91–100 of 660 posts
Oh dear, this seems like a bit of an unwise thing to have written. Whether or not it's true, it's something you're Not Allowed to reason about, where "Not Allowed" is in the sense of PG's http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The existence of sexism and the existence of sex-specific biases in interests are not mutually exclusive. Also note that biological biases does not mean behavior is hard-wired , nurture (societal influence) and nature can both play a role at different weights. If such a natural bias exists and all and sexism is eliminated then there will still be a gender gap among the employees. And forms of affirmative action that…
Well you see, brand-new account created to hide from those scary terrible lefties who'd obviously ruin you otherwise, the probability that the distribution we observe today matches the "natural" distribution is, how shall I put this, very low . Now you might ask how I know this, and the answer is simple: open society-wide legally-endorsed discrimination is a thing within living memory here in the US, and a thing that…
" Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. " Wow. I see it now. Thanks for opening my eyes! I really feel for the hard pressed CEOs of the world, forced to take those high status jobs with nothing but high pay to compensate them for the lack of satisfaction.
Low status men and women considered unattractive are the ones who suffer from the judgement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's perfectly all right to say that there are statistical differences between the average biological man and the average biological woman. The problem is to then assume a gigantic pile of facts not in evidence (that the differences observed are 100% biological with no cultural influence whatsoever, that they conclusively explain gender disparities in many fields, etc. etc.) and accuse anyone who disagrees with you o…
Except he didn't say that the differences we observe are 100% due to biology. I'm actually pretty shocked at how much of this thread seems to deliberately mischaracterize what he wrote.
What are your opinions about this? Do you think biological differences leads to social differences (not only gender but race, height, etc)? Do our "intelligences" [1] differ based on our gender? [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligenc...
[2] https://www.elsevier.com/connect/can-brain-biology-explain-w...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I noticed that as well. I find it interesting that the alt-right has started to embrace so much of modern feminist/liberal terminology and tacitly accepted so many of the premises. The modern alt-right conservative: "I don't believe in safe spaces, but please stop bullying me!"
This is incredibly disingenuous. Much of the left considers simple disagreement to be micro-aggression, while at the same time finding it perfectly acceptable to launch hate-filled screeds of animosity and hatred at anyone who doesn't toe the line, e.g. "You're a fucking animal that deserves to be put down!!" Your comment implicitly supports this sort of misbehavior, implying that any complaint by an "alt-righter" is…
> Much of the left considers simple disagreement to be micro-aggression...
Tone down on the hypocrisy. If you want your side's arguments to be evaluated fairly, don't make ridiculous oversimplifications of the other side's positions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because you find such outliers. Some weird mechanisms might be driving such numbers
Well do you know anything about what is going on in Iran? Then please share.
[1] The beauty of your vagueness is that it allows someone to inject whatever they believe is the "real cause" of the problem in the United States, perfectly allowing them to project their own bias upon your post as well. It also makes it difficult for someone else to counter it since they're not entirely sure what you're trying to say at all. An intriguing approach I must say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. I was willing to give him a fair hearing until he listed a handful of differences between men and women that he ascribes to biology without any factual support. And therein lies the unconscious bias against which he is railing. To him, there is no question that men and women, on average, are fundamentally different in ways that affects their ability to and interest in work in tech. I agree with him that folks s…
Having personally experience the effects of different levels of testosterone I find it hard to believe any claim of the differences between men and woman at the population level not at least in part being biological.
I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today. The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "anti-diversity", but rather anti-discrimination - specifically 'positive 'discrimination which it discredits while p…
"Grounded in reality?" Could we get some sources for these claims? In particular, I'd like to see values and standard deviations for "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways."