ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 12th August 2017, 09:20 PM   #561
KoihimeNakamura
Creativity Murderer
 
KoihimeNakamura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In 2.5 million spinning tons of metal, above Epsilion Eridani III
Posts: 7,958
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
What makes you conclude he was acting in bad faith?
About everything. Also, when people say that I instantly doubt them.
__________________
Don't mind me.
KoihimeNakamura is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 09:32 PM   #562
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,285
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
An isolated bit of feedback, no. But 'feeding frenzy' can occur. Since everyone needs to score sensitivity creds, then everyone takes a turn denouncing anyone not toeing the line.

One time I used "Hispanic" instead of "Latino." I got a simultaneous lecture from about 8 directions. About 20 minutes in I said "okay, you've made your point." I was told it was rude for me to try and "center the conversation on my feelings."

I was spared when someone else pointed out that it really should be "Latinex" to respect gender diversity and they turned on each other from there.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Not punishment.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 09:38 PM   #563
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,743
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
This sounds fairly revisionist. What is your source for this? Wasn't property ownership tied to voting? Then the draft? Exactly how long did the average man have access to voting before women? Again and again I see this narrative pushed that men held women back from voting for ages.


But seriously, were "scientific studies" used for any of these? What was wrong with the evidence used? Was the science poor science or were the conclusions exaggerated by those men who allegedly made those arguments?

I ask because this memo makes a claim: not that women are less capable but that there is good reason to suspect they would be less interested, and that such characteristics suggests that 1) we shouldn't expect a 50:50 ratio between men and women in software engineering, and 2) because men and women are different, IF we want "diversity" (more women) that the approach taken should take these differences into consideration. One suggestion was to make part-time work more respectable/doable for that type of job or that we should be more honest when teaching prospective students and employees what to expect on the job (less interaction with people rather than more is typical)
Revisionist? How so? Men were permitted to vote in the USA federal elections regardless of property ownership by 1856. Women in 1920. 64 years later. Multiple generations. Voting was never linked to the draft. You could have looked this up yourself.

Yes, there were "scientific studies" explaining how hormones, or the uterus, or the size of their brains, or (very popular) menstration rendered women unable to have the mental clarity and emotional balance required for women to be allowed to vote, attend college, etc. Just as there were studies "scientifically"explaining how white males were superior to all other races. Many of the studies were biased consciously or subconsciously, or focused on an irrelevant trait to justify the author's preexisting prejudices. Studies agreeing with society's prejudices were preferentially cited and exaggerated. Not surprisingly virtually all of these studies determined that genders and races that matched those of the authors were superior to those that did not.

i don't buy the idea that women "shoiuld be less interested" due to their biology. Instead i see it as they have been less interested because they have been discouraged from considering the field. Just as for the many other fields I cited. When efforts were made that encouraged women to enter these fields, they have become interested, and performed very well in them. And the same phenomenon will occur (is beginning to occur) in computer sciences.

Last edited by Giordano; 12th August 2017 at 09:40 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 09:51 PM   #564
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,285
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Revisionist? How so? Men were permitted to vote in the USA federal elections regardless of property ownership by 1856. Women in 1920. 64 years later. Multiple generations. Voting was never linked to the draft. You could have looked this up yourself.

Yes, there were "scientific studies" explaining how hormones, or the uterus, or the size of their brains, or (very popular) menstration rendered women unable to have the mental clarity and emotional balance required for women to be allowed to vote, attend college, etc. Just as there were studies "scientifically"explaining how white males were superior to all other races. Many of the studies were biased consciously or subconsciously, or focused on an irrelevant trait to justify the author's preexisting prejudices. Studies agreeing with society's prejudices were preferentially cited and exaggerated. Not surprisingly virtually all of these studies determined that genders and races that matched those of the authors were superior to those that did not.

i don't buy the idea that women "shoiuld be less interested" due to their biology. Instead i see it as they have been less interested because they have been discouraged from considering the field. Just as for the many other fields I cited. When efforts were made that encouraged women to enter these fields, they have become interested, and performed very well in them. And the same phenomenon will occur (is beginning to occur) in computer sciences.
Even if they are less interested in a field given biology, that doesn't mean the structure that makes it less interesting is immutable.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 10:51 PM   #565
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,526
Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura View Post
"Discipline and punishment" are corrective terms in any social group. In any case..



'good-faith effort'. Sure.
Are you aware of the provenance of the memo?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 11:23 PM   #566
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,233
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Revisionist? How so? Men were permitted to vote in the USA federal elections regardless of property ownership by 1856. Women in 1920. 64 years later. Multiple generations. Voting was never linked to the draft. You could have looked this up yourself.

Yes, there were "scientific studies" explaining how hormones, or the uterus, or the size of their brains, or (very popular) menstration rendered women unable to have the mental clarity and emotional balance required for women to be allowed to vote, attend college, etc. Just as there were studies "scientifically"explaining how white males were superior to all other races. Many of the studies were biased consciously or subconsciously, or focused on an irrelevant trait to justify the author's preexisting prejudices. Studies agreeing with society's prejudices were preferentially cited and exaggerated. Not surprisingly virtually all of these studies determined that genders and races that matched those of the authors were superior to those that did not.

i don't buy the idea that women "shoiuld be less interested" due to their biology. Instead i see it as they have been less interested because they have been discouraged from considering the field. Just as for the many other fields I cited. When efforts were made that encouraged women to enter these fields, they have become interested, and performed very well in them. And the same phenomenon will occur (is beginning to occur) in computer sciences.
Ah yes I had my dates mixed up. It's my understanding that men have always been obligated to be drafted into war, and to not do so they are denied the right to vote, some financial assistance (school) and other things (though these are most recent - the draft part has been around for as long as I'm aware of). Men have the obligation - the duty - to protect the country, and many of them had to do so before even having the ability to vote, since the voting age was lowered in the 26th amendment.

