Support NeoGAF

[Dunki]

Not a single one of these studies concludes that the different career choices men and women make is mainly due to biological differences. Anyone that says this is misreading the literature and ignoring innumerable alternative explanations.

Again with the personal attacks. The fact that you feel threatened enough to have to resort to personal attacks tells me all I need to know about who is desperate here. I don’t see any point in continuing this debate until people can set the personal attacks aside and start discussing what the studies actually show.

I think I have never attacked you on a personal level and if you think that way that was not my intention. However can I ask you again to watch this if you have not? I think it makes the points were are making much more clear.

Also there is no long term study that shows your thesis as well. But i am open to read something as long it is not women studies.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

I think I have never attacked you on a personal level and if you think that way that was not my intention. However can I ask you again to watch this if you have not? I think it makes the points were are making much more clear.

Also there is no long term study that shows your thesis as well. But i am open to read something as long it is not women studies.

I never claimed there is. My claim is that no study (short a hyper realistic simulation once we have the technology to develop one) could ever account for the various psychosocial and societal factors in play to be able to answer the nature versus nurture debate.

So to claim that the difference in men and women’s professional choices or personalities is biologically driven, not culturally driven is premature.

Regarding personal attacks, I was referring to the post directly above mine, by strange headache when I meant personal attacks. I am at work plus have some errands after work but I will watch the YouTube video when I have a better connection.

 

[strange headache]

Again with the personal attacks. The fact that you feel threatened enough to have to resort to personal attacks tells me all I need to know about who is desperate here. I don’t see any point in continuing this debate until people can set the personal attacks aside and start discussing what the studies actually show.

Nobody is attacking you personally, your arguments are just patently funny, especially compared to the myriad of reasoned information provided to you. The only thing I'm desperate about, is your unwillingness to engage with these findings in an intellectually honest matter, because you simply can't get over your own bias. So don't even try playing the victim card because you said something incredibly silly and because your arguments simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

Here, have some more evidence:

Things versus people.

Su et al (2009) performed a meta-analysis of studies including a total of over 500,000 people examining gender differences in interests. Despite claims that gender differences are typically “small” (Hyde, 2005), Su et al found a gigantic gender difference in interests. Women preferred working with people, whereas men preferred working with things, a preference that is detectable within the first two days of birth and among our close species relatives, rhesus monkeys! To be sure, these differences were not absolute. Not every man prefers working with things, and not every woman prefers working with people. But the effect size was d= .93, and even if you are not familiar with effect sizes, this would make it one of the largest effects in social psychology; it is gigantic.

Source

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Again that is evidence of neonatal differences. To extrapolate the findings of that study to make claims about the career choices of adult men and adult women is blatant ignorance.

There are a huge about of differences between neonatal brains and adult brains. And most of those differences in the development of the brain are heavily influenced by the environment and culture.

Just one example, in the pruning process at around age 10, over the span of a few years, over 80% of all neonatal neurons and neural pathways die off and disappear completely. So even the teen brain is nothing at all like the neonatal brain.

This is just one of the many reasons why using the neonatal brain to make claims about adults is fallacious.

So again, this study says nothing about why adult women make the choices they do.

 

[strange headache]

So again, this study says nothing about why adult women make the choices they do.

You didn't even read the whole article, before making your reply. Because then you would have realized that the study is a meta-analysis (the result of many different studies) and even tracks career trajectories. If you think that preferences developed during childhood have no bearing on people's choices, that's your prerogative. But it's certainly a lot better than everything you've presented so far. Especially considering you coming to the defense of some horribly patriarchal, authoritarian, unfree and deeply sexist worldview.

The Numbers

The Council of Graduate Schools puts out regular reports, such as this one, that include the gender distribution in various fields.

Source: Council of Graduate Schools

Lo and behold, there is not “pervasive evidence of” a gender gap in graduate enrollments, though there is a gap in some STEM fields. Completely consistent with the work by Su et al and by Wang et al, in nearly all fields that are about people, not only is there no gap disadvantaging women, there are actually more women than men! (Health, education, social and behavioral sciences, public administration, arts and humanities, and even biological sciences). The same report found that, overall, across all fields, the "gap" is in the "wrong" direction: 57 percent of enrollees in graduate programs are women.

Even if there is discrimination against women in these fields, it is not preventing women from entering those fields in droves. (Indeed, the logic of “gap = discrimination”—a logic I have repeatedly rejected but which runs rampant throughout the social sciences and general public—would have us believe there is widespread discrimination against men in most fields now).

However equivocal the evidence for “bias” in the present may be as an explanation for the gender gap in STEM fields, there is ample evidence of bias. Scientific bias! Social scientists clearly "prefer" bias explanations over other, deeply important, scientifically rigorous, social developmental evidence, such as that offered by Su et al and Wang et al. This table reveals just how extreme this bias is:

The key entry here is the citation counts in the far right. The Moss-Racusin study is, by conventional standards, the weakest of the studies. Its sample size is a fraction of that of the others. It studies a relatively minor situation (hiring lab managers). It was a single study (Su et al is a meta-analysis of scores of studies; Williams and Ceci reported five separate studies). In contrast to Wang et al, it only studied an event at a single time point; it did not follow people’s career trajectories.

This does not make Moss-Racusin et al a “bad” study; it is merely weaker on virtually all important scientific grounds than the others. This is not to argue that the other studies are “perfect,” either; all studies have imperfections. But by conventional scientific standards, Su et al's meta-analysis, the replications in Williams and Ceci, the longitudinal Wang et al study, and the far larger sample sizes in all three mean that, on most scientific methodological standards, they are superior to the Moss-Racusin et al study.

And yet, look at the citation counts. Others are citing the Moss-Racusin et al study out the wazoo. Now, Wang et al and Williams and Ceci came out later, so probably the most useful column is the last. Since 2015, the weaker Moss-Racusin study has been cited 50% more often than the other three combined! That means there are probably more papers citing the Moss-Racusin et al study and completely ignoring the other three, than there are papers citing even one of the other three! What kind of "science" are we, that so many "scientists" can get away with so systematically ignoring relevant data in our scientific journals?

 

[Nintendo Switch]

I never said there arent differences in neonates. I already explained why it’s stupid to use this to make claims about adults.

I encourage you to read a little about pruning, about the mass death of neurons that occurs in the preteen years, about epigenetics. Very few neurons survive, and the few survive are those that were reinforced by the environment and culture.

This is why neonatal changes do not actually reflect adult interests or behaviors.

 

[strange headache]

I never said there arent differences in neonates. I already explained why it’s stupid to use this to make claims about adults.

What are you even talking about? The study isn't only focused on newborns. Again just read it, instead of shifting goalposts with your incohesive word salad.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the size of sex differences in RIASEC interests and work task dimensions using a meta-analytic review. We used technical manuals of vocational interest inventories as our data source because such manuals generally include results from large samples that are representative of different ages and ethnic groups, thus controlling sampling error. Additionally, the data obtained from these technical manuals represent the empirical foundation of the interest measures that are used most frequently in applied settings when working with individuals who are making career-related decisions. Therefore, in addition to providing insight into the nature and magnitude of sex differences in interests, the results obtained from this meta-analysis have important practical implications for career guidance and interest inventory development.

