5 ms·

When you say, "not well support by evidence," you're either wrong, anti-science, or lying. Numerous studies absolutely show very large average differences in in

by psyopsy 9mo ago

When you say, "not well support by evidence," you're either wrong, anti-science, or lying. Numerous studies absolutely show very large average differences in interests based on sex. And those carry over into occupation preferences. Just one more recent study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268122003201 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726812... Plus: Jon never said it's the "primary" factor, as you claim. He said it's a large factor, that doesn't apply at the individual level, but on average. Which is entirely factual and supported by copious amounts of research. Just because people like you want to be offended by science, doesn't make it wrong, or controversial.

onraglanroad 9mo ago
Well, no, you're the one that is "wrong, anti-science, or lying". The very first sentence of the article you linked to says, "Occupational choices remain strongly segregated by gender, for reasons not yet fully understood." So claiming that its for biological reasons is bullshit. You have no idea whether it is or not. And neither does Blow.
- psyopsy 9mo ago
  LOL. You're going to dismiss the study because of the justification for doing the study. Here, let me help you understand: "not fully understood" -> "so we studied it" -> "here's what we found" Besides that obvious point, the sentence you quoted says "not yet fully understood," not "we have no idea." Those aren't the same thing. We actually have substantial evidence pointing in a clear direction. - The most egalitarian countries show the largest gaps, not the smallest. - Women exposed to elevated androgens in utero become more things-oriented despite being raised normally as girls. - Male and female monkeys show the same toy preferences we do. Nobody's socializing rhesus monkeys into gender roles. - A 1.28 standard deviation gap in every culture that emerges in infancy and grows as societies get freer is not what socialization looks like. You're treating "not fully understood" as "both hypotheses are equally supported." They aren't. The evidence overwhelmingly favors a substantial biological component. Just because you don't like the implications of that, doesn't make it false. Seethe harder.
  - onraglanroad 9mo ago
    I didn't dismiss the study; I agree with it. Not fully understood. Think harder kid.
    - psyopsy 9mo ago
      Gravity isn’t fully understood either. Guess we can’t say things fall down.
  - ghastt 9mo ago
    > Male and female monkeys show the same toy preferences we do. Nobody's socializing rhesus monkeys into gender roles. You may believe that, but: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9898904/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9898904/
    - psyopsy 9mo ago
      Little bro read the paper title and no further. That study found that when you test 14 monkeys alone in cages where they can’t actually move the toys, you don’t see the same sex differences as when 135 monkeys are tested in social groups with freely movable toys. The authors themselves say the social context may be necessary for expression. That’s not evidence against biological contribution, but evidence that behavior requires context to manifest. You don’t disprove hunger by noting that people don’t eat when there’s no food available.
- jstimpfle 9mo ago
  AFAIK there are differences established on many psychological axes that are more basic than "occupational choice", such as competitiveness, neuroticism, interest in things vs human relations, and others. I don't understand these deeply but you can research for yourself, so there is certainly no shortage of possible explanations based on those.
  - magicalist 9mo ago
    > AFAIK there are differences established Well, you "haven't read literature on the topic"[1] so maybe leave the speculation at the door or go out and read some literature to cite rather than presenting "ideas [you]'ve picked up that [you] can agree with" as "established"? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46315540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46315540
    - jstimpfle 9mo ago
      I've been very clear that I'm a layman, such as certainly most of the commenters here. I qualified using "AFAIK" and I've heard this on different occasions by people who have actual experience in the field. You can find similar claims on this page, partly backed by links. For example, I too have heard about studies evidencing that gender differences are more stark in developed countries with well functioning social systems, where people are freeer to choose their profession based on personal interest rather than for example economic aspects.
__alexs 9mo ago
This study confirms that there is a gender difference but it doesn't explain why. I didn't claim that there were not differences, but that they were not well explained by biology.
- psyopsy 9mo ago
  Sex is the strongest single predictor of vocational interest orientation we’ve found. Nothing else comes close. If that’s not ‘explained by biology,’ you need to tell me what would be. Otherwise you’re operating on faith.
  - __alexs 9mo ago
    It's hard to control for social conditioning. I don't need to be able to tell you what the alternative is to be able to tell you that there are many confounding factors. Knowing what does not explain something, doesn't tell you what does explain it.
    - psyopsy 9mo ago
      They did try to account for social conditioning: parents' education and jobs, local labor markets, school performance, the whole bit. The gap still didn't move much. If socialization were the main driver, you'd expect the most egalitarian countries to have the smallest gaps. They don't. In a lot of cases it's the opposite. Sweden, for example, shows bigger differences in occupational preferences than places like Pakistan. So at that point you're not pointing to a specific confounder, you're basically saying "maybe there's something else." Sure, logically you can always say that. But if the evidence keeps stacking up in one direction and the only reply is "could be something," that's just refusing to update your view.
      - __alexs 9mo ago
        You can't control for the social conditioning of gender. This is so fundamentally obvious I don't think you are taking the science seriously.