So, men had the right to vote because they had the responsibility to defend the country. My understanding is that many women were also opposed to the suffragettes because they didn't want this obligation. Now maybe you will argue or suspect these women were male supremacists... I am doubtful.
Anyway, what I wanted to contest was the "Scientific studies" being used to back up supremacy. You've mentioned some but I'm wondering if you have a source, or if this was proper science? I mean that literally. Was it good science, being misused, or was it bad science, politically motivated to make an argument?

The reason I ask, again, is because Damores is using GOOD science to make an argument that we should expect some difference in ratios. Pointing out differences in spatial reasoning and universal (international) differences in personality is an obvious way to do so. This is all good science. You might argue his conclusions are too strong (frankly I think they're about as minimalist as possible for the gender parity discussion, since he says "it may in part" be responsible for the disparity) but to argue that it is equivalent to your past examples I think is unfair. After all, he mostly focused on personality, not "skill"
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2017, 11:56 PM   #567
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,195
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spr...different.html

Quote:
But over the past 15 years or so, there’s been a sea change as new technologies have generated a growing pile of evidence that there are inherent differences in how men’s and women’s brains are wired and how they work.

Not how well they work, mind you. Our differences don’t mean one sex or the other is better or smarter or more deserving. Some researchers have grappled with charges of “neuro*sexism”: falling prey to stereotypes or being too quick to interpret human sex differences as biological rather than cultural. They counter, however, that data from animal research, cross-​cultural surveys, natural experiments and brain-imaging studies demonstrate real, if not always earthshaking, brain differences, and that these differences may contribute to differences in behavior and cognition.
Quote:
Why? There was too much data pointing to the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences to ignore, Halpern says. For one thing, the animal-research findings resonated with sex-based differences ascribed to people. These findings continue to accrue. In a study of 34 rhesus monkeys, for example, males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys likable. It would be tough to argue that the monkeys’ parents bought them sex-typed toys or that simian society encourages its male offspring to play more with trucks. A much more recent study established that boys and girls 9 to 17 months old — an age when children show few if any signs of recognizing either their own or other children’s sex — nonetheless show marked differences in their preference for stereotypically male versus stereotypically female toys.
Again, acknowledging that population averages should not be applied to individual aptitude, but it would make sense that population averages get reflected in the resulting statistics. There's certainly still many psychosocial influences that can alter, diminish, or amplify these differences as well, of course. But precluding from consideration any talk of physical/physiological differences is being closed-minded on the subject.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 13th August 2017 at 12:00 AM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 12:03 AM   #568
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Not punishment.
A penalty imposed in retribution for an offense?

Yeah, it is.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 01:06 AM   #569
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,679
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No.
How else would you explain the fact that approximately 80% of Google's software engineers are men? The way I see it, there are a few possibilities:

1. Younger women tend not to go into computer programming for completely personal reasons and thus are not in the job pool, and Google's 20% female workforce is perfectly fine.
2. Younger women tend not to go into computer programming because they've heard it's a sexist field (including at Google).
3. Younger women who do go into computer programming discover it's a sexist field (including at Google) and exit in droves.

Maybe you have another idea in mind?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 03:21 AM   #570
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
Actually. No. 100000 time No.

The problem employer identified is not "there is a gender imbalance" but rather "the current political climate make look us less marketable if people detect an imbalance in our workforce".

Employer do NOT care about diversity. Employer only care that a warm body occupy a place which fulfill the job requirement. That's pretty much it. They do not care as a whole what the person skin color is, their religion, their politics, or their gender/sex and sex game - as long as it all stay private and do not disturb the workplace.

But here is why employer [and again by that I mean firm not individuals] do care about diversity : because showing they care actually is better marketing wise than showing you don't care in the actual climate.

The same way employer/firm do not care about environment and would pollute to the ninth hell if they were allowed to, employer do not care about gender and would happily employ 100% men IF it fulfill their job requirement.

The problem of the google engineer is that MANY people jumped the gun, did not bother to read the memo, heard "sexist want women out" and accepted it at face value. It did not help that some outfit like gizmodo CUT all the science paper reference he added.

Once the "populace" had jumped the gun, it made highly sense for the employer - google - to fire him , if only for the PERCEIVED negative PR value.

It actually all reinforce the points of the engineer actually, rather than negate them.
This is simply not true for the majority of decent company out there and kisses my point anyway. My point was that companies are saying they can't find people to do the jobs and so they want to encourage more people to take up these fields including and especially those groups that currently have low representation.

