[Closed] If you got fired for writing an internal memo that was scientifically correct...

What is your underlying issue OP?

It was posted very clealy in my orignal post.

this numpty decided issue a polemic as to why there was a reason parity would never be achieved?

Obviously you haven't read his paper (I have). His 'paper', which was well researched and backed up by data, suggested a number of things, one of which was that perhaps completely equal representation might not be possible because differences between men and women.

That's not hostility towards women that just a hypothesis. I don't know why you would want to subjugate the real discussion and move it to something else. But given that this guy got fired, I would suggest that the open hostility is not towards women, but towards anyone who challenges the received orthodoxy.

Isn't the real point that in an environment where diversity at tech firms has been identified as an issue

Well the issue is that we don't have 50/50 representation; perhaps the more relevant question is, why given equality of opportunity do we not see equality of outcome.

The argument is that while we should aim for this, don't be surprised if we don't reach it because of these other variables that are not down to bias or discrimination.

I have provided evidence of the so called "large innovative" software tech companies founded by male.

Ya, no questions about the ability that women can do software coding but how good are they? Where are the software tech companies founded by female? Nyet, nada, zilt, nothing noticeable. 😯

Web design? 😆

Obvious is obvious ...

Ya, no questions about the ability that women can do software coding but how good are they?

you should stop here as it pretty obvious that you know nothing about this subject. Here's a list of some famous and significant names :

https://anitaborg.org/insights-tools/infographics/famous-women-in-computing/

Helen Greiner - cofounder of iRobot answers one of your questions.

more at wikipedia :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing

Obviously you haven't read his paper (I have). His 'paper', which was well researched and backed up by data,

Yeah you'll have to list those data, the onus is you or you are just posting unverified opinion

In the real world, that lower level of agreeableness tends to make men more likely to chose jobs that focused on 'things' rather than people and in women the exact reverse is true

And then you find that as you gain seniority, the "things" matter a lot less and your job becomes more about people.

I'm a chartered engineer (with 9% of engineers in the UK being women, it is pretty male dominated). We have a lot of men who have reached positions of some seniority based on their success with things, the problem is that they are totally shite with people.

But then we force social stereotypes on people from such an early age. I've been shopping with my kids for shoes this morning. My two girls are just about to start school. Among the school shoes, virtually all of the girls ones are little more than glorified ballet shoes. Not ideal for the Scottish summer, let alone winter, and crap for playing football in the playground. Boys shoes are all nice and sturdy all round shoes, girls ones are more like dress shoes. What hope do they have when they are pigeon holed so early?

What hope do they have when they are pigeon holed so early?

So what you are saying is that your parenting skills are so poor that you have allowed the world around them to influence them more than you, and your partner ? Sounds a bit glass-half-empty to me.

kimbers

or you are just posting unverified opinion

Whereas you (and everyone else lining up to attack the author of a memo they clearly didn't read) are posting lazy ad hominem attacks, personal insults, mischaracterisations and lies.

sexist moron

I find the OPs desire to belittle women using "science" as odious as I find the commentator he is defending
IMHO you are a sexist and worse you think its everyone else is one as you think women are different by which you mean lesser.

an entitled, rich, silicon-valley nerd.

a whiny entitled cockbag

hate-filled right-wing nut job who believes all that crap

he ran off to do interviews with some alt-right talk radio trolls straight after, only confirms that he's a Muppet in my non-professionally assessment.

the manifesto of insecure **** who's propped up his Milo yianopolis (sp?) Spoonfed Conspiracy theories with a few hours browsing Wikipedia

However, I also believe, as do a lot of other people, that the differences cannot be 100% explained just by bias.
...
However most tech companies are sausage fests and continue to be so.
...
It is entirely possible (indeed far more likely given the date range) that the decline in the ratio is because the number of men chosing computer science has risen by a much higher factor than women.

I wonder why that might be.

In unrelated news, here's a photo a friend of mine took earlier today.

[img] [/img]

But then we force social stereotypes on people from such an early age.

Indeed.

There may be a genetic link that means more men are likely to have the personality disorders required to be good in that field, or there may not.

As an aside here: research into ASD has historically been vastly weighted towards understanding males on the spectrum. ASD in females is poorly understood and almost certainly massively underdiagnosed.

11 pages. By page 7 it's just cougar, junky, kimbers and chewkw participating.

I’m rather shocked and appalled by way too many comments in this thread. There’s a miserable mix of people either agreeing that women are somehow “less fit” to work in tech or that the bigotry they face (and they do face it) doesn’t exist.

Seriously, if you can’t read back and see that, you need to open your eyes, ears and, especially, minds. 🙄

Rachel

I also don't think that it will ever be as close to social as not to matter. You cannot possible dismiss 2 million years of biology as being indifferent to the outcome.

