When two worldviews collide.

[stevevw]

Good. I'm glad you can see that. Are you then willing that we should address that in any way? Or are you wanting to kind of hand-wave it all away as "oh, but women have less desire to lead, therefore there's no problem"?

Yes if anyone is denied the right to opportunity we should address this if its based on nothing else but their gender or race so long as this is the case. The qualifyer is "so long as its the case". So if a female or male is better qualified based on merit and say a male is chosen that is not denying the womens rights and visa versa.

The problem being that ideologues push equity (DEI policies) rather than equality and demand equal representation regardless of merit ie affirmative action and quotas. There must be 50/50 equality regardless of merit.

The point, however, is that you can't sleet behaviour home to genetics in a straightforward way.

And we can't automatically and directly link behaviour to social conditioning either.

Sure. But there's not a straight line from what genes you have, to saying that men have an "instinct to lead" and therefore gender roles are natural and not a social construction (which is where this particular line of discussion stemmed from).

No I haven't said that because males have natural instincts to lead was also saying that there is no social/cultural influences. I suggest that this comes from your hyper sensitivity to this issue. What I am saying is that we need to include the natural inclinations of gender in part of our analysis for how we determine equality as well as the individual and social influences. What you keep doing in just about all exchanges is revert things back to an either/or fallacy.

Again, you're misrepresenting their arguments rather badly there.

Really, I think you are proving my point in making everything about social construction and oppression. WE only need to look at the idea of equity policy in our institutions and government. DEI policies come form the social constructivists idea. WE only need to look at the language used by ideologues in charge of our institutions and many from within to see this. I have already provide evidence for this.

It's not that some behaviours are and some aren't (impacted by the environment). Behaviour is always a complex interplay of many factors. Now there will be biological and even genetic factors in play, but - if we think of all the factors that go into shaping behaviour as being like the sound of an orchestra, a many-layered, complex harmony with interplay of different rhythms and so on in different sections - perhaps you could think of the genetic level as being like the double basses. They provide that deep level, often not even really noticed foundation, but then everything else is layered on top to provide the music the ear hears (or the behaviour that the watcher observes). Sure, the genetic level is there, but to look at it and say, "that means the behaviour is natural" is to ignore every other instrument in the orchestra.

I think the bass and precussion are the foundation for the music. They keep the beat and structure of the piece. They are really the only part that we can be sure of as the rest like social constructions are subjective. There is no way to measure them. As ideologues do now in trying to push gender neutral on society because there are no natural differences, what is gender neutral but some subjective idea based on feelings and ideology.

Said to the person who's studied both at a tertiary level...

have I ever said I am an expert in these fields and know everything there is to know. The point was not about anyone particular but that generally even so called experts can have a misunderstanding based on a lack of research and analysis but more importantly based on bias. We already know this because different disciplines have different paradigms in how they see and measure things. So biologists will have a different take to archeologists or evolutionary psychology.

This is evidenced even within disciplines where for example we have the Standard Evolutionary Theory and the Extended Synthesis which posit different fundemental influences for evolution. Thomas Kuhn talks about this.

Thomas Kuhn: Paradigm Shift

Thomas Kuhn attacks “development-by-accumulation” views of science, which hold that science progresses linearly by accumulating theory-independent facts.

www.simplypsychology.org

Sure. That's not the same thing as evolutionary psychology, though; which tries to explain contemporary psychological phenomena by reference to a (hypothetical and untestable) evolutionary past.

See theres an example of lack of understanding. If you base your thinking on misrepresentations of psychology and EP then everything else is going to be skewed. Applied psychology looks at and tests current behaviour through observation including animals (primates) and makes the link between that current behaviour and how evolution may be the basis for it. Its not too disimilar to observing physical and neurological traits today and linking how they evolved from our distant past. In fact it wipes out the entire DSM5 which is the analytic tool. and basis.

The point is we see a behaviour that provides an advantage but that behaviour is not in isolation from the thinking, the psychological reasons and motivations why that behaviour is favoured or done in the first place. Taking that away and we would be robots acting without any reason especially humans.

Sure, capability influences behaviour. But to go from "some traits differ slightly, on average, by sex," to "therefore it's natural that men should lead," is unsupportable.

But in reality they don't differ slightly especially at the extremes where it counts. If males have this instinctual drive to compete and be agressive then at the extremes, elite sports, war, rescue, just about everything they do like gambling, building stuff even when playing monopoly lol then though this natural instinct can go overboard it is natural none the less and a driving force that underlies their behaviour.

That needs to be consider. Otherwise if not then all this behaviour as ideologues do be regarded as socially constructed and immoral. It throws the baby, in this case the man out with the bath waters so to speak. In fact society forms natural hierarchies anyway which are not based on oppression.

You do realise this just comes across as arguing that women have less merit, so there's no problem with them being excluded, right? Without even questioning what has shaped your concept of "merit."

Once again I suggest that this may stem from your extra sensitivity to this issue which biases your thinking. What I just is not controversial. Saying that leadership is based on a mixture of factors ie (not all nature, not all social constructions) is not saying "women have less merit". Taking the bigger picture view which incorporates all influences is not not saying "women have less merit".

Basing things on merit as well is not saying "women have less merit". In fact its the complete opposite. Its saying that regardless of gender the best and most qualified person to do the job should get the job.

I suspect that it depends how you measure competitiveness, and that women are less likely to compete in stereotypically masculine way
(so their competitiveness may be less well recognised by studies premised on masculine norms). This is an interesting read (it's worth downloading the full PDF).

See this is another example of how you skew things towards the social constructivists lens. Is the fact that males dominate construction got anything to do with "stereotypically masculine ways". What about the fact that the best male athletics can blow a women off the park. Thats why we have seperate categories of male and female. Though when a male pretends to be a female and then beats women at their own sports. But then that just proves the point.

The article is 25 years old, its about self reporting which is not a reliable method as its subjective especially considering its done on with young people on a University campus which is known to be highly influenced by leftist ideology. Not a good measure of reality.

Again, I basically view evolutionary psychology as pseudoscientific waffle. The only bit of that I'm even slightly interested in is the acknowledgement of behaviours being "enhanced or repressed through culture."

Of course your bias is showing again. There are around a dozen theories in that article some well established and you dismiss them all except the one which happens to align with your pre-assumed worldview. The ironic thing is that the whole idea of behaviours being created by social constructions is probably the least scientific of all as its based on subjectivity and not anything factual.

Anyway I don't think any of this is getting us anywhere as far as the OP is concerned. We all know there is a different view taken by each side broadly about how to order society, human relationships and equality ect. Its about how each position impacts society and what the differences are as to whether this will actually create a better society.

I am saying regardless of how you want to frame it the current ideologies pushed today are forcing many of the long held beliefs and truths the West was built on out the door including God and Christianity. They are creating a divisive society, one that is increasingly in conflict and acting extreme and losing its moral compass. This is not the equality and just Utopia the ideologues promised, its the comeplete opposite.

 

[stevevw]

Cultural trauma and epigenetic inheritance - PubMed

The question of whether and how the effects of cultural trauma can be transmitted intergenerationally from parents to offspring, or even to later generations, has evoked interest and controversy in academic and popular forums. Recent methodological advances have spurred investigations of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There's a psychopathologist suggesting that "cultural trauma" can lead to certain outcomes in certain underperforming communities.

What does this suggest.

 

[Paidiske]

There's been something of a lie in telling women that they'll be more satisfied with some sort of career.

Many of us have tried both, and worked out that some sort of career is indeed more satisfying.

(If that weren't true, perhaps we'd see more stay-at-home dads?)

If feminism were honest it would tell women they have about 15 years post adulthood to coast on their looks in their job of preference and after that...if they've failed to develop any talent, competence, or ability...they aren't likely to be setting the world on fire and if they aren't cool with dying alone, every passing year will increasingly limit their options and a cat will increasingly be the closest thing to a constant companion they'll be able to lock down.

As if working and marriage were mutually exclusive (they aren't; many of us quite successfully manage both).

(My observation about coasting on looks is that you might manage it in very entry-level positions, but not anything above that).

Here's the thing, though; most of the time, what they find is that there isn't much biological and genetic basis for behaviour.

We're done with your original statement then....right? We've gone from genetics don't really affect behavior to genetics are part of a complex set of factors that affect behavior.

Sure; a minor part. By no means a determining or controlling part, for pretty much any behaviour more psychologically complex than autonomic functions like breathing.

They're positive attributes even when women are described as occupying or engaging in non-traditional gender roles. Read the link I provided for that...it makes it quite clear that regardless of setting, occupation, or conformity to traditional gender roles. Women ascribe these attributes to women more often than they do to men....and so do men. It's a huge unearned privilege every woman just gets at birth.

It's not necessarily a privilege depending on the setting. Being seeing as nurturing, caring or gentle, can actually be a drawback in a setting where different character traits are weighted to carry "merit."

You literally linked a survey that rated women higher across the board on basically every trait associated with leadership.

All I was trying to do was show that claims that "men are better" at leadership were not supportable. I'm not actually arguing that women are better, even if one survey did find that women in a particular setting were rated higher.

Now you're telling me that despite the fact that there's an extreme bias in favor of women, even in the workplace, even in non-traditional gender roles, somehow....leadership is the one exception.

If everyone were so dazzled by women's wondrousness in leadership, would I really have to refute the ridiculous notion that men are better at it?

I think privilege needs to be more clearly defined. I don't think any distinguishes between the idea of privilege and resources....for example. I've heard people describe "wealth privilege" but the reality is we're describing something entirely different from a "privilege" we're describing someone who has more resources than someone else.

I think there are different kinds of privilege. For sure wealth is one kind, perhaps the most obvious.

