Utopia Talk / Politics / Nim

Seb Member	Sat Jul 07 08:51:03 Saw this and as you are an afficondo of such research thought you might be interested. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0028-7
Pillz Member	Sat Jul 07 09:53:16 There is a point you are missing
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Jul 07 10:01:38 http://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0028-7
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 08 05:04:50 This is not a new finding and something that I mentioned when I summarized the hetrodox academy article. 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. ------------- So I have to question the authors a bit. I am not aware of any public debate suggesting "that the under-representation of women in science and mathematics careers can be traced back to intrinsic differences in aptitude" 1. Available data does not support the authors premise, unless we dive deeper like spatial visual ability. 2. Study on children does not take into account genetic amplification, where the genetic portion of phenotype variance rises with age (IQ and height 50% -> 80%), you may view that as genes maturing into their full expression. 3.Two normal distribution curves with a slight shift, can produce the same average for two groups, but tails ends that produce differences. Difference that matter for the upper echelons of any STEM field. Important to keep in mind, since it's always the extreme ends of the curves that are the subject of these topics.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 08 05:26:04 Nim: None of the results on interest are generally considered strong, with methodological flaws (e.g. making a dress isn't considered systematising, making a building is) and thete is substantial evidence infants pick up social cues from 6-18 months meaning your "interest" evidence may simply show social bias. Finally if it's a matter of interest, that surely legitamises outreach work: employers and educators have a legitimate interest in trying to get people with ability into their fields to increase supply. Meanwhile the evidence for interest is flimsy, while concrete evidence of systemic bias, sexism, harassment etc. in the workplace is enormous. It seems far more plausible the high attrition rates for female workers in the tech industry is related to that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 08 05:57:20 Interesting theory, here are the facts: http://www...oss-range-ages-countries-50488 New research has found robust sex differences in boys’ and girls’ toy preferences across a range of ages, time periods, countries, and settings.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 08 06:07:08 "Meanwhile the evidence for interest is flimsy, while concrete evidence of systemic bias, sexism, harassment etc. in the workplace is enormous." These oversimplified statements you make deserve the type of facepalm one would normally reserve for people who are scientifically illiterate. Bye.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 08 08:19:14 Nim: Lol. You should read the articles abstract. Firstly, it's a meta study which does not address the points often raised in these studies around the fundamental methodological weakness of typing toys into male and female. Secondly extrapolation of toy preferences to adult career choices requires further assumptions that unravel: e.g. men are makers so become builders and architects. Women are carers and so stay home and knit dresses. But both activities involve design and fabrication. So why is "knitting" qualitativelt actually different from "male" crafting activities? Because it's a crafting activity done by women so is inherently feminine. Circular argument. Thirdly, if you actually read the article it's far from what your link points out. "However, further analysis of data for boys and girls separately revealed that older boys played more with male‐typed toys relative to female‐typed toys than did younger boys (β = .68, p < .0001). Additionally, an effect of the length of time since study publication was found: girls played more with female‐typed toys in earlier studies than in later studies (β = .70, p < .0001), whereas boys played more with male‐typed toys (β = .46, p < .05) in earlier studies than in more recent studies. Boys also played with male‐typed toys less when observed in the home than in a laboratory (β = −.46, p < .05). Findings are discussed in terms of possible contributions of environmental influences and age‐related changes in boys' and girls' toy preferences" I.e. strong hallmarks of social effects being a dominant factor! And again, in typical fashion, you run away to avoid confronting the weakness in your arguments and evidence. It's almost like you have something you *want* to believe.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 08 11:35:12 Idiot, You posted something that was know decades ago, that I have posted before. A meaningless study, on a definition of math so primitive that toddlers understand. It is like studying the equal strength of girls and boys at toddler age and think this says anything useful about the difference later on in life. Since we know that, where sexual phenotypic differentiation occurs, it does so mostly during puberty, this is true for cognitive abilities as well. So if you had been worth listening to or discussing with, one to expose the flaws in my reasoning, I wouldn’t have to explain the fundamental biology of human development for you.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: