammunition. Trying to make a point about men and women's overall personalities using his work is like "trying to perform surgery with a hatchet axe." He literally says that any universal differences he's uncovered are so small as to be socially irrelevant. 

 

Funny you would accuse someone else of 'peculiar cognitive bias' when you are obviously filtering all of this evidence through your own hugely specific views on sex difference, and won't stop no matter how many times its pointed out to you even by the people whose work you're twisting. 

 

 

 

 

Now my claim was that you lied. You seem to have at least bluffed, and then kept bluffing when being pointed to being wrong, to the point of so consciously bluffing with falsehoods that it qualifies as lying actually. 

I don't understand. He said the authors of the cited studies came out against the google memo... and they did. It's not just nuanced musing. They didn't say "he's a stupid sexist prick, f*ck him and his memo" although nobody claimed they did. 

 

 

 

 I'm unsure what narrative specifically

Your very fleshed our and very insane narrative where divisions between men and women are all driven by brain chemistry to point that feminism has been debunked.

 

For your perusal: 

 

https://digest.bps.o...e-someone-else/

 

https://www.scienced...50226110454.htm

 

https://www.usnews.c...-in-math-hiring

 

https://apcentral.co...ity-achievement

 

So if concerns about a lack of women in STEM have been 'debunked' how do reconcile this evidence? 

  • sivispacem likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#100

Posted 16 August 2017 - 01:20 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 16 August 2017 - 01:38 PM.

David Schmitt does not agree with you or the author of the google memo. He said right there and black and white that if you are trying to apply his work to make a political point, you are wrong to do so,

He actually didn't even once use the word 'political' in the entire article, but I see you are also out to bend the truth here to the point of lying. Why should I even keep engaging with your nonsense and bad arguments when there is not a single shred of honest intention there? You've continually completely failed to address my arguments but insist they are 'insane'. Well, good for you that you think that. But why should I really give a f*ck actually? Come back when you discover the ability to be honest.
 

So if concerns about a lack of women in STEM have been 'debunked' how do reconcile this evidence? 

http://news.cornell....culty-positions

 

So there's evidence making the opposite point as well.

  • Khephera likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#101

Posted 16 August 2017 - 02:29 PM

Let's first look at the claim of scientific inaccuracy. You yourself have now conceded this is wrong, but you don't concede that you lied, or at least bluffed, about it before.

I think you've misunderstood me. By saying the issue isn't the science but the conclusions drawn from it, I'm not conceding the science itself is right- because according to a variety of subjects natter experts who I'll gladly cite when I'm not posting from my mobile, much of it is incomplete, outdated or contradicted by other studies. Perhaps I should have been clearer in that respect

So supposedly 'conclusions' are false. You don't specify which conclusions he made are false though.

I'd assumed this was fairly obvious given the context and focus on the memo- the conclusions that women generally have less aptitude in management and IT roles because of their genetics. Y'know, the main crux of just about every rebuttal of it.

If you run through the subject matter experts that I have posted, and that you have posted, actually none condemn the manifesto for scientific inaccuracy.

And exactly how many of them have commented directly on it at all? This is a red herring.

Pretty f*cking rich coming from someone making every-other-line bullsh*t claims about intellectual dishonesty who at the same time intentionally misrepresents the conclusions his critics through some bizarre cognitive bias mental gymnastics; who persistently accuses other of semantic pedantry then bases his entire rebuttal on the absence of a single word in an academic response.

The scientific content of the memo has widely been supported by subject matter experts actually.

This is a pretty questionable statement, though I suppose it depends how you define "widely supported". It's also been "widely critiqued", but I get the impression you'd rather just sweep that inconvenient truth under the rug.

Furthermore, you say 'the authors of the cited studies have condemned it for misrepresentation'

Which, even if I had cited only one author, which I didn't, would still be true.

The main theme in this article is really not condemnation

So "trying to perform surgery with a hatchet axe" isn't a condemnation? Right-o.

In the article that critisizes Grant the author provides a good counterargument:

I don't see how this counterargument is relevant to the actual academic rebuttals made against either the conclusions reached or the general applicability or validity of the studies cited. In fact I'd go as far as to say that it totally misrepresents them.

So there's evidence making the opposite point as well.

You are aware that academia isn't representative of the business environment, aren't you?
  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#102

Posted 16 August 2017 - 03:25 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 17 August 2017 - 03:40 AM.

 

Let's first look at the claim of scientific inaccuracy. You yourself have now conceded this is wrong, but you don't concede that you lied, or at least bluffed, about it before.

I think you've misunderstood me.

No, not really. What you said was overwhelmingly false and utter bluff.
 

the conclusions that women generally have less aptitude in management and IT roles because of their genetics.

It wasn't really a conclusion. It was a suggestion. He entertained the possibility that the differences in outcome might be caused by innate differences, and then he provided evidence for it. He intended to critique possibly illegal affirmative action programs with it internally in google. It was then leaked by someone else working at google, and then he got an avalanche of fake outrage aimed at him, and got called a 'sexist' 'chauvinist' by you among others.
 