You've never found any study suggesting meritocracy is an illusion.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361573105_The_Illusion_of_Meritocracy

I didn't have to look very hard.

You want pilots who earned their seat by merit....you want surgeons you earned their credentials by merit...even your cook at a restaurant is someone you want to have merit. Nobody wants these occupations filled with people who imagine their biological sex, race, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation or any other superficial characteristics are accomplishments that outweigh merit.

No indeed. But nor do I want people to face obstacles to becoming a pilot, a surgeon or a chef, for reasons other than merit, which they often do.

It's not a matter of difficult to measure....

2. No test has ever shown a valid connection between implicit biases and behaviour.

I can find such studies (eg. here: Implicit Bias among Physicians and its Prediction of Thrombolysis Decisions for Black and White Patients - Journal of General Internal Medicine)

Why would sexism be embedded in its source material?

Because so much of our cultural material is sexist. Eg. see here: Addressing Gender Bias to Achieve Ethical AI.

Do you expect if AI evaluated men and women equally....you'd see equal results?

It would depend on the standard against which they're evaluated. Part of the problem with, for example, AIs sorting resumes is that they assumed that patterns seen in previous successful candidates reflected "merit," but what they often reflected was male patterns of education and employment history. So women's resumes got screened out because the AI wasn't taking into account diversity of experience. (That is to say, if you evaluate women on how much they're like men, the answer will be no; but that shouldn't be the standard of merit).

It's interesting that when you cite a study showing men and women rating women higher in different leadership traits.....you don't assume any sort of sexism is at play.

Not particularly, no. But I also don't assume that rating higher on one trait or another is the sole measure of whether someone is a better leader, because leadership is about a complex interplay of many traits.

Yet, when a completely unbiased algorithmic AI model evaluates women lower...well suddenly it must be because the mathematical algorithms suddenly spawned a consciousness that happens to also be sexist.

Ah, but it wasn't unbaised. It's measure of "merit" was patterned on male norms.

Then quit acting offended when I don't believe every claim you make.

Not so much acting offended as saying, if you can't even believe what I'm saying, our conversation has probably reached a natural end.

You believe he sent you the gift to harass you? He spent money to make you upset, angry, anxious, frustrated, or traumatize you?

I don't know what he hoped would happen, but as an unwelcome and inappropriate sexualised interaction, it was sexual harassment.

No offense, but it doesn't seem like that was his intention at all....and that's going by your words.

So what do you think he wanted, Ana? He mailed a gift of lingerie to his married parish priest, some thirty years or so younger than him, with no note and no context. Was he hoping I'd model it for him after the service, in the vestry? Did he think he'd see it peeping out from beneath the robes during church? Did he think that was an appropriate thing to want from someone in that kind of professional relationship, to sexualise her in a public setting?

Honestly, in what universe do you interpret this as an okay thing, because I'm a bit at a loss?

If it happened to you, that's not a reason to imagine it's happening to anyone else.

I don't have to imagine that sexual harassment is happening to others. I've known it since my first job working a cash register.

I was claiming it wasn't in itself an obstacle or something akin to discrimination if I remember the context correctly. Biological sex clearly shapes interactions for some in some contexts. The claim that it amounts to a net negative for women isn't apparent....at least not in the sense that you mean.

If I recall correctly, that part of the conversation was about why it's important to transgendered people that other people interact with them in accordance with their gender identity.

The problem being that ideologues push equity (DEI policies) rather than equality and demand equal representation regardless of merit ie affirmative action and quotas.

Steve, these policies exist to correct for the discrimination which already exists, not to introduce it.

And we can't automatically and directly link behaviour to social conditioning either.

It's a lot easier to demonstrate the ways that nurture shapes behaviour. It's usually one of the first things you do learn in psychology classes; just like the rat who learns to do tricks to earn cheese, people do more of what they're rewarded for.

What I am saying is that we need to include the natural inclinations of gender in part of our analysis for how we determine equality as well as the individual and social influences.

No, we definitely don't need gender stereotypes and pigeonholing in how we think about equality, thank you very much.

Really, I think you are proving my point in making everything about social construction and oppression.

No; I'm saying that's a misrepresentation of the position you're arguing against.

I think the bass and precussion are the foundation for the music. They keep the beat and structure of the piece. They are really the only part that we can be sure of as the rest like social constructions are subjective. There is no way to measure them.

Lol. Pitch isn't subjective. Dynamics aren't subjective. Structures of chords, melodies and harmonies aren't subjective. They can all be measured. And they're all part of the complexity of music.

The point really is this; our genes contribute only one aspect of the complexity of behaviour. You can't look at a behaviour and say, that's genetic (or this and that person differ in that behaviour for genetic reasons) without taking into account all the other influences as well.

See theres an example of lack of understanding. .. Applied psychology looks at and tests current behaviour through observation including animals (primates) and makes the link between that current behaviour and how evolution may be the basis for it.

The key words there are "may be." That's the hypothetical and untestable bit, because our evolutionary past, in behavioural terms, is unrecoverable.

Its not too disimilar to observing physical and neurological traits today and linking how they evolved from our distant past.

It is, because physical and neurological traits are much more determined by our genetics, and therefore able to be studied through evidence of evolutionary processes. For example, we can look at the height of people in the past and examine genetic samples from them and study the genes that code for height and how they might have changed (or been expressed differently) over time. We cannot, by and large, examine the behaviour of people in the past, and even if we could, their behaviour would not be something subject to selective pressures on genetic diversity, because behaviour is not genetically determined to the same degree.

But in reality they don't differ slightly especially at the extremes where it counts.

But the point is that the vast majority of people aren't at the extreme for any trait. They're under that middle part of the bell curve, which practically overlaps for men and women. For most people, talking about the extremes is completely irrelevant to their lives.

If males have this instinctual drive to compete and be agressive then at the extremes, elite sports, war, rescue, just about everything they do like gambling, building stuff even when playing monopoly lol then though this natural instinct can go overboard it is natural none the less and a driving force that underlies their behaviour.

Okay, so let's say that there's an extreme group of men - say the top one per cent of the bell curve - who are basically more aggressive than all women. Given that that trait alone is not sufficient to be good leaders, and they're unlikely to also inhabit that very extreme end of the bell curve on other leadership traits (like self-awareness, and vision, and communication), you still can't say that they're automatically better leaders than all women.

Otherwise if not then all this behaviour as ideologues do be regarded as socially constructed and immoral.

There's nothing immoral about competitiveness or even aggression per se. It's what you do with that drive that can be immoral (or toxic). So, you know, warfare, certain kinds of gambling, pretty socially destructive. Elite sports, playing monopoly, pretty neutral. Emergency rescue, building stuff, great.

Surely it's not that hard, though, to see that the kid who grows up in an environment that tells him that "real men" fight, gamble and destroy things, is likely to grow up with an unhealthy set of ideas about how to be a man?

Saying that leadership is based on a mixture of factors ie (not all nature, not all social constructions) is not saying "women have less merit". Taking the bigger picture view which incorporates all influences is not not saying "women have less merit".

You seem to be arguing that men are more competitive, and this is natural and explains their greater success, so there's no oppression in play, it's all merit, and if women are missing out it's because they're just not that good. No need to actually tackle any barriers women might face, because they're just less competitive, and, well, you can't help nature.

Because I note that when I asked you what you were willing to do, to address the denial of opportunities to women (which you had acknowledged existed), you didn't give any meaningful answer, but went back to talking about merit. As if merit explains the reasons women are excluded.

See this is another example of how you skew things towards the social constructivists lens.

Really? Finding a study that shows that generally men and women are competitive about different things is me skewing things?

Is the fact that males dominate construction got anything to do with "stereotypically masculine ways".

Probably a very great deal, given the material I linked earlier in the thread about girls being discouraged from taking up trades, and sexism on work sites.

What about the fact that the best male athletics can blow a women off the park.

Sure, men are generally quicker and stronger. Most jobs don't actually rely on that extreme of speed or strength, though, for safety reasons if nothing else.

The article is 25 years old, its about self reporting which is not a reliable method as its subjective especially considering its done on with young people on a University campus which is known to be highly influenced by leftist ideology. Not a good measure of reality.

Feel free to find a better study with results you prefer.

Of course your bias is showing again.

Steve, I told you, I basically view evolutionary psychology as pseudoscientific waffle. It doesn't matter how many times you bring it up, that's not going to change.

This is not the equality and just Utopia the ideologues promised, its the comeplete opposite.

Many of us are better off now, than we would have been at any other time in history. Sure, we've still got work to do, but from a historical perspective, we've come a very, very long way.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, these policies exist to correct for the discrimination which already exists, not to introduce it.

How does affirmative action and quotas reduce descrimination. It aactually creates descrimination by descriminating against merit in favor of identity. For example that we must have 50/50 gender in all work which funny enough seems to always be about elite positions like politics and corporations.

This descriminates in that no matter if there are more qualified and deserving candidates we have to ignore this in favor of meeting quotas even if that means a less qualified and deserving person is rejected. We seen this with the push to include more women in STEM. The idea that every position in society needs to be edivided and measured by the representation of identity is bad policy. I have to quote Petersen on this even though some dismiss him out of hand but he is spot on with this.

Equity means “equality,” in some manner, and is a term designed to appeal to the natural human tendency toward fairness, but it does not mean the classic equality of the West, which is (1) equality before the law and (2) equality of opportunity.

It is predicated on the idea that the only certain measure of “equality” is outcome, educational, social, and occupational. The equity-pushers assume axiomatically that if all positions at every level of hierarchy in ever organization are not occupied by a proportion of the population that is precisely equivalent to that proportion in the general population that systemic prejudice (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) is definitely at play, and that there are perpetrators who should be limited or punished that have or are currently producing that prejudice. There is simply no excuse for this doctrine.

