Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On May 21 2017 01:14 bardtown wrote: Edit: I'll just put this here. I recommend it to all interested.
Ah, that documentary once again makes a return on TL. I addressed it at length in a post three years ago. I'll quote myself (TL;DR below):
Now, let's take a look at the documentary you posted. I watched it entirely. To sum it up, it defends the idea that both cultural and biological factors play a role in determining the career paths and choices of men and women, and that in an "equal" society like Norway differences in the career paths of women and men (for example, engineers tend to be men and nurses tend to be women) can be explained by the fact that men and women are free to follow their natural (understand: biological) inclinations. This is demonstrated by what appears to be a candid journalist/investigator going to speak with various experts in order to understand the issue better, and reaching what looks like a logical conclusion given the evidence that he has been presented with.
I could start by pointing out to you that this very documentary that you cited as evidence of your claim in fact contradicts it since it supports the idea that culture does play a role next to biology.
Let's go a bit further than that, however (I am in debt to Odile Fillod's excellent rebuttal of the documentary), and look at how its message pertaining to the role of biology holds up under increased scrutiny. First, let's point out that the "journalist/investigator" whom we follow in the "documentary", Harald Eia, is not actually trying to "inform himself" (and he's not a journalist) - he is an active proponent of the theory that biology leads to differences in behavior and interests between men and women, including in terms of career paths. He has, in fact, published a book defending these views (EIA, Harald, IHLE, Ole-Martin (2010), Født sånn eller blitt sånn?). He has confirmed in an interview that he held these views prior to making the "documentary", and that they came to him notably after reading authors like Steven Pinker and David Buss (see his interview here). So let's keep in mind that, contrary to what is being shown on screen, this guy is absolutely not genuinely trying to get a better idea of the issue and weighing what different experts are telling him - he had already made up his mind and the entire documentary is constructed to convince the audience of the validity of the views he holds. That is why he ends the documentary by showing the expert in gender studies seemingly unable to answer what is put forward by the experts in psychology and human evolution he carefully selected.
This being said, what is the validity of the "expert opinions" he relies on to assert that biology leads to men and women essentially having different brains? One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
If you look at the numbers even further, you'll notice that, beyond the averages put forward by the authors (Baron-Cohen was not alone in writing the study), 64% of the girls did not manifest a preference for the face, and 57% of the boys did not manifest a preference for the mobile object (these percentages include those who manifested a preference for the other stimulus and those who manifested no preference for either). I'll let that sink in. In the documentary (and, in fact, in the article itself), Baron-Cohen deliberately chose to look at the results which seemed to go this way (for example, girls did spend on average more time watching the mobile stimulus than the face - even though the difference was less than 10 seconds between the two), and presented interpretations that went way beyond, and were actually contradicted by, the very results of his experience. An assertion of the type that "girls preferred the face" and "boys preferred the mobile" is actually false for a majority of both groups. In addition to these problems with the interpretation of the results, several methodological biases and problems have been pointed out with regards to the study, including actual mistakes in the statistical analysis of the results - see NASH, Alison Nash, GROSSI, Giordana (2007), "Picking Barbie’s brain: inherent sex differences in scientific ability?".
Beyond these numbers, which do not support what is said in the documentary, it's also worth mentioning that the authors apparently did not keep the actual data (or at least they're unwilling to share it), and the results they cherry-pick to support their idea that biology plays a major role have never been reproduced. In fact, they've been contradicted by other studies - see SPELKE, Elizabeth (2005), "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics - A critical review", American Psychologist, 60(9), pp. 950-958.
To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
I explored the detail of this specific part of the documentary, but similar comments can be made with regards to the other testimonies defending the existence of a biological determinism separating male and female brains in a way that leads to differences in interests and even career paths. The social scientist interviewed at the beginning which says that there is no actual scientific evidence of such biological determinism is actually perfectly right. They were not very articulate at the end (I suspect that there might have been a bias in the selection of footage to show for their answers at the end, but oh well), but the fact is simply that the scientific research done so far does NOT establish the existence of such biological determinism. There have been articles claiming to establish such differences, such as Baron-Cohen's, but they do not resist scrutiny and are systematically characterized by methodological biases/flaws and interpretation problems. In fact, if you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), 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 these initial differences (see also WITELSON, S. F. (1991), "Neural Sexual Mosaicism: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Temporo-Parietal Region for Functional Asymmetry". Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16 (1-3): pp. 131-153). Clearly, cultural factors are a driving force behind differences in career paths between men and women, and social construction of gender roles is a fundamental object of study for whomever is interested in more equality between sexes.
TL;DR: The author of the "documentary" held the prior view that biology leads to differences in behavior and interests between men and women and pretended to be a neutral investigator while in reality constructing the entire piece to convince uninformed viewers of the validity of his views. He tries to portray social scientists as naïve on the issue and as contradicted by the research done in the natural sciences, while the truth is that he cherry-picked a few natural scientists that share his positions and that do not represent in any way a consensus in their field (sometimes the opposite). It's a cleverly crafted piece, which can persuade people who are not familiar with the subject matter (especially those who hold a priori views similar to the author's), but it's pure garbage when it comes to wanting to take a look at the actual state of the scientific research (natural and social sciences) on the topic. If you're actually interested in learning more about it, in addition to the Jordan-Young reference I mention at the end of my post, I suggest reading Janet Shibley Hyde's Half the Human Experience: The Psychology of Women (8th edition, 2012) and Cordelia Fine's Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society (2017). Again, while we're not blank states and there can be some initial statistical differences in brain formation between men and women, the groups largely overlap, the binary division between men and women does not accurately reflect this initial reality, and most importantly neuroplasticity plays such a role that initial differences are unimportant in comparison to the development that occurs throughout our lives. This leads cultural variables ("nurture") to be at the core of the differences in career paths between men and women -- not biology.
