Jordan Peterson

[Senethro]

EDIT: Snark aside, that famous picture with boxes completely ignores the point that I'm trying to make you realize: what if those two kids don't want to watch that stupid game in the first place and would much rather be elsewhere doing something completely different?

Well there isn't really much to say. If you're offering the bolded text as a possible explanation for any random individual then fine. But also: So what? A possible, supposed, maybe, perhaps explanation for an individual isn't very interesting or useful and is so obvious you kinda don't even need to say it.

But it comes across as insulting or disingenuous when offered as a serious explanation for a group. Hence the snark.

 

[luiz]

The confusion comes from where your markers for "outcome" are. In theory, per the preamble of the constitution, "all men are created equal." For that to be made real the marker for where opportunity begins and outcome stopped has to be birth. In short, estate tax of 100%, collected at birth of offspring. All parents provided with a uniformity of facility for the raising of their offspring, with their lives to be resumed upon the offspring starting theirs. Otherwise, the rich man's offspring is not created equal, but is given a head start.

Why would anyone think that this bizarrely tyrannical, dystopian proposition is somehow better than inequality?

Anyway. As others said, wealth at birth is not the only cause of inequality. Some kids would still be born to loving, cultured parents that foster an environment of learning and achievement. Others will be born to neglecting alcoholics, and most to somewhere between. To say nothing of the whole genetic / health component (some kids will be born healthy and attractive and athletic, others will be born with all sorts of handicaps). There will never be equality of opportunity as long as we're humans. Deal with it.

PS: before some idiot claims that I'm thus arguing for abolishing the state, public education or any such nonsense : no, I'm not. I'm all for giving everyone a good basic education for free, public / semi-public Healthcare, aids for kids of poor families, etc. But I know this will not achieve equality of opportunity, and I do not favor bizarre social experiments to achieve what just can't be achieved.

 

[Yeekim]

Well there isn't really much to say. If you're offering the bolded text as a possible explanation for any random individual then fine. But also: So what? A possible, supposed, maybe, perhaps explanation for an individual isn't very interesting or useful and is so obvious you kinda don't even need to say it.

But it comes across as insulting or disingenuous when offered as a serious explanation for a group. Hence the snark.

You have it backwards. On last few pages we've, imho, quite conclusively shown it's very likely that the group under question does not want to be there - but some individuals from therein certainly do.
These individuals face problems that must be solved and discrimination that must be eliminated.
But we must not operate on the assumption that we know we've solved them when we've reached 50/50 representation.

 

[metalhead]

You have it backwards. On last few pages we've, imho, quite conclusively shown it's very likely that the group under question does not want to be there - but some individuals from therein certainly do.
These individuals face problems that must be solved and discrimination that must be eliminated.
But we must not operate on the assumption that we know we've solved them when we've reached 50/50 representation.

I don't think anyone does, really. But what you can do is figure out why women who have felt discouraged from entering tech fields were made to feel that way. And find out from those who are in those fields what professional difficulties they face. And then see what you can do to address those problems. A lot of times it's as simple as awareness, education, and training, but it requires buy-in everywhere from elementary school teachers all the way up to tech CEOs.

 

[Senethro]

On last few pages we've, imho, quite conclusively shown it's very likely that the group under question does not want to be there - but some individuals from therein certainly do.

Ok, I was assuming that you were NOT making a ridiculous poorly supported statement, but here you seem to want to do so.

Just to get this clear - you are offering the Schmitt et al paper finding differences between the averages in the self reported personalities of men and women across various cultures as a general explanation for every field of work in which sex ratios differ?

If this is wrong then please make your actual full statement because it is getting scattered across way too many posts.

But we must not operate on the assumption that we know we've solved them when we've reached 50/50 representation.

Fine, but what alternative measure do you offer?

Edit: Got the papers authors name wrong

 

[Yeekim]

I don't think anyone does, really. But what you can do is figure out why women who have felt discouraged from entering tech fields were made to feel that way. And find out from those who are in those fields what professional difficulties they face. And then see what you can do to address those problems.