First, it suffers from the oversimplification typical of ideological thinkers: that one cause (prejudice) is sufficient explanation for a very complex phenomenon (differential representation of individuals in various organizational positions).

Second, it is impossible to implement, as there are simply too many organizations, strata of positions, and identities of the identity group to sort to possibly treat in the “equitable” manner demanded by the ideologues. This is true not least because most people have multiple group identities, each of which has their own unique combination of historical oppression, let’s say, as well as privilege, and sorting that out is technically impossible, without the introduction of an authoritarian overseer whose power and terror would produce problems that would instantly make the hypothetical problem of inequity look trivial by comparison.

Third, it is being pushed by individuals who have made the hypothesis that the West is a singularly oppressive patriarchy an unshakeable axiom, and who will fight tooth and nail any idea that threatens that absolute article of faith, no matter how absurd the arguments that constitute that fight are destined to become. It is my fervent hope, and optimistic belief, that the doctrine of equity contains within it so many intrinsic contradictions that it will actually be the death of the radical left. A typical example?

Equity: When the Left Goes Too Far – Jordan Peterson

www.jordanbpeterson.com

I will leave it here with this one as its a good example to expand on which can broadeely show the fundemental differences in beliefs and assumptions between the Left/Progressive/Liberal and the Right/Conservative/Christian.

 

[Paidiske]

How does affirmative action and quotas reduce descrimination.

It allows people who might otherwise be passed over due to bias and discrimination, to be considered for the role. Not that anyone who doesn't meet the requirements would get the role, but that someone who might otherwise be discounted, gets the oportunity to show that they meet the requirements. It creates equality of opportunity for people who otherwise might never have it.

If this example shows anything about a fundamental difference in beliefs, it highlights our culture's wilful blindness to the many obstacles so many people still routinely face.

 

[stevevw]

It's a lot easier to demonstrate the ways that nurture shapes behaviour. It's usually one of the first things you do learn in psychology classes; just like the rat who learns to do tricks to earn cheese, people do more of what they're rewarded for.

Yet a few posts back you said natural influences are small and hard to determine. So if its easier to determine natural influences and harder to determine social influences then whats the problem in considering natural influences that may drive us and influence our behaviour when it comes to gender.

Yes the rat is adeapting behaviour to get the food to survive even that involves tricks, thats fundemental in evolution. That same drive is there in humans but our behaviour is more complex which involves tricks of the mind.

No, we definitely don't need gender stereotypes and pigeonholing in how we think about equality, thank you very much.

Your assuming gender stereotypes are all socially constructed and not based on anything innate. This is the narrow ideological thinking I am talking about.

No; I'm saying that's a misrepresentation of the position you're arguing against.

Your reply above and many others are evidence of this. You keep coming back to all differences are the result of oppression and descrimination. The fact that you automatically assume natural differences are stereotypes shows this. Or at least reject including natural influences when your response to my post "we need to include the natural inclinations of gender in part of our analysis for how we determine equality as well as the individual and social influences".
When you said
"we definitely don't need gender stereotypes and pigeonholing in how we think about equality, thank you very much".
So you equate nature as stereotyping genders and you reject the idea of considering natural differences because its anti equality.

Lol. Pitch isn't subjective. Dynamics aren't subjective. Structures of chords, melodies and harmonies aren't subjective. They can all be measured. And they're all part of the complexity of music.

Exactly and unlike social constructionism which is subjective.

The point really is this; our genes contribute only one aspect of the complexity of behaviour. You can't look at a behaviour and say, that's genetic (or this and that person differ in that behaviour for genetic reasons) without taking into account all the other influences as well.

Yes I agree. But that is not what is happening with ideologues. Lets apply what you said to the ideological thinking. "You can't look at a social construction and say, that's social construction (or this and that person differ in that behaviour for socially constructed reasons) without taking into account all the other influences as well.

I know this but ideologues don't seem to understand because the language they use, the policies they make is full of this thinking. I just gave you an example of the policy of equity as opposed to equality.

The key words there are "may be." That's the hypothetical and untestable bit, because our evolutionary past, in behavioural terms, is unrecoverable.

No its not, its seen in the animal kingdom especially primates. Its there they are supporse to be our counsins and still deeisplaying some of the ancestoral behaviour we had which still influences us today in fundemental but important ways. There is nothing hypothectical when we observe this behaviour in studies, in human behaviour even in babies.

Toy story: Why do monkey and human males prefer trucks? Comment on “Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children” by Hassett, Siebert and Wallen

Toy story: Why do monkey and human males prefer trucks? Comment on “Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children” by Hassett, Siebert and Wallen - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Hormones Explain Why Girls Like Dolls & Boys Like Trucks

Hormones Explain Why Girls Like Dolls & Boys Like Trucks

Children's toy preferences are influenced primarily by biology, not culture. Hormones control who likes what.

www.livescience.com

It is, because physical and neurological traits are much more determined by our genetics, and therefore able to be studied through evidence of evolutionary processes. For example, we can look at the height of people in the past and examine genetic samples from them and study the genes that code for height and how they might have changed (or been expressed differently) over time. We cannot, by and large, examine the behaviour of people in the past, and even if we could, their behaviour would not be something subject to selective pressures on genetic diversity, because behaviour is not genetically determined to the same degree.

Perhaps you need to do some more research as this is not how we can determine the psychology behind behaviour. As mentioned we can do live tests and studies on human and animal behaviour today. we see the same behaviour in other creatures especially primates, just like we see the physical traits.

We can also predict behaviour such as through mental illness, forensic psychology, profiling. We are getting good at reading the human psyche, mind mapping nowadays and has a lot of evdience. Its probably the most active area in sciences at the moment as this is the great final frontier the mind and how it connects.

But like genetics it only looks at one part so most good evidence comes from using a combination of sources like psychology and developmental evolution, archeology finding tools, burial sites and we build up a case. So we can also track the evolution of thinking behind behaviour now.

But the point is that the vast majority of people aren't at the extreme for any trait. They're under that middle part of the bell curve, which practically overlaps for men and women. For most people, talking about the extremes is completely irrelevant to their lives.

I disagree. The extreme usually comes up when it matters most and becomes the issue that determines how society is ordered all the way to the bottom. Males and females may occupy the middle of the curve in agression though I think that is not the case. But its at the extreme where it counts where male agression kills, DV, assaults, destruction which impacts society and everyone. Or in war where that extreme agression is a positive thing to ward off predators that want to take our freedoms away.

or its at the extremes where kids have to be the best to maake it to Uni, for adults to best the best to get the career and job. We all want the best medical treatment, Law, Defence, Education. This idea filters down to all society where the average joe blow wants the best doctor, not just any doctor or where everyones cheering for little Johnnys footy team to win. None of us wants average.

Okay, so let's say that there's an extreme group of men - say the top one per cent of the bell curve - who are basically more aggressive than all women. Given that that trait alone is not sufficient to be good leaders, and they're unlikely to also inhabit that very extreme end of the bell curve on other leadership traits (like self-awareness, and vision, and communication), you still can't say that they're automatically better leaders than all women.

Ah, I never said anything about who was better or not. Just that competitiveness, assertiveness, agression seem to be innate in males more and is behind why they are often wanting to lead or win or be in the thick of things in many situations. Its not all because they are mean, nasty, oppressive, violent thugs. lol.

Yes leadership qualities are many research shows women are good at HR which is basically managing people, keeping them happy and keeping the whole thing communicating. But its more about interests and desire I think that drives men like there are certain interests and desires that drive women. At the end of the day thats what its really all about.

There's nothing immoral about competitiveness or even aggression per se. It's what you do with that drive that can be immoral (or toxic). So, you know, warfare, certain kinds of gambling, pretty socially destructive. Elite sports, playing monopoly, pretty neutral. Emergency rescue, building stuff, great.

The point was ideologues assume competitiveness and agression is a bad male trait to begin with. Sure they offer ideals but in reality they see it as a negative. The simple reason is it undermines their DEI policies. If we base getting that job, winning that medal ect on competition of merit for who is the best then we will not have an equal nor equitable outcome for society. We will see males dominating in certain things, females in others and other minorities left out. So they exclude competition to even the playing field so that everyones included, everyones a winner because its nicer.

Surely it's not that hard, though, to see that the kid who grows up in an environment that tells him that "real men" fight, gamble and destroy things, is likely to grow up with an unhealthy set of ideas about how to be a man?

For sure theres evidence for this. Humans are good at mimicing what they see. But that environment is complex and influenced by many factors like socioeconomic disadvantage, addiction, mental illness, lack of support, stigma, family breakdowns ect.

 

[Paidiske]

Yet a few posts back you said natural influences are small and hard to determine. So if its easier to determine natural influences and harder to determine social influences then whats the problem in considering natural influences that may drive us and influence our behaviour when it comes to gender.

No; I'm saying it's easier to observe nurture (social influences), and that nature (biological influences) are smaller and harder to determine.

Your assuming gender stereotypes are all socially constructed and not based on anything innate.

More to the point, I'm highlighting that gender stereotypes don't fit everyone even when they're true on average, and so shouldn't be used to prescribe a path for any one person. We need to look at each person for who they are, not stereotype them based on their gender.

You keep coming back to all differences are the result of oppression and descrimination.

I have never said this, nor is it what I think is the case.

The fact that you automatically assume natural differences are stereotypes shows this.
Or at least reject including natural influences when your response to my post "we need to include the natural inclinations of gender in part of our analysis for how we determine equality as well as the individual and social influences".
When you said
"we definitely don't need gender stereotypes and pigeonholing in how we think about equality, thank you very much".
So you equate nature as stereotyping genders and you reject the idea of considering natural differences because its anti equality.

