Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For Stanford Class of '94, a Gender Gap More Powerful Than the Internet

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: For Stanford Class of '94, a Gender Gap More Powerful Than the Internet

#51

Post by rewqfdsa »

ninavizz wrote: post #49
Pyxl101 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certain aspects of male/female difference are definitely innate. For example, among young infants, females are more interested in faces and people, while males are more interested in mechanical objects. I believe a study showed this effect was present & statistically significant only a short time after birth (too soon to be influenced by culture). There are well-known differences in brain structure, such as the porti…

Where's your PhD? Flagging for abuse...

Christ, it's "abuse" now to bring up inconvenient but real facts? If your tribe's thinking is that rigid and dogmatic, is it any wonder we can't seem to actually come to a consensus on gender politics?

Re: For Stanford Class of '94, a Gender Gap More Powerful Than the Internet

#52

Post by [deleted] »

ninavizz wrote: post #50
learc83 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That suggests a society wide issue. The gender gap is every bit a society wide issue. When I was in middle school and high school, I didn't know a single girl who was interested in technology. This says that this issue begins when girls are young and is either something imprinted on them by society or something that is innate. I haven't seen anything that suggests that our industry is more able to solve the gender g…

50% of society are women. ~30% of tech employees on avg, are women—with women in technical roles or leadership being far less. Black Americans comprise 13% of our population, and Latino Americans comprise 17% of the population. In Tech, they represent ~2% and ~%3% of our workforce, respectively. Anybody who does not think this is a significant problem, has no business participating in the creation of products for any…

[deleted]

Re: For Stanford Class of '94, a Gender Gap More Powerful Than the Internet

#53

Post by Pyxl101 »

ninavizz wrote: post #49
Pyxl101 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certain aspects of male/female difference are definitely innate. For example, among young infants, females are more interested in faces and people, while males are more interested in mechanical objects. I believe a study showed this effect was present & statistically significant only a short time after birth (too soon to be influenced by culture). There are well-known differences in brain structure, such as the porti…

Where's your PhD? Flagging for abuse...

It would help if you could explain which fact you do not find convincing, and I will attempt to provide sources that you can use for further research, if you are interested to seriously examine the issue or have a serious discussion. A lot of original sources are cited by the Wikipedia articles.

For example: "Sex differences in human neonatal social perception".

> Abstract. Sexual dimorphism in sociability has been documented in humans. The present study aimed to ascertain whether the sexual dimorphism is a result of biological or socio-cultural differences between the two sexes. 102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object) and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in origin.

http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/godis/sex.pdf

Re: For Stanford Class of '94, a Gender Gap More Powerful Than the Internet

#54

Post by foobarqux »

rgoberstein wrote: post #48
foobarqux wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you include genetic pre-disposition as meritous athletics is probably one of the most anti-meritocratic fields.

Of course physical genetics give many athletes an advantage, but any athlete will tell you that training - both mental and physical - are the only things that will make an athlete or team win and can frequently make up for predisposed characteristics that may be disadvantageous (shorter stature, smaller frame, etc). As far as meritocratic environments go, sports is certainly among the top.

"Natural advantage" and "merit" are essentially antonyms.

Re: For Stanford Class of '94, a Gender Gap More Powerful Than the Internet

#55

Post by dang »

rewqfdsa wrote: post #51
ninavizz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's your PhD? Flagging for abuse...

Christ, it's "abuse" now to bring up inconvenient but real facts? If your tribe's thinking is that rigid and dogmatic, is it any wonder we can't seem to actually come to a consensus on gender politics?

> If your tribe's thinking is that rigid and dogmatic

No personal attacks on Hacker News, please, even when someone else's thinking seems rigid or dogmatic to you.

Re: For Stanford Class of '94, a Gender Gap More Powerful Than the Internet

#56

Post by ninavizz »

rewqfdsa wrote: post #51
ninavizz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's your PhD? Flagging for abuse...

Christ, it's "abuse" now to bring up inconvenient but real facts? If your tribe's thinking is that rigid and dogmatic, is it any wonder we can't seem to actually come to a consensus on gender politics?

It's abusive to troll any website posting radical or extreme POVs as "facts." HN is not a place I care to invest my time, and if any person here is sincere in believing that men are superior to women, imho they should be kicked off.

