Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Dec 15 19:42:44 PST 2017

Utopia Talk / Politics / Morally offensive science
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Nov 28 10:26:51
Is less plausible.

A popular view in philosophy of science contends that scientific reasoning is objective to the extent that the appraisal of scientific hypotheses is not influenced by moral, political, economic, or social values, but only by the available evidence. A large body of results in the psychology of motivated-reasoning has put pressure on the empirical adequacy of this view. The present study extends this body of results by providing direct evidence that the moral offensiveness of a scientific hypothesis biases explanatory judgment along several dimensions, even when prior credence in the hypothesis is controlled for. Furthermore, it is shown that this bias is insensitive to an economic incentive to be accurate in the evaluation of the evidence. These results contribute to call into question the attainability of the ideal of a value-free science.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-015-0282-z


jergul
large member
Tue Nov 28 12:26:11
Ideal of value-free science? Hogwash.

The ideal is more correctly formulated as transparent science.
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 28 12:28:02
To just illustrate.

You are going to write a thesis paper. Clarify your motives for choosing that specific thesis.

Values start before a topic is decided.
Aeros
Member
Tue Nov 28 12:42:17
There is an actual problem in many scientific fields about researching "questionable" theories. Like for example, why is the Aids rate so disproportionately high among Homosexuals and is a more hedonistic lifestyle responsible?

It may not be related, but the mere act of asking the question can get you labeled a bigot so the matter remains unstudied.
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 28 13:04:26
Why would you have that as a thesis statement?

Hedonistic lifestyles lead to increased HIV infection rates.

Of course you would be labelled a bigot. It is inherent to the statement.

Looking at numbers of sexual partners, seeing if same sex partners impact, or if anal sex impact regardless of sexual orientation

Is more interesting and less moralistic.
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 28 13:12:35
The best explanation is cluster theory.

HIV infections will tend to occur in areas where HIV is already relatively well-established.

Poor black people sleeping with poor black people or homosexual males sleeping with homosexual males

Are simply much more likely to contract HIV than others, everything else being equal.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Nov 28 13:12:46
"Second, the participants in our studies were educated laypersons, not scientists. But it is scientists that have gone through years of training to be more careful reasoners regarding scientific hypotheses and reports falling within their areas of expertise; and it is scientists’ reasoning and explanatory judgment that are relevant to questions concerning the ideal of value-free science and objectivity in scientific reasoning. One may thus expect that professional scientists do not suffer from the same judgmental biases that we have demonstrated in undergraduates and educated laypersons. So, our results, it can be held, directly bear on how laypeople understand scientific information, but not immediately on issues in philosophy of science."

This study is best viewed in light of actual morally motivated science denial, for example creationism, gender theory/feminism, global warming, IQ and race and so on. As a general population level phenomena, but IRL it is much worse because there are a lot of uneducated lay idiots being selected out of the study.





Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Nov 28 13:23:11
"is a more hedonistic lifestyle responsible?"

It isn't that hedonistic lifstyle is "responsible" as much as a non hedonistic lifestyle all the way to pious chastity is a very good defense against AIDS. There are a range of human behaviors like fear of others and on topic, fear of faggotry that protect against vectors. Selection biatch!
Aeros
Member
Tue Nov 28 13:30:21
See, its all conjecture though. Nobody has actually done a formal lifestyle study with a broad pool of research subjects because the premise is objectionable. That's just one example though. What about a study that compares long term outcomes of students educated solely by Men vs. educated solely by Women to determine if their is a gendered outcome? Again, objectionable.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Nov 28 15:05:29
There is definetly a strong incentive amongst modern science to avoid politically incorrect conclusions, no matter how strong the data.
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 28 16:00:52
There are about 70 000 000 scientific papers.

Most legitimate angles have been covered.

How would you get your sample group Aeros?

Dukhat
Member
Tue Nov 28 16:15:06
Sam is such a fucking idiot. Scientists often write their papers in a way to avoid having their results misinterpreted and demagogued by Far-right News Sources.

Still today, there are far right retards that use the soundbite that the Montreal Protocol hasn't repaired the Ozone Layer and repeat the out-of-context quote constantly to talk about how Global Warming is impossible to stop.

This despite the thorough conclusion that the Montreal Protocol stopped the decay of the Ozone Layer and it's on its way to repairing itself after years.