Here's an example of the issue, as I see it. Suppose we decide that women are more nurturing than men, on average. We therefore construct a stereotype that "women are nurturing" (and men are not).

But along comes a woman who isn't nurturing; perhaps her passion and talents run to actuarial studies, or being a flight controller, or some other stereotypically masculine thing. She deserves to have her gifts nurtured, and to be able to follow her passions, without people trying to channel her into nurturing roles, or blocking her path to non-stereotypically-feminine roles, because of what they think her "natural inclinations" ought to be, based on her gender.

The same for the boy who shows promise in ballet, or declares an interest in nursing. He shouldn't be discouraged from those pursuits, or told he has to play football instead, based on ideas of what his "natural inclinations" are likely to be, based on stereotypes.

That's why I want to reject all this stuff about "natural inclinations of gender" as a way of dismissing unequal opportunities. It just ends up being used to limit people into very narrowly defined stereotypical roles.

"You can't look at a social construction and say, that's social construction (or this and that person differ in that behaviour for socially constructed reasons) without taking into account all the other influences as well.

No, you can't. But what you absolutely can, and to be ethical, must do, is take into account any "nurture" factors when looking at what shapes behaviours. Otherwise you end up with ridiculous claims such as that men are better leaders.

No its not, its seen in the animal kingdom especially primates.

No. Even our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, do not represent our evolutionary past. We were not once chimpanzees, but chimpanzees are as far away from our last common ancestor as we are. And when it comes to our behaviour, we have no way of recovering the behaviours of that last common ancestor.

There is nothing hypothectical when we observe this behaviour in studies, in human behaviour even in babies.

That is only observing humans today, not human behaviour on an evolutionary timescale.

Perhaps you need to do some more research as this is not how we can determine the psychology behind behaviour.

Yes, that is precisely my point. We cannot reconstruct the psychology or behaviour of our genetic ancestors, because we do not have any relevant data.

I disagree. The extreme usually comes up when it matters most and becomes the issue that determines how society is ordered all the way to the bottom.

Really? When was the last time you were required to perform to the absolute extreme limits of your own capacity in any trait, let alone see someone at the extreme limit of human capacity?

Elite sportspeople probably are one example. But I dispute that elite sports "matter most" about anything. Why on earth would we order human society based on something like that?

Males and females may occupy the middle of the curve in agression though I think that is not the case. But its at the extreme where it counts where male agression kills, DV, assaults, destruction which impacts society and everyone. Or in war where that extreme agression is a positive thing to ward off predators that want to take our freedoms away.

Well, a) I doubt that most violence occurs in people at that extreme end of the bell curve (or it would be much more rare), and b) no, war is not a good thing. It is an absolute heinous evil.

or its at the extremes where kids have to be the best to maake it to Uni, for adults to best the best to get the career and job.

But even making it into the top university courses isn't necessarily about the extremes of any trait. To get a high ATAR isn't just about intelligence, it's about a whole bunch of other traits - like self-discipline, and organisation, and resilience - and no one is going to be at the extreme for all of them. (It's also often about things like a safe and supportive home environment, not having to work too much in paid employment, and whether your social life is a significant distraction). Similarly with careers and jobs.

These things - outside very, very limited situations - simply aren't determined by being at the extremes of the bell curve for any one trait, let alone a gendered trait.

Ah, I never said anything about who was better or not.

It's been a claim running through at least part of this thread, though.

Just that competitiveness, assertiveness, agression seem to be innate in males more and is behind why they are often wanting to lead or win or be in the thick of things in many situations. Its not all because they are mean, nasty, oppressive, violent thugs.

Literally nobody is accusing men, as a group, of being mean, nasty, oppressive, or violent. If you haven't understood by now the distinction between critiquing a system which favours men, and accusing individual men, I don't know how to explain it to you.

The point was ideologues assume competitiveness and agression is a bad male trait to begin with.

On a quick search, nearly every result I found suggested there are positive and negative aspects to competitiveness, and that we need to be careful not to burn out or alienate others.

The only suggestion that competitiveness is an outright negative trait that I found, was some suggestion that highly competitive people may be less altruistic. But even there, there are different kinds of competitiveness (for example, competing to win or being dominant; competing to excel at a skill; and competing to develop oneself), and the picture is more complex than saying that being more competitive automatically meant being less altruistic.

So again, I think you've misunderstood the people you're disagreeing with.

If we base getting that job, winning that medal ect on competition of merit for who is the best then we will not have an equal nor equitable outcome for society. We will see males dominating in certain things, females in others and other minorities left out. So they exclude competition to even the playing field so that everyones included, everyones a winner because its nicer.

I don't really agree with this picture (having inclusion policies gives everyone more of a chance, but it doesn't mean every applicant gets a job, for example). It just means that the list of characteristics included under "merit" is broadened so that it doesn't unnecessarily exclude people who are perfectly capable.

For sure theres evidence for this. Humans are good at mimicing what they see. But that environment is complex and influenced by many factors like socioeconomic disadvantage, addiction, mental illness, lack of support, stigma, family breakdowns ect.

Yes, but my point was about the specific destructive behaviours held up as those of a "real man." I'm not saying that's the whole problem, but it can be a very real part of the problem. So if we can tackle it, why not?

 

[rjs330]

didn't say they don't matter. I said it's not a matter of a direct causal relationship between genetics and behaviour.

That's the same thing pretty much. Genetics don't have a direct cause is pretty much saying genetics don't matter. That is such nonsense. A child is born with a personality and genetics has a direct effect on that. Can other things play into it as a child grows. Sure. Nurture certainly plays apart, particularly if it's extreme. Constant abuse will have an affect. Personality can be affected by other things. But it's the extreme case.

I've got 6 kids and 11 grandkids. All were born with distinct personalities. Four of my kids were raised by me and my wife. We had the same personalities the same rules tight them the same things. They ate the same foods, lived in the same town, went to the same schools. And all are completely different. And have been since they were born.

I have two grandkids that are twins. Raised by the same mother and father live I. The same house etc etc. They are two extremely different people and have been that way since they were born.

That's genetics. So yes there is a direct cause of genetics involved. We see it everyday. To say otherwise is quite absurd.

Is it the ONLY thing? No, but it's the biggest thing. Unless of course you insert some major extreme conditions such as abuse. And even that may do nothing but suppress portions of a kids personality or exacerbate others.

 

[rjs330]

on average. We therefore construct a stereotype that "women are nurturing" (and men are not).

But along comes a woman who isn't nurturing; perhaps her passion and talents run to actuarial studies, or being a flight controller, or some other stereotypically masculine thing. She deserves to have her gifts nurtured, and to be able to follow her passions, without people trying to channel her into nurturing roles, or blocking her path to non-stereotypically-feminine roles, because of what they think her "natural inclinations" ought to be, based on her gender.

The same for the boy who shows promise in ballet, or declares an interest in nursing. He shouldn't be discouraged from those pursuits, or told he has to play football instead, based on ideas of what his "natural inclinations" are likely to be, based on stereotypes.

That's why I want to reject all this stuff about "natural inclinations of gender" as a way of dismissing unequal opportunities. It just ends up being used to limit people into very narrowly defined stereotypical roles.

Ah.. the ole exception proves the rule. You can't reject reality. You need to accept reality. Once you do that you can make allowance for the exception. Yes by and large women are more nurturing. Anyone with any sense based in reality knows that. They also know there is nothing wrong or absurd with noticing that. That's why it's so interesting when a woman is not. Boys by and large don't go for ballet. That's why it's interesting when one does. Any one with sense rooted firmly in reality knows this. Others are exceptions to the rule. I have one thing to say. It's OKAY.

If a girl is an exception then that's okay. If a boy is, that's okay to. It doesn't destroy the rule. It's an exception to it. That's okay. You are right in that we shouldn't pigeon hole everyone. If a girl is not nurturing and wishes to pursue her passions and not be forced into a nurturing role.

The boy shouldn't be forced to play football. My son was interested in sports and played baseball and football. But as he got older he decided to pursue acting. So he dropped sports and went into theatre. We fully supported and backed him up on it. It was okay. And he was very good at it winning best actor awards including one for playing Charlie's Aunt. We were very proud.

My youngest daughter is not very nurturing. That's okay. She doesn't have to be. My wife is. My mother was. Her mother was etc.

There are absolutely without any doubt natural inclinations of gender. But what makes life interesting is when someone doesn't fit the mold. Life would be very stale and boring if we all did. And it's perfectly okay to recognize the natural inclinations too. I'm with you totally that we shouldn't force people into the mold. Let them be who they are. Maybe they don't fit the mold. It's okay. Maybe they do. That's okay to. It's a big mold by the way. It's not some tiny mold where every woman is alone and every man is alike. But there are absolutely some traits that fit most men and some that fits most women. To reject that is a rejection of reality.
Something I see quite often from those more left leaning.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Many of us have tried both, and worked out that some sort of career is indeed more satisfying.

Nothing wrong with that.

(If that weren't true, perhaps we'd see more stay-at-home dads?)

That's not an option for men. Just being realistic....it's an option for at least perhaps >50% of women and <1% of men.

Women, generally don't want a husband who doesn't work and they want a husband who makes more money than they do. Men generally, don't care how much money a woman makes....because staying at home and taking care of children isn't an option we get. It's another of the privileges women hold.

That said, I don't recall anyone ever mentioning this "hard working career woman" they knew going to her death wishing she just had more time to file a few extra reports....get one last raise....or take another vacation alone.

As if working and marriage were mutually exclusive (they aren't; many of us quite successfully manage both).

Some do....some don't. Perhaps you're overestimating how "easy" it is because you have a "leadership position" without any definable failure. That's not the majority of jobs.

(My observation about coasting on looks is that you might manage it in very entry-level positions, but not anything above that).

