Moderator: Community Team
BigBallinStalin wrote:Two points:
1. The social norm might partly be enforced by dickheads, but it might also be partly accepted by its members who don't hold bad intentions.
So, when you attack the social norm, aren't you causing harm to those who want to abide by the social norm?
(It's odd to say that women are free to wear whatever they want, while you're lambasting what some of them want to wear).
2. Your justification for attacking a 'bad' social norm rests mainly upon the argument that social norm X is (predominantly?) due to sexism/bigotry/etc. This goes back to the economic v. cultural question on how much is explained by either factor. If the social norm is mainly due to economic reasons, it serves a valuable purpose--regardless of how barbaric it may seem to us.
E.g. (economic) when the African National Party gained control in South Africa, they imposed labor regulations similar to Western Europe. This seemed great but was ultimately stupid because it completely ignored the limitations of S. Africa economy. Unsurprisingly, unemployment is still around 20%.
E.g. (cultural) witchcraft throughout Africa. It serves a useful role in meting out justice and all sorts of other necessary functions for various groups. Westerners tend to view it as barbaric and want to stamp it out, but when they do so, they cause unnecessary chaos. They're collapsing institutions which bring about order--within particular places that face different constraints and incentives than Western places.
Metsfanmax wrote:
My friend responded that I was looking at this the wrong way. His argument was that until we get rid of the social stigmas that convince us that women cannot be scientists, we shouldn't even ask the question about whether women are less intelligent. Not because the question is inherently wrong -- but because it gives ammo to the people who are sexist and would use such information to continue justifying their explicit sexism*.
*I'm still not completely comfortable with his answer. But my lack of comfort is not what matters.
Dukasaur wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:
My friend responded that I was looking at this the wrong way. His argument was that until we get rid of the social stigmas that convince us that women cannot be scientists, we shouldn't even ask the question about whether women are less intelligent. Not because the question is inherently wrong -- but because it gives ammo to the people who are sexist and would use such information to continue justifying their explicit sexism*.
*I'm still not completely comfortable with his answer. But my lack of comfort is not what matters.
"Not completely comfortable"? I would say you should be enraged. Things have causes. The causes of things are always a valid subject for inquiry, regardless of what might be the future political fallout. To censor not just the answer, but even the question itself, is an assault on intellectualism of Orwellian proportions.
Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:
My friend responded that I was looking at this the wrong way. His argument was that until we get rid of the social stigmas that convince us that women cannot be scientists, we shouldn't even ask the question about whether women are less intelligent. Not because the question is inherently wrong -- but because it gives ammo to the people who are sexist and would use such information to continue justifying their explicit sexism*.
*I'm still not completely comfortable with his answer. But my lack of comfort is not what matters.
"Not completely comfortable"? I would say you should be enraged. Things have causes. The causes of things are always a valid subject for inquiry, regardless of what might be the future political fallout. To censor not just the answer, but even the question itself, is an assault on intellectualism of Orwellian proportions.
I disagree on the principle. Some scientific/intellectual questions are off-limits for moral reasons. We can probably agree that vivisection on humans is a bad thing (and I certainly believe it's a bad thing on non-human animals). It would surely teach us interesting things about the human body, but it doesn't justify the action. Similarly, I don't believe that testing many medical products on animals is justified. Sometimes the pursuit of knowledge is destructive.
Dukasaur wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:
My friend responded that I was looking at this the wrong way. His argument was that until we get rid of the social stigmas that convince us that women cannot be scientists, we shouldn't even ask the question about whether women are less intelligent. Not because the question is inherently wrong -- but because it gives ammo to the people who are sexist and would use such information to continue justifying their explicit sexism*.
*I'm still not completely comfortable with his answer. But my lack of comfort is not what matters.
"Not completely comfortable"? I would say you should be enraged. Things have causes. The causes of things are always a valid subject for inquiry, regardless of what might be the future political fallout. To censor not just the answer, but even the question itself, is an assault on intellectualism of Orwellian proportions.
