Reputation: 36 Excellent
|Active Posts:||213 (0.12 per day)|
|Most Active In:||Community (176 posts)|
|Joined:||24 October 07|
|Last Active:||Today, 04:11 AM|
Posts I've Made
27.10.2013 @ 17:32Nitpicking someone else's hard work? Sign me up. Any time.
27.10.2013 @ 17:06I'm not sure if it's obvious to English speakers that Jaskier quoted at the beginning is actually Dandelion. Also, they settled on 50 crowns, not 15. Smulka is apparently not as brazen to stick the king for triple the payment.
10.09.2013 @ 06:36
Guy N said:The catch with that explanation is that the most numerate (about 10% of the subjects) had no trouble with the value-free "skin cream" results, but the same subjects stuck on the value-loaded "gun control" results.
It wasn't a trivial problem. It required knowledge of conditional probability. Yeah, that's simple to the ten-percenters. But it doesn't explain answers consistent with "facts" in one case and consistent with political convictions in the other. ›››
I'd say that comparing two fractions IS a trivial problem. And that's what it boils down to.
As far as the value-free vs. politically-loaded, I think the politically loaded versions are the ones that people are more likely to hold some views on. And a view is pre-existing knowledge. So when I'm asked about some cream treatment, I don't know and I look at the numbers. But when asked to look at the problem that I already "know" a solution to, and if I'm numerate, I see that the problem is trivial so I skim it and in reality go with what I already know. But if I'm not really numerate, I might stop and think for a second.
Speculating is fun.
As for correlation vs causation, as KoP said, with enough data to control for variables we can infer causation with some certainty. But it definitely requires more data and oftentimes some interesting study design to allow regression analysis.
10.09.2013 @ 01:13Hmm... interesting. Definitely worth looking out for more results confirming the study. Correlation vs causation will as usual be an interesting puzzle.
If I were to speculate (it is way to early, but it's fun), I would posit that the more numerate types were probably not paying attention to what is after all a simple problem. So instead of looking at the question and actually solving it, they just went with what they knew already. But again, way too early to even speculate.
01.03.2013 @ 00:22@Babli
I watched the videos you posted, the documentary was quite entertaining I have to say. It was really funny to see the social scientists squirm when presented with the studies. As someone remarked, social science will always be based on some theory of human nature, but why does it have to be based on theories that are couple of hundred years obsolete?
But that's not the point and if you're trying to convince me that men and women are biologically different, then you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm convinced. On a side note, I would recommend Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate as a thorough debunking of the blank slate-based theories.
Back to our discussion, the question is not whether men and women are biologically different, the question is rather, do biological differences account for the gap that we see in fields like software engineering or game development (or nursing). And, as I said before, I'm skeptical for several reasons.
First, the historical precedent. As I wrote before, every time women tried to enter a field, there was an outcry of protest, usually pointing out some biological differences and claiming that they prevent women from performing adequately. And so far, most of them (if not all) proven to be false. Which basically shows us that there are many possible ways of performing most jobs and conversely that it is pretty hard to convincingly connect any mental or personal trait with a job skill.
The second reason is pretty much what was mentioned by the Scottish evolutionary psychologist in the video you linked. For most (all?) traits there is a huge overlap between the sexes. It's not like each and every guy is a faster runner that all the women in the world. And the same goes for mental abilities and personality traits as well. Studies show that the performance gap between male and female long distance runners is approx. 11%. Interestingly enough, the differences shown in the Baron-Cohen study discussed in the video are actually in the similar range (~10% preference for faces in girls, ~20% preference for mobiles in boys).
So the question is if the differences seem to be roughly in the 15% range, why are certain fields almost exclusively male (or female)? Shouldn't we expect the similar range? Why are we getting a significantly larger differences?
One can expect a larger than predicted discrepancy in very exclusive, elite fields. If we're looking for the fastest 1000 runners in the population of 7 billion, they will likely be all men. However neither software engineering nor game development (or nursing) are that elite. So where does the difference come from?
If I were to speculate I would posit that the social nature of humans serves as an amplifier of innate differences. Once a majority in a neutral field gets established, it tends to get bigger, eventually creating and perpetuating the notion that the field is inherently male (or female). And then we get the situation like the game industry today. And that would also mean that we can reverse this process. If we manage to combat the associated social prejudice, we can narrow the gap to what's dictated by the biology. Which, if you ask me, is probably in the seemingly standard range of 20% or so.
The game industry still has a long way to go, it seems.
As far the other video goes, I'm not sure what's the outrage about. The notion that one has to stop and think before saying something does not strike me as an outlandish requirement. Not when applied to people older than 5 years of age anyway. Perhaps it is sad that a country has to pass laws to force its people to be polite, but oh well.
I guess we can argue the wisdom of legislating savoir vivre, but a demand that people are not assholes is reasonable in my book.