Right. At a certain point....looks fade....and coasting is done. If you haven't developed those skills by 30 (because you were coasting on looks, or didn't realize that the bar was subconsciously lower for women across the board) then I imagine that it might look like suddenly the paths to higher paying positions of more authority are disappearing.

Sure; a minor part. By no means a determining or controlling part, for pretty much any behaviour more psychologically complex than autonomic functions like breathing.

I don't think aspects of a person like their ability to assess risk is a small aspect of behavior outcomes.

It's not necessarily a privilege depending on the setting. Being seeing as nurturing, caring or gentle, can actually be a drawback in a setting where different character traits are weighted to carry "merit."

lt doesn't matter what positive attributes are used in the WAWE. The words could be "honest", "brave", "quick thinking", etc.

Positive attributes tend to cluster towards women creating a massive bias privilege.

All I was trying to do was show that claims that "men are better" at leadership were not supportable.

How's that going for you?

I'm not actually arguing that women are better, even if one survey did find that women in a particular setting were rated higher.

Which seems to confirm my point.

If everyone were so dazzled by women's wondrousness in leadership, would I really have to refute the ridiculous notion that men are better at it?

I'm sorry....surely you understand that it's not everyone. You understand how averages work....right? If we ask 50 women and 50 men something we aren't likely to get all 100 to have the same answer.

Part of what makes the WAWE so compelling is that it's the exact opposite of what researchers were expecting to find. They expected, like you, to see that everyone was more biased towards men on average.

I think there are different kinds of privilege. For sure wealth is one kind, perhaps the most obvious.

If you were to consider my wife's wealth a privilege it doesn't make much sense....she has little say in how it's spent. She may be well over the 50% for women her age, but she has little say in how it's actually applied. This is but one of many many problems with privilege theory.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361573105_The_Illusion_of_Meritocracy

I didn't have to look very hard.

You didn't even read it did you lol? It says exactly what I said it would....that merit being a somewhat abstract concept is difficult to assess accurately and the idea it's assessed perfectly is impossible.

But aside from proving me correct.....there's a few problems....

1. The definition of meritocracy is distorted into some post Marxist garbage that isn't realistic or pragmatic.

2. It's a paper filled with some rather inane and unsupported assertions like "most jobs don't require intelligence".

3. It's theory. There's no quantitative research....and it's not even published. If you want though, I'll mention the 3 studies I think are most relevant to the discussion at the end of the post.

No indeed. But nor do I want people to face obstacles to becoming a pilot, a surgeon or a chef, for reasons other than merit, which they often do.

Ergo, you believe in the importance of a meritocracy.

I can find such studies (eg. here: Implicit Bias among Physicians and its Prediction of Thrombolysis Decisions for Black and White Patients - Journal of General Internal Medicine)

As this was done way back in 2007, perhaps they weren't aware of the unreliability of the test, but here's the problem in a nutshell....

All IAT scores are expressed as normally distributed continuous variables.


The problem here is not only aren't these normally distributed variables....they aren't continuous.

Consider the rather well refined versions of the IQ test we have now. If you take it and score 120 today, you'll likely score very close (if not slightly higher than) 120 tomorrow. A year from now, a month from now....120. Sure you may hit 125 or 115 and generally it decreases slightly with age....but 120 will be the same score you keep getting. If it were 85 one day, 140 the next, and 163 a week later....that's not a reliable measure or test of anything.

The latter example is the IAT test they used. Anyone scoring biased against black and in favor of white could just as easily score biased against white in favor of black the very next hour. It's a worthless test. I would also be curious why a sample of about 200 would be considered valid and if the many scores thrown out would disrupt the results.

Because so much of our cultural material is sexist. Eg. see here: Addressing Gender Bias to Achieve Ethical AI.

Not sure what part of this you're referring to? The AI model that was discarded because it's dataset included more men than women? Because this is the problem as I see it....

In 2020, at the virtually held UNESCO’s Global Dialogue on Gender Equality and AI, participants observed that AI normative instruments or principles that successfully address gender equality as a standalone issue were “either inexistent or current practices were insufficient.”

Do we want AI to select for "gender equality"....or do we want it to select for the best candidate? If it's the second, then we should have models with inexistent goals of gender equality.

It would depend on the standard against which they're evaluated. Part of the problem with, for example, AIs sorting resumes is that they assumed that patterns seen in previous successful candidates reflected "merit," but what they often reflected was male patterns of education and employment history. So women's resumes got screened out because the AI wasn't taking into account diversity of experience. (That is to say, if you evaluate women on how much they're like men, the answer will be no; but that shouldn't be the standard of merit).

Right....and that model was discarded lol.

Not particularly, no. But I also don't assume that rating higher on one trait or another is the sole measure of whether someone is a better leader, because leadership is about a complex interplay of many traits.

I would argue it's more defined by the circumstances of the leadership position but hey....what do I know?

For example, I don't generally consider stubbornness, single-mindedness, and unwavering tenacity to be great leadership qualities the vast majority of the time. Churchill however, had all these in spades and they were exactly what was necessary for the time and place.

Ah, but it wasn't unbaised. It's measure of "merit" was patterned on male norms.

And once they realized it read cues related to gender as merit....it was discarded. I call this a non-problem and I find it curious what happened when the new model was built.

Not so much acting offended as saying, if you can't even believe what I'm saying, our conversation has probably reached a natural end.

Are you expecting me to take your unique life experiences as the unvarnished truth without any skepticism?

Would you prefer I lie to you and tell you I believe you?

I don't know what he hoped would happen, but as an unwelcome and inappropriate sexualised interaction, it was sexual harassment.

Right. It was unwanted so "harassment" whereas if it weren't wanted it would be... something else wouldn't it?

So what do you think he wanted, Ana?

I've already told you what I think of the incident.

He mailed a gift of lingerie to his married parish priest, some thirty years or so younger than him, with no note and no context.

A rather bizarre story.

Was he hoping I'd model it for him after the service, in the vestry? Did he think he'd see it peeping out from beneath the robes during church? Did he think that was an appropriate thing to want from someone in that kind of professional relationship, to sexualise her in a public setting?

Perhaps since he was elderly he meant it for your husband and improperly addressed it. Perhaps he's one of your many "trans" members and this was a complicated way to get you to send it back to him and for him to possess it for himself without raising suspicion.

Do you really want me to creatively speculate on the myriad possibility of motives here?

Honestly, in what universe do you interpret this as an okay thing, because I'm a bit at a loss?

I don't interpret this as a thing that really happened. There's a forum on Reddit that's a collection of similarly unlikely stories that tend to end with "and everyone clapped". I believe it's r/thatHappened but it's been awhile since I've given it a read.

I don't have to imagine that sexual harassment is happening to others. I've known it since my first job working a cash register.

See end of post.

If I recall correctly, that part of the conversation was about why it's important to transgendered people that other people interact with them in accordance with their gender identity.

Recall our previous discussion on the overlap of the concepts of biological sex and "gender identity".

See next post for the 3 research experiments.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Many of us have tried both, and worked out that some sort of career is indeed more satisfying.

(If that weren't true, perhaps we'd see more stay-at-home dads?)

As if working and marriage were mutually exclusive (they aren't; many of us quite successfully manage both).

(My observation about coasting on looks is that you might manage it in very entry-level positions, but not anything above that).


Sure; a minor part. By no means a determining or controlling part, for pretty much any behaviour more psychologically complex than autonomic functions like breathing.

It's not necessarily a privilege depending on the setting. Being seeing as nurturing, caring or gentle, can actually be a drawback in a setting where different character traits are weighted to carry "merit."

All I was trying to do was show that claims that "men are better" at leadership were not supportable. I'm not actually arguing that women are better, even if one survey did find that women in a particular setting were rated higher.

If everyone were so dazzled by women's wondrousness in leadership, would I really have to refute the ridiculous notion that men are better at it?

I think there are different kinds of privilege. For sure wealth is one kind, perhaps the most obvious.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361573105_The_Illusion_of_Meritocracy

I didn't have to look very hard.

No indeed. But nor do I want people to face obstacles to becoming a pilot, a surgeon or a chef, for reasons other than merit, which they often do.

I can find such studies (eg. here: Implicit Bias among Physicians and its Prediction of Thrombolysis Decisions for Black and White Patients - Journal of General Internal Medicine)

Because so much of our cultural material is sexist. Eg. see here: Addressing Gender Bias to Achieve Ethical AI.

It would depend on the standard against which they're evaluated. Part of the problem with, for example, AIs sorting resumes is that they assumed that patterns seen in previous successful candidates reflected "merit," but what they often reflected was male patterns of education and employment history. So women's resumes got screened out because the AI wasn't taking into account diversity of experience. (That is to say, if you evaluate women on how much they're like men, the answer will be no; but that shouldn't be the standard of merit).

Not particularly, no. But I also don't assume that rating higher on one trait or another is the sole measure of whether someone is a better leader, because leadership is about a complex interplay of many traits.

Ah, but it wasn't unbaised. It's measure of "merit" was patterned on male norms.

Not so much acting offended as saying, if you can't even believe what I'm saying, our conversation has probably reached a natural end.

I don't know what he hoped would happen, but as an unwelcome and inappropriate sexualised interaction, it was sexual harassment.

So what do you think he wanted, Ana? He mailed a gift of lingerie to his married parish priest, some thirty years or so younger than him, with no note and no context. Was he hoping I'd model it for him after the service, in the vestry? Did he think he'd see it peeping out from beneath the robes during church? Did he think that was an appropriate thing to want from someone in that kind of professional relationship, to sexualise her in a public setting?

Honestly, in what universe do you interpret this as an okay thing, because I'm a bit at a loss?

I don't have to imagine that sexual harassment is happening to others. I've known it since my first job working a cash register.