And exactly how many of them have commented directly on it at all?

I think I've seen and read about six. If six subject matter experts don't condemn it for scientific inaccuracy, then that's relevant for whether it is scientifically accurate.
 

This is a pretty questionable statement, though I suppose it depends how you define "widely supported". It's also been "widely critiqued",

As it turns out, scientists and cheerleaders are not very alike. Scientists always critique really.
 

 

Furthermore, you say 'the authors of the cited studies have condemned it for misrepresentation'

Which, even if I had cited only one author, which I didn't, would still be true.

No, it is false, because you came up with only one author of a study mentioned in the memo, and he never claimed to have been misrepresented. But you should just stop lying about it really.
 

So "trying to perform surgery with a hatchet axe" isn't a condemnation? Right-o.

Which was in the context of judging an individual on the basis of certain average tendencies of the group of the individual, something which the memo explicitly condemned, as I posted in my previous comment. But I have to repost everything ten times because you are not even remotely intent on being honest. The memo explicitly condemns judging individuals on stereotypes. But for the sake of clarity it was good of the author to point that out another time.
 

I don't see how this counterargument is relevant to the actual academic rebuttals made against either the conclusions reached or the general applicability or validity of the studies cited.

It's relevant, because concerning small differences between men and women that might change certain outcomes in society, it is quite besides the point to respond with "Yeah, but men and women are actually very similar you sexist chauvinist!" That's certainly pretty disingenuous.
 

You are aware that academia isn't representative of the business environment, aren't you?

Well, Melchior's comment eventually made me look into studies of grading biases against girls and boys, and it is a pretty interesting and complicated subject. I am seriously interested actually in to what extent the difference in outcomes are caused by stereotyping and biases in society. But I also rather agree with the suggestion Damore made.

There are several suggestions for what drives women away from subjects such as math. One could be the fact that it is a male dominated environment, and that makes it inhospitable for women. Another is stereotyping and the way society reinforces stereotypes. And a final one, thing oriented vs people oriented thinking induced by hormones to me seems the one that has the strongest empirical evidence behind it, but that doesn't mean I think the others are unlikely to be a factor as well.

Another serious one for math though, is that there is evidence women are innately less good at spatial ability, which is rather important in math and other technical subjects.

because according to a variety of subjects natter experts who I'll gladly cite when I'm not posting from my mobile, much of it is incomplete, outdated or contradicted by other studies.

So are you sure you're not lying or bluffing this time? I'm not so sure. That the memo is 'incomplete', that seems quite likely to me. It is not up to the standards of being publishable. But that wasn't what it was intended for anyway really.

  • Khephera likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    I'm throwin stones at you man

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#103

Posted 16 August 2017 - 04:19 PM

 

David Schmitt does not agree with you or the author of the google memo. He said right there and black and white that if you are trying to apply his work to make a political point, you are wrong to do so,

He actually didn't even once use the word 'political' in the entire article, but I see you are also out to bend the truth here to the point of lying.

He made a much broader comment about not applying his work to make a point about men and women's overall personalities. So in terms of politics, relationships, whatever. We're talking about politics though, so my wording was appropriate. 

 

 

 

Why should I even keep engaging with your nonsense and bad arguments when there is not a single shred of honest intention there?

I should be saying this to you tbh. 

 

 

 

You've continually completely failed to address my arguments but insist they are 'insane'.

Which points remain unanswered? You posted studies, nobody disagree with their content but continually point out that they have nothing to do with your point, or with feminism generally. In fact it's you who has continually failed to address my point that these findings are not a problem for feminism. Rather you just repeat ad nauseum that they are without demonstrating it. 

 

 

 

So there's evidence making the opposite point as well.

See you're doing it right now. You didn't respond to any of the articles apart from one about women being passed over for STEM positions, and you responded to that by pointing out that women are favoured in a specific role: assistant teaching positions. 


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#104

Posted 16 August 2017 - 04:42 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 16 August 2017 - 04:42 PM.

He made a much broader comment about not applying his work to make a point about men and women's overall personalities. So in terms of politics, relationships, whatever. We're talking about politics though, so my wording was appropriate. 

Yes, and the memo explicitly agrees "Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."

That's actually the third time I've had to point to that aspect of the meno. I'm seriously starting to wonder if you and sivispacem seriously read it or just jumped the fake outrage bandwagon. It seems like the fake outrage bandwagon, especially considering the first initial reaction by sivispacem included a bluff claim of Damore "not presenting any real evidence", when the memo is stacked with evidence. Maybe before virtue signalling through condemnation, show a little 'due dilligence' as sivispacem calls it, and invest some time in reading and taking it seriously.
 

In fact it's you who has continually failed to address my point that these findings are not a problem for feminism.

The fact that 'gender stereotypes' are culturally universal, are coherent with innate biological tendencies, and become larger, not smaller, in egalitarian societies, utterly destroys the base assumptions of most feminists.
 

