a paper which didnt have anything to do with your claim really doesnt help your claims
OK in the ineterests of engaing and hoping for a learning outcome, the data you're looking for in that paper is on page 89 and 90. It shows the measured IQs for a whole raft of different occupations where N was larger than 30, making the sample statistically significant. Not massively conclusive, and only one study I grant you, but still it showed that the 10th percentile IQ range for nurses was about 110 and the 50th percentile was ariound 95-100.
The application to any job should be based solely on merit, ability to do the job and if you'd fit in with the team.
Specifying 50/50 splits on boards and management positions when the population of applicants to such positions is split 90/10 or 75/25 or whatever, only increases the likelihood of employing/promoting a less qualified, less capable PERSON to the role.
Quotas don't recognise merit, what they do is penalise a large proportion of PEOPLE who have worked as hard, as long and have the same ambition of all others in the room.
The underlying fundamentals (girls wanting to do Science and Tech at school/uni) need to be addressed such that an equal proportion of men and women (like in medicine and law) are graduating and progressing in the field.
STEM ambassadors like myself, have to find better ways of connecting with girls and encouraging them to get involved in these areas. I try to do this at EVERY event I host. At my last, 3, 7 year old girls told me (via letters posted to my work) that they wanted to be engineers and scientists rather than hairdressers and beauticians thanks to my visit and lessons. [u][b]THIS[/b][/u] is what needs to be done.
Put it another way...to completely renovate a house, one that will endure for some time, you start with an examination of the foundations and your requirements, reinforcing them where required and replacing them where necessary. Then adapt the structure to fit your requirements. eventually you affix to the roof so as to protect and nurture that which is inside and growing. You don't start buy blithely installing new roofing on a not broken building which isn't fit for purpose.
OK in the ineterests of engaing and hoping for a learning outcome
Awesome. Lets get started.
the data you're looking for in that paper is on page 89 and 90
So leaving aside I was looking at the first paper you claimed supports your claims I will move on to the second.
So the obvious flaw to start with is even with the second paper its a appendix item which oddly doesnt seem to be directly referenced in the main body.
If I then look at it first of all its a really crap format. Secondly I cant see the corporate execs you are talking about (this might be a mix of me and the crap format). There are several different manager variants with differing IQ measurements. Plus varying comparisons with the more nurturing professions.
I would ask you to cut out the middle man and just send the mens right site you are getting this from but the problem is it wastes far more of my time to bother looking at it properly than it does for you to grab the latest link of mens rights r us.
A tactic shared with groups such as the alt medicine fanatics. Ever willing to misinterpret any study to suit their beliefs.
I would ask you to cut out the middle man and just send the mens right site you are getting this from
Sorry what exactly do you think I'm getting from an MRA site?
We've been talking about the relationship between IQ and its relationship to the sort of work a minimum level of IQ enables you to do.
This is not MRA territory, not even remotely, since only someone delusional would suggest that there is any difference in measured IQs between men and women.
The reason we got onto IQ and it's relationship with the world of work is because someone asked why we value (i.e. pay) roles like nursing, teaching, social work etc less than say a high level corporate executive role.
Part of the answer I gave was that those roles tended to NEED a lower level of IQ than say a C-Level position on a FTSE 100 (and really, they do). Consequently, because IQ is a bell shaped distribution, there are many more people with IQs of 100-110 able to do the role of nurse, teacher, social worker etc, than there are to be CXOs.
If you really want to question the validity of the importance of IQ in complex, high functioning, demanding jobs then fine but you're an idiot if you do.
You think they call it 'rocket science' just because it sounds good? Do you think we make references to being a 'brain surgeon' rather than being a 'nurse' in reference to intellectual ability by chance?
There are jobs where a higher IQ than average is needed. CXO in a large company is one of them. That's just how it is. Now it's nothing like 100% of job performance and perhaps above an IQ of 130 the correlation coefficient reduces to zero, but that's not the same thing as saying that the CC is zero in all instances.
I work in this industry so I'm exposed to all kinds of data and papers all the time and every org psych I've ever worked with has said that IQ is a key component of success in work and the more senior your position the more relevant cognitive horsepower is UP TO A POINT.