I disagree on the principle. Some scientific/intellectual questions are off-limits for moral reasons. We can probably agree that vivisection on humans is a bad thing (and I certainly believe it's a bad thing on non-human animals). It would surely teach us interesting things about the human body, but it doesn't justify the action. Similarly, I don't believe that testing many medical products on animals is justified. Sometimes the pursuit of knowledge is destructive.
Apples and oranges.
I agree that some methods are immoral, but that doesn't mean that any questions are.
Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:
My friend responded that I was looking at this the wrong way. His argument was that until we get rid of the social stigmas that convince us that women cannot be scientists, we shouldn't even ask the question about whether women are less intelligent. Not because the question is inherently wrong -- but because it gives ammo to the people who are sexist and would use such information to continue justifying their explicit sexism*.
*I'm still not completely comfortable with his answer. But my lack of comfort is not what matters.
"Not completely comfortable"? I would say you should be enraged. Things have causes. The causes of things are always a valid subject for inquiry, regardless of what might be the future political fallout. To censor not just the answer, but even the question itself, is an assault on intellectualism of Orwellian proportions.
I disagree on the principle. Some scientific/intellectual questions are off-limits for moral reasons. We can probably agree that vivisection on humans is a bad thing (and I certainly believe it's a bad thing on non-human animals). It would surely teach us interesting things about the human body, but it doesn't justify the action. Similarly, I don't believe that testing many medical products on animals is justified. Sometimes the pursuit of knowledge is destructive.
Apples and oranges.
I agree that some methods are immoral, but that doesn't mean that any questions are.
Really just depends on your notion of morality. Sure, asking a question itself seems harmless. But let's say I engage in this research and find that women are, on average, less intelligent than men. This leads to increased sexism in society, because men now think that it's scientifically proven that women are stupid. Am I responsible for that event? A consequentialist like myself might conclude that I am.
Dukasaur wrote:You can't with any reliability predict all the downstream consequences of your actions. All you are responsible is the immediate and direct consequences.
Do you think Rutherford is responsible for the atom bomb? And yet without his work, it never would have happened. Do you think the guy who tamed fire is responsible for burning Joan of Arc at the stake? Or better yet, IF Rutherford (or Fermi, or Becquerel, or Nernst, the specific example is inconsequential) had known that his work would lead to the atom bomb, do you think he should have stopped and become a haberdasher instead? Do you think he would be more influenced by the loss of life at Hiroshima, or by the loss of life averted because a full-scale invasion of Japan became unnecessary? Do you think he would tremble more at the idea that nuclear war might one day destroy life as we know it, or by the fact that ships with nuclear propulsion might one day save life as we know it? We just don't know what will be, or what would have been. Only immediate and direct consequences can be mapped out with any reliability.
Which I suppose brings us to the next point. Do you think it matters? Plenty of people were investigating along Rutherford's lines; he was just the first. If Rutherford had retired from science and become a haberdasher, how long would it have been been before someone else got his results? Two years? Three at most? His choosing to remain ignorant would have impacted only himself.
Which brings us to the next point. The relationship between gender and intelligence is well-researched. Your lack of contribution to that research means nothing. (Not trying to be insulting, just stating the obvious.) You basically had it right the first time. There is no difference between the average intelligence of men and the average intelligence of women. There is, however, a huge difference between their respective standard deviations. Women't intelligence tends to be tightly clustered around the mean, whereas men tend to have wide deviations. Is it sexist to say that?
The real gain comes not from observing the fact, but from asking, "why?" If you're afraid to ask that question, then you're cutting yourself off at the knees in terms of figuring out how the world works.
Dukasaur wrote:There's always a way to investigate a question without hurting anyone. Sometimes it just takes a bit of creativity. But even if there wasn't, it still wouldn't make it immoral to ask the question, it just would mean that you'd be unable to get the answer.