See you're doing it right now. You didn't respond to any of the articles apart from one about women being passed over for STEM positions, and you responded to that by pointing out that women are favoured in a specific role: assistant teaching positions. 

It's a relevant study proving the exact opposite point. But I'm unsure why you are expecting me to comprehensively evaluate all that is known about discrimination and stereotyping. I've never denied it is a possible factor. I've simply pointed to the strength of empirical evidence for innate differences between men and women.

  • Khephera likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    I'm throwin stones at you man

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#105

Posted 16 August 2017 - 04:48 PM Edited by Melchior, 16 August 2017 - 04:51 PM.

It's a relevant study proving the exact opposite point. But I'm unsure why you are expecting me to comprehensively evaluate all that is known about discrimination and stereotyping. I've never denied it is a possible factor. I've simply pointed to the strength of empirical evidence for innate differences between men and women.

 

The fact that 'gender stereotypes' are culturally universal, are coherent with innate biological tendencies, and become larger, not smaller, in egalitarian societies, utterly destroys the base assumptions of most feminists.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#106

Posted 16 August 2017 - 05:11 PM

are two comments that are mutually coherent..

  • Khephera likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    I'm throwin stones at you man

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#107

Posted 16 August 2017 - 05:42 PM

You claim you don't deny that women are discriminated against in STEM and elsewhere but also think the evidence of marginal biological influence debunks feminism? You also put stereotypes in quotes, then proceeded to use the term yourself. 

 

It's there in black and white that there are systematic barriers to women in STEM and that women are heavily influenced by the stereotypes, so these studies haven't even undermined feminism or the specific grievance of women's lack of representation in STEM fields, let alone debunked it. I mean, you are literally claiming that if you have a concern about women in STEM, you're wrong. 


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#108

Posted 16 August 2017 - 05:53 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 16 August 2017 - 05:54 PM.

I mean, you are literally claiming that if you have a concern about women in STEM, you're wrong. 

I'm rather claiming that if you are expecting equal outcomes to ever arise through 'overthrowing the patriarchy' you're beyond delusional. In the prosperous egalitarian countries many differnces in social outcomes between men and women are larger than in developing countries. That is especially true in STEM, as has been pointed out. Russia actually has the highest percentage of women in senior management positions, eventhough it is a rampantly sexist traditionalist culture. That makes no sense at all in the sphere of feminist dogma.

"Despite considerable efforts by governments and campaigners across the world's best-developed economies to ensure best practice they continue to lag behind emerging markets in (the diversity) area," Lagerberg said.
http://www.reuters.c...s-idUSKCN0WA023

 

Isn't that rather peculiar?


Melchior
  • Melchior

    I'm throwin stones at you man

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#109

Posted 16 August 2017 - 06:30 PM Edited by Melchior, 16 August 2017 - 06:33 PM.

 

I mean, you are literally claiming that if you have a concern about women in STEM, you're wrong. 

I'm rather claiming that if you are expecting equal outcomes to ever arise through 'overthrowing the patriarchy' you're beyond delusional.

Ah, because as Dworkins herself said "women will not be free until they represent exactly 50% of STEM graduates." Maybe, in a rational, equal society, men will study math more. Who cares? It's not a problem for feminism, because we know that there are barriers to women in STEM that have to be smashed. Not that it's proven that men and women wouldn't ever represent an equal amount of STEM graduates. That really isn't what to take home from these studies. 

 

 

 

That makes no sense at all in the sphere of feminist dogma.

It makes perfect sense. As women gain a better position in society but are still socialised into femininity it adapts in various ways. Femininity now includes the job you do, where in other countries femininity is synonymous with not working outside the home; basically, women in other countries have no reason not to take up math, they show their femininity with babies or whatever, and being a historian is no less threatening to men than being an engineer. Not to mention, the West is a unique society, not simply a further along version of other societies. I mean, women in the West have worse body image issues, does that mean its a permanent part of their minds? 

 

Honestly the fact that other countries don't associate math with masculinity is a much bigger problem for your views than mine. I thought this would be obvious. 

  • Tchuck and sivispacem like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#110

Posted 16 August 2017 - 06:40 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 16 August 2017 - 06:43 PM.

 Not to mention, the West is a unique society, not simply a further along version of other societies. I mean, women in the West have worse body image issues, does that mean its a permanent part of their minds? 

So is it not clear that the other societies, as they are developing, will develop the same pathologies, and will start being more obsessed with beauty standards in stead of mere survival as well? In China that is already clearly happening. You see an increasing obsession with plastic surgery there.
 

Honestly the fact that other countries don't associate math with masculinity is a much bigger problem for your views than mine.

Because you assume the discrepancy is caused by a cultural factor, because no matter how often I make the argument for an alternative explanation, you don't care, because you're ideologically driven.

