|
On April 15 2014 23:45 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 23:36 kwizach wrote:On April 15 2014 23:28 Crushinator wrote:
There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman. No they don't. As Bilalić et al. demonstrate in "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1659, 2009, pp. 1161-1165, participation rates explain 96% of the differences in ratings at the top between men and women, meaning that women do not underperform at all. To quote the article: This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts. You are right, however, with regards to the sociocultural and psychological explanations for the remaining differences in performances. The study you cite is metodologically flawed and discredited in a number of articles, including a critical addendum on the journal's website. Howard, Robert W. "Gender differences in intellectual performance persist at the limits of individual capabilities." Journal of biosocial science (2013): 1-19.
Different methodologies do not imply methodological flaws for the article, and the criticism I found in an article which answered the one by Bilalic et al. was based on absolute ratings predicted by the model used, which fails to address that they were interested in expected differences and not in absolute ratings. I also cited other articles supporting the weight of the participation rate and the type of conclusions of Bilalic et al.. I cannot access your article, so I'd appreciate it if you could send it to me. From what I can read of the abstract, however, the author seems to fail to take into account the very sociocultural and psychological factors you correctly mentioned when drawing his conclusions, which isn't a very good indicator of the rigor of his approach.
|
On April 16 2014 00:12 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 23:45 Crushinator wrote:On April 15 2014 23:36 kwizach wrote:On April 15 2014 23:28 Crushinator wrote:
There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman. No they don't. As Bilalić et al. demonstrate in "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1659, 2009, pp. 1161-1165, participation rates explain 96% of the differences in ratings at the top between men and women, meaning that women do not underperform at all. To quote the article: This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts. You are right, however, with regards to the sociocultural and psychological explanations for the remaining differences in performances. The study you cite is metodologically flawed and discredited in a number of articles, including a critical addendum on the journal's website. Howard, Robert W. "Gender differences in intellectual performance persist at the limits of individual capabilities." Journal of biosocial science (2013): 1-19. Different methodologies do not imply methodological flaws for the article, and the criticism I found in an article which answered the one by Bilalic et al. was based on absolute ratings predicted by the model used, which fails to address that they were interested in expected differences and not in absolute ratings. I also cited other articles supporting the weight of the participation rate and the type of conclusions of Bilalic et al.. I cannot access your article, so I'd appreciate it if you could send it to me. From what I can read of the abstract, however, the author seems to fail to take into account the very sociocultural and psychological factors you correctly mentioned when drawing his conclusions, which isn't a very good indicator of the rigor of his approach.
Dude, the article has been cited 8 times and 4 of those citations the authors make a point out of how bad their methodology is, they are getting completely trashed in academic terms. The remaining articles mention it in passing and do not refer to the results.
I could download the pdfs for you and send you some of the articles if you like. PM me an email adress or something.
|
On April 15 2014 18:34 marvellosity wrote:
I don't even know what kwizach is arguing anymore. It seems pretty obvious that in some areas either men or women are going to have some kind of advantage. That doesn't make either side unequal, and as others side, as long as there's equality of opportunity, then *shrug*. Also seems kinda obvious that men are still favoured (unfairly) in plenty of areas.
I'm not sure why you're using "anymore", since I've presented my position quite clearly from the start and haven't changed it one bit.
1. As decades of scientific research have shown, the biological differences in cognition which exist between men and women are very small, concern limited domains, and are often impossible to distinguish from the influence of sociocultural factors. For several areas in which it was initially thought that men had a natural advantage (for example, mathematics), cultural factors have been shown to play the decisive role, leading to women performing just as well as men when these cultural factors stopped working against them. There is no real evidence to support the claim that structurally different career choices between men and women boil down to biological differences between the two. To quote the website of the American Psychological Associtation:
Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive Skills
Research debunks myths about cognitive difference.