Whether it's altruism or self-interest is irrelevant because either way the goal works.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 03:26 AM   #571
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
How else would you explain the fact that approximately 80% of Google's software engineers are men? The way I see it, there are a few possibilities:

1. Younger women tend not to go into computer programming for completely personal reasons and thus are not in the job pool, and Google's 20% female workforce is perfectly fine.
2. Younger women tend not to go into computer programming because they've heard it's a sexist field (including at Google).
3. Younger women who do go into computer programming discover it's a sexist field (including at Google) and exit in droves.

Maybe you have another idea in mind?
There's about a million other ideas.

Those completely personal reasons could be anyone of a multitude of external influences.

Women may not enter programming because of peer pressure

Women may not enter programming because they don't see many other women going into programming

This is what I don't get about the objections here its either blatant discrimination or completely fine with no room for anything in between apparently.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 04:59 AM   #572
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,285
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
A penalty imposed in retribution for an offense?

Yeah, it is.
There is no penalty in the scenario.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 07:05 AM   #573
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,018
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The irony is that firing Damore may screw them when it comes to the lawsuit. Remember, his argument boils down to the notion that the lack of women in software engineering is not due to sexism, but to gender differences in areas of interest. By canning Damore, isn't Google admitting that it's sexism?
The lawsuit isn't about a hiring imbalance, it's about the woman who work there being paid less than their male counterparts. Firing Damore only helps not hurts with Google's defense.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 07:32 AM   #574
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Again and again groups in society dominated by men have argued that the biological differences between men and women made women inherently less suitable than men, or even completely unsuitable, for certain roles and these biological differences were what accounted for the lack of women in those groups. Over and over again: Voting. Holding political office. Owning and controlling property. Higher education. Being a biologist. Bring a medical doctor. Being a veterinarian. Being a chemist. Holding a supervisor role in a company. And each time there were multiple "scientific" studies cited to support these claims.
Well, no. In almost all cases you refer to, no actual science was ever cited. In fact, I'm not sure of a case where it WAS cited. Can you point to a peer-reviewed article that was used for any of those now-discredited cases?

Furthermore, you're overlooking a central part of the argument, which isn't just about ability, but also preference.

Quote:
So we are to assume that although these former arguments were dead wrong, over and over again when applied to biology, medicine, chemistry, etc., and only arose from prejudice or a lack of insight, somehow these arguments are supposed to be accurate when now applied to physics or programming?
Given that 1) it's not actually the same argument, despite some superficial resemblance, and 2) there's actual data to back it up, unlike before, then yes, we really should consider it possible.

Quote:
To argue that the already decreasing discrepancies in gender in physics or programming are biologically based is just like the ever retreating God-of-the gaps issue in theology. The more we learn, the more we remove the barriers of prejudice, the less we see differences in the interests and abilities of women vs men in more and more fields.
Well, no. For example, the gap in elementary education has grown over time.

Quote:
Okay- you ask can I completely dismiss the very possibility that such inherent gender differences in physics and programming might exist? No, no more than I can dismiss the possibility that i will win a Nobel Prize. But the possibility is so small why bother discussing it?
On what basis do you declare the possibility so small? Seriously, this is simply an article of faith for you. You have no evidence for it. In fact, it flies directly in the face of the evidence which does exist.

Quote:
Especially when discussing it is inherently insulting and damaging to the women in the field and discouraging to those seeking to enter it.
You're advocating for a heckler's veto. That argument has no validity.

Quote:
Is there any authentic evidence that Jews bake matzohs with the blood of Christian children?
Dude. Don't Godwin the thread. I shouldn't have to explain to you why this is a crap argument.

Quote:
Of course I do see biological differences between men and women that can influence their suitability for certain jobs. Men on average are stronger than women and I would expect to see more men then women in jobs demanding great physical strength.
Quite so. But according to the logic you've advanced, we shouldn't expect that to be true either.

Quote:
But again, I see no evidence of the supposed mental differences that have been advanced over time to account for gender imbalances.
Many differences have been advanced without any scientific support. There is, however, scientific evidence for some of the differences at issue here. If you don't see the evidence, well, you aren't looking, because it's there.

Quote:
Apparently the "scientific" studies that suggested otherwise were simply wrong or irrelevant.
No. For the most part, they didn't even exist.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 08:35 AM   #575
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
There is no penalty in the scenario.
Another semantics fight. I'll pass.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 09:47 AM   #576
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,743
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
Ah yes I had my dates mixed up. It's my understanding that men have always been obligated to be drafted into war, and to not do so they are denied the right to vote, some financial assistance (school) and other things (though these are most recent - the draft part has been around for as long as I'm aware of). Men have the obligation - the duty - to protect the country, and many of them had to do so before even having the ability to vote, since the voting age was lowered in the 26th amendment.

So, men had the right to vote because they had the responsibility to defend the country. My understanding is that many women were also opposed to the suffragettes because they didn't want this obligation.]

[snip]
I am sorry, but once again I must tell you that whoever provided you with this understanding was completely incorrect. You may wish to research these ideas on your own because I believe you have been seriously mislead.

There was no national draft for many years after the Constitution was signed, and many states did not implement a draft (in fact the concept of a national draft was opposed by many of the early leaders of the USA). The first national draft was instituted during the Civil War; therefore men had voting rights for 80 years without any obligation to serve in the military. Notably, even after the draft was instituted during the Civil War it was legal for a prospective draftee to hire someone else to serve in his place; therefore even after this implementation of conscription a man could vote without an obligation to serve in the military.