I'd like to see anyone argue against that. That's just basic common sense, isn't it?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There is massive amounts of evidence. It's not recognized as such by sexist men. What a surprise, whether information constitutes evidence of some proposition depends upon one's initial assumptions.

Even if you are entirely right and they are entirely wrong, you still can't just write that off as "sexism". It's amazingly easy to think of non-sexist reasons why people would believe there are innate differences between the sexes, given that such differences are observed in all other animals ever for example.

Also, there are plenty of women who don't agree with you as well. I notice you don't mention these "sexist women". Either because you're ascribing different motivations for them based purely on their gender, or because you're denying their existence entirely. Either of which actually is pretty sexist.

Men who think women are biologically inclined to be housewives being accused of sexism on the internet, probably. The greatest collective injustice in history.

So whenever you read "biologist" or "chemist", you just see "housewife". Interesting.

There is no real separation between "outcome" and "opportunity," that is a false distinction invented by people who are against equality so they can be against equality while still claiming they are for equality.

Blinkered, ideological nonsense.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So this raises an awkward problem: attempting to level the playing field may actually result in more people following their interests and skewing gender ratios even further. In Southeast Asia in the late 1990s (around the time of the Asian economic crisis), it's likely that everyone felt they simply had to go to fields that paid the most, resulting in the percentage of women CS majors being similar to their fraction of all college students. But in places where people are freer to follow their interests, we see large and increasing gender gaps in employment. This effect drowns out any attempts at increasing diversity. Unlike Damore, I think those are laudable, but they don't have much effect.

The real problem is seeing this as a problem. When you set your sights on achieving some goal that requires steering people away from their natural inclinations and proclivities, all supposedly in the name of freedom and fairness, then that's a problem. When you recognise that that's what's happening, but still do it anyway, that's even more of a problem. And this is precisely why saying "trying to criticise diversity initiatives is a stupid idea" is a really troubling statement.

 

[Yeekim]

Just to get this clear - you are offering the Schmitt et al paper finding differences between the averages in the self reported personalities of men and women across various cultures as a general explanation for every field of work in which sex ratios differ?

Only explanation for every field of work across every culture across all of time? Lol, no. I'm not biting.
This all started with me agreeing with hapless Mr Damore, so let's stay focused on modern Western societies.
And here, I believe it to be a pretty good explanation. That does not mean this is the only explanation. "Environment" is not a single factor either, but comprised of countless factors. Persons might be simultaneously pulled into a field they're not really into (e.g. because more money) and pushed away from it (e.g. because sexism). And even when you get rid of sexism, as you should (or at least reduce it), the gender gap might widen, because people might also have become wealthier and freer to follow their actual preferences, rather than just money. That's what has been observed to happen, after all.

Also, how about rather than asking me to make sweeping generalizations that are bound to have errors (as generalizations invariably have) you figure an example where this can't be used to explain it and we'll see if we can agree there? A modern, Western society might be nice, because I'm not necessary familiar with every other job in every other culture.

Fine, but what alternative measure do you offer?

Since this all started on a level of a company (albeit a large one), I'll bring company-level examples.
You look at hiring statistics: how large chance do male vs female applicants have to get hired. (Might find something counter-intuitive, like "even though we have 3 times less female than male employees, female applicants actually have 3 times higher chance to get hired".)
You look at wages, while controlling for experience, hours and the like.
You ask people - all of them - if and what problems they've experienced.
And so on.

 

[Senethro]

Only explanation for every field of work across every culture across all of time? Lol, no. I'm not biting.
This all started with me agreeing with hapless Mr Damore, so let's stay focused on modern Western societies.
And here, I believe it to be a pretty good explanation. That does not mean this is the only explanation. "Environment" is not a single factor either, but comprised of countless factors. Persons might be simultaneously pulled into a field they're not really into (e.g. because more money) and pushed away from it (e.g. because sexism). And even when you get rid of sexism, as you should (or at least reduce it), the gender gap might widen, because people might also have become wealthier and freer to follow their actual preferences, rather than just money. That's what has been observed to happen, after all.

If its not a sweeping generalization you're making (which I agree would be stupid) then what makes you think it is relevant in any particular case? (Because in this one it confirms particular prejudices of yours)

Reduction of one environmental constraint does not allow you to decide there is an absence of another environmental constraint because you wish it were so.