I wouldn't dismiss the biology side (though nature/nurture isn't exactly a debate with a conclusion), I'm just not sure you can separate the two in any meaningful way in this sort of case, it's "easy" on an individual basis but, what not when it's essentially species wide.

To me the difficulty is this:

I believe in evolution.
I believe what separates us from a banana is a direct result of response to environmental stimulus.
For a very long time our environment has been social as well as physical.
For the last few hundred years it's been almost entirely social, art least in western society.
We've developed the biology we have as a result of social niche and requirements at least as much as physical.
For a very long time our society has pushed men and women in different directions.
The diversion between one and the other - if it exists - is likely as not, a direct result of that social impetus.

So to me, to suggest men and women naturally think differently is as accurate as suggesting rich people are naturally healthier than poor people.

That's where changes are needed, to make that career path more attractive to women, not trying to create diversity by having recruitment targets for women.

It's not just about making STEM careers more attractive IMHO. Where changes are needed is to allow and encourage girls to grow up believing that they can be something other than just housewives and baby factories.

I'm not saying we haven't marginalised women because clearly we have. I'm simply saying that that process is not asymmetric.

Of course it is. There are plenty of issues which affect men more than women, sure. But to conflate one with the other as if they're identical is meninist horseshit. Sorry.

Let me give you an example. You said "the vast majority of casualties in war are male". Of course it is, the vast majority of soldiers are male. If the army was 50:50 male:female, what do you think that would do to the statistics?

Now, apply that logic to other areas. Suicide due to work stress? Death when doing dangerous manual work?

Men are in a position of privilege in Western society, women are treated as inferior. Men are conditioned to be scientists and action heroes, women to be little princesses to be looked after. Generation after generation we reinforce this, right from the outset when we buy little Logan his first Action Man and little Chardonnay her first baby dolly. You can go "yeah but, testicular cancer" as much as you like but it's a straw man.

11 pages. By page 7 it's just cougar, junky, kimbers and chewkw participating.

I doubt it, I'll have banned at least one of them by that point.

(-:

Page 3. Don't think that counts as a warning though.

I've still got my money on page 11 for that.

By page 7 it's just cougar, junky, kimbers and chewkw participating.

Nah im of for a bike ride !

kimbers - Member
By page 7 it's just cougar, junky, kimbers and chewkw participating.
Nah im of for a bike ride !

Assuming it's not Lisbon to Naukan, i don't imagine it'll prevent you being back in time to join back in.

Now, apply that logic to other areas. Suicide due to work stress?

There's other issues at play with male suicide so don't equate fewer women killing themselves than men with less women in more senior roles at work

Yeah you'll have to list those data, the onus is you or you are just posting unverified opinion

For the umpteenth time, it's all there on the linked Youtube clip. I know you don't want to see it, but it's there.

There's other issues at play with male suicide so don't equate fewer women killing themselves than men with less women in more senior roles at work

Sure, but that's not what I said. "Suicide due to work stress" is 100% due to work stress, by definition. Of course there are other reasons. I'm losing the will to live reading some of the comments on here, for a start.

well you did choose to engage with sexists . What were you expecting an epiphany than shattered their bigotry?
Its not like the OP does not have a history of doing this and I like to term such folk mansturbaters- well its what the filter will let me get away with

The 20th century rumbles on.

Its not like the OP does not have a history of doing this and I like to term such folk mansturbaters- well its what the filter will let me get away with

I like to term people like you facists.

If the army was 50:50 male:female, what do you think that would do to the statistics?

This is true but fails to address the real issue which is why our armies are only populated by men and why the hard, menial and physically demanding jobs that lead to reduced life expectancy are largely populated by men.

You may find 'The Red Pill' and interesting perspective. It's made by a feminist who set out to ridicule the 'meninist' movement and ended up realising that they had a point.

well you did choose to engage with sexists

I don't believe GT is a sexist. Rather he's... ignorant, in the literal rather than pejorative sense.

I used to think the same way. Then I fell in with a new circle of friends, predominantly female, a number of whom were a bit broken in some way. It opened my eyes as to how I perceived things like feminism, equality, disability and privilege. I realised I was wrong about many things.

Primarily, I realised that "equality" and "fairness" were not synonyms.

This is true but fails to address the real issue which is why our armies are only populated by men

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-soliders-front-line-infantry-british-army-commander-tim-collins-no-place-for-woman-a7129271.html

I'll just leave this here.

OK but to what end, what point does this support?

FYI my undergraduate, in Anthropology, included a year of feminist studies. I used to consider myself a feminist but then I experienced life and I realised that while the need for equality was still very important and that much needed to be done, the issues were, as I've said, not asymmetrical.

