This is the world we’ve built. Where making people live in fear is a
feature, not a bug.
No one should have to live in fear. Unless you are scared by the
open, rational debate around whether you should be oppressed, genocided,
etc. But that would an irrational response.
The main issue I have is how Scott edges himself to the point of almost recognizing societal constraints to gender roles. Then he inevitably pulls back and jerks himself raw to "men=rational women=emotional" and it's biological in his assertion.
He doesn't say "men = rational, women = emotional." Quite the opposite:
>This seems to me like the clearest proof that women being underrepresented in CS/physics/etc is just about different interests. It’s not that they can’t do the work – all those future math teachers do just as well in their math majors as everyone else. [...] It’s just that women are more interested in some jobs, and men are more interested in others. Figure out a way to make math people-oriented, and women flock to it. If there were as many elementary school computer science teachers as there are math teachers, gender balance there would equalize without any other effort.
He also discusses societal constraints to gender roles explicitly and at great length. I suggest you actually read the essay; you might even stumble upon an objection that makes sense.
PS. /u/Myrdradek dont cyberbully me
I did read the essay, to the consternation of my poor brain cells. If you lack the reading comprehension to see his implicit gender bias in all that drivel then we have nothing to discuss.
Perhaps you might care to demonstrate your own reading comprehension, for the benefit of those less clear-eyed, by making detailed criticism showing specific knowledge of the text discussed?
Look I'm not rereading that dog whistle misogyny drivel to enlighten a, well ACKSHUALLY, concern troll who came late to the game. Go sealion somewhere else.
*nerd voice* He doesn't say "men = rational, women = emotional." Quite the opposite:
>*nerd voice* This seems to me like the clearest proof that women being underrepresented in CS/physics/etc is just about different interests. It’s not that they can’t do the work – all those future math teachers do just as well in their math majors as everyone else. [...] It’s just that women are more interested in some jobs, and men are more interested in others. Figure out a way to make math people-oriented, and women flock to it. If there were as many elementary school computer science teachers as there are math teachers, gender balance there would equalize without any other effort.
*nerd voice* He also discusses societal constraints to gender roles explicitly and at great length. I suggest you actually read the essay; you might even stumble upon an objection that makes sense.
PS. /u/Myrdradek dont cyberbully me
Man, it's funny that you choose this example, given that Scott [recently defended](http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/gender-imbalances-are-mostly-not-due-to-offensive-attitudes/) [a similar situation](https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/drupal-larry-garfield-gor.html).
But putting that aside, if the Google manifesto had included such a call, do you think Scott would support his firing? I have a hard time seeing it.
>But Trump voters were more gender-balanced than libertarians: about 47% female, 53% male.
This is a great example of the Yule–Simpson effect, where Scott wants 47% of 46% of the voting base to be rational minded decision makers, when [trump took 49% of all married women](http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls). I have to wonder if the wife of a voting republican in fact is a voting republican herself, which says more about conservative values than implicit endorsement of trump by free, open minded female voters.
> Man, it's funny that you choose this example, given that Scott recently defended a similar situation.
Yes, that post/incident is where I learned about Gor from. If you think a dumb sexual fantasy is comparable to a sincere desire for mass extermination or enslavement, then you must also object to hiring BDSM doms on the grounds that they might violently assault their coworkers for pleasure.
>But putting that aside, if the Google manifesto had included such a call, do you think Scott would support his firing? I have a hard time seeing it.
Really? Seems pretty clear-cut. Your hypothetical memo is a prescriptive, moral call to inflict unimaginable suffering, whereas the actual memo consists of descriptive claims *that are well within the scientific mainstream* whose obvious policy implications happen to make you feel uncomfortable.
There's not enough detail in the linked post to say for sure what happened in the Gor case, but I would not be surprised if the person in question had written about how female subjugation is natural/desirable. (Most likely with a note that this is how women "really" feel, or what will "really" make them happy.)
IIRC, Scott was also against the Curtis Yarvin/Lambdacon backlash.
In fact, I can't think of a single case where he's supported someone suffering any professional consequence for any speech act. So yes, I find it hard to believe that he would be in favor of firing this guy if he had written that hypothetical memo.
(Of course, my initial point is not about the memo at all.)
>There's not enough detail in the linked post to say for sure what happened in the Gor case, but I would not be surprised if the person in question had written about how female subjugation is natural/desirable.
Even if that were true and not completely hypothetical, the question would still be open as to whether or not it was just bizarre sexual role play rather than a sincere policy proposal. Things are also thornier because the guy's fetish wasn't something he was advertising or recommending to his Drupal colleagues.