What is an obvious speculation is that in poorer countries like India and Malaysia women will more often act on economic necessity than in Western countries. That's a reasonable speculation, and the point that Melchior made that "socialisation processes are hard to untangle from biological predispositions" is also relevant. Most likely India and Malaysia still generally conform to gender typical occupation choices, and women are almost all nurses for instance. That's very unlikely to be different.

Do you have evidence that in their culture math is seen as more feminine? That's an assumption. The logical explanation is that in developing countries women will study any subject that will lift them out of poverty, regardless of whether they are interested in it, because as I've repeated over and over, regarding math women are only behind men in a small amount of spatial ability. But generally women are as talented at math as men. Though the increased verbal ability of women makes women prone to developing skills in the humanities.

The argument about interests I've actually made a hundred times by now, so I won't repeat it.

  • Khephera likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    I'm throwin stones at you man

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#111

Posted 16 August 2017 - 06:57 PM

 

 Not to mention, the West is a unique society, not simply a further along version of other societies. I mean, women in the West have worse body image issues, does that mean its a permanent part of their minds? 

So is it not clear that the other societies, as they are developing, will develop the same pathologies, and will start being more obsessed with beauty standards in stead of mere survival as well?

Well no, because the problem has become worse within the West. 

 

Now let's be clear, you're arguing that women's body image issues are a natural, permanent part of their minds that have been historically marginalised by more immediate concerns? Ridiculous. 

 

 

 

Do you have evidence that in their culture math is seen as more feminine. 

Well no it's seen as neutral. Just because there is no particular opposition to women doing something doesn't mean it's seen as feminine? 

 

 

 

The logical explanation is that in developing countries women will study any subject that will lift them out of poverty, regardless of whether they are interested in it

Well this might explain women entering business*, but not STEM. It doesn't even resemble an explanation, and in fact only suggests a reason for women studying the subjects rather than entering the field. It seems to show that if women do study math- because of economic necessity- they are much more likely to continue on with it as a career which undermines your point and not feminism. 

 

*another (much better) explanation would be that Japan's elite is old money where as 'emerging markets' have less established rules for the upper class. 

 

 

 

no matter how often I make the argument for an alternative explanation, you don't care, because you're ideologically driven.

I could say the same to you since you're still claiming that greater stereotypical behaviour in the West is a problem for feminism while ignoring the explanation I gave which was grounded entirely in feminist theory.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#112

Posted 16 August 2017 - 07:08 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 16 August 2017 - 07:09 PM.

Now let's be clear, you're arguing that women's body image issues are a natural, permanent part of their minds that have been historically marginalised by more immediate concerns? Ridiculous.

Ugh.. You're being really uniquely stupid. What I am saying is that body image issues are a side effect of a level of material comfort reached in a society. Someone who is starving has other priorities.
 

Well no it's seen as neutral.

So do you have evidence it is being seen as less masculine, and more neutral, or is that a claim based on how you are ideologically driven?
 

Well this might explain women entering business*, but not STEM

Yeah it is an explanation for STEM, obviously. The amount of lucrative jobs available through STEM is incredible, especially in developing countries. That's a very concrete economic incentive, a far better explanation than your evidenceless cultural claim that is based on your specific religious social justice orthodoxy.
 

the explanation I gave which was grounded entirely in feminist theory*.

*Feminist dogma completely unsupported by evidence.

  • Khephera likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    I'm throwin stones at you man

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#113

Posted 16 August 2017 - 07:38 PM

 

Now let's be clear, you're arguing that women's body image issues are a natural, permanent part of their minds that have been historically marginalised by more immediate concerns? Ridiculous.

Ugh.. You're being really uniquely stupid. What I am saying is that body image issues are a side effect of a level of material comfort reached in a society. Someone who is starving has other priorities.

Jesus. Your whole point rests on the idea that if the West seems more stereotypical re:gender than other countries, those differences must be natural. Then I asked if you therefore think women's body image issues must be a natural part of their brains, since the West is apparently incapable of inflicting new hardships on women.

 

 

 

So do you have evidence it is being seen as less masculine, and more neutral, or is that a claim based on how you are ideologically driven?

If you recall I'm not actually making a point about perceptions of women in STEM in the third world, you asked for proof that it was seen as 'more feminine' which makes no sense. I'll rephrase: it would be seen as more neutral.

 

 

 specific religious social justice orthodoxy.

lol! You are the one with the hugely specific view here. 

 

 

 

*Feminist dogma completely unsupported by evidence.

If that's your idea of 'dogma' then you are wasting your own time as well as everybody elses'. The only one peddling dogma here is you: explicitly religious dogma in fact, just in a new twisted evopsych package. Anyway I wasn't claiming to have provided an Earth shattering analysis, I was pointing out the absurdity of continually claiming that sex differences increasing in the West is a problem for feminism even when its demonstrated right in front you how this fact fits into feminist analysis. 

 

 

 

Yeah it is an explanation for STEM, obviously. The amount of lucrative jobs available through STEm is incredible, especially in developing countries. 

