Feminist Professor Thinks "Rigor" is Evil

[bd139]

I've been avoiding this thread until I had some time to take it in.

Sounds like Donna wants Purdue to degrade their primary engineering departments to squeeze out, like a turd, your average MIT Media Lab startup. Gender and colour equal wearable $100 clothing made of soy with an Arduino in it produced in an SF bay converted warehouse full of stand up desks and a juice bar. That's what happens when you remove rigour. You end up with Maker startups instead of engineering output.

The women, black and disabled people I have known in engineering were just as rigorous as anyone else.

[EEVblog]

I've been avoiding this thread until I had some time to take it in.

Sounds like Donna wants Purdue to degrade their primary engineering departments to squeeze out, like a turd, your average MIT Media Lab startup. Gender and colour equal wearable $100 clothing made of soy with an Arduino in it produced in an SF bay converted warehouse full of stand up desks and a juice bar. That's what happens when you remove rigour. You end up with Maker startups instead of engineering output.

The women, black and disabled people I have known in engineering were just as rigorous as anyone else.

You see gender, colour, and physical ability in engineering?
That's strange, all I've ever seen are engineers.

[bd139]

You see gender, colour, and physical ability in engineering?
That's strange, all I've ever seen are engineers.

You need to look harder. I see more than engineers. I see people. All people are different. Circumstances are different, ideologies are different and people are physically different. Working with people is not about discriminating, neutralising or ignoring those differences which appears to be the bipolar obsession here, but working with people's strengths and helping them with their weaknesses on their terms.

Lack of rigour is a weakness which transcends all of this and is driven mainly by ignorant conceit.

[coppice]

Take away gender and huge industries collapse overnight.

An idiot aussie politician just stood up in parliament and declared that we need mix sex elite sports.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-senator-linda-reynolds-calls-for-debate-on-mixed-gender-teams-in-australia-s-elite-sports-20180220-p4z0ys.html

What an idiotic idea. If there are no more male and female leagues and women have to compete for a place in a single mix gender elite sports team the result will be practically not a single female player left in the sport any more. All those currently happy and paid and sponsored elite female sports athletes would no longer be able to compete at the elite level any more
We have female and male olympic sports events for a reason.

I think you should have pointed out that her example sport was rugby, which makes her ideas bizarre. There are a number of sports, like curling and archery, where women and men compete separately, yet the game is about skill and finesse. There is no advantage accrued from the greater upper body strength of a man, or the greater gymnastic agility of a woman. I have no idea why these were not merged into mixed gender sports long ago.

[Ampera]

You see gender, colour, and physical ability in engineering?
That's strange, all I've ever seen are engineers.

You need to look harder. I see more than engineers. I see people. All people are different. Circumstances are different, ideologies are different and people are physically different. Working with people is not about discriminating, neutralising or ignoring those differences which appears to be the bipolar obsession here, but working with people's strengths and helping them with their weaknesses on their terms.

Lack of rigour is a weakness which transcends all of this and is driven mainly by ignorant conceit.

I don't want to say that I am personally "colour-blind", as I am not. I understand where people come from, and the best ways not to screw up a social interaction with them, but outside of base details, I don't try to gear my general responses towards anyone outside of their core personality, and I struggle to like anybody who does. To me, an SJW that doesn't want to be in the same room as a white person unless he hates himself is a monster of a person, the same way someone who treats women and black people as less than capable is a monster.

People are people, and while all people are different by birth as well as in their core personality, nobody is significantly less capable or more capable by default.

[Cerebus]

Take away gender and huge industries collapse overnight.

An idiot aussie politician just stood up in parliament and declared that we need mix sex elite sports.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-senator-linda-reynolds-calls-for-debate-on-mixed-gender-teams-in-australia-s-elite-sports-20180220-p4z0ys.html

What an idiotic idea. If there are no more male and female leagues and women have to compete for a place in a single mix gender elite sports team the result will be practically not a single female player left in the sport any more. All those currently happy and paid and sponsored elite female sports athletes would no longer be able to compete at the elite level any more
We have female and male olympic sports events for a reason.

It would just mean that you Aussies would have no more male hockey, rugby and probably Aussie no-rules football players left.   

I've played mixed rugby: "Ouch! No! Stop it! Ref! Ref!! REF!!!!!!!!!!!! [Gurgling sound followed by silence.]"

[Fungus]

There are a number of sports, like curling and archery, where women and men compete separately, yet the game is about skill and finesse. There is no advantage accrued from the greater upper body strength of a man, or the greater gymnastic agility of a woman. I have no idea why these were not merged into mixed gender sports long ago.

There's sports like that where the world championships are open to both men and women but the women can barely break into the top 100.

eg. Pool, darts, chess.

[Towger]

I think you should have pointed out that her example sport was rugby, which makes her ideas bizarre.

My French teacher (RIP)  had no problem playing rugby against all male opposition.  She could give as good as she got and more.  De Rugby was one of her topics, 30+ years I can still hear her French accent going on about it. 