Are boys better at math? Are girls better at language? If fewer women than men work as scientists and engineers, is that aptitude or culture? Psychologists have gathered solid evidence that boys and girls or men and women differ in very few significant ways -- differences that would matter in school or at work -- in how, and how well, they think. [...]
The research shows not that males and females are - cognitively speaking -- separate but equal, but rather suggests that social and cultural factors influence perceived or actual performance differences. For example, in 1990, Hyde et al. concluded that there is little support for saying boys are better at math, instead revealing complex patterns in math performance that defy easy generalization. The researchers said that to explain why fewer women take college-level math courses and work in math-related occupations, "We must look to other factors, such as internalized belief systems about mathematics, external factors such as sex discrimination in education and in employment, and the mathematics curriculum at the precollege level."
Where the sexes have differed on tests, researchers believe social context plays a role. Spelke believes that later-developing differences in career choices are due not to differing abilities but rather cultural factors, such as subtle but pervasive gender expectations that really kick in during high school and college.
2. Chess rankings can hardly be used for evidence of men being biologically better than women at the activity, because of the magnitude and impact of differing participation rates and of psychological and sociocultural factors which contribute to shaping how men and women approach the game and compete against each other.
|
On April 16 2014 00:21 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 18:34 marvellosity wrote:
I don't even know what kwizach is arguing anymore. It seems pretty obvious that in some areas either men or women are going to have some kind of advantage. That doesn't make either side unequal, and as others side, as long as there's equality of opportunity, then *shrug*. Also seems kinda obvious that men are still favoured (unfairly) in plenty of areas. 2. Chess rankings can hardly be used for evidence of men being biologically better than women at the activity, because of the magnitude and impact of differing participation rates and of psychological and sociocultural factors which contribute to shaping how men and women approach the game and compete against each other.
I would agree with this assessment for the most part. However I find it difficult to seperate psychological and sociocultural factors from the biological. Moving away from cognitive ability, it is not clear how much of behavior come from some sort of biological wiring, and how much is a pure social contruct.
I would think our concept of gender in many aspects comes from biology, not just that we are born sexually dimorphic, but also that this a significant part of our lives. I don't know how else to explain transgender people, some part of their biology must be telling them that they are a specific gender. I don't know how much of our concept of gender is a socio-cultural construct. Boys being dressed in blue and girls in pink is certainly arbitrary, but perhaps not the notion that they should be dressed differently.
When it comes to behavior I am also unsure, we know that women are more risk-averse compared to men, something which could easily have an origin in the evolutionary environment of our ancestors. It is also not difficult to see how risk aversity may influence the dsitribution of outcomes. More risk aversity means more of a tendency towards mediocrity, more risky behavior a tendency towards extreme outcomes. It is not clear that in a theoretical equal opportunity world, where gender exists, but there are no gender based biases whatsoever, would lead to equal distribution for the genders in all competitive environments.
|
On April 16 2014 00:19 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 00:12 kwizach wrote:On April 15 2014 23:45 Crushinator wrote:On April 15 2014 23:36 kwizach wrote:On April 15 2014 23:28 Crushinator wrote:
There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman. No they don't. As Bilalić et al. demonstrate in "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1659, 2009, pp. 1161-1165, participation rates explain 96% of the differences in ratings at the top between men and women, meaning that women do not underperform at all. To quote the article: This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts. You are right, however, with regards to the sociocultural and psychological explanations for the remaining differences in performances. The study you cite is metodologically flawed and discredited in a number of articles, including a critical addendum on the journal's website. Howard, Robert W. "Gender differences in intellectual performance persist at the limits of individual capabilities." Journal of biosocial science (2013): 1-19. Different methodologies do not imply methodological flaws for the article, and the criticism I found in an article which answered the one by Bilalic et al. was based on absolute ratings predicted by the model used, which fails to address that they were interested in expected differences and not in absolute ratings. I also cited other articles supporting the weight of the participation rate and the type of conclusions of Bilalic et al.. I cannot access your article, so I'd appreciate it if you could send it to me. From what I can read of the abstract, however, the author seems to fail to take into account the very sociocultural and psychological factors you correctly mentioned when drawing his conclusions, which isn't a very good indicator of the rigor of his approach. Dude, the article has been cited 8 times and 4 of those citations the authors make a point out of how bad their methodology is, they are getting completely trashed in academic terms. The remaining articles mention it in passing and do not refer to the results. I could download the pdfs for you and send you some of the articles if you like. PM me an email adress or something.
