How Can There Still Be a Sex Difference, Even When There Is No Sex Difference? • Hacker News Board

Re: How Can There Still Be a Sex Difference, Even When There Is No Sex Difference?

#141

Post by golemotron » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:13 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #133

golemotron wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, no. When you pick out an individual there's still a 60% chance than one is better than the other given no other information than their sex. That's how statistics works. But I agree that it's better not to make the prejudgement at all. The problem is that there are many things that are true in the aggregate but we can't acknowledge them because we are scared of demotivating people. Is that the best we can do…

Yup, "insignificant" is the wrong word, since it has a specific meaning in statistics, and for that meaning, my paragraph is definitely wrong. How about if I change that word: "But at an individual level, that difference becomes trivial."

I get what you mean, regardless of wording. People should be seen as individuals. I don't know how we can be blind to aggregate differences enough to not be perturbed when we have unequal outcomes but not so cognizant of them that we demotivate people.

But as I write this, I'm arriving at an answer: we need to recognize that people are making choices based upon who they are and what they like.

Re: How Can There Still Be a Sex Difference, Even When There Is No Sex Difference?

#142

Post by jarman » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:14 PM UTC

hiou wrote: post #112

mikeash wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That really is the crux of the matter. Everyone should be given an equal chance with no prejudice, and then if population differences still emerge, that's OK. Unfortunately there isn't much room for this middle ground. People who want to acknowledge sex difference want to use sex as a filter, e.g. "no women in combat roles." People who want to give everybody a chance also want to even things out, e.g. "Allow women in…

I hesitate to bring up extreme cases, but the relationship between social darwinism and the rise of the nazi party make many people, including myself, very hesitant to speak about differences in sex etc. Not because we deny their existence, but because we've seen how far large groups of uninformed electorate can be persuaded into supporting some scary stuff because of it. It's just a very tricky subject when it comes…

And (at approximately same time) rejection of darwinism has stopped soviet regime from inducing famines, using slave labour and purges. Except it did not.

Re: How Can There Still Be a Sex Difference, Even When There Is No Sex Difference?

#143

Post by kelukelugames » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:15 PM UTC

I understand a lot of HNers and redditors believe race and gender are not purely social constructs. This is a contentious topic but I really appreciate Neil DeGrasse Tyson's comment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inz1sdhsMCU

Re: How Can There Still Be a Sex Difference, Even When There Is No Sex Difference?

#144

Post by Retra » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:15 PM UTC

tiler wrote: post #91

amyjess wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> gender is a cultural construct Trans people such as myself are proof that gender is not a social construct. In my experience, the nastiest transphobes are the ones who believe gender is a social construct. They're called TERFs. They can't wrap their minds around the fact that we prove their pet theories wrong, so they stalk, harass, and doxx us.

Perhaps you could explain how the existence of trans. people is proof that gender is not a social construct?

Trans people don't have significantly different socialization than other people. Therefore, socialization is not the cause of gender identity.

Re: How Can There Still Be a Sex Difference, Even When There Is No Sex Difference?

#145

Post by RodericDay » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:16 PM UTC

lxop wrote: post #134

lsy wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you read the review you're linking but it's not a "bad review". It points out, as you quoted, where the books are "strongest" and "weakest", and is generally complimentary to the works reviewed. And as the author of the review points out to explain Fine's omissions: "…whereas sex differences are reliably found in several areas of research, none of the differences support essentialist claims that girls…

Halpern is being overly courteous. Fine denies the very existence of evolved human sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations, significant (physical) brain differences between men and women etc. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108906/

"Nothing short of stopping research on the topic would seem to satisfy her."

This is so ridiculous, I chuckled. This is from her conclusion on the aforementioned book:

"But also, to those interested in gender equality there is nothing at all frightening about good science. It is only carelessly done science, or poorly interpreted science, or the neurosexism it feeds, that creates cause for concern."

And her work is all about that. It's funny to me that she's done a very large review of tons of experiments, down to methodological aspects such as the way babies are held in supposedly controlled settings, and people try to slander her as some kind of anti-science advocate.

