Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Mar11-05, 03:28 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <d0maqf\\$10la\\$1@fiasco.xenopsyche.net>, tessel@tum.bot writes:\n\n> >> the question of why humans take such pleasure in, and feel such\n> >> compulsion to indulge in gossip.\n> >\n> > I think it is clear from evolutionary biology that gossip was essential\n> > for our survival back in the caveman days, thus it is still interesting\n> > to many people today, even if it is not as strongly needed as back then.\n>\n> I think you are suggesting that this might have been adaptive 10,000 years\n> ago, but is now selectively neutral, or even a waste of valuable energy.\n\nRight.\n\n> That could well be, but I don\'t think one can assume this is true without\n> a lot more evidence.\n\nEvolutionary biology is similar to astrophysics and cosmology in that,\nin contrast to most sciences, one can\'t do experiments, but has to\nexplain the observations in a plausible way. Probably as a result of\nthis, books play a much larger role in the active scientific discourse\nof evolutionary biology than in, say, particle physics. The ONLY\nevidence, presumably, is plausibility in a case like this, and I think\nthat Pinker makes a pretty good case that interest in gossip was an\nadaptive trait which has held on.\n\n> > AVERAGE is the key term. There can be a woman who is taller than the\n> > average man, or even taller than all men, without changing the fact that\n> > most men are taller than most women. Second, the standard deviation\n> > tends to be larger in men. Thus, even if the average is the same, there\n> > will be more male overachievers, but also more underachievers. Most\n> > geniuses are male, but so are most idiots.\n>\n> Isn\'t that what I said?!\n\nProbably. I just want to point out, since almost anyone stating\nsomething like this is misunderstood, that an observed difference in\naverages implies just that, and does not necessarily imply all the other\nthings I mentioned.\n\n> > Fourth, whatever the average behaviour is, there is no justification in\n> > using this as a basis for discrimination.\n>\n> Surely it was clear that I wasn\'t saying otherwise? (I am not sure if you\n> thought I -was-.)\n\nNo, I\'m not accusing you, though this needs to be pointed out for fear\nof being misunderstood.\n\n> Just to be clear, I too can think of certain -particular- women in our\n> fields who in my own estimate do better research* than most of their male\n> or gender-indeterminate colleagues, and I would expect (hope?) that if\n> career advancement were determined by some rational optimization\n> procedure, these individuals would not be held back.\n\nEven if that is the case, though, don\'t make the hidden assumption that,\nfor a particular individual, a successful career in research is the main\ngoal. In other words, someone might leave research not because of lack\nof talent, but because other things are considered more important. As a\nconsequence, their disapperance does not NECESSARILY mean that they were\n"held back".\n\n> So the question is: should society attempt to correct for this alleged\n> effect, and if so how? I was trying to suggest that maybe society should\n> -not- attempt to correct for such "second order" effects. But from\n> reading press coverage and editorials, I have the strong impression that\n> some commentators would not agree.\n\nThe solution is quite simple: make equal OPPORTUNITY the primary goal of\nsociety. (Actually, one might even define "civilization" in terms of\nhow well it achieves this goal.) Whether or not this leads to, say, an\nequal number of male and female physicists remains to be seen but, as\nlong as equal opportunity is present, it doesn\'t matter, except to\npeople who ASSUME that a lack of equality in terms of numbers of each\nsex in a particular job can be caused ONLY by lack of equal opportunity.\nI don\'t hear feminists shouting that the fact that there are fewer\ngarbagewomen than garbagemen is a result of a lack of equal opportunity.\n\nThere are many more women in astrophysics in Italy than in, say,\nDenmark. Does this mean that there is less discrimination in Italy\n(where macho ideals are more prevalent than further north)? Probably\nnot. The best explanation that I could find is that such jobs have an\neven lower salary in Italy than in Germany with the result that many men\nwho would otherwise have a career in astrophysics decide against it,\nsince they can\'t support a wife and children from the salary (which is\nmore necessary the higher the probability that the wife herself doesn\'t\nwork), which opens up the positions to women who are married to men who\nhave a well-paid job. So, ironically, a society in which women IN\nGENERAL tend not to have a career can, coupled with the relatively low\npay of a research position, lead to MORE women in a niche profession\nsuch as astrophysics.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <d0maqf$10la$1@fiasco.xenopsyche.net>, tessel@tum.bot writes:
> >> the question of why humans take such pleasure in, and feel such
> >> compulsion to indulge in gossip.
