> unsupported
Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references?
Here's a copy with the references:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references?
Here's a copy with the references:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
> Women, on average, have more:
> ● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing)
> ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
> ● Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
A bit further down:
> Men’s higher drive for status
> We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Holy crap!
- Edit below this line -
This is not expressing a different opinion based on facts, but pure stereotyping.
As a person who appreciates logic in arguments, I wouldn't like to work or have an argument with someone who presents his views of the world as axioms without data to support them.
- Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things [1], relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing [2])
- Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
- Neuroticism [3] (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
Now what do you think about it, now you know the real references of the article?
[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004....
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism
EDIT: noncoml I wanted to reply you (but I cann't I don't know why) and apologize because my comment sound like an attack when It wasn't my intention. I just wanted to provide the references and know your opinion. Take your time to check them.
I think that a quick dismissal is not appropriate, that it is the right basis for a discussion and would definitely like to take some time and look at the citations and how they tie up and support the arguments.
Thanks for correcting me.
If you are a bit interested in more references (those claims sound horrible, but they are not as far-fetched as they sound), have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw. It's a presentation by Steven Pinker that explains a lot about what science actually has to say about biological differences, and in an aside at the end even mentions stereotypes.
I already mentioned it in a subthread to this post, no harm intended.
That was such irresponsible journalism that it honestly looks actively malicious, and it wasn't matter what side you're on. You can't remove all the support someone provides for their position and hide it behind a short and vague disclaimer while presenting it as though it's materially equivalent to the original. If their evidence is bad then you include it and let people be the judges. Or just don't report on the story. What you don't do is edit it in accordance with your own opinion and misrepresent it as the original.
People need to call this crap out and shame Gizmodo, and Gizmodo needs to come clean about the honest reasons for the redaction and respond harshly enough that it doesn't happen again. The last thing we need is biased journalism, or an impression of such.
I wish he had posted the anti-echo-chamber parts on their own, instead of using them to decorate an argument on gender differences.
I doubt he expected this to blow up like it did; I imagine a Harvard PhD candidate would have provided better references if he'd known it would be public.