more info re under 11s football incident

In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:40:48 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:


Not quite. We just have to think it reasonable that it is likely to be
*among* the causes to realise we should try and deal with it.
Personally I'm as wary as being told the reason for something is
"gender preference" as I am when told "because that is what God wants".
To my dubious academic's nose they both have the same whiff of an
assertion of a belief stated as a fact.

On the other hand, unlike the wishes (or even the existence) of gods,
there are situations where gender preference can be seen to be a real
observable fact.

Agreed. But that doesn't tell us the causes. The problem is with people
trotting out beliefs like this being "innate" or "because the book tells us
so" or "thats how it always been", rather than doing critical tests or
examinations that might find other reasons which could be altered if those
affected chose.

I suspect that a century ago lots of rich blokes in castles and poor ones
in pubs loudly asserted that Women should not be allowed to vote because of
their "innate" differences to men. This was probably "obvious" and
"natural", etc. Dial in as many similar examples of what has been taken for
granted as you fancy.


I've lived long enough to have been able to observe several generations
of small children and their friends - my own childhood friends, my
children, and now grandchildren, and although I haven't been making
quantitative observations and writing detailed notes, it's clear beyond
any doubt to me that although there is a lot of variation, most little
boys and little girls definitely prefer different toys and activities
from a very early age.

Did each one grow up in isolation from all other humans?

Afraid it is too long ago for me to recall details. But I recall having a
number of discussions with other academics about the results of school
exams, etc. To try and assess the patterns. As far as I recall, one common
pattern was that girls tended to do better, statistically, in subjects like
physics and maths if they went to a girl-only school than to a mixed
boys+girls school. This was IIRC a clear trend from the outcomes. But what
were the reasons? This was discussions at two very different uni
departments at different times. And under various governments, school
systems, etc, over some decades.

Does it make sense to decide this is 'innate' in the kids who went to mixed
schools, but not in the ones who went to single-sex schools? Must admit
that would seem a strange conclusion.

So far as I can recall, we didn't get the impression this was as simple as
the girl-only schools having more finance or higher social status. Although
those clearly also had an effect statistically over various schools.

What I have formed over the years is the feeling that people are more
likely to become good at things which they find interesting, and they feel
are admired or supported by others whose regard they appreciate. Be that
family, friends, teachers, society, etc, as they react to best.

I'm afraid it seems lazy thinking to me to assume this must be 'innate' if
it is done without testing the evidence by some suitable experiments, etc.
Again, simply assuming any experiments must be avoided due to the risk of
'harm' misses the point that leaving things as they are may *also* be
causing (perhaps *more*) 'harm'. Although I can see that parents and
schools who are embedded in their beliefs might not wish them challenged.

Anyway, I was intending to leave this, so I'll stop here. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:

No! We need to experiment first to find out what my CAUSE that!
THEN we can think about possible cures.

Yes, that is my point.

And yet you must surely agree that positive discrimination is a
potential *cure*, not a potential cause. Thus I continue my suspicion
that we've alighted upon a cure (positive discrimination, all women
shortlists, etc) before we've understood the what is causing the
illness.

--
SteveT

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Agreed. But that doesn't tell us the causes. The problem is with
people trotting out beliefs like this being "innate" or "because the
book tells us so" or "thats how it always been", rather than doing
critical tests or examinations that might find other reasons which
could be altered if those affected chose.

I completely agree with that. But stuff like positive discrimination
is not an attempt to understand the causes. It *assumes* a cause and
then acts to "cure" it.

--
SteveT

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Does it make sense to decide this is 'innate' in the kids who went to
mixed schools, but not in the ones who went to single-sex schools?
Must admit that would seem a strange conclusion.

I don't think Rod has ever implied that. Surely we all agree that
nurture has a significant effect. The real debate is about how much
effect is due to "nature".

Those girls are undoubtedly showing the effects of both.

--
SteveT

Jim Lesurf wrote:

What I have formed over the years is the feeling that people are more
likely to become good at things which they find interesting,

Absolutely agree. And in my subjective, unscientific experience, males
and females tend, ON AVERAGE, to find different things interesting.

--
SteveT

In article ,
"Steve Thackery" wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

What I have formed over the years is the feeling that people are more
likely to become good at things which they find interesting,

Absolutely agree. And in my subjective, unscientific experience, males
and females tend, ON AVERAGE, to find different things interesting.

That's not what I've found at all. Maybe you know more people than I do,
so have a greater set to average over.

--
Sara

cats cats cats cats cats

On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:36:10 -0500, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

And yet you must surely agree that positive discrimination is a
potential *cure*, not a potential cause. Thus I continue my suspicion
that we've alighted upon a cure (positive discrimination, all women
shortlists, etc) before we've understood the what is causing the
illness.

You seem to be making the assumption that there is an "illness" that
needs a "cure", and that even if there were one, the cure wouldn't
have side effects worse than the illness.

If "positive discrimination" means choosing job applicants for reasons
other than their ability to do the job, then its effects will not be
positive at all.

Rod.

In article , Steve Thackery
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

No! We need to experiment first to find out what my CAUSE that!
THEN we can think about possible cures.

Yes, that is my point.

And yet you must surely agree that positive discrimination is a
potential *cure*, not a potential cause.

Alas, that is rather vague or ambiguous. Putting in 'potential' doesn't
really resolve the lack of knowledge. Just becomes a theoretical statement
along the lines that something 'might be true'... even if it then turns out
not to be so.

Many things may *help* to improve a situation. But that doesn't ensure one
of them is a 'cure'. Nor even the optimum method to deploy. So I'd be happy
to agree that some measures of 'positive discrimination' may be sensible
and helpful. But that doesn't automatically make them a 'cure' if nothing
else is done.

Thus I continue my suspicion that we've alighted upon a cure (positive
discrimination, all women shortlists, etc) before we've understood the
what is causing the illness.

Again, I'm more likely to agree that we haven't established the causes than
to regard one measure as a 'cure'.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Steve Thackery
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

What I have formed over the years is the feeling that people are more
likely to become good at things which they find interesting,

Absolutely agree. And in my subjective, unscientific experience, males
and females tend, ON AVERAGE, to find different things interesting.

I don't know enough to agree. People vary, and also vary in their
families, friends, backgrounds, etc. So the 'kinds of people' one
person knows may differ from those known by someone else. Hence
rather hard to decide this without bias caused by where you stand.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Roderick Stewart wrote:

You seem to be making the assumption that there is an "illness" that
needs a "cure", and that even if there were one, the cure wouldn't
have side effects worse than the illness.

Well, I was only using it as an analogy. It's just that whenever
there's a gender imbalance (such as in the workplace, in Parliament,
etc) a vociferous segment of the feminist community immediately declare
it to be "wrong" or "unfair", and that there must be some kind of
"discrimination" going on.

Whilst they may well be right, I think we must understand *why* the
imbalance exists before declaring it to be "wrong" and implementing
such deeply questionable corrective measures like positive
discrimination.

If "positive discrimination" means choosing job applicants for reasons
other than their ability to do the job, then its effects will not be
positive at all.

I completely agree. I suppose the term means discriminating "for"
women rather than discriminating against them (negative discrimination,
I suppose) as we have in the past.

Both are abhorrent to me - the cure is as bad as the "illness" (analogy
again).

--
SteveT