RE: Some Thoughts on "So, about this Googler’s manifesto" by Yonatan Zunger
Hey there,
I'm not an engineer, but I am a feminist. So the first thing I have to say is, yes, I think this is a useful, measured response that Yonathan Zunger gives.
But more to the point, while I respect your attempt to offer value to the conversation, I think his point one is something you should take to heart as well. You say "Yes, men and women are biologically different from an evolutionary perspective." Since the extent to which this is true is something that is actively debated by people who are social scientists and biologists, I think we should be careful when asserting it to either back our statements up with research links or to leave it to the experts entirely.
There are a bunch of useful links in this article: https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/brain-science-male-and-female-debunk-problems-feminism-neuroscience-hearken
Most evidence points to insignificant biological/evolutionary differences between male and female brains. Hopefully that leads us to avoid statements like "Yes, men and women are biologically different from an evolutionary perspective."
Socialization has a lot to do with what we think of as "male" and "female" traits.
Respectfully, there is very little debate in the hard sciences (biology, genetics, anthropology, etc.) regarding whether male and female behaviors and preferences are biologically different. However such debate is quite common in the so-called "social sciences" which are motivated as much by politics and social justice objectives as by the scientific method.
The article to which you link is not particularly relevant. It only addresses the issue as to whether observed differences in male/female behavior can be linked to STRUCTURAL differences in the brain. While this is, in fact, debated within the hard sciences, whether or not the observed male/female behavior differences are biologically determined is not. There are many innate biological differences between men and women (for instance, hormones) that are known to contribute strongly to these observed differences in behaviors, and this is nearly universally recognized in the hard sciences.
Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke famously debated this issue and Pinker summarized just some of the overwhelming evidence (from the hard sciences) supporting the fact that males and females are innately different in their behaviors and preferences. By contrast, Spelke offered little evidence for her contrary conclusion, instead making a series of conclusory statements and citing papers (I hesitate to call them research) primarily from the social sciences. Details on that debate can be found here: https://www.edge.org/event/the-science-of-gender-and-science-pinker-vs-spelke-a-debate. And there are YouTube videos of the debate available online also.
To give just one example of how biology dictates behaviors and preferences, we need only to examine testosterone as an example. The research on testosterone is really not debated. We can give males or females higher doses of testosterone and their behavior (in particular, risk-taking behavior) does change as a consequence. Higher testosterone correlates with more risk taking. Remarkably so. Innumberable studies have confirmed it.
There is no doubt that men on average have massively higher testosterone levels than women on average. And, there's very, very little doubt that this difference in testosterone levels is biologically innate. From this difference in testosterone we can predict that men should take more risks and therefore experience a greater variance of outcomes and...they do. And even among men, those with more testosterone should take more risks than those with less. Men are universally recognized as engaging in higher risk activities, and levels of testosterone appear to dictate differences in risk taking between men.
Chart bell curves of sample populations of sufficient size of greater risks takers and lesser risk takers and you'll invariably find that the bell curve for risk takers is wider and flatter. The tails on both ends of the curve are longer because sometimes the the risk pays off (leading out outlying levels of success) and other times it doesn't (leading to outlying levels of failure). Furthermore, the further you go out on tails of the curve, the more the risk takers will be overrepresented (as a percentage of the total at that level).
And, this is exactly what we see when we measure men versus women in most any describable attribute. The variance in outcomes among men is greater than women (the curve is flatter and wider), and the further you go out on the tails at either side of the bell curve the more men are overrepresented (which again, is completley predictable given their higher risk-taking tendancies). So, yes, men are vastly overrepresented among Fortune 1000 executives (the right tail of the curve), but they are vastly overrepresented among prisoners (the far left of the curve) also. Risk taking results in more binary types of outcomes--great success or great failure. It's matter of simple and rather undebatable statistics.
As Pinker described in his debate, other differences are similarly innate. For instance, both human and primate infants show preferences for certain types of toys--male infants being more infatuated with mechanical types of toys (cars, machines, mobiles, etc.) and female infants being more infatuated with "social" types of toys (for instance, dolls). This finding has been replicated. It seems likely that testosterone or other hormonal differences explain these preferences.
It's possible, even likely, that innate differences in risk-taking tendencies and hormonal driven personal preferences explain why men are so overrepresented in engineering and the "hard sciences" while females are so overrepresented in teaching and the "social sciences". Many stereotypes are biological rather than social or cultural.
