Equality of outcomes is usually determined on an individual basis. When you consider a whole population and the distribution curve that's a measure of equality of opportunity. Like a Monte Carlo test for randomness.
Remember that memo written by James Damore? He said something similar, but then the authors of the studies that he cited as evidence came out and said that the biological differences they found were tiny and that the conclusion it might affect ability or even desire to do a certain type of job is unwarranted.
Considering all we know about the social elements effecting these things, and the lack of supporting evidence for biological effects, I think we shouldn't give up on helping boys reach the same level in non-STEM subjects and on helping girls continue with STEM in the later stages of education.
They tried one method to make it melt down. You may recall that the Chernobyl disaster was due to some idiot running an experiment, not just loss of the cooling system as they tested.
Furthermore their study confirms greater variability between men than between women which definitely indicates that the grade cap is probably handicapping top end male scores more than top end female scores.
That assumes that the variation is biological. How do you exclude social factors?
And even if it is biological, does that mean it can't be overcome? There is much debate over how much boys maturing a little later than girls is due to biology or social influences, but in either case adjusting the curriculum and teaching methods a little can negate this difference by the time both genders reach adulthood.
If we assume that, as the feminists would have it, girls and boys are equally capable on average, then the higher performance of girls in school would be attributed to environment, and the fact that they don't do as well in STEM as they do in other subjects would still suggest that boys have an edge in those fields.
That logic doesn't really work though, because school isn't the only factor in their lives and school isn't one single environment but rather a whole number of different experiences. I remember the atmosphere in some classes being very different to others, for example.
I agree that's it's a very interesting study though.
We both thought you were being sarcastic, but unfortunately it's the kind of sarcasm you get from people who just refuse to accept any of this and Poe's law took over.
Well, yes, something should be done. After all we care about helping every child to fulfil their potential, right?
And yes, it is massive, systemic and institutional. Breaking down the barriers that boys face is the way to solve it.
Some of it is even discrimination. I've heard of boys being told that cooking and even book clubs are not for them, due to toxic ideas of what masculinity is and apparently the teacher wanting the club to be girls only.
According to this, the only area that men can compete with women is in STEM. In all other fields, women are markedly superior to men.
No, that's not what it is saying.
Academic performance is not a measure of raw, innate ability or intelligence. It depends greatly on many, many factors. Quality of teaching, availability of resources, diet, all sorts of stuff.
Under-performance of boys is mostly thought to be due to social factors. The same reasons that girls used to do significantly worse in maths, but with some effort the gap was closed. Now effort is re-focusing on helping boys reach the same level.
This is just increase the gap between smaller and larger sites.
Larger sites will be able to sign up and get their cut. Smaller sites will find it too expensive - the infrastructure to manage paid up users, record views accurately, audits etc. Smaller sites will have to stick with ads, making it even harder to compete.
Plus it would give yet another entity visibility of your browsing habits.
For a scheme like this to work it would need to be decentralised.
It is that hard, at least for many modern programmers. COBOL 2002 made it a bit easier, but a lot of existing code goes way back before then and upgrading it is a major task in itself.
I dare say most people could be taught to do COBOL, but companies prefer to let someone else do the investment and then just tempt those staff away with a slightly better offer.
I like this idea, as long as the pay out is at least $1000/user. For sensitive data let's say $10,000 to start, with yearly automatic inflation increases.
Not suggesting fake news and conspiracy theories to the user is not censorship. The suggestion itself is speech and this is a request to Apple to stop accidentally lying to users. Presumably Apple cares about not lying to people.
And as for wilting violets? I'd prefer to ask Apple to be more careful, than rely on people spotting fake news and conspiracies.
Maybe you want that, but I expect the majority of people searching for "pizzagate" are looking for an overview and some initial info, rather than doing an in-depth study. So the top results, and certainly the suggested answers, should at least be somewhat truthful and accurate.
In the past we trusted other humans to do this. Editors to check information in books, librarians to remove old outdated and potentially dangerous information (don't forget that this conspiracy theory lead to an armed man entering that pizza restaurant and subsequently going to jail, so a danger to others and himself and the cops who arrested him). Even newspapers were supposed to have standards and correct inaccuracies.
Now Bing/Google/Siri/etc want to fill that role. It's really handy, you can get quick answers to questions... As long as the answers are reliable.
Slashdot Mirror
It is.
https://www.wired.com/story/th...
You don't think there are problems for men wanting to become nurses or childcare specialists? And those are just the tip of the iceberg.
The original link doesn't explain what pizzagate is. It gives you a conspiracy theory as if it was fact.
You are right, but prepare to be punished for not towing the biological essentialism line.
Well okay, here you go:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
https://slashdot.org/comments....
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Contradicting the prescribed narrative = overrated flamebait troll. Every single time, guaranteed.
Equality of outcomes is usually determined on an individual basis. When you consider a whole population and the distribution curve that's a measure of equality of opportunity. Like a Monte Carlo test for randomness.
Well that is going to be be tested in court if Damore gets that far. Should be interesting.