Dukasaur wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:
Really just depends on your notion of morality. Sure, asking a question itself seems harmless. But let's say I engage in this research and find that women are, on average, less intelligent than men. This leads to increased sexism in society, because men now think that it's scientifically proven that women are stupid. Am I responsible for that event? A consequentialist like myself might conclude that I am.
Dukasaur wrote:Which brings us to the next point. The relationship between gender and intelligence is well-researched. Your lack of contribution to that research means nothing. (Not trying to be insulting, just stating the obvious.) You basically had it right the first time. There is no difference between the average intelligence of men and the average intelligence of women. There is, however, a huge difference between their respective standard deviations. Women't intelligence tends to be tightly clustered around the mean, whereas men tend to have wide deviations. Is it sexist to say that? Men could brag that most of the biggest geniuses are men, but women could riposte that all the biggests idiots are men, too, and both would be correct.
The real gain comes not from observing the fact, but from asking, "why?" If you're afraid to ask that question, then you're cutting yourself off at the knees in terms of figuring out how the world works.
Phatscotty wrote:Can't believe this issue has garnered so many comments. Can't believe some people think that if you want to own a business in America, you must buy abortion coverage.
Phatscotty wrote:This is the fundamental reason Obamacare and it's one size fits all approach were flawed from the get go.
Phatscotty wrote:Look at all the things they think they have to right to tell business owner's, that they are going to fund abortion coverage whether they like it or not.
Phatscotty wrote:GET REAL! If a company wants to include that, fine! You don't hear me trying to tell others what to do and how to live and how to run their business and that religious beliefs mean nothing. Look at yourselves!
Night Strike wrote:a6mzero wrote:And I can't believe a for profit business which is not a religious organization is allowed to opt out of a law based on the owners religious beliefs. Like a poster said earlier all u folks who work for a hindu , u will not be allowed to eat a hamburger at lunch while your at work by the time this crap hits the proverbial fan.
That would only be the case if the employer was forced to buy you hamburgers for lunch, so please make valid comparisons. And religious beliefs don't end just because a person owns a business. Just like how other Constitutional rights such as being free from warrantless searches and having due process don't end just because a person owns a business.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Wat? So we're in agreement here? Impossible. <scrolls up>
Oh, you're against any organization requiring women to wear particular clothing.
tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:No, that is medically untrue. What is true is that some people want to claim that these birth control methods can be abortifacients.
It is medically true. The official information for the morning after pill indicates that it may prevent implantation. That''s not some right wing double speak.
Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote:You can't with any reliability predict all the downstream consequences of your actions. All you are responsible is the immediate and direct consequences.
What are the positive consequences of finding out whether women are statistically different in intelligence than men? Can it inform policy in any meaningful way?
Metsfanmax wrote:Do you think Rutherford is responsible for the atom bomb? And yet without his work, it never would have happened. Do you think the guy who tamed fire is responsible for burning Joan of Arc at the stake? Or better yet, IF Rutherford (or Fermi, or Becquerel, or Nernst, the specific example is inconsequential) had known that his work would lead to the atom bomb, do you think he should have stopped and become a haberdasher instead? Do you think he would be more influenced by the loss of life at Hiroshima, or by the loss of life averted because a full-scale invasion of Japan became unnecessary? Do you think he would tremble more at the idea that nuclear war might one day destroy life as we know it, or by the fact that ships with nuclear propulsion might one day save life as we know it? We just don't know what will be, or what would have been. Only immediate and direct consequences can be mapped out with any reliability.
There is a large gulf between research in the physical sciences and research in the social sciences. Research in the physical sciences will always affect the development of technology, but in ways that are hard to predict. Research in the social sciences has the express intent of affecting social policy and culture, so to claim that we can just ignore the social effects of it is absurd. For what is the value of the research outside of those effects?
