If only he was "exploring the question in what appears to be a very scientific manner based on the latest academic research into these questions". The FIRST warning sign to anyone reading his manifesto should have been how woefully undercited it was. He revealed that he really doesn't understand, much less has read, the science.
Assuming you've looked at the actual document (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...) and not redacted/censored versions of it, it does in fact have a lot of links...[0] How many citations would you expect though? He's not publishing for an academic journal. He's not even publishing for an audience outside of coworkers.
[0] Links from the paper in order not counting internal g/ go/ links, whatever those are (not all of them technically citations, but some are; many just to help point out that a technical definition is being used and a common parlance one the reader may have in mind shouldn't be used):
http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf (My favorite in-context just because the link text is "research suggests", a common phrase that all too commonly lacks any sort of citation or link of any kind.)
He's an engineer for Google (with a purported PhD from Harvard - likely to only be a MS) that wrote a 10 page article critiquing his company - specifically - for ignoring the science when making decisions about company culture. From someone with his credentials making these claims I expect 15+ peer reviewed sources with at least 1 review article from each field that studies the topic (sociology, economics, anthropology, psychology, biology).
Someone with his credentials should not expect to be spoon fed justifications for company hiring practices. If he had opened discussion on the validity of specific findings and which experiments contain the most valuable information for predicting benefits of policy changes, I don't think there would have been this outcry.
But if he wants to discuss the science he first needs to make it clear that he's read it.
You know, I for one maintain that he shouldn't have to do any of these things to avoid getting fired and getting branded a sexist by the dishonest media. But that's exactly what happened. Being more scientific wouldn't have helped him one iota. Keeping his mouth shut would've helped.
There is significant scientific evidence that most of the differences in employment observed between women and men and minorities and white men can be explained by socialization.
When conditions are set that reduce or control for these social factors (including implicit bias) the differences in performance that James Demore attributes to "biological" factors disappear.
How is this not related to the bulk of his claims?
If you watch Peterson's video, or more importantly looked at the links in the description, the theory of social constructivism has been disproven through experimentation. The more gender equity there is in a social, the more disparity there is between the interests of men and women and this is universal across all cultures. And what you said about conditions that reduce social factors is false. As Peterson explained there's no reproducible valid science showing that what you say is true.
> When conditions are set that reduce or control for these social factors (including implicit bias) the differences in performance that James Demore attributes to "biological" factors disappear.
That's a bold prediction supported by no real-world evidence whatsoever. Where's your control group? Where's the retort society that has all this bias removed or even quantified?
Of course societal effects affect the outcome of a person's career, but the idea that there is absolutely zero influence of biological differences is pure dogma. However, it's convenient (if not imperative) to believe, if you're a strong social constructivist.
Or... you know, you've actually got a PhD in sociology and have read the research. This is armchair-pundit-bullshit akin to climate change denial. Everyone knows better than the researchers who've actually done the work and are immersed in the field.
How about we accept the consensus of the scientists? Rather than calling it dogma because it doesn't agree with YOUR world view.
csoze: "Rather than calling it dogma because it doesn't agree with YOUR world view."
galacticpony2's statement was valid, csoze, yours is not. As Damore and the scientists who have done the research have stated is biology is PART of the reason. The social constructivists TEND to say the opposite, meaning they TEND to say it's entirely social and literally deny any evidence of a role played by biology even when the evidence is undeniable, such as when experiments involve manipulation of brain chemistry, or control for social influence. That's dogma, and validates galacticpony2's assertion.
First of all, you didn't answer my question. Where is your research that brings evidence to support your prediction? Sociology in particular isn't very diligent in actually applying the scientific method.
Secondly, you're making an "argument from authority", which is an intellectual embarrassment. Scientific knowledge is not based on consensus, but on evidence. The theory behind climate change is not supported by the amount of scientists that "believe" in it, but by the evidence they bring forth.
Given how strongly he's had his view misrepresented, I don't think giving references would've helped him. He was very careful to pick his words, to no avail.
It's the science itself that these people don't want to accept, if it doesn't support their idea that people and society are malleable enough to solve all these unequal distributions.
If we suppose that being successful in STEM correlates strongly with a high IQ, the mere fact that there exist fewer females with a high IQ would be one reason why there would be fewer females in STEM. That's just an objective, logical conclusion. Another logical conclusion would be that no diversity program could change this discrepancy.