I have a feeling the question isn't as open as you suggest.
when we are talking about differences between sexes biology is a default explanation
That isn't justified when science is telling us that it's mostly social, with only a tiny and often insignificant part being biological.
Nothing to do with equality of outcome for forcing people to do a particular course. Why even assume that, it's bizarre.
It's about barriers, as you say.
Fair point. I submit as evidence any Slashdot story on James Damore. I'm afraid you will have to do your own statistical analysis.
Remember that memo written by James Damore? He said something similar, but then the authors of the studies that he cited as evidence came out and said that the biological differences they found were tiny and that the conclusion it might affect ability or even desire to do a certain type of job is unwarranted.
Considering all we know about the social elements effecting these things, and the lack of supporting evidence for biological effects, I think we shouldn't give up on helping boys reach the same level in non-STEM subjects and on helping girls continue with STEM in the later stages of education.
They tried one method to make it melt down. You may recall that the Chernobyl disaster was due to some idiot running an experiment, not just loss of the cooling system as they tested.
Furthermore their study confirms greater variability between men than between women which definitely indicates that the grade cap is probably handicapping top end male scores more than top end female scores.
That assumes that the variation is biological. How do you exclude social factors?
And even if it is biological, does that mean it can't be overcome? There is much debate over how much boys maturing a little later than girls is due to biology or social influences, but in either case adjusting the curriculum and teaching methods a little can negate this difference by the time both genders reach adulthood.
If we assume that, as the feminists would have it, girls and boys are equally capable on average, then the higher performance of girls in school would be attributed to environment, and the fact that they don't do as well in STEM as they do in other subjects would still suggest that boys have an edge in those fields.
That logic doesn't really work though, because school isn't the only factor in their lives and school isn't one single environment but rather a whole number of different experiences. I remember the atmosphere in some classes being very different to others, for example.
I agree that's it's a very interesting study though.
But do you believe that women really do have an innate advantage in non-STEM subjects?
And why are there certain very specific exceptions to this rule? The classic example is the difference between nurses and doctors.
I don't know about STEM in general, but many on Slashdot seem to be pretty convinced...
We both thought you were being sarcastic, but unfortunately it's the kind of sarcasm you get from people who just refuse to accept any of this and Poe's law took over.
Well, yes, something should be done. After all we care about helping every child to fulfil their potential, right?
And yes, it is massive, systemic and institutional. Breaking down the barriers that boys face is the way to solve it.
Some of it is even discrimination. I've heard of boys being told that cooking and even book clubs are not for them, due to toxic ideas of what masculinity is and apparently the teacher wanting the club to be girls only.
Remarkably insightful post.
It's evidently true, all the statistical evidence says that it is true.
The question is why. Most people who study biology, psychology and sociology don't think that it is due to some biological difference.
According to this, the only area that men can compete with women is in STEM. In all other fields, women are markedly superior to men.
No, that's not what it is saying.
Academic performance is not a measure of raw, innate ability or intelligence. It depends greatly on many, many factors. Quality of teaching, availability of resources, diet, all sorts of stuff.
Under-performance of boys is mostly thought to be due to social factors. The same reasons that girls used to do significantly worse in maths, but with some effort the gap was closed. Now effort is re-focusing on helping boys reach the same level.
Just use your firewall it block Vivaldi's access to the internet. Problem solved.
This is just increase the gap between smaller and larger sites.
Larger sites will be able to sign up and get their cut. Smaller sites will find it too expensive - the infrastructure to manage paid up users, record views accurately, audits etc. Smaller sites will have to stick with ads, making it even harder to compete.
Plus it would give yet another entity visibility of your browsing habits.
For a scheme like this to work it would need to be decentralised.
It is that hard, at least for many modern programmers. COBOL 2002 made it a bit easier, but a lot of existing code goes way back before then and upgrading it is a major task in itself.
I dare say most people could be taught to do COBOL, but companies prefer to let someone else do the investment and then just tempt those staff away with a slightly better offer.
I like this idea, as long as the pay out is at least $1000/user. For sensitive data let's say $10,000 to start, with yearly automatic inflation increases.
Not suggesting fake news and conspiracy theories to the user is not censorship. The suggestion itself is speech and this is a request to Apple to stop accidentally lying to users. Presumably Apple cares about not lying to people.
And as for wilting violets? I'd prefer to ask Apple to be more careful, than rely on people spotting fake news and conspiracies.
Maybe you want that, but I expect the majority of people searching for "pizzagate" are looking for an overview and some initial info, rather than doing an in-depth study. So the top results, and certainly the suggested answers, should at least be somewhat truthful and accurate.
In the past we trusted other humans to do this. Editors to check information in books, librarians to remove old outdated and potentially dangerous information (don't forget that this conspiracy theory lead to an armed man entering that pizza restaurant and subsequently going to jail, so a danger to others and himself and the cops who arrested him). Even newspapers were supposed to have standards and correct inaccuracies.
Now Bing/Google/Siri/etc want to fill that role. It's really handy, you can get quick answers to questions... As long as the answers are reliable.