Dukasaur damn well wrote:The devotion of social scientists (at least the good ones) to the scientific method and scholarly detachment is at least as great as, and perhaps greater, than that of physical scientists. It doesn't require much effort to maintain objectivity when you're looking at a test tube of anonymous brown fluid. It takes some serious self-discipline to maintain scientific objectivity when your test tube is a city full of people you know.
We're rapidly drifting off topic with this one, but I'll just briefly give you my view of it.Metsfanmax wrote:Which I suppose brings us to the next point. Do you think it matters? Plenty of people were investigating along Rutherford's lines; he was just the first. If Rutherford had retired from science and become a haberdasher, how long would it have been been before someone else got his results? Two years? Three at most? His choosing to remain ignorant would have impacted only himself.
Rutherford could not have known that at the time. And if we carry your thinking to its logical conclusion, that means Rutherford should receive no credit for his work, because someone would have done it anyway. That's not how we think -- we generally credit researchers for their discoveries, so to ignore some consequences and not others seems arbitrary.
Metsfanmax wrote:Which brings us to the next point. The relationship between gender and intelligence is well-researched. Your lack of contribution to that research means nothing. (Not trying to be insulting, just stating the obvious.) You basically had it right the first time. There is no difference between the average intelligence of men and the average intelligence of women. There is, however, a huge difference between their respective standard deviations. Women't intelligence tends to be tightly clustered around the mean, whereas men tend to have wide deviations. Is it sexist to say that?
Perhaps. You made a very broad statement about intelligence, when in fact what is measured is an IQ score. Would you argue that black people are less intelligent than white people on average, given the wide disparity in achievement on such tests? I wouldn't. There is important information about the test itself in there, and not necessarily some information about the abstract ability of various people to engage in reasoning.
Metsfanmax wrote:And that's one of the central problems of the social sciences -- what is or is not a "fact" is often highly dependent on interpretation. If you continuously offer a test that you know gives black people lower scores due to structural differences, and you don't think that reflects an inherent difference in intelligence, then there is a case to be made that you are contributing to racist perspectives. Because, like it or not, people treat IQ as a direct measure of intelligence despite these differences.
Metsfanmax wrote:So when you say below that it is a "fact" that men have wider deviations in intelligence than women, I question what it actually is that is a "fact."
The real gain comes not from observing the fact, but from asking, "why?" If you're afraid to ask that question, then you're cutting yourself off at the knees in terms of figuring out how the world works.
Dukasaur wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote:You can't with any reliability predict all the downstream consequences of your actions. All you are responsible is the immediate and direct consequences.
What are the positive consequences of finding out whether women are statistically different in intelligence than men? Can it inform policy in any meaningful way?
Whose policy about what? How do you know what policies a given piece of knowlege will influence? Maybe it will inform someone's policy in a meaningful way. Then again, maybe it will not. The quest of a scientist is to seek knowlege and understanding, not to make assumptions about what purposes some others may or may not use that knowlege for.
]
Lying is not the issue.Dukasaur wrote:Knowing that, do you think the scientist who finds a correlation between oatmeal and declining risk of tetanus or whatever, should lie and say there is no correlation? Do you think it's ethically defensible to lie and falsify data in order to prevent what you suspect might be misuse of your results?
Dukasaur wrote:Whose policy about what? How do you know what policies a given piece of knowlege will influence? Maybe it will inform someone's policy in a meaningful way.
No, that's absolutely wrong. True social scientists are interested in unlocking the secrets of how society works, just as physical scientists are interested in unlocking the secrets of how the physical world works.
The job of a social scientist is no different than the job of a physical scientist: to make descriptive statements about how something works. The moment you make a normative statement you've taken off your lab coat and gone home for the day.
A social "scientist" who's just shilling for some particular lobby group isn't really a social scientist. Social technician, maybe.
Maybe you're right about that. Maybe the tests are wrong -- certainly many people have suggested it. But it does get me back to my original point -- if you're afraid to ask the questions, you won't get the answers.