After the Civil War conscription was abandoned, and typically only re-instituted during times of war. So once again during long periods of the history of the USA there was no link between the right to vote and the concept that one must be willing to serve in the military if asked. The first peace time draft was only instituted in the USA in 1948.

Notably even during the times the draft was active, men could still apply for conscientious objector status, with many 10s of thousands obtaining this status even during war times. Obtaining conscientious objector status did not affect the right to vote, so yet again there was no link between willingness to serve and the right to vote. Men too old to be drafted, or receiving other deferments, similarly retained the right to vote. Conversely, for most of the history of the USA men could be drafted at age 18, but were only permitted to vote at age 21. So once again, there was no link between conscription and the right to vote.

Therefore the concept that women were not permitted to vote because they were not subject to military service is completely bogus. In fact many women before 1920 very much wanted to join the military but were not permitted- some did so secretly nonetheless. The discrimination against women was applied against their will both in regard to their right to vote and their right to serve in the military.

Last edited by Giordano; 13th August 2017 at 09:48 AM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 10:02 AM   #577
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Conversely, for most of the history of the USA men could be drafted at age 18, but were only permitted to vote at age 21. So once again, there was no link between conscription and the right to vote.
There was a link asserted later on, though, in the course of an ultimately successful movement for lowering the voting age.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22o...ugh+to+vote%22
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 10:17 AM   #578
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,743
Mangled double post. Trouble with the quote function. Deleted. Once again, sorry.

Last edited by Giordano; 13th August 2017 at 11:10 AM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 10:19 AM   #579
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,743
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Well, no. In almost all cases you refer to, no actual science was ever cited. In fact, I'm not sure of a case where it WAS cited. Can you point to a peer-reviewed article that was used for any of those now-discredited cases?
[snip]
I will provide you with just three for now due to space limitations- there are many more that are easily found by looking through the relevant journals from the relevant periods. I cite some quotes from the 1800s, but these types of “studies” were quite common through the 1960s, and as we see in this thread, persist up to the present:

Paul Broca, professor of clinical surgery in Paris in the 1800s, , was a highly respected and visible professor of clinical surgery in Paris in the 1800s. . He believed that intelligence was related to brain size and published that the brain was:
“larger in mature adults than in the elderly, in men than in women, in eminent men than in men of mediocre talent, in superior races than in inferior races . . . other things equal, there is a remarkable relationship between the development of intelligence and the volume of the brain”
Broca’s errors in this interpretation of his data are nicely discussed at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/chb/lectures/anthl_05.html.

Sadly, even Charles Darwin believed at one time that men achieved
. . . a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that . . . the average of mental power in man must be above that of women (quoted from The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.

Carl Vogt, a well known natural history professor at the University of Geneva in the mid 1800s, published that:
"the child, the female, and the senile white" all had the intellect and nature of the "grown up Negro." Obviously he was also quite racist (as were many advocating the inherent inferiority of women).
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 10:35 AM   #580
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,743
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Furthermore, you're overlooking a central part of the argument, which isn't just about ability, but also preference.
.
No, I discussed this more than once: "preference" changed in the areas I cited very quickly once the barriers keeping women from these fields were torn down. "Preference" was clearly not due to a biological difference, but due to the blatant lack of women already in these positions, the discouragement by guidance councilors, teachers, and by mentors, a widespread societal undercurrent of "women are inherently unsuitable to be chemists" and by the institutional barriers and prejudices that women saw that they would have to overcome should they enter into these fields.

I experienced this real time as I progressed from undergraduate to graduate school and beyond. "Oh, women inherently don't want to be chemists, that is why we have so few in our program" has changed to "Oh my, look at all those women in chemistry graduate school!" as it became clear to young women that being a chemist was a viable choice for them. Preference reflects what one perceives as possible. Being told constantly that you, because you are a woman, do not have the brains or ability to enter into these scholastic fields, and to have this re-enforced by the obvious lack of amen already in these fields, will discourage anyone's enthusiasm and desire to enter these fields. Perhaps you are too young to have seen this for yourself, but I have.

That is why it is so important to actively recruit women into the fields that still have a disproportionate gender ratio. In a few more years, in response, you will be amazed to see how many women prefer to enter into physics and computer science.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 11:03 AM   #581
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,743
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Given that 1) it's not actually the same argument, despite some superficial resemblance, and 2) there's actual data to back it up, unlike before, then yes, we really should consider it possible.





On what basis do you declare the possibility so small? Seriously, this is simply an article of faith for you. You have no evidence for it. In fact, it flies directly in the face of the evidence which does exist.



You're advocating for a heckler's veto. That argument has no validity.



Dude. Don't Godwin the thread. I shouldn't have to explain to you why this is a crap argument.



Quite so. But according to the logic you've advanced, we shouldn't expect that to be true either.



Many differences have been advanced without any scientific support. There is, however, scientific evidence for some of the differences at issue here. If you don't see the evidence, well, you aren't looking, because it's there.



No. For the most part, they didn't even exist.
I've already and repeatedly discussed these points. If you cannot see the parallels between the current arguments and the prior discredited ones (the prior arguments you appear to be intentionally ignorant of) then I see no purpose for me to continue to repeat myself. Honestly I cannot imagine how you can be so unaware of how similar arguments and studies were used in the past to justify the relative absence of women in certain fields. I presume you realize that women were intentionally barred from many, many disciplines and careers for centuries, and these official and unofficial barriers were widely in place as recently as just a few years ago. Do you really believe that the people imposing these barriers never tried to justify it in the same way as now is trotted out for physics and computer sciences? You can read newspapers and magazine articles from these periods- you need not believe me. Butl I was born in the 1950s and I certainly saw in person these barriers, heard these arguments, and read the quotes from "scientific" studies, again and again. Women MDs were incredibly rare just 30 years ago, and the medical schools had the same explanations of why this was just and valid, and why it reflected the fundamental biology and preferences of women. But I was able to watch as the reality displaced the lies, and see women demonstrate their interest and skill in medicine and in all the other fields I cited.

So now you find yourself claiming that this time there are relevant biological differences between women and men that, in this case, make men better programmers. This time the studies are scientific and true. This time the prejudice from decades and centuries of women being treated as mental inferiors happens to be justified in this area, even though it proved to just be bigoted crap when applied to the multiple other areas I cited. And you think that I am ignoring reality and the facts. I am amused.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 11:09 AM   #582
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,743
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
There was a link asserted later on, though, in the course of an ultimately successful movement for lowering the voting age.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22o...ugh+to+vote%22
Thanks for the citation and for the clarification, which I see as pretty much the reverse of what pharphis was discussing. Pharhis suggested that the right to vote was dependent on the willingness to fight in the military. The argument to lower the voting age was the converse: if one was old enough to fight one was old enough to vote. I do acknowledge however that although the reverse, it is a "link" that I should have cited.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 11:19 AM   #583
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,743
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
There's about a million other ideas.

Those completely personal reasons could be anyone of a multitude of external influences.

Women may not enter programming because of peer pressure

Women may not enter programming because they don't see many other women going into programming

This is what I don't get about the objections here its either blatant discrimination or completely fine with no room for anything in between apparently.
Frankly I too doubt that the relative lack of women in computer science programs primarily represents blatant discrimination. Instead I suspect (and studies support) the other issues that you list play a key role. Women are told at many levels (sometimes by other women) that computer science is "too hard" from them, or otherwise inappropriate for a women. This is incredibly discouraging for a young person! I have observed the strong influence of these issues among my own students in molecular biology and in my discussions with women in different fields and at different ages. Even now guidance councilors will tell a women student interested in computer sciences, or say physics- "Oh, that is a very hard field! Have you considered perhaps being a biologist?" Whereas they will tell a guy with the same grades, "Oh, good choice!" And this is why I think that active attempts to encourage women to embark on careers in these areas are crucial because they help resolve the problems you listed.

I do believe that some subconscious discrimination against women remains at managerial levels and among some of their peers in many businesses. But I think this is much less so in current educational programs and I anticipate (or at least hope) that this subconscious discrimination at the higher career levels will gradually disappear..

Last edited by Giordano; 13th August 2017 at 11:24 AM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 11:21 AM   #584
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I've already and repeatedly discussed these points. If you cannot see the parallels between the current arguments and the prior discredited ones (the prior arguments you appear to be intentionally ignorant of) then I see no purpose for me to continue to repeat myself.
You are correct, there is no purpose in repeating yourself. Instead, you should actually present evidence to support your argument. You keep claiming that previous discredited arguments were scientific, but you had nothing other than your assertion to support that claim.*

Quote:
Do you really believe that the people imposing these barriers never tried to justify it in the same way as now is trotted out for physics and computer sciences?
How people tried to do things isn't relevant. What's relevant is whether or not actual science supported their arguments. You claim it did. But you offer nothing to support your claim.

Quote:
You can read newspapers and magazine articles from these periods- you need not believe me.
Newspapers and magazine articles hardly constitute science.

Quote:
Butl I was born in the 1950s and I certainly saw in person these barriers
I never contested the existence of such barriers.

Quote:
heard these arguments
The existence of arguments isn't in question. The basis for them is. That you heard them does not demonstrate the basis you claim.

Quote:
and read the quotes from "scientific" studies, again and again.
Quotes are not data. Where is the data? Did it exist? If it was as ubiquitous as you claim, it should be quite easy to find.

Quote:
So now you find yourself claiming that this time there are relevant biological differences between women and men that, in this case, make men better programmers. This time the studies are scientific and true.
No, that's a step farther than I've claimed. They might not be true. But to demonstrate that they aren't true, you need to do more than what you have done so far.

Ideally, you should show how they are wrong now. But even in the context of your own argument, you still need to show that the scientific data then was wrong. Not the opinion of scientists, but the actual data.

* ETA: I see you've finally posted something. I'll look it over.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 13th August 2017 at 11:22 AM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 11:30 AM   #585
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Paul Broca, professor of clinical surgery in Paris in the 1800s, , was a highly respected and visible professor of clinical surgery in Paris in the 1800s. . He believed that intelligence was related to brain size and published that the brain was:
“larger in mature adults than in the elderly, in men than in women, in eminent men than in men of mediocre talent, in superior races than in inferior races . . . other things equal, there is a remarkable relationship between the development of intelligence and the volume of the brain”
Broca’s errors in this interpretation of his data are nicely discussed at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/chb/lectures/anthl_05.html.
From your link:

"Moll, Bean's mentor at John's Hopkins was cautious. Bean's results were just too good, too clear cut. Mall repeated the observations with the important difference that he did not know at the time whether a brain came from a black or a white, a male or a female. Using 106 brains, including 18 of Bean's Moll found - no difference ."