Very few neurons survive, and the few survive are those that were reinforced by the environment and culture.

There is so much wrong with that sentence alone, I'm not even going to bother with it. You may want to read up on neuroplasticity first or better yet, get some rudimentary knowledge about how the brain functions in the first place.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Ya'll know that in countries like Saudi Arabia women aren't really allowed to be doctors or lawyers right? Those are established fields where there is a cultural and institutional iron grip, but women can get into computer science. There's much less choice.

In Algeria you're funneled into degrees according to your scores.

So it's systemic in those countries. I bet if you looked at all of their systems piece by piece you'll find interesting differences.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Here is an article about neuron synaptic pruning. Like I said, very little of the neonatal brain survives to adulthood and this whole process is heavily influenced by our environment https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722610/


As I already stated, every single culture treats men and women differently, no study (short a hyper realistic simulation once we have the technology to develop one) could ever account for the various psychosocial and societal factors in play due to differences between how men and women are treated to be able to answer the nature versus nurture debate.

So to claim that the difference in men and women’s professional choices or personalities is biologically driven, not culturally driven is premature.

Studies showthat women are much more likely to pursue STEM in the rest of the world as compared to the West or in countries like Scandinavia.

But making assumptions about what a study shows into why it shows this is where the argument falls apart.

There are a multitude of possible reasons this could be the case, so it’s premature to claim these differences have more to do with nature rather than nurture.

Your excerpt cites the Su. al study prominently. Also please link to the actual studies or atleast tell us a bit about which countries were sampled.

Are you ceding the point that it is stupid to make extrapolations about adults based on differences seen in babies whose brains have not yet been pruned by their experiences https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722610/#!po=37.1795

If so, I’m glad that part is settled.

 

[strange headache]

As I already stated, every single culture treats men and women differently, no study (short a hyper realistic simulation once we have the technology to develop one) could ever account for the various psychosocial and societal factors in play due to differences between how men and women are treated to be able to answer the nature versus nurture debate. So to claim that the difference in men and women’s professional choices or personalities is biologically driven, not culturally driven is premature.

Ah the old "we'll never be able to really know" defense. Essentially giving you the opportunity to simply dismiss every evidence provided to you, brilliant.

Studies show that women are much more likely to pursue STEM in the rest of the world as compared to the West or in countries like Scandinavia.

Thanks for reaffirming the argument I made on the very first page. Seems like we're back at square one.

There are a multitude of possible reasons this could be the case, so it’s premature to claim these differences have more to do with nature rather than nurture.

We are now talking about this, so the best we can do is work with the information that is provided. So far, you've provided zilch. Go back to my very first comment on page one. Nobody is denying that culture has no influence, but what people are criticizing is that empirical findings about human biology and psychology are largely ignored for ideologically driven political reasons. As evidenced by my comment before. You're just running in circles again.

Your excerpt cites the Su. al study prominently. Also please link to the actual studies or atleast tell us a bit about which countries were sampled.

The link was provided in my first response to you!

Are you ceding the point that it is stupid to make extrapolations about adults based on kids whose brains have not undergone the pruning process?

No, I'm merely saying that you have no idea what you're talking about (which was quite evident by how you phrased that sentence). Neurons die all the time, even more so if you become older. Also neurons don't become 'reinforced by culture', they are neurons. What's important is the neuron structure or the neural network in which a neuron functions. What you were actually referring to was neuroplasticity, which states that the neural network of the brain is indeed malleable but not infinitely so.

In fact, what you said there was a self-defeating argument, because the critical period of the development of the brain is indeed during the early ages of childhood (most critically up until the age of 5 or so). That's where a child acquires most of the foundation for its later development.

 

[Vicetrailia]

What are you guys trying to get out of the biology argument? What do you want people to acknowledge?

 

[Dunki]

What are you guys trying to get out of the biology argument? What do you want people to acknowledge?

That is not society or "evil" man who prevent women in the west from these jobs but they rather just do not want to because they feel it is not interesting etc.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Ah the old "we'll never be able to really know" defense, brilliant.



Thanks for reaffirming the argument I made on the very first page. Seems like we're back at square one.



We are now talking about this, so the best we can do is work with the information that is provided. So far, you've provided zilch. Go back to my very first comment on page one. Nobody is denying that culture has no influence, but what people are criticizing is that empirical findings about human biology and psychology are largely ignored for ideologically driven political reasons. As evidenced by my comment before. You're just running in circles again.



The link was provided in my first response to you!



No, I'm merely saying that you have no idea what you're talking about (which was quite evident by how you phrased that sentence). Neurons die all the time, even more so if you become older. Also neurons don't become 'reinforced by culture', they are neurons. What's important is the neuron structure or the neural network in which a neuron functions. What you were actually referring to was neuroplasticity, which states that the neural network of the brain is indeed malleable but not infinitely so.

In fact, what you said there was a self-defeating argument, because the critical period of the development of the brain is indeed during the early ages of childhood (most critically up until the age of 5 or so). That's where a child acquires most of the foundation for its later development.

Lots of false statements in here.

Read the link I posted...

A.) Most of the synaptic pruning happening age 10-14 or so. This is the period when the vast majority of neural connections die off.

B.) It is well documented that this process is heavily mediated by peoples experiences. There are countless papers on this. Look up “synaptic pruning and environmental enrichment” if the article i linked was too long as you want to just read about this one aspect. Here is one of countless such papers https://academic.oup.com/ilarjournal/article/39/1/5/710161

C.) Even if it were not for A and B, it is self evident why using neonatal differences and extrapolating those findings to the interests of adult males and females (thereby discounting all the psychosocial factors in brain development) is stupid.

 

[Kotzen Ducha]

For me there's no end game in noting biological differences between the sexes.
I both believe men and women are different AND that men and women should be free to pursue their dreams.
But I also think that biology should be studies and that biologists should be believed. It's very unscientific to think that a very recent ideology trumps an entire field of study.

 

[strange headache]

Lots of false statements in here.

None of the statements I made are false (I even linked to the relevant information). Or are you now saying that Piaget is wrong, merely because it doesn't support your argument?

You are just confusing neuroplasticity with synaptic pruning which is a subset of neuroplasticity. Pruning is a biological process that happens regardless:

Most of the synaptic pruning happening age 10-14 or so. This is the period when the vast majority of neural connections die off.

False.

Synaptic pruning is a natural process that occurs in the brain between early childhood and adulthood. During synaptic pruning, the brain eliminates extra synapses. Synapses are brain structures that allows the neurons to transmit an electrical or chemical signal to another neuron.

During infancy, the brain experiences a large amount of growth. There is an explosion of synapse formation between neurons during early brain development. This is called synaptogenesis.

This rapid period of synaptogenesis plays a vital role in learning, memory formation, and adaptation early in life. At about 2 to 3 years of age, the number of synapses hits a peak level. But then shortly after this period of synaptic growth, the brain starts to remove synapses that it no longer needs.

