Eugine_Nier comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - Less Wrong

157 Post author: Yvain 27 August 2012 03:36AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (1742)
Tags: politics argument words

Comments (1742)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 29 August 2012 03:40:05AM 0 points [-]

The sexism associated with evolutionary biology is typically the result of the perceived (or actual) claim that because sexual differentiation has a historical and evolutionary basis, it is morally correct to reinforce those differences today.

I'm not sure what you mean by "reinforce", but it seems reasonable to take these differences into account when making decisions.

Comment author: Decius 29 August 2012 04:59:16AM 2 points [-]

For example, suppose that evolutionary science has determined that is was pro-survival in the past for females to refrain from occupations which had high fatality rates.

Reinforcing that would be claiming that females should refrain from or be prohibited/discouraged from those occupations in the present and near future.

Also sexist is the line of thought "Females are statistically more/less likely to be X, therefore I require that it be a male/female who performs task Y.", when variation within each sex is great enough that there are a very large number of one sex who outperform a typical member of the other; a specific example would be "Females are less likely than males to complete a degree in mathematics; therefore it makes sense to award this scholarship to the equally qualified male instead of the female".

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 30 August 2012 03:12:46AM -1 points [-]

when variation within each sex is great enough that there are a very large number of one sex who outperform a typical member of the other

That's not the relevant comparison. In practice the comparison is between an above average members of each sex.

a specific example would be "Females are less likely than males to complete a degree in mathematics; therefore it makes sense to award this scholarship to the equally qualified male instead of the female".

In your example, than depends on whether the first clause is still true after controlling for whatever qualifications are used in the second.

Comment author: Decius 30 August 2012 03:04:06PM -1 points [-]

You don't always have the luxury of choosing from among a sample that includes above-median performers.

The second case is a textbook example of sexist thought; I thought it was clear that the first clause was not controlling for anything, while the second was making a specific measurement of expected performance.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 31 August 2012 12:31:07AM -1 points [-]

You don't always have the luxury of choosing from among a sample that includes above-median performers.

In that case comparing average members of one sex with the above average members of the other is still not the right comparison to make.

I thought it was clear that the first clause was not controlling for anything, while the second was making a specific measurement of expected performance.

Even this statement is ambiguous. Does the specific measure of expected performance actually screen of gender?

Comment author: Decius 31 August 2012 03:52:26PM -1 points [-]

In that case comparing average members of one sex with the above average members of the other is still not the right comparison to make.

You never need to compare the average, because you only ever need to compare a small number of individuals.

Even this statement is ambiguous. Does the specific measure of expected performance actually screen of gender?

Performance in the production environment correlates with the measured expectation equally well for males and females.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit