Gender Bias in Particle Physics?

[ParticleGrl]

And I have
seen studies that have concluded some women demographics get paid more than the equivalent male demographic:


http://www.warrenfarrell.net/TheBook/index.html

This appears to be a popular book, not a study. Does it rely on studies? If so, references please. Does it present results of his own study? If so- what journal did he publish in?

 

[Bacle2]

This appears to be a popular book, not a study. Does it rely on studies? If so, references please. Does it present results of his own study? If so- what journal did he publish in?

Areyou referring to the claim on the fact that the referenced women demographics outearn the same male demographic? The source is mentioned on the bottom

of the graph. With respect to the rest, O.K, I will. And please reference the studies in which women get paid less than men

for doing exactly the same work.

 

[twofish-quant]

drafted by sports teams made the cut as well as which college students accepted into colleges

Which may mean nothing in other situations. Also one problem with pop psychology articles is like pop astrophysics articles. The original papers can be well researched, but often when science gets popularized, a lot of caveats get removed.

 

[Bacle2]

But what level of generality do you want? These studies are almost necessarily of

a narrow scope; I doubt you can find a clear, concise description of the best predictor

of success for all people under all situations --I'd be skeptical if someone claimed to

have come up with such a descriptor. And, as to the claim that research gets distorted,

that is sometimes true, but not always. Your disagreement with me would carry more

weight if you had checked the originals before claiming that the statement I refer

necessarily contains distortions.

 

[twofish-quant]

And, as to the claim that research gets distorted, that is sometimes true, but not always.

It's pretty clear that the research is not being handled carefully in the article you cited. If you look at the original papers, Duckworth is looking at particular situations, whereas the article that you cited seems to be a "self-help" article that contains several assumptions and statements that weren't anywhere in the Duckworth's original research.

1) Duckworth studied "success" is some pretty narrow situations, and she has a particular definition of "success" and "achievement" that shouldn't go unchallenged. What if you end up getting your Ph.D., but you end up feeling miserable.

2) Duckworth didn't make any statements in her research that seems to imply causation. The article you referenced seem to be a "self-help" article that has implies that if you work harder and be more persistent you will be more successful. It doesn't consider the possibility that causation is reversed (i.e. people are more persistent at things that they are successful at, or the possibility of a third factor say, people with higher incomes have more ability to be persistent.)

3) As far as I know Duckworth didn't study physics Ph.D.'s, and I can think of some ways that Ph.D.'s are different than draft picks or spelling bee winners.

Your disagreement with me would carry more weight if you had checked the originals before claiming that the statement I refer necessarily contains distortions.

I did. I think that the article you referenced is coming to a lot of conclusions that are not supported by the people that they reference.

 

[jk]

CNN has an article by a female physicist at Yale today:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/01/opinion/urry-women-science/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

[Bacle2]

It's pretty clear that the research is not being handled carefully in the article you cited. If you look at the original papers, Duckworth is looking at particular situations, whereas the article that you cited seems to be a "self-help" article that contains several assumptions and statements that weren't anywhere in the Duckworth's original research.

1) Duckworth studied "success" is some pretty narrow situations, and she has a particular definition of "success" and "achievement" that shouldn't go unchallenged. What if you end up getting your Ph.D., but you end up feeling miserable.

2) Duckworth didn't make any statements in her research that seems to imply causation. The article you referenced seem to be a "self-help" article that has implies that if you work harder and be more persistent you will be more successful. It doesn't consider the possibility that causation is reversed (i.e. people are more persistent at things that they are successful at, or the possibility of a third factor say, people with higher incomes have more ability to be persistent.)

3) As far as I know Duckworth didn't study physics Ph.D.'s, and I can think of some ways that Ph.D.'s are different than draft picks or spelling bee winners.



I did. I think that the article you referenced is coming to a lot of conclusions that are not supported by the people that they reference.

I'm sorry, I should not have implied you did not read it. I should have said that you should give specific reasons why you believe a certain article misrepresents the study it refers-to.
And you did; my bad.

I will re-read the Duckworth article; please give me some time, a bunch of things fell on
me at the same time.

 

[Bacle2]

CNN has an article by a female physicist at Yale today:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/01/opinion/urry-women-science/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

It gets tiring to see women who seem to believe only they have experienced bias and injustice as a group. More realistically, join the

club; bias is part of all societies at all times. Try to get support for your child as a father after divorcing, and you'll

see bias. try having reproductive rights, only to be told "it's my body and I get to decide what to do with my baby --but

you should support him if I choose to give birth; it'll only be around $1,000,000 from birth to 21".