Look up “synaptic pruning and environmental enrichment” if the article i linked was too long as you want to just read about this one aspect. Here is one of countless such papers https://academic.oup.com/ilarjournal/article/39/1/5/710161

Have you even read the stuff you linked yourself? The study pertains to changes of the visual cortex of the brain, nothing more. And the study itself isn't even conclusive:

However, recent studies using pigs remind us of the limits of generalization. In 2 studies (T. Grandin, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, personal communication, 1997; Morrow-Tesch 1997 ), swine were reared in conditions intended to simulate the complex environmental conditions described above--basically either group housing with access to objects with which the animals could play and explore or an outside enclosure allowing social interaction and exploration. Comparison groups were housed in conditions reflecting more standard agricultural methods that provided some social contact but limited additional stimulation. Both studies found no effect on the visual cortex, which was heavily affected in the studies described above. Surprisingly, Grandin and others found somatosensory cortical dendritic branching to be greater in the animals housed under the standard agricultural conditions, in this case an indoor pen without bedding containing 2 pigs each. Morrow-Tesch, however, found no differences in somatosensory or visual cortex between preweanling pigs housed in indoor farrowing pens and those housed in expansive outdoor enclosures with straw bedding and multiple sows with piglets.

Are we talking about the development of the visual cortex now? You just googled some shit and picked the stuff with the best headline.

Even if it were not for A and B, it is self evident why using neonatal differences and extrapolating those findings to the interests of adult males and females (thereby discounting all the psychosocial factors in brain development) is stupid.

For Christ's sake, the study I linked to it not about neonatal differences and does not extrapolate. It is literally a meta-study that spans different ages. Please stop this nonsense, you're merely derailing the actual discussion at hand, since nothing you say is even relevant.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

For me there's no end game in noting biological differences between the sexes.
I both believe men and women are different AND that men and women should be free to pursue their dreams.
But I also think that biology should be studies and that biologists should be believed. It's very unscientific to think that a very recent ideology trumps an entire field of study.

No One is debating the studies. What biologists (including me) disagree with is Jordan Peterson’s misinterpretation of these studies to extrapolate claims about the reasons for the differences between adult men and women that the evidence does not support.

Does the evidence support that men and women have different personalities and make career choices? Yes.

Does the evidence support that this is due to biological factors more so than environmental factors? Absolutely not. The nature vs nurture debate is still in its infancy. Any biologist worth his salt will tell you that.

Does the evidence support that neonates have different interests? Yes, the neonatal brain has had minimal input from psychosocial factors so of course biological factors would predominate in neonates.

Does the evidence support that this difference in neonatal brains can be extrapolated to make statements about adult brains? Absolutely not, for a variety of reasons (epigenetics, synaptic pruning, environmental enrichment, synaptic modulation’s role in learned behaviors etc).

 

[strange headache]

Does the evidence support that this is due to biological factors more so than environmental factors? Absolutely not. The nature vs nurture debate is still in its infancy. Any biologist worth his salt will tell you that.

Again and again, nobody (not me and not even Peterson) is making a final call on the nurture vs. nature debate. How many times do we need to repeat this?

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Your mischaracrerization of when I said the majority of synaptic pruning occurs ignores the words “most” and “majority”

I never said that ALL of synaptic pruning occurs approximately age 10-14. I said most.

Again and again, nobody (not me and not even Peterson) is making a final call on the nurture vs. nature debate. How many times do we need to repeat this?

Then what exactly have we been debating for the past several pages?

I was under the impression that we are debating the unproven claims that Peterson made in multiple videos that biological differences between men and women explain the differences in interests, career choices etc between the two genders.

 

[strange headache]

I never said that ALL of synaptic pruning occurs approximately age 10-14. I said most.

Not really. But I don't see any point in continuing this discussion when you're not even familiar with the notion of 'critical period' which is central to the process of synaptic pruning (and cant even make the difference between a neuron and a synapse) and even dismiss it as "lots of false statements".

The processes of synaptogenesis and synaptic pruning in the developmental stages of the brain have been associated with an individual’s “critical period,” a time where an individual is highly receptive to environmental stimuli and, therefore, learning

As I explained before, pruning happens during certain 'critical periods' and pertain to a set of clearly defined abilities and sensory systems:

For example, the critical period for the development of a human child's binocular vision is thought to be between three and eight months, with sensitivity to damage extending up to at least three years of age. Further critical periods have been identified for the development of hearing and the vestibular system. There are critical periods during early postnatal development in which imprinting can occur...

Sensitive periods in brain development can inform educational policy by indicating the appropriate age at which academic skills are taught. The strongest evidence for sensitive periods in human development is in sensory systems. Educationally, this points towards early exposure for domains that rely on sensory modalities, such as language acquisition and music. These skills are likely to be more effectively acquired if learning commences in the early school years from 5 to 10 years of age. The majority of academic skills involve higher cognition, which relies on brain systems with more extended plasticity. To date, there is no strong evidence for high-level sensitive periods which operate to restrict learning in higher level abilities (such as numeracy and literacy), over and above sensitive periods that produce sensory limitations.

Ever wonder why, little children have rapidly developing language skills, while adults struggle a lot with learning a new language? Now you know.

Then what exactly have we been debating for the past several pages?

You tell me, I'm not the one throwing around half-truths (culturally influenced neurons, really?) while droning on about pruning, which has really not a whole much to do with the development of personal interests in people. I'm also not the one linking to studies about the development of the visual cortex. I'm also not the one constantly talking about newborns!

Furthermore, I'm not the one misrepresenting Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I'm also not the one failing to understand the difference between a stoic and a hedonistic approach. Every time people present some evidence, you just shrug it off and either shift the goalposts or fall back to old talking points that have been thoroughly discussed (explained and/or debunked) already.

I was under the impression that we are debating the unproven claims that Peterson made in multiple videos that biological differences between men and women explain the differences in interests, career choices etc between the two genders.

But biological differences do, to a large extent, influence our interests. Other people and myself have given you ample evidence, all of which you simply dismissed. Peterson is not, I repeat again, not claiming that biological differences are the only explanation, but that these findings are largely ignored due to ideological and political reasons.

Again, just go read that article, that you so graciously decided to just ignore.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

You linked a bunch of charts pertaining to childhood learned abilities when I was clearly talking about synaptic pruning.

Just a quick summary: like you said its best to learn a language before age 10, do you know why. Because once synaptic pruning increases (after age 10) and neonatal synapses start dying by the billions, it’s harder to learn new things.

All this is part of the biological explanation for why differences in babies cannot be used to extrapolate to differences in adults which Peterson and multiple people on this forum have done.

 

[strange headache]

Last edited: 19 minutes ago

Seems like you've also sneakily and retroactively updated your OP again. I find that to be not only incredibly dishonest but also in poor taste.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Why exactly? I never once deleted a point from the op or any of my posts. I only add to them or correct typos and spelling mistakes I made.