Thanks for acknolwedging that I'm not 'sexist' and for qualifying what you mean by ignorant, but really I'm not that either. I am the kind of person who goes out of his way to both read as much as I can on a subject and I cahnge my mind if I see evidence that shows I was wrong. I believe I've demonstrated that capability on here a number of times and I genuinely mean no ill will to anyone (I also score very high on agreeableness!)

There's a point at which we end up agreeing that there is inequality everywhere, that it's not just women who are marginalised (btw did you know that women aged between 20 and 30 earn 15% more than their male counterparts), but men and many other groups and the only part we actually disagree on, is the degree to which these groups are more or less marginalised. And that is the point at which we also conclude that trying to agree who is more wronged is utterly futile and banal. It's like trying to argue who suffered more in the world wars based on how many of their citizens died.

What I am most concerned about however, is the same thing as prof. Peterson, which is the way in which the debate in the humanities gets shut down because it challenges orthodoxy even when the data says there might be somehting in it. That's intellectual tyranny and that way Fascism lies.

I like to term people like you facists.

At least you are consistently wrong and hyperbolic still that mansturbaters for you

Can I also just say that I think Chewkw's comments are simply ridiculous at best and unacceptable at worst. I do NOT share his view.

TurnerGuy - Member
Helen Greiner - cofounder of iRobot answers one of your questions.

It must be a struggle to find women leading in the software industry if you need to search through 177 years (1840 to 2017) of history for them ...

The [url= https://anitaborg.org/insights-tools/infographics/famous-women-in-computing/ ]timeline[/url] from 1840 up to 2017 in your link only listed 21 women "to lead" in software tech? I mean is that all? Some are working in team(s) and some are co-founder so how much each contributed nobody knows.

How many men have come and go by that time in software tech? 😮

If you really need to search hard to find women to lead then "Huston (woman) we have got a problem". 🙄

How long does it take for women to take the lead in software industry like those of the current ones led by men where everyone knows?

iRobot? She is not even the founder but "Co-founder" with two other men.

Now, if women really want to stand out in software tech then they need to become the founder and be household name, like all those large software tech companies. They need to start their own coz at the moment nobody knows if they are capable of becoming a successful household names.

Therefore, if women in the software tech want to present stronger arguments, that they are equal if not better, then they need to become household name. 😯

geetee1972 - Member

Can I also just say that I think Chewkw's comments are simply ridiculous at best and unacceptable at worst. I do NOT share his view.

Edit: I don't argue to support anyone but asking the obvious question where everyone seems deliberately trying to avoid.

[b]My argument is that [u]women can be as good[/u] but the [u]evidence does not match up[/u].[/b] i.e. why are most software tech companies have men as leaders at the moment?

Therefore, until you present a coherent argument to match up to that evidence, i.e. more women leaders in software, there simply is a gap in understanding why women have not started a household name software tech company.

The question is why? 😯

All equality taken into consideration in 21 century but why are women still not creating household name software? Is that the uncomfortable truth most refuse to address or do not know how to address?

why are most software tech companies have men as leaders at the moment?

Well if you listen to Peterson's arguments, you'll understand that the answer to that question has nothing to do with capability and to suggest such is pretty abhorent.

None of the arguments I or Peterson have put forward (or this Google engineer) have anything to do with IQ (which ultimately is what drives the cognitive ability needed to be a programmer). It's all about the effect of personality (specifically the big five traits) and how they result in different motivations.

But, to answer your question, have a listen to this:

There's something in this (something I chose for myeslf as well, i.e. I have chosen to let my wife's career take precidence over mine and have chosen a less demanding career path so that she can pursue hers and I can be more the primary care giver to our children).

oh, again with Prof Peterson? Odd that the ex google employee chose him to speak with, doncha think?

here's the link to his wiki page I posted on page one for folk who can be arsed to see what the good prof thinks about equality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

Odd that the ex google employee chose him to speak with, doncha think?

Not remotely surprising and I can't see what's wrong with it or with Peterson (I trust you've listened to hime at length yes?)

I can see what is wrong with Bill C16 though and so can many transgender people that I've spoken to about the concept. The moment you start to pass laws about how people should speak you've lost the argument. That is so spookily close to Orwellian's vision of a totalitarian state as to leave me cold.

I use the pronouns my best friend and others ask me to because of love and respect, not because of some stupid law.

geetee1972 - Member
Well if you listen to Peterson's arguments, you'll understand that the answer to that question has nothing to do with capability and to suggest such is pretty abhorent.

Regardless of the arguments it is a level playing field, it's called a competition.