If you want to know about the other side of the coin, check, e.g:

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/

Which seems a pretty reasonable site.

EDIT (one of many) Didn't mean to come of so nasty, sorry. I just feel tired of what seems like a constant demonizing by

some far-out feminist sections . Of course, there are legitimate points to be made, it just seems like radicals have

taken over the debate, both left- and right. Hope my comment is not affecting the debate negatively.

 

[jk]

It gets tiring to see women who seem to believe only they have experienced bias and injustice as a group. More realistically, join the

club; bias is part of all societies at all times. Try to get support for your child as a father after divorcing, and you'll

see bias. try having reproductive rights, only to be told "it's my body and I get to decide what to do with my baby --but

you should support him if I choose to give birth; it'll only be around $1,000,000 from birth to 21".

If you want to know about the other side of the coin, check, e.g:

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/

Which seems a pretty reasonable site.

EDIT (one of many) Didn't mean to come of so nasty, sorry. I just feel tired of what seems like a constant demonizing by

some far-out feminist sections . Of course, there are legitimate points to be made, it just seems like radicals have

taken over the debate, both left- and right. Hope my comment is not affecting the debate negatively.

I think you're straying far from the original discussion. I'd like to steer the discussion back to the original subject. The thread is about gender bias in particle physics and the article I linked has an interview with a female physicist, which is relevant to the discussion. That is why I posted it.

I haven't seen any claims that only women suffer bias in science so I'm not sure where you're getting that. As to your assertion that bias is a part of all societies, it may be true but does it mean that we should not discuss it? I do not feel that the original question was "demonizing" anybody, just discussing some people's experience. As for your "radical" comment, a lot of calls for change are sometimes dismissed as being the work of radicals by those who may feel threatened by proposed change (case in point, women's right to vote in the US) so I do not think it adds to the discussion.

Here is another article in the NY Times about gender bias in science. It quotes a study that was done to study gender bias. (I have not read the study.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/science/bias-persists-against-women-of-science-a-study-says.html Some of the comments from female readers are particularly illuminating.

 

[Bacle2]

O.K, my bad; I forgot physics forums' posters are not as bad as those in other sites,
e.g:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/06/17/women-get-little-help-from-men-in-workplace.html

Look at the picture in the article , and its tone.
(I'll link to many more articles of this type if someone wants me to. )

Or go to a feminist studies class and disagree with the prof., as I did, and get lashed-at repeatedly throughout the semester. I have heard of similar stories by my friends, Etc.

As a whole, if I perceived the reporting on bias was more fair in this respect, less strident ,I would

take it more seriously . I mean, if I saw bias in all areas being address to the

same extent ( like, e.g. the ones I previously mentioned: family court, reproductive

rights, etc. ), and with the same vehemence, I would be less likely to suspect an

agenda or bias on those decrying a(n) (alleged) bias. Then again, my perception may be the result of the fact that my exposure to the media is non-standard,

but my repeated requests (in many sites) to support claims like " 70 cents to the dollar" were never addressed. Nor were my claims of biases on other areas.

Anyway. End of my reply on the "meta" issues.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's address the study you referred-to:Still, the study could use some tweaking to be more convincing: larger sample size,

addressing the name issue, addressing self-selection are ones I saw.

And the study could address what I believe may help explain the response (this

was also addressed by one of the people who commented on the article. I paraphrase):

Wether correctly or not, men in our society are perceived as having the

disease of "statusism", meaning men are perceived as being more willing than women

to put their careers above everything else, often at the expense of the rest of their

lives. This is not overall a healthy thing, and it is not often conducive to a balanced

life. Women, as a whole, are seen --for a set of reasons; correctly-or-not-- as

not being as willing as men to make the same choices at the expense of the parts of their life outside

of their work. This is not a bad thing , nor a sign of weakness, and it is overall healthier. I'm not being condescending here; I mean it.

And commitee members expect this level of devotion.

I agree with this last observation; I think this--the willingness of men to sacrifice their

non-academic life in order to succeed, and women being less willing to do so-- has

been the case until recently (and this perception is influencing hiring choices) . As to why this is so, I have some ideas, but

I'm not sure.