This isn't a case of the science supporting a racial difference, this is a case of one person (Bean) screwing up the science, and another person (Moll) doing it right, contemporaneously. There was an obvious systematic error being made, and Moll found it.

So where are the errors in the current science?

Quote:
Sadly, even Charles Darwin believed at one time that men achieved
. . . a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.
What Darwin believed is of no consequence.

Quote:
Carl Vogt, a well known natural history professor at the University of Geneva in the mid 1800s, published that:
"the child, the female, and the senile white" all had the intellect and nature of the "grown up Negro." Obviously he was also quite racist (as were many advocating the inherent inferiority of women).
So you've got two opinions with no data, one opinion supported by bad data, and contemporaneous data done right which discredited the bad data at the time.

So why do you want me to throw out all the current data? Because you don't like the conclusion. That's just as invalid as what Bean did.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 12:12 PM   #586
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,743
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
From your link:

"Moll, Bean's mentor at John's Hopkins was cautious. Bean's results were just too good, too clear cut. Mall repeated the observations with the important difference that he did not know at the time whether a brain came from a black or a white, a male or a female. Using 106 brains, including 18 of Bean's Moll found - no difference ."

This isn't a case of the science supporting a racial difference, this is a case of one person (Bean) screwing up the science, and another person (Moll) doing it right, contemporaneously. There was an obvious systematic error being made, and Moll found it.

So where are the errors in the current science?



What Darwin believed is of no consequence.



So you've got two opinions with no data, one opinion supported by bad data, and contemporaneous data done right which discredited the bad data at the time.

So why do you want me to throw out all the current data? Because you don't like the conclusion. That's just as invalid as what Bean did.
I cited Broca's work, not Bean's. And Broca's work was widely respected at the time and did influence and encouraged discrimination agains women and against ethnic minorities for a substantial period.

Further you are absolutely missing the point. I referred you specifically to a citation that explains why Broca as well as Bean was wrong. That is my point- that studies that appeared at the time to be solid and were accepted by many in the community were later demonstrated to be wrong. And that one should therefore not be too surprised if this is the fate of the current studies that are similarly being used to question the biological abilities of women in computer sciences.

Why is what Darwin believed of no consequence? You do realize that peer group publishing was very rare at that time and that what Darwin believed was extraordinarily important in terms of what many other scientists viewed as correct at that time? The book (The Descent of Man) in which he expressed these views had tremendous influence on what was accepted in science.

So we have three out of three of the highly respected scientists I cited who published studies, based on actual measurements, that lead them to conclude that women were inherently and mentally inferior to men. These ideas were widely taken up by other scientists, used by politicians and others to justify discrimination agains women, and it was a significant number of years until they were discredited. If you dismiss my examples as only 3, would I convince you if I cited 5? 7? I also noted you could easily find many more examples yourself, please feel free to do so.

"All the current data?" Why are you implying that all, or even most, of the current literature supports your claims, rather than there being one or a few publications that you favor because they support your preexisting views and you are ignoring the other publications that indicate the opposite? Perhaps you can support your claim that all the current data supports the idea that women are biologically il-disposed to computer sciences. And perhaps you can cite the specific publications(s) you are using to prop up your argument so that I actually answer your challenge.

Finally I am curious- have you read the studies you are citing or are you relying on someone else's word as to exactly what they say and how convincing they are?

Last edited by Giordano; 13th August 2017 at 12:15 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 01:32 PM   #587
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I cited Broca's work, not Bean's. And Broca's work was widely respected at the time and did influence and encouraged discrimination agains women and against ethnic minorities for a substantial period.
But it still wasn't science. In particular, he never established any link between brain size and intelligence in humans, making the connection he alleged completely unsupported.

So what's the equivalent here?

Quote:
Further you are absolutely missing the point. I referred you specifically to a citation that explains why Broca as well as Bean was wrong.
Yes, they supposedly started with a conclusion that was socially accepted and then went hunting for data to support it.

But the socially accepted conclusion in academia now is that there is no difference.

Quote:
Why is what Darwin believed of no consequence?
Because we aren't debating people's mere opinions.

Quote:
You do realize that peer group publishing was very rare at that time
I do. Which is why, you might notice, I never once referred to peer review. But even in the absence of peer review, there is still good methodology and bad methodology, and the Bean vs. Moll incident showed.

Quote:
and that what Darwin believed was extraordinarily important in terms of what many other scientists viewed as correct at that time?
Again, your argument isn't about opinion, it is about science. An opinion being held by a scientist, no matter his stature, does not transform that opinion into science. That's not how it works.

Quote:
So we have three out of three of the highly respected scientists I cited who published studies, based on actual measurements, that lead them to conclude that women were inherently and mentally inferior to men.
You referenced no study by Darwin at all. In fact, all you've ever referenced is one study on brain size, and that one's obvious and fatal flaw is a lack of any correlation between brain size and brain function within humans.

