Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies • Hacker News Board

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#101

Post by stuckinhell » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 7:00 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #91

stuckinhell wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but that's not incentives work in businesses. If I can get a women engineer onto a certain team of extremely high performing all male engineers at my firm, I can get a bonus of 20k easily, and hit a DIE initiative goal which is good for my career. It's good for my career unless the team stops performing well, but if I've already leveraged it into another position then who cares ? These are some of dynamics occur…

You get bonuses specifically for hiring certain demographics? That sounds incredibly toxic, and I'm glad that where I work doesn't have anything like that. Teams I've created have always been fairly balanced on gender, and it's been good for productivity. When I've taken over all-male teams, and hired women, it's been good for productivity. That's just my experience, and I know it runs counter to some others, but the…

Yea pretty much. Toxic Dysfunction seems to be the natural state of most fortune 500 businesses. Money and Politics is an extremely corrupting influence. This kind of stuff is extremely common too.

Most recruiting companies filtered non DIE candidates before our pipelines so we had deniability on this as well. Just for perspective, 20k was considered a low-end bonus before the economic downturns.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#102

Post by dennis_jeeves1 » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 7:01 PM UTC

tharne wrote: post #80

wpietri wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior. Achieving equality will feel like oppression to those used to having a good deal. Society isn't generally hostile against your son; its hostility is to patriarchy, something Andrew Tate seeks to restore and extend. As a guy, I'm perfectly fine with things like "the future is female" for the same reason I'm fine with things like "gay pride" and "black pride" even though…

I hope you're young because this level of naivety in an older person would be very concerning. As others have pointed out, the real world does not work based on rationality, and assuming it does will lead to some very bad decisions.

>I hope you're young because this level of naivety in an older person would be very concerning.

I do not know about this particular fellow, but I think at least some part of the current generation of older people have similar views, much more than in the previous centuries. Relative prosperity in recent times has ensured that many of these dimwits now have the opportunity to survive and now that they are in positions of power or influence.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#103

Post by wpietri » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 7:02 PM UTC

safety1st wrote: post #92

wpietri wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with your framing that all asymmetric behavior is necessarily wrong. But accepting it for the moment, wrongs are sometimes necessary to make rights. A good example here is the American Revolution. Oppression by force is an obvious wrong. So is killing people. Was it wrong for Americans to revolt, knowing they would have to commit wrongs along the way?

It's not always wrong to kill someone. It's both legal and moral to kill someone in self defense if they're threatening your life and you have no alternative. It is legal and moral for police to use violence against someone who poses an immediate threat to those around them, preferably detaining, but if necessary killing them. It was by and large moral (though not legal) for all colonies and colonized people to viole…

I agree with your point, but think you're using a different definition of "a wrong" than the person I was replying to.

Surely there were very few British soldiers whose dying thoughts were "this bayonet in my guts is right and proper". That's not to deny that the anti-colonials stabbing them were right, of course. My point is just that writing a wrong via harm will seem like a wrong to the harmed. Of course, the writing of a wrong even with no harm will often be taken as a wrong by the people losing privilege, so I'd also agree that we can't use mere feelings of being wronged as wrongs themselves.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#104

Post by safety1st » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 7:08 PM UTC

dennis_jeeves1 wrote: post #95

safety1st wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US: * The majority of suicides are male * The majority of homeless are male * Men are less likely to go to college * The vast majority of prison inmates are male * The vast majority of workplace deaths are male * The majority of violent crime victims are male * The vast majority of police brutality victims are male Now if we were talking about say India it would be a different story, and this is not to suggest…

> But as a society we simply ignore the gendered nature of these atrocities. For some reason we can shrug off another human being's suffering when it's a son or a brother, far more easily than when it's a sister or daughter. The roots are biological, men are the dispensable gender, given that a single man can potentially impregnate several women. On the other hand if a female is lost, her potential progeny is also lo…

The roots may be biological, but we rise above our biology every day. That is the essence of the liberal project - we protect the weak instead of leave them behind. Democracy, a system of justice, these things are unnatural. They exist to prevent us from degenerating into a Hobbesian state of nature where might makes right.

The inability of our society to protect victims and the weak when they happen to be male is one of the strongest signs that the left wing is no longer actually liberal.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#105

Post by DSMan195276 » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 7:12 PM UTC

drno123 wrote: post #90

DSMan195276 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read that article they believe it is due to women self-selecting out of the field before ever applying for those positions. Or IE. the hiring standards for both groups are not necessarily different, but female candidates are less likely to apply and those that are willing to apply are better qualified: > Our research suggests that the mechanism resulting in women’s underrepresentation today may lie more on the…

Merit based hiring would never be 1:1, but 2:1 is enormous. I would expect something like 1.2:1 in either direction.

> Merit based hiring would never be 1:1, but 2:1 is enormous. I would expect something like 1.2:1 in either direction.

Aren't you now doing the same thing that's being criticized, by simply picking a ratio that "looks" good to you regardless of the underlying groups?

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#106

Post by norwalkbear » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 7:20 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #99

norwalkbear wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you should think why you felt the need to be passive aggressive instead of giving a direct response. You are passive aggressive because you know my central point is correct, and are seeking to downplay it.

