anticlimatic
Permabanned
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,299
- MBTI Type
- INTP
I'm looking forward to the day when millennials finally reach adulthood, get lives, and focus on things that actually matter for a change.
These two statements conflict. If victims have no fault then why must victims 'work through' implicit biases? It's not as if women in physics are getting an easy ride. They too have to prove themselves.No, the comparison is not working here. People should be held responsible for their crimes and the victim has no fault for it.
All I am asking is for impartial treatment, you call me alt-righter. Be fair. Everybody should work for what they want to achieve. Not every guy gets a position in physics, even with quotas women still have to show commitment and skills.
How often do black males get date raped and subsequently accused of being complicit of being raped because...alcohol?
There were two comments in my post that you replied to. One that you ignored and the other, that you engaged with which was the question about blacks. It was your choice to engage with both or either.How many times does a red herring get brought into a discussion to detract from the prior point? Often. You didn't need to bring blacks into the conversation to begin with.
No one's creating jobs for women. What we know is that there's implicit bias against women in STEM (refer back to the study cited in another post). How this thread opened is that a sexist physicist did a presentation (no peer reviewed study) that stated that women were being hired whose studies weren't cited as frequently as male authored studies. Now, if you're honest, you'll clearly see how implicit bias can impact on citations.Women aren't helpless, little creatures who need jobs created for them.
What we know is that there's implicit bias against women in STEM (refer back to the study cited in another post). How this thread opened is that a sexist physicist did a presentation (no peer reviewed study) that stated that women were being hired whose studies weren't cited as frequently as male authored studies. Now, if you're honest, you'll clearly see how implicit bias can impact on citations.
It's not women who are having the pity party. It's the sexist physicist who's whining.Bias against women in STEM is old news. Do something. But don't have a pity party.
It's not women who are having the pity party. It's the sexist physicist who's whining.
Since it's not women whining, only a sexist physicist whining who rather than publishing a study for peer review, chose a presentation to illustrate his biases, why must women do anything?I don't see how they are conflicting. No woman says 'come rape me' and then accuses the guy for taking advantage of her instability. While when it comes to science and technical skills, women have inferiority complex which they must work on, with or without help.
And? My point at the time is that this way does work. It's absent job creation or as you've claimed, forcing them into jobs.You wrote:
"The quickest way to correct implicit biases is to kick down the bias by putting women into the respective fields."
That's not kicking down bias, that's forcing the poor, little kittens into a job.
Actually I think the reverse will be the case, because of the reasons you cite. Much of what passes for "people skills" at least on the superficial level is infused with gender bias. Scientists will have implicit bias, like anyone else, but when given an opportunity actually to work, study, volunteer, or otherwise engage with someone in that other group, I think they will more readily allow the reality of the person's abilities and character to override the bias. I think in science and engineering moreso than other fields, it is what someone can actually do that counts. The problem for women and minorities is getting their foot in the door so they can start to make that impression.Point 1) is close to what I had in mind as well.
Some sort of the suggested in point 2) would be helpful. Yet, scientists are know for their rather poor people skills and interest in developing such, so the 'meaningful interactions' strategy might not be terribly effective in most cases.
Yes. Bias in hiring has been demonstrated in STEM fields, by both men and women in hiring positions. I think someone even posted one of those references earlier in the thread.Scientists aren't above other humans when it comes to implicit biases. You pulled this out of thin air.
I think once scientists acknowledge their own implicit bias, they may be more effective than others in countering it due to the field's emphasis on objectivity and data. In other words, they have the right tools, they just need to apply them to the job.It's not correlation, just the scientific method...
I'm not saying they don't have implicit biases, only that transparency and feedback on the performance combined with blind preliminary testing and evaluation would make the biases very explicit and easy to address, thus presenting them in the objective language of science.
These industries are dominated by men largely because, when they started, women were explicitly excluded. Women have been playing catch-up ever since, often against great resistance to their efforts to change the status quo.It’s a self-perpetuating problem, I think.
Many industries are dominated by men because...they are dominated by men.
In such places men can behave as poorly ( or not) as they like and in many circumstances this creates an envirnment that is generally off-putting ( at the very least) to women.
If we are going to use quotas, the best place to use them is in education, and at the earliest levels. Make sure girls as well as boys are exposed to science activities, STEM camps, career day speakers of their gender, etc. Often this can be done by having everyone participate in something. At this level, there isn't competition as there is in hiring or in applications for higher education.I'd rather apply scientific methods to politics than the other way around. There is no need to play war because even though biases exist these are better countered by using science itself, not enforcing lower standards. I oppose quotas (unless in very extreme cases) but let's say you introduce it, transparent criteria and blind evaluation still have to be applied to guarantee that the right person goes to the right position. Because this is the best way to invalidate biases without compromising quality of science which is of utmost importance.
