Misogynistic countries are more genrer equal

[DrZoidberg]

They're probably not. But that should be the conclusion if gender is a social construct.

Here's a metastudy that shows that the more affluent a country, ie the less economic necessity dictates your career choices, the more likely you are to chose highly gendered jobs for your gender.

I think it looks legit.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaas9899

Autocorrect messed up the thread title. Wtf is a "genrer"?

 

[skepticalbip]

They're probably not. But that should be the conclusion if gender is a social construct.

Here's a metastudy that shows that the more affluent a country, ie the less economic necessity dictates your career choices, the more likely you are to chose highly gendered jobs for your gender.

I think it looks legit.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaas9899

Autocorrect messed up the thread title. Wtf is a "genrer"?

If the "study" is accurate, I would interpret that as indicating that, when a country is affluent, people are more free to pursue their personal interests as a career choice rather than having to accept from limited choices available. Even though recognizing that men and women are different in our current hyper politically correct culture is unacceptable, they are and they do have different interests. It would have nothing to do with gender equality as defined by the PC culture as equality = men and women doing the same thing but gender equality being both men and women being able to choose what interests them.

I think the paper is a good illustration that social science is a soft science where almost any hypotheses is "supportable", not a hard science.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think the paper is a good illustration that social science is a soft science where almost any hypotheses is "supportable", not a hard science.

That's quite the claim. Do you have any social science studies you can link to which support this hypothesis?

 

[skepticalbip]

I think the paper is a good illustration that social science is a soft science where almost any hypotheses is "supportable", not a hard science.

That's quite the claim. Do you have any social science studies you can link to which support this hypothesis?

I am even now in the process of writing up a grant proposal to study this so I can "prove" my hypothesis.

 

[J842P]

They're probably not. But that should be the conclusion if gender is a social construct.

Here's a metastudy that shows that the more affluent a country, ie the less economic necessity dictates your career choices, the more likely you are to chose highly gendered jobs for your gender.

I think it looks legit.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaas9899

Autocorrect messed up the thread title. Wtf is a "genrer"?

If the "study" is accurate, I would interpret that as indicating that, when a country is affluent, people are more free to pursue their personal interests as a career choice rather than having to accept from limited choices available. Even though recognizing that men and women are different in our current hyper politically correct culture is unacceptable, they are and they do have different interests. It would have nothing to do with gender equality as defined by the PC culture as equality = men and women doing the same thing but gender equality being both men and women being able to choose what interests them.

I think the paper is a good illustration that social science is a soft science where almost any hypotheses is "supportable", not a hard science.

Why do you out "study" in scare quotes? This is actually a replicated result, and the explanation is as you say, people in wealthier, freer countries feel more able to pursue their actual interests, and those in other countries just try to pursue the lucrative options. Indeed, a few years ago I remember reading several articles about the *significant* overrepresentation of Iranian women in engineering and science majors, and Iran is a deeply sexist country with legally enforced gender separation and gender roles.

I'll note, this result goes against the overwhelming bias of people in the social sciences, which veer overwhelmingly towards the left.

 

[skepticalbip]

They're probably not. But that should be the conclusion if gender is a social construct.

Here's a metastudy that shows that the more affluent a country, ie the less economic necessity dictates your career choices, the more likely you are to chose highly gendered jobs for your gender.

I think it looks legit.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaas9899

Autocorrect messed up the thread title. Wtf is a "genrer"?

If the "study" is accurate, I would interpret that as indicating that, when a country is affluent, people are more free to pursue their personal interests as a career choice rather than having to accept from limited choices available. Even though recognizing that men and women are different in our current hyper politically correct culture is unacceptable, they are and they do have different interests. It would have nothing to do with gender equality as defined by the PC culture as equality = men and women doing the same thing but gender equality being both men and women being able to choose what interests them.

I think the paper is a good illustration that social science is a soft science where almost any hypotheses is "supportable", not a hard science.

Why do you out "study" in scare quotes? This is actually a replicated result, and the explanation is as you say, people in wealthier, freer countries feel more able to pursue their actual interests, and those in other countries just try to pursue the lucrative options. Indeed, a few years ago I remember reading several articles about the *significant* overrepresentation of Iranian women in engineering and science majors, and Iran is a deeply sexist country with legally enforced gender separation and gender roles.

I'll note, this result goes against the overwhelming bias of people in the social sciences, which veer overwhelmingly towards the left.

That is a reasonable question.

Even though this showed generally my take on the human condition, I am skeptical of the objectivity of the social sciences. It is all too easy to find studies that contradict each other and, in my experience, impossible to find one that shows the hypothesis the study was funded research was wrong. My background is in the hard sciences and I have found that in the hard sciences hypotheses are much more often wrong than correct and it is those that are shown to be wrong that are the most interesting and lead to better understandings. Physicists often publish papers on their research that proved they were wrong in their hypothesis and offer other possible ideas to be studied - I, personally, have not yet seen this in the social sciences.

 

[ronburgundy]

Your interpretation does not follow. You buying into the author's unscientific strawman assumption that theories of socialized gender roles means that the same countries that socialize gender preferences related to occupations should also have fewer women in the workforce (aka less "gender equality").

That actually doesn't make sense. Low GDP countries tend to also have strict authoritarian restrictions on whether women can be in the workforce and what they can do if they are. Socialization of psychological preferences is actually what societies do to control choices people make, which means it is mostly done when people have freedom and opportunity to make "choices" that you want to influence.
Why bother convincing women they are not cut out to be a manager, when they are not even allowed to try and be a manager in the first place?