Re: For Stanford Class of '94, a Gender Gap More Powerful Than the Internet

#57

Post by Pyxl101 »

ninavizz wrote: post #56
rewqfdsa wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christ, it's "abuse" now to bring up inconvenient but real facts? If your tribe's thinking is that rigid and dogmatic, is it any wonder we can't seem to actually come to a consensus on gender politics?

It's abusive to troll any website posting radical or extreme POVs as "facts." HN is not a place I care to invest my time, and if any person here is sincere in believing that men are superior to women, imho they should be kicked off.

I've posted a collection of facts that are, to my memory, all supported by peer-reviewed scientific studies. Facts aren't radical, they're just wrong or right. I do not understand your allegations about them being extreme. These are not new results; they are for the most part accepted results in their respective fields. "Sex differences in neonatal social perception" (link below) is 14-year-old well regarded research.

I assume you do not contest the truth that men weigh more, have more muscle mass, or have shorter life spans? Which point do you contest? Every point I mentioned has - unless my memory is failing me - similar scientific evidence behind it. If you are sincerely interested to learn more about this, then please point out which fact seems dubious and I will be glad to (if I think you are earnest and sincere) help point you to the original research. I have tried to provide you with this data: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8790525

If you have a reason to believe the facts are wrong, then please explain, preferably with a justification and reference. I've done my best to present the facts as I know them - do what you will with the information. Let's stop here if you are not interested to discuss the evidence I've presented.

Re: For Stanford Class of '94, a Gender Gap More Powerful Than the Internet

#58

Post by marktangotango »

michaelochurch wrote: post #32
monksy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you been on the east coast very much. For a lot of it. It's dog eat dog. The attitude in DC is "your car is worth less than my deductable." There is a reason for the term Massholes, it's not even contested. NYC is priced out because of the finance sector, geography, and the fact that there are too many people there. I'm not trying to take away from your critcisms of the west coast. But claiming that the Ivy leag…

I lived in New York for 7 years. Yeah, there are things I dislike about the East Coast. (Oddly enough, I'm moving to Chicago in January. I'm really looking forward to it.) I'm not a fan of DC's culture. As for Boston, I like the younger crowd a lot, but there's definitely a lack of progressivism that I see in Boston companies. New York real estate is obnoxiously expensive, but yes, the people are more down to earth a…

Speaking of the midwest, can anyone comment on the tech culture in Kansas City? There seems to be a few large tech oriented companies and thriving job market (Sprint, Garmin, H+R Block, ...). Plus as the first metro to get Google fiber, I've heard there's a bit of a start up scene now.

Re: For Stanford Class of '94, a Gender Gap More Powerful Than the Internet

#59

Post by SamReidHughes »

foobarqux wrote: post #54
rgoberstein wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course physical genetics give many athletes an advantage, but any athlete will tell you that training - both mental and physical - are the only things that will make an athlete or team win and can frequently make up for predisposed characteristics that may be disadvantageous (shorter stature, smaller frame, etc). As far as meritocratic environments go, sports is certainly among the top.

"Natural advantage" and "merit" are essentially antonyms.

Maybe if you're some silly person that believes in free will it is.

Re: For Stanford Class of '94, a Gender Gap More Powerful Than the Internet

#60

Post by ninavizz »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #57
ninavizz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's abusive to troll any website posting radical or extreme POVs as "facts." HN is not a place I care to invest my time, and if any person here is sincere in believing that men are superior to women, imho they should be kicked off.

I've posted a collection of facts that are, to my memory, all supported by peer-reviewed scientific studies. Facts aren't radical, they're just wrong or right. I do not understand your allegations about them being extreme. These are not new results; they are for the most part accepted results in their respective fields. "Sex differences in neonatal social perception" (link below) is 14-year-old well regarded research…

Evangelical Christians have these kind of argument tactics down to a science—how to convince anybody through peer-group research w/in communities of scientists intent on "proving" banalities that socialization more often overcomes—and separately, that feed more limiting stereotypes than they benifit anybody or further productive research.

I am a mechanic and a gearhead. A former motorcycle racer, with a pixie physique. An ice hockey player, and a robotics hobbiest. Your praised research has shaped society to present me and others like me with far more barriers, than it has presented to anyone, benefits with any kind.

Hence: my assertion that your evangelism of this research as anything positive. Share some Eugenics research, why not?

Social consequences from non-scientific interpretstions of scientific work, are more often than not dangerous. Leave the science to the scientists, and be a human engaged with other humans as we choose to co-exist.

Post reply on HN