In the case of the software guy who got fired for having opinions, he lose out to his competitor(s) (someone wants him out) regardless of how people interpret the event. However, his opinions are not entirely illogical.

There are many things that may impede women to become the software tech leaders but that is the nature of things. i.e. they need to fight for it like anyone else. 😀

Meh. Can't be arsed.

Not remotely surprising

is that an echo chamber you're in there..?

Regardless of the arguments it is a level playing field, it's called a competition.

True.

is that an echo chamber you're in there..?

I understand what you mean, just not why you chose that as a response to that statement. Why would Peterson doing an interview with this engineer be either surprising or a problem?

Has anyone else noticed that chewkw vocabulary, grammar etc have vastly improved now they've dropped the zombie maggot bollocks?

They've clearly found being articulate gets a bigger rise out of people.

There are many things that may impede women to become the software tech leaders but that is the nature of things. i.e. they need to fight for it like anyone else.

They have been fighting against a male dominated society since year dot. Regardless of what some idiot ex-google employee(his name wasn't sheldon was it?) and geetee is trying to spin, Women have found it difficult to enter certain employment sectors in numbers due to it.

This will change. My quip about the 20th century on page 3 is pointing out that some people need to stop living there.

Regardless of what some idiot ex-google employee

You're just being ignorant. Have you read the paper? The guy has a PhD for christ's sake (I have an equivalent to an MPhil).

So come on, what level of academic attainment did you reach?

All the points raised in opposition to his random musing are on point but there is something that is often missed; how women treat and assist each other in the workplace.

I have actively witnessed the savagery of women in the workplace, they're ruthless to each other. Many times over my 20+ career I have seen women when they get to a position of authority, ensure they strengthen it by doing what they must to make sure they're the only woman at that level. The sisterhood only seems to apply when they're all at the bottom.

Christ, it's something my partner openly admits at her workplace, one of the female directors has a long track history of very subtle and intelligent positive discrimination against women. It's why my other half is leaving for another position, she knows she's not getting on the same level has her.

It would be interesting to see the stats for job applications, e.g. male / female ratio applied and ultimately employed and everything in between. You'd find it hard to criticise any company that had 5% female applicants and took on 10% regardless of the talent / experience. I have no idea what way this might show.

To extend this further I would be looking at the background of the hiring manager. Does any particular ethnicity of hiring manager favour a particular gender? Is there a candidate rating process put in place to avoid exclusion / favouritism?

I have some pretty strong opinions and I have objected to practice repeatedly in my previous employer. I wouldn't say it made a blind bit of difference but I went further than most. Note this was recruitment outside of the UK.

They've clearly found being articulate gets a bigger rise out of people.

Or it's had a software update.

Maybe a woman has taken over the account 😉

What a load of hot air! What tyres for tomorrow? Some wet water and some dry dust.

Or it's had a software update.

Sorry but irrespective of whether you do or don't agree with him/her, to refer to someone in such a deliberately dehumanised way is particularly nasty.

wwaswas - Member
Has anyone else noticed that chewkw vocabulary, grammar etc have vastly improved now they've dropped the zombie maggot bollocks?

They've clearly found being articulate gets a bigger rise out of people.

😯

geetee1972 - Member
You're just being ignorant. Have you read the paper? The guy has a PhD for christ's sake (I have an equivalent to an MPhil).

Jamie - Member
Or it's had a software update.

geetee1972 - Member

Or it's had a software update.

Sorry but irrespective of whether you do or don't agree with him/her, to refer to someone in such a deliberately dehumanised way is particularly nasty.

geetee1972 - Member

Regardless of what some idiot ex-google employee

You're just being ignorant. Have you read the paper? The guy has a PhD for christ's sake (I have an equivalent to an MPhil).

So come on, what level of academic attainment did you reach?

Not sure why you would even take someone like this seriously? He's like 27, just dipped his toe into serious research, then binned it off, and he's revealing deep truths on sociobiological gender disparities? In a pig's arse, my friend.
He has insights into what it's like working for google, sure, but that's it.

Version 2.0 perhaps

Dread to think what the alpha release was like!

dangeourbrain - Member

Version 2.0 perhaps

Dread to think what the alpha release was like!

Okay, got to go you lot have fun (got work to do).

The guy has a PhD for christ's sake (I have an equivalent to an MPhil).

So come on, what level of academic attainment did you reach?

😳

(love that its now a wuilly waving contest about whos better qualified)

Yep guy faked having a PhD, he flunked out, tells people he passed!

I think Geetee1872 might be a better username, youd a loved it back then

All kinds of right-wing types were writing manifestos, explaining why women couldnt vote, eg, their smaller brains- backed up with real science, cranial measurements ! or election day might happen as they were menstruating!!