If I recall correctly, that part of the conversation was about why it's important to transgendered people that other people interact with them in accordance with their gender identity.


Steve, these policies exist to correct for the discrimination which already exists, not to introduce it.

It's a lot easier to demonstrate the ways that nurture shapes behaviour. It's usually one of the first things you do learn in psychology classes; just like the rat who learns to do tricks to earn cheese, people do more of what they're rewarded for.

No, we definitely don't need gender stereotypes and pigeonholing in how we think about equality, thank you very much.

No; I'm saying that's a misrepresentation of the position you're arguing against.

Lol. Pitch isn't subjective. Dynamics aren't subjective. Structures of chords, melodies and harmonies aren't subjective. They can all be measured. And they're all part of the complexity of music.

The point really is this; our genes contribute only one aspect of the complexity of behaviour. You can't look at a behaviour and say, that's genetic (or this and that person differ in that behaviour for genetic reasons) without taking into account all the other influences as well.

The key words there are "may be." That's the hypothetical and untestable bit, because our evolutionary past, in behavioural terms, is unrecoverable.

It is, because physical and neurological traits are much more determined by our genetics, and therefore able to be studied through evidence of evolutionary processes. For example, we can look at the height of people in the past and examine genetic samples from them and study the genes that code for height and how they might have changed (or been expressed differently) over time. We cannot, by and large, examine the behaviour of people in the past, and even if we could, their behaviour would not be something subject to selective pressures on genetic diversity, because behaviour is not genetically determined to the same degree.

But the point is that the vast majority of people aren't at the extreme for any trait. They're under that middle part of the bell curve, which practically overlaps for men and women. For most people, talking about the extremes is completely irrelevant to their lives.

Okay, so let's say that there's an extreme group of men - say the top one per cent of the bell curve - who are basically more aggressive than all women. Given that that trait alone is not sufficient to be good leaders, and they're unlikely to also inhabit that very extreme end of the bell curve on other leadership traits (like self-awareness, and vision, and communication), you still can't say that they're automatically better leaders than all women.

There's nothing immoral about competitiveness or even aggression per se. It's what you do with that drive that can be immoral (or toxic). So, you know, warfare, certain kinds of gambling, pretty socially destructive. Elite sports, playing monopoly, pretty neutral. Emergency rescue, building stuff, great.

Surely it's not that hard, though, to see that the kid who grows up in an environment that tells him that "real men" fight, gamble and destroy things, is likely to grow up with an unhealthy set of ideas about how to be a man?

You seem to be arguing that men are more competitive, and this is natural and explains their greater success, so there's no oppression in play, it's all merit, and if women are missing out it's because they're just not that good. No need to actually tackle any barriers women might face, because they're just less competitive, and, well, you can't help nature.

Because I note that when I asked you what you were willing to do, to address the denial of opportunities to women (which you had acknowledged existed), you didn't give any meaningful answer, but went back to talking about merit. As if merit explains the reasons women are excluded.

Really? Finding a study that shows that generally men and women are competitive about different things is me skewing things?

Probably a very great deal, given the material I linked earlier in the thread about girls being discouraged from taking up trades, and sexism on work sites.

Sure, men are generally quicker and stronger. Most jobs don't actually rely on that extreme of speed or strength, though, for safety reasons if nothing else.

Feel free to find a better study with results you prefer.

Steve, I told you, I basically view evolutionary psychology as pseudoscientific waffle. It doesn't matter how many times you bring it up, that's not going to change.


Many of us are better off now, than we would have been at any other time in history. Sure, we've still got work to do, but from a historical perspective, we've come a very, very long way.

So I mentioned what I think are the three most relevant and likely valid (assuming replicability) research regarding some of the political concepts of privilege, bias, merit, and discrimination. You've probably heard of the first....but most people don't seem to have noticed the other two. I'll describe them briefly, as I recall them, and if you wish...I can likely find them if you wish to look over them yourself.

1. This was a study related to privilege and its perception to both one's benefitting from it and those who don't. The first was essentially a game like monopoly wherein one player had some significant starting advantage in resources or favored by the rules compared to the other players. Despite the insistence of unfairness at outset of the game pointed out by those who inevitably lost....the winner was inclined to believe the game was fair (or claimed to) a significant amount of the time...I want to say 60-80% of the time. This lends some credibility to the idea that people are perhaps genuinely blind to their privilege. A great many sjws, leftists, and so called progressives loved this research and frequently hauled it out make points online. I'm not particularly fond of the results but it's hard to find a flaw in the methodology.

2. Most people never heard of the follow up to the 1st study, done by the same people, on the perception of fairness and equity. Participants played a game alone. Something like a randomized guessing game wherein a number 1-5 was guessed before a randomized number 1-5 was flashed on the screen. Dollar amounts (say 3 or 5$) were awarded for every correct guess. As a randomized guessing game...no privilege or advantage could be had. Upon the end of the game, participants were told they were the last of their "group" to play the game....and shown the scores of the other 4 players who went before them (along with dollar amounts won). The other 4 players didn't exist....and every player was either the highest or lowest scoring player in the group. As the last player, they were given the option of either every player leaving with the amount they won fairly....or they could choose to pool the winnings and split them evenly. When players learned that they were dead last in winnings....they were far more likely to pool the money and split it evenly, reasoning that the best players must have somehow cheated or enjoyed some unknown advantage (or privilege if you prefer) despite the obvious fact this wasn't possible. When shown they had come in first place however, the opposite effect happened...where they decided the game was completely fair (and it was) and they deserved to leave with the most winnings (although the game cannot be won by ability or merit, since it's a random game of chance). This suggests that even in a perfectly fair system....those who fail will perceive incorrectly that they have been cheated somehow should they see anyone who has been more successful than themselves (a victim mindset).


3. My personal favorite is the facial scar study. Participants spanned both men and women of diverse races and backgrounds and experience. All were told they were to apply for a job at the university which was a "real job" with the employer unaware of the experiment. All participants were told this was to determine whether or not a facial scar would increase the likelihood of being discriminated against in hiring....and then a makeup artist spent time applying a realistic looking facial scar that each participant was shown upon finishing. Before entering the interview, the participants were told they needed some "last minute touch ups" to their scar and unbeknownst to them....the scar was removed entirely.

The interviewer of course was fake, and under instructions to neither look at the nonexistent "scar" nor mention it unless the participants did. The questions and responses to answers were all predetermined to be effectively neutral...with the applicant ultimately being dismissed with the excuse of having more applicants to interview and a possibility of a callback letting them know if they got the job (in which case the applicant was to refer the interviewer to a phone number that would explain the experiment.)

The participants were then to return to the original room where they had the nonexistent "scar" removed and answered a battery of questions about whether or not they perceived the scar affected their outcomes lol. The overwhelming result was that a vast majority (women only slightly higher than men if I recall correctly) believed that not only would they not get the job....but that the scar was to blame. Elaborate or simple stories of staring at the scar, the interviewer making faces of disgust, subtle verbal references to the scar, and outright lies about what transpired (contradicted by the recorded interview) were related by something like 80-90% of participants lol.

Essentially, by "priming" the participants to expect discrimination and therefore look for it....they either perceived discrimination that didn't happen or lied about discrimination to deflect blaming themselves for a perceived failure.

It's this last experiment that I would suggest is most relevant. There are multiple identity groups that have victimhood complexes that result from the predominant narratives of their communities. If you're told your entire life that everyone is racist and you will be discriminated against....the effects of this can be just as devastating to the communities as actual discrimination. This also creates a rather elegant explanation for why so many claims of discrimination lack any actual evidence of discrimination and "hidden" or "subconscious" discrimination narratives like "implicit bias" have become so widely popular because they allow for these identity groups to shift blame for perceived failure to the biases and discrimination of others without evidence, instead of altering the perception of themselves. Feminists, for example, who are taught mythological stories of patriarchal norms and cultural biases that create a wall of obstacles that don't actually exist....will inevitably perceive discrimination that isn't actually happening. Black and latino children who are told they will be facing racists around every corner will misinterpret and perceive racial discrimination where it doesn't exist....and so on.

I'm not saying that there are no racists or sexists of course....but regardless of the possibility of running into one, literally the worst thing to do if we want people to reach their potential is to tell them that their identity will be judged negatively and their failures can be rightly attributed to such things absent of evidence. It is, what we call in psychology, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Paidiske]

I've got 6 kids and 11 grandkids. All were born with distinct personalities. Four of my kids were raised by me and my wife. We had the same personalities the same rules tight them the same things. They ate the same foods, lived in the same town, went to the same schools. And all are completely different. And have been since they were born.

I have two grandkids that are twins. Raised by the same mother and father live I. The same house etc etc. They are two extremely different people and have been that way since they were born.

That's genetics. So yes there is a direct cause of genetics involved. We see it everyday. To say otherwise is quite absurd.

It's not necessarily genetics, at all. Even twins can have very different life experiences. The upper estimate is that perhaps 60% of our overall temperament is genetically influenced (the lower estimate is about 20%, and that's what I'd think is more realistic). And even when we are looking at the genetic component, it's many many genes each contributing a very small effect, and the end result is not predetermined. (This is a helpful read: Why Personality Is Not Genetically Hardwired ),

And relevantly, for this thread, most of those genes aren't on the sex chromosomes.

That's not an option for men. Just being realistic....it's an option for at least perhaps >50% of women and <1% of men.

Could that be because, as a society, we look down on men who take on stereotypically female roles?

Women, generally don't want a husband who doesn't work and they want a husband who makes more money than they do.

I think this is changing. As more women are able to support themselves, and even their households, they would prefer a husband who is willing to pitch in equally on the domestic side.

That said, I don't recall anyone ever mentioning this "hard working career woman" they knew going to her death wishing she just had more time to file a few extra reports....get one last raise....or take another vacation alone.