You're trying to present yourself as an objective observer, and yet I can't help but suspect you are at least as inclined to the opposite position as Harald was to favouring biological factors. To suggest that the belief that there are biological differences between male and female brains is not mainstream in the sciences is beyond absurd. I'm always curious about something in these cases. Do you live in the countryside or the city?
I don't know if you watched the 'entire' documentary in the sense of watching all the episodes, but you may find the parental effect episode interesting. Then again, you might just ignore all the evidence and look for some little detail to pick on.
Can you cite evidence for you claim that the belief in biological differences in male and female brains is "mainstream" in science? You statement that the opposite is " beyond absurd" is quite strong.
It is established fact. The only people I can even conceive of denying this are gender ideologues. The question is about to what extent biological differences affect behaviour, not whether they do. We know that male and female foetuses are exposed to different levels of hormones. We know that these hormones affect brain development.
On May 21 2017 09:11 Shield wrote: I think leftists should stop paying so much attention to gender equality. If the majority of girls don't want to do IT/robotics/technical stuff, guess what, that's FINE. It's their choice. Why force them to do something they don't enjoy? I'm a software engineer and 100% of our tech staff is male at the moment. At the end of the day, we should do the job that we like because that's happiness (for most of us at least).
On the other hand, if you want to research why the majority of women don't want to pursue such careers, that's also fine. I find it interesting but that's all. Let's not force people to pick technical fields for the sake of artificial 50/50 balance. Do what you like and that's all as long as your gender isn't discriminated.
The problem arises when people talk about resistance entering a specific field, like institutionalized sexism, and are dismissed because think that means hiring ratios. The two attorneys I work for are women and most all the thing you hear form the tech industry is what people said in the legal field 15-20 year ago. Women are not interested in a combative field like like. They are not interested in a rational, reason based profession. They don't want to be lawyers and that is why there are so few. But the reality was that a lot of attorneys are assholes and when exposed to women, they were sexist assholes. The more women that entered the field, became judges and partners, the less that argument was used. It will be the same with other professions.
You could try to invite more women to tech fields as long as there is no 'positive' sexism (hiring ratio) or you reward women more than men (e.g. bardtown said that women studying Computer Science get quite a big grant). I think the same rules should apply to men. Once you try to make it more rewarding for women, you are starting to discriminate even if your cause is 'good'.
It doesn't need to be that complicated. Most good hiring policies set forth the idea that companies should hiring should reflect the resumes the company receives. If they receive 25% from women, they should be hiring around 25% women over measurable period. If they want to increase the the number of women being hired, they simply need to seek out more resumes from women. On a long enough time line, if the hiring process is fair, the problem sorts itself out. Although companies have said that it can be difficult to find resumes when a lot of them using head hunting agencies and other companies that may have their own systemic or human biases.
It is a complex issue with no simple solution. But companies that are attempting to address it have said that simply asking for more resumes is an effective solution.
On May 21 2017 22:11 silynxer wrote: Uhm bardtown, kwizach does not argue that there are no biological differences between male and female brains. In fact he literally wrote
...we're not blank states and there can be some initial statistical differences in brain formation between men and women,...
the truth is that he cherry-picked a few natural scientists that share his positions and that do not represent in any way a consensus in their field (sometimes the opposite)
All the documentary claims is that sex differences influence peoples life choices. There is consensus on this in all relevant fields. He also focuses on the age old straw man of 'biological determinism' which either demonstrates misunderstanding or misrepresentation.
That does not say he believes there are no biological differences. Or that sex doesn't impact decision making. The documentary and he are saying that they are not as significant to societal outcomes as some make them out to be.
I find it absurd and extremely surprised that someone from England (trust me I'm surprised to see you here Bardtown so this is not ad hominem lol) holds such a view on genders /sexuality. (And this is related to England because I have lived and worked there and I found it such a huge difference when I travel and acquaint people outside of uk/Ireland.)
The quick context here is that down south especially London, you are risking to offend a girl if you hold the door and let her go through first.
Now, the funny thing is that when you treat the girls like any guy (literally), like you speak to and want to get the work done, doing discussion etc, they hate it. You must tailor and adapt your emotional flows (and your tone and your gesture) when you are speaking with them and even adjusting the work load accordingly. And guess what, foreign girls (Italian Finnish polish Spanish) don't have such behaviour (or significantly requiring less accommodating when you deal with them). I'm talking professional field here that one bloody mistake cost alot and I need to keep adjusting myself to deal with them.
Now, see, when I see an English person discussing this kind of topic with anyone from outside of uk, I chuckled. because it is such a huge difference in daily interactions with women here than in continental European countries, so imagine an English person who grows up and live in uk all his life - his whole perception of the behaviour and patterns of the opposite sex would be entirely different from others.