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

thats all this is, same shit different century

I think Geetee1872 might be a better username, youd a loved it back then

Kimbers you're being so utterly ignorant; you don't know me, you've never asked me what I think or what I believe and yet on the basis of a few posts here you decide that I must be the worst kind of sexist, mysoginist right wing prat.

You are really so very ignorant, bordering on offensive but hey that's OK because you feel you have the side of rightousness. Well shame on you.

For the record:

- I voted for Corbyn at the last election and voted Labour in general in four of the last six GEs
- I've taken the back seat with my career and sacrificed my own advancement so that my wife can pursue hers; her job is the more significant and important in terms of household income and security whereas I take the lead on looking after and caring for our children.
- I believe utterly and firmly in equality of opportunity and the importance of encouraging everyone to be the best that they can be and to access the things they want to access.
- I consider myself 50% Feminist and 50% Meninist, which I guess just makes me a humanist.
- I believe that our history so far has indeed done many wrongs and injustices to women and in many parts of the world that still happens and it is wrong.
- I believe that in this country at least we are very close to parity but there is still work to be done; women need to able to choose the careers they want and men need to be able to choose to care gives if they want (currently the law still disciminates against men in this capacity and the gap in choices that genders make about their work and careers will not reduce until this is addressed).

So go ahead and label me the worst kind of woman hating 19th century dinosaur if you like, it's only your ignorance you wallow in, it's not mine.

thats all this is, same shit different century

I'm inclined to agree, to be honest I'm a bit surprised that this Google chap has been taken so seriously. These kind of arguments are routinely put forward by MRA types, and then typically ignored by the more serious scientists.

I was under the impression that the whole evolutionary psychology/pink brain blue brain stuff had been debunked years ago? I suppose that psychology as a science is still in it's infancy anyway so is a bit of a magnet for folks who like to try and "push boundaries"... ...though sometimes they try to push them backwards, rather than forwards.

I was under the impression that the whole evolutionary psychology/pink brain blue brain stuff had been debunked years ago?

Do you mean the idea that male and female brains are different? If that is the case, and if the idea of that is abhorrent, then I guess the question back would be, well why; why is the idea that there might be small but important differences across large population samples of men and women in terms of their make up be so abhorrent?

There are after all clear physiological differences and these directly affect men’s' and women’s' abilities to perform certain tasks. The fastest male 100m runners are faster than the fastest female 100m runners for instance. No one quibbles about that.

When it comes to potential differences in personality and the way that then translates to life experience, why then does that become such a problem? (Let's for a moment assume that this is irrefutable, i.e. that there are differences and that [u]some [/u] (but note NOT all) of the difference in life experiences and outcomes can be attributed to those differences in personality traits. I accept that this is still open to debate on a number of levels but this is a thought question for the moment).

Why is the idea of MRA also so abhorrent? You do know that 'MRA types' by and large don't want to try and halt or reverse the advancements in women's right, we just want to have the issues that specifically affect men (for example suicide, failing/low educational attainment, lack of parental leave rights, health care and life expectancy etc) to be recognised and addressed. Why treat that with such disdain and spite? (Note that if I met any MRA Type who was motivated to reverse the equality levels we have reached, I would disown them. I also accept that there are MRA types who are motivated like this.)

Your grasp of psychology sounds pretty basic. Mine is not much more advanced and it's true that a lot of psychology is done in a terribly plebeian way. The highest branches of the subject though use very robust methodologies to try and understand human behaviour though it is also true to say that our understanding of how the mind works is incredibly naive.

Geetee, you are wasting your time. Let's ignore the implications that one of the most powerful organisations on the planet is an ideological echo chamber and has a massive political bias.

Perhaps we should unpack what other forum members are saying instead, since James Damore's ideas are clearly so laughable.

So where to start?

[b]There's no such thing as a male or female brain[/b] (ignoring the fact that there are male and female endocrine systems, that's inconvenient).
[b]Gender is non binary.[/b]
[b]Gender is just a social construct.[/b]

Are those the STW™ approved philosophical and sociological theories of gender?

The highest branches of the subject though use very robust methodologies to try and understand human behaviour

You need to show us this data, YouTube videos don't count, 4000 word manifestos from guys that pretend to have a PhD aren't going to be read either, some actual data is what you need if your ideas are going to wash with anyone. Until you try and convince us with real science

Actually I think gender is a social constuct. Sex isn't but that's not the same thing hence you get gender dysphoria when your assigned gender doesn't match your internal biological experience.

Somebody earlier said something really interseting that I thought was very telling and gave useful insight into some of the problems we're grappling with.

They said that women need to be able to feel that they are able to do far more than 'just be baby factories or housewives'.