If that bothers you, you are free to ignore my threads.

But short of that, let’s not derail the thread and focus on the discussion.

 

[strange headache]

You linked a bunch of charts pertaining to childhood learned abilities when I was clearly talking about synaptic pruning.

If you'd only be slightly knowledgeable about developmental psychology, you'd know that the development of these abilities are closely linked to 'critical periods'.

Just a quick summary: like you said its best to learn a language before age 10, do you know why. Because once synaptic pruning increases (after age 10) and neonatal synapses start dying by the billions, it’s harder to learn new things.

Which was my frikkin' point all along! Which is the reason why early childhood is such a critical point in time for the rest of our development! Which is also the exact same reason why you are wrong and why we are having this pointless discussion in the first place!

Every single time I explain something to you, you first reject it. Then you go on a whole tangent that is completely unrelated just to muddy the waters. Then after much ado, you finally start to get it. And then you try to turn that knowledge against me. It's incredible.

All this is part of the biological explanation for why differences in babies cannot be used to extrapolate to differences in adults which Peterson and multiple people on this forum have done.

 

[TrainedRage]

I don't really mean to interrupt the discussion going on (which I think is great BTW) or to go off topic but I thought I would post some Jordan Peterson quotes and clips that are kinda relevant. (I have been engrossed going through JP's YT channel)

Here is his first video on the channel from 2013, where he talks about 'what matters' and the story of Adam and Eve.



And God asked, 'well who told you (Adam) you were naked?'
....And this is really Adams fall, I think, he says, 'it was the woman', he blames her... Which is really pathological.
'The woman you gave me it was her fault'.
Yeah she made you self conscious, well hooray you woke up, there is something to be said for that.
"the first man was hermaphroditic, and then separated in to two separate entities... That were forever looking to be re-joined... The union of masculine and feminine produces a kind of perfect wholeness."


Video from 2002 about neuroscience, consciousness /awareness. I liked how he used a story to convey, what scientifically would have gone way over my head. (Now I get why he did those Disney videos)



"...if you run away from any of it (fears)... you lessen yourself."
I feel like he is saying we don't just live in a world of material objects, we live in a world of meaning where you must fight to figure out your 'story' path/self awareness.
I love how he DIDN'T use statics or scientific papers with a bunch of data points but instead told a meaningful story where YOU must interpret the meaning for yourself. And inside that itself is meaning.


Conversation between Sam Harris (atheist) and Jordan Peterson (former atheist?).



Very good debate here.




This thread is increasing my intelligence levels to way over 9000! (good work people)

 

[strange headache]

Why exactly? I never once deleted a point from the op or any of my posts. I only add to them or correct typos and spelling mistakes I made.

It's dishonest, because people can't directly reply to it (because every reply would appear at the very end of the topic) and you only do it because you knew your original post was severely lacking. Also it makes the OP a hot mess of incoherent thought snippets. Lastly, you're well aware that the first post of a topic is usually the most read one, so you hope that people will be more easily swayed. It's incredibly backhanded and I take issue with that.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Regards your posts about pruning, If anything, it’s you that have consistently changed the goal posts. I was consistent about when much of the pruning process occurs and why it’s relevent from the very first time I mentioned it. If you agreed with me all along I’m not sure why you’re even debating me.

 

[strange headache]

If you agreed with me all along I’m not sure why you’re even debating me.

Nvm, this isn't worth my time anymore. Just please, read what I'm writing!

Edit:

I think to have sufficiently explained what pruning is what how it works. You on the other hand failed to even recognize it's more basic notions.

You just keep telling yourself that the brain we are born with and the neural structures we form during our critical early years have no bearing on our future development. Pruning mostly refers to the development of sensory and cognitive functions during certain critical periods of our lives, less so to the formation of personal interest. Hence why it is most intense during the periods where the brain needs to restructure itself in order to adapt to new functions and cognitive abilities (like learning new language skills). Simply speaking, it's basically like defragmentating a hard-drive.

If you think that the biological functions that influence our interests and behaviors suddenly stop in order to privilege cultural influences, you're just sorely mistaken and I have given you ample evidence which you simply decided to ignore.

You keep secretly retrofitting your OP, it's just more proof that you're not really interested in a honest discussion. You merely seek to smear/discredit a person that is a whole lot smarter than you are, simply because said person challenges your dogmatic views and that makes you angry and desperate.

 

[prag16]

Nvm, this isn't worth my time anymore. Just please, read what I'm writing!

You gave it the old college try.

When Moderator 10 made that pseudo-warning to Switch, I thought it was too harsh. But after this continued back and forth... Moderator 10 was right to have those concerns.

Double talk, moving goalposts constantly, cherry picking, multiple logical fallacies... interesting discussion but one side of it has long since fallen into the bad faith disingenuous abyss.

 

[EviLore]

You gave it the old college try.

When Moderator 10 made that pseudo-warning to Switch, I thought it was too harsh. But after this continued back and forth... Moderator 10 was right to have those concerns.

Double talk, moving goalposts constantly, cherry picking, multiple logical fallacies... interesting discussion but one side of it has long since fallen into the bad faith disingenuous abyss.

Yep, I take back what I said. The moving of goalposts especially and repeated editing of the OP to that end is not indicative of discussion in good faith. Still, it's had value to read throughout and no one should be too discouraged about it. These things inevitably run their course.

 

[TheGraykid]

No they don't, please stop making up bullsh*t claims, biological sex and gender identity correlate to about 99,7%, it would be silly to assume they had nothing to do with each other. I would need to write up another lengthy reply on the scientific consensus, but I'm really getting tired of refuting other people's baseless assumptions. Just consider this instead:





EDIT: I mistakenly quoted the wrong person, should be fixed now.

Just saw this now because of the misquote.

These aren't bullshit claims, maybe my wrong word choice made my intentions confusing. I apologise for that. To clarify, gender and sex are different things. You can talk about gender without commenting on sex, and vice versa. However, how my major beef with the current present "biological predisposition forming gender roles" conversation is multifaceted.

1. Should biological predispositions be things we as a society actually should follow?
2. Biological predispositions don't account for other genders aside from the dominant 2.
2. We have no way of measuring this or quantifying it or even providing strong casual links beyond vague theories (like I would not call the case you posted a clear casual link, from a gender perspective that can be interpretted in so many ways), which causes number 3.
3. Biological predispositions is used, by some people, as a intellectual fill in for any gender difference where the reason for it isn't readily available, which is problematic for obvious reasons.
4. Also, People who tend to subscribe to a "Biological predispositions" theory tend to completely ignore or downplay socialisation, which has obvious problems.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Post exodus, my hope was that this would be a place where people can focus on debating rather than on dogpiling on users that disagree with the status quo and red labeled admins and mods jumping into the fray.

EvilLore, I stand by what I said earlier today in that now deleted thread where you had attacked the fact that a user had a degree in women’s studies...

It would be best if mods enforce the TOS impartially and express all personal opinions using an anonymous account. Anything short of that is going to devolve into cult of personalities like Bish where mods are competing to please the most users, goaded on to ban users and nowadays also to get get the most upvotes.

