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

The End of Men

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 130 posts

Re: The End of Men

#61

Post by scott_s »

rubashov wrote: post #43
Alex3917 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not it doesn't. The Hart & Risley study the article is addressing looked at the possible influence of genes, and found that the maximum influence they could have over verbal ability was maybe 20-30%. (I don't have the book in front of me, so I don't know the exact amount, but it was relatively small.)

I don't know anything about genes and "verbal ability" studies. But the cold hard fact is that IQ is highly genetically heritable and is very strongly correlated to schooling and professional outcomes. Look, we can strip babies away from their parents en masse and force them into "optimal upbringing" experiments, as perhaps you are suggesting. Or, we can celebrate diversity and acknowledge that different groups of pe…

"As perhaps [he] is suggesting"? He suggested nothing of the sort. He didn't even come close to implying it. Please don't play those kinds of games here.

Re: The End of Men

#62

Post by Groxx »

axle wrote: post #51
rubashov wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the white will likely get more jobs than the black guy. All else held equal, that is simply not true in modern America. There are very powerful incentives to hire the equivalently qualified black guy in order to avoid lawsuits. Anyway, all this affirmative action stuff will have to be dismantled in the next twenty years when whites are a minority. It will simply become impossible for institutions to function if the…

An the lawsuits are there because people recognized that if the place were left as it were, discrimination would persist.

Replace "are" with "were" and nearly everyone would agree with you.

For today, "are" is what's in question. A vast amount of laws exist simply because they did exist. How many worthless laws lie around, outdated by 100 years? Is it really that hard to believe that a law could obsolete itself in the past low-double-digit years?

Re: The End of Men

#63

Post by Groxx »

hugh3 wrote: post #53
WiseWeasel wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a human, it seems to me like other humans, especially those who identify as part of a group, have some sort of superiority complex.

I'm so glad I'm better than those identifying-as-part-of-a-group people!

Hear hear, fellow-group-person!

Re: The End of Men

#64

Post by hooande »

Men dominate just two of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most over the next decade: janitor and computer engineer. Women have everything else: nursing, home health assistance, child care, food preparation.

The entire premise of this article is pretty weak, which isn't surprising for The Atlantic. While more women may be employed than men, the jobs they have are associated more with support than with production. As long as our economy doesn't become based on social work and child care, men don't have too much to worry about.

In fact, it seems to hide the real problem of getting more women involved in math and science. Technical skills will be even more important 20 years from now, and women are sorely underrepresented in those fields. I think the society that has the most women involved in tech will be big winner in the long term.

Re: The End of Men

#65

Post by jtbigwoo »

sliverstorm wrote: post #11
acangiano wrote: post #6

> What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women? Alternative theory: Society is failing our boys.

I'd argue not failing but carefully emasculating. Old-fashioned masculinity has been systematically devalued, and many of its' traits demonized.

Speaking from my experience, men are responsible for their own emasculation. I know plenty of good guys who'd make great nurses, physical therapists, or home health aids. These are jobs that require a fair amount of physical strength and stamina in addition to individual initiative and focus. (That's what men are supposed to be good at, right?) Unfortunately, they're also jobs that are stereotypically female and somehow that makes them off limits. Instead, they take two paths: 1. spend thousands to train for a declining industry (there are two underemployed airline mechanics on my block) 2. expect that good paying semi-skilled jobs should be widely available for every high school graduate.

One other odd fact: In my neighborhood, this problem really only affects white men. There are quite a few black male medical assistants and nurses and almost no white ones.

Re: The End of Men

#67

Post by Alex3917 »

rubashov wrote: post #43
Alex3917 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not it doesn't. The Hart & Risley study the article is addressing looked at the possible influence of genes, and found that the maximum influence they could have over verbal ability was maybe 20-30%. (I don't have the book in front of me, so I don't know the exact amount, but it was relatively small.)

I don't know anything about genes and "verbal ability" studies. But the cold hard fact is that IQ is highly genetically heritable and is very strongly correlated to schooling and professional outcomes. Look, we can strip babies away from their parents en masse and force them into "optimal upbringing" experiments, as perhaps you are suggesting. Or, we can celebrate diversity and acknowledge that different groups of pe…

No offense, but critiquing the methodology of a study you haven't read makes you kind of a douche. How about you actually read the book before spouting off this bullshit. You're not the only one who knows what heritability and IQ are, it's not some big secret, and the researchers aren't 12.

Re: The End of Men

#69

Post by Qz »

lukev wrote: post #34

Who gives a crap? Even if there are measurable statistical differences in competence at various activities between the sexes (which is far from proven), the average variation between two individuals is far, far more than the average variation between the sexes at large. In other words, treat people like the individuals and stop ANY form of discrimination based on irrelevant categories, sex-based or otherwise. Also, t…

> Even if there are measurable statistical differences in competence at various activities between the sexes (which is far from proven), the average variation between two individuals is far, far more than the average variation between the sexes at large.

This is has no bearing on the issue. Yes, two individuals are probably measurably more different than the average woman vs the average man, but the qualities of the individual tend to balance out to a middle point in the larger picture. While variation is high, there is a single locus.

With gender, the average woman compared to the average men may be less different than any two random individuals, but there are nonetheless two loci for gender.

> But this is probably because it is both harder and less necessary for them to jump into the workforce straight out of high school, not because they're any better or more prone to academia. I have no hard data to back this up, but I strongly suspect that your average woman in her 20s is FAR more likely to be at least partially dependent on a husband or parents than a man of the same age.

And maybe Unicorns are making all the girls smarter, and flying spaghetti monsters are distracting all the men from studying and doing homework. I have no hard data to back that up. I'm just saying.

Seriously though, if you don't have at least some kind of evidence to back up what you're saying, you're better off just not saying it.

(p.s. the data says you're wrong.)

Re: The End of Men

#70

Post by rubashov »

scott_s wrote: post #61
rubashov wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anything about genes and "verbal ability" studies. But the cold hard fact is that IQ is highly genetically heritable and is very strongly correlated to schooling and professional outcomes. Look, we can strip babies away from their parents en masse and force them into "optimal upbringing" experiments, as perhaps you are suggesting. Or, we can celebrate diversity and acknowledge that different groups of pe…

"As perhaps [he] is suggesting"? He suggested nothing of the sort. He didn't even come close to implying it. Please don't play those kinds of games here.

Nobody is playing games and perhaps you should look up "perhaps". He presents the idea that poor people are incapable of raising their children as a useful fact. The only way this information could be useful is some sort of policy of intensive state interference in child upbringing.

We've two competing hypotheses here, both unpleasant: 1) Genetics explains a lot of group differences. 2) Poor groups can't raise their own children and there should be intervention. How on earth #2 is less offensive is beyond me. Sounds a lot like the native american forced assimilation attempts to me.

Post reply on HN