That's telling because part of the problem as I see it, is the incredibly disparity in the social status (or the lack thereof) that we assign to that role. That is an extension of the lack of social status we assign in general to roles associated with caring and nurturing and that is subsequently reflected in what we pay people. For example, a teacher earns what, late £20k maybe early £30k if they’re ten or 15 years in and yet a similarly qualified sales exec (my chosen profession) can be earning upwards of £60k by that point? That’s crazy. How hard is being a social worker and yet how much do they earn? Teachers, nannies, nursery workers etc, we entrust these people with our children and yet they are paid in the lower or mid quartile. It’s wrong but it reflects the value we put on care giving, nurturing focused people roles.

Testosterone makes men behave in a way that is status seeking; there’s a need for social dominance built into a lot of men, either at a residual level or a very high level that then massively accounts for behavioural drive. If we denude the value of staying home and looking after children, what kind of behaviour is that going to precipitate? If we then make it financially more beneficial for women to take that responsibility and deny men the same benefits (as we currently do), do you think that is more likely or less likely to solve the problem?

You need to show us this data, YouTube videos don't count

OK Kimbers - there are a dozen scientific papers on the subject of the differences between men and women in terms of psychological profiling and the big five personality traits linked from the Youtube video. If you click below the video itself you will find them.

If you want a more general example the robust statistical methodology used to evaluate and understand personality then can I suggset this book (written by my uncle as it happens):

[img] [/img]

At every turn I've linked to the very data you and everyone else has been asking for.

why do you think there is such disparity in the pay of "nurturing" roles that are filled by women vs "Executive" roles which are better paid and filled mostly by men?

geetee1972

Actually I think gender is a social constuct.

geetee1972

Testosterone makes men behave in a way that is......

Sorry which is it?

nickc - Member

why do you think there is such disparity in the pay of "nurturing" roles that are filled by women vs "Executive" roles which are better paid and filled mostly by men?

Never mind that, can we address the much bigger disparity that we see in construction? Females account Less than 1% of labourers and builders.

Do you mean the idea that male and female brains are different? If that is the case, and if the idea of that is abhorrent, then I guess the question back would be, well why; why is the idea that there might be small but important differences across large population samples of men and women in terms of their make up be so abhorrent?

Abhorrent? I wouldn't use that word, too many assumptions behind it. May be uncomfortable. No, I was just under the impression that there was far more variation between individuals than sexes, and that it had minimal impact in terms of capabilities or character traits.

There are after all clear physiological differences and these directly affect men’s' and women’s' abilities to perform certain tasks. The fastest male 100m runners are faster than the fastest female 100m runners for instance. No one quibbles about that.

Is that brain differences though? I was again under the impression this was due to muscle mass and bone structure.

When it comes to potential differences in personality and the way that then translates to life experience, why then does that become such a problem? (Let's for a moment assume that this is irrefutable, i.e. that there are differences and that some (but note NOT all) of the difference in life experiences and outcomes can be attributed to those differences in personality traits. I accept that this is still open to debate on a number of levels but this is a thought question for the moment).

Because there are, I believe, far wider variations across individuals, and my understanding is that any differences between sexes is more due to socialisation than genetics. Besides which, assuming certain classes (be that sex, race, nationality or whatever) of people are better or worse at one role compared to another doesn't sit comfortably with me.

Why is the idea of MRA also so abhorrent? You do know that 'MRA types' by and large don't want to try and halt or reverse the advancements in women's right, we just want to have the issues that specifically affect men (for example suicide, failing/low educational attainment, lack of parental leave rights, health care and life expectancy etc) to be recognised and addressed. Why treat that with such disdain and spite? (Note that if I met any MRA Type who was motivated to reverse the equality levels we have reached, I would disown them. I also accept that there are MRA types who are motivated like this.)

Because the only MRA types I have encountered are those you are disowning!

Your grasp of psychology sounds pretty basic. Mine is not much more advanced and it's true that a lot of psychology is done in a terribly plebeian way. The highest branches of the subject though use very robust methodologies to try and understand human behaviour though it is also true to say that our understanding of how the mind works is incredibly naive.

Thank you for the compliment! My knowledge is basic of the science, but I'm well aware of the discussions within the profession. Hence my assumptions previously re: lack of appreciable differences between the outcomes of men's and women's brains.

why do you think there is such disparity in the pay of "nurturing" roles that are filled by women vs "Executive" roles which are better paid and filled mostly by men?