Perhaps, although I still don't think this is as groundbreaking as you think it is. The vast majority of women being educated in these countries aren't coming from grinding poverty, are they? It's a very simplistic explanation. Honestly I'd be surprised at you thinking its substantial enough to handwave the point away, but you've demonstrated time and time again that your brain turns to mush where women and their issues are concerned. 

  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#114

Posted 16 August 2017 - 09:08 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 16 August 2017 - 09:09 PM.

 

 

Now let's be clear, you're arguing that women's body image issues are a natural, permanent part of their minds that have been historically marginalised by more immediate concerns? Ridiculous.

Ugh.. You're being really uniquely stupid. What I am saying is that body image issues are a side effect of a level of material comfort reached in a society. Someone who is starving has other priorities.

Jesus. Your whole point rests on the idea that if the West seems more stereotypical re:gender than other countries, those differences must be natural. Then I asked if you therefore think women's body image issues must be a natural part of their brains, since the West is apparently incapable of inflicting new hardships on women.

Those issues naturally arise in a consumer culture with a high level of material well being. It's not a conspiracy by the patriarchy to hurt women, if that is what you are intending to argue.
 

how this fact fits into feminist analysis. 

I thought you took materialism seriously? Then the analysis of how cultural phenomena and societal differences arise through economic incentives should be right in your alley. So don't come up with "but the West conspired to make math masculine, to undermine women" or some utterly inane argument. In the West we love it if women do math actually. Anyone choosing STEM is great for the economy, and one thing we love is economic growth. But women just don't choose it as often as in the developing world, because they don't have to make choices based on economic necessity and survival out of poverty. Western women are perfectly talented at mathematics, but women and men have different interests, and different preferences by nature.
 

The vast majority of women being educated in these countries aren't coming from grinding poverty, are they?

In India and Malaysia? Yeah they are. They are coming out of very harsh poverty. The type of poverty that doesn't exist in the Western world.

  • Khephera likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#115

Posted 4 weeks ago

Euty, I was in two minds about responding given your insistence in descending into ad hominems, but insults aside I'm genuinely interested in this discussion so I hope this meaty response should dissuade you from continuing down that path and instead addressing some of the points I tried, but for reasons of terseness and general lack of time, clearly failed to satisfactorily make.

No, not really. What you said was overwhelmingly false and utter bluff.

Not at all. Perhaps it's the admitted lack if clarity, perhaps it's a reading comprehension issue. But I've fundamentally said nothing false. My statements on the lack of validity in the conclusions are well supported by subject matter experts, such as the two cited contributors I've already noted, and criticisms of the actual science gave been made by academics. It doesn't take much research to start picking apart the assertions of scientific validity, though as is often the case the speed if scientific progression in the subject often outstrips common understanding.

Simon Baron-Cohen's work "The Essential Differences" features prominently in the Google manifesto and is used to furnish the notion of there being fundamental, demonstrable, from-birth differences in male and female brains. This was derived from observation of day-old babies' interactions with animate versus inanimate objects.

Problem is, nobody has been able to repeat this study. Not even Baron-Cohen himself. And that's aside from a whole litany of other issues.

Cohen's study is relatively unique in that it represented a conscientious effort to try and separate the genetic factors from the influence of external forces- notably parents- who behaviourally reinforce gender-based behavioural norms. That's acknowledged, including by many authors of reports cited by both you and the memo author, as being an inescapable variable. But it's casually glossed over in both the memo authors narrative and yours.

It wasn't really a conclusion. It was a suggestion. He entertained the possibility that the differences in outcome might be caused by innate differences, and then he provided evidence for it.

His "suggestions" read as begging the question to me, and the hypothesis he presents as a valid explanation for these observable trends fails to stand up to critique. Melc has already cited a number of discrepancies in participation across different nations with different cultural and socioeconomic circumstances, which I'll come to in a bit, and I've already cited the jarring discrepancy between academic participation and workplace participation across the sector. Another counterargument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of physical brain characteristics that manifests itself in the Google memo and in your own arguments.

Contrary to the suggestions otherwise, recent large-scale studies show the human brain is typically not comprised solely or predominantly of "male" and "female" characteristics but as a mosaic of different characteristics from each gender. In fact, according to MRI studies conducted on 5,500 brains, those defined overwhelmingly by a single set of gender attributed characteristics are vanishingly rare.

There are other factors at play too, such as the maliability and plasticity of the human brain. Many of the characteristics strongly associated with the "male" brain in previous studies (such as a propensity towards better spatial awareness, or towards complex and varied tasks over repetitive and simpler ones) have been shown to be defined far more significantly by environmental factors than genetics. This itself raises the question of to what degree many of these traits are actually inate rather than learned. For instance, we know from scientific studies on the subject that activities commonly associated with and primarily practiced by men, such as playing computer games, result in demonstrable improvements in traits which are commonly seen as make such as spatial reasoning. Studies have shown that these differences can be reversed fairly trivially through engagement with these activities.

