zlacker

>>andren+(OP)
I don't get it. Why is equality of outcome not a desirable goal, especially in science and technology? These authors only try to disprove theories which potentially explain the inequality and then conclude that there is no injustice. This is logically flawed in my opinion. In order to justify the inequality they would need to come up with a plausible theory why the inequality is inevitable and then support it with sound facts. Otherwise social pressure from "feminists" is well justified.

>>edna31+rd
>Why is equality of outcome not a desirable goal, especially in science and technology?

I am going to try and describe this in a math/programming way.

Say we have two functions randM() and randF() the first returns a Male Person, the second returns a Female Person. Person has an Ability and a Preference. We also have a function stemJob(Person p) that takes a Person and returns a Job with an Income, Prestige, and Satisfaction.

Equality of outcome would mean that after 10^9 calls of each the this is true average(stemJob(randM()) == average(stemJob(randF()). This could be either because 1a) randM() and randF() produce on average the same person modulo Sex and stemJob() does not consider Sex or 1b) The difference between the average randM() and randF() is corrected for by stemJob() considering Sex.

The other option is equality of chance where stemJob(randM()) == stemJob(randF()) where randM() and randF() have the same Ability and Preference.

Notice that in equality of chance and in equality of outcome stemJob() may or may not be the same. If randM() and randF() produce on average the same person modulo Sex then stemJob() is the same for both equality of chance and equality of outcome. If that assumption does not hold then stemJob() must be different.

Thus, if I support equality of chance and believe avg(randM()) != avg(randF()) I would not support equality of outcome because that would require stemJob to consider Sex in a way that invalids equality of chance.

Hope this give you a different way to look at why some people are against equality of outcome in STEM.

>>Veelox+BD
Thanks for the effort!

I think it's a bit clearer now where the differences lie. For example the assumption avg(randM()) != avg(randF()), which should more precisely be avg(randM()) >> avg(randF()) to justify stemJob(randM()) >> stemJob(randF()).

There is another assumption here, that is that if you don't touch it, stemJob() is a fair function in the sense that stemJob(randM()) == stemJob(randF()) where randM() and randF() have the same Ability and Preference. I find that unlikely as, for example, there is evidence that people are more likely to hire candidates of the same sex.

What is interesting is that it boils down to the question whether or not you believe that avg(randM()) >> avg(randF()), or in words that in general men are much more capable then women in STEM and I asked for a theory supporting that claim in my original comment. If I understood correctly someone who supports equality of chance would agree that stemJob() must be unfair if it turns out that avg(randM()) ~ avg(randF()).