And then here comes my point, I'm surprised to see Bardtown's opinion is the one I agreed with lol. because what is the wrong in girls liking pink and hate IT in comparison to boys liking robots and cars? but I must say it is a very 'red pilled' when you hear an English (guy) who hold such opinion. But ya, what's the need to push for gender equality in certain fields and jobs that we know women simply won't do it. I am just sick of women (or men, if men ever did) complained on pay inequality etc, but when some fields are completely dominated with women (and ohyes they are on huge paid roll) but you won't hear them to complain about and want more guys to join them (or give them more bonus aha).
And don't get me wrong, different regions have different behaviour from women, Latino related countries you can tend to be very gentlemen like and you are fine; Germany for example it is like speaking with a guy when you speak with a German girl, and that's great because I want to get things done and the admiration comes more from the inside (not saying that they don't look feminine, they do dress like woman), and that also depends on where is the girl from etc. Obviously all is just generalisation in a broad term, but the significance of observation in there between uk/Ireland to continental Europe.
and oh, the English females who work outside of uk dont count, they know how to behave when they are outside of uk, and there is a difference in attitude between working expats and travellers.
I really hate this thread. We are back to arguing a ridiculous non-point because of ideologically driven stupidity. The same people who were trying to tell me that culture had nothing to do with different groups different behaviours are now trying to tell me that peoples behaviours are entirely defined by their culture.
The sexes are different in every species on the planet. If you don't believe that, go and live on a farm for a year then learn to move the fuck on. Just because you want a world where everybody is perfectly equal in every way does not mean that is the case or will ever be the case.
@BurningSera Maybe it's coincidental but I've only ever dated foreign women .
I live in one of the most liberal, college filled states is the USA and I have never in 37 years, seen a woman become offended for holding the door. I grew up to one of the most liberal, feminists, all women's colleges in the country and it never happened. I've never even heard of it happening. I don't know what you folks are doing to offend women all the time, but the problem might not be rooting in feminism and have more to do with you.
On May 21 2017 22:36 bardtown wrote: I really hate this thread. We are back to arguing a ridiculous non-point because of ideologically driven stupidity. The same people who were trying to tell me that culture had nothing to do with different groups different behaviours are now trying to tell me that peoples behaviours are entirely defined by their culture.
The sexes are different in every species on the planet. If you don't believe that, go and live on a farm for a year then learn to move the fuck on. Just because you want a world where everybody is perfectly equal in every way does not mean that is the case or will ever be the case.
It must be rough when people point out that your views might be simplistic observations to wildly complex systems.
On May 21 2017 22:22 Plansix wrote: That does not say he believes there are no biological differences. Or that sex doesn't impact decision making. The documentary and he are saying that they are not as significant to societal outcomes as some make them out to be.
If thats the outcome then it is easily agreed upon; but I think that video tried to elaborate more than that. I will have to rewatch it again (can't sit through that now and j watched it before).
But I think the real issue is that many women are more inclined (or more comfortable) with whatever social structure they are in, for example, even when they could code like a mofo in programming but they simply are not motivated or keen of that, and that contribute to the social structure itself of 'less women in IT'. Now, less women in IT is a simple fact, but people will push it further to 'women are not good at IT' and guess what, that also fuel the same social construct again.
and then when you are in 2017, if you still need to say give bonus scholarship to girl or guy to encourage them to do something, that's just dumb and not being practical.
See, the real real issue is that when one like me treats and sees everyone as an absolutely equal, that 'if I can do it, you can do it, and I'm not surprised you can do it better'; that got me into so many troubles in daily life and work (nothing too bad that blows up etc but wasted my time and effort 'if I knew this better').
The bottomline, we need educate that gender equality = equal opportunity for both sexes (or whoever sex you claim you are). No compensation, no bullshit. Because the easiest way to shut up a girl talks about pay gap or job inequality etc, just ask them, how do you feel if the company hired you because you are a women?
and then, we go back to the same issue, different sexes simply prefer to do different things, and that's fine. I don't see a problem is that. Hence, I deeply believe this gender topic is highly related to another root issue of humanity simply prefers the 'easy' ways in life (but not willing to work harder to go up). The social immobility, the class system whatever you want to call it, what happened in the past are deeply rooted in today's all kinds of social constructs.
On May 21 2017 22:22 Plansix wrote: That does not say he believes there are no biological differences. Or that sex doesn't impact decision making. The documentary and he are saying that they are not as significant to societal outcomes as some make them out to be.
If thats the outcome then it is easily agreed upon; but I think that video tried to elaborate more than that. I will have to rewatch it again (can't sit through that now and j watched it before).
But I think the real issue is that many women are more inclined (or more comfortable) with whatever social structure they are in, for example, even when they could code like a mofo in programming but they simply are not motivated or keen of that, and that contribute to the social structure itself of 'less women in IT'. Now, less women in IT is a simple fact, but people will push it further to 'women are not good at IT' and guess what, that also fuel the same social construct again.
and then when you are in 2017, if you still need to say give bonus scholarship to girl or guy to encourage them to do something, that's just dumb and not being practical.
See, the real real issue is that when one like me treats and sees everyone as an absolutely equal, that 'if I can do it, you can do it, and I'm not surprised you can do it 'better'; that got me into so many troubles in daily life and work (nothing too bad that blows up etc but wasted my time and effort 'if I knew this better').
The bottomline, we need educate that gender equality = equal opportunity for both sexes (or whoever sex you claim you are). No compensation, no bullshit. Because the easiest way to shut up a girl talks about pay gap or job inequality etc, just ask them, how do you feel if the company hired you because you are a women?