If you're looking at the statistics on google scholar, other articles on the same topic do not get cited much more, and the conclusions of Bilalić are not generally getting "trashed". Chabris and Glickman, for example, do criticize the methodology used by Bilalić but they emphasize the impact of participation rates in their own article on the topic. Knapp, whose article I referred to earlier, reaches the conclusion that 66.9% (mean value) of rating differences are explained by differing participation rates, which still highlights their importance. I had another article placing that value at 83% but I can't find it anymore (I'll edit this if I do). In addition, previous findings of the author of the article you cited, Howard, have also been criticized on methodological grounds (his 2005 article on the issue). His statements on differing drop-out rates are also inconsistent with what Chabris and Glickman found in their 2006 article on U.S. chess players which I cited earlier in the thread. Basically, I'd say caution is very much required, but I think we can agree on the combined importance of participation rates and psychological/sociocultural factors to explain differences in ratings.
My university gives me access to the articles except for the latest one by Howard, so yes I'll appreciate it if you can send that one to me. I'll send you my e-mail via PM.
|
On April 16 2014 00:59 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 00:21 kwizach wrote:On April 15 2014 18:34 marvellosity wrote:
I don't even know what kwizach is arguing anymore. It seems pretty obvious that in some areas either men or women are going to have some kind of advantage. That doesn't make either side unequal, and as others side, as long as there's equality of opportunity, then *shrug*. Also seems kinda obvious that men are still favoured (unfairly) in plenty of areas. 2. Chess rankings can hardly be used for evidence of men being biologically better than women at the activity, because of the magnitude and impact of differing participation rates and of psychological and sociocultural factors which contribute to shaping how men and women approach the game and compete against each other. I would agree with this assessment for the most part. However I find it difficult to seperate psychological and sociocultural factors from the biological. Moving away from cognitive ability, it is not clear how much of behavior come from some sort of biological wiring, and how much is a pure social contruct. I would think our concept of gender in many aspects comes from biology, not just that we are born sexually dimorphic, but also that this a significant part of our lives. I don't know how else to explain transgender people, some part of their biology must be telling them that they are a specific gender. I don't know how much of our concept of gender is a socio-cultural construct. Boys being dressed in blue and girls in pink is certainly arbitrary, but perhaps not the notion that they should be dressed differently. When it comes to behavior I am also unsure, we know that women are more risk-averse compared to men, something which could easily have an origin in the evolutionary environment of our ancestors. It is also not difficult to see how risk aversity may influence the dsitribution of outcomes. More risk aversity means more of a tendency towards mediocrity, more risky behavior a tendency towards extreme outcomes. It is not clear that in a theoretical equal opportunity world, where gender exists, but there are no gender based biases whatsoever, would lead to equal distribution for the genders in all competitive environments.
