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?
geetee1972Actually I think gender is a social constuct.
geetee1972Testosterone makes men behave in a way that is......
Sorry which is it?
nickc - Memberwhy 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.
What's a 'memo'? Genuine question.
Where are you getting this information from, out of interest? It's very much out of line with my experience of the nursing profession.
There's various sources, the one I had in mind is data presented in a recorded lecture by a tenured prof. at the University of Ottowa but since that prof. is likely to controversial, it's not hard to find other sources. I'd suggest if you can find three independent sources that all reflect the same data that would be corrobortative.
[url= http://anepigone.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/average-iq-by-occupation.html ]Average IQ by profession[/url]
Keep in mind there is a difference between what is needed and what is seen. It's entirely possible, perhaps even likely that you've met nurses with IQs higher than the threshold.
I'd also suggest that if your supposition is based on personal experience of these people, rather than test scores, I'd question how valid your conclusion would be, i.e. can you really differentiate between someone with an IQ of say 100, and someone with an IQ of say 110, just by talking to them and seeing them in action rather than objctively measuring it?
I think at a bigger range of extremes it becomes more obvious.
Interstingly, what jobs do you think society has created for those people with an IQ in the 15th percentile or less, i.e. lower than 83?
estimated from wordsum scores
😆
probably why author and librarian are up near the top. 😀
you are more a cherry pick the data using conformation bias to support your view whilst criticising others for a lack of objectivityI'm not a fan of the idea of making stuff up just to suit your own political perspcetives
Here's a more robust paper on IQ and profession:
[url= http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf ]Meritocracy, Cognitive Ability, and the Sources of Occupational Success[/url]
you are more a cherry pick the data using conformation bias to support your view whilst criticising others for a lack of objectivity
Seriously, go away Junky, you're not contributing anything intelligent or constructive. I'm not interested in your bile or snide remarks. If you've got nothing intelligent, constructive or nice to say, best just keep quiet.
geetee1972My 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.
Ah so it appears your friend was the victim of having had a gender assigned to them at birth. This is clearly at the root of her problems and is obviously a key factor in perpetuating this myth of biological sex.
As soon as we can end white privilege, smash the patriarchy and establish a newer, fairer society based along the equal distribution of wealth for all we can put an end to this archaic practice of assigning outdated gender identities to children based on nothing more than the outward shape of their pee pee parts.
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.
This is about fairness and equality. The science and data you (and Damore) subscribe to does not allow or result in equality therefore the "politics" of the subject (as you put it) override the natural way things turn out. A forced distribution is required.
Here's a more robust paper on IQ and profession:
On the basis of the evidence reviewed here, I think it is fair to conclude that the traditional psychometric literature on cognitive ability—popularly resurrected in The Bell Curve—vastly overstates the case for the role of IQ in the stratification process.
The science and data you (and Damore) subscribe to does not allow or result in equality
Brakes this statement is NOT what is being suggested. Everyone agrees with the importance of 'equal opportunity', it's just the idea that this will/should result in 'equal outcomes' that's being debated.
Note that the differences in outcomes should not be determined by bias or discrimination; again no one is suggesting that. And we all also understand that much of this bias is unconscious and needs to be checked.
But Damore's paper was suggesting that perhaps, even with true and genuine equality at the start of a process, small differences in other variables will mean that a 50/50 outcomes isn't realistic and might only be achieved by actively engineering it. As in your statement:
A forced distribution is required
So you're in favour of positive discrimination, also known as 'discrimination'? If you are fair enough, I will respect your view, I just won't agree with it and the data suggests (note the word is not conclusive) that the distributions of some variables measured between men and women, do not perfectly overlap.
vastly overstates the case for the role of IQ in the stratification process.
Sure but that's not the same thing as saying it's irrelevant. No one has ever said that the correlation coefficient between IQ and career success is 1, from memory of the papers I have read in the past, it's about 0.4
Keep in mind there is a difference between what is needed and what is seen. It's entirely possible, perhaps even likely that you've met nurses with IQs higher than the threshold.
So assuming there is a direct corrolation between IQ and success, then potentially you need an IQ of 100 to scrape in as a crap nurse but a higher intelligence to be any good at it?
I think somewhere along the way I've lost the point of this conversation. We're comparing, what, intellectual professions against empathic ones by holding up the bottom-feeders of the latter as an example? (I'm not being a dick, this is probably just me not paying attention as I'm replying in between work).
I'd also suggest that if your supposition is based on personal experience of these people, rather than test scores, I'd question how valid your conclusion would be
Sure, I'm well aware that anecdote does not equal evidence, I wasn't drawing any conclusions or suggesting anything to the contrary.
Assuming there is a direct corrolation between IQ and success
No it's not direct; I mean in as far as there is no single vairable that ever gives a correlation coeffecient of 1 for this kind of thing. In this instance, the discussion was about the mean IQ and the fact that this indicates a general level of available talent and therefore the likely price for that talent in a competitive market (where even the public sector is exposed to competitive pressures when hiring talent).
The argument was why are nurses paid less than say doctors or corporate executives and the answer was, because there are fewer people able to do those jobs by virtue of the bell distribution of IQ.
I'm not being a dick, this is probably just me not paying attention as I'm replying in between work
I know that; I think everything you've said has been fair, just and even handed. I know we probably don't agree but I also know you don't think i'm being a dick.
it's just the idea that this will/should result in 'equal outcomes' that's being debated.
you don't work towards what you think the outcome will be, you work towards what you want the outcome to be; the desire is equality.
and wherever there is negative discrimination, positive discrimination is a viable way towards equality.
whilst Damore may have a point and his dismissal may have been heavy-handed, his method of communicating his views set out to derail a company value and positive culture-shift. he chose to derail a change for good for the sake of being right. science might have the answers, but it doesn't have the solutions.
I think you make a very fair point Brakes. It's not one I neccessarily disagree with.
Science about gender is mixed and conflicting because presently, once a person is born there is no way to get around the fact that a person's surroundings influence everything they become.
That link somewhere above puts 'machine operator' above 'veterinarian' so maybe 7 years of uni for an underpaid, on call shift working, life saving role is actually a mug's game.
Happy now?
Not really. Since you seem to be flailing around randomly choosing links and hoping no one looks at them.
You claimed that corporate execs have a higher IQ. All the studies shows is that out of a fairly large group preselected for high IQ some end up as administrators, managers or execs. A total not dissimilar to those who ended up as teachers.
Shows absolutely nothing of value to support your claims.
OK whatever, you're free to hold whatever view point you want.
Have a look at this and see if you change your mind:
To be clear, what I and the rest of the Occupational Psychology world is saying, is that there is a relationship between IQ and ability to perform well in a given job and that for each given occupation, there will be a typical mean IQ and minimum level IQ. It's not all there is, it only describes part of the success in those roles (by no means all or anything like all) but it does act as a threhold below which failure is almost certain.
I don't see why that's either controversial or difficult to understand. Heck most reasonably intelligent people would reach that conclusion pretty easily on their own.
I don't see why that's either controversial or difficult to understand. Heck most reasonably intelligent people would reach that conclusion pretty easily on their own.
You made specific claims about a specific profession. I asked for evidence which you have repeatedly failed to provide. The use firstly of PR puff pieces and then a paper which didnt have anything to do with your claim really doesnt help your claims. You have then diverted onto another subject.
There are several reasons for pay differentials. I mentioned one of them and there are others. Oddly enough though pure "IQ" only sometimes comes into it. It isnt hard to find extremely demanding fields which have low pay and others which dont require much IQ but instead other skills which pay a lot higher.
Dissonance by name......
I've no idea what point you just made.