That is fine. Just as long as people get out of the way when any group tries to address sexism in a company or industry if it exist. Which is the problem, we don't live in the equal world you describe yet. Back in 2003 female attorneys were not allowed to wear pants in court in my state. Only skirts. I'm in one of the most liberal states in the US and that was slightly over 10 years ago.
On May 21 2017 22:22 Plansix wrote: That does not say he believes there are no biological differences. Or that sex doesn't impact decision making. The documentary and he are saying that they are not as significant to societal outcomes as some make them out to be.
If thats the outcome then it is easily agreed upon; but I think that video tried to elaborate more than that. I will have to rewatch it again (can't sit through that now and j watched it before).
But I think the real issue is that many women are more inclined (or more comfortable) with whatever social structure they are in, for example, even when they could code like a mofo in programming but they simply are not motivated or keen of that, and that contribute to the social structure itself of 'less women in IT'. Now, less women in IT is a simple fact, but people will push it further to 'women are not good at IT' and guess what, that also fuel the same social construct again.
and then when you are in 2017, if you still need to say give bonus scholarship to girl or guy to encourage them to do something, that's just dumb and not being practical.
See, the real real issue is that when one like me treats and sees everyone as an absolutely equal, that 'if I can do it, you can do it, and I'm not surprised you can do it 'better'; that got me into so many troubles in daily life and work (nothing too bad that blows up etc but wasted my time and effort 'if I knew this better').
The bottomline, we need educate that gender equality = equal opportunity for both sexes (or whoever sex you claim you are). No compensation, no bullshit. Because the easiest way to shut up a girl talks about pay gap or job inequality etc, just ask them, how do you feel if the company hired you because you are a women?
That is fine. Just as long as people get out of the way when any group tries to address sexism in a company or industry if it exist. Which is the problem, we don't live in the equal world you describe yet. Back in 2003 female attorneys were not allowed to wear pants in court in my state. Only skirts. I'm in one of the most liberal states in the US and that was slightly over 10 years ago.
On May 21 2017 22:22 Plansix wrote: That does not say he believes there are no biological differences. Or that sex doesn't impact decision making. The documentary and he are saying that they are not as significant to societal outcomes as some make them out to be.
If thats the outcome then it is easily agreed upon; but I think that video tried to elaborate more than that. I will have to rewatch it again (can't sit through that now and j watched it before).
But I think the real issue is that many women are more inclined (or more comfortable) with whatever social structure they are in, for example, even when they could code like a mofo in programming but they simply are not motivated or keen of that, and that contribute to the social structure itself of 'less women in IT'. Now, less women in IT is a simple fact, but people will push it further to 'women are not good at IT' and guess what, that also fuel the same social construct again.
and then when you are in 2017, if you still need to say give bonus scholarship to girl or guy to encourage them to do something, that's just dumb and not being practical.
See, the real real issue is that when one like me treats and sees everyone as an absolutely equal, that 'if I can do it, you can do it, and I'm not surprised you can do it 'better'; that got me into so many troubles in daily life and work (nothing too bad that blows up etc but wasted my time and effort 'if I knew this better').
The bottomline, we need educate that gender equality = equal opportunity for both sexes (or whoever sex you claim you are). No compensation, no bullshit. Because the easiest way to shut up a girl talks about pay gap or job inequality etc, just ask them, how do you feel if the company hired you because you are a women?
That is fine. Just as long as people get out of the way when any group tries to address sexism in a company or industry if it exist. Which is the problem, we don't live in the equal world you describe yet. Back in 2003 female attorneys were not allowed to wear pants in court in my state. Only skirts. I'm in one of the most liberal states in the US and that was slightly over 10 years ago.
I take it that men could wear skirts?
The rule was changed after it was shown that male attorneys were almost never disciplined for not meeting the courts dress code, while women were. The rules disproportionately impacted women and had separate rules women.
On May 21 2017 22:22 Plansix wrote: That does not say he believes there are no biological differences. Or that sex doesn't impact decision making. The documentary and he are saying that they are not as significant to societal outcomes as some make them out to be.
If thats the outcome then it is easily agreed upon; but I think that video tried to elaborate more than that. I will have to rewatch it again (can't sit through that now and j watched it before).
But I think the real issue is that many women are more inclined (or more comfortable) with whatever social structure they are in, for example, even when they could code like a mofo in programming but they simply are not motivated or keen of that, and that contribute to the social structure itself of 'less women in IT'. Now, less women in IT is a simple fact, but people will push it further to 'women are not good at IT' and guess what, that also fuel the same social construct again.
and then when you are in 2017, if you still need to say give bonus scholarship to girl or guy to encourage them to do something, that's just dumb and not being practical.
See, the real real issue is that when one like me treats and sees everyone as an absolutely equal, that 'if I can do it, you can do it, and I'm not surprised you can do it 'better'; that got me into so many troubles in daily life and work (nothing too bad that blows up etc but wasted my time and effort 'if I knew this better').
The bottomline, we need educate that gender equality = equal opportunity for both sexes (or whoever sex you claim you are). No compensation, no bullshit. Because the easiest way to shut up a girl talks about pay gap or job inequality etc, just ask them, how do you feel if the company hired you because you are a women?
That is fine. Just as long as people get out of the way when any group tries to address sexism in a company or industry if it exist. Which is the problem, we don't live in the equal world you describe yet. Back in 2003 female attorneys were not allowed to wear pants in court in my state. Only skirts. I'm in one of the most liberal states in the US and that was slightly over 10 years ago.