Neckbeards like Sam are just brain dead.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Nov 28 17:47:13
Cuckhat talking about science rofl
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Nov 29 00:03:05
”Legitimate angles”

^this sums it up pretty well. All the legimate questions have been answered, why are you asking these questions? What are your motivations?

This is another interesting ”angle”, the SJW left like Jergul, who use morality as a bludgeon in politics already to shame and silence. Why are you even interested in the rapist ethnic background??? What is motivating your research into sex differences? You are fishing in muddy waters and so.

Diminishing return on the efficacy of these methods, shaming and forbidding, as we all know, has the opposite effect in the long term. So don’t worry Aeros, science prevails.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 29 04:00:00
Nimi
You are fundamentally misunderstanding science. It contains nothing but preliminary answers. Further research is always warranted.

A good scientist can reseach anything she likes. For example the ethnic background of rapists.

The problem there rests in shit-poor statistics on sexual crimes in general that in turn will always challenge research validity.

A good researcher will wait until statistical collection methods allow for proper study.

Also, the act of justification is inherently part of any paper. If you cannot justify why you are studying a topic from a specific angle, then you certainly cannot write a valid paper.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 29 04:01:35
In sum: Science has a liberal bias. For conservative science, see religion.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 29 06:58:17
http://www...ts-in-lapland?CMP=share_btn_fb

metooism in practice. Though the investigation predates the twitter action.

Here is how you quantify sexual crimes.

1. You isolate a group.
2. You interview
3. You count the number of sexual crimes reported
4. You raise criminal or recompensation charges
5. You count the number of positive verdicts.
...
Profit.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 29 06:59:06
(profit= now data exists for studies).
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 29 07:10:12
In Sweden you can do this like so:

(19)mm0101nnne - (19)mm1231nnne

mm = mortality adjusted random number 68-88
nnn = random number 001-999
e = random number 0,2,4,6,8

Randomly generate 1000 women for indepth police interviews. Follow steps 2-5.

Yay personal identity numbers.
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Nov 29 07:38:43
“Science has a liberal bias”

There’s that lie again...
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 29 08:23:04
CC
"There’s that lie again..."

There’s that lie again...

Fun!
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Nov 29 09:27:46
Lol jergul in a science thread
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 29 09:36:08
Lol sammy in a science thread.

Physics major. Pfft.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Nov 29 10:51:08
I have not read the entire article tyet, but is very much on topic.

http://qui...ght-not-say-evidence-supports/

Suppose a scientist makes a bold claim that turns out to be true. How confident are you that this claim would become widely accepted?

Let’s start with a mundane case. About a century ago, cosmologists began to realize that we can’t explain the motions of galaxies unless we assume that a certain amount of unknown matter exists that we cannot yet observe with telescopes. Scientists called this “dark matter.” This is a bold claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Still, the indirect evidence is mounting and most cosmologists now believe that dark matter exists. To the extent that non-scientists think about this issue at all, we tend to defer to experts in the field and move on with our lives.

But what about politically contentious topics? Does it work the same way? Suppose we have evidence for the truth of a hypothesis the consequences of which many people fear. For example, suppose we have reasonably strong evidence to believe there are average biological differences between men and women, or between different ethnic or racial groups. Would most people defer to the evidence and move on with their lives?

More importantly, would most scientists pursue the research and follow the evidence wherever it leads? Would scientists then go on information campaigns to convince the public of the truth of their hypothesis?

Probably not. I want to explore some explanations for why we might be justified in believing a hypothesis that scientists shy away from even when that hypothesis is consistent with the best available evidence.

Pluralistic Ignorance

Many comic and tragic social situations are premised on pluralistic ignorance, which occurs when most of us believe that other people believe something that they don’t in fact believe. For example, if most of us believe that enough other people think we should attend a Super Bowl party, even if we don’t want to go, we might all attend a party that none of us enjoy. Most of us don’t want to go, but we believe that other people think we should go. Norms create expectations, and most of us want to stick to norms that we think other people endorse, even if (unknown to us) most people don’t endorse the norm and would prefer to switch to a new norm.

