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

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

psychologytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–297 of 297 posts

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

#291

Post by [deleted] »

escherplex wrote: post #259
0624213997 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a female computer scientist / developer, and after my experience both online, at school, and at work, I would really just rather ignore it. I went to a college with 4:1 ratio of male to female. I've had periods in my life where I felt like I was the beautiful princess at the school, and periods where I feel like a somewhat disfigured monster with an average intellect. It really sucks when culture places so much e…

A cousin of mine with a high IQ (TNS level) and who would be categorized as a 'cute blond' expressed similar laments. Moderately sociable as a kid, reasonably well-heeled, one who loved spending most of her time devouring science and math tomes, conducted experiments on her own; an individual. Then adolescence hit coupled with menarche and amplified social pressure to 'fit in' which caused her sense of strong individ…

[deleted]

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

#292

Post by logfromblammo »

Retric wrote: post #223
6502nerdface wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for presenting this so clearly. However, note that, as you show in this scenario, males are, on a relative basis, 50% more likely than females to be good engineers, knowing nothing else about them other than gender (P(B|~A) = 1.5 * P(B|A)). While the absolute probabilities (and difference in probabilities) are small, the relative improvement in classification error rate attributable to knowing the person's gen…

This assumes it's independent of other data. If your classifier also knows that an applicant has a CS degree and hypothetically a higher percentage of females with CS degrees than males with CS degrees are talented. Then the relationship might reverse. The point is stats about populations often fail to carry over to sub populations. PS: This flip is actually fairly common in the face of discrimination. Basically, you…

There are three hypotheses:

1. The selection criteria are the same for different populations, and the there are significant statistical differences in the populations that may lead to the observed result.

2. The selection criteria are the same for different populations, and random noise produced the observed result.

3. The selection criteria are different for different populations.

You cannot assert one without ruling out the others.

In the fighter pilot case, I imagine that it would be easy to disprove #1 and #2. Not all cases of discrimination are so obvious that there are no non-imaginary solutions to the equations that conform to the assumptions of the hypothesis.

It makes some people uncomfortable to face the idea that in order to prove discrimination is occurring, they must first employ accurate statistics for partitioned populations, which may be unflattering to one or more of the partitioned groups. You can't really say "because race" or "because sex" or "because disability" with certainty over "because selection-relevant attribute" using a statistical argument without showing the statistics. But those who attempt to gather accurate statistics are often accused of something-ism and vilified just because some people don't like the results.

Some people just want to work without constantly watching their backs and covering their asses. And that's why we assume independence without having ironclad proof that is also easily understood by the general public. If you're going to suggest that there is something intrinsic to femaleness that causally links to less engineering skill, you had better have a flawless data set with mathematically perfect analysis, and then also invent a psychological "out" which absolves anyone of guilt for relying on the results.

This is why all HR departments suck. Most of their job is covering someone else's ass, and if they choose to use statistics, they must be both factually correct and politically correct.

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

#293

Post by ThrustVectoring »

mikeash wrote: post #240
dragonwriter wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 combat roles, and lower the standards for women so they have just as much of a chance as men have." I've literally never heard the latter argument made by a…

Where have all the different standards for men and women in the armed forces come from, then? The Army and Navy both have different physical fitness standards for men and women. I didn't look up other branches but I don't expect them to be any different. I wouldn't expect there to be a big push for different standards because that's already where things are now.

There are two separate reasons for fitness standards.

The first is the one you're probably thinking of - you need to be so strong or so fast in order to do your job.

The second is more subtle, along the lines of "we want soldiers to have the discipline and willingness to follow rules that physical fitness signals." This is why they want a drone pilot, for example, to meet physical fitness standards.

Really, the military should have three fitness standards: one for all male soldiers, one for all female soldiers, and another for the soldier's specific speciality.

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

#294

Post by EmanueleAina »

speeder wrote: post #56
EmanueleAina wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Men and women, on average, differ significantly The linked article explicitly does not take any stance on that. What the article points out is that males are more extreme in their traits, eg. exceptionally tall or exceptionally short, which in no way means that there are average differences. Even if the deviation is different, the mean may be the same. Not that I'm saying that those differences are or are not there…

You managed to misquote BADLY the article to support your point. The article opens stating that there are TWO types of gender differences, one, like Height (that you quoted wrongly) is when the mean changes. The other (like IQ) the distribution changes. Then the article focus on theorizing why that second type happens, and don't discuss the first (wisely for the author, the same website used to have other authors on…

No need to SHOUT to convey your message.

Indeed, I wasn't really trying to quote the article when I was talking about height, I just took a bad analogy on my own (certainly influenced by what I just read, but that's not the point). Sorry for the confusion.

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

#295

Post by Swannie »

danmaz74 wrote: post #97

The first paragraph in the article sounded wrong. It says that "the brain of a woman is composed of two different types of cells. One type has an X chromosome inherited from her mother, and another type of cell has an X chromosome from her father", but I remembered that all cells in a woman have both X chromosomes. It turns out the correct paragraph should say: "One type has an ACTIVE X chromosome inherited from her…

Thank you for posting that. I read this paragraph and the weak language instantly made me wonder this was doing on HN. I would not consider those two "types" of cells.

I don't understand how this passes for publishable material. I could have written better when I was 17, and I was a terrible writer back then!

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

#296

Post by paperrr1 »

Retra wrote: post #144
tiler wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

disorder

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

#297

Post by nailer »

chi-sq wrote: post #210
nailer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out the work by Simon Baron Cohen at Cambridge, which includes studies on newborns showing clear differences between genders. http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/godis/sex.pdf Also check out the work of John Money, who popularised the concept of 'gender as a social construct', and wrecked the life of a young man whose penis had been destroyed by trying to raise him as a girl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_…

(currently finishing Masters in Methodology/Statistics in Psychology) There is evidence of inter-sex differences (and in many areas girls are at advantage), but the provably innate part is small, and the intra-group variance coming from other factors (that may include elements of culture) is much bigger. This allows for conclusions on population, not individual level. On a related note, affirmative action programs se…

> And absolutely regardless of John Money being misguided and vilified

I just saw this. It worried me that you're apparently studying psychology but consider someone who abused a child to prove a theory to be 'vilified'.

Post reply on HN