I take it that men could wear skirts?
The rule was changed after it was shown that male attorneys were almost never disciplined for not meeting the courts dress code, while women were. The rules disproportionately impacted women and had separate rules women.
Fair enough.
Back to the biological issue for a second, I want one of the progressives to dissolve a paradox for me. It seems to be the case that the same people who will say gender is a social construct and that behavioural sex differences are explained by culture will also claim that transgender people are 'born into the wrong body'. Given that gender dysphoria manifests in severe discomfort in interactions across the board, how can you then maintain that biological differences do not have a profound impact on behaviour/inclination?
I feel it's a bit hard to discuss such topic in a forum where women representation is infinitesimal: aren't you missing a critical side in the discussion?
On May 21 2017 22:22 Plansix wrote: That does not say he believes there are no biological differences. Or that sex doesn't impact decision making. The documentary and he are saying that they are not as significant to societal outcomes as some make them out to be.
If thats the outcome then it is easily agreed upon; but I think that video tried to elaborate more than that. I will have to rewatch it again (can't sit through that now and j watched it before).
But I think the real issue is that many women are more inclined (or more comfortable) with whatever social structure they are in, for example, even when they could code like a mofo in programming but they simply are not motivated or keen of that, and that contribute to the social structure itself of 'less women in IT'. Now, less women in IT is a simple fact, but people will push it further to 'women are not good at IT' and guess what, that also fuel the same social construct again.
and then when you are in 2017, if you still need to say give bonus scholarship to girl or guy to encourage them to do something, that's just dumb and not being practical.
See, the real real issue is that when one like me treats and sees everyone as an absolutely equal, that 'if I can do it, you can do it, and I'm not surprised you can do it 'better'; that got me into so many troubles in daily life and work (nothing too bad that blows up etc but wasted my time and effort 'if I knew this better').
The bottomline, we need educate that gender equality = equal opportunity for both sexes (or whoever sex you claim you are). No compensation, no bullshit. Because the easiest way to shut up a girl talks about pay gap or job inequality etc, just ask them, how do you feel if the company hired you because you are a women?
That is fine. Just as long as people get out of the way when any group tries to address sexism in a company or industry if it exist. Which is the problem, we don't live in the equal world you describe yet. Back in 2003 female attorneys were not allowed to wear pants in court in my state. Only skirts. I'm in one of the most liberal states in the US and that was slightly over 10 years ago.
I take it that men could wear skirts?
Scots already do. You should know better as a British person. :D
Ah, that documentary once again makes a return on TL. I addressed it at length in a post three years ago. I'll quote myself (TL;DR below):
Now, let's take a look at the documentary you posted. I watched it entirely. To sum it up, it defends the idea that both cultural and biological factors play a role in determining the career paths and choices of men and women, and that in an "equal" society like Norway differences in the career paths of women and men (for example, engineers tend to be men and nurses tend to be women) can be explained by the fact that men and women are free to follow their natural (understand: biological) inclinations. This is demonstrated by what appears to be a candid journalist/investigator going to speak with various experts in order to understand the issue better, and reaching what looks like a logical conclusion given the evidence that he has been presented with.
I could start by pointing out to you that this very documentary that you cited as evidence of your claim in fact contradicts it since it supports the idea that culture does play a role next to biology.
Let's go a bit further than that, however (I am in debt to Odile Fillod's excellent rebuttal of the documentary), and look at how its message pertaining to the role of biology holds up under increased scrutiny. First, let's point out that the "journalist/investigator" whom we follow in the "documentary", Harald Eia, is not actually trying to "inform himself" (and he's not a journalist) - he is an active proponent of the theory that biology leads to differences in behavior and interests between men and women, including in terms of career paths. He has, in fact, published a book defending these views (EIA, Harald, IHLE, Ole-Martin (2010), Født sånn eller blitt sånn?). He has confirmed in an interview that he held these views prior to making the "documentary", and that they came to him notably after reading authors like Steven Pinker and David Buss (see his interview here). So let's keep in mind that, contrary to what is being shown on screen, this guy is absolutely not genuinely trying to get a better idea of the issue and weighing what different experts are telling him - he had already made up his mind and the entire documentary is constructed to convince the audience of the validity of the views he holds. That is why he ends the documentary by showing the expert in gender studies seemingly unable to answer what is put forward by the experts in psychology and human evolution he carefully selected.
This being said, what is the validity of the "expert opinions" he relies on to assert that biology leads to men and women essentially having different brains? One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
If you look at the numbers even further, you'll notice that, beyond the averages put forward by the authors (Baron-Cohen was not alone in writing the study), 64% of the girls did not manifest a preference for the face, and 57% of the boys did not manifest a preference for the mobile object (these percentages include those who manifested a preference for the other stimulus and those who manifested no preference for either). I'll let that sink in. In the documentary (and, in fact, in the article itself), Baron-Cohen deliberately chose to look at the results which seemed to go this way (for example, girls did spend on average more time watching the mobile stimulus than the face - even though the difference was less than 10 seconds between the two), and presented interpretations that went way beyond, and were actually contradicted by, the very results of his experience. An assertion of the type that "girls preferred the face" and "boys preferred the mobile" is actually false for a majority of both groups. In addition to these problems with the interpretation of the results, several methodological biases and problems have been pointed out with regards to the study, including actual mistakes in the statistical analysis of the results - see NASH, Alison Nash, GROSSI, Giordana (2007), "Picking Barbie’s brain: inherent sex differences in scientific ability?".