Hey Sean! Glad you found this post as I was curious of your thoughts on it.
I finally listened to all of that Pinker/Spelke debate today. I'm curious what you think about the counter arguments made by Elizabeth Spelke such as parents who perceive male and female babies differently given tasks they objectively accomplish the same? Or, when dealing with the averages (not the exceptional CEO examples), women are perceived as less hard working or productive if, again, objectively it's not the case.
We're like fish in water trying to run experiments on how much the water impacts us. There's no clear way to fully determine the influence of nurture but we can demonstrate how it's unequal in ways which don't match objective reality, i.e. the way we treat people is actually causing harm, and we can do something about it as a species.
The real issues being discussed here aren't "Are men and women different biologically?" Both Pinker and Spelke (and anyone else, really) says "Yes, of course!" What matters here is the context and if those differences impact why women have not been treated equally as men for so long. Do those differences have much of anything to do with the discussion at hand dealing with sexism in technology and if so, how do we know it's related to nature and not nurture without committing a naturalistic fallacy?
If we know nurture plays a significant role and we know we can actually do something about that by education, shaming, social pressures, rewards, punishments, etc, etc... then we at least have a path towards a better future where women are free to do whatever they want and they will (ideally) be judged by their abilities, not their sex/gender. If we're stuck on debating the impact of physical differences such as hormones and chemicals, how can we tease apart the role of epigenetics and gene expression? How can we know how much of the physical differences we're pointing to are a result of neural plasticity after a lifetime of lived experiences within a culture that may be misogynistic?
At the same time, we should be cautious starting with physical differences and then extrapolating from them causality when, in controlled settings dealing with priming and such, we can directly show causality. Historically related to both race and sex, we've seen how starting with the argument that physical differences play a role has led to some really, really awful conclusions. Not only did they turn out to be scientifically unsound, but they caused direct harm by further changing or reinforcing the perceptions which may be much more influential in causing discrimination.
I really like Pinker and I liked his book The Blank Slate. Just as he describes himself as a feminist, I've seen you describe yourself in similar ways, wanting to empower women to be and do anything they want and most importantly to thrive within their strengths without trying to conform to a self-image put on them by society which may not fit biological reality. That's a wonderful message which I do think should be spread. Unfortunately, I think it gets hijacked a bit by some who currently profit from a disproportionate amount of power and influence over society and don't want to see the status quo change. They want to continue controlling and defining how women are perceived in order to maintain power, even if that means granting women a new sense of self-discovery and identity which is, again, still controlled in many ways by the same classic white, male stereotype power role.
Given the waters we swim in, to say men are better than women at getting CEO jobs may have very little to do with biology and more to do with those who are already in charge and get to set the rules. What if cooperation is more advantageous than competition? Would it then make sense to have more women with lower testosterone in charge of making decisions (if we follow that testosterone argument)? The point here is we haven't yet talked about what we prefer in society, the philosophy of what "good" looks like, before we've jumped to explaining the way things are using things which can remove responsibility from harmful actors.
Most people who are passionate about this discussion are more interested in figuring out what we can do to align things along how they'd like them to be (i.e. women, minorities, etc being treated based on their ability, not their gender/racial identity).
If the answer is, "Well, we're just born that way and that's how it is" there'd be no discussion to have. Since we can provable show how much our own perception changes things, it makes sense to focus on the things we can change and go from there.
Great questions, as always. I'm looking forward to responding later today when I have more time.
Respectfully, after reading the first half of each debater (I confess, it's long enough that I don't plan to finish it.), I think you're dismissing Spelke undeservedly, and I'm not sure why. The results of at least the portion of the debate I read, would incline me to retain my notions of where gender differences are relevant and where they aren't. And the example of testosterone that you give as if it's the only factor determining both prison populations and fortune 500 CEOs seems overly simplistic. Non-white people are also over represented in the prison population, are you going to claim that's not because of social pressures? I don't reject the idea that testosterone is correlated with risk-taking, but the conclusions you draw are leaps, not steps.
I doubt we'll agree until or unless one of us actually makes the issue the core of our scientific investigations. Otherwise, it seems like there's plenty of scientists on both sides of the controversy for either of us to cite. As both the debaters mentioned, it is a very political topic, so divorcing politics from the science isn't something I'd believe whomever I'm discussing it with capable of, and I confess, I don't think it's possible for me either.