I think there are a number of reasons:

- the IQ needed to perform well in nuturing roles is in general lower than the IQ needed to be a corporate executive (this is well established fact - don't even think to challenge it). That means you have a much smaller pool of people who could do that work and that pushes up the price.
- many of the nuturing roles are public sector funded from general taxation rather than from a profit motivated source (thank god). That means you're working with a degree of inefficiency that will limit the resources available to you. On the other hand, it does make it terribly secure.
- society tends towards status orientation and our capitalist system places high emphasis on consumerism as a means of expressing that staus; a role that is able to pay more will therefore be seen as being of higher status. This then becomes a circular reference; the more status available, the more competitive the audience, the higher the pay.

Personally I think we've got it very wrong. It shouldn't be like this. Schools should be palaces for instance, and teachers should be like royalty.

why do you think there is such disparity in the pay of "nurturing" roles that are filled by women vs "Executive" roles which are better paid and filled mostly by men?

Supply v demand

Because there are, I believe, far wider variations across individuals,

Peyote - YES! this is exactly what the Google engineer and Peterson are saying!

Is that brain differences though

Honestly I don;t know and I don't think anyone does. One of the things we've started to explore a lot more recently is the effect of experience on brain structure. For example, we've recetly found significant differnces in brain structure and wiring in adults that experienced severe childhood trauma (for example abuse or bullying).

It could be that differnces in social experiences of men and women are the cause of the real differences in brain structure and therefore the (small) differnces in observed personality traits and expressed behavour. This then becomes a circular reference, sort of like chicken and egg (someone made this argument before; you have no control group until you have a group that can be truly outside of the general problem you're trying to test for).

No, I was just under the impression that there was far more variation between individuals than sexes

Again yes, that is precisely what the paper acknolwedged and what all the research suggests (and it's been cited in this discussion as well).

For clarity, the questions I wanted to debate were as follows:

- To what extent do we see any statistically meaningful difference in personality traits between men and women?
- To what extent are these differences consistent across cultures?
- To what degree are we comfortable that these differences, if they do exist, are the result of biology versus socialisation?
- Does the answer to that question actually matter?
- If there are small but statistically significant differences in traits, to what extent might these either partially in wholly explain differences in career choices or career outcomes?

I think these are valid questions. There is data to suggest that some of the suppositions are true. These are the questions and the data that the paper the Google engineer wrote got fired for asking/suggesting.

The outcome is not that we should ignore equality. The outcome is that [u]perhaps [/u] an exact 50/50 outcome might not be possible or desirable. Maybe 45/55 is the right balance of outcome. Again, this is why he got fired, for suggseting this.

My original question, the reason I wsa concerned enough to start this debate, is as follows:

At what point does the politics of a subject over ride the science in a justifiable way, i.e. for the betterment of society we choose to ignore the data and penalise those who ask questions in response to that data.

Don't forget this guy got fired for asking questions that he, and others, though fairly reasonable. That's a hell of an outcome. How about if he got jailed for that, would that be acceptable?

Sorry which is it?

Gender is a social construct. Maleness, as determined chemically and of which relatively higher levels of testosterone is a defining characteristic, is biologically determined. It's a scale though so at some point even the biology becomes a bit blurred.

Somebody earlier said something really interseting that I thought was very telling and gave useful insight into some of the problems we're grappling with.

They said that women need to be able to feel that they are able to do [b]far more than[/b] 'just be baby factories or housewives'.

That's telling because part of the problem as I see it, is the incredibly disparity in the social status (or the lack thereof) that we assign to that role

That was me, and that's not quite what I said.

Where changes are needed is to allow and encourage girls to grow up believing that they can be something [b]other than[/b] just housewives and baby factories.

It's a subtle but important difference. I wasn't suggesting that being a housewife / mother had less merit, rather that it shouldn't be presented as their only life option.

It's perhaps telling in itself (in terms of wider society's preconceptions) that that's what you'd inferred from my comment.

[i]their only life option[/i]

or the 'natural' one.

or the one that their religion prescribes for them.

It's a subtle but important difference. I wasn't suggesting that being a housewife / mother had less merit, rather that it shouldn't be presented as their only life option.

OK I accept that - I think that you're statement would be better without the word 'just' after 'other than'. I know that the word 'just' in that sentence doesn't have to be pejorative, but it comes across like that.

That said, do you agree that society does still under value those roles, i.e. the nuturing care giving, people oriented roles?

Do you think that nurses, teachers, social workers etc should be paid more?

Gender is a social construct. Maleness, as determined chemically and of which relatively higher levels of testosterone is a defining characteristic, is biologically determined. It's a scale though so at some point even the biology becomes a bit blurred.

Sounds like you're a transmisogynist biological sex defender.

Sounds like you're a transmisogynist biological sex defender.

I don't even know what that means but I think that was the point? 😉

the IQ needed to perform well in nuturing roles is in general lower than the IQ needed to be a corporate executive (this is well established fact - don't even think to challenge it).