We also know that stereotype reinforcement can play a very significant role in affecting performance. In studies in which women were exposed to negative stereotypes about spacial analysis capability versus men, they performed poorly compared to a control group. Conversely, those exposed to positive information on female spatial analysis capability performed substantially better. It seems that the simple nullification of the existing common stereotypes is enough to noticeably increase performance in these areas.

I think I've seen and read about six.

Care to cite them?

Which was in the context of judging an individual on the basis of certain average tendencies of the group of the individual, something which the memo explicitly condemned

Again, Melc has already addressed this but I'll add the below. It's simultaneously condemned and then embraced. You're not wrong in pointing out that Damore did explicitly condemn judging individuals based on average tendencies, but Damore also commits this faux pas in his own comments. In fact it's the main fundamental issue that most people seem to have taken with in his response- the extrapolation of trends he suggests are biological as satisfactory factors explaining differences between make and female participation.

It's relevant, because concerning small differences between men and women that might change certain outcomes in society, it is quite besides the point to respond with "Yeah, but men and women are actually very similar you sexist chauvinist!" That's certainly pretty disingenuous.

It would be if it were taking place, but I don't actually see it being made as a scientific argument anywhere.

And a final one, thing oriented vs people oriented thinking induced by hormones to me seems the one that has the strongest empirical evidence behind it

I don't think this assertion has anywhere near as much empirical evidence supporting it as you seem to suggest. In fact I'd go as far as to say as it's a fundamental misinterpretation of much of the research on the subject.

I think I'm correct in summarising much of the research on the subject as concluding that correlations of various biological characteristics with observed traits in preference and propensity can be observed. This is something I don't think many people will disagree with. But the majority of these papers stop short of asserting a direct causal link between the preference/propensity and the biological characteristics. This isn't to say that this is not a factor- again, I don't think anyone has asserted that there is absolutely no influence from biological characteristics that may or may not be strongly affiliated with gender. It's simply an observation that most of these papers stop well short of asserting direct causal links.

Because you assume the discrepancy is caused by a cultural factor

There are definitely cultural factors driving women away from the industry in the West, though. You've conceded so yourself, do it isn't really up for debate. Conversely I see no actual evidence that financial drivers are more significant than social factors in driving increased participation elsewhere in the world. The available evidence certainly correlates more strongly with the narrative Melc proposes than the one you do- to my eye, at least.

In India and Malaysia? Yeah they are. They are coming out of very harsh poverty. The type of poverty that doesn't exist in the Western world.

I'm not sure about this assertion at all. I really don't think that the majority of female computer science employees in India and Malaysia are coming from grinding poverty in the wider context of these societies. Typically they require either some kind of formal (read purchased) qualification (from foundation up to degree level) or at least experience in their use. I don't see the rural grinding poor having access to either of these, so can you cite any evidence of these workers being primarily from economically deprived communitues
  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#116

Posted 4 weeks ago Edited by Eutyphro, 4 weeks ago.

Euty, I was in two minds about responding given your insistence in descending into ad hominems,

It's not an insult or ad hominem to consider the insistence on misrepresentation and repeating obvious falsehoods 'bluffing' or 'lying'. I'm rather careful with drawing conclusions about disingenuous intention, but in certain cases they can be apparent. Especially if you repeat the falsehood without evidence after evidence has been asked multiple times.
 

addressing some of the points I tried, but for reasons of terseness and general lack of time, clearly failed to satisfactorily make.

'Terseness' or 'lack of time' are not sufficient motives to insist on falsehoods actually.
 

My statements on the lack of validity in the conclusions are well supported by subject matter experts, such as the two cited contributors I've already noted

Yeah, well, see, we've gone over that. You completely misrepresent articles, and you make completely bogus claims about how the content of such articles relate to the claims you make.
 

criticisms of the actual science gave been made by academics. It doesn't take much research to start picking apart the assertions of scientific validity

Before we start looking into the articles you're going to provide, and have a potentially interesting discussion about them, we should first note that the mere fact that a scientific claim has been critiqued by another scientist, doesn't make it 'scientifically inaccurate'. Especially not if you provide an article in which the author admits to the fact that the scientific consensus is on the side of the person she is critiquing. "So, to clarify the baseline of this debate: Baron-Cohen is in the company of the majority."

As it turns out, you are not in a position to judge the claims of Baron-Cohen are 'scientifically inaccurate'. That is leaving aside your claim of 'misrepresented in the memo', which is even more evidently bogus.
 

Simon Baron-Cohen's work "The Essential Differences" features prominently in the Google manifesto and is used to furnish the notion of there being fundamental, demonstrable, from-birth differences in male and female brains. This was derived from observation of day-old babies' interactions with animate versus inanimate objects. 

And a wealth of other scientific empirical information.
 

Problem is, nobody has been able to repeat this study. Not even Baron-Cohen himself. And that's aside from a whole litany of other issues.

 
Cohen's study is relatively unique in that it represented a conscientious effort to try and separate the genetic factors from the influence of external forces- notably parents- who behaviourally reinforce gender-based behavioural norms. That's acknowledged, including by many authors of reports cited by both you and the memo author, as being an inescapable variable. But it's casually glossed over in both the memo authors narrative and yours. 