[Mechatrommer]

we need more women in coal mining, deep water fishing, soldiers and construction industries where they can experience heavy tools and vibrators. and err... men should bear child in their belly. yeah thanks to all of this overly obsessed intelligent individuals or commmunities that run against nature.

[wraper]

I think you should have pointed out that her example sport was rugby, which makes her ideas bizarre. There are a number of sports, like curling and archery, where women and men compete separately, yet the game is about skill and finesse. There is no advantage accrued from the greater upper body strength of a man, or the greater gymnastic agility of a woman.

Curling stone is 17 - 20 kg heavy, it's just ridiculous to say body strength does not matter. If yopu are short of power, you cannot throw it accurately. Archery requires body strength as well.

I have no idea why these were not merged into mixed gender sports long ago.

Because women will loose miserably. Heck even chess separates men and women. It was tried mixing them but failed miserably.

1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters
Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[52] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager". The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park, after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2. Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun". Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.

[coppice]

I think you should have pointed out that her example sport was rugby, which makes her ideas bizarre. There are a number of sports, like curling and archery, where women and men compete separately, yet the game is about skill and finesse. There is no advantage accrued from the greater upper body strength of a man, or the greater gymnastic agility of a woman.

Curling stone is 17 - 20 kg heavy, it's just ridiculous to say body strength does not matter. If yopu are short of power, you cannot throw it accurately. Archery requires body strength as well.

They don't have to lift those things. They slide really easily.

I have no idea why these were not merged into mixed gender sports long ago.

Because women will loose miserably. Heck even chess separates men and women. It was tried mixing them but failed miserably.

Chess is easily explained by the flatter distribution of the male IQ curve. That greatly increases the male outliers at both ends, even though the averages are similar.

1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters
Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[52] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager". The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park, after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2. Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun". Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.

I wonder how much the extra reach of the average male player helps in tennis. Playing badmington with my wife, she seems to be moving around a lot more than me, because I can just stretch to reach more shots.

[MT]

I want to get pregnant! But im denied by a god! Evil him!.............Them...............if im a Hindu.............or Viking.....

[Ampera]

As for the chess example, I would wager it has to do with relative pools of willing and available players.

Honestly, I take the personal policy of who the hell cares about who has the greater mental ability. I don't see any critical reason why men and women shouldn't be allowed into certain fields, and only minor physical reasons, for example Russia's AK factories use women due to their smaller hands, to prefer women over men in any position.

I think it all just has to do with how many people are trying with mental oriented games and activities. If you have more men in the pool of competitors, you have a higher chance of getting more male winners. I would imagine it would be the same situation in the obverse.

[Ampera]

Dave, I suggest closing this thread. It's degraded into meaningless Men Vs. Women arguments, and nobody's contributing anything worthwhile (myself included).

Otherwise, I'll just have to keep posting this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)

Again, this is a tad hypocritical. If you don't like the discussion at hand, you are free to ignore it and not click on the topic. The orange "new" tag isn't going to step out of the screen and smack you over the head until you look at the thread.

[gildasd]

Just my 5 cents,

The very best engineer I have had the chance to work with these lasts years - is a woman.

In the soft world of offshore heavy lift and salvage.

And yeah, she was rigorous as hell.


As an aside, I really don’t get theover pushing of the point of the person in the original post, don’t engineers use maths that is more or less rigorous depending on circumstances?
It’s not like you get to choose the laws of physics, the wacky ideas of the client and the clenched fist of accounting...
I understand and agree with her concept, making education as inclusive as possible, but I think she takes her language analysis way too far into a world where shear and tensile strength does not care.

[Howardlong]

Forgetting chess, it is indeed a generally accepted phenomenon that multiple studies have shown women and men have the same average IQ, but there are more outliers for men than there are for women.

Is this being disputed?

[doobedoobedo]

The very best engineer I have had the chance to work with these lasts years - is a woman.

I don't think anyone has said that women don't make good engineers, one of my daughters is an engineering student and is consistently in the top group in her class.

It's just that given the choice fewer women than men actually want to be engineers.

Some want to force the equality of numbers of women in prestigious positions by various means, usually nefarious. Others just want people to be left to make their own choices.

Personally I won't believe that there is true equality until the number of deaths in the workplace is gender neutral. I currently don't see anyone trying to force equality there 

[Mechatrommer]

I want to get pregnant! But im denied by a god! Evil him!.............Them...............if im a Hindu.............or Viking.....

your parents didnt let you do anything stupid while you were very young lad, your parents are evil..

[james_s]

The woman engineers I've known have been *really* good, there just aren't very many of them. I'd love to see more women get into STEM, I just get annoyed when people blame companies for not hiring women or blame engineers for trying to keep women out. When I was interviewing people well over 90% of the resumes we got were from men, yet much more than 10% of the team was women.

[gildasd]

The very best engineer I have had the chance to work with these lasts years - is a woman.

I don't think anyone has said that women don't make good engineers, one of my daughters is an engineering student and is consistently in the top group in her class.

It's just that given the choice fewer women than men actually want to be engineers.