If I am not welcome here, then go ahead and ban me.

As I and other users pointed out, people from the Donald and /pol/ posted with glee about taking over this site once the rift happened.

They should be allowed to post within the ToS but mods and admins jumping into the fray to personally attack liberal posters (like was done did this morning) is a bad look and is going to devolve into this place into an alt right bubble.

 

[EviLore]

Post exodus, my hope was that this would be a place where people can focus on debating rather than on dogpiling on users that disagree with the status quo and red labeled admins and mods jumping into the fray.

EvilLore, I stand by what I said earlier today in that now deleted thread where you had attacked the fact that a user had a degree in women’s studies...

It would be best if mods enforce the TOS impartially and express all personal opinions using an anonymous account. Anything short of that is going to devolve into cult of personalities like Bish where mods are competing to please the most users, goaded on to ban users and nowadays also to get get the most upvotes.

If I am not welcome here, then go ahead and ban me.

As I and other users pointed out, people from the Donald and /pol/ posted with glee about taking over this site once the rift happened.

They should be allowed to post within the ToS but mods and admins jumping into the fray to personally attack liberal posters (like was done did this morning) is a bad look and is going to devolve into this place into an alt right bubble.

Interesting bullshit narrative and irrelevant metacommentary and whinging about imaginary alt-right people oppressing you. You still haven't even received any sort of formal warning or ban or anything, just my retraction of going out of my way to overrule M Moderator 10 informal warning about how you're handling yourself in here. Oh no. Time to self-destruct? Really? C'mon. Chill out and take a step back if you need to, regroup, listen to a bit of the feedback you've been getting and give it another go. People like strange headache are putting a lot of time and effort into debating you and you can reciprocate that respect by not trying to martyr yourself over something so minor.

 

[InterMusketeer]

What are you guys trying to get out of the biology argument? What do you want people to acknowledge?

Well, this is just my opinion, but if we take Nintendo Switch's argument that we simply don't know enough at this point to say what does or does not cause men and women's differences, or to what extent... Aren't people getting a bit ahead of themselves trying to alter our culture and dismantle gender stereotypes?

 

[bigedole]

I think the main argument is that so much effort and political capital gets invested in "doing something" about the difference in outcomes between men and women. The point that is trying to be made is that maybe we (as a country and government) need to step back and consider whether that is the right thing to do.

 

[prag16]

If I am not welcome here, then go ahead and ban me.

Literally nobody has suggested anything of the kind, man. You seem like a good poster bringing a lot to the table, but you have to realize that the kind of chicanery that went unchallenged pre-Showergate isn't going to slip by so easily anymore (and no that doesn't mean this place is now voat).

They should be allowed to post within the ToS but mods and admins jumping into the fray to personally attack liberal posters (like was done did this morning) is a bad look and is going to devolve into this place into an alt right bubble.

Yeah, I'm with EviLore. The recent whining around here about imaginary alt-right bogeymen is quickly growing tiresome.

 

[Relativ9]

I have a couple of thoughts.

1. I'm also very interested in the 1 day study. I read the study you posted below and would like to point out it's final line is literally "Thus, the results suggest both biological and developmental–environmental com-
ponents to sex differences in object preferences." so I don't know why you would say " still a significant finding that certainly indicates a lack of meaningful environmental/social factors.". I would recommend reading it fully. If you're having trouble accessing the full study I would recommend Googling the name of the study, that normally brings up a pdf that you can read. There's a lot of good literature and studies on all sides of this debate, as you can see in the very study you posted which talks about other studies in the field so it can set the scene.

2. Also, I don't think anyone with sense would say that corporations are selling dolls to women in order to oppress them. The question is how much of what kids want to play with is biological? We can't ignore toy company marketing, what toys are bought for you, what toys your parents chose to play with you with, positive reinforcement from others within your life, gender knowledge and socialisation, none of which are under the influence of any individual. The effects of socialisation on children has been proved a hundred times over. Changing the way we treat kids can have powerful effects on their behaviour. I, personally, don't know how you can begin to properly and fully evaluate "gender predispositions" in a world where you can't separate socialisation from individuals.

Sorry I could have been a bit more clear I think in my post, let me clarify:

1. Me saying that it indicated a lack of meaningful environmental/social factors was in relation to the point I make further down (that the environmental factors were informed by biological ones). From my reading of the study, what I took away from it, especially given the young age. Is that the type of active influencing we do to children through the environment and social norms they grow up in, have very limited effects to such a young mind as that of a 9-month-old infant. This becomes even more "disqualified" when you take into account the possibility that a lot of the biologically motivated proclivities could (as this study appears to show) overlap with the environmental/social ones. But I want to make it clear, that this is my take away from the literature, not something endorsed by the scientist from City University London, I could very well be wrong.

2. Yeah, that was just a hyperbolic example intended to illustrate that corporations care only about what will sell best. My point wasn't that environmental factors weren't prevalent, but that them being prevalent is a natural biproduct of the biological ones. If as a company, you figure out that say 40% of your primary demographic is attracted by traditionally feminine toys with "girly" themes and colours, while the 60% left over are attracted by some amalgamation of different themes and styles. Then it's far more profitable to focus all your efforts, production and marketing on appealing to that 40% of the market than it is to make separate products that appeal to every subset of the whole 100%. While I agree that watching how we reinforce these traditional gender roles and leaving more room open for unique identities to form is a good thing, this isn't something that's the responsibility of a private corporation who's just out to maximize profit.

They actually say that biology can/could play a role in career choices. They are careful about their word choices.

He actually said major impact, and earlier discounted social impacts. Scientists aren't split if biology is can be a factor in various ways, but they are careful about their words, can/could be a factor. Even in the 9-32 months study they don't associate the findings with gender or career politics, but say: "Of interest in relation to child care, educational practice and developmental theory”. The researchers found "consistency with biological explanations of toy preference."

This is usually the case with modern biological studies, they are not quick to subscribe causality, because to be frank, of everything already mentioned.

At the same time we are all well aware of the impact of environmental factors, but we'd never dare say that those extremely numerous and variable factors are the only cause. You just can't right now say that the way things are now is because of biology, and that we need to let that fly. For one it's overstated, and two it doesn't impact company diversity initiatives if we're sticking with Dunki's overall opinion on preferring gender/colorblind initiatives (gathered elsewhere over other topics).

If one actually wants to disqualify or down emphasis on diversity programs and the like, it needs to be tried from a different angle.

I wasn't aware he had said major impact, in that case, I might have misinterpreted his view.