Quote:
"All the current data?" Why are you implying that all, or even most, of the current literature supports your claims, rather than there being one or a few publications that you favor because they support your preexisting views and you are ignoring the other publications that indicate the opposite?
If there is contradicting data, then that's what you should point to. But you don't. Why not?

Quote:
Perhaps you can support your claim that all the current data supports the idea that women are biologically il-disposed to computer sciences.
But that's not actually my claim.

Quote:
Finally I am curious- have you read the studies you are citing or are you relying on someone else's word as to exactly what they say and how convincing they are?
I've dug into some of them.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 02:59 PM   #588
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I cited Broca's work, not Bean's. And Broca's work was widely respected at the time and did influence and encouraged discrimination agains women and against ethnic minorities for a substantial period.

Further you are absolutely missing the point. I referred you specifically to a citation that explains why Broca as well as Bean was wrong. That is my point- that studies that appeared at the time to be solid and were accepted by many in the community were later demonstrated to be wrong. And that one should therefore not be too surprised if this is the fate of the current studies that are similarly being used to question the biological abilities of women in computer sciences.

Why is what Darwin believed of no consequence?
It seems that Ziggurat and yourself are actually in agreement: the "scientific" studies cited back then were nothing of the sort.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 03:16 PM   #589
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,195
Or perhaps there's evidence of differences (because adaptability to living in different circumstances works like that) and people with agendas biased their interpretations and conclusions.

There's no shortage of examples of terrible ideas based on solid data.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 04:56 PM   #590
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Or perhaps there's evidence of differences (because adaptability to living in different circumstances works like that) and people with agendas biased their interpretations and conclusions.

There's no shortage of examples of terrible ideas based on solid data.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Sure, and maybe we're not interpreting the data here correctly either. That's possible. But the point is, that discussion isn't beyond the pale. In fact, if you don't discuss it, if you just bury your head in the sand, then you can't correct wrong interpretations. Those past errors Giordano keeps referring to weren't exposed as errors through simple denial. Bad science was defeated with good science, not dogma.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 08:03 PM   #591
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,679
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
There's about a million other ideas.

Those completely personal reasons could be anyone of a multitude of external influences.

Women may not enter programming because of peer pressure

Women may not enter programming because they don't see many other women going into programming
All of which would fit neatly into #1:

1. Younger women tend not to go into computer programming for completely personal reasons and thus are not in the job pool, and Google's 20% female workforce is perfectly fine.

Quote:
This is what I don't get about the objections here its either blatant discrimination or completely fine with no room for anything in between apparently.
This is certainly true; the problem is that it leaves the bean counters stranded with no objective to target. In one of the articles I read recently Google was pushing the news that their new hires were 21% female instead of 20% female like the existing company. Of course, if one really buys the premise that there should be absolutely equal numbers, that doesn't sound like much progress. If it means that they were dipping a little deeper into the applicant pool on the female side than among men, you can argue whether that's good or not--more diversity versus strict meritocracy, but it makes a pretty good argument that they are acting in good faith (as far as women go--arguably they are discriminating against men).
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 11:06 PM   #592
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,750
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I favour one conclusion over the other for the reasons I gave before. The number is higher in some other countries showing that there is nothing inherent about it, having worked in stem I see nothing about it that should inherently lead to such a huge imbalance and know plenty of women in the field doing great jobs. And having worked with kids the idea that girls like stem less than boys doesn't hold either.

So if girls have the interest and capability to do something but choose not to so regularly I think there is a problem worth looking at there.
....
Is there? Why do you so assert? Do you have evidence that there must be problem? How do you know proposed solutions actually "fix" things instead of being useless or outright bad?

Because we you may want quite some good, since:
Contra Grant On Exaggerated Differences
Quote:
What is this “object vs. people” distinction?

It’s pretty relevant. Meta-analyses have shown a very large (d = 1.18) difference in healthy men and women (ie without CAH) in this domain. It’s traditionally summarized as “men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people”. I would flesh out “things” to include both physical objects like machines as well as complex abstract systems; I’d also add in another finding from those same studies that men are more risk-taking and like danger. And I would flesh out “people” to include communities, talking, helping, children, and animals.
(Links to studies are in article)

Furthermore:
Quote:
Galpin investigated the percent of women in computer classes all around the world. Her number of 26% for the US is slightly higher than I usually hear, probably because it’s older (the percent women in computing has actually gone down over time!). The least sexist countries I can think of – Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, etc – all have somewhere around the same number (30%, 20%, and 24%, respectively). The most sexist countries do extremely well on this metric! The highest numbers on the chart are all from non-Western, non-First-World countries that do middling-to-poor on the Gender Development Index: 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.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 12:11 AM   #593
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Frankly I too doubt that the relative lack of women in computer science programs primarily represents blatant discrimination. Instead I suspect (and studies support) the other issues that you list play a key role. Women are told at many levels (sometimes by other women) that computer science is "too hard" from them, or otherwise inappropriate for a women. This is incredibly discouraging for a young person! I have observed the strong influence of these issues among my own students in molecular biology and in my discussions with women in different fields and at different ages. Even now guidance councilors will tell a women student interested in computer sciences, or say physics- "Oh, that is a very hard field! Have you considered perhaps being a biologist?" Whereas they will tell a guy with the same grades, "Oh, good choice!" And this is why I think that active attempts to encourage women to embark on careers in these areas are crucial because they help resolve the problems you listed.