There are many forms of pluralistic ignorance, and some of them are deeply important for how science works. Consider the science of sex differences as a case in point. Earlier in the year James Damore was fired from Google for circulating an internal memo that questioned the dominant view of Google’s diversity team. The view he questioned is that men and women are identical in both abilities and interests, and that sexism alone can explain why Google hires more men than women. He laid out a litany of evidence suggesting that even if average biological differences between men and women are small, these differences will tend to manifest themselves in occupations that select for people who exhibit qualities at the extreme ends of a bell curve that plots a distribution of abilities and interests.

As many commentators have pointed out, if men and women differ in their desire to work with people or things, professions that deal mainly with people (like social work and pediatrics) will tend to attract more women, and professions that deal mainly with things (like computer science and engineering) will tend to attract more men.

When Damore circulated his memo, he seems to have believed his supervisors at Google would consider the evidence, and that they would welcome his contribution to the discussion. In fact, Damore believed that other people’s beliefs, and the norms they endorsed, were different than they were. Ultimately Damore was fired, and other Google employees have been blacklisted for political heresy as a consequence of their expectations that other people’s commitments were different than they are.

The Damore case illustrates a related principal: even when other people share your commitment to changing the norms of discourse, they may publicly condemn you while privately praising you for raising important possibilities. As it turns out, a majority of Google employees believe Damore should not have been fired.

“Virtue signaling” is an important concept in evolutionary psychology that has been popularized by the rise of social media. In its popular use, it refers to a situation in which individuals say something in anticipation of the praise it will get them, even if they’re not really sure it’s true. In the case of James Damore, some people on the fence about the science of sex differences might nevertheless publicly criticize Damore even if, had they been in a private conversation or alone in a room with a book on the science of sex differences, they would agree with Damore’s memo.

The Logic of Collective Action

Apart from widespread uncertainty by individuals about what other people believe they should say, each scientist or person whose beliefs are sensitive to evidence faces a collective action problem. When a topic is politically contentious, and there is some risk to our reputation or career from endorsing a view, we may hang back and fail to either form a belief on that topic or publicly proclaim our allegiance to that belief.

The logic of collective action is that when the costs of expressing a belief are borne by the individual, but the benefits are shared among all members of an epistemic community, it is perfectly rational to fail to reveal our beliefs about that topic, no matter how justified they might be.

Consider the cases of Ed Wilson and Arthur Jensen, who published their belief that different racial groups probably have different cognitive propensities and capacities. They were harshly denounced, typically on moral grounds rather than on the scientific merit of their arguments. Their careers were threatened, and people who might otherwise pursue this research or publicly explain the evidence for these hypotheses learned to keep their mouths shut.

It is often said that non-specialists who want to figure out how the world works should defer to a consensus of scientists when forming our beliefs about the topics they study. Generally speaking, that’s true.

But the case for deferring to scientific consensus on politically contentious topics is much weaker. This is true because what scientists publicly say may differ from what they privately believe. It is also true because, as Nathan Cofnas argues, some of the research that bears on a topic might not get done due to the fact that those who authorize or accept funding for it might incur reputational costs for working on a topic that is likely to produce results that most people don’t want to believe.

Public Goods and Private Costs

In some ways, it is obvious that politically contentious scientific topics can produce a public consensus that is at odds with the best available evidence. When there are career-advancing opportunities open to those who symbolically reject sexism and racism by publicly affirming that science does not support any group differences, it makes sense that they would do so.

But this simple point seems to have been lost on many of those on the political left who joined the march for science last Spring in Washington, DC, but who cheered the firing of James Damore last Summer for attempting to expose his co-workers to research on the science of sex differences.

Science is the best method we have for understanding the world. But to the extent that its success requires a willingness to entertain ideas that conflict with our deepest desires, scientific progress on politically contentious topics tends to be slow. Scientists learn from each other’s mistakes – not just scientific mistakes, but also public relations mistakes that have the power to get people fired.

Just ask Jason Richwine, Larry Summers, and James Damore. As these cases show, sometimes we have strong social incentives to publicly condemn a hypothesis that we have scientific reasons to welcome to the public conversation.


http://qui...ght-not-say-evidence-supports/

Liberals are just as retarded and motivated by ideology and the same cognitive biases as non-liberals. Worse in many regards.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 29 11:33:34
Act of discovery and act of justification are two very different things, as it institutional resistance to change - paradigm shifts can be hugely traumatic.

Liberals dominate post graduate levels of education. So certainly do not have the same level of cognitive biases (such as lack of education and plain ignorance).