If you want a good overview of the scientific literature on the topic of the roles of culture and biology, I advise reading Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010) [also: Half the Human Experience: The Psychology of Women (8th edition, 2013) by Janet Hyde]. I mentioned it earlier in the thread - it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture initial differences. These initial differences can also very much be changed through the flexibility our brain exhibits in its development (thus pointing to the importance of sociocultural factors), which includes an impact on the type of behavior exhibited.
|
On April 16 2014 01:08 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 00:19 Crushinator wrote:On April 16 2014 00:12 kwizach wrote:On April 15 2014 23:45 Crushinator wrote:On April 15 2014 23:36 kwizach wrote:On April 15 2014 23:28 Crushinator wrote:
There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman. No they don't. As Bilalić et al. demonstrate in "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1659, 2009, pp. 1161-1165, participation rates explain 96% of the differences in ratings at the top between men and women, meaning that women do not underperform at all. To quote the article: This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts. You are right, however, with regards to the sociocultural and psychological explanations for the remaining differences in performances. The study you cite is metodologically flawed and discredited in a number of articles, including a critical addendum on the journal's website. Howard, Robert W. "Gender differences in intellectual performance persist at the limits of individual capabilities." Journal of biosocial science (2013): 1-19. Different methodologies do not imply methodological flaws for the article, and the criticism I found in an article which answered the one by Bilalic et al. was based on absolute ratings predicted by the model used, which fails to address that they were interested in expected differences and not in absolute ratings. I also cited other articles supporting the weight of the participation rate and the type of conclusions of Bilalic et al.. I cannot access your article, so I'd appreciate it if you could send it to me. From what I can read of the abstract, however, the author seems to fail to take into account the very sociocultural and psychological factors you correctly mentioned when drawing his conclusions, which isn't a very good indicator of the rigor of his approach. Dude, the article has been cited 8 times and 4 of those citations the authors make a point out of how bad their methodology is, they are getting completely trashed in academic terms. The remaining articles mention it in passing and do not refer to the results. I could download the pdfs for you and send you some of the articles if you like. PM me an email adress or something. If you're looking at the statistics on google scholar, other articles on the same topic do not get cited much more, and the conclusions of Bilalić are not generally getting "trashed". Chabris and Glickman, for example, do criticize the methodology used by Bilalić but they emphasize the impact of participation rates in their own article on the topic. Knapp, whose article I referred to earlier, reaches the conclusion that 66.9% (mean value) of rating differences are explained by differing participation rates, which still highlights their importance. I had another article placing that value at 83% but I can't find it anymore (I'll edit this if I do). In addition, previous findings of the author of the article you cited, Howard, have also been criticized on methodological grounds (his 2005 article on the issue). His statements on differing drop-out rates are also inconsistent with what Chabris and Glickman found in their 2006 article on U.S. chess players which I cited earlier in the thread. Basically, I'd say caution is very much required, but I think we can agree on the combined importance of participation rates and psychological/sociocultural factors to explain differences in ratings. My university gives me access to the articles except for the latest one by Howard, so yes I'll appreciate it if you can send that one to me. I'll send you my e-mail via PM.
I think we can atleast agree that the Bilalic paper is anomalous and highly questionable, and certainly not the authoritative final word on the subject. I think we can also agree that participation rates are very important, for both statistical and socio-cultural reasons. My comments were meant to dispute the notion that the Bilalic paper has solved the performance gap almost entirely through participation rates, not to take an extreme opposite stance. In light of the available literature perhaps we can all agree that:
- Women underperform compared to men in Chess even when adjusted for participation rates
- There is evidence for psychological socio-cultural factors'
- Because the exent to which these factors can explain the gap is unknown, there is some room for speculation about minor differences in innate ability.
- Women should not be discouraged from playing chess
|
No, their use of the data is not the crux of the argument. Even if they had not studied any data in that section, their statistical argument for the differences in ratings would remain. With regards to where they decide to explore the data in more detail, there is nothing arbitrary about looking specifically at the areas where there are at least as many girls playing as boys. They specifically explain why they do so, as I reminded you in my previous post
It's the crux of the argument, the difference between male and female chess performance arises somewhere, if there's a difference there's a reason for such difference or are you now denying there's a difference of performance between the sexes? They try to attribute the difference to ... using a graph.... well yea.
About the "Why are (the best) women so good at chess?"