>IIRC, Scott was also against the Curtis Yarvin/Lambdacon backlash.
True, but that's also not a case of Yarvin advocating slavery, much less slavery of his fellow Lambdacon attendees.
>In fact, I can't think of a single case where he's supported someone suffering any professional consequence for any speech act. So yes, I find it hard to believe that he would be in favor of firing this guy if he had written that hypothetical memo.
Let's simplify. Imagine the guy's memo advocated burning down the Google building. Do you really think the defender of free speech lacks the resources to consistently describe why this should be a fireable offense?
>(Of course, my initial point is not about the memo at all.)
Sure. But my original point was that comparing the Google memo in its relative mildness (and adherence to perfectly mainstream academic psychology) to demands for slavery, genocide and the like borders on hysteria.
EDIT: Actually, here's a quote from one of his recent posts:
>But this can’t be separated from signaling a propensity for action. Suppose Alice has the opinion “hand hygiene doesn’t matter”. The truly virtuous action is to show her (and concerned third parties) studies that prove that dangerous infections are transmissible by unwashed hands. But while you’re doing that, it’s fair to not want to eat at her restaurant. And it’s pro-social to tell other people not to eat at her restaurant either, and not to hire her as a nurse – and if she’s already a nurse, maybe to get her fired. Even though reasonable free speech norms demand that we fight bad ideas through counterargument rather than social punishment, in this case they should permit a campaign to get Alice fired.
> True, but that's also not a case of Yarvin advocating slavery, much less slavery of his fellow Lambdacon attendees.
yeeaahhh, there were no black people at Lambdacon at all!
>There's not enough detail in the linked post to say for sure what happened in the Gor case, but I would not be surprised if the person in question had written about how female subjugation is natural/desirable.
*nerd voice* Even if that were true and not completely hypothetical, the question would still be open as to whether or not it was just bizarre sexual role play rather than a sincere policy proposal. Things are also thornier because the guy's fetish wasn't something he was advertising or recommending to his Drupal colleagues.
IIRC, Scott was also against the Curtis Yarvin/Lambdacon backlash.
*nerd voice* True, but that's also not a case of Yarvin advocating slavery, much less slavery of his fellow Lambdacon attendees.
>(Of course, my initial point is not about the memo at all.)
*nerd voice* Sure. But my original point was that comparing the Google memo in its relative mildness (and adherence to perfectly mainstream academic psychology) to demands for slavery, genocide and the like borders on hysteria.
EDIT: Actually, here's a quote from one of his recent posts:
>*Charles Lindbergh voice* But this can’t be separated from signaling a propensity for action. Suppose Alice has the opinion “hand hygiene doesn’t matter”. The truly virtuous action is to show her (and concerned third parties) studies that prove that dangerous infections are transmissible by unwashed hands. But while you’re doing that, it’s fair to not want to eat at her restaurant. And it’s pro-social to tell other people not to eat at her restaurant either, and not to hire her as a nurse – and if she’s already a nurse, maybe to get her fired. Even though reasonable free speech norms demand that we fight bad ideas through counterargument rather than social punishment, in this case they should permit a campaign to get Alice fired.
>Man, it's funny that you choose this example, given that Scott recently defended a similar situation.
*nerd voice* Yes, that post/incident is where I learned about Gor from. If you think a dumb sexual fantasy is comparable to a sincere desire for mass extermination or enslavement, then you must also object to hiring BDSM doms on the grounds that they might violently assault their coworkers for pleasure.
>But putting that aside, if the Google manifesto had included such a call, do you think Scott would support his firing? I have a hard time seeing it.
*nerd voice* Really? Seems pretty clear-cut. Your hypothetical memo is a prescriptive, moral call to inflict unimaginable suffering, whereas the actual memo consists of descriptive claims that are well within the scientific mainstream whose obvious policy implications happen to make you feel uncomfortable.
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
*nerd voice* What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
“Look, when we said women couldn’t do work we were wrong, and when we
said women couldn’t do real, professional work we were wrong,
and when we said women couldn’t work in science we were wrong,
and when we said women couldn’t do hard science we were wrong.
But when we said women couldn’t do engineering and compsci we’re
right.”
I’m not familiar with any gender breakdown of legal specialties, but
I will bet you that…
“I gave you a chart about doctors. What, you want a second
piece of evidence, SSC readers? Why so greedy? Can’t we just assume I’m
right and move on?”