I think you're really attacking a strawman of Baron-Cohen, and so does Lesley J. Rogers who you have pointed to. To understand why, let's look at what she says in this book at page 27 https://books.google...epage&q&f=false

She seperates 'unitary explantions', and 'interactive explanations'. Unitary explanation 'reduce behaviour to genes'. Interactive explanations meanwhile, understand behaviour through a combination of 'experience, genes, and hormones'. She then argues Baron-Cohen provides such a 'unitary explanation'. The issue with this argument is that Baron-Cohen has never argued that all sex differences in behavior are caused by hormones and genetics in a 'unitary' way. Baron-Cohen hasn't argued that in social isolation, or completely different socialization, the innate differences will cause the exact same behaviours.

In fact, the idea that human beings as organisms need socialization to develop many of the traits that are 'masculine' or 'feminine' is a truism. But what I think is the philosophical contention is the idea that culturally universal tendencies in socialization can be seperated from nature. What Baron-Cohen argues for is the fact that we treat boys and girls differently is because they are different, and that is a very credible argument to make. It's strange for Lesley J. Rogers to accuse Baron-Cohen of 'unitary explanations', when she herself continually intends to argue that the mere existence of evidence for the fact that differences in socialization can lead to different outcomes overrides explanations through known innate causes.

The very effort of doing research with day-old babies is a rejection of the 'unitary' idea that socialization is irrelevant.
 

His "suggestions" read as begging the question to me

It's not really 'begging the question' when there is a vast corpus of research coherent with your claim, that you reference a part of.
 

Contrary to the suggestions otherwise, recent large-scale studies show the human brain is typically not comprised solely or predominantly of "male" and "female" characteristics but as a mosaic of different characteristics from each gender. In fact, according to MRI studies conducted on 5,500 brains, those defined overwhelmingly by a single set of gender attributed characteristics are vanishingly rare.

Who exactly made a 'suggestion otherwise'? The research you are pointing us to explictly admits the existence of sex differences in the brain. The theory of Baron-Cohen is not based on a pure form of essentialism, which would be unscientific. A family semblance understanding of brain sex differences is perfectly coherent with what Baron-Cohen is pointing out. You are attacking essentialism, which neither me, nor the memo writer, nor Baron-Cohen has defended.
 

Many of the characteristics strongly associated with the "male" brain in previous studies (such as a propensity towards better spatial awareness, or towards complex and varied tasks over repetitive and simpler ones) have been shown to be defined far more significantly by environmental factors than genetics. This itself raises the question of to what degree many of these traits are actually inate rather than learned. For instance, we know from scientific studies on the subject that activities commonly associated with and primarily practiced by men, such as playing computer games, result in demonstrable improvements in traits which are commonly seen as make such as spatial reasoning. Studies have shown that these differences can be reversed fairly trivially through engagement with these activities.

You are making a very simplistic and unsophisticated argument. Nobody argued that spatial ability can't be improved upon through learning, or that it is a sort of immanent unchangeable innate quality. That does not negate that there is a wealth of empirical information for both animals and people proving the relation between androgens and spatial reasoning, or systematizing in general.
 

Care to cite them?

https://web.archive....ntists-respond/

Four of them can be found there. The fifth one is Dr. Jordan Peterson, who's interview with Damore has been posted at the top of this page. The subject matter experts all come out in favor of the memo. The most reserved is David P Schmitt, who we've already talked about, but he agrees in important respects by saying "now, treating people as dichotomous sexes is exactly what many affirmative action policies do" and "At the same time, should we be able to openly discuss and be informed by some of the real psychological sex differences that might account for variation in men’s and women’s workplace performance? In the right context, I vote yes to that, too."

In fact it's the main fundamental issue that most people seem to have taken with in his response- the extrapolation of trends he suggests are biological as satisfactory factors explaining differences between make and female participation.

You're continually portaying him as far less reserved than he in actuality is.

I think I'm correct in summarising much of the research on the subject as concluding that correlations of various biological characteristics with observed traits in preference and propensity can be observed. This is something I don't think many people will disagree with. But the majority of these papers stop short of asserting a direct causal link between the preference/propensity and the biological characteristics. This isn't to say that this is not a factor- again, I don't think anyone has asserted that there is absolutely no influence from biological characteristics that may or may not be strongly affiliated with gender. It's simply an observation that most of these papers stop well short of asserting direct causal links.

The data proving the correlation is overwhelming though. Proving absolute causation between what happens in the brain and behaviour is rather difficult, because the brain is the most vastly complicated thing we know of. But you are free to be a Humean skeptic about how the brain causes and not just correlates with behaviour.