Dont suppose you will give the studies providing that information then. Leaving aside the controversy around IQ there is the obvious flaw that being an exec uses a lot more softer skills.
The actual answer to why they earn more is far simpler. They are in the position of deciding how the cash gets distributed.

OK I accept that - I think that you're statement would be better without the word 'just' after 'other than'. I know that the word 'just' in that sentence doesn't have to be pejorative, but it comes across like that.

Agreed, that was clumsy wording on my part.

That said, do you agree that society does still under value those roles, i.e. the nuturing care giving, people oriented roles?

Do you think that nurses, teachers, social workers etc should be paid more?

I do.

Despite your (I think, someone's anyway) correlation between these sorts of roles and IQ, all of those roles are still skilled professions. You don't drop out of high school with a GCSE in woodwork and become a nurse.

Dont suppose you will give the studies providing that information then

Jeez there is a plethora of papers on the subject and an easy search to make but I'll do some of the leg work for you:

[url= http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf ]Mainstream Science on Intelligence[/url]

[url= http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-you-dont-want-to-know-iq-2011-11?IR=T#if-you-have-an-iq-of-at-least-115-you-can-do-any-job-9 ]Business Insider Article that cites numerous studies and links to them. [/url]

You don't drop out of high school with a GCSE in woodwork and become a nurse.

No this is true. The IQ needed to be a nurse is somewhere around the average of 100 so clearly not even near the lower quartile. But the IQ needed to be a top executive is at least 115 and given that there are many candidates with IQs in the range of 130+ the competition is going to result in the highest IQs rising up.

That said, the research suggests that above 115, IQ stops being a differentiator for performance and other factors become more relevant, these being:

- Motivation (otherwise known as conscientousness), do you have the drive and the desire/need to increase your status and are you willing to apply yourself in single minded pursuit of this?
- Experience - have you had the opporutnity to develop the skills and capaiblities needed at the next level of seniority in either a formal or informal way (usually it's informal because formal would suggest promotion to the job you're aiming for).
- General 'cometence' - are you able to model the behaviours that the hiring agent(s) is/are looking for in the role. Note that behaviour is not personality, rather an expression of it and alternatives can be learnt.

What's also interseting is that the higher your IQ, the more likely you are to be socially conversant as well. The idea that IQ and EQ are separate seems to be disappearing.

Jeez there is a plethora of papers on the subject and an easy search to make but I'll do some of the leg work for you:

And yet you dont come up with a single paper but just some editorials. The one which is more than a pr release has a one liner on the subject.

geetee1972

Sounds like you're a transmisogynist biological sex defender.

I don't even know what that means but I think that was the point?

Nope. The point was that whilst you are obviously being as PC as possible by asserting that [i]"gender is a social construct, but sex is biological"[/i], even this statement is now coming under fire for being transphobic, transmisogynistic and false.

In line with Google, and all of STW it seems, you've ceded the entire idea that gender is anything to do with biology but you are clinging on to the idea maleness or femaleness are somehow biological. Presumably in a year or two your wrongthink will be corrected and you will understand that even biological sex is a social construct.

And yet you dont come up with a single paper but just some editorials

Happy now?

[url= https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/01/Kell-Lubinski-Benbow-20131.pdf ]Who Rises to the Top[/url]

I think we're all well aware about what rises to the top.

(-:

The IQ needed to be a nurse is somewhere around the average of 100 so clearly not even near the lower quartile. But the IQ needed to be a top executive is at least 115 and given that there are many candidates with IQs in the range of 130+ the competition is going to result in the highest IQs rising up.

Where are you getting this information from, out of interest? It's very much out of line with my experience of the nursing profession.

Presumably in a year or two your wrongthink will be corrected and you will understand that even biological sex is a social construct.

Ah I see. Well I did indicate that even the notion of chemical maleness gets a bit blurred around the extremes so I think I'll be OK.

I'm not a fan of the idea of making stuff up just to suit your own political perspcetives, which I think is definitely happening in some quarters and is reflected in the Bill C16 controversy.

But, at the same time, based on personal experience of my best friend, it's also very apparent that the notion of even biological sex is nothing like as black and white as we would like to think.

My best friend for example measures a level of testosterone so low that despite originally being assigned both male sex and mascuine gender and living like that for 40 years, she is only now coming to terms with the conflict and has transitioned to being female.

The interesting part is that her measured testosterone (prior to medication that is) was still higher than something like 95% of females. This is only one variable of course and ultimately it makes no difference to her newly identifying as female and living in a feminine gender role. And of course, I really couldn't care less what expressed gender roles she wants to play, I just love her as my best friend.