I didn't say they don't matter. I said it's not a matter of a direct causal relationship between genetics and behaviour.
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.
Perhaps... but those aren't the positive attributes which people tend to associate with, for example, leadership. They're more the positive attributes people tend to associate with mothers and carers.
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.
The other link I provided is one of the only things that I've seen has any significant impact upon it. Apparently, if society continues to move towards egalitarianism....the privilege diminishes. The more we tell boys and girls they're equals...the less privilege women enjoy.
You literally linked a survey that rated women higher across the board on basically every trait associated with leadership. That's so statistically unlikely to be true that I suggested it was a result of the WAWE. 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. I've seen nothing about the WAWE that suggests that's true. I've seen plenty that suggests it's false.
Both are in play, but it's true that I think privilege significantly amplifies the benefits of merit.
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.
And every study I can find, suggests that a meritocracy is an illusion;
You've never found any study suggesting meritocracy is an illusion. You have, at best, found studies suggesting merit isn't a perfectly assessable trait....and that makes sense in that it's a somewhat abstract concept.
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.
Identity politics treats these things as accomplishments or otherwise deserved of special consideration....but they aren't.
It might be difficult to measure, but it's very real.
It's not a matter of difficult to measure....
1. The "implicit bias test" measures response times....and it doesn't do so consistently. It's not a scientifically valid. It's not even necessarily measuring implicit bias.
2. No test has ever shown a valid connection between implicit biases and behaviour. To put it lightly the amount of research connection the influence of genetics to behaviour is vast....the research proving a connection to implicit bias and behaviour is basically nonexistent.
I know this was something that got really overhyped because it created a politically convenient narrative that allowed some rather dim people to assume police were racist without evidence but hundreds and hundreds of attempts to refine the test to a degree of validity have failed and measurements of implicit bias haven't been successful in predicting behaviour at all.
That AI is learning from the sexism embedded in its source material
Why would sexism be embedded in its source material?
Claims of racist AI were pretty loud but rather easily explained. AI was used for content moderation early on....by noting the usage of things like racial slurs...for example the n-word. Turned out, black people online were using the n-word far more often than white people so obviously when evaluating which group was more racist....it kept spitting out the answer of black people.
That led to shouts of the AI being racist despite the fact that we're literally living in a time where it's considered socially acceptable to be racist against white people. The assumption of about half the population is that obviously white people are more racist....or the only ones capable of being racist. The AI mods were altered to look harder at context and only flag usage of the n-word when used in a derogatory fashion.
And the results? Black people and liberals in general were still being evaluated as more racist. Despite insisting that black people use the word as a term of endearment....turns out that black people also frequently use it in a derogatory fashion. Even worse...the social acceptance of racism towards whites meant it evaluated liberals as more racist than conservatives.
Here's the thing...you can encode AI to assess everyone according to the same standards (we call this equality) or you can rig it to assess according to double standards and unequal baselines based upon those superficial shallow and rather unimportant factors of those wedded to identity politics (we call this inequality)....and even then, you may not get the results you like.
I don't see how an AI encoded to assess as equals is somehow sexist if the outcomes are unequal. You need to consider that AI simply doesn't have your biases....like the women are wonderful effect....and it's actually assessing men and women accurately.
AI moderation literally forced racist black people to invent creative new spellings for white people such as whypeeple, whytes, y-pple, and others I can't even remember so they could continue their racist rants and tirades on social media without automatically getting banned.
and therefore its algorithms are producing sexist outcomes.
Do you expect if AI evaluated men and women equally....you'd see equal results?
Given they're summarising many other studies for that statement, you'd have to go read the cited papers.
If I pointed out the methodological errors in those papers....would you stop believing AI was sexist regardless of how women were evaluated?
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. 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.
This is a discussion on a forum. I don't have to prove this to you.
Then quit acting offended when I don't believe every claim you make. If you don't need to prove it, I certainly don't need to believe it.
I said I don't believe you. You said you don't care to prove it. I erased everything else about whatever point you thought was relevant because it's not. I don't believe you....and you aren't able or capable or willing to provide evidence to convince me.
That's nothing to do with discrimination or bias, but demonstrates how gender does shape our social interactions.
Everything shapes social interactions. The fact that I ate recently can shape social interactions I have. This is why behaviorists seem to be faking their data to get published.
That said, no, it's not privileged to be the target of sexual harassment (because let's be clear, that's what unwanted gifts of lingerie from a man in one's workplace amount to).
You believe he sent you the gift to harass you? He spent money to make you upset, angry, anxious, frustrated, or traumatize you?
No offense, but it doesn't seem like that was his intention at all....and that's going by your words.
If one of us has witnessed it, it happens.
If it happened to you, that's not a reason to imagine it's happening to anyone else.
You were claiming, back some pages now, that gender doesn't or shouldn't shape how we interact.
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.
I gave an example of the way it does, because many of our interactions are culturally freighted in gendered ways.
As for holding leaders accountable, absolutely men and women in leadership roles should be held accountable to the same standard. We don't need to protect women leaders from the consequences of poor leadership; that serves no one.
Perhaps we don't. Perhaps that's exactly why we see less women in senior leadership positions.