Peer review. Researchers with actual educations that qualify them to do research follow standards set for publication in international journals.

But again, transparency is the key. A researcher's motivations are fine for as long as they are clearly stated in the paper.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Nov 29 12:05:53
Indeed they do. Let look a little closer at those numbers shall we?

Professors
Humanities 81% liberal
Social sciences 75% liberal
Engineering 51% liberal
Economies 48% liberal

The ”domination of liberals” in these areas kinda is The issue. Echo chamber, diversity of thought and so on.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Nov 29 12:54:30
So the more hard the science, the greater the trend towards moderation.

Lulz.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 29 13:15:50
Nimi
20% of post graduates become professors. 100% of post graduates have published (by definition).

70 000 000 published academic papers globally.

Your problem is that advanced academic education is incompatible with contemporary right wing perspectives.

People with post graduate degrees being smert and all.

But your minions of Hot Rods certainly do vote. You do have that.

Sam Adams
Member
Wed Nov 29 14:21:33
Dont you love how jergul just ignores whatever evidence he doesnt like?
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 29 14:32:20
The evidence nimi provided shows that practitioners of science are predominantly liberal sammy.

How many threads should do we need to walk you through that fact?

Go back to school.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Nov 29 14:45:02
Jergul just called humanities science.

In france, you would go to jail for misgendering.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 29 14:59:16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

And we are off teaching sammy more stuff.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Nov 30 02:31:27
The fields that are dominated by liberals are aslo dominated by pseudonscience and ”theories” that are incompatible with science. You calling them ”science” is not an argument. Pointing to all the leftwingers attending these departments is part of the basis for this criticism.

I am sure you understand how ”norms” come to be. If 80% in a department share the same ideology and pathos this will effects the conversations there and certain questions will not only go unanswered but not even be asked. The echo of your own opinions reverberate.

It may be that we can never have a diversity of thought in these fields, there is a genetic component to political affiliation and self selection applies. That paints a bleak picture of the quality of insight these fields have to offer on the subject ”human behavior”.

This is very similiar to when jergul didn’t want to differentiate between ”abrahamic faiths”. Derp derp ”science”! Derp derp liberal bias! You wan’t us to look at a 480 resolution picture of the world when we have 4k resolution. It hides all the bumps, bruises and scares on your face!
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 30 03:51:13
Nimi
Engineering is applied science. So pseudo. Economics is certainly pseudo if you insist on that term.

Burned!

Though ultimately science boils down to method and peer review.

And profet accreditation issues are of absolutely no interest. Sects of a common mythology.

But I get that you are bringing that up. Religion is the science of the right.
Seb
Member
Thu Nov 30 04:05:13
Aeros:

Jergu has a point. The proposition "hedonistic lufestyles" is a value judgement in itself (all stds are more prevalent in population that engage in frequent sexual activity with changing partners. There's a bit and switch inherent in that proving that statement: AIDS victims have bought that upon themselves, while the same logic is not applied to other stds, or for that matter cancer, heart disease, diabetes etc.

What people object to is the motivation for how the supposedly scientific question is framed.

And much of the motivation for framing and scoping these kinds of controversial scientific questions has an impact on their conduct and conclusions (failure to do adequate control, baselining, or follow up).

E.g. hedonistic lifestyle of gays in part being driven by the social impossibility (until relatively recently) to engage in open consistent relationships.

Applying that follow on might then lead to the result that the best way to tackle AIDS would be to legitimise gay relationships, extend financial and legal incentives for long term partnerships afforded heterosexual couples.

Oh the scandal though, of such politicised scientific conclusions.

McKobb
Member
Thu Nov 30 08:47:17
This study is gay.
Cthulhu
Tentacle Rapist
Thu Nov 30 13:26:35
Maybe they need to ban neurotypicals from judging science then. Some people can't ignore facts, even ones they don't like. Get them to evualate studies.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Nov 30 13:43:27
"while the same logic is not applied to other stds, or for that matter cancer, heart disease, diabetes etc."

lol what? Don't smoke, don't be obese, don't drink too much soda, don't have rampant unprotected sex with unknown partners, these are daily soundbytes you will hear multiple times.

It is only the recent bleatings of the left that have railed about body positivity and the evils of "shaming".
Seb
Member
Thu Nov 30 13:53:20
Forwyn:

I have never seen a serious proposal that we shouldn't research or treat cardiac diseases because it's a lifestyle choice.