I'd be hesitant to say it has a major impact myself, I don't think we know enough to say that. We do however know a lot about environmental impacts in other areas, and the power of this cannot be understated (Stanford Prison Experiment), so I certainly wouldn't discount environmental factors to have a major effect...but again, we don't know enough. Dunki frequently brings up Norway as an example here, citing the statistics that in the most egalitarian country in the world, women go even further into careers that are traditionally associated with their gender. Now someone else brought up that just because women have more rights and opportunities in Norway than anywhere else in the world, doesn't mean they aren't subject to a very gender split society culture with sexualization and so forth of women more than men. I'm not sure we have any evidence that this has any effect on career choice, but it's certainly not hard to imagine. What I would like to point out though, especially being Norwegian myself, is that it's typically women themselves that promote this sexualization. Women in Norway have taken charge of their sexuality, they've chosen the direction of this culture themselves, not completely, of course, men as in everything have been involved in various capacities along the way. But there's been very little complaining about the path this has taken up until recently. Doesn't this also say something about the biological factors informing the environmental ones?

Lastly, as I hinted to above, lately there has been a debate going in Norway between various women in the public eye, with some self-proclaimed "activist idealists" women launching what can only be described as a smear and shaming campaign against our so called "pink bloggers" (women who have become popular and wealthy by posting about their lives, makeup, ect on personal blogs while having instagram accounts filled with sexy and revealing photos), these "pink bloggers" cater overwhalmeingly to a demographic of teenage girls and young adult women. This is an insular fight to women, with one side proclaiming the other to be shameful and harmful to women, and the other side claiming to be freely expressing themselves and fighting for women's rights to be taken seriously despite their sexuality. Crucially though, men in Norway have stayed completely out of it. And the larger more popular side is definitly that of the "pink blogger".

 

[Dunki]

I think the main argument is that so much effort and political capital gets invested in "doing something" about the difference in outcomes between men and women. The point that is trying to be made is that maybe we (as a country and government) need to step back and consider whether that is the right thing to do.

The right thing to do would people letting decide what they want to do in life and not push them into some directions because you feel that there is a gender gap in certain fields. As I said before. Support every child based on their OWN interests. Do not specialize between boys and girls. The only thing you should support more are underprivileged kids so they also can have a bright future.

N Nintendo Switch Already had time to watch the documentary? I would love to hear wha you think about the whole thing.

 

[llien]

I never claimed there is. My claim is that no study (short a hyper realistic simulation once we have the technology to develop one) could ever account for the various psychosocial and societal factors in play to be able to answer the nature versus nurture debate.

Twins that grew up in different places, we should definitely have some stats on those.

 

[llien]

Ya'll know that in countries like Saudi Arabia women aren't really allowed to be doctors or lawyers right? Those are established fields where there is a cultural and institutional iron grip, but women can get into computer science. There's much less choice.

Actually they are.

In 2004, Saudi Arabia introduced reforms allowing women’s colleges and universities to offer degree programs in law.

Female patients are handled by female doctors since decades ago.

 

[strange headache]

Just saw this now because of the misquote. These aren't bullshit claims, maybe my wrong word choice made my intentions confusing. I apologise for that. To clarify, gender and sex are different things. You can talk about gender without commenting on sex, and vice versa. However, how my major beef with the current present "biological predisposition forming gender roles" conversation is multifaceted.

Yeah, sorry for the misquote, there's a lot of different things discussed at the same time which makes it hard to keep track. Gender identity and biological sex are two different things but they correlate to such a high degree, that a causal link simply cannot be brushed aside. In fact, not many thing in biology and psychology correlate to such a high degree.

1. Should biological predispositions be things we as a society actually should follow?

If we should follow them, is a philosophical value problem that unfortunately does not allow for a universally true answer. What we certainly cannot do, is vilify people who defend such a stance. What I can say for certain is that most political systems that ignored and/or disrespected fundamental human nature failed horribly.

The best example would be communism. Making everybody equal may be a laudable goal in theory, but absolute equality makes people unhappy. According to relative deprivation theory, humans tend to define happiness relative to their peers. This means that people are happier, when they feel that they are better off than other people and they feel unhappy when they are worse off. This explains the fact that happiness distribution in poor countries is largely the same as in rich countries:

Relative deprivation offers a plausible explanation for the paradox that average happiness has remained constant or even fallen despite sharp rises in income.

If you make everybody the same, then nobody really feels happy or unhappy. Then of course there is also the fact that people feel happy when they are rewarded for their hard work. In an absolutely equal society, like communism, making an effort does not make you happy, because you will never feel rewarded for working harder than other people. In that regard communism was not a tenable solution, because it simply failed to take into account human nature.

Now, I'm not making the case for unjust inequality, because if relative deprivation becomes too severe (i.e. the rich become richer and the poor become poorer), unhappiness will ultimately lead to civil unrest and destroy the social system (the French revolution would be such an example). But the way how humans perceive happiness would imply that some sort of healthy inequality is needed for societies to strive.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that women should be unequal to men (the example I stated does not pertain to gender difference). I'm merely saying that if certain differences are due to human nature, it would be counter-productive to engineer human society contrary to these biological predispositions. Yes, humans are to a certain extent rational beings, meaning that they can overcome their biological predispositions to a certain degree, but outright ignoring human nature makes them ultimately unhappy.

2. Biological predispositions don't account for other genders aside from the dominant 2.

As long as there is equality of opportunity, everybody is free to shape their life according to their needs.

2. We have no way of measuring this or quantifying it or even providing strong casual links beyond vague theories...

Yes we do, there are many empirical studies, like the one I linked above that manage to accurately measure the links between biological sex and gendered/vocational interests (here is a more palatable summary):

Our study revealed substantial sex differences in vocational interests that parallel the composition of males and females in educational programs and occupations. Men and women differed by almost a full standard deviation in the Things–People dimension. This mean difference of 0.93 indicates that only 46.9% of the male and female distributions of interest on the Things–People dimension overlaps or that up to 82.4% of male respondents have stronger interests in things-oriented careers than an average female.

An effect size of 0.93 is insanely huge, if you consider that the smallest statistically significant difference is 0.2, medium is 0.5, and large is anything above 0.8. Just to give you an idea of how much these differences matter, here is an approximate visualization on Cohen's d scale. They differ almost a full standard deviation (the distance between 0 and 1):

On the basis of findings from previous research and the present study, we suggest that interest may be a key factor in understanding individuals’ occupational choices as well as the gender disparity in the STEM fields. [...] Both sex differences in vocational interests and individual differences within the same sex should be taken into consideration to assist individuals in making the most suitable career decisions.

The present study makes several important contributions to the literature. First, it is the first comprehensive meta-analysis on sex differences in vocational interests. We synthesized evidence from interest inventories over four decades and found large sex differences in vocational interests, with men preferring working with things and women preferring working with people. These sex differences are remarkably consistent across age and over time, providing an exception to the generalization that only small sex differences exist. Second, this study provides a systematic review of the sex differences in the STEM interests that has not previously appeared in the literature. The pattern of sex differences in the STEM interests revealed by the present study closely resembles the composition of men and women in corresponding occupations and contributes to the understanding of the gender disparity in the STEM fields.

