Statistically Correct Sexism
The fact that men and women are "created equal" in our country does not mean that they magically become the same.
Economist Walter Block writes at the Epoch Times about a speech a student gave at Loyola -- and takes on one of the errors she made:
First, she said it would be equally likely that a male or a female would discover the cure for cancer, and make other such important contributions to our society. That isn't at all unreasonable, if you only look at mean IQs of the two groups. Empirical research suggests there is not a "dime's worth of difference" in this statistic.However, this hypothesis is problematic when we consider the variance. The standard deviation of male IQs is much larger than that of females. This can be seen in the fact that men greatly outnumber women in prisons, mental institutions, homelessness, and premature deaths--and also in chess grandmasters, Nobel Prizes in the sciences, Fields Medals in mathematics, tech startups, presidencies and prime ministerships of countries, and more.
Men are, in effect, nature's, or God's, crapshoot. Women are nature's, or God's, insurance policy. Thus, it's extremely likely that a man, not a woman, will in the future cure cancer, etc. Does this mean we shouldn't support the education of our female students? Of course not. Everyone should be encouraged to make as much of themselves as possible in every dimension of human endeavor.
I don't think I get as much cred as men do for writing applied science and science-based books, but it makes sense that I wouldn't. (And granted, part of it is that I make science funny and, well, filled with profanity.)
However, consider that women tend to go for work-life balance in a way men do not -- to the point they give up opportunities to get it.
Men, on the other hand, have to be successful to get a quality woman. A successful man might date a hot barista, but it's the very, very rare successful woman who will.
Accordingly, it makes sense to assume that a woman would be less driven and her work would be of less consequence.
It sucks when you're me -- and you just can't get enough hours in the day to work, because you're all about your work and hammering it until it's the best it can be. But I understand why it makes sense that I'd be seen as more of a lightweight than men -- and do my best to counter it, as much as I can.
Regardless, pointless to whine about it. I see it as an interesting fact.
Block might as well have said, "Yes, it is possible that a woman could find the cure for cancer. But statistically speaking, it will likely be one who's transgender."
Fayd at May 11, 2019 7:18 AM
Too many people think "average" is meaningful statistic by itself. I've had enough statistics courses to know that, while it does have meaning, it won't answer most questions by itself.
Early in college, I had an Intro professor who said, "I can't teach you to be a statistician in one class, but I can teach you to be a skeptic."
Not to mention that IQ alone does not make it equally probable that a cancer cure could be found by a woman or a man. In fact, IQ is probably a lousy predictor of a cancer cure. IQ does not measure aptitude, diligence, work ethic, psychological stability, or a host of other things that make a good cancer researcher.
I was reading about a serial killer the other day who had a high IQ, but no education. He was, as a result, diagnosed to be mentally deficient as an adult and institutionalized.
Conan the Grammarian at May 11, 2019 7:58 AM
This is a good explanation for why women are underrepresented in some fields and the pinnacle of success in most fields.
However such arguments have almost zero impact on feminsts and the left, and that is what is interesting to me.
For example I remmember I had a friend, now former friend, who said the underrepresentatation of women in math or physics or something like that was evidence of sexism; when I asked him if the overrepresenation of women in biology and college in general was evidence of sexism against men he didn't answer and just got angry.
Feminists are not motiviated by the truth. They are motivated by a hatred of white men. They only use equalitiy as a pretense so arguing to them with facts and logic is pointless.
The rank and file leftists like my former friend go along with it because liberalism is the religion of the high status memmebers of our society and they want to be high status.
If said former friend lived in the 19th century South he would hate blacks, if he lived in the Third Reich he would hate Jews. But he lives here and now so he hates white men, even though he is a white man. He would do whatever he needs to do to get high status.
Jewish Cat at May 11, 2019 9:34 AM
Why do people use this knowledge to justify people thinking guys are more competent? Shouldn't they be equally inclined to think guys are horribly inept?
NicoleK at May 11, 2019 9:51 AM
NicoleK, it is because there is a filtering process that has gone on before that decision is made. If you were looking at the population at large you would come to the conclusion that men and women are equivalent. After all the averages are the same. But if you are looking at a research position you've already eliminated over 90% of the population. You are only looking at the high part of a distribution. And hence the gender ratio in that group is heavily skewed towards men. As was noted if you are looking at criminality once again you've eliminated over 90% of the population and are only looking at the low end of that statistical distribution, so once again men dominate and you largely ignore women. That also plays into general biological differences between men and women so consequently women are not punished as severely for the same crime as a man is even with the same background of criminal history. The majority in that group have already set the trend and in that case women benefit from it.