People interpret information incorrectly, is what you're really saying. They filter it through confirmation bias. If a study says what they want it to say, they ignore the fact that it has a huge level of uncertainty. If it says the opposite of what they want it to say, they ignore it. If someone doesn't like blacks, he'll take a study saying that blacks flunk out of school and use it to argue that they're inherently stupid. On the other hand, someone who believes blacks are suffering from systemic prejudice in America will use it to argue for systemic change in the way schools are run, or whatever. The wrong, if any, is not in asking the questions, or even in finding the answers. The wrong is in misusing the answers.
Knowing that, do you think the scientist who finds a correlation between oatmeal and declining risk of tetanus or whatever, should lie and say there is no correlation?
I don't. I think the scientists job is to make descriptive statements. After work, he's free to campaign for better truth in advertising laws or whatever, but while he's at work his duty is to the scientific method and preserving objectivity.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote:You can't with any reliability predict all the downstream consequences of your actions. All you are responsible is the immediate and direct consequences.
What are the positive consequences of finding out whether women are statistically different in intelligence than men? Can it inform policy in any meaningful way?
Whose policy about what? How do you know what policies a given piece of knowlege will influence? Maybe it will inform someone's policy in a meaningful way. Then again, maybe it will not. The quest of a scientist is to seek knowlege and understanding, not to make assumptions about what purposes some others may or may not use that knowlege for.
]
The real danger is that people all to often THINK they have the answer, but are really not. Too often, they are not even really asking the correct questions. They don't even know enough yet, when first approaching the issue what the correct question is.
The case of women and men's intelligence is a classic example, though probably an easier illustration is looking at the relative intelligence of race. Several famous studies in the 1960's showed a definite difference in intelligence between whites and blacks (and more recently, Asians). Note that I am NOT talking about studies by racists seeking to prove what they "already knew". I am talking about honest researchers who had the best of intentions. Still, they consistently showed that blacks are less intelligent.
It took DECADES to even begin to truly understand what was happening. Part of it was certainly "environmental" issues ranging from poorer food and medical care to lack of "mental stimulation" at home and so forth (ergo... Headstart and similar approaches). Part of it was also an inherent cultural bias by the researchers. That last is trickier to discern, but has far, far more impact overall. I cite that because I think you are all fully aware of the studies to which I refer and how attitudes have changed.
In women versus men, we see similar things, but its far more complicated and subtle. A lot of why is because we are uneasy about the roles of men and women to begin with. Fact is, babies need pretty intense care. Historically, particularly before formula was invented, that meant women had to be pretty close to the infants. That meant there was little choice in the role. Staying close to home meant it was more natural for women to cook, etc...... anyway, not getting into that whole topic here, but the point is that yes, even just asking can very much cause problems, particularly when one is not EXTREMELY careful about understanding the huge difference between very preliminary results and true, verified results.Lying is not the issue.Dukasaur wrote:Knowing that, do you think the scientist who finds a correlation between oatmeal and declining risk of tetanus or whatever, should lie and say there is no correlation? Do you think it's ethically defensible to lie and falsify data in order to prevent what you suspect might be misuse of your results?
The error here is far more fundamental, and you are the one making it. See, correlation in no way, shape or form indicates causation. Failure to understand such most basic facts of statistics and study results, sampling is a bit part of why we have so much disinformation out there.
Dukasaur wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote:You can't with any reliability predict all the downstream consequences of your actions. All you are responsible is the immediate and direct consequences.
What are the positive consequences of finding out whether women are statistically different in intelligence than men? Can it inform policy in any meaningful way?
Whose policy about what? How do you know what policies a given piece of knowlege will influence? Maybe it will inform someone's policy in a meaningful way. Then again, maybe it will not. The quest of a scientist is to seek knowlege and understanding, not to make assumptions about what purposes some others may or may not use that knowlege for.