Equally true of men, though.

Some do....some don't. Perhaps you're overestimating how "easy" it is because you have a "leadership position" without any definable failure. That's not the majority of jobs.

Just because the measure of success isn't bums on pews, doesn't mean there's no measure of failure. I gave you one.

That said, I've worked a variety of jobs in different industries, and I'll tell you what I'm doing now is by far the most all-consuming and the most challenging to combine with family life.

Right. At a certain point....looks fade....and coasting is done. If you haven't developed those skills by 30 (because you were coasting on looks, or didn't realize that the bar was subconsciously lower for women across the board) then I imagine that it might look like suddenly the paths to higher paying positions of more authority are disappearing.

My point was, you might be able to coast as say, a cash register operator or a data entry clerk. But those of us with any drive and capability have left those roles very early (long before 30).

I don't think aspects of a person like their ability to assess risk is a small aspect of behavior outcomes.

Given that's a very complex cognitive process, it's also not gentically determined.

lt doesn't matter what positive attributes are used in the WAWE. The words could be "honest", "brave", "quick thinking", etc.

Positive attributes tend to cluster towards women creating a massive bias privilege.

Really? Have any been done with stereotypically masculine positive traits? I would be genuinely fascinated to see that.

How's that going for you?

Just fine. But the claim was ridiculous from the get-go, really.

If you were to consider my wife's wealth a privilege it doesn't make much sense....she has little say in how it's spent. She may be well over the 50% for women her age, but she has little say in how it's actually applied.

Are you saying she is very wealthy, but doesn't benefit from it?

I think, for example, back to when I did some work as a private tutor. Two students in particular come to mind; one came from a wealthy family, his parents paid for a tutor basically so that they didn't have to supervise his homework. This kid had every advantage money could buy, and although he coasted on minimum effort, he got through school doing reasonably well. Another student paid for her tutor from money she earned at a fast food place; her family didn't have money, but she worked her guts out and struggled in school, in part because she worked so many hours flipping burgers that she didn't have the time to put into her studies that someone without those responsibilities could.

That's an illustration of the privilege of money.

Ergo, you believe in the importance of a meritocracy.

A true meritocracy, yes, which is a far cry from what we have now.

Do we want AI to select for "gender equality"....or do we want it to select for the best candidate? If it's the second, then we should have models with inexistent goals of gender equality.

You won't get the best candidate if you don't take gender equality into account. If your model of merit is male, the best women will be consistently overlooked.

Are you expecting me to take your unique life experiences as the unvarnished truth without any skepticism?

Would you prefer I lie to you and tell you I believe you?

If you don't believe me, I'd prefer you move on without making a thing of accusing me of lying.

Right. It was unwanted so "harassment" whereas if it weren't wanted it would be... something else wouldn't it?

If it were wanted, it wouldn't be harassment. It wasn't wanted, though. Nor was there any reasonable basis for anyone to think it would be.

The problem with your argument that we shouldn't acknowledge sexism because then people will perceive it when it's not there, is that the flip side is that not acknowledging it means not perceiving it when it is there.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What does this suggest.

It suggests the concept of intergenerational trauma as something passed by genetics is just pop-psych bunko.

 

[rjs330]

Perhaps since he was elderly he meant it for your husband and improperly addressed it. Perhaps he's one of your many "trans" members and this was a complicated way to get you to send it back to him and for him to possess it for himself without raising suspicion.

I'm wondering the guy was just a bit senile or had some dementia. This is certainly out of the ordinary. With the guy being elderly it's more likely he had some mental health issues. But she wants to assume it was for nefarious reasons.

I've seen people, men and women, do some pretty bizarre things, but in this instance, i'm guessing it was a mental issue and not some evil man trying to sexualize his priest.

 

[stevevw]

It allows people who might otherwise be passed over due to bias and discrimination, to be considered for the role. Not that anyone who doesn't meet the requirements would get the role, but that someone who might otherwise be discounted, gets the oportunity to show that they meet the requirements. It creates equality of opportunity for people who otherwise might never have it.

Actually no, Affirmative action doesn't allow people who would have been passed over due to descrimination to get the position. It allows for those who don't usually qualify to get the position due to their identity group rather than merit.

For example with University places. Minorities are accepted on lower grades (the grade for entry is lowered) to allow those who would otherwise not qualify to get a position. But this is a negative policy as it also lowers the overall level of education for the course and Uni and education in general.

It actually creates reverse descrimination in that someone with merit who could have had that place is denied based on race (whites and Asians). Asians are especially descriminate against as they are also a minority group but percieved to be more intelligent so many lose a place to Affirmative action policies.

It also makes the minorities who are given a place worse off because they entered the course on lower grades they end up at the bottom of the class and usually drop out or change to courses or Uni's that better suit their ability wasting years and money. It ends up actually compounding their experiences of being duped by a systems, the same system that is suppose to have descriminated against them by their misguided solutions.

If this example shows anything about a fundamental difference in beliefs, it highlights our culture's wilful blindness to the many obstacles so many people still routinely face.

Actually it highlights the willful blindness of those who push these silly ideologies and policies. Good idea but just done wrong because equality is masked within an agenda, an ideology that whites are inherently racist and we are guilty and need to pay for it. Misaligned view of the world results in misaligned remedies. We have seen this with the Transcare Model and now with DEI policies that stem from Critical Race Theory, Critical Social Justice Theory and Queer Theory entering our institutions.

 

[Paidiske]

Actually no, Affirmative action doesn't allow people who would have been passed over due to descrimination to get the position. It allows for those who don't usually qualify to get the position due to their identity group rather than merit.

Completely disagree. Affirmative action doesn't mean people unqualified being appointed to roles. It means a broader range of qualified people being considered for them.

For example with University places. Minorities are accepted on lower grades (the grade for entry is lowered) to allow those who would otherwise not qualify to get a position. But this is a negative policy as it also lowers the overall level of education for the course and Uni and education in general.

Which minorities were these?

I know, when I went through (and the system has changed considerably since then), I was given a TER with "consideration of disadvantage" due to particular circumstances; it didn't change my score but kind of went as a note alongside it, to say that my score might not reflect my full capability. From what I can tell, it didn't actually make any difference to the course I was accepted into.

That said, if some students do face disadvantage, but have otherwise demonstrated the potential to shine academically, I don't see it as wrong to give them an opportunity. Especially since in Australia, there's no absolute benchmark for entry into most courses anyway. It's driven by supply and demand (the more people who want to get into a course, the higher the ATAR you need to get into it). So people who might do incredibly well in a course can still miss out just because that course is more popular than another.

It also makes the minorities who are given a place worse off because they entered the course on lower grades they end up at the bottom of the class and usually drop out or change to courses or Uni's that better suit their ability wasting years and money.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? A study of outcomes for people admitted to university with special consideration, or the like?

 

[trophy33]

Completely disagree. Affirmative action doesn't mean people unqualified being appointed to roles. It means a broader range of qualified people being considered for them.

The nature of affirmative-action policies varies from region to region and exists on a spectrum from a hard quota to merely targeting encouragement for increased participation. Some countries use a quota system, reserving a certain percentage of government jobs, political positions, and school vacancies for members of a certain group; an example of this is the reservation system in India.

In some other jurisdictions where quotas are not used, minority-group members are given preference or special consideration in selection processes. In the United States, affirmative action by executive order originally meant selection without regard to race but preferential treatment was widely used in college admissions, as upheld in the 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, until 2023, when this was overturned in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.[7]

Affirmative action - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Affirmative action can take various forms. It does not have "one meaning".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Could that be because, as a society, we look down on men who take on stereotypically female roles?

Sure, it's possible....but I don't know if you caught it when I said that homemaking and raising children isn't an option, I mean I don't think you could find a survey where even 1% of women want a man who is a non-working house-husband with no income and raising children.

So before we bother questioning whether or not "society" looks down upon them, consider asking why women want nothing to do with them?

I think this is changing. As more women are able to support themselves, and even their households, they would prefer a husband who is willing to pitch in equally on the domestic side.

That's not what we're talking about....we're talking about a situation where the man stays home, does the cooking, cleaning, raising children....while the woman supports the family. The two income household is a relatively new thing historically speaking and even amongst those who seem to do it rather well....I think you'd find it more out of necessity than preference.

So again, we're talking about an option men have never had.

Equally true of men, though.

Sure...but we don't lie to each other about it lol. Feminism tells women not to stay at home and raise children or clean. It tells them they'll find their lives so much more fulfilling if they work at a career. Men know that probably 85-95% don't love our jobs or careers....we tolerate them...so that we can provide for our families. I know feminists imagine that it's some ancient conspiracy to control the levers of power and wealth but its important to remember that's the theory of some rather bitter and resentful lesbians that aren't too fond of men.

Just because the measure of success isn't bums on pews, doesn't mean there's no measure of failure. I gave you one.

I'm sorry, I genuinely don't recall the example....just vague abstractions.

Let's try it this way...

Imagine I'm a member of your church and I want a change in leadership because I believe you've failed. How could I possibly go about proving it?

That said, I've worked a variety of jobs in different industries, and I'll tell you what I'm doing now is by far the most all-consuming and the most challenging to combine with family life.

I'll take your word on that.

My point was, you might be able to coast as say, a cash register operator or a data entry clerk. But those of us with any drive and capability have left those roles very early (long before 30).

Right, because if you want a career and a family, your time is up by about 35. It only gets harder after that as you'll be unable to dedicate as much time to work unless you intend to thoroughly neglect your children.

Given that's a very complex cognitive process, it's also not gentically determined.