The sound way to challenge this would be to challenge the research here, i.e. the foundation of the argument, instead of persecuting a person making such an argument. In other words: "Don't shoot the messenger".
This attempt at summarizing the research is innumerate, disconnected from empirical data, and offensive. Research on gender and IQ does not show that "there exist fewer females with high IQ" --- even stipulating the validity of the research Damore is leaning on, that's now how the statistics work. And there are an enormous number of women in STEM: the concern is that there are few of them in computer science.
Before you attempt to reason from basic principals to a defense of the status quo, you should attempt to fully understand those principles.
> This attempt at summarizing the research is innumerate, disconnected from empirical data, and offensive.
Maybe you should elaborate on why it is innumerate and disconnected. As for calling it "offensive", that's entirely irrelevant. It outs you as somebody who is more interested in silencing people than debating them on more objective merits.
> Research on gender and IQ does not show that "there exist fewer females with high IQ"
Research does show that there exist fewer females at either ends of the distribution and more towards the center, compared to males.
This does mean that there exist fewer female individuals with exceptionally high or exceptionally low IQs. That is indeed how statistics work.
If you want to contest that the research is flawed and that the result is wrong, do that. If we suppose the data is valid, then my conclusion is sound.
> And there are an enormous number of women in STEM: the concern is that there are few of them in computer science.
The broader concern is STEM, not just computer science. Sure, there's an enormous amount of women in STEM, there's also an enormous amount of men in STEM and if you put both in relation, the relative amount of women in STEM is quite low (compared to other fields).
The only real argument here is how much (if any) of that is due to causes that aren't social.
> The only real argument here is how much (if any) of that is due to causes that aren't social.
Negligible, based on the statistics. The differences, if they even exist, are minuscule, while the gender disparity is enormous. It strains credibility to imagine that the root cause of the gender disparity in STEM employment is innate, especially since the disparity varies across cultures and subfields.
I think it's also worth pointing out that their argument just changed dramatically, and that what they said in their followup can't readily be reconciled with their original claim that studies showed "fewer high IQ women".
His argument from the wider variance in male IQs directly supports the statement of "fewer high IQ women", given some definitions of that term (i.e. where exactly you place the cutoff for high IQ). His follow up served to clarify the ambiguous term. I'm not sure where you're coming from here.
I'm not sure you even realized you changed arguments when you switched from "there aren't as many high-IQ women" to "there is a higher variance in the distribution of male intelligence as there is in women". I'm curious to see how you'll rebut, and, if you do, will use your rebuttal to gauge how detailed my response will be.
(Obviously, there is a [weak] rebuttal that preserves the original claim with the new distributional argument).
If M ~ N(u,v_m) and W ~ N(u,v_w) [where N refers to the normal distribution], with v_m > v_w, then P(M > T) > P(W > T) for all T > u. I.e if the trait is approximately normally distributed with equal means among two groups, the group with the higher variance will exhibit more extreme values. Why is this a change in argument?
Nevertheless, as most of our mothers taught us, two wrongs don't make a right, and someone else violating the rules is no excuse. If you do that repeatedly (and you have), you're going to get banned here for obvious reasons.
... replying here instead because replying @dang is locked:
I'm not asking for a "two wrongs make one right" defense, I'm asking for equal treatment. You flagged my comment even though it was arguably much less of an "attack" than what I quoted.
I don't fault you for not catching those quotes early, I'm faulting you for not flagging those comments as well now that you have been made aware. In the time you wrote your reply, you could've easily copy pasted a warning to those comments as well.
If you really don't want to give the impression that you're singling out me and my position for suppression, that's what you could still do.
> Everybody can flag (just click in the x minutes ago link and you'll see that post as top leveel including a link to flag it).
Thanks for pointing that out. My apologies to @dang, then.
Having said that, that's a pretty lame feature to have, considering that there's no way to see what the flagged comment was. For posterity, this is what I said:
"I never switched anything. The conclusion that "there aren't as many high-IQ women" comes from "there is a higher variance in the distribution of male intelligence". It's been there from the beginning.
You have to actually follow the links I give and pay attention during reading."