 

[bigfield]

They're probably not. But that should be the conclusion if gender is a social construct.

Here's a metastudy that shows that the more affluent a country, ie the less economic necessity dictates your career choices, the more likely you are to chose highly gendered jobs for your gender.

I think it looks legit.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaas9899

Autocorrect messed up the thread title. Wtf is a "genrer"?

The study doesn't measure career choices; it measures gender differences in six traits: "willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust".

With respect to career, all it says is that:

These differences provide a key explanation for differential choices and outcomes between women and men in contexts such as occupational choice, financial investment, or educational decisions (4, 5), among many others.

...

4. T. DeLeire, H. Levy, Worker Sorting and the Risk of Death on the Job. J. Labor Econ. 22, 925–953 (2004). doi:10.1086/423159
5. T. Buser, M. Niederle, H. Oosterbeek, Gender, Competitiveness, and Career Choices. Q. J. Econ. 129, 1409–1447 (2014). doi:10.1093/qje/qju009

Following the citations, Buser et al measures competitiveness and DeLeire & Levy only measures tolerance for physical risk.

How do gendered differences in "willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust" relate to the number of women taking up, say, STEM careers?

 

[ronburgundy]

I think the paper is a good illustration that social science is a soft science where almost any hypotheses is "supportable", not a hard science.

That's quite the claim. Do you have any social science studies you can link to which support this hypothesis?

I am even now in the process of writing up a grant proposal to study this so I can "prove" my hypothesis.

If you think you can "prove" that hypothesis, then you know very little about what science is in general. Literate scientists don't use the word "prove" in relation to empirical questions.

 

[skepticalbip]

I am even now in the process of writing up a grant proposal to study this so I can "prove" my hypothesis.

If you think you can "prove" that hypothesis, then you know very little about what science is in general. Literate scientists don't use the word "prove" in relation to empirical questions.

Humor confuses you, does it?

 

[ronburgundy]

I am even now in the process of writing up a grant proposal to study this so I can "prove" my hypothesis.

If you think you can "prove" that hypothesis, then you know very little about what science is in general. Literate scientists don't use the word "prove" in relation to empirical questions.

Humor confuses you, does it?

Your ideological dismissal of "soft science" is typical among people who think that the "hard sciences" "prove" things.

 

[skepticalbip]

Humor confuses you, does it?

Your ideological dismissal of "soft science" is typical among people who think that the "hard sciences" "prove" things.

Just a guess.... social science or gender studies major?

 

[ruby sparks]

They're probably not. But that should be the conclusion if gender is a social construct.

Here's a metastudy that shows that the more affluent a country, ie the less economic necessity dictates your career choices, the more likely you are to chose highly gendered jobs for your gender.

I think it looks legit.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaas9899

Autocorrect messed up the thread title. Wtf is a "genrer"?

The study doesn't measure career choices; it measures gender differences in six traits: "willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust".

With respect to career, all it says is that:

These differences provide a key explanation for differential choices and outcomes between women and men in contexts such as occupational choice, financial investment, or educational decisions (4, 5), among many others.

...

4. T. DeLeire, H. Levy, Worker Sorting and the Risk of Death on the Job. J. Labor Econ. 22, 925–953 (2004). doi:10.1086/423159
5. T. Buser, M. Niederle, H. Oosterbeek, Gender, Competitiveness, and Career Choices. Q. J. Econ. 129, 1409–1447 (2014). doi:10.1093/qje/qju009

Following the citations, Buser et al measures competitiveness and DeLeire & Levy only measures tolerance for physical risk.

How do gendered differences in "willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust" relate to the number of women taking up, say, STEM careers?

Ok, but it does relate to career choices.

 

[ruby sparks]

.....that should be the conclusion if gender is a social construct.

Gender differences are almost certainly not a social construct, or to be exact, not just a social construct. How's that?

 

[bigfield]

Ok, but it does relate to career choices.

In some way, no doubt. But the study doesn't explain how.

What is the effect of "willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust" on career preferences?

And once we've modelled the effect, does it predict the career paths that women are actually taking?

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok, but it does relate to career choices.

In some way, no doubt. But the study doesn't explain how.

What is the effect of "willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust" on career preferences?

And once we've modelled the effect, does it predict the career paths that women are actually taking?

I don't know that answer to that, Bigfield, but after briefly scanning the papers cited, they do seem to get into it and (I believe) conclude or at least suggest that for example level of competitiveness affects career choice.

ETA: Although now that I think about it, that isn't on the list of things the study says it measures?

 

[bigfield]

Ok, but it does relate to career choices.

In some way, no doubt. But the study doesn't explain how.

What is the effect of "willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust" on career preferences?

And once we've modelled the effect, does it predict the career paths that women are actually taking?

I don't know that answer to that, Bigfield, but after briefly scanning the papers cited, they do seem to get into it and (I believe) conclude or at least suggest that for example level of competitiveness affects career choice.

ETA: Although now that I think about it, that isn't on the list of things the study says it measures?

I meant them to be rhetorical questions, to point out the gap between what the article actually shows and what one might want it to show.

 

[DrZoidberg]

.....that should be the conclusion if gender is a social construct.

Gender differences are almost certainly not a social construct, or to be exact, not just a social construct. How's that?

Fine. But that's not the kind of people I'm arguing against. I also believe gender differences are also partly a social construct. Because that's what the evidence suggests.

So we seem to be in agreement. Not much to base a discussion on