I have never heard anyone suggest that we shouldn't research or treat hpw, chlamidya or syphilis or other std because they are lifestyle choices.

I have seen many serious proposals and studies on the supposed lifestyle choices that "contribute" to AIDS cited as justifications for defunding treatment and research into cures for AIDS.

Perhaps though, that's due to the strangely baffaling lack of research done into whether prostitution and causal sex is a causal factor in those other stds.

And of course, heterosexual promiscuity outside marriage is strongly disapproved of in mainstream western society. You have to provide a marriage certificate to get viagra.

Seb
Member
Thu Nov 30 14:00:50
I genuinely find it baffling when people can't see the inherent hypocrisy that you can get get state funded prescription to treat a condition in order to engage in activity.

And that same activity is considered grounds to deny state funded treatment for another condition.

It's almost as if it's the people, not the condition, that's the issue.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Nov 30 14:16:00
I'm pretty sure Aeros said none of those things. We absolutely research lifestyle choices leading to heart disease.

This is not the same as whatever conclusions politicians want to reach with the results of those studies.
Seb
Member
Thu Nov 30 16:21:03
Forwyn:

We research causes of heart disease, which I think is somewhat different.

Closer would be researching whether promiscuity is a causal factor in, say, chlamidya.

People don't research it - because it's obvious, of no value, no interest and nobody is looking for a study for a bait and switch based gambit.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Dec 01 06:17:44
"Though ultimately science boils down to method and peer review."

You are talking about peer review and "method" as if they are magic jergul. This is very simple and much like the concept of a "boys club" or any other instance where lack of diversity effects the culture and process in a negative way. Concepts that are ironically discussed ad nauseam in these specific departments, bashed over the heads of others. Waaa diversity!! Sexist pig!

And "peer review" and "method" do not make you think "outside the box" it does not make you question norms or endow you with creativity. People do those things. And people are the sum total of their experiences and biology, they are in fact no better than that. It should be trivial for you to imagine (if you have not experienced it) settings where this is happening every day. "Things have always been like this and so they remain that way".

All of these words are in the end empty, because we shall judge the tree by the fruits it bears and reality is still:

"The fields that are dominated by liberals are aslo dominated by pseudonscience and ”theories” that are incompatible with science*."

*Science as in biology in this case. The theories in this specific academic space are built on the premise that biology is of such trivial importance that it can be disregarded when trying to explain human behavior.

Political ideology is in any civilized country and mature democracy the fault line in how we want to shape and administrate our society. We values different things, we have different opinions on what "justice" is, we have different views on what is "optimal" and we have different goals. If diverse representation of thought does _not_ matter in academia (where all these ideas and theories take shape), then it does not matter _anywhere_, not even in elections.

In the hard sciences these issues may matter the least, because we are often dealing with "things". It is easier to extract objective "universal" facts about "things" that we can all agree on, but the humanities deal with "people". There all these differing opinions about policy, justice and the optimal society matter, a great deal.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Dec 01 06:25:18
"or for that matter cancer, heart disease, diabetes etc."

This is not really true. There are certain types of disease like the ones you listed that we all to blame the victim for. Not that we go up to people and shame them for smoking or being fat and eating unhealthy shit. But collectively we all know these are "lifestyle disease".

But we do not even apply this consistently. It is "ok" to shame a smoker, but not ok to shame a fat person. Even though they contribute to many of the same illnesses! *shrugs*

As always it seems that problems relating to our reproductive system are in a class of their own.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Dec 01 06:30:16
"Cthulhu
Tentacle Rapist Thu Nov 30 13:26:35
Maybe they need to ban neurotypicals from judging science then."

:) A very nice observation that shall not go unnoticed. thanks!

I very much recommend these 2 articles. Very much in line with the topic.

http://qui...urodiversity-case-free-speech/

http://quillette.com/2017/09/25/pragmatic-case-understanding-neurodiversity/
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Dec 01 06:33:03
Ironically I had a discussion with a coworker hours ago, precisely about how we have told people with autism that your "disorder" of being too honest has to take a backseat to the people with "emotional disorders" who can not deal with blunt honesty. Why?
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 01 06:57:23
Nimi
It may seem like magic to you, but it simply is a consistent way to quality assure publications.