I'm not arguing for genetic determinism here. I simply don't see a whole lot of great explanations coming from behaviourists. There's a limit to valid psychological theory, and cognitive neuropsychology involves a considerable amount of genetics. One of the most widely agreed upon features of psychopathy is a reduced fear response/risk assessment/consequence considerations or however you prefer to describe it. This isn't a feature that has just a genetic signature but even an altered brain structure. Forgive me for not remembering the exact name or direction but I believe it's a lower central region of the brain and it's either abnormally large or small....can't recall which.

Really? Have any been done with stereotypically masculine positive traits? I would be genuinely fascinated to see that.

From that link you didn't read....

Women-are-wonderful effect - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This research found that while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger[5] than those of men. And only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem, revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic preference for their own gender.[5]

Highlighted as relevant to my point. Also...

Some authors have claimed the "Women are wonderful" effect is applicable when women follow traditional gender roles such as child nurturing and stay-at-home housewife.[8] However, other authors have cited studies indicating that the women-are-wonderful effect is still applicable even when women are in nontraditional gender roles, and the original Eagly, Mladinic & Otto (1991) study discovering the women-are-wonderful effect found no such ambivalence.

As you can imagine, the 1990s feminists weren't too happy with this discovery, as it monkey wrenches all the gears in their narrative. I've read probably a dozen or so articles on the topic and while I believe research showed the effect diminishes in the workplace (its not a 4.5 times stronger bias) it's still present in favor of women. If you want to do a deep dive I can probably find something to start you on your way. Or if you prefer to discuss this in relationship to power dynamics I can do that too...but you'll need to consider things other than dialectical oppression.

Just fine. But the claim was ridiculous from the get-go, really.

Was it? Is it so implausible?

Are you saying she is very wealthy, but doesn't benefit from it?

I'm saying that despite having resources she doesn't have much control over their usage.

I think, for example, back to when I did some work as a private tutor. Two students in particular come to mind; one came from a wealthy family, his parents paid for a tutor basically so that they didn't have to supervise his homework. This kid had every advantage money could buy, and although he coasted on minimum effort, he got through school doing reasonably well. Another student paid for her tutor from money she earned at a fast food place; her family didn't have money, but she worked her guts out and struggled in school, in part because she worked so many hours flipping burgers that she didn't have the time to put into her studies that someone without those responsibilities could.

Uh huh....look, privilege theory has more holes than Swiss cheese. For some reason, its adherents seem to place a premium on who "works harder". Frankly, I don't understand why that is. Imagine that at my job, I replaced two guys who worked as a team. I have a higher output, at a higher quality, but I don't put in the overtime they did. I probably average 6-8 hour a week less than either of them and my position hasn't been this important in years.

I can say without any shame they both probably worked much harder than I did...but achieved less. I don't work the overtime they did, I cost less on the budget, and my superiors generally leave me to do the job without any oversight. I collect a bonus at the end of the year that I don't mention to my peers to avoid any internal disruption.

Yet privilege theorists seem to value someone who has to struggle for longer, work much harder, just to achieve the same results. I can't imagine why. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

That's an illustration of the privilege of money.

If she didn't have time to study because she was flipping burgers....why not stop flipping burgers and study?

A true meritocracy, yes, which is a far cry from what we have now.

What's a true meritocracy? One where people perfectly assess merit?

You won't get the best candidate if you don't take gender equality into account.

Why would gender be a factor in merit?

If your model of merit is male, the best women will be consistently overlooked.

Again, we just remove gender from the model.

If you don't believe me, I'd prefer you move on without making a thing of accusing me of lying.

It's against the rules to accuse you of lying. I'm simply stating that I don't believe you.

If it were wanted, it wouldn't be harassment.

Right. This would be another privilege that women effectively have and don't notice....they don't have to risk rejection (or a more serious accusation like sexual harassment) for the mere possibility of a romantic relationship.

I'm pretty sure you and I have been over this though and I've shown you the stats where the average guy asks the average girl out dozens of times more often than the average girl asks out a guy.

It wasn't wanted, though. Nor was there any reasonable basis for anyone to think it would be.

Then perhaps there was some other motive for this thing that really doesn't happen to anyone else. I can't imagine why we're still discussing it at this point.

The problem with your argument that we shouldn't acknowledge sexism

I acknowledged sexism and racism in that last post #1571. Look at the first sentence of the last paragraph.

because then people will perceive it when it's not there,

People will perceive it when it's not there if we teach them vague theoretical ideas like "the patriarchy" or "systemic racism" that tend to have faith based ideologies attached to them and float on a sea of circular reasoning. On a graph it looks like....

is that the flip side is that not acknowledging it means not perceiving it when it is there.

Well we don't need to worry about that till you have some real evidence. If it requires assumptions based on mind reading and circular logic, we can just dismiss it.

 

[Paidiske]

Sure, it's possible....but I don't know if you caught it when I said that homemaking and raising children isn't an option, I mean I don't think you could find a survey where even 1% of women want a man who is a non-working house-husband with no income and raising children.

I saw that you said that, but I don't believe it, particularly. In my experience, women are open to and want more flexible and non-traditional sharing of family responsibilities, and men don't (largely because the status quo benefits them in ways to which they feel entitled).

So before we bother questioning whether or not "society" looks down upon them, consider asking why women want nothing to do with them?

Women want partners who will be true teammates in life. Before children, she's seldom going to be keen to financially support someone who seems to have no goals, no drive of his own. That doesn't look like good teammate-in-life material. After children, she's likely to be very open to sharing work and domestic duties, because that's all part of approaching life as a team.

That's not what we're talking about....we're talking about a situation where the man stays home, does the cooking, cleaning, raising children....while the woman supports the family. ...

So again, we're talking about an option men have never had.

In my experience, it's the men who refuse this kind of arrangement (even where their wives earn, or could earn, significantly more), not the women who don't want it.

The ideal, of course, is sharing both work and domestic life - for a while we had an arrangement my peers called the "unicorn" set up of each parent working three days a week - but I will grant that logistically that can be harder to put in place, because employers are often reluctant to be flexible.

Imagine I'm a member of your church and I want a change in leadership because I believe you've failed. How could I possibly go about proving it?

You would demonstrate the ways in which I had neglected my duties.

Right, because if you want a career and a family, your time is up by about 35. It only gets harder after that as you'll be unable to dedicate as much time to work unless you intend to thoroughly neglect your children.

Funny how nobody ever accuses working fathers of neglecting their children.

I work full time, and my child is not neglected.

I simply don't see a whole lot of great explanations coming from behaviourists.

I'm less familiar with their arguments. I'll simply say, I'm familiar enough with the genetic/biological side of things to be quite confident the "nature" side of the argument isn't determinative.

This research found that while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger[5] than those of men. And only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem, revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic preference for their own gender.[5]

Highlighted as relevant to my point. Also...

Some authors have claimed the "Women are wonderful" effect is applicable when women follow traditional gender roles such as child nurturing and stay-at-home housewife.[8] However, other authors have cited studies indicating that the women-are-wonderful effect is still applicable even when women are in nontraditional gender roles, and the original Eagly, Mladinic & Otto (1991) study discovering the women-are-wonderful effect found no such ambivalence.

No, that's not what I asked for. I asked if women were ever rated higher on stereotypically masculine traits.

Is it so implausible?

Utterly.

I'm saying that despite having resources she doesn't have much control over their usage.

That doesn't mean it doesn't provide her with benefits in life, though.

Yet privilege theorists seem to value someone who has to struggle for longer, work much harder, just to achieve the same results. I can't imagine why. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

Because unequal results seem to indicate barriers in the way the one who is working harder.

Perhaps, in your hypothetical, with a bit of coaching or mentoring, the people you replaced could have done as well as you do now. Is it their fault they didn't come into the role with the knowledge, wisdom and experience you have? Or have they not had the opportunities you had to develop that insight and skill?

If she didn't have time to study because she was flipping burgers....why not stop flipping burgers and study?

Because she needed the money to live on. I suspect her income was covering a significant proportion of household expenses.

What's a true meritocracy? One where people perfectly assess merit?

One where other factors - such as disability or poverty or discrimination - don't hold someone back from achieving to their potential and desire.

Again, we just remove gender from the model.

Not just gender, but all the things which differ by gender.

It's against the rules to accuse you of lying. I'm simply stating that I don't believe you.

Right. This would be another privilege that women effectively have and don't notice....they don't have to risk rejection (or a more serious accusation like sexual harassment) for the mere possibility of a romantic relationship.

Not true.

Well we don't need to worry about that till you have some real evidence. If it requires assumptions based on mind reading and circular logic, we can just dismiss it.

Given you're dismissing actual real personal experiences, rather than just assumptions, I suspect we're done here.

 

[stevevw]

Completely disagree. Affirmative action doesn't mean people unqualified being appointed to roles. It means a broader range of qualified people being considered for them.

Which minorities were these?

I know, when I went through (and the system has changed considerably since then), I was given a TER with "consideration of disadvantage" due to particular circumstances; it didn't change my score but kind of went as a note alongside it, to say that my score might not reflect my full capability. From what I can tell, it didn't actually make any difference to the course I was accepted into.

That said, if some students do face disadvantage, but have otherwise demonstrated the potential to shine academically, I don't see it as wrong to give them an opportunity. Especially since in Australia, there's no absolute benchmark for entry into most courses anyway. It's driven by supply and demand (the more people who want to get into a course, the higher the ATAR you need to get into it). So people who might do incredibly well in a course can still miss out just because that course is more popular than another.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? A study of outcomes for people admitted to university with special consideration, or the like?

Sure
The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action
The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action
The Affirmative Action Failure Machine
The Affirmative Action Failure Machine - Minding The Campus
The affirmative action ruling has exposed Democrats’ failure on education
https://thehill.com/opinion/educati...g-has-exposed-democrats-failure-on-education/