Hacker News Reader

200 years ago, women (and, say, black people) weren't doctors. People argued then, as you do now, that the current situation was just the outcome of natural differences. They said that not because it was true (it wasn't) or because they had any real evidence (they didn't). They said it because it was convenient for them to believe that.

That people in the past argued that something was due to natural differences doesn't necessarily mean that natural differences don't exist, and that they had no evidence then doesn't mean that we have none now. Men and women differ genetically by about the same amount that humans and chimpanzees do, so to discount the possibility that there just might be some real differences in the way we are prone to behave is just as ridiculous as to suggest that those genes account for the entire difference.

There are very solid biological reasons to believe that men should always be more genetically inclined to seek out reproductive risk than women (male reproductive success is more variable than female success by a good margin). It's not a very big stretch from there to conjecture that perhaps nature achieved that by cranking up the overall risk tolerance knob in men, since that would probably require fewer bit-flips than hard coding a condition for reproductive risk - in fact, to a large extent, we know that testosterone does exactly what this would require. That would explain a lot about why men are more likely than women to go in for high-risk high-reward ventures like startups...

I'm not saying that social factors are not in play, too, but quite frankly, these social factors are far less oppressive than they were 50 years ago, yet we've seen relatively little progress in terms of gender ratios. This makes me suspect that there are probably some other causes in effect, and the genetic one is an obvious suspect that I don't think has been properly debunked, excepting attempts to do so by overreaching appeals to equality that are, IMO, not justified by the relevant biology.

I have never suggested natural differences don't exist.

I'm suggesting that a) using the idea of them without evidence to justify apparently unfair outcomes is bullshit, b) historically people making those arguments have often been spectacularly wrong, and c) people who make that argument when it's personally convenient are perhaps fooling themselves.

You're also rampantly committing the naturalistic fallacy. What's natural tells us nothing about what's right. Even if we have made a perfectly fair society (which we certainly haven't) and discover that there is some difference in outcomes that is explainable by genetic differences, that doesn't mean we should accept the result.

If some people are genetically likely to be less good at math, should we cancel their math classes? Or should we give them better ones? I say the latter: as a society we want people to understand and appreciate math.

If some group of people is more prone to a disease, do we go with what's natural? Or do we work against it? Consider heart disease for African Americans, or skin cancer for white people. As one of the naturally pale, I appreciate having sunblock available, and cultural reminders to put it on or cover up. And if I do get skin cancer, I'd rather be treated instead of being told it's "natural" for me to die of it.

I've also heard it argued that psychopaths make "natural" CEOs, and that we should therefore accept their various depredations. That ignores that CEO isn't some sort of ecological niche; it's an artificial, societally-constructed position. We may have reason to want CEOs to be more responsible than average rather than less, no matter what's "natural" in this context. And we may have reason to want startups being created by a broader collection of people than those who might "naturally" most incline (after a lifetime of unnatural conditioning) to play the entirely artificial game we've set up for them.

You're also rampantly committing the naturalistic fallacy. What's natural tells us nothing about what's right. Even if we have made a perfectly fair society (which we certainly haven't) and discover that there is some difference in outcomes that is explainable by genetic differences, that doesn't mean we should accept the result.

This is what's frustrating about these conversations, the worst is always assumed. Given that I absolutely do not believe that "natural" implies "right", I'm annoyed at the accusation, which comes up with some regularity even though I (like most others in the "not-only-nurture" camp) specifically disclaim such a view and never said a single thing about what is right or not.

If some people are genetically likely to be less good at math, should we cancel their math classes? Or should we give them better ones? I say the latter: as a society we want people to understand and appreciate math.

First, let me be clear: I think that the evidence that women are genetically worse at math is shoddy, at best. I think the evidence that their performance is less variable is very robust, but that's a very different claim.

Second, if either one is provably the case, then no, I very strongly don't think we should just throw our hands up. I think we should try to look at what causes the difference in statistical distribution of talent and figure out how to exploit/correct it - it's evolutionarily inconceivable that math talent is directly hard-coded genetically, so it's got to be emerging as a second or third order effect of genes, perhaps related to stress response (learning math is a process of experiencing micro-stresses over and over, and dealing with them in a way that makes you learn rather than get frustrated or angry - the "mathy" emotional state is a very delicate balance, even in people that are good at math). This is true even if the male/female gap is not genetic, since it's pretty clear that there is some sort of heritable component to math ability. Figuring out how this sort of thing affects performance could be very helpful, because even though it's partially innate (and somewhat based on brain chemistry), it can often be directly trained.

But if we declare by fiat that performance in math is primarily guided by factors outside the student's head (which is implicit in the "sexism keeps girls out of field X" argument), then we'll never figure out what's really going on, and we'll never discover how to help people that aren't predisposed to be good at math get better.

I general I agree with this line of thinking. We should encourage women to take on careers and challenges where they are under represented. We shouldn't create sexist work environments and educational institutions that discourage participation from the opposite sex.

I don't think this is a clear cut issue though. Sexism exists in some place, but so does enjoyment by men or women for certain careers. I think part of that enjoyment is created by a culture that tells men and women to be certain ways but I think also some of it has to do with genetics - i.e. historically women were the primary child-rearers so they tend to be more of the nurturers.

There is also the question of how much energy does society as a whole invest in correcting sexist historical imbalances? Do we just say, "everyone can be anything they want when they grow up!" and leave it at that? Or do we impose things like quotas and programs specifically targeted to encourage women to join professions they're under represented?

I have mostly questions and no answers :(

I just made a simple observation yes. Whatever reason we find will fallback to men being different than women. That is in fact the only think we can say for sure. The outcome might not be fair, but it's not by denying this fact that we will make things better.

As for you example, it's flawed. 200 years ago doctors played a very different role in society of those of today's doctors. If you look carefully at today's society and try to find a social role more like that of a 1800's doctor, you'll probably find a job that is still done mostly by men. Is it fair? Indeed no. But it is in fact a good example how we can improve women rights by going to the root of the problem without fear of being political incorrect. I might not have any evidence, but nor have you.

I am sorry. There were few women doctors in the UK because prior to the 1972 Sex Equality Act the Medical Schools had quotas of between 5% and 15% for female students.

When that barrier went the number of female doctors took off like a rocket.

Likewise with the black middle class in the US - once the quota's that kept African Americans out of Universities ended, lo! magic!

"Today… increasing numbers of doctors — mostly women — decide to work part time or leave the profession. Since 2005 the part-time physician workforce has expanded by 62 percent, according to recent survey data from the American Medical Group Association, with nearly 4 in 10 female doctors between the ages of 35 and 44 reporting in 2010 that they worked part time.

This may seem like a personal decision, but it has serious consequences for patients and the public.

Medical education is supported by federal and state tax money both at the university level — student tuition doesn’t come close to covering the schools’ costs — and at the teaching hospitals where residents are trained. So if doctors aren’t making full use of their training, taxpayers are losing their investment. With a growing shortage of doctors in America, we can no longer afford to continue training doctors who don’t spend their careers in the full-time practice of medicine."

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/should-women-b...