Re: How Can There Still Be a Sex Difference, Even When There Is No Sex Difference?

#146

Post by ufo » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:17 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #79

fecklessyouth wrote: post #71

I find it funny that so much scientific research attempts to prove the existence of a biological contrast that's blatantly obvious, but which has been completely deconstructed and obscured by modern literary theory/philosophy.

My thought exactly: we've gone so far afield with this ridiculous notion of "sameness" between sexes that we actually now need "serious" research to "debunk" what was so obviously never true. "This just in: women and men are not exactly the same!" The real problem is that our society tends to equate sameness with acceptability as its preferred mode of "tolerance". This has the paradoxical effect of re-inforcing the n…

The problem is that while on average there are significant differences between men and women, the individual variation within men and within women is so much larger than these sex-based differences that sex is not a good predictor for behavior in the majority of the cases.

Re: How Can There Still Be a Sex Difference, Even When There Is No Sex Difference?

#147

Post by dataker » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:17 PM UTC

unimpressive wrote: post #114

dataker wrote: post #92

Scientifically studying sex should be a top priority for our society. In both ends of the spectrum, but particularly in radical feminists, theories are influenced by ideologies and politics, hurting society at large. Recently, a feminist(president of a feminist university group) told me males were incomplete females(XY would be an incomplete version of XX) and, for that reason, they should have their instincts and be…

You know, comments like this would be a lot more credible if they had some sort of evidence to go along with them besides "I had this friend..." or "I got told one time by an x/y/z...". FWIW, the particular perspective you're quoting is straight out of the SCUM manifesto: http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm "The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomp…

Thanks for mentioning it, I had no idea of its existence.

Re: How Can There Still Be a Sex Difference, Even When There Is No Sex Difference?

#148

Post by mikeash » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:18 PM UTC

Retra wrote: post #139

mikeash wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the relationship between darwinism (what a ridiculous term, by the way) and the rise of the Nazis?

I think they're talking about social darwinism. The idea that "survival of the fittest" can be naively applied to politics is a pretty easy way to convince people to commit genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

It appears you're right. However, I find it puzzling that it's mentioned here, since the gulf between "there are some genetic differences between the sexes" and "let's attempt to improve the human gene pool by murdering any group we find displeasing" is so great that they barely have any relationship at all.

Re: How Can There Still Be a Sex Difference, Even When There Is No Sex Difference?

#149

Post by Retric » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:21 PM UTC

golemotron wrote: post #121

bryanlarsen wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A large part of the problem is the failure to distinguish between the aggregate and the individual. For the sake of argument let's say that the population of individuals who would make good engineers is 60% male and 40% female. From an aggregate level that's a huge difference. Once you gather enough of people that statistical inferences can be made, the difference becomes obvious. In a classroom, for instance. But at…

Actually, no. When you pick out an individual there's still a 60% chance than one is better than the other given no other information than their sex. That's how statistics works. But I agree that it's better not to make the prejudgement at all. The problem is that there are many things that are true in the aggregate but we can't acknowledge them because we are scared of demotivating people. Is that the best we can do…

You’re trying to redefine words out of context.

Significant is often used in science to mean large enough to be concerned with. So, a 1% chance of death tomorrow is a significant chance of death tomorrow.

Re: How Can There Still Be a Sex Difference, Even When There Is No Sex Difference?

#150

Post by Retra » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 2:22 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #148

Retra wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they're talking about social darwinism. The idea that "survival of the fittest" can be naively applied to politics is a pretty easy way to convince people to commit genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

It appears you're right. However, I find it puzzling that it's mentioned here, since the gulf between "there are some genetic differences between the sexes" and "let's attempt to improve the human gene pool by murdering any group we find displeasing" is so great that they barely have any relationship at all.

It's not about murdering people. The problem is, if you support policies that disadvantage people based on their genetics, you can gradually dehumanize those people. The (real) disadvantages of that outweigh the (supposed) advantages.