> >
> > I think it is clear from evolutionary biology that gossip was essential
> > for our survival back in the caveman days, thus it is still interesting
> > to many people today, even if it is not as strongly needed as back then.
>
> I think you are suggesting that this might have been adaptive 10,000 years
> ago, but is now selectively neutral, or even a waste of valuable energy.
Right.
> That could well be, but I don't think one can assume this is true without
> a lot more evidence.
Evolutionary biology is similar to astrophysics and cosmology in that,
in contrast to most sciences, one can't do experiments, but has to
explain the observations in a plausible way. Probably as a result of
this, books play a much larger role in the active scientific discourse
of evolutionary biology than in, say, particle physics. The ONLY
evidence, presumably, is plausibility in a case like this, and I think
that Pinker makes a pretty good case that interest in gossip was an
adaptive trait which has held on.
> > AVERAGE is the key term. There can be a woman who is taller than the
> > average man, or even taller than all men, without changing the fact that
> > most men are taller than most women. Second, the standard deviation
> > tends to be larger in men. Thus, even if the average is the same, there
> > will be more male overachievers, but also more underachievers. Most
> > geniuses are male, but so are most idiots.
>
> Isn't that what I said?!
Probably. I just want to point out, since almost anyone stating
something like this is misunderstood, that an observed difference in
averages implies just that, and does not necessarily imply all the other
things I mentioned.
> > Fourth, whatever the average behaviour is, there is no justification in
> > using this as a basis for discrimination.
>
> Surely it was clear that I wasn't saying otherwise? (I am not sure if you
> thought I -was-.)
No, I'm not accusing you, though this needs to be pointed out for fear
of being misunderstood.
> Just to be clear, I too can think of certain -particular- women in our
> fields who in my own estimate do better research* than most of their male
> or gender-indeterminate colleagues, and I would expect (hope?) that if
> career advancement were determined by some rational optimization
> procedure, these individuals would not be held back.
Even if that is the case, though, don't make the hidden assumption that,
for a particular individual, a successful career in research is the main
goal. In other words, someone might leave research not because of lack
of talent, but because other things are considered more important. As a
consequence, their disapperance does not NECESSARILY mean that they were
"held back".
> So the question is: should society attempt to correct for this alleged
> effect, and if so how? I was trying to suggest that maybe society should
> -not- attempt to correct for such "second order" effects. But from
> reading press coverage and editorials, I have the strong impression that
> some commentators would not agree.
The solution is quite simple: make equal OPPORTUNITY the primary goal of
society. (Actually, one might even define "civilization" in terms of
how well it achieves this goal.) Whether or not this leads to, say, an
equal number of male and female physicists remains to be seen but, as
long as equal opportunity is present, it doesn't matter, except to
people who ASSUME that a lack of equality in terms of numbers of each
sex in a particular job can be caused ONLY by lack of equal opportunity.
I don't hear feminists shouting that the fact that there are fewer
garbagewomen than garbagemen is a result of a lack of equal opportunity.
There are many more women in astrophysics in Italy than in, say,
Denmark. Does this mean that there is less discrimination in Italy
(where macho ideals are more prevalent than further north)? Probably
not. The best explanation that I could find is that such jobs have an
even lower salary in Italy than in Germany with the result that many men
who would otherwise have a career in astrophysics decide against it,
since they can't support a wife and children from the salary (which is
more necessary the higher the probability that the wife herself doesn't
work), which opens up the positions to women who are married to men who
have a well-paid job. So, ironically, a society in which women IN
GENERAL tend not to have a career can, coupled with the relatively low
pay of a research position, lead to MORE women in a niche profession
such as astrophysics.