Women are responsible mainly for becoming aware of our own implicit biases so we do not allow them to affect how we treat others.Are you saying that women are not responsible? We have as much participation in the bias as any other by accepting it.
Implicit bias may not be a crime, but those who act under it are responsible for doing so. That includes all of us, but in the sense I described above.No, the comparison is not working here. People should be held responsible for their crimes and the victim has no fault for it.
As the saying goes, women have to work twice as hard to get half as much. It's hard to prove yourself, though, when you don't get the chance even to try.These two statements conflict. If victims have no fault then why must victims 'work through' implicit biases? It's not as if women in physics are getting an easy ride. They too have to prove themselves.
This is a big part of the problem. Growing up in an environment that still links math and science ability with males is a definite discouragement. This can be countered by giving girls the opportunity to try their hand at these subjects, learn, and succeed. Nothing breeds confidence like success.I don't see how they are conflicting. No woman says 'come rape me' and then accuses the guy for taking advantage of her instability. While when it comes to science and technical skills, women have inferiority complex which they must work on, with or without help.
That depends on how those women are put into those fields and positions."The quickest way to correct implicit biases is to kick down the bias by putting women into the respective fields."
That's not kicking down bias, that's forcing the poor, little kittens into a job.
I suppose it is partly because I see much of what passes for "people skills" as formulaic and superficial, and therefore more likely to reinforce bias than be open to questioning it. People who aren't focusing on "people skills" are usually focused instead on just getting the job done. I think respect for someone because they are able to do the job is more likely to be forthcoming in science, but this will happen only if the individual in question is given the opportunity to demonstrate that over time, in some sort of collegial relationship.I agree with nearly all of this. Only the part about 'people skills' is a little bit unclear to me. Dealing with objective reasoning requires a certain level of detachment and this has nothing to do with gender. Helping and working with the members of the groups we tend to be biased against could have both negative and positive effect depending of the manner it's been implemented. Otherwise, I do think it's one of the most powerful methods to make people relate. Especially if they have to go through some kind of 'hardship' together.
Yes. That is what gets someone's foot in the door, so they have a chance to establish a professional relationship, and help colleagues break down their implicit biases.What bothers me is that not everybody could be given a chance to prove themselves. So, of course, there must be first and foremost a fair selection process.
Yes. That is what gets someone's foot in the door, so they have a chance to establish a professional relationship, and help colleagues break down their implicit biases.
It is worth pointing out that discrimination is not inherently bad. We discriminate appropriately quite often. If we want to hire a chef, for instance, we will discriminate against applicants with no training or experience in cooking. In fact, if we call someone "discriminating", it is usually a compliment on their judgment, taste, or standards. It is discrimination on the basis of irrelevant criteria that is a problem.I find this is often a misconception of discrimination ( of or by any group) equality does not mean that everyone automatically attains the same position and receives equal reward. It means that everyone has equal opportunity to get those things.
His influence in physics also includes being dismissive and disrespectful toward female students. I wonder how many abandoned the field because of this, and what discoveries were lost or delayed as a result. Socially Feynman toyed with women, treating them as as prizes to be won, through tactics that we would lump under PUA today. I wonder how he would have fared in today's "me, too/time's up" climate. It is sad to think of his career being derailed as a consequence of these behaviors, but then his success and contributions should not come at such a personal and professional cost.I recently re-read "Surely you're Joking Mr. Feynman"- the whole thing, and not just my favorite bits from reading it as a kid.
As a kid, Feynman seemed like a curious character with great scientific talent, and advice for scientists, and the adult and sexual themes parts went over my head and was ignored.
Now, I think the guy was a creaton. Still a brilliant scientist and philosopher of science, but a horrible person.
Considering his influence in physics in particular, it wouldn't surprise me if many young physicists copy his behavior towards women, and not just his approach to science.
I worry how much this influenced me as well.
His influence in physics also includes being dismissive and disrespectful toward female students. I wonder how many abandoned the field because of this, and what discoveries were lost or delayed as a result. Socially Feynman toyed with women, treating them as as prizes to be won, through tactics that we would lump under PUA today. I wonder how he would have fared in today's "me, too/time's up" climate. It is sad to think of his career being derailed as a consequence of these behaviors, but then his success and contributions should not come at such a personal and professional cost.