There are definitely cultural factors driving women away from the industry in the West, though. You've conceded so yourself, do it isn't really up for debate. Conversely I see no actual evidence that financial drivers are more significant than social factors in driving increased participation elsewhere in the world. The available evidence certainly correlates more strongly with the narrative Melc proposes than the one you do- to my eye, at least.
A factor possibly caused by an underlying economic incentive. That seems to me an obvious speculation. Because it manifests itself in society you could call it 'cultural', but I don't think I had called it that.

We know economic incentives change behaviour. It is strange though you are asking me to prove my speculation, when you yourself made the original claim that "the cultural association between men and technology is nonexistent or diminished" in these countries, which you as of yet have not substantiated at all, and which I personally do not think is a very convincing speculation.

I really don't think that the majority of female computer science employees in India and Malaysia are coming from grinding poverty in the wider context of these societies.
Look at what I said: the type of poverty that doesn't exist in the Western world. You see the relevant distinction you are ignoring?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#117

Posted 4 weeks ago

You completely misrepresent articles

The fact that your interpretation of their conclusions doesn't match with mine doesn't mean that I've "misrepresented" them. So far you have completely failed to demonstrate disconnect between my representations of articles and their actual conclusions.
 

we should first note that the mere fact that a scientific claim has been critiqued by another scientist, doesn't make it 'scientifically inaccurate'

I never said nor suggested it did. If you're unable to see the distinction between "questions have been raised about the scientific accuracy and validity of some of the studies mentioned in the Google memo" and "the science in the Google memo is wrong", then I don't really think you're in any position to be continuing this discussion.
 

And a wealth of other scientific empirical information.

Way to miss the point. I highlighted that specific study as it was intentionally designed to isolate the effects of external influence, something which most other academic studies have not done. It represents a core piece of independent scientific research in the work. And has thus far not proven replicable.
 

I think you're really attacking a strawman of Baron-Cohen

I'm not "attacking" anything, let alone a straw man. I'm pointing out that a specific piece of research designed to demonstrate the degree to which male and female brains differ whilst isolating the influence of external forces has not been successfully replicated. That statement is, as far as I'm aware, entirely factually true. I don't see how a determination on your part of whether or not Rogers fundamentally miscategorises Baron-Cohen as a proponent of unitary explanation is at all relevant to this point. I've neither cited, nor referred to this fact.

It's not really 'begging the question' when there is a vast corpus of research coherent with your claim

As I've already pointed out several times, the degree to which research actually supports these claims through direct cause rather than correlation is debatable.
 

You are attacking essentialism, which neither me, nor the memo writer, nor Baron-Cohen has defended.

no, I'm not. I'm attacking the very concept of a "male" and "female" brain, which is one that you, the memo writer, and Baron-Cohen assert in favour of.
 

You are making a very simplistic and unsophisticated argument.

So simplistic and unsophisticated you've completely missed the actual point I was making?

That does not negate that there is a wealth of empirical information for both animals and people proving the relation between androgens and spatial reasoning, or systematizing in general.

Can you cite these studies, specifically the bits of them that conclusively demonstrate causal relationship between androgens and spatial reasoning?
 
Looking at the Quillette articles:
Jussim states that the author gets "nearly all the science and its implications right". That infers that at least some of the science, in his view, is incorrect. This is reinforced elsewhere in his comments. He then focuses the bulk of his response not on evaluating the validity of the memo but instead attacking people who insulted the author- though he does "guess" it's probably right despite admitting he has no experience of the actual working environment.

Schmitt has already been covered. He spends much of his time highlighting how trivial, in empirically measurable terms, the observable differences actually are, and questioning their relevance in the Google working environment. There's also the axe comment, which has already been addressed by me and others.

Miller presents probably the strongest supporting response to the memo. But it also appears to miscategorise much of the opposition to the memo as coming from "blank slate gender feminists", which I don't really think is relevant or accurate to the discussion taking place here, or more widely from a scientific or academic perspective. This makes his comments on ensuring a 50/50 split in workplace environments seem a bit straw-man-ny

Soh states the document is well thought out, but most of her response is dedicated to attacking the academic community and asserting that faulty studies receive peer review publication and promotion just because they're socially convenient. She doesn't really say anything about the memo itself.

The data proving the correlation is overwhelming though.

Even if this were the case- and that's debatable, given that the actual degree of variance in many studies is relatively low as has already been noted, even an overwhelming correlation would not constitute evidence of cause.

you yourself made the original claim that "the cultural association between men and technology is nonexistent or diminished" in these countries

Studies based on student perceptions in India see Computer Science explicitly as a woman-friendly field. Given social and economic progression, this is hardly surprising- the commoditisation of the home computer which took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the West is only now taking place in countries like India, which puts women and men on a more equal footing when it comes to historic association or lack thereof. Which isn't to say that factors such as pay as well as more social factors working hours, benefits and working environments don't play a role- they do, and I never suggested they didn't. But the very association of a career in computer science as being "woman-friendly" is notable.

On the subject of poverty, there's no "relevant distinction", because poverty is a relative term. Trying to view economic drivers in a developing country by comparing them with the economic circumstances of a Western country is completely nonsensical.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users