Here you go, read the abstract which is pretty bloody clear:
[url= https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Schmidt10/publication/232446415_Intelligence_and_job_performance_Economic_and_Social_Implications/links/542231f30cf238c6ea678adb/Intelligence-and-job-performance-Economic-and-Social-Implications.pdf ]Intelligence and Job Performance[/url]
The application to any job should be based solely on merit, ability to do the job and if you'd fit in with the team.
I'm not convinced about the latter part of that assertion. If my team are a bunch of Brexit-voting Express readers, should I avoid recruiting someone brown?
Bringing in someone who doesn't "fit with the team" shakes up the team and forces it to grow rather than become entrenched.
STEM ambassadors like myself, have to find better ways of connecting with girls and encouraging them to get involved in these areas.
I've almost posted something similar a dozen times on this thread but it never seemed the right time.
It was touched on earlier as to what is essentially positive discrimination, about whether we should favour hiring women in STEM roles because they're underrepresented (which is a whole other discussion). But an interesting question might be, in terms of [i]recruitment [/i]should we be actively targeting groups of women?
Because, I think we should (we're back to the notion of equality vs fairness which I was roundly ignored about earlier). I think it's wrong to choose someone of one demographic over another as a diversity box-ticking exercise, but in terms of [i]encouragement[/i] we should absolutely be doing this. I would cheerfully* go into an all-girls college and tell them how awesome tech is and how they could all forge exciting careers if they wanted.
This is a subject both fascinating and close to me at the moment as I've just recruited three apprentice engineers, one of whom is a young woman, and she's currently the only female in the department. To my mind I wouldn't want to recruit someone purely based on their genitals, though in the end of a recruitment drive and interview process for three posts there were three very clear choices out of the pool so it was a very simple decision.
(* - Aspie brain aside. I'd probably shit myself, truth be told. But I'd love to do it on principle.)
GT, as I said earlier, I lost this thread some while back so apologies if I've not been paying attention. But can you please remind me, why do you appear to be rambling on about IQ on a discussion about gender as though you can either be a woman or clever?
It shows the measured IQs for a whole raft of different occupations where N was larger than 30, making the sample statistically significant
Well you may know a lot about clinical psychology but your knowledge of statistics is somewhat lacking !
why do you appear to be rambling on about IQ on a discussion about gender as though you can either be a woman or clever
I've been banging my head on my desk asking myself the same question!
I'm 'rambling' on about it because a number of posters keep challenging the validity of a previous assertion.
It might have been you but someone asked why we value care giving roles like nursing, social worker or teacher less than a senior corporate executive.
I gave a number of reasons, one of which was that the minimum IQ level needed to be a teacher, nurse, social worker etc, was lower than the minimum IQ level needed to be a CXO.
That idea has been constantly challenged and dismissed (I have no idea why), hence I'm still rambling on trying to explain it.
For the record, no one has ever said that men and women show differences in IQ scores. They don't clearly and I've already stated that.
Getting back to original issue, which was is it reasonable to fire someone for asking what is a valid question, this article on Bloomberg captures what I was trying to say all along:
[url= https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-09/google-misfires-on-diversity ]Google Misfires on Diversity[/url]
BTW I like and agree with everything you posted in the last but one post, on the need to get the message through to women about STEM jobs when they're at school.
Well you may know a lot about clinical psychology but your knowledge of statistics is somewhat lacking !
Yep maybe. But I was sure that 30 was the magic number for any sample size to produce a valid result. Nope, in fact I 100% remember my Statistics professor saying that 30 was enough to give you a valid sample size.
It might have been you but someone asked why we value care giving roles like nursing, social worker or teacher less than a senior corporate executive.
Categorically wasn't me. I don't believe we do value them less, we just reward them less.
Aside: I think this thread may be the most amicably, respectfully and civilly I've ever vehemently disagreed with someone, and I've been on the Internet longer than the Web has. Good work.