There is a strong trend toward interdisciplinary publishing (coauthors from relevant scientific branches).

You are misunderstanding scope limitations with denying the relevance of other fields.

For pseudoscience, see economics (in particular business orientated branches) and engineering (which is applied/practical).

Not all thoughts are created equal nimi. It is perfectly possible (and indeed more than likely) that your ideas lack academic merit.

But feel free to go back to school and explore your thoughts at masters, then doctorate levels.

If you think you are cut out to do proper research.
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 01 06:59:05
"Ironically I had a discussion with a coworker hours ago, precisely about how we have told people with autism that your "disorder" of being too honest has to take a backseat to the people with "emotional disorders" who can not deal with blunt honesty. Why? "

Most likely because you are providing social interaction coaching to the person with autism.
Seb
Member
Fri Dec 01 10:33:00
Nim:

"It is "ok" to shame a smoker, but not ok to shame a fat person."

Isn't that largely driven by second hand smoke though?

Also, the complete appropriation of the term Autism by the Asberger lot is not something I welcome - they forget that as a spectrum disease they are often at the very high functioning end and they do not speak for people like my elder brother who are decidedly non functional.

As for "why can't other people with my blunt honesty" - partly it's because their "honesty" boils down to being direct about their opinions, but a failure to understand what is subjective.

"Your work is rubbish" is not simply being honest. It's perfectly possiblt that is an honest statement that is facutally incorrect.

Also, paradoxical. If the ask is to treat those with Aspergers with a degree of sensitivity - isn't that precisely an ask for people to not be honest with Aspergers about how they are perceived?

A degree of flexibility and accomodation all around is desirable.
Seb
Member
Fri Dec 01 10:35:24
The idea that those with Aspergers syndromes are free from bias and are more objective is simply wrong by the way.

I've worked with some really good scientists who have Aspergers. I've worked with some not so good ones.

And then you have people like Mr Google Memo (Damore? I forget his name) - who seized upon a subset of controversial work, presented it without nuance, and ignored all the work critiquing it.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Dec 03 14:07:38
"Isn't that largely driven by second hand smoke though?"

It is of for me to talk very honestly (let step back from shaming) with a smoker about how bad smoking is, we can have this conversation without too much discomfort. This is not possible with a fat person over their abuse of food. It may be that the secondary damage has a contributing effect here, but so does the appearance/beauty aspect of being obese, in the opposite direction.

"who seized upon a subset of controversial work, presented it without nuance, and ignored all the work critiquing it."

Evolved sex difference is only controversial to those that are not familiar with the literature. In fact the level of indignation was directly proportional to how uneducated one was on the science.

And besides the biological studies into evolution were presented as nuance to the "blank slate" pseudoscience that gender theory and googles failed diversity efforts are built upon. The memo was not a published scientific study or meta study. So it seems like your expectations on the 10 page memo as a reply to an internal and failing diversity effort, are not aligning with our practical reality.
Seb
Member
Sun Dec 03 14:11:26
Nim:

No, I did not mean "controversial" in terms of society. I mean even within the field, the research Damore cited is highly contested.

Do your really think I give a flying fuck what non academics think about an academic subject? They are lay people and clearly don't count. I'm a physicist goddamit. We are known for our views on this kind of thing.
pillz
Member
Sun Dec 03 14:21:08
"No, I did not mean "controversial" in terms of society. I mean even within the field, the research Damore cited is highly contested. "

No it is not, numerous experts on the subject weighed in at the time.

http://qui...-memo-four-scientists-respond/

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Dec 03 14:42:22
I read you correctly when I answered, don’t worry.

That scientist do not agree on everything, well that is pretty much how science works. But the core of his argument, that there are innate evolved differences between men and women that explain (at least part of) the different life outcomes such as choice of education and occupation, you can take that to the bank, it is about as certain as any fact. It has been known and studied well before Pinker published his book 10+ years ago.

As we move more and more into the fields that actually study these things (not physicists) you see very little eye brow raising over the cited facts in the memo.
Seb
Member
Sun Dec 03 14:42:37
And all the numerous researchers who critiques it at the time? Including some he cited saying he'd misinterpreted their research?

Seb
Member
Sun Dec 03 14:43:06
Hence "controversial".
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Dec 03 14:46:22
There is also one from hetradox academy that does an evaluation of the available research. Conclusion, men and women differ most in physical attributes, least in cognitive attributes (iq) and moderatly to high in interest and psychology.