Also, how about rather than asking me to make sweeping generalizations that are bound to have errors (as generalizations invariably have) you figure an example where this can't be used to explain it and we'll see if we can agree there? A modern, Western society might be nice, because I'm not necessary familiar with every other job in every other culture.

I can't take any particular job and say this force is completely absent from it because maybe its actually there and just so small that its effect is difficult to measure (can't prove a negative without absolute knowledge in other words), but there are obvious examples in which the reduction in economic constraints were not the primary or even a significant factor in varying the participation in that field. Such as any job where there were/are legislative barriers to womens entry into the field, and a cultural change was required, and so no reduction of the economic environmental constraints would vary it.

I'm not sure this exercise was useful.

Since this all started on a level of a company (albeit a large one), I'll bring company-level examples.
You look at hiring statistics: how large chance do male vs female applicants have to get hired. (Might find something counter-intuitive, like "even though we have 3 times less female than male employees, female applicants actually have 3 times higher chance to get hired".)
You look at wages, while controlling for experience, hours and the like.
You ask people - all of them - if and what problems they've experienced.
And so on.

Sounds good, but men offer hella opinions of their own about how they see no problems here, everything looks fine to them, are you sure its not just womans natural proclivities at work?

 

[Senethro]

Even if you are entirely right and they are entirely wrong, you still can't just write that off as "sexism". It's amazingly easy to think of non-sexist reasons why people would believe there are innate differences between the sexes, given that such differences are observed in all other animals ever for example.

The problem is that that sexists will take a neutral piece of information such as, let us say for example, a biological (not cultural) human male preference for red and a female preference for blue, and spin this into a story of how this explains the wage gap.

Sexists are making stupid leaps of logic that need to be only slightly simplified to be rendered as "Differences in the animal kingdom explain all differences of men and women in society."

It is as you said, amazingly easy to think of non-sexist reasons to explain effects upon individual women, but you have to be an actual sexist to think these explain trends across many women.

So whenever you read "biologist" or "chemist", you just see "housewife". Interesting.

You're being very silly here, but on the other hand I'm very pleased that these areas of study are regarded as typically admitting women. A change that has happened in my lifetime as you likely know yourself, you wise student of the eternal differences between the masculine and the feminine.

 

[Lexicus]

EDIT: Snark aside, that famous picture with boxes completely ignores the point that I'm trying to make you realize: what if those two kids don't want to watch that stupid game in the first place and would much rather be elsewhere doing something completely different?

Wow, well, feminism disproved everyone, discussion over.

Even if you are entirely right and they are entirely wrong, you still can't just write that off as "sexism".

 

[Yeekim]

If its not a sweeping generalization you're making (which I agree would be stupid) then what makes you think it is relevant in any particular case? (Because in this one it confirms particular prejudices of yours).
Reduction of one environmental constraint does not allow you to decide there is an absence of another environmental constraint because you wish it were so.

Of course it doesn't. But neither should we assume existence of an environmental constraint, if we can not identify it.
If we can not identify particular environmental constraint, it is reasonable to assume the difference is a result of natural differences on preference.

Iirc there was a long study by scientists, which focused on finding out why cats don't tend to come when their owner calls them. The result? "They don't want to".

Such as any job where there were/are legislative barriers to womens entry into the field , and a cultural change was required, and so no reduction of the economic environmental constraints would vary it.

At least in Estonia, there have been no such jobs for a while.
I'm pretty sure women face no legislative barriers to work in Google.
I am very unimpressed by this example.

Sounds good, but men offer hella opinions of their own about how they see no problems here, everything looks fine to them, are you sure its not just womans natural proclivities at work?

A problem that results from natural proclivities of women is still a problem for them, and it might be possible to tackle it.
Damore offers a number of suggestions to do precisely that.
EDIT:

Sexists are making stupid leaps of logic that need to be only slightly simplified to be rendered as "Differences in the animal kingdom explain all differences of men and women in society."

No position, no matter how well-proven, well-argued or intelligent, is immune to being turned into a stupid strawman, if one is willing to "slightly simplify" it.