The key point being you aren't looking at the whole population but instead looking at a specific subgroup.
Ben at May 11, 2019 10:00 AM
I doubt that the Loyola student has ever heard that there's a significant difference in the variance distribution of IQ between men and women unless it was to deny that fact.
IQ and aptitude differences are taboo subjects nowadays. Even in fields that measure and utilize IQ measurements, their role and significance are typically obscured behind jargon and euphemisms.
But what's more uncomfortable to consider than a very small percentage of men dominating the 3+ sigma IQ range is that men also tend to develop significantly greater acquired intelligence over their lifetime than women, on average. You'll see this reflected in lifetime 'crystallized intelligence' measurements and also non-IQ measures of general knowledge and domain knowledge.
I suspect that this is the real reason that men are more likely to 'make important contributions to society' - they're more likely to develop the knowledge and skills required. And what makes that 'uncomfortable' is that it means their achievements are earned, not the result of gender bias or stereotypes.
mormon at May 11, 2019 11:59 AM
In the real world, women will go to extremes to land the successful man. Men do not rate successful women particularly higher on the dating scale--her success does not translate into higher fertility (sorry to be crass but that is what our genes want in spite of our "wokeness" or education). What turns a man's head? all the things that snap his head around are signs of youth, health, and fertility.
Conan makes an interesting point about IQ not being sufficient for success even in high IQ fields. He is correct. Conscientiousness is also important. Even more important is drive. Drive and work/life balance are incompatible. It is men who are more driven, as Amy noted. In certain fields such as math, there is also an absence of social skills among the most successful (I have known many) and this is compatible with spending way too much time thinking about set theory or such.
cc at May 11, 2019 12:27 PM
You're not a lightweight, dear Goddess. You deliver us excellent nuggets of fact and wisdom, quality-checked by reason. Greg and Aida - and all us readers - are lucky to have you :)
Hans Tholstrup at May 11, 2019 3:36 PM
"Does this mean we shouldn't support the education of our female students?"
After what Block wrote, it's just a stupid question (beside the implicit utilitarianism): even if statistically it's more probable that a man discovers the cure of cancer, it's entirely possible that it's a woman. And not every scientist has to be a genius; we just need normally competent professionals.
In science, as in so many other fields, the only important thing is that we value the objective merit, otherwise we'll have our institutions stuffed with pompous bureaucrats giving prizes between themselves for the wonderful job they're doing, while they dismiss serious scientists who might endanger their position.
Let's say that identity politics IS cancer: it attacks sane organizations, replacing working tissues and processes with the only purpose to feed itself. I hope someone is able to defeat it forever, I don't care if man or woman.
Paolo Pagliaro at May 11, 2019 5:25 PM
Good point Paolo. The fact that men are far more likely to dominate the sciences in no way implies we shouldn't educate women in them. The reality is the very vast majority of people of both genders will never get a Nobel. Under Block's cost/benefit analysis question we shouldn't train anyone in the sciences because most of them won't go into a research field. Hopefully most of us can see why that is a terrible idea.
The reality is you can't perfectly tell who will perform well and who won't. Instead you should just give everyone the same opportunities. Use the useful outcomes. And stop worrying that groups on the tail end of statistical curves don't match the total population.
Ben at May 12, 2019 10:01 AM
"'Does this mean we shouldn't support the education of our female students?' After what Block wrote, it's just a stupid question..."
Indeed, and there's an even more insidious assumption underlying that statement: the notion that education is something for which there is a fixed and small supply; therefore, it must be rationed. Of course, education is all intellectual property, if you will; an infinite number of copies can be made at fairly marginal additional cost, so there is no reason that the supply of education can't grow to meet whatever the demand is. This is especially true now that the Internet has largely uncoupled the spread of knowledge from physical media.
(Educational credentialism is another matter. It suits the purposes of the people who possess the highest-level credentials to assure that the supply of said credentials is limited.)
Cousin Dave at May 13, 2019 8:40 AM
Leave a comment