All these differences are large enough on the top and low end of the distribution line to create a big disparity say in the number of convicted felons and engineers at google.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Dec 03 14:48:27
I read many of them and they were about as aweful as your take. No offence. But they all either misrepresented the memo or go on to not deny the content, but engage in some politically motivated rant and assassination.
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 03 14:56:04
The general rule now is that women study and men do not.

http://www...achment/303613?_ts=15b430d49a0

There is actually only a single field were women graduates outnumber men, and they are only outnumbered by a 3rd.

http://www.ssb.no/eksuvh

I wonder what the genetic explanation for men being generally much less learned than women.

Food for thought.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Dec 03 15:01:52
And also take a chill pill seb. The meno was never intended by the author to be anything but an well cited input into an internal work on diversity (something google wanted). You and I and the entire internet where never meant to peer review it. Of course discussion it welcomed by people like (like we are doing now, isn’t that nice?), but people like you chased him out with torches.

So it is kinda disturbing that you ask him to answer for flaws in his memo (discuss, defend etc), when you could not wait for him to get fired at the time it happened.

I still hope some day you will come around, but you seem dead set that all of this is a battle in the war against women. That makes me sad.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Dec 03 15:17:21
These developments are fairly recent jergul. And once you deep into the no. you realize that the modern school is run by women, for women. It ends up (without intention) punishes boys. Which is disturbing and bad for all of us. Men are dropping out of everything, career, relationships and life. Again, bad for all of us. Disenfrachized and angry boys will torch your city down. Female liberation has grown into an identity oriented movement and almost like there is a universal law an identity movement needs a common enemy. Making men the enemy of women in this strife for equality is very very bad. We can never have equality this way because we are pitted against each other. I have by virtue of birth been made into an obstacle that stands in the way of women and their rights. An obstacle that needs to be solved like the pathology of a diseas needs to be understood and ”cured”.

This is not a good path to walk down for anyone.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Dec 03 15:30:07
The genetic or rather evolutionary explanation is that there is more variance in the males. Women are the bottleneck and their job is to select the ”best” male. Males are the variation and are suppose to spread their genes. Hence we end up with more male google engineers, but also more Charles Mansons.
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 03 16:03:47
Disenfranchized and angry boys will play computer games for as long as society can provide them with quality internet.

Everyone is suppose to spread their genes. Turns out that only women are good at it. Most men fail over a few generations unless they luck out and father girls.
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 03 16:17:04
http://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 03 16:24:30
"In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."

By this they mean genes surviving over several generations.

So, most men are doomed to fail genetically speaking. A perspective that provides useful insight into why so many males fail. Period.

We are just at a juncture in time where failure can be channelled into non-destructive paths like computer gaming.
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 05 10:55:20
We are really abandoning this discussion?

Women as systematic carriers of genes and males as desperate failures does have some profound connetations for those that like to use evolutionary biology to explain social systems.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 05 11:17:43
Nim:

I read that one, but you seem to be reading it very differently to me. They definitely didn't support Damore.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 05 11:19:24
Nim:

Tone was supposed to come across as irrascably flippant.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 05 11:22:05
Our heterodox academy piece pointed out there was about an even split in academia and that interest vs ability showed a maybe on interest and a no on ability.

That directly contradicts Damores thesis. If there is a big pool of competent people who you need to actively interest in doing the work, that's a very strong corporate driver for outreach.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Dec 05 14:54:31
1. Gender differences in math/science ability, achievement, and performance are small or nil.

2. Gender differences in interest and enjoyment of math, coding, and highly “systemizing” activities are large.

In conclusion, based on the meta-analyses we reviewed and the research on the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis, Damore is correct that there are “population level differences in distributions” of traits that are likely to be relevant for understanding gender gaps at Google and other tech firms. The differences are much larger and more consistent for traits related to interest and enjoyment, rather than ability. This distinction between interest and ability is important because it may address one of the main fears raised by Damore’s critics: that the memo itself will cause Google employees to assume that women are less qualified, or less “suited” for tech jobs, and will therefore lead to more bias against women in tech jobs. But the empirical evidence we have reviewed should have the opposite effect.

http://het...-say-about-gender-differences/

"Tone was suppose to"

How things "come across" or are "felt" by people is highly subjective, most of the people in Google did not want to see Damore fired. So even by democratic mob principles, you fail to be on the right side of this issue. To be autistically blunt with you, this is a rather horse shit excuse even by jerguls standards.