 

[Yeekim]

Wow, well, feminism disproved everyone, discussion over.

Watch out everyone, we have an avatar of feminism here.

Spoiler Spoiler your huge pics, for Christ's sake :

 

[Senethro]

Of course it doesn't. But neither should we assume existence of an environmental constraint, if we can not identify it.
If we can not identify particular environmental constraint, it is reasonable to assume the difference is a result of natural differences on preference.

Iirc there was a long study by scientists, which focused on finding out, why cats don't tend to come when their owner calls them. The result? "They don't want to".

Man says it is reasonable to assume no sexism where he believes he will find none because Natural Differences Exist.

At least in Estonia, there have been no such jobs for a while.
I'm pretty sure women face no legislative barriers to work in Google.
I am very unimpressed by this example.

I can't prove a negative, jerkface! Please don't refuse to acknowledge that and then say "bad example". Its very bad manners.

 

[Farm Boy]

@Hygro Hahahaha!

Sharp.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It is as you said, amazingly easy to think of non-sexist reasons to explain effects upon individual women, but you have to be an actual sexist to think these explain trends across many women.

Erm... no. Believing that there are (or even could possibly be) innate differences in behaviours between sexes (on average) is not sexist. Even if it's somehow completely wrong, it's still not a sexist belief in and of itself.

You're being very silly here, but on the other hand I'm very pleased that these areas of study are regarded as typically admitting women. A change that has happened in my lifetime as you likely know yourself, you wise student of the eternal differences between the masculine and the feminine.

No I'm not. This thread has been full of "worthy" occupations that women seem to excel in, or have been traditionally male-dominated but are now seeing gender parity (at least). Yet Lexicus is caricaturing people saying these things as actually saying "women are only fit to be housewives", and that really is being silly.

 

[Yeekim]

Man says it is reasonable to assume no sexism where he believes he will find none because Natural Differences Exist.

It's not prudent to "assume" anything. That natural differences exist is a fact, not an assumption.
In post #1489 I listed a number of ways to check for environmental constraints. There's probably more.
Once we've exhausted them, we can skip assumptions and move to conclusions.

I can't prove a negative, jerkface! Please don't refuse to acknowledge that and then say "bad example". Its very bad manners.

Indeed you can't. Guess we're even now.

Estonia...? What.....?

Yes. A country. Where I live. As it says on my profile. What of it?

 

[Senethro]

It's not prudent to "assume" anything. That natural differences exist is a fact, not an assumption.
In post #1489 I listed a number of ways to check for environmental constraints. There's probably more.
Once we've exhausted them, we can skip assumptions and move to conclusions.

And what would results look like that would satisfy you of sexism?

Indeed you can't. Guess we're even now.

Woah, sick trap bro. Asking me to do something you knew couldn't be done and then saying bad example. Real good faith in evidence here.

Yes. A country. Where I live. As it says on my profile. What of it?

You asked for a fairly general example and then suddenly reframed it to be required to be applicable to Estonia. Hence my surprise.

 

[Yeekim]

And what would results look like that would satisfy you of sexism?

Why? I don't doubt the existence of sexism (and other environmental factors, of which it is but one). Nor did Damore for that matter.
All I'm saying is that diversity initiatives shouldn't be focused on achieving full 50/50 split. They also should be non-discriminating, if at all possible.
E.g. this article makes a reasonable case for sexism existing. I just disagree with the conclusion that the cure is to press-gang more girls into STEM fields, and with the implicit assumption that there would indeed be appreciably more, if the sexism did not exist.

Woah, sick trap bro. Asking me to do something you knew couldn't be done and then saying bad example. Real good faith in evidence here.

Trap?
You were the one who said I was making a" ridiculous poorly supported statement", insinuating it would be easy to disprove it.
I indeed phrased my request for a counter-example badly, and I admitted it. It was entirely unintentional.

You asked for a fairly general example and then suddenly reframed it to be required to be applicable to Estonia. Hence my surprise.

I asked for an example applicable in a modern, Western world and you brought one that isn't. Or are we so much more progressive here in Eastern Europe?
Are there still legislative barriers for female employment in US, or wherever it is you live?