TL;DR, so I may have missed something important, and at risk of chucking something across the tracks and derailing the conversation, but it has been my sad experience over the years to have worked with a number of university educated folk, very intelligent, but with absolutely no common sense or ability to look beyond the limits of the education they'd had, (and they were exclusively male, as it happens), whereas I've worked with quite a few women, none of whom went to university but who had a much broader grasp of the industry in which I was working, and several were my superiors in the company structure, and a great pleasure to work with, because they could quickly see work-arounds in certain circumstances that totally escaped higher-ups who were supposed to be the smart ones!
This is in the print industry, not engineering, but I'm pretty sure similar situations apply.
Anyway, carry on.
Cougar - Moderator
I'm not convinced about the latter part of that assertion. If my team are a bunch of Brexit-voting Express readers, should I avoid recruiting someone brown?
1. Brexit doesn't mean racist. 2. That really depends upon how well the team works together and plays with others. Is Brexit their ALL? will the newcomer be okay in this environment if it is? What's the point in hiring someone who will be miserable and want to leave quickly?
Bringing in someone who doesn't "fit with the team" shakes up the team and forces it to grow rather than become entrenched.
Again, if you've got a team that works well together and plays well with others, why would you want a disruptive influence? You'll just reduce the quality of work from the team and make everyone, including the new employee uncomfortable.
For me, gender, race or age aren't issues to my team, it's personality traits that I'm looking for. Aggressive, selfish, etc.
Categorically wasn't me. I don't believe we do value them less, we just reward them less.
I think we agree 100% on this. My reference to society valuing those roles less was entirely predicated on the fact that we pay them less, i.e. we pay them less than the value they create/represent. I think most people would agree that their value and importance is exceptionally high and, thankfully, those roles command a lot of respect (this has been shown in studies in terms of the most respected/trusted professions).
It is how it should be but I still think they should earn more, particularly at the median level.
Aside: I think this thread may be the most amicably, respectfully and civilly I've ever vehemently disagreed with someone, and I've been on the Internet longer than the Web has. Good work.
This is really nice thing to say and it is also how it should be. There should be debate, that's the foundation of a high functioning democarcy. Ironically it is that very point that I was raising with this thread; I'm far less interested in establishing some alternative (right) truth about the nature of gender equality (though this is still important) than I am having the debate about it. And this is also precisely Peterson's point. Yes he is a conservative (perhaps the good kind but that is a different debate), but his main concern is that there is a signficant shutting down of debate and free speech that is being driven by ideologues for whom there can only be one explanation for the differences we see.
That problem is highlighted in large on this thread by the extreme and vitriolic reaction to some of the things I've put forward for discussion; whereas your responses have been measured, respectful and considered. I'm glad your a moderator Cougar (and you're measurdness is the thing that makes me think perhaps I should alter my own views).
The application to any job should be based solely on merit, ability to do the job and if you'd fit in with the team.
This issue of cultural fit is exceptionally interesting but it probably needs another thread to do it justice.
A highly regarded Org Psych recently told me that the research for the importance of 'diversity' is deeply flawed and was based on some very facile studies with huge conclusions inferred off the back of it.
There's no evidence that companies with a more diverse work force (diverse by nature of visible characteristics) perform better than those with low levels of diversity (or at least so I have read in numerous places).
However, '[u]inclusivity[/u]' is a powerful differentiator. The key difference is that while inclusivity does also result in a more visibly diverse workforce (because the mindset it engenders results in a naturally more diverse approach to hiring), it also recognises that one of the biggest inhibitors to performance in a company is everyone feeling that they have to fit in and be part of the corporate culture.
One of largest groups to be negatively affected by this is men; mnost men are coerced into being someone other than they really are in order to fit in and get along. Note that his is categorically NOT a 'poor men' comments, it is an observation that simply results in poor company performance.
Have a listen to this short talk by a chap with the coolest nanme ever - Octavius Black. He's the Org Psych who told me about the paucity of the diversity research:
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).So come on, what level of academic attainment did you reach?
geetee1972 - Member OK I accept that - I think that you're statement would be better without the word 'just' after 'other than'.
LOL!
We rate caring roles highly as we come into contact / have need for them. If they can't resolve our problem and the higher roles disprove whatever those roles will disappoint us. Caring roles provide a level of satisfaction.