(2009). The unexplained gap between the two curves
varies between 99 and 170 rating points (mean value
over 100 pairs: 124.5). If two players with a rating
difference of 124.5 points compete in a match over
100 games, the expected result is 67 : 33 in favour of
the higher rated player. Therefore, the conclusion of
Bilalic´ et al. (2009) that ‘there is little left for biological
or cultural explanations to account for’, appears to be
premature.
I am grateful to Karen Hirschmann for pointing my attention
to the work of Bilalic´ et al. (2009).
Helps when you use a proper model.
|
On April 16 2014 03:47 sibs wrote:Show nested quote +No, their use of the data is not the crux of the argument. Even if they had not studied any data in that section, their statistical argument for the differences in ratings would remain. With regards to where they decide to explore the data in more detail, there is nothing arbitrary about looking specifically at the areas where there are at least as many girls playing as boys. They specifically explain why they do so, as I reminded you in my previous post It's the crux of the argument, the difference between male and female chess performance arises somewhere, if there's a difference there's a reason for such difference or are you now denying there's a difference of performance between the sexes? They try to attribute the difference to ... using a graph.... well yea.
The crux of the argument is stated in the second paragraph of the section, in which they mention the fact that it is statistically unsurprising to see a higher average rating for males in competitions due to population sizes and the fact that there is a "cutoff" (entering the competitive scene). The four data points are studied later as an example of cases where participation rates were the same, and there is no gap between the two.
On April 16 2014 03:47 sibs wrote:About the "Why are (the best) women so good at chess?" Show nested quote +(2009). The unexplained gap between the two curves varies between 99 and 170 rating points (mean value over 100 pairs: 124.5). If two players with a rating difference of 124.5 points compete in a match over 100 games, the expected result is 67 : 33 in favour of the higher rated player. Therefore, the conclusion of Bilalic´ et al. (2009) that ‘there is little left for biological or cultural explanations to account for’, appears to be premature. I am grateful to Karen Hirschmann for pointing my attention to the work of Bilalic´ et al. (2009). Helps when you use a proper model.
The article by Bilalic is a different article and I just addressed that reply from Knapp a few posts ago so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up again. Like I said, the model used by Bilalic serves to address differences in ratings and not absolute ratings - the use of a normal distribution for the ratings is debatable, but even with his method Knapp still reaches the conclusion that more than 2/3rds of the differences are explained by participation rates.
On April 16 2014 01:45 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 01:08 kwizach wrote:On April 16 2014 00:19 Crushinator wrote:On April 16 2014 00:12 kwizach wrote:On April 15 2014 23:45 Crushinator wrote:On April 15 2014 23:36 kwizach wrote:On April 15 2014 23:28 Crushinator wrote:
There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman. No they don't. As Bilalić et al. demonstrate in "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1659, 2009, pp. 1161-1165, participation rates explain 96% of the differences in ratings at the top between men and women, meaning that women do not underperform at all. To quote the article: This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts. You are right, however, with regards to the sociocultural and psychological explanations for the remaining differences in performances. The study you cite is metodologically flawed and discredited in a number of articles, including a critical addendum on the journal's website. Howard, Robert W. "Gender differences in intellectual performance persist at the limits of individual capabilities." Journal of biosocial science (2013): 1-19. Different methodologies do not imply methodological flaws for the article, and the criticism I found in an article which answered the one by Bilalic et al. was based on absolute ratings predicted by the model used, which fails to address that they were interested in expected differences and not in absolute ratings. I also cited other articles supporting the weight of the participation rate and the type of conclusions of Bilalic et al.. I cannot access your article, so I'd appreciate it if you could send it to me. From what I can read of the abstract, however, the author seems to fail to take into account the very sociocultural and psychological factors you correctly mentioned when drawing his conclusions, which isn't a very good indicator of the rigor of his approach. Dude, the article has been cited 8 times and 4 of those citations the authors make a point out of how bad their methodology is, they are getting completely trashed in academic terms. The remaining articles mention it in passing and do not refer to the results. I could download the pdfs for you and send