For me personally, it is not even about discussing the science with you, I could not give a shit how you feel about evolutionary theory, I have not bothered with creationism debates for year, it is over. No for me the bone with you is that you have made yourself an enemy of free speech, discussion and dialogue. From your constant misunderstanding of what is being said, assumption of shady motives and general intolerance towards ideas that misaligned with your own. You wanted someone fired for citing research you did not know about, because you disagreed with the conclusions. That is kinda insane dude.

This is nothing compared to de-platforming. You actually wanted someone fired because they did what the company asked them to do, but because they were too blunt for your taste and had a different opinion and conclusion, well fuck em.

Think about it.
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 05 18:06:56
You cannot find a peer reviewed study to support you to save your life, could you nimi?
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 05 18:42:51
Nim:

Or conversely, if the interest difference is high (note earlier in the essay it points out that it is agnostic of causes, so last time we went around this when I pointed out that there was a lot of research that suggests this population difference was cultural rather than biological) - but ability difference is zero -
- that's a very very good reason for google to be pushing for greater outreach to grow it's potential pool of recruits.


I.e. the very opposite of Damores conclusions.


"most of the people in Google did not want to see Damore fired."

So? It's not a democracy. Indeed the entirity of Damore's thesis was based on "what is good for the company", not "what gives employees a sense of moral satisfaction".

"I could not give a shit how you feel about evolutionary theory,"

I think you need to read the article you quoted again.

"In this review, we also do not address Damore’s claims that some gender differences are rooted in biological factors, such as the effect of prenatal hormones on brain development. Meta-analyses cannot tell us the origins of differences. Most researchers studying these questions assume that biology, childhood socialization, and current context interact in complex ways, and most psychologists know that pointing to a biological contribution (such as a genetic or hormonal influence) does not mean that an effect is “hard wired,” unmalleable, or immune to contextual variables (see Eagly & Wood, 2012; this is a point that Damore did not acknowledge). In this review we focus only on whether “population level differences” exist. (See this essay on why it is mostly claims other than this one that have generated most of the outrage.)"

I don't think you understand or recognise that there is nothing that connects to evolutionary theory as a cause for any population differences. Last time round I pointed some of this out, it seemed to go over your head. You use terminology like Biology as though that was equivalent to "hard wired" or innate, when there are well known feedbacks in a single organism between biology (e.g. structure of the brain) and experience (e.g. the structure of the brain of cab drivers measurably and significantly alters).

The fundamental basis of Damore's thesis is an innate biological difference.

"No for me the bone with you is that you have made yourself an enemy of free speech, discussion and dialogue."

Pointing out that you consistently fail to understand the necessary steps of logic needed before drawing the conclusions, and that you too readily draw conclusions not supported by the evidence you present is not an enemy of free speech, discussion or dialogue: you are doing what you accuse others of doing. You are emoting and taking it personally when people point out the logical flaws in your argument.

It's not as well evidenced as you claim, and you are not being logical or scientific.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 05 18:46:22
The simple fact that you can point to differences in interest on "systematising" isn't sufficient to support Damore's conclusions.

You would need also to have support that such differences are innate, and that such differences in interest lead to irrecoverable differences in proficiency in the task or, if not, that attempting to attract such individuals had such a low ROI as to be pointless.

Anything else and there is still a powerful case for outreach.
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 05 18:49:54
Outreach

There is 2 jobs and 100 applicant. 80 men and 20 women apply. 1 woman and 4 men are in the top 5%.

Google hires 1 woman and 1 man.

Success!

/blatant abuse
Seb
Member
Thu Dec 07 02:09:58
It's kinda annoying how Nim keeps wrapping himself in the flag of science before vanishing, failing to acknowledge his sources don't support him. Classic science-ism.
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 07 02:46:42
Seb
The trick is to just keep brainstorming.

Women are significantly cheaper than men - at 80% wages OECD average.

Freezing eggcells at employer expense is becoming more common - which both helps even out the wage inequality, and also allows for delayed childbirth to a point after careerbuilding is over (say mid 40s).
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share