by psyopsy 9mo ago

onraglanroad 9mo ago

Well, no, you're the one that is "wrong, anti-science, or lying". The very first sentence of the article you linked to says, "Occupational choices remain strongly segregated by gender, for reasons not yet fully understood." So claiming that its for biological reasons is bullshit. You have no idea whether it is or not. And neither does Blow.

psyopsy 9mo ago
LOL. You're going to dismiss the study because of the justification for doing the study. Here, let me help you understand: "not fully understood" -> "so we studied it" -> "here's what we found" Besides that obvious point, the sentence you quoted says "not yet fully understood," not "we have no idea." Those aren't the same thing. We actually have substantial evidence pointing in a clear direction. - The most egalitarian countries show the largest gaps, not the smallest. - Women exposed to elevated androgens in utero become more things-oriented despite being raised normally as girls. - Male and female monkeys show the same toy preferences we do. Nobody's socializing rhesus monkeys into gender roles. - A 1.28 standard deviation gap in every culture that emerges in infancy and grows as societies get freer is not what socialization looks like. You're treating "not fully understood" as "both hypotheses are equally supported." They aren't. The evidence overwhelmingly favors a substantial biological component. Just because you don't like the implications of that, doesn't make it false. Seethe harder.
- onraglanroad 9mo ago
  I didn't dismiss the study; I agree with it. Not fully understood. Think harder kid.
  - psyopsy 9mo ago
    Gravity isn’t fully understood either. Guess we can’t say things fall down.
- ghastt 9mo ago
  > Male and female monkeys show the same toy preferences we do. Nobody's socializing rhesus monkeys into gender roles. You may believe that, but: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9898904/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9898904/
  - psyopsy 9mo ago
    Little bro read the paper title and no further. That study found that when you test 14 monkeys alone in cages where they can’t actually move the toys, you don’t see the same sex differences as when 135 monkeys are tested in social groups with freely movable toys. The authors themselves say the social context may be necessary for expression. That’s not evidence against biological contribution, but evidence that behavior requires context to manifest. You don’t disprove hunger by noting that people don’t eat when there’s no food available.
jstimpfle 9mo ago
AFAIK there are differences established on many psychological axes that are more basic than "occupational choice", such as competitiveness, neuroticism, interest in things vs human relations, and others. I don't understand these deeply but you can research for yourself, so there is certainly no shortage of possible explanations based on those.
- magicalist 9mo ago
  > AFAIK there are differences established Well, you "haven't read literature on the topic"[1] so maybe leave the speculation at the door or go out and read some literature to cite rather than presenting "ideas [you]'ve picked up that [you] can agree with" as "established"? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46315540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46315540
  - jstimpfle 9mo ago
    I've been very clear that I'm a layman, such as certainly most of the commenters here. I qualified using "AFAIK" and I've heard this on different occasions by people who have actual experience in the field. You can find similar claims on this page, partly backed by links. For example, I too have heard about studies evidencing that gender differences are more stark in developed countries with well functioning social systems, where people are freeer to choose their profession based on personal interest rather than for example economic aspects.

__alexs 9mo ago

This study confirms that there is a gender difference but it doesn't explain why. I didn't claim that there were not differences, but that they were not well explained by biology.

psyopsy 9mo ago
Sex is the strongest single predictor of vocational interest orientation we’ve found. Nothing else comes close. If that’s not ‘explained by biology,’ you need to tell me what would be. Otherwise you’re operating on faith.
- __alexs 9mo ago
  It's hard to control for social conditioning. I don't need to be able to tell you what the alternative is to be able to tell you that there are many confounding factors. Knowing what does not explain something, doesn't tell you what does explain it.
  - psyopsy 9mo ago
    They did try to account for social conditioning: parents' education and jobs, local labor markets, school performance, the whole bit. The gap still didn't move much. If socialization were the main driver, you'd expect the most egalitarian countries to have the smallest gaps. They don't. In a lot of cases it's the opposite. Sweden, for example, shows bigger differences in occupational preferences than places like Pakistan. So at that point you're not pointing to a specific confounder, you're basically saying "maybe there's something else." Sure, logically you can always say that. But if the evidence keeps stacking up in one direction and the only reply is "could be something," that's just refusing to update your view.
    - __alexs 9mo ago
      You can't control for the social conditioning of gender. This is so fundamentally obvious I don't think you are taking the science seriously.