If we take biological gender differences pertaining to vocational interests and compare the to the number of women working in STEM, we get the following picture:

As we can see, gendered interests match occupational numbers very closely in most fields. The study found that percentages of women within most STEM fields to mirror closely the gender differences in basic interests. Which would support the preference-based explanation for gender disparities in STEM careers. The reason why so few women are in engineering, is partly because gendered interests diverge the most in these fields:

Large to very large gender differences in interests favoring men were observed in engineering-related fields (d = 0.83 for Engineering—professional level, d = 0.89 for Engineering Technicians, and d = 1.21 for Mechanics and Electronics). [...] Small to moderate gender differences in interests favoring men were observed for mathematical careers (d = 0.38 for Mathematics, and d = 0.23 for Applied Mathematics). Gender differences in interests vary largely in the sciences, ranging from moderate, favoring men, in Physical Sciences (d = 0.56), to non-significant (d = 0.19 for Biological Science, d= 0.14 for Science Technicians, and d = −0.04 for Medical Science), and to small to moderate, favoring women (d = −0.33 for Social Sciences, and d = −0.40 for Medical Services).

The study notes that the reason for that could also be gendered stereotypes (i.e. cultural influences). But you also have to take into account that, if given the opportunity, people tend to choose the field which match their strongest interests. So even if women have some kind of interest in mechanics, they still may have an even stronger interest in medical services. This would also explain why women are so over-represented in medical services, because they are a lot more people oriented than mechanics and electronics:

In addition to the inter-individual perspective, interest scores for different types of careers can also be examined within an individual to determine the career area with the highest interest. From this intra-individual comparison perspective, it is expected that individuals will choose the field in which they have the strongest interest, creating the possibility that individuals with high levels of STEM interests may still pursue careers in other fields because they have even greater interests in other areas. These intraindividual differences in interests may also contribute to gender disparity in the STEM fields, because the STEM areas are often perceived as a better match for individuals with things-oriented interests, and our results suggest that women are more likely than men to prefer working with people over working with things, and men are more likely than women to prefer working with things over working with people. Therefore, although an individual female may have high levels of STEM interests, she may still leave STEM areas because she has stronger interests in other people oriented areas.

[...] For example, in their 3-year interview study, Seymour and Hewitt (1997) found that perceptions that non-STEM academic majors offered better education options and better matched their interests was the most common (46%) reason provided by female students for switching majors from STEM areas to non-STEM areas. The second most frequently cited reason given for switching to non-STEM areas was a reported loss of interest in the women’s chosen STEM majors. Additionally, 38% of female students who remained in STEM majors expressed concerns that there were other academic areas that might be a better fit for their interests. Preston’s (2004) survey of 1,688 individuals who had left sciences also showed that 30% of the women endorsed “other fields more interesting” as their reason for leaving.

I really don't know how much more specific you can get. In case this is still 'too vague' for you, please show me any study that even manages to measure and/or quantify 'the patriarchy' in any perceivable way.

3. Biological predispositions is used, by some people, as a intellectual fill in for any gender difference where the reason for it isn't readily available, which is problematic for obvious reasons.

As you can see from the graphs presented above, there is still considerable overlap between men and women when it comes to their vocational interests. Nobody is arguing that biological predispositions are the end all be all to differences in STEM fields. But what we certainly cannot do, is simply assume that these differences are mostly due to sexism and/or discrimination. Most people just look at percentages of women in a certain field and simply assume that there must be some kind of discrimination going on because the distribution is not 50/50. This is exactly the kind of reductive reasoning that people such as Peterson are complaining about.

Specifically, we argue that individuals' interests are powerful predictors of their occupational membership. Individuals are oriented toward work environments that are congruent with their interests. Men's and women's differences in basic interests lead to unbalanced gender composition in different sectors of the world of work. Realizing that the issue of women's underrepresentation is not identical across all STEM fields and the mechanisms contributing to the gender disparities are overlapping yet different is important for designing future investigations and interventions to understand and increase women's representation in STEM using a multivariate approach.

If you watch Peterson's video with Cathy Newman where he specifically talks about the multivariate approaches, that's exactly in line with the conclusions of the above presented study.



On the contrary, these kind of studies allow us to better understand these kinds of differences and if we can find huge discrepancies between natural interest and actual occupation numbers, we can assume that other environmental factors are at play and start a reasoned investigation. But so simply screech about female oppression everywhere we can see these distribution differences, is simply ridiculous and ultimately counter-productive.

4. Also, People who tend to subscribe to a "Biological predispositions" theory tend to completely ignore or downplay socialisation, which has obvious problems.

As explained above, it is quite the contrary. If distributions don't match natural interests, we can safely assume that other factors are at play.

Importantly, not only the choices between STEM and non-STEM careers but also the choices within STEM careers reflect individuals' interest patterns. [...] In addition, findings from the current study highlight the discrepancies in some STEM fields where the number of women did not meet their level of interests, indicating other factors at work.

In that sense, these 'biological' studies actually help us understand possible inequalities a lot better than abstract ideological notions that cannot even be measured. No evolutionary biologist or psychologist is making the case that we should simply accept these differences, but we should carefully intervene only when we understand them better and when they are not the result of people's individual choices. Otherwise you risk pigeonholing people into occupations that they don't want to find themselves in.

Again, radical ideologues merely refuse to take these biological explanations into account, because they largely contradict their oppression narrative. If you're truly interested in a more equal society, people would be wise to pay more attention to these findings instead of blindly following a political dogma.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Actually they are.

In 2004, Saudi Arabia introduced reforms allowing women’s colleges and universities to offer degree programs in law.

Your link backs up my comment, and there aren't many female doctors[/QUOTE]

Most people just look at percentages of women in a certain field and simply assume that there must be some kind of discrimination going on because the distribution is not 50/50. This is exactly the kind of reductive reasoning that people such as Peterson are complaining about.

50/50 is an aggressive pledge to get companies serious. But the actually convincing narrative these days that executives buy into is competitive advantage from improving diversity.

They fix the factors they can "prevent" or improve, and all of this is evidenced.

 

[llien]

Your link backs up my comment

2004 is like 13 years ago.

...and there aren't many female doctors

Care to link your source? I'm just wondering who is examining Saudi women at hospitals.

 

[Vicetrailia]

2004 is like 13 years ago.


Care to link your source? I'm just wondering who is examining Saudi women at hospitals.

What does your source say about 2013 and everything thereafter?

Doctor sources are my saudi friends.

 

[Kadayi]

50/50 is an aggressive pledge to get companies serious.

Promising equality of outcome is not a pledge, it's a form of social contract that is at odds with the actual realities of what people actually choose to do

But the actually convincing narrative these days that executives buy into is a competitive advantage from improving diversity.

I've never been sold on this idea that diversity of background somehow naturally equates to diversity of thought/ideas, least of all in the modern workplace, whether you're laying bricks, or designing rocketships where knowing systems and being part of a team is key. Do you have some actual peer-reviewed papers that support this conceit?

 

[Vicetrailia]

Promising equality of outcome is not a pledge, it's a form of social contract that is at odds with the actual realities of what people actually choose to do



I've never been sold on this idea that diversity of background somehow naturally equates to diversity of thought/ideas, least of all in the modern workplace, whether you're laying bricks, or designing rocketships where knowing systems and being part of a team is key. Do you have some actual peer-reviewed papers that support this conceit?

