zlacker

[return to "Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies"]
1. scarmi+t5[view] [source] 2018-02-15 10:10:26
>>andren+(OP)
This reminds me of something I was thinking about earlier today.

It's well known that men generally are stagnating economically, while women are catching up. In many metro areas, single women out earn single men.

And so I came across this paper[0], which had some interesting research about that. And what struck me was this: there's an explicit assumption that men have worse socio-emotional skills than women, and that can be used to explain the gap.

By itself, I don't take any issue with it. It's true. But if you turned it around and explained the CS gap starting from the assumption that men are disproportionately represented among the upper levels of spatial and mathematical abstraction skills, there'd be an uproar. Petitions would be signed, scalps would be taken. I say that as someone who thinks much of those differences can be explained by childhood socialization.

And you're not even allowed to talk about it. I'm hesitant to post this comment, for fear someone might hunt me down and dox me to my employer. (Even now, I ponder if I should be making a throwaway account.)

In real life, I had been willing to have conversations about this because I find it an interesting and nuanced topic. But now both sides have taken to treating anyone who doesn't take a stance of complete agreement with their respective ideologies as the Enemy.

It's creating a class of people who know just to shut up and withdraw from any discussion about the topic, because there's clearly no good that can come from it, either socially or professionally. Even academics. And I genuinely don't get why anyone would want that.

[0] http://www.nber.org/papers/w24274

◧◩
2. psyc+76[view] [source] 2018-02-15 10:22:43
>>scarmi+t5
Lest we forget, it isn't only charismatically-challenged unfortunates like Damore who get thrown under a tank for daring to speak 'out of turn' wrt the social justice narrative. Just two hours ago, I happened to re-read the various vicious hit pieces written about Paul Graham several years ago, after he had the gall to speak his mind about representation. These are the times. Everywhere I look online, it's men vs. women, black vs. white. To paraphrase Yudkowsky, "Arguments are soldiers, this is war, and it's life or death."

This account began as a throwaway. I used to comment with my real name, in the days before the war broke out. In the days when pg used to comment here regularly. The days when, if someone disagreed with you, they'd tell you so, or why you're wrong, or maybe that you're a dumb-dumb. Now, if you don't follow approved talking points in your social media communiqués, you're in real danger of being pilloried, and - as these things go - you're more likely to be attacked by fellow members of the party. I've identified as left-leaning my entire life, but I've never for a moment feared this sort of personal sabotage from a right-leaning person. This is a pursuit of ideological purity at any cost.

◧◩◪
3. rayine+va[view] [source] 2018-02-15 11:36:48
>>psyc+76
Damore’s screed was also rife with fallacies and unsupported generalizations, let’s not forget that. It drives me nuts that his lack of “charisma” (rather than his lack of logical reasoning skills or writing ability) is what people are saying got him fired. If he’d written a manifesto that sloppy on a technical topic people would’ve ripped him to shreds.
◧◩◪◨
4. psyc+tc[view] [source] 2018-02-15 12:04:31
>>rayine+va
So it's normal and ok if being wrong got him fired? No matter, as that isn't what got him fired. He was fired because it's good optics in this climate. And I'm asserting the climate isn't good.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. YeGobl+5i[view] [source] 2018-02-15 13:17:47
>>psyc+tc
Maybe he was fired not just because he made the company look bad, but also because he insulted about 30% of his co-workers, and on top of that kept trying to get his memo read by as many people as possible within Google.

Banging on about a controversial subject that can cause upset and disruption in a work environment. Does that sound very professional, or something that a smart person would do? And do you really want that kind of person in your team?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. modusp+3m[view] [source] 2018-02-15 13:57:46
>>YeGobl+5i
> he insulted about 30% of his co-workers

He didn't insult anyone, although some amount of his coworkers did feel insulted.

The difference between these two things is significant.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. pc86+yn[view] [source] 2018-02-15 14:11:18
>>modusp+3m
I don't think he intended to insult anyone, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to believe that people could be insulted based on what he said. That's the gray area your binary distillation completely ignores. It's a little more nuanced than "he hurt my feelings!"
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. modusp+Io[view] [source] 2018-02-15 14:21:52
>>pc86+yn
I think what he wrote should be judged on the merits of what it said and not how others choose to misinterpret it.

Put differently: We are going down a dark road when someone simply being offended by pretty mainstream views mean those views are the problem.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. pc86+uB[view] [source] 2018-02-15 15:49:29
>>modusp+Io
I'm not saying that the views are a problem because people are offended. I'm saying that since people are offended, it's reasonable to take a step back and ask if the views are offensive, and if the intent was to offend. "He didn't mean to offend" doesn't automatically mean that whatever he said was okay. In this particular case I think it was, but there's nothing wrong with stepping back and asking if the underlying views are okay.
[go to top]