I thought my answer was direct enough, but if you need it spelled out further, I'm glad to give it a go. It is possible that there are some people seeking "retribution". It is also possible that somebody might seek to whitewash retribution under the label of asymmetric behavior. However, I am not doing that. I specifically chose that phrase because it's extremely broad, because in encompasses all sorts of things. If…

You choose to be passive aggressive and use extremely broad terminology because you know full well retribution is a core part of that and you are fine with it.

You admit being part of the oppressor class and likely have guilt. You simply don't care about that retribution falls under your broad scope and ideas because you are old and will not have to pay for it.

"Asymmetric retribution" is your way to whitewash the damage you wish to inflict on a different generation of men for your guilty conscience.

It's clear you know full well what all this implies but choose to play ignorant as seen in your replies with other commentators.

I'm glad the young men and I guess some women and mothers too here on hackernews see through your tactics and are rejecting them.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#107

Post by DSMan195276 » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 7:31 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #93

DSMan195276 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read that article they believe it is due to women self-selecting out of the field before ever applying for those positions. Or IE. the hiring standards for both groups are not necessarily different, but female candidates are less likely to apply and those that are willing to apply are better qualified: > Our research suggests that the mechanism resulting in women’s underrepresentation today may lie more on the…

> If you read that article they believe it is due I did read it. A while ago. And a lot of the angry "rebuttals" as well. From the section you quoted: "...the mechanism resulting in women’s underrepresentation ..." So the "it" you refer to is not the 2:1 hiring advantage, but the underrepresentation. The rest of your comment suffers from the same misunderstanding.

The point is that the mechanism behind the underrepresentation and behind the 2:1 hiring advantage is the same.

Consider: The groups compared in that study are the same size, but we also agree women are underrepresented in the overall group, due to facts that likely cause less-qualified women to leave the group. What do you think happens if you then pick an equal number of men and women from both groups and compare them? Which group will have more qualified candidates? Obviously the women.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#108

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 8:14 PM UTC

dennis_jeeves1 wrote: post #95

safety1st wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US: * The majority of suicides are male * The majority of homeless are male * Men are less likely to go to college * The vast majority of prison inmates are male * The vast majority of workplace deaths are male * The majority of violent crime victims are male * The vast majority of police brutality victims are male Now if we were talking about say India it would be a different story, and this is not to suggest…

> But as a society we simply ignore the gendered nature of these atrocities. For some reason we can shrug off another human being's suffering when it's a son or a brother, far more easily than when it's a sister or daughter. The roots are biological, men are the dispensable gender, given that a single man can potentially impregnate several women. On the other hand if a female is lost, her potential progeny is also lo…

[deleted]

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#109

Post by wpietri » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 8:38 PM UTC

norwalkbear wrote: post #106

wpietri wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought my answer was direct enough, but if you need it spelled out further, I'm glad to give it a go. It is possible that there are some people seeking "retribution". It is also possible that somebody might seek to whitewash retribution under the label of asymmetric behavior. However, I am not doing that. I specifically chose that phrase because it's extremely broad, because in encompasses all sorts of things. If…

You choose to be passive aggressive and use extremely broad terminology because you know full well retribution is a core part of that and you are fine with it. You admit being part of the oppressor class and likely have guilt. You simply don't care about that retribution falls under your broad scope and ideas because you are old and will not have to pay for it. "Asymmetric retribution" is your way to whitewash the da…

> know full well retribution is a core part

It is not.

> "Asymmetric retribution" is your way

I never said those words that you quote. You keep hearing what I said that way for reasons of your own.

Just in case I have't been explicit enough for reasonable participants: I am not interested in "retribution". I am interested in ending oppression. Even if I didn't find retribution repugnant on its own, I find it counterproductive in relation to my goal.

I chose a broad term because I did not want to get bogged down in endless nitpicking over particular approaches to ending oppression. The people who agree that oppression exists and that we must work to ending it will not have much problem seeing that something asymmetrical must take place. (If you have examples of oppression ended without asymmetric behavior, I look forward to it.) But it's not surprising that even the broadest term has itself generated endless nitpicking, because there are a lot of people who are invested in the oppressive systems themselves.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#110

Post by mpweiher » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 8:58 PM UTC

DSMan195276 wrote: post #107

mpweiher wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you read that article they believe it is due I did read it. A while ago. And a lot of the angry "rebuttals" as well. From the section you quoted: "...the mechanism resulting in women’s underrepresentation ..." So the "it" you refer to is not the 2:1 hiring advantage, but the underrepresentation. The rest of your comment suffers from the same misunderstanding.

The point is that the mechanism behind the underrepresentation and behind the 2:1 hiring advantage is the same. Consider: The groups compared in that study are the same size, but we also agree women are underrepresented in the overall group, due to facts that likely cause less-qualified women to leave the group. What do you think happens if you then pick an equal number of men and women from both groups and compare t…

> the mechanism behind the underrepresentation and behind the 2:1 hiring advantage is the same.

That turns out not to be the case.

> Which group will have more qualified candidates?

The candidates were equally qualified.