Beyond these numbers, which do not support what is said in the documentary, it's also worth mentioning that the authors apparently did not keep the actual data (or at least they're unwilling to share it), and the results they cherry-pick to support their idea that biology plays a major role have never been reproduced. In fact, they've been contradicted by other studies - see SPELKE, Elizabeth (2005), "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics - A critical review", American Psychologist, 60(9), pp. 950-958.
To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
I explored the detail of this specific part of the documentary, but similar comments can be made with regards to the other testimonies defending the existence of a biological determinism separating male and female brains in a way that leads to differences in interests and even career paths. The social scientist interviewed at the beginning which says that there is no actual scientific evidence of such biological determinism is actually perfectly right. They were not very articulate at the end (I suspect that there might have been a bias in the selection of footage to show for their answers at the end, but oh well), but the fact is simply that the scientific research done so far does NOT establish the existence of such biological determinism. There have been articles claiming to establish such differences, such as Baron-Cohen's, but they do not resist scrutiny and are systematically characterized by methodological biases/flaws and interpretation problems. In fact, if you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), 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 these initial differences (see also WITELSON, S. F. (1991), "Neural Sexual Mosaicism: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Temporo-Parietal Region for Functional Asymmetry". Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16 (1-3): pp. 131-153). Clearly, cultural factors are a driving force behind differences in career paths between men and women, and social construction of gender roles is a fundamental object of study for whomever is interested in more equality between sexes.
TL;DR: The author of the "documentary" held the prior view that biology leads to differences in behavior and interests between men and women and pretended to be a neutral investigator while in reality constructing the entire piece to convince uninformed viewers of the validity of his views. He tries to portray social scientists as naïve on the issue and as contradicted by the research done in the natural sciences, while the truth is that he cherry-picked a few natural scientists that share his positions and that do not represent in any way a consensus in their field (sometimes the opposite). It's a cleverly crafted piece, which can persuade people who are not familiar with the subject matter (especially those who hold a priori views similar to the author's), but it's pure garbage when it comes to wanting to take a look at the actual state of the scientific research (natural and social sciences) on the topic. If you're actually interested in learning more about it, in addition to the Jordan-Young reference I mention at the end of my post, I suggest reading Janet Shibley Hyde's Half the Human Experience: The Psychology of Women (8th edition, 2012) and Cordelia Fine's Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society (2017). Again, while we're not blank states and there can be some initial statistical differences in brain formation between men and women, the groups largely overlap, the binary division between men and women does not accurately reflect this initial reality, and most importantly neuroplasticity plays such a role that initial differences are unimportant in comparison to the development that occurs throughout our lives. This leads cultural variables ("nurture") to be at the core of the differences in career paths between men and women -- not biology.
You're trying to present yourself as an objective observer, and yet I can't help but suspect you are at least as inclined to the opposite position as Harald was to favouring biological factors. To suggest that the belief that there are biological differences between male and female brains is not mainstream in the sciences is beyond absurd. I'm always curious about something in these cases. Do you live in the countryside or the city?
I don't know if you watched the 'entire' documentary in the sense of watching all the episodes, but you may find the parental effect episode interesting. Then again, you might just ignore all the evidence and look for some little detail to pick on.
This is an excellent example of a non-reply that doesn't address the points raised, re-states the original position without the slightest attention paid to what was just argued and referenced, misrepresents the argument of the previous post, and seeks to discredit the other poster through unjustified means and accusations. Thanks for establishing that you're not interested in having an honest discussion on the topic.
Firstly, I'm not "trying to present [myself]" in any particular way -- this is you trying to draw a false equivalency with my (factual) comments on the author of the pseudo-documentary that you posted, in order to deflect from the contents of my post on the video itself. Secondly, I certainly did not "ignore all the evidence and look for some little detail to pick on" -- I actually did the exact opposite, namely address both the pseudo-documentary and the wider debate on sexual and gender differences in cognition and career paths. You're the one who brought up that piece and presented it as insightful and informative; I explained that it's not only not informative, but it actually actively -- and voluntarily -- spreads misinformation on the topic. If you have a rebuttal to my points on the documentary, feel free to present it. Thirdly, I'm not sure why you're advising me to watch a follow-up piece given that (a) I just explained to you why the original piece that you linked was garbage and (b) I'm quite familiar with the actual state of the scientific research on the topic and literally just provided you with several references that study the state of the art and provide a much more in-depth overview than any documentary possibly could.
Finally, and like silynxer pointed out, I did not say that there were zero biological differences at any point between men and women. I specifically addressed this when I wrote "although we're not blank states and there can be some initial statistical differences in brain formation between men and women, the groups largely overlap, the binary division between men and women does not accurately reflect this initial reality, and most importantly neuroplasticity plays such a role that initial differences are unimportant in comparison to the development that occurs throughout our lives". I want to stress again that I am not arguing that it is scientifically established that the statistical differences in brain biology that have been observed play no role whatsoever in some of the differences in career paths that continue to exist in many societies. The point is indeed instead that the biological differences that have been highlighted through research are often grossly caricatured and overemphasized way beyond what the scientific research actually says (including occasionally to an extent by some researchers themselves, but usually through poor journalism and misuse/distortion by people with an ideological agenda), and that there is so far no clear and conclusive scientific evidence to affirm that the main causes (or even major causes) of the wide range of systemic differences in career paths that can be observed between men and women (the topic that was being discussed here) are rooted in the limited, statistical, (cognitive) biological differences that have been observed (although they might well sometimes play a role in some capacity, perhaps more specifically as they interplay with cultural factors) -- especially considering the fact that the incredible importance of cultural factors has been, and continues to be, well studied and established (incidentally, some current strands of research also seek to study the influence of cultural factors on what were previously considered to be strictly biological, and related to sex, variations over one's life, for example with regards to health issues). And just in case this needs to be pointed out, the Nature article that you posted on this page doesn't indicate otherwise in the slightest.