you some of the articles if you like. PM me an email adress or something. If you're looking at the statistics on google scholar, other articles on the same topic do not get cited much more, and the conclusions of Bilalić are not generally getting "trashed". Chabris and Glickman, for example, do criticize the methodology used by Bilalić but they emphasize the impact of participation rates in their own article on the topic. Knapp, whose article I referred to earlier, reaches the conclusion that 66.9% (mean value) of rating differences are explained by differing participation rates, which still highlights their importance. I had another article placing that value at 83% but I can't find it anymore (I'll edit this if I do). In addition, previous findings of the author of the article you cited, Howard, have also been criticized on methodological grounds (his 2005 article on the issue). His statements on differing drop-out rates are also inconsistent with what Chabris and Glickman found in their 2006 article on U.S. chess players which I cited earlier in the thread. Basically, I'd say caution is very much required, but I think we can agree on the combined importance of participation rates and psychological/sociocultural factors to explain differences in ratings. My university gives me access to the articles except for the latest one by Howard, so yes I'll appreciate it if you can send that one to me. I'll send you my e-mail via PM. I think we can atleast agree that the Bilalic paper is anomalous and highly questionable, and certainly not the authoritative final word on the subject. I think we can also agree that participation rates are very important, for both statistical and socio-cultural reasons. My comments were meant to dispute the notion that the Bilalic paper has solved the performance gap almost entirely through participation rates, not to take an extreme opposite stance. In light of the available literature perhaps we can all agree that: - Women underperform compared to men in Chess even when adjusted for participation rates - There is evidence for psychological socio-cultural factors' - Because the exent to which these factors can explain the gap is unknown, there is some room for speculation about minor differences in innate ability. - Women should not be discouraged from playing chess
I agree that it is certainly not the authoritative final word on the subject, but I disagree with calling it anomalous - it is one measure of the importance of the impact of participation rates among several studies stressing their impact, to various (still important) degrees. I would also add:
- So far, there is no evidence whatsoever of there being biological differences playing a role.
|
The crux of the argument is stated in the second paragraph of the section, in which they mention the fact that it is statistically unsurprising to see a higher average rating for males in competitions due to population sizes and the fact that there is a "cutoff" (entering the competitive scene).
Can you point it out to me?
Like I said, the model used by Bilalic serves to address differences in ratings and not absolute ratings - the use of a normal distribution for the ratings is debatable, but even with his method Knapp still reaches the conclusion that more than 2/3rds of the differences are explained by participation rates.
The model isn't correct, 96% to 66% is a large difference.
|
On April 16 2014 09:50 sibs wrote:Show nested quote +The crux of the argument is stated in the second paragraph of the section, in which they mention the fact that it is statistically unsurprising to see a higher average rating for males in competitions due to population sizes and the fact that there is a "cutoff" (entering the competitive scene). Can you point it out to me? What follows "If in the general population [...]".
On April 16 2014 09:50 sibs wrote:Show nested quote +Like I said, the model used by Bilalic serves to address differences in ratings and not absolute ratings - the use of a normal distribution for the ratings is debatable, but even with his method Knapp still reaches the conclusion that more than 2/3rds of the differences are explained by participation rates. The model isn't correct, 96% to 66% is a large difference. Two different assumptions. Also, 67% still means a major impact of participation rates.
By the way, what is your position in this broader discussion? Do you agree with Jumperer that men are biologically better than women at working jobs which earn substantial income, and that women's "rightful place" is to support the men?
|
On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote:
I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity.
Hope nobody minds me bumping this thread.
The thing is, you have no reliable means of measuring whether there is equality of opportunity between men and women, even if it remains your goal. If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all.
If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms.
Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different.
In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling, and this is why most feminist explanations for social phenomena are increasingly being dismissed.
