Well, I suppose if you redefine "colonizing" to "whatever I think the US does that is bad", then sure...the US is a colonial power.
Which economies does the United States "own"? I'd sure like to know, because if I own 'em, I want better return on investment than the crap I'm getting now.
You compare the US with China. Uh, OK. When are they going to have elections in Tibet? When are they going to have elections in Iraq?
(Note: I think this whole adventure in Iraq was criminally stupid. I also don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with setting up a colony.)
"When you use a sentence like 'feminists say' or 'fish are poisonous' you insinuate (at least) that all or most of them are. When people want to indicate that they mean 'some', they say so explicitly."
True for some speakers, not for others. I prefer to not over-interpret the intent of the speaker, and if I need clarification I ask for it.
"When people want to indicate that they mean 'some', they say so explicitly."
Unless he wrote sloppily, and implied the "some". Whatever. The poster hasn't deigned to correct his implication, and I've gotten into the middle of this semantic mess. Which is fine...I wouldn't have said anything if I was not prepared to deal with the consequences.
I think the OP has a point too. There ARE feminists who think that sex==rape and marriage==oppression. I don't hit ladies, but I sure wouldn't mind taking a swing a those people...
I'd love to see more of these accurate economic predictions. I bet I could make a lot of money with those.
I have read the article. I don't know what the man said, because the transcript is not available.
What the man said has been turned into a bunch of stupid overgeneralizations. That's my issue here. By denying us the data (the transcript) we can't draw good conclusions.
OK. Your impression and my impression may have only peripheral relationships to What Was Said.
He brought it up because he was instructed to say something provocative at a gender equality seminar. Mission accomplished, proceeding to next waypoint.
He shared an anecdote about his daughter that made him want to study the differences in cognition between men and women. Why is this a Bad Idea?
No, we're dealing with a made up hypothetical situation that's never going to happen, so I made up some hypotheticals that blow your theory out of the water. If all things are equal, all things are equal. If one person is smarter than the other, one person's smarter than the other. If there's a "genetic predisposition", that DOESN'T TELL YOU WHICH INDIVIDUAL IS SMARTER.
Two people start a marathon. Person A has a ten-foot head start. At the end of the marathon, who wins? Well, if everybody runs at exactly the same speed, person A wins. But, in the real world, that's not what happens. Person A has a slight advantage, but nowhere near an insurmountable one. I'd even argue that two athletes who train together and have as near-as-possible physiques would be able to overcome a 10 foot deficit just by working a bit harder. Now, take a field of 50 runners, one with a 10 foot head start. I promise you...that head start will not win them the race.
I'm not attempting to insult you. I'm attempting to point out that your argument is meaningless. I'm sorry if you take that personally.
"ignore my points and throw things that are out of scope"
You've already thrown out the whole scope. So, yes, in your fantasy world, you can jigger the situation to say anything you want. Here on planet Earth, though...
"You lost the debate because you failed to argue the criteria."
Gosh, I'll have to find a way to live with the shame. Don't worry about me. I'll be able to soldier on. Somehow.
I'd rather have somebody who had a "biological disadvantage" and busted their ass to excel, than somebody with a "biological advantage" who coasted through on good fortune.
So, no, these genetic predispositions are just that: Predispositions. They tell you nothing about any particular person's abilities.
"Because before we jump to that conclusion, we need to understand how the biology of the brain affects ability in these higher-reasoning tasks, and we simply don't."
Which is what this poor schlock from Harvard was saying. He was advocating research to address this deficiency in our knowledge, and he's been pilloried.
"The most interesting part is how clear it is, reading these comments, that a signficant fraction of the posters assume whoever they're talking to is male, also"
A significant fraction of the time, they're right. A much larger fraction of the time, the gender of the person I'm talking to is not relevant to the discussion.
So, by percieving somebody's statement through your filters, you found something that offended you. Could the OP have been more clear about his intentions? Sure.
Happens all the time. It's happened to everybody who's hacked off at this schmuck. (Who was asked to say something provocative)
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have a transcript? I'd love to read it.
Nobody does. It hasn't been published.
Well, I suppose if you redefine "colonizing" to "whatever I think the US does that is bad", then sure...the US is a colonial power.
Which economies does the United States "own"? I'd sure like to know, because if I own 'em, I want better return on investment than the crap I'm getting now.
You compare the US with China. Uh, OK. When are they going to have elections in Tibet? When are they going to have elections in Iraq?
(Note: I think this whole adventure in Iraq was criminally stupid. I also don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with setting up a colony.)
"When you use a sentence like 'feminists say' or 'fish are poisonous' you insinuate (at least) that all or most of them are. When people want to indicate that they mean 'some', they say so explicitly."
True for some speakers, not for others. I prefer to not over-interpret the intent of the speaker, and if I need clarification I ask for it.
"When people want to indicate that they mean 'some', they say so explicitly."
Unless he wrote sloppily, and implied the "some". Whatever. The poster hasn't deigned to correct his implication, and I've gotten into the middle of this semantic mess. Which is fine...I wouldn't have said anything if I was not prepared to deal with the consequences.
I think the OP has a point too. There ARE feminists who think that sex==rape and marriage==oppression. I don't hit ladies, but I sure wouldn't mind taking a swing a those people...
Hell, I work pretty hard, and I wish I could get housing, food, and medical care. Mostly the third one.
I'm 30, and the problem is not that I don't vote: The problem is that there's nobody worth voting for.
I'd love to see more of these accurate economic predictions. I bet I could make a lot of money with those.
I have read the article. I don't know what the man said, because the transcript is not available.
What the man said has been turned into a bunch of stupid overgeneralizations. That's my issue here. By denying us the data (the transcript) we can't draw good conclusions.
OK. Your impression and my impression may have only peripheral relationships to What Was Said.
He brought it up because he was instructed to say something provocative at a gender equality seminar. Mission accomplished, proceeding to next waypoint.
He shared an anecdote about his daughter that made him want to study the differences in cognition between men and women. Why is this a Bad Idea?
No, we're dealing with a made up hypothetical situation that's never going to happen, so I made up some hypotheticals that blow your theory out of the water. If all things are equal, all things are equal. If one person is smarter than the other, one person's smarter than the other. If there's a "genetic predisposition", that DOESN'T TELL YOU WHICH INDIVIDUAL IS SMARTER.
Two people start a marathon. Person A has a ten-foot head start. At the end of the marathon, who wins? Well, if everybody runs at exactly the same speed, person A wins. But, in the real world, that's not what happens. Person A has a slight advantage, but nowhere near an insurmountable one. I'd even argue that two athletes who train together and have as near-as-possible physiques would be able to overcome a 10 foot deficit just by working a bit harder. Now, take a field of 50 runners, one with a 10 foot head start. I promise you...that head start will not win them the race.
I'm not attempting to insult you. I'm attempting to point out that your argument is meaningless. I'm sorry if you take that personally.
"ignore my points and throw things that are out of scope"
You've already thrown out the whole scope. So, yes, in your fantasy world, you can jigger the situation to say anything you want. Here on planet Earth, though...
"You lost the debate because you failed to argue the criteria."
Gosh, I'll have to find a way to live with the shame. Don't worry about me. I'll be able to soldier on. Somehow.
I'd rather have somebody who had a "biological disadvantage" and busted their ass to excel, than somebody with a "biological advantage" who coasted through on good fortune.
So, no, these genetic predispositions are just that: Predispositions. They tell you nothing about any particular person's abilities.
So, again: Meaningless example.
Or, maybe, they didn't state their point as clearly as they had intended. You are presupposing malice.
Filters. Your preconceived notions. Everybody has them. Some people are more aware of them than others.
You sounded offended. If you weren't, well, that was my filter at work. My mistake.
How do the gender predispositions (if they exist, which we don't know) map onto the individual talents of two particular surgeons?
They don't. So your "experiment" is meaningless.
How do you know he's jumping the gun? Neither you nor I know WHAT HE SAID.
All we know is hearsay.
"Because before we jump to that conclusion, we need to understand how the biology of the brain affects ability in these higher-reasoning tasks, and we simply don't."
Which is what this poor schlock from Harvard was saying. He was advocating research to address this deficiency in our knowledge, and he's been pilloried.
In other words, in your contrived fantasy-land, your statements are true.
Meanwhile, back on Earth....
"The most interesting part is how clear it is, reading these comments, that a signficant fraction of the posters assume whoever they're talking to is male, also"
A significant fraction of the time, they're right. A much larger fraction of the time, the gender of the person I'm talking to is not relevant to the discussion.
So, by percieving somebody's statement through your filters, you found something that offended you. Could the OP have been more clear about his intentions? Sure.
Happens all the time. It's happened to everybody who's hacked off at this schmuck. (Who was asked to say something provocative)
My girlfriend drives faster than I do. We share the same design tastes. I don't like football.
I don't know if society thinks that makes me something other than a Man, but if it does, my girlfriend would disagree.
And she knows.
What makes a man a man? Chromosomes. What conclusions can you draw from that fact? If you're smart, none.
" His comments are basically a retraction of whatever he wouldn't allow to be transcribed in his actual speech."
.
Wow, you don't have any preconceived notions or anything, do you? You don't even know what he SAID, but it MUST have been Wrong.
He was asked to be provocative. Guess it worked.
I think there must be a list I didn't sign up on where I don't have to work hard to get ahead. I've got a penis and everything!
Can "social science" yield falsifiable hypotheses, or just more stupid overgeneralizations like the one that started this brouhaha?
No, the reason Slashdot is a bad place for intelligent discussion is because you're bad at intelligent discussion.
"STFU. WTF do you know??" does not appear in intelligent discussion, ever.
Hmm...I wonder if a one-dimensional stereotype is not sufficiently nuanced to be used as a predictor for future outcomes?
What a staggering notion. I should patent it.
So YOU ASSUMED that the poster meant "All feminists say..." when what he said was "Feminists say...".
OK. You can make it be however you want in your head. That doesn't change what the OP SAID.
Interestingly, I haven't been able to find a transcript of what this Harvard president ACTUALLY SAID, only what people SAY he said.
Just to pick a nit:
"Who hires people on the basis of a statistical estimate of their skills?"
Everybody. That's the way the system works. Nobody cares about YOU, they care about how templates that resemble you are assumed to perform.
See, you'd have actually had a point to make if your parent poster had in fact said "All feminists". He didn't, so you're full of crap.