I will furthermore point out that the site itself mentions "Both presented scientific evidence with the realization and understanding that there was nothing obvious about how the data was to be interpreted."
So... even they don't think it's obvious.
More to your point, though, both debaters agree there are biological sex differences. The significance of those is what's debatable, and that's where I think you and I differ.
All of the detailed evidence for his position came in the second half of his talk, so if you stopped before then you missed most everything of substance. Also, the citations are included in his slides (which are available the link I provided).
In the concluding discussion part, or in the second half of his initial presentation? I'm in the midst of the concluding discussion at this moment. I guess I am devoted enough to read it all.
LOL. It's fascinating stuff! The second half of his initial presentation is what I meant.
Having read it all now, I think I'll conclude with a quote from Spelke: "I think the only way we can find out [if biological differences make one sex more capable of doing exceptional math] is to do one more experiment. We should allow all of the evidence that men and women have equal cognitive capacity to permeate through society. We should allow people to evaluate children in relation to their actual capacities, rather than one's sense of what their capacities ought to be, given their gender. Then we can see, as those boys and girls grow up, whether different inner voices pull them in different directions. I don't know what the findings of that experiment will be. But I do hope that some future generation of children gets to find out. "
I completely agree and was trying to throw a bone to those who discuss these differences at length as if they really matter. It's clear we can say things about the physical body like "Yes, I have a penis and you do not" for most of the human population (but not all, of course). What is not so clear at all is gender which has to do with the mind. I tried to be clear about that by saying "biologically" but maybe I should say "physically" instead. But even then, I get your point in that what makes someone male or female might be a trivial difference in hormones at a very specific time in development. Maybe we shouldn't be making such a big deal about it.
I look forward to reading that link, thank you for sharing it.
You're welcome! Glad you made that clearer. I think people grab ahold of openings like "biological differences" and try to extrapolate "can write my name in the snow with pee" to "better spatial thinking".
I enjoyed that post and may look into the supporting links a bit more, but this last sentence was cringworthy:
No, sorry, that's not how good science works. "Hurray for flawed papers which support my agenda"? Scary. Her agenda may actually prove to be the "right" one most accurately describing physical reality, but the perspective communicated in that last sentence has historically led to a lot of bad outcomes. Other than that, I though it was well written and balanced enough to include counter perspectives, which I always like seeing.
Sure. To what I think her point is, though, it's a field with too little research being done. Every study is flawed, and for many studies, the flaw is limited sample sizes due to funding. Each individual study contributes to a larger picture that will make future meta-studies possible. That IS how science works. The vanguard has to deal with inevitable restrictions because they are paving the way for future, more extensive studies. It may be too early to say anything definitively, but having studies at all is a good thing, when the alternative is no studies, and just a reliance on "what everyone knows" which is where the gender determinism camp tends to operate from. (e.g. "everyone knows that men are better at spatial orientation and women are better at understanding emotions.")
And I'd add that, since we live in a society that still leans so heavily on sexist tropes to enforce the status quo and since public perception often ignores scientific consensus, if flawed research results in tearing down the patriarchy, it still has value, especially if it merely supplements less flawed research.
Very little research isn't flawed. It is meta-studies that we must rely on to give us a clearer picture, since any individual study has so many limitations. And especially in fields that aren't thoroughly examining their pre-existing assumptions for flaws.
Yeah, that's a great way to think about it. Thanks for bringing that perspective. I just get concerned about people pushing their agendas with "science" that may, as you said, still be uncertain.
But, if it causes less harm in the world, I'm all for that, regardless of the details as long as it doesn't create more long term, systemic risk down the road.
Totally. I think it's imperative that one be skeptical and approach every piece of new information with a cautious eye, but at the same time, we must be open to the possibility that we are wrong. It's a delicate balance.
Interestingly, in the article that @sean-king linked, one of the debaters says, "There is evidence, admittedly squishy in parts, that differences in prenatal hormones make a difference in later thought and behavior even within a given sex. "
That "admittedly squishy in parts" seems remarkably like "even when it's flawed".
Hmm... maybe, but one clearly celebrated an agenda being pushed by "flawed" science. The other is simply saying "There is some weak evidence for this conclusion" without any declaration of whether or no that conclusion is good, bad, a desired agenda, etc.