The nature of opportunity would only follow from observing results between identical groups. I think different races are close enough to identical to comment on opportunity based on results. Men and women, however, aren't close enough to identical to allow us to do this.
My question, then, is by what standard will you judge whether men and women have equal opportunity in society?
|
Replace "men and women" with "Aryan and non-Aryan" and you'd make one helluva Nazi. Grats.
|
On June 07 2014 09:43 farvacola wrote:
Replace "men and women" with "Aryan and non-Aryan" and you'd make one helluva Nazi. Grats.
Claiming men and women are biologically different even to a small extent is akin to Naziism. Boy, that is a good argument.
|
On June 07 2014 10:08 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2014 09:43 farvacola wrote:
Replace "men and women" with "Aryan and non-Aryan" and you'd make one helluva Nazi. Grats. Claiming men and women are biologically different even to a small extent is akin to Naziism. Boy, that is a good argument.
I mean change those words around and you would make a great nazi...
|
Are you guys on drugs? First of all accusing people of being a Nazi without answering their argument is the pinnacle of intellectual laziness, but more to the point, changing the words around wouldn't meaningfully compare to being a Nazi. Golly, I can even think of reasons.
1) I actually said in my original post that I think different races are close enough to be considered identical groups -- not really a Nazi.
2) The Nazis certainly don't have a monopoly on the belief that men and women are different in numerous ways, in fact there have been studies published (even in Nature, those dastardly Nazis) that demonstrate this fact.
3) Claiming races are different isn't the same as claiming men and women are different. That men and women are different is a trivial statement, the only contentious part of it lies in what extent we take it to.
4) I'm not advocating we take away anyone's rights or gas anyone.
5) I'm not saying one is superior, only that they're different.
Seriously, why not make an argument instead of calling people Nazis. To quote farvacola from his US Politics thread,
"here are a number of thread guidelines I've devised with expedient and efficient dialogue in mind. Many of these sound similar; however, I've found that when it comes to nurturing effective communication, one cannot be redundant enough."
|
All we were stating was that the wording was very similar. No where did we excuse you of being a nazi, we just stated that changing the nouns would fit perfectly into nazi rhetoric.
|
On June 07 2014 12:12 sevencck wrote:
Are you guys on drugs? First of all accusing people of being a Nazi without answering their argument is the pinnacle of intellectual laziness, but more to the point, changing the words around wouldn't meaningfully compare to being a Nazi. Golly, I can even think of reasons.
1) I actually said in my original post that I think different races are close enough to be considered identical groups -- not really a Nazi.
2) The Nazis certainly don't have a monopoly on the belief that men and women are different in numerous ways, in fact there have been studies published (even in Nature, those dastardly Nazis) that demonstrate this fact.
3) Claiming races are different isn't the same as claiming men and women are different. That men and women are different is a trivial statement, the only contentious part of it lies in what extent we take it to.
4) I'm not advocating we take away anyone's rights or gas anyone.
5) I'm not saying one is superior, only that they're different.
Seriously, why not make an argument instead of calling people Nazis. To quote farvacola from his US Politics thread,
"here are a number of thread guidelines I've devised with expedient and efficient dialogue in mind. Many of these sound similar; however, I've found that when it comes to nurturing effective communication, one cannot be redundant enough."
You seem to be taking it for granted that differences based on sex are more significant than differences based on race. Why is that? Men and women have different sex organs of course, but women don't use their vaginas to solve math problems. I think...
|
On June 07 2014 12:58 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2014 12:12 sevencck wrote:
Are you guys on drugs? First of all accusing people of being a Nazi without answering their argument is the pinnacle of intellectual laziness, but more to the point, changing the words around wouldn't meaningfully compare to being a Nazi. Golly, I can even think of reasons.
1) I actually said in my original post that I think different races are close enough to be considered identical groups -- not really a Nazi.