Some want to force the equality of numbers of women in prestigious positions by various means, usually nefarious. Others just want people to be left to make their own choices.

Personally I won't believe that there is true equality until the number of deaths in the workplace is gender neutral. I currently don't see anyone trying to force equality there 

Not to point the bloody obvious out, but most of my physics teachers in uni were women too...
Doctors, dentists, lab techs etc too, all good in STEM too.
In my humble opinion, it is how we “sell” fields to kids...
... becoming a doc is feasible when engineer seems borderline impossible especially to girls.

Erm,

I blame TV?

[vk6zgo]

There are a number of sports, like curling and archery, where women and men compete separately, yet the game is about skill and finesse. There is no advantage accrued from the greater upper body strength of a man, or the greater gymnastic agility of a woman. I have no idea why these were not merged into mixed gender sports long ago.

There's sports like that where the world championships are open to both men and women but the women can barely break into the top 100.

eg. Pool, darts, chess.

As can many thousands of men.

[coppice]

Forgetting chess, it is indeed a generally accepted phenomenon that multiple studies have shown women and men have the same average IQ, but there are more outliers for men than there are for women.

Is this being disputed?

I think people kinda know about that, but don't really grasp the impact. After all, the difference is small, and the curves look fairly similar. The curves mean the percentage of woman who are capable of being really really good at an intellectual task is very close to the percentage of men, yet the number of women who have that little extra sharpness to be a major champion is small enough that there will usually be a man around who can beat them. This is only the case with things like chess, or a breakthrough idea in physics, which are the result of an individual working alone, and nothing but intellectual skill is very relevant to the outcome. The vast majority of activities requires a mix of qualities, like good group cooperation. You'll never see the effects of that tiny upper tail of the Gaussian curve when its blended in a mix of other key qualities.

Nobody seems to have a clue why the curve for females is less broad, and whether nature or nurture is the key issue.

[Cerebus]

Nobody seems to have a clue why the curve for females is less broad, and whether nature or nurture is the key issue.

One also has to ask the question is that curve real, or is an artefact of the tests and testing process? Despite the long history of intelligence tests, the ability of IQ tests to accurately measure 'G' (general intelligence) in an unbiased fashion is still an open research problem. It's easy to see that the tests themselves are as open to socialised gender biases as they are to cultural or educational biases. The latter is a well known problem with IQ tests and is one of the reasons it is very hard to create a good IQ test, as opposed to a good test of educational level in a particular culture.

Cultural biases in IQ testing can be very subtle. Consider a timed test of mental arithmetic. One would think that didn't have any cultural bias. However, different cultures count in different ways. To most of us here 4 * 20 = "?" has the obvious answer "eighty", but to a Frenchman it has the obvious answer "Quatre-vingts" or "four twenties". The francophone doesn't have to do any arithmetic, and so answers fractionally faster.

Extend that tiny cultural bias, that assumption that "all numbers are the same" to everything that one might use as a test of reasoning or thinking ability and it all adds up. I see no reason why social (or socialised) biases are any less likely to have an impact on test design than cultural ones.

Here's another example of a culturally biased question from a putative IQ test:

"An Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman walk into bar". This sentence is:

• The start of a short story
• The start of a joke
• The start of an essay on subcultural differences in the United Kingdom
• All of the above

[coppice]

Nobody seems to have a clue why the curve for females is less broad, and whether nature or nurture is the key issue.

One also has to ask the question is that curve real, or is an artefact of the tests and testing process? Despite the long history of intelligence tests, the ability of IQ tests to accurately measure 'G' (general intelligence) in an unbiased fashion is still an open research problem. It's easy to see that the tests themselves are as open to socialised gender biases as they are to cultural or educational biases. The latter is a well known problem with IQ tests and is one of the reasons it is very hard to create a good IQ test, as opposed to a good test of educational level in a particular culture.

Cultural biases in IQ testing can be very subtle. Consider a timed test of mental arithmetic. One would think that didn't have any cultural bias. However, different cultures count in different ways. To most of us here 4 * 20 = "?" has the obvious answer "eighty", but to a Frenchman it has the obvious answer "Quatre-vingts" or "four twenties". The francophone doesn't have to do any arithmetic, and so answers fractionally faster.

Extend that tiny cultural bias, that assumption that "all numbers are the same" to everything that one might use as a test of reasoning or thinking ability and it all adds up. I see no reason why social (or socialised) biases are any less likely to have an impact on test design than cultural ones.

Biases generally shift the peak to the left or the right. The male and female curves seem to peak at the same point for any group tested. If its a bias its a strange one, as it results in both a pool of super high results from men, and a similar sized pool of super low results from the same overall pool of men.

[james_s]

Something I found interesting is that the percentage of men to women diagnosed with various forms of autism/Aspbergers is remarkably close to the ratio of men to women in engineering. I've long suspected that a majority of engineers have some autistic traits, certainly I do. The symptoms of Aspbergers pretty well describe the stereotypical intelligent but socially awkward/eccentric engineer.