I do believe that some subconscious discrimination against women remains at managerial levels and among some of their peers in many businesses. But I think this is much less so in current educational programs and I anticipate (or at least hope) that this subconscious discrimination at the higher career levels will gradually disappear..

I think that's probably about right.

My sense is that the problem is almost circular. Women don't generally choose these fields because hardly any women choose them. So encouragement and removing barriers is useful but it might also need a bit of brute force to nudge things in the right direction at times.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 12:18 AM   #594
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
All of which would fit neatly into #1:

1. Younger women tend not to go into computer programming for completely personal reasons and thus are not in the job pool, and Google's 20% female workforce is perfectly fine.



This is certainly true; the problem is that it leaves the bean counters stranded with no objective to target. In one of the articles I read recently Google was pushing the news that their new hires were 21% female instead of 20% female like the existing company. Of course, if one really buys the premise that there should be absolutely equal numbers, that doesn't sound like much progress. If it means that they were dipping a little deeper into the applicant pool on the female side than among men, you can argue whether that's good or not--more diversity versus strict meritocracy, but it makes a pretty good argument that they are acting in good faith (as far as women go--arguably they are discriminating against men).
So what? There are plenty of fields without proven specific objectives to target. The objective is more. For now anyway.

And no just because women don't choose the field it doesn't mean things are 'fine'. If the personal reasons are actually external influence then they aren't really personal are they?

Another trend I see here is to look for blame rather than solutions. The important part is not for me whether Google are to blame or not but what can be done to improve the situation. And that seems to be an issue on both sides.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 02:39 AM   #595
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
And no just because women don't choose the field it doesn't mean things are 'fine'. If the personal reasons are actually external influence then they aren't really personal are they?
Yes they are, actually.

Nothing you ever do is entirely independant of external influence. Does that mean we never make personal choices?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 03:07 AM   #596
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I've already and repeatedly discussed these points. If you cannot see the parallels between the current arguments and the prior discredited ones (the prior arguments you appear to be intentionally ignorant of) then I see no purpose for me to continue to repeat myself. Honestly I cannot imagine how you can be so unaware of how similar arguments and studies were used in the past to justify the relative absence of women in certain fields. I presume you realize that women were intentionally barred from many, many disciplines and careers for centuries, and these official and unofficial barriers were widely in place as recently as just a few years ago. Do you really believe that the people imposing these barriers never tried to justify it in the same way as now is trotted out for physics and computer sciences? You can read newspapers and magazine articles from these periods- you need not believe me. Butl I was born in the 1950s and I certainly saw in person these barriers, heard these arguments, and read the quotes from "scientific" studies, again and again. Women MDs were incredibly rare just 30 years ago, and the medical schools had the same explanations of why this was just and valid, and why it reflected the fundamental biology and preferences of women. But I was able to watch as the reality displaced the lies, and see women demonstrate their interest and skill in medicine and in all the other fields I cited.

So now you find yourself claiming that this time there are relevant biological differences between women and men that, in this case, make men better programmers. This time the studies are scientific and true. This time the prejudice from decades and centuries of women being treated as mental inferiors happens to be justified in this area, even though it proved to just be bigoted crap when applied to the multiple other areas I cited. And you think that I am ignoring reality and the facts. I am amused.
Hasty Generalization/Association fallacy.

Basically you're using free association.

Here's an example: Glenn Beck uses free association. You use free association. I can now casually dismiss anything you have to say without actually considering it on its own merits.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 04:59 AM   #597
Graham2001
Graduate Poster
 
Graham2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,140
For anyone who is interested there is a recording of a live reading/discussion on YouTube, it lasts around two hours and goes through the whole paper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqaFxjqNQKo

To summarize the author has some good points, overreaches in others and brings in stuff that really was not needed.
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!"
'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail

Everybody gets it wrong sometimes...
Graham2001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 05:32 AM   #598
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,082
I listened to the Slate Political Gabfest about this subject, and they had three very good takes on it. One was that there should be no need to broaden the discussion on this subject to the points of view Damore wanted included, because those points basially are PRATTs. Another was that even if those points are PRATTs, Google should not have fired Damore and made him a martyr for MRAs and various other right wing internet denizens. I would recommend a listen.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 05:52 AM   #599
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
So what? There are plenty of fields without proven specific objectives to target. The objective is more. For now anyway.
If you don't have a target (objective or not), then the objective will always be "more". But that's just dogma.

Quote:
And no just because women don't choose the field it doesn't mean things are 'fine'. If the personal reasons are actually external influence then they aren't really personal are they?
Everyone's choice for every job is influenced by external factors. It cannot be otherwise. You may object to specific external factors, but that they are external does not suffice for that objection. And some factors (such as salary) are absolutely necessary in order for the economy to function.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 08:24 AM   #600
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yes they are, actually.

Nothing you ever do is entirely independant of external influence. Does that mean we never make personal choices?
Well it's not as simple as that. I was objecting to the false dichotomy that either its a) discrimination or b) personal choice and therefore 'fine'.

And while nothing we do is entirely independent of external influence there are degrees of external influence which may or may not be 'fine'.

Is a personal choice made on the basis of misinformation a truly personal choice for example?
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.