Google the Mckinsey study for a nice and broad correlation study. Also try Workforce Diversity: A Key to Improve Productivity. Google the Peterson Institute Study and the Women on Boards study.

 

[llien]

What does your source say about 2013 and everything thereafter?

I don't quite see how that confirms your "a cultural and institutional iron grip' (on anything but computer science) theory, but that's a minor point.

As far as "forcing women into CS" argument goes, let's look at figures:

Statistics issued by the Ministry of Education on Tuesday revealed there are more Saudi women studying in universities than men, al-Hayat reported.

According to the statistics, Saudi women constitute 51.8 percent of Saudi university students. There are 551,000 women studying bachelor’s degrees compared to 513,000 men.

Even without looking further it becomes apparent that Saudi women could not be "banned from everywhere, but STEM", but let's check what they actually could study:

The ministry also reported Saudi women are studying in various fields including education, social sciences, arts, business, law, engineering, natural sciences, agriculture, medicine and the service sector.

I spot quite a number of fields popular among Western women.


If we talk about "gender equality paradox", and this also applies to an impressive "more sexist objectification" argument by N Nintendo Switch , why focus on Saudi Arabia:

Italy, Macedonia, Romania, Georgia are predominantly Christian counties with no gender restrictions set in law.

Google the Mckinsey study for a nice and broad correlation study.

Ah, have yet to find time to continue that discussion. My findings so far are:
1) There is not a single study showing causation
2) There seems to be little to no effect (adding more women neither noticeably improves nor worsens situation )
But let's not derail this thread.

 

[Kadayi]

Also try Workforce Diversity: A Key to Improve Productivity

I haven't read the others yet (it's late), but having gone through that, it seems to be an argument aimed solely at international business ventures where one may be dealing with clientele from all over the world. Which seems like a bit of a slam dunk position, but not one that necessarily translates all that well in terms of intent as a case for with more localised businesses.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I don't quite see how that confirms your "a cultural and institutional iron grip' (on anything but computer science) theory, but that's a minor point.

As far as "forcing women into CS" argument goes, let's look at figures:



Even without looking further it becomes apparent that Saudi women could not be "banned from everywhere, but STEM", but let's check what they actually could study:


I spot quite a number of fields popular among Western women.


If we talk about "gender equality paradox", and this also applies to an impressive "more sexist objectification" argument by N Nintendo Switch , why focus on Saudi Arabia:

Italy, Macedonia, Romania, Georgia are predominantly Christian counties with no gender restrictions set in law.




Ah, have yet to find time to continue that discussion. My findings so far are:
1) There is not a single study showing causation
2) There seems to be little to no effect (adding more women neither noticeably improves nor worsens situation )
But let's not derail this thread.

I said it about those fields. Saudi Arabia is generally a strange example to compare because while enrollment % is high in CS, workforce participation is way lower than in the US, so women still aren't working in the field there. I wish they would breat down every country for interests sake.

There's no proof that adding 1 CEO or board member affects performance, but adding multiple executives and c-level managers does. I feel like we had this convo before. The McKinsey study is important because it shows executives that they can't lose out.

 

[strange headache]

Google the Mckinsey study for a nice and broad correlation study. Also try Workforce Diversity: A Key to Improve Productivity. Google the Peterson Institute Study and the Women on Boards study.

I took a look at these studies and they are severely lacking in academic rigor.

Mckinsey

Mckinsey is a consulting firm and not an academic institution. They are also involved in almost every major financial fraud from the last decade (Enron, Valeant and the 2008 financial crisis). So yeah...

Workforce Diversity: A Key to Improve Productivity

This is an obscure qualitative 'study' from a Lecturer (degree unknown) from a college of education in Agra, India. It has gotten a whopping 3 citations since 2014, cites a meek 15 references and fails to provide even a single piece of statistical or empirical evidence. This would at best pass as some regular term paper on a regular university. Moreover the 'study' seems to mostly pertain to the Indian caste ecosystem:

The researcher after examining the literature and various research papers, concluded that workforce diversity is strength for any organization but people still stick to their views related to caste, religion etc and so consider diversity as a problem but if managed properly, can increase the productivity.

Lastly it comes to the following 'brilliant' and rather obvious conclusion:

Hiring diversified workforce will definitely leads to improved productivity, but may prove to disaster if not managed properly because not only the management but employees are also feeling some problems like language problem (which is acceptable and is not due to thoughts of the employees), attitude clashes, and difference in perceptions, which is directly related to human behavior which ultimately affects the productivity of any organization.

Peterson Institute Study and the Women on Boards study

This at least seems a little bit more serious, but the study largely pertains to women quotas and not 'diversity'. Also their findings are mostly inconclusive.

The results find no impact of board gender quotas on firm performance, but they suggest that the payoffs of policies that facilitate women rising through the corporate ranks more broadly could be significant.

Some excerpts:

However, even Carter et al. (2007), in their generally positive assessment of the impact of diversity on corporate performance, observe that the process through which diversity affects board performance is complex and that while some board functions may benefit from greater gender or racial diversity, others may not.2 Perhaps not surprisingly, some studies conclude that greater balance has a neutral or even negative impact. In a study of German companies, Lindstädt, Wolff, and Fehre (2011) find no overall relationship between female board membership and stock performance. In their study of 2,000 firms, O’Reilly and Main (2008) find no evidence that adding women to boards enhances corporate performance and conclude that such appointments are generally undertaken for normative rather than profit-seeking motives.

There is no evidence that the female board quotas enacted by some countries have had an impact, for good or ill, though the statistical analysis may be too crude to detect such effects.

There is no unambiguous theoretical presumption with respect to the impact of gender diversity on corporate performance. The standard argument is that as firms are value maximizing, if anything could be gained by adding women to corporate leadership positions, they would do so; attempts to force change (by mandating female representation on boards, for example) could be counterproductive (Demsetz and Lehn 1985). This negative outcome might be particularly likely if the new board members (or executives) were less experienced or of lower quality than men or if, because of the scarcity of qualified women, the small pool was stretched across too many boards (the “golden skirt” phenomenon). In the case of the Norwegian board quota, there is empirical research on this point, as discussed below.

The opposite view is that the relative scarcity of women in corporate leadership reflects discrimination and that firms that do not discriminate will exhibit superior performance, particularly if women possess unique or different skill mixes. Indeed, it has been argued (by Iriyama 2015, for example) that although skill diversity generally contributes to corporate performance, demographic or gender diversity per se does not.

I haven't read the others yet (it's late), but having gone through that, it seems to be an argument aimed solely at international business ventures where one may be dealing with clientele from all over the world. Which seems like a bit of a slam dunk position, but not one that necessarily translates all that well in terms of intent as a case for with more localised businesses.

Cultural and linguistic diversity is beneficial for international business that deal with clients from all over the world. Whodathunkit!

 

[PSlayer]

I love how discussing about Jordan Peterson is only acceptable at resetera when it is about an article criticizing him.

The hypocrisy is huge.