This chart is quite difficult to read, and it's not clear how the data was collected or what amount of overlap exists between the people in each category. Also, what were the sample sizes? Are the men and women in approximately the same careers? These are preferences; were individuals asked to rank preferences or did they rate each preference independently? What does a standard deviation mean here (units)?
I take the display to mean that, for example, the sampled profoundly gifted women prefer to have satisfaction in their work much more than the sampled profoundly gifted men. Or does it mean that women rank satisfaction over other items more than men but they really do care equally about satisfaction in a nominal sense?
I find this kind of data interesting and hope we can pick out what’s biological and what’s social/cultural.
It seems like there used to be more of these “look at these interesting results” type discussions but are fewer now that just posting things can upset people and gather lots of folks meta debating instead of digging into knowledge development and understanding.
Look up the gender equality paradox in Nordic countries. Nordic countries are the most egalitarian countries in the world that offer the best equal opportunities for men and women. The initial conclusions were that as Nordic countries made opportunities for either gender more equal the differences in choice for careers between genders became more pronounced.
There's various cooked interpretations of the result from agenda based groups but those are the initial results. This person illustrates the whole study the best:
It's hard to draw a definitive conclusion from the study due to all the controversy and various parties cooking the numbers for their own agenda but take from it what you will, but the initial conclusion was that most of this is biological.
Isn’t everything biological? How can something magically only be cultural? There is a root of behavior and that’s biology. Men are on average larger, more aggressive, stronger, etc. of course this would influence culture.
gender roles such as division of labor has shifted over time, for one.
men wearing makeup has a long and fascinating history from ancient times, to the Middle Ages, renaissance, 19th and 20th centuries, and the modern resurgence.
Perhaps most interesting (or rather surprising) to me are the ones were it goes an opposite way (whether male or female that more often holds the preference) according to whether it's the 'Top STEM doctoral students' class, or 'Profoundly gifted top 0.01%'.
Is that because of STEM or academic career inclination vs. general giftedness? Or is it just pointing to a small sample and not statistically significant?
I would surmise that a great deal of this is biological, but a radical gender theorist would likely rebut that these differences are due to social conditioning. He would say that men/males are conditioned to take more risk, conditioned to desire working with _things_, and conditioned to desire prestige in their jobs.
How would one go about designing a study that eliminates the variable of social conditioning when trying to study sociological differences between the sexes, or is that even important to indicate these sentiments are/aren't linked to biology?
Thank you! I have to say, I find the gender-neutral toy layout here in CA stores very annoying when I go shopping for children's toys. It's bizarre to me that the state has mandated it, and I was really disappointed when Newsom glossed over this question in his interview with Maher last week.
With this tweet, he’s bringing attention to a particular set of data and not supposing any conclusions. Not quite the same as the “replication crisis” he mentions in that tweet.
What do you think of the data being presented here?
I get you're trying to make a point, but it feels like you're doing it in the most tribal and emotional way I can think of.
It sounds to me like the essence of what you're trying to communicate is that even though historically sweeping statements about groups capabilities/preferences have been used as excuses to blacklist people from fields, learning statistical averages of preferences could serve as a tool of better accommodating individuals if done in good faith.
I'd encourage you study that paragraph and learn to talk like that if your goal is to change any minds. Otherwise I can only presume that's not your ultimate goal.
>I'd encourage you study that paragraph and learn to talk like that if your goal is to change any minds. Otherwise I can only presume that's not your ultimate goal.
You'd do well to study your own words as well. The way you're conveying it to him is patronizing. You're acting superior as if you're better. When you talk to people in this tone they tend not to like it and they won't listen to you. Your ultimate goal is not achieved with the way you said it either. In fact what you said was more directed, more personal. He's making a blanket statement while you're creating direct and personal conflict.
You need to take a good long look at yourself and see if whether you should be talking to people as if they're children and you're the all knowing parent. And you should and will because telling other people to study their own writing without studying you're own opens you up to hypocrisy. Because of this... your next response will most likely indicate that you will read your own venom, that's just how humans work/think.
Overall though, I think there's no point in responding like this to anyone or being patronizing, people may not agree with his opinion and they may state their disagreement just as passionately and I'm happy to read that. I don't enjoy reading these comments where someone is acting like a baby sitter just for that superiority complex.
It might be worth rethinking this. How much of what you believe about gender differences is cultural? Are people lying if they grew up in a different culture and learned different norms?
> Males are obviously preventing females from taking more risks and forcing them to work under 40 hours.
This is a claim that just smears all men without evidence. How are all men obviously forcing women to work less? Have you considered that women prefer to work less and make less money in return for a quieter life?
Why would I consider that? Men and women are equal. Your statement implies they are not.
Women and men being equal is intrinsically logical. It is an axiom that is true without proof.
To say the opposite in public would get you to rightly lose your job and get ridiculed as you are obviously lying and furthering your agenda of male oppression.
Let us continue this discourse so others can see the absurdity of your logic.
If anyone thinks you learn something from this type of exercise, do a brief thought experiment. Who will say they value more highly having a job at a company with protections against sexual harrassment: an attractive young female, or a middle-aged overweight male.
Sexual harassment is largely irrelevant to a "middle-aged overweight male". You can find it offensive and disgusting, but if you never experience it, it's not going to have any impact when you choose between two job offers.
Yea, he casually added that term as if people wouldn't notice it. High earning, attractive, middle aged men are often targets for sexual harassment by women but it is not taken seriously at all.
This chart is quite difficult to read, and it's not clear how the data was collected or what amount of overlap exists between the people in each category. Also, what were the sample sizes? Are the men and women in approximately the same careers? These are preferences; were individuals asked to rank preferences or did they rate each preference independently? What does a standard deviation mean here (units)?
I take the display to mean that, for example, the sampled profoundly gifted women prefer to have satisfaction in their work much more than the sampled profoundly gifted men. Or does it mean that women rank satisfaction over other items more than men but they really do care equally about satisfaction in a nominal sense?
Can anyone else chime in on their interpretation?
--
EDIT: Link to study
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00169862231175831