141–150 of 291 posts
I took a quick look at the comments on this article and I find it fascinating that almost every commenter accepts the study's conclusions at face value. Having been a HN reader for several years, I know how incredibly rare that is! The top voted comment is always something like "Correlation is not causation", "Yeah, but did the authors consider ?", or something about how the methods does not allow one to draw very fa…
I took a quick look at the comments on this article and I find it fascinating that almost every commenter accepts the study's conclusions at face value. Having been a HN reader for several years, I know how incredibly rare that is! The top voted comment is always something like "Correlation is not causation", "Yeah, but did the authors consider ?", or something about how the methods does not allow one to draw very fa…
I took a quick look at the comments on this article and I find it fascinating that almost every commenter accepts the study's conclusions at face value. Having been a HN reader for several years, I know how incredibly rare that is! The top voted comment is always something like "Correlation is not causation", "Yeah, but did the authors consider ?", or something about how the methods does not allow one to draw very fa…
My bias in support of this article comes from many anecdotal experiences that support the conclusions of the study and none that don't.
I think your comment would indicate that I am therefore "supposedly knowledgeable" but not actually knowledgeable. I would strongly disagree: I have this scientific study and my experiential knowledge on this topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under affirmative action is a hypothesis: that it reduces inequality among communities. Has the application of affirmative action been measured and compared to its outcomes? It's been a thing for about 50 years now, so I'd like to see some data.
Didn't the Supreme Court of the United States rule that it had been effective, with their primary evidence being the election of Barak Obama? That's not a study but in terms of legal doctrine it seems to be a settled issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> majority of sexual abuse happens with family members, so actually leaving a child with a stranger is a lot safer This is the same argument used to argue planes are safer than cars, but there is a missing component: for individuals choosing which transport to take, they can evaluate the specifics of their case. If they know they are not a high-risk driver, the chance of dying in a car accident is much lower, but the…
> dying in a car accident is much lower This is a super faulty argument as _a lot_ of death related to driving accidents are caused by other people. If I look just in my environment all care related death have been caused by "other" people which some times but not always also died.
> all care related death have been caused by "other" people
this doesn't follow from the example I gave. The point is you can't use statistical averages for a decision that likely will have far more context to it.
In this case the discrepancy between sex-offenders in the entire population vs all candidates for a carer position, the least of which is most abuse happening in-family, excluding all those example from the case of a carer that is not family.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under affirmative action is a hypothesis: that it reduces inequality among communities. Has the application of affirmative action been measured and compared to its outcomes? It's been a thing for about 50 years now, so I'd like to see some data.
Didn't the Supreme Court of the United States rule that it had been effective, with their primary evidence being the election of Barak Obama? That's not a study but in terms of legal doctrine it seems to be a settled issue.
I'm no mathematician but I see it in terms of system numbers: Given a set of occupations with different sex ratios, to change the ratio of any specific occupation the ratios of other occupations must also change.
Incentivizing a specific sex population into an occupation may work for a while; they can boost the overall population in that occupation over the occupations the incentivized population would otherwise enter. However, the true outcome is an overpopulation in the incentivized occupation and underpopulation in others. The difference between incentivized and "natural" population size for an occupation becomes headwinds for any person to enter an occupation resulting in reduced incentive efficiency.
In a simplistic rational "Homo economicus" world some portion of the male population that would enter the female-incentivized occupation would move to other occupations and the sex ratios would change. If it is true that males are discriminated against in occupations with high female ratios, then this would represent an even higher hurdle than the factors that result in sex ratio variance in occupations.
I'm not disputing the article. Discrimination happens. Humans are human. But let's not lose sight or minimize that women are (currently and historically) discriminated against on a scale that dwarfs this - in hiring, salary, and society at large.