> >> the question of why humans take such pleasure in, and feel such
> >> compulsion to indulge in gossip.
> >
> > I think it is clear from evolutionary biology that gossip was essential
> > for our survival back in the caveman days, thus it is still interesting
> > to many people today, even if it is not as strongly needed as back then.
>
> I think you are suggesting that this might have been adaptive 10,000 years
> ago, but is now selectively neutral, or even a waste of valuable energy.
Right.
> That could well be, but I don't think one can assume this is true without
> a lot more evidence.
Evolutionary biology is similar to astrophysics and cosmology in that,
in contrast to most sciences, one can't do experiments, but has to
explain the observations in a plausible way. Probably as a result of
this, books play a much larger role in the active scientific discourse
of evolutionary biology than in, say, particle physics. The ONLY
evidence, presumably, is plausibility in a case like this, and I think
that Pinker makes a pretty good case that interest in gossip was an
adaptive trait which has held on.
> > AVERAGE is the key term. There can be a woman who is taller than the
> > average man, or even taller than all men, without changing the fact that
> > most men are taller than most women. Second, the standard deviation
> > tends to be larger in men. Thus, even if the average is the same, there
> > will be more male overachievers, but also more underachievers. Most
> > geniuses are male, but so are most idiots.
>
> Isn't that what I said?!
Probably. I just want to point out, since almost anyone stating
something like this is misunderstood, that an observed difference in
averages implies just that, and does not necessarily imply all the other
things I mentioned.
> > Fourth, whatever the average behaviour is, there is no justification in
> > using this as a basis for discrimination.
>
> Surely it was clear that I wasn't saying otherwise? (I am not sure if you
> thought I -was-.)
No, I'm not accusing you, though this needs to be pointed out for fear
of being misunderstood.
> Just to be clear, I too can think of certain -particular- women in our
> fields who in my own estimate do better research* than most of their male
> or gender-indeterminate colleagues, and I would expect (hope?) that if
> career advancement were determined by some rational optimization
> procedure, these individuals would not be held back.
Even if that is the case, though, don't make the hidden assumption that,
for a particular individual, a successful career in research is the main
goal. In other words, someone might leave research not because of lack
of talent, but because other things are considered more important. As a
consequence, their disapperance does not NECESSARILY mean that they were
"held back".
> So the question is: should society attempt to correct for this alleged
> effect, and if so how? I was trying to suggest that maybe society should
> -not- attempt to correct for such "second order" effects. But from
> reading press coverage and editorials, I have the strong impression that
> some commentators would not agree.
The solution is quite simple: make equal OPPORTUNITY the primary goal of
society. (Actually, one might even define "civilization" in terms of
how well it achieves this goal.) Whether or not this leads to, say, an
equal number of male and female physicists remains to be seen but, as
long as equal opportunity is present, it doesn't matter, except to
people who ASSUME that a lack of equality in terms of numbers of each
sex in a particular job can be caused ONLY by lack of equal opportunity.
I don't hear feminists shouting that the fact that there are fewer
garbagewomen than garbagemen is a result of a lack of equal opportunity.
There are many more women in astrophysics in Italy than in, say,
Denmark. Does this mean that there is less discrimination in Italy
(where macho ideals are more prevalent than further north)? Probably
not. The best explanation that I could find is that such jobs have an
even lower salary in Italy than in Germany with the result that many men
who would otherwise have a career in astrophysics decide against it,
since they can't support a wife and children from the salary (which is
more necessary the higher the probability that the wife herself doesn't
work), which opens up the positions to women who are married to men who
have a well-paid job. So, ironically, a society in which women IN
GENERAL tend not to have a career can, coupled with the relatively low
pay of a research position, lead to MORE women in a niche profession
such as astrophysics.