]
The real danger is that people all to often THINK they have the answer, but are really not. Too often, they are not even really asking the correct questions. They don't even know enough yet, when first approaching the issue what the correct question is.
The case of women and men's intelligence is a classic example, though probably an easier illustration is looking at the relative intelligence of race. Several famous studies in the 1960's showed a definite difference in intelligence between whites and blacks (and more recently, Asians). Note that I am NOT talking about studies by racists seeking to prove what they "already knew". I am talking about honest researchers who had the best of intentions. Still, they consistently showed that blacks are less intelligent.
It took DECADES to even begin to truly understand what was happening. Part of it was certainly "environmental" issues ranging from poorer food and medical care to lack of "mental stimulation" at home and so forth (ergo... Headstart and similar approaches). Part of it was also an inherent cultural bias by the researchers. That last is trickier to discern, but has far, far more impact overall. I cite that because I think you are all fully aware of the studies to which I refer and how attitudes have changed.
In women versus men, we see similar things, but its far more complicated and subtle. A lot of why is because we are uneasy about the roles of men and women to begin with. Fact is, babies need pretty intense care. Historically, particularly before formula was invented, that meant women had to be pretty close to the infants. That meant there was little choice in the role. Staying close to home meant it was more natural for women to cook, etc...... anyway, not getting into that whole topic here, but the point is that yes, even just asking can very much cause problems, particularly when one is not EXTREMELY careful about understanding the huge difference between very preliminary results and true, verified results.Lying is not the issue.Dukasaur wrote:Knowing that, do you think the scientist who finds a correlation between oatmeal and declining risk of tetanus or whatever, should lie and say there is no correlation? Do you think it's ethically defensible to lie and falsify data in order to prevent what you suspect might be misuse of your results?
The error here is far more fundamental, and you are the one making it. See, correlation in no way, shape or form indicates causation. Failure to understand such most basic facts of statistics and study results, sampling is a bit part of why we have so much disinformation out there.
Of course I know tht correlation does not mean causation. The advertising executives who every day misuse data of that kind probably know it too, but they just don't care.
Dukasaur wrote:The point stands: Knowing that people will knowingly misuse your results to justify selling their brand of junk food and/or keeping the black man down and/or any other abuse you're worried about, do you think you should falsify your data to try to prevent their abuse? Or, as a scientist is it not your duty to present the truth regardless of where the chips may fall?
PLAYER57832 wrote:Dukasaur wrote:There's always a way to investigate a question without hurting anyone. Sometimes it just takes a bit of creativity. But even if there wasn't, it still wouldn't make it immoral to ask the question, it just would mean that you'd be unable to get the answer.
It may also involve such a long period of time as to be irrelevant for most practical use.
Its not a highly advertised fact, but for a very long time, about the only real data, he best data on hypothermia, for example, came from Nazis concentration camps. Such data itself presents a moral dilemma. Does using the data for good inadvertently encourage such types of study by the, well, insane... or is ignoring such data doing the victims a disservice. Most, while not wanting to experience their fate, would likely want to see children saved in the future if it would not change their fate.
When you talk about the issue of men versus women, the issue is trickier for a reason you seem to have ignored.. much of the argument simply takes place without women involved.
Often times, its not a matter of inferiority or superiority, but of different approaches and perhaps values that differentiate men and women. However, that difference is VERY subtle and hard to pine down. Its like the elusive electron.. merely measuring it, focusing on it, changes its very character. To be objective means truly removing ourselves, but when it comes to men versus women...that is not really possible.
PLayer wrote:Often times, its not a matter of inferiority or superiority, but of different approaches and perhaps values that differentiate men and women.
The real danger is that people all to often THINK they have the answer, but are really not. Too often, they are not even really asking the correct questions. They don't even know enough yet, when first approaching the issue, to know what the correct question is.
Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Whose policy about what? How do you know what policies a given piece of knowlege will influence? Maybe it will inform someone's policy in a meaningful way.
If we cannot think of any positive examples, I question the value of the research to begin with.
Dukasaur wrote:Now that we know this, we can improve things. We know that men have this ego problem that prevents them from admitting when they don't know something. We know that patients die because of this tendency. Now that we understand it, we can start dealing with it. There may be all kinds of solution. Perhaps we need some kind of special training for male medical students to get over their fear of asking questions. Perhaps hospitals need to monitor this in some kind of objective way -- quantitatively measure how often a doctor asks for advice, and review the records of those who don't ask for advice. Perhaps we need to start much sooner -- tackle the ego problems of boys in primary school, have some kind of game that teaches them that it's okay to admit ignorance. I don't know what form the solution will take, but I do know that a solution is only possible now that we've correctly identified the cause of the problem.
This problem was identified because someone started asking questions, and the first question they asked was "is there a performance difference between male and female doctors?" Asking that question led them to notice the huge discrepancy between objective and subjective tests of doctors' performance, and that led them to asking "why the discrepancy?" and that eventually led them to the answer.
If, as Mets suggested, it's inherently wrong to even investigate gender differences for fear of being sexist, this potentially life-saving discovery would never have been made.
Metsfanmax wrote:But why did you ignore the other part: women are seen as worse doctors because they don't? (This is especially egregious given that they were objectively better to begin with.) This means that senior doctors generally see it as a weakness to ask questions rather than be confident.
Metsfanmax wrote:So your solution is, teach doctors in med school that asking questions is OK. But presumably "senior" doctors (who I assume were weighted equally between males and females -- we can get into it if that's not the case, because it may change how this should be evaluated)
Metsfanmax wrote:should realize this. The fact that they don't means there's a pernicious bias in their thinking: at best, they just are simply errant in their thinking, and should realize that it's OK to ask questions.
Metsfanmax wrote:This problem was identified because someone started asking questions, and the first question they asked was "is there a performance difference between male and female doctors?" Asking that question led them to notice the huge discrepancy between objective and subjective tests of doctors' performance, and that led them to asking "why the discrepancy?" and that eventually led them to the answer.
So the conclusions we draw are totally dependent on both the values we have -- what is a better measurement standard for a doctor, quality of care or productivity -- and what we identify as "the problem." Note how easily you concluded that the "problem" is that men are not performing as well as they should be, and we should fix that. You gave no room for the possibility that there is a "problem" about the fact that women are not being evaluated as well as they should be.
Metsfanmax wrote:If, as Mets suggested, it's inherently wrong to even investigate gender differences for fear of being sexist, this potentially life-saving discovery would never have been made.
I obviously did not say that. I said it's probably wrong to investigate gender differences when there is no clear practical application of the policy to achieve gender parity, and there's a substantial risk of the research being used to move away from gender parity. For example, you seem to think it's obviously good that this "problem" regarding doctors was identified, because it can lead to useful policy changes. I think you are overconfident. If the key to being a better doctor was just asking more questions during a diagnosis, med schools would have solved that a long time ago.
Dukasaur wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:But why did you ignore the other part: women are seen as worse doctors because they don't? (This is especially egregious given that they were objectively better to begin with.) This means that senior doctors generally see it as a weakness to ask questions rather than be confident.
I didn't ignore it. I think I pretty clearly indicated that both sides of the problem have the same cause. Men believe asking questions makes you look weak. For the younger doctors, it means they were inherently afraid to ask questions. For the older doctors, it meant they interpreted the question-asking women as weak.
I don't know for sure, but "senior doctors" suggests to me a preponderance of males, because the trend toward more women entering med school didn't start until maybe 25 years ago.
I think I made it very clear that the two problems have the same cause. Therefore, solve one, you solve the other. Teach the men that asking questions is okay, and you're addressing both.
The thing is, you have no idea when you start what will have practical application and what won't.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users