> The differences, if they even exist, are minuscule, while the gender disparity is enormous.
Small differences can dramatically change outcomes.
> It strains credibility to imagine that the root cause of the gender disparity in STEM employment is innate, especially since the disparity varies across cultures and subfields.
"It strains credibility" is another veiled argument from authority. The "root cause" can be different for every culture. Let's imagine that a culture forces STEM to be disproportionately desirable because of societal/economic pressure. It will push more people into the STEM field that wouldn't have joined "naturally".
Then, let's imagine a culture where there are no pressures either way whatsoever. The "innate" differences (if they are allowed to exist) will dominate the outcome completely.
How in the world is this article supposed to buttress your argument that women are somehow innately unfit for STEM careers? The article literally says "A recent study found that rather than too few girls opting to study scientific subjects or women forgoing careers to care for their children, the biggest cause of gender imbalance in Stem is cultural." Clicking through the link, you get to this paper [1], which is in fact a pretty thorough refutation of your entire position.
reposting my previously flagged post, in the exact wording:
> How in the world is this article supposed to buttress your argument that women are somehow innately unfit for STEM careers?
I never made that argument. You're in the same boat as the people that got James fired by misrepresenting his view. Whether it's lack of reading comprehension or malevolence on your part, I'm not going to deal with you further.
> The article literally says "A recent study found that rather than too few girls opting to study scientific subjects or women forgoing careers to care for their children, the biggest cause of gender imbalance in Stem is cultural."
I'm not actually saying the causes aren't cultural. To the contrary.
> Clicking through the link, you get to this paper [1], which is in fact a pretty thorough refutation of your entire position.
I don't see how exactly that's the case, but given that you're unable to even represent my position properly, I'm not interested in investigating this with you any further.
Small differences can sometimes dramatically change outcomes, but that's not a response, it's just handwaving. You have to specify the mechanism by which that particular small difference would result in an 82/18 split for CS, but a 65/35 split for mathematics.
Why? I'm not the one making strong claims, why should the burden of proof rest on me?
My "opponent" maintains that any "non-social" causes are "neglible". He doesn't have to explain what exact social mechanism causes one split for CS and another split for mathematics. I think that's entirely besides the point anyway.
My point is merely that because even small differences in variance can dramatically change outcomes, the differences can't be disregarded just because they are small.
My point also is not that the social effects are neglible! I'm sure they're quite significant, in fact.
You did, in fact, make the original extraordinary claim, which was that there are so few high-IQ women that their scarcity significantly explains the 82/18 gender cap in computer science. Obviously, the underlying science does not agree with this argument, and you've presented no other argument backing it up. I don't think you can legitimately retreat to "burden of proof" rebuttals.
> You did, in fact, make the original extraordinary claim, which was that there are so few high-IQ women that their scarcity significantly explains the 82/18 gender cap in computer science.
I didn't actually claim that, you just keep going with the misrepresentations, otherwise you'd have not leg to stand on. I was very careful to put enough weasel language and conditionals in there to not make a factual claim, exactly because I didn't bother to look into whatever some (potentially flawed) research says.
What I actually said was:
"If we suppose that being successful in STEM correlates strongly with a high IQ, the mere fact that there exist fewer females with a high IQ would be one reason why there would be fewer females in STEM. That's just an objective, logical conclusion. Another logical conclusion would be that no diversity program could change this discrepancy."
I'm not making any claim as to whether the supposition is true, or whether the correlation is true, or what IQ is, or whether the influence is even significant. All this is happening in your imagination, through confirmation bias.
No, I'm not. I didn't mention the word "biological", I'm not making any claim on what the underlying reasons for the distributions are. Does it have to be "clean" anyway? What does "clean" even mean? Do you believe society creates this distribution? If so, I'd be interested by which mechanism.
Secondly, heritability may only account for 40-60%, but that's more than zero. Now, how many percentage points do you suppose could be influenced by diversity programs over at Google?
The EPI is heavily funded by labour unions which have a major stake in the continued acceptance of central tenets of Marxist/postmodernist ideology, like the existence of race/gender/class based social dominance hierarchy and the importance of creating laws that discriminate against the identity group that is perceived to be at the top of this hierarchy.
http://www.epi.org/publication/womens-work-and-the-gender-pa...