2) The Nazis certainly don't have a monopoly on the belief that men and women are different in numerous ways, in fact there have been studies published (even in Nature, those dastardly Nazis) that demonstrate this fact.
3) Claiming races are different isn't the same as claiming men and women are different. That men and women are different is a trivial statement, the only contentious part of it lies in what extent we take it to.
4) I'm not advocating we take away anyone's rights or gas anyone.
5) I'm not saying one is superior, only that they're different.
Seriously, why not make an argument instead of calling people Nazis. To quote farvacola from his US Politics thread,
"here are a number of thread guidelines I've devised with expedient and efficient dialogue in mind. Many of these sound similar; however, I've found that when it comes to nurturing effective communication, one cannot be redundant enough." You seem to be taking it for granted that differences based on sex are more significant than differences based on race. Why is that? Men and women have different sex organs of course, but women don't use their vaginas to solve math problems. I think...
It isn't limited to that, but even if it were you'd have a basis for saying the sexes are more different than are races. We each stew in different hormones, have different maturation times, and some differing brain morphology. While the full extent of the difference is under contention, the matter of difference is a matter of fact. I don't see why pointing out what's perfectly obvious has to be such a radical act, acknowledging difference has nothing to do with forcing people into sex roles or deciding who is better, it's merely acknowledging difference. Trying to put words in my mouth about Aryans and non-Aryans is totally ridiculous.
On June 07 2014 12:54 Jaaaaasper wrote:
All we were stating was that the wording was very similar. No where did we excuse you of being a nazi, we just stated that changing the nouns would fit perfectly into nazi rhetoric.
Give me a break. This is a distinction without a practical significance.
|
On June 07 2014 13:39 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2014 12:58 Mercy13 wrote:On June 07 2014 12:12 sevencck wrote:
Are you guys on drugs? First of all accusing people of being a Nazi without answering their argument is the pinnacle of intellectual laziness, but more to the point, changing the words around wouldn't meaningfully compare to being a Nazi. Golly, I can even think of reasons.
1) I actually said in my original post that I think different races are close enough to be considered identical groups -- not really a Nazi.
2) The Nazis certainly don't have a monopoly on the belief that men and women are different in numerous ways, in fact there have been studies published (even in Nature, those dastardly Nazis) that demonstrate this fact.
3) Claiming races are different isn't the same as claiming men and women are different. That men and women are different is a trivial statement, the only contentious part of it lies in what extent we take it to.
4) I'm not advocating we take away anyone's rights or gas anyone.
5) I'm not saying one is superior, only that they're different.
Seriously, why not make an argument instead of calling people Nazis. To quote farvacola from his US Politics thread,
"here are a number of thread guidelines I've devised with expedient and efficient dialogue in mind. Many of these sound similar; however, I've found that when it comes to nurturing effective communication, one cannot be redundant enough." You seem to be taking it for granted that differences based on sex are more significant than differences based on race. Why is that? Men and women have different sex organs of course, but women don't use their vaginas to solve math problems. I think... It isn't limited to that, but even if it were you'd have a basis for saying the sexes are more different than are races. We each stew in different hormones, have different maturation times, and some differing brain morphology. While the full extent of the difference is under contention, the matter of difference is a matter of fact. I don't see why pointing out what's perfectly obvious has to be such a radical act, acknowledging difference has nothing to do with forcing people into sex roles or deciding who is better, it's merely acknowledging difference. Trying to put words in my mouth about Aryans and non-Aryans is totally ridiculous. Show nested quote +On June 07 2014 12:54 Jaaaaasper wrote:
All we were stating was that the wording was very similar. No where did we excuse you of being a nazi, we just stated that changing the nouns would fit perfectly into nazi rhetoric. Give me a break. This is a distinction without a practical significance.
For the record, I wasn't the one making the Nazi comparison. I'll grant that the matter of difference is fact, but not that the difference is significant. I'm not an expert on this field, but as far as I know studies that have attempted to look into this have been inconclusive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