Ah, that documentary once again makes a return on TL. I addressed it at length in a post three years ago. I'll quote myself (TL;DR below):
Now, let's take a look at the documentary you posted. I watched it entirely. To sum it up, it defends the idea that both cultural and biological factors play a role in determining the career paths and choices of men and women, and that in an "equal" society like Norway differences in the career paths of women and men (for example, engineers tend to be men and nurses tend to be women) can be explained by the fact that men and women are free to follow their natural (understand: biological) inclinations. This is demonstrated by what appears to be a candid journalist/investigator going to speak with various experts in order to understand the issue better, and reaching what looks like a logical conclusion given the evidence that he has been presented with.
I could start by pointing out to you that this very documentary that you cited as evidence of your claim in fact contradicts it since it supports the idea that culture does play a role next to biology.
Let's go a bit further than that, however (I am in debt to Odile Fillod's excellent rebuttal of the documentary), and look at how its message pertaining to the role of biology holds up under increased scrutiny. First, let's point out that the "journalist/investigator" whom we follow in the "documentary", Harald Eia, is not actually trying to "inform himself" (and he's not a journalist) - he is an active proponent of the theory that biology leads to differences in behavior and interests between men and women, including in terms of career paths. He has, in fact, published a book defending these views (EIA, Harald, IHLE, Ole-Martin (2010), Født sånn eller blitt sånn?). He has confirmed in an interview that he held these views prior to making the "documentary", and that they came to him notably after reading authors like Steven Pinker and David Buss (see his interview here). So let's keep in mind that, contrary to what is being shown on screen, this guy is absolutely not genuinely trying to get a better idea of the issue and weighing what different experts are telling him - he had already made up his mind and the entire documentary is constructed to convince the audience of the validity of the views he holds. That is why he ends the documentary by showing the expert in gender studies seemingly unable to answer what is put forward by the experts in psychology and human evolution he carefully selected.
This being said, what is the validity of the "expert opinions" he relies on to assert that biology leads to men and women essentially having different brains? One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
If you look at the numbers even further, you'll notice that, beyond the averages put forward by the authors (Baron-Cohen was not alone in writing the study), 64% of the girls did not manifest a preference for the face, and 57% of the boys did not manifest a preference for the mobile object (these percentages include those who manifested a preference for the other stimulus and those who manifested no preference for either). I'll let that sink in. In the documentary (and, in fact, in the article itself), Baron-Cohen deliberately chose to look at the results which seemed to go this way (for example, girls did spend on average more time watching the mobile stimulus than the face - even though the difference was less than 10 seconds between the two), and presented interpretations that went way beyond, and were actually contradicted by, the very results of his experience. An assertion of the type that "girls preferred the face" and "boys preferred the mobile" is actually false for a majority of both groups. In addition to these problems with the interpretation of the results, several methodological biases and problems have been pointed out with regards to the study, including actual mistakes in the statistical analysis of the results - see NASH, Alison Nash, GROSSI, Giordana (2007), "Picking Barbie’s brain: inherent sex differences in scientific ability?".
Beyond these numbers, which do not support what is said in the documentary, it's also worth mentioning that the authors apparently did not keep the actual data (or at least they're unwilling to share it), and the results they cherry-pick to support their idea that biology plays a major role have never been reproduced. In fact, they've been contradicted by other studies - see SPELKE, Elizabeth (2005), "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics - A critical review", American Psychologist, 60(9), pp. 950-958.
To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
I explored the detail of this specific part of the documentary, but similar comments can be made with regards to the other testimonies defending the existence of a biological determinism separating male and female brains in a way that leads to differences in interests and even career paths. The social scientist interviewed at the beginning which says that there is no actual scientific evidence of such biological determinism is actually perfectly right. They were not very articulate at the end (I suspect that there might have been a bias in the selection of footage to show for their answers at the end, but oh well), but the fact is simply that the scientific research done so far does NOT establish the existence of such biological determinism. There have been articles claiming to establish such differences, such as Baron-Cohen's, but they do not resist scrutiny and are systematically characterized by methodological biases/flaws and interpretation problems. In fact, if you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), 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 these initial differences (see also WITELSON, S. F. (1991), "Neural Sexual Mosaicism: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Temporo-Parietal Region for Functional Asymmetry". Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16 (1-3): pp. 131-153). Clearly, cultural factors are a driving force behind differences in career paths between men and women, and social construction of gender roles is a fundamental object of study for whomever is interested in more equality between sexes.
TL;DR: The author of the "documentary" held the prior view that biology leads to differences in behavior and interests between men and women and pretended to be a neutral investigator while in reality constructing the entire piece to convince uninformed viewers of the validity of his views. He tries to portray social scientists as naïve on the issue and as contradicted by the research done in the natural sciences, while the truth is that he cherry-picked a few natural scientists that share his positions and that do not represent in any way a consensus in their field (sometimes the opposite). It's a cleverly crafted piece, which can persuade people who are not familiar with the subject matter (especially those who hold a priori views similar to the author's), but it's pure garbage when it comes to wanting to take a look at the actual state of the scientific research (natural and social sciences) on the topic. If you're actually interested in learning more about it, in addition to the Jordan-Young reference I mention at the end of my post, I suggest reading Janet Shibley Hyde's Half the Human Experience: The Psychology of Women (8th edition, 2012) and Cordelia Fine's Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society (2017). Again, while we're not blank states and there can be some initial statistical differences in brain formation between men and women, the groups largely overlap, the binary division between men and women does not accurately reflect this initial reality, and most importantly neuroplasticity plays such a role that initial differences are unimportant in comparison to the development that occurs throughout our lives. This leads cultural variables ("nurture") to be at the core of the differences in career paths between men and women -- not biology.
You're trying to present yourself as an objective observer, and yet I can't help but suspect you are at least as inclined to the opposite position as Harald was to favouring biological factors. To suggest that the belief that there are biological differences between male and female brains is not mainstream in the sciences is beyond absurd. I'm always curious about something in these cases. Do you live in the countryside or the city?
I don't know if you watched the 'entire' documentary in the sense of watching all the episodes, but you may find the parental effect episode interesting. Then again, you might just ignore all the evidence and look for some little detail to pick on.
This is an excellent example of a non-reply that doesn't address the points raised, re-states the original position without the slightest attention paid to what was just argued and referenced, misrepresents the argument of the previous post, and seeks to discredit the other poster through unjustified means and accusations. Thanks for establishing that you're not interested in having an honest discussion on the topic.
Firstly, I'm not "trying to present [myself]" in any particular way -- this is you trying to draw a false equivalency with my (factual) comments on the author of the pseudo-documentary that you posted, in order to deflect from the contents of my post on the video itself. Secondly, I certainly did no "ignore all the evidence and look for some little detail to pick on" -- I actually did the exact opposite, namely address both the pseudo-documentary and the wider debate on sexual and gender differences in cognition and career paths. You're the one who brought up that piece and presented it as insightful and informative; I explained that it's not only not informative, but it actually actively -- and voluntarily -- spreads misinformation on the topic. If you have a rebuttal to my points on the documentary, feel free to present it. Thirdly, I'm not sure why you're advising me to watch a follow-up piece given that (a) I just explained to you why the original piece that you linked was garbage and (b) I'm quite familiar with the actual state of the scientific research on the topic and literally just provided you with several references that study the state of the art and provide a much more in-depth overview than any documentary possibly could.
Finally, and like silynxer pointed out, I did not say that there were zero biological differences at any point between men and women. I specifically addressed this when I wrote "although we're not blank states and there can be some initial statistical differences in brain formation between men and women, the groups largely overlap, the binary division between men and women does not accurately reflect this initial reality, and most importantly neuroplasticity plays such a role that initial differences are unimportant in comparison to the development that occurs throughout our lives". I want to stress again that I am not arguing that it is scientifically established that the statistical differences in brain biology that have been observed play no role whatsoever in some of the differences in career paths that continue to exist in many societies. The point is indeed instead that the biological differences that have been highlighted through research are often grossly caricatured and overemphasized way beyond what the scientific research actually says (including occasionally to an extent by some researchers themselves, but usually through poor journalism and misuse/distortion by people with an ideological agenda), and that there is so far no clear and conclusive scientific evidence to affirm that the main causes (or even major causes) of the wide range of systemic differences in career paths that can be observed between men and women (the topic that was being discussed here) are rooted in the limited, statistical, (cognitive) biological differences that have been observed -- especially considering the fact that the incredible importance of cultural factors has been, and continues to be, well studied and established (incidentally, some current strands of research also seek to study the influence of cultural factors on what were previously considered to be strictly biological, and related to sex, variations over one's life, for example with regards to health issues). And just in case this needs to be pointed out, the Nature article that you posted on this page doesn't indicate otherwise in the slightest.
The Nature article links neural development to severe behavioural abnormalities. Incidentally, so does Baron-Cohen's autism research, which goes well beyond the minor point you spent most of your post criticising. What of the link between foetal exposure to testosterone and the lifelong displaying of traits associated with autism? Did you notice that neuroplasticity failed to erase these traits? Let's go back to beating left handed people until neuroplasticity works its magic. What about the consistency of gender preferences across all cultures? You criticised the science of one small part of the documentary for overemphasising the result, and then acted as though this was sufficient to dismiss the entire body of evidence pointing to the conclusion that biology has a significant effect on gender specific behavioural traits. You're guilty of exactly the misrepresentation you claim to be against.
I still don't understand why this discussion always devolves into this weird biology talk. It's entirely irrelevant. Whether male or female brains are different is a descriptive, not a prescriptive statement. Hume told us 300 years ago that we cannot get an ought from an is and that hasn't changed. Assuming their brains are different, why should I even care? Male and female heart attack rates is different, does anybody take this to be a good thing simply because it is? Men maybe act more aggressive in groups than women, is that good?
Pointing to a difference isn't sufficient, it needs to be explained why that different ought to be tolerated rather than eliminated. Which we can certainly do
EPT
.