Also, this theory is supposedly a dichotomy of biological interests
in people vs. objects, but it’s actually “objects, machines, systems,
and danger”. And ‘danger’, with no apparent link to the
other three, is the one that explains why [Scott asserts with no
evidence that] practicing law involving ‘scary dangerous criminals’ is
not a female interest despite involving more interpersonal interaction
than object interaction. So he’s saying it’s not just a factor, it’s one
that overrules the vaunted person/object split, and yet he
gives it next to no attention. That’s a really encouraging start to this
whole ‘it’s clearly biology’ thesis.
> "I gave you a chart about doctors. What, you want a second piece of evidence, SSC readers? Why so greedy? Can't we just assume I'm right and move on?"
Well, you could ask yourself whether there'll be a noticeable split or not. And then Google it to check if you're right. (Bonus step: Update your beliefs accordingly!)
But for Scott his use of step one evidently prevented him from reaching step two. It's all part of his tendency to write apparently formalized essays that suddenly turn into on-the-fly first-draft speculation halfway through.
I don't think his essays are intended to appear 'formalized'... Anyway I probably shouldn't post here because I really like his stuff but it just seems weak to call him out on making a prediction that he was actually correct about.
I'm referring to the quote "I’m not familiar with any gender breakdown of legal specialties, but I will bet you that family law, child-related law, and various prosocial helping-communities law are disproportionately female, and patent law, technology law, and law working with scary dangerous criminals are disproportionately male. And so on for most other fields" that howloon took issue with.
That's the issue though. He starts off with solid data, then veers into straight up prognostication with no evidence, and his fan club screams about how rational he is because "look at how he backed up his initial assertion".
He makes a claim based on "I'll bet this is true", then goes forward as if it was established fact. It doesn't really matter to me if he's right, it's just bad reasoning.
Howloon's Scott: 'when we said women couldn't do engineering and compsci we're right' Actual Scott: ' my research suggests no average gender difference in ability'
Anyway, to substance. Scott's point is that all those denials of women's ability were being said at once, by his Victorian sexist. Yet women have since taken up work/real professional work to the point of rough numerical equality. Why the delay with engineering and comp sci? If there were some reason why would expect women to advance up the ranks in law and medicine before mathematics, then your implied induction would be a good one. But it's not clear why we should have made that expectation. So the delay in STEM requires explanation beyond merely gender stereotypes, because such stereotypes were not specific to STEM back when sexist Victorian was mouthing them.
So Scott left an exercise for the reader. Did howloon complete the exercise? No, along with all the sneerers, howloon just sneered. Behold: http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/diversity-toolkit/diverse-law-firms.page#note2 'when we look at all lawyers, women are under represented in criminal work, 39% compared to 47% in all other firms'. 'In firms that do private client work, women are over represented, 54% compared to 47% of all firms... Private client includes work for private individuals covering children, consumer, matrimonial, immigration, mental health, social welfare, wills and probate.' Women are also slightly underrepresented in corporate law (44 to 47). Corporations are more thing-y than regular people who die and get divorced and so on.
There are two different axes at work, people vs. things on the one hand, high vs. low risk on the other. They interact in complex ways. Sometimes one trumps the other, sometimes vice versa. It depends. Legal specialisms do not divide cleanly into 'high risk, people' and 'low risk, things'. There are high and low risk people specialisations. Women are overrepresented in the latter, underrepresented in the former, just as Scott predicts.
I really don’t get the thing about biology being a female subject because of all the fuzzy animals. Are they all going into zoology, or what?
No one should have to live in fear. Unless you are scared by the open, rational debate around whether you should be oppressed, genocided, etc. But that would an irrational response.
“Look, when we said women couldn’t do work we were wrong, and when we said women couldn’t do real, professional work we were wrong, and when we said women couldn’t work in science we were wrong, and when we said women couldn’t do hard science we were wrong. But when we said women couldn’t do engineering and compsci we’re right.”
“I gave you a chart about doctors. What, you want a second piece of evidence, SSC readers? Why so greedy? Can’t we just assume I’m right and move on?”
Also, this theory is supposedly a dichotomy of biological interests in people vs. objects, but it’s actually “objects, machines, systems, and danger”. And ‘danger’, with no apparent link to the other three, is the one that explains why [Scott asserts with no evidence that] practicing law involving ‘scary dangerous criminals’ is not a female interest despite involving more interpersonal interaction than object interaction. So he’s saying it’s not just a factor, it’s one that overrules the vaunted person/object split, and yet he gives it next to no attention. That’s a really encouraging start to this whole ‘it’s clearly biology’ thesis.
Why do painfully average nerds write like this? The style is so forced.
It’s so weird that these inherent differences between the genders only showed up in 1985. https://i.imgur.com/pkZPrOI.png