Stereotypes often have no basis in experimental data, or a very misguided inference. Example: every racial supremacy movement, ever.
Now that I think of it, stereotypes can arise from an “us vs them” separation (where, for example, “us” = “white or Aryan race” and “them” = “everyone else”, or “us” = “men” and “them” = “women”) and grow from arbitrary fluctuations, generalizing from very small groups or even one example, and motivated by politics.
If stereotypes are based on invalid inference, then yes, they are irrational. “Most Less Wrongians are male” is a rational stereotype; “women are inherently irrational by nature” is, ironically, an irrational stereotype.
“women are inherently irrational by nature” is, ironically, an irrational stereotype.
I disagree. It’s a factual claim that may be true or false. I happen to believe it’s mostly true, though I prefer the more general form “human are inherently irrational by nature”.
Yes, that “women are inherently more irrational than men by nature”—that may or may not be true, but I don’t think it’s an irrational belief. I prefer to keep the term “irrational” for things like “Well the evidence may say otherwise, but I still believe in my heart he’s innocent” or “I plan to get rich by playing the lottery”, or “that guy’s black, so he’s probably a criminal” or “since you can’t prove I’m wrong, I can keep on believing”—i.e. failures of logical inference and rationality, not inaccurate beliefs on factual claims.
you can always water these things down until everyone agrees:
“due to a confluence of cultural and biological factors of unknown relative weights women seem less able/inclined to rational behaviors.”
yawn.
controversy is more fun (BEWARE!). I personally think that the whole women are irrational thing has to do with males just happening to be better suited to the vast divide between our current environment and the ancestral one*. Of course this is very seriously prone to the fundamental attribution error. So I would be interested to know if any women have ever thought the same thing about men.
*actually I think men had a relative advantage in farming civilizations but women will prove to have an advantage in information civilizations.
it wouldnt take much to argue me out of it. farming → overwhelmingly patriarchal. information → women continue to out pace men in educational attainment, power within organizations catches up with and then surpasses men as a result.
Women (and, more to the point, girls) outperform men and boys, on average, in verbal ability and grades up to and through college. This doesn’t show up much at the highest levels of intelligence/educational attainment, where boys perform well, but it’s significant in the midrange. Boys are also less likely to be compliant students (absenteeism, discipline problems, tardiness are more common with boys) which has long-term effects on their educational prospects.
Midrange colleges have to engage in significant affirmative action for boys to get a 50⁄50 gender balance. Women are also more likely than men to pursue post-college education of some kind. (Don’t visualize a top-tier engineering PhD, visualize a midrange master’s in social work.)
So, if current trends continue (more credentialization, more need for writing in the workplace, more of a culture of compliance) the average man will be at a disadvantage compared to women, even if the top men continue to earn the top salaries. (Note: I’m not sure how long these trends will continue. And I’m not sure they’re good, either—there might be bad effects to credential inflation and to stigmatizing rebellious/non-compliant attitudes.)
I’m skeptical that this is based on adequate information, but I’m not prepared to argue against it. It would take a serious in depth examination of the issue which I haven’t done before I felt that I could draw a conclusion at all, rather than simply writing a contrary conclusion at the bottom line and working my way down to it.
Stereotypes often have no basis in experimental data, or a very misguided inference. Example: every racial supremacy movement, ever.
Now that I think of it, stereotypes can arise from an “us vs them” separation (where, for example, “us” = “white or Aryan race” and “them” = “everyone else”, or “us” = “men” and “them” = “women”) and grow from arbitrary fluctuations, generalizing from very small groups or even one example, and motivated by politics.
If stereotypes are based on invalid inference, then yes, they are irrational. “Most Less Wrongians are male” is a rational stereotype; “women are inherently irrational by nature” is, ironically, an irrational stereotype.
I disagree. It’s a factual claim that may be true or false. I happen to believe it’s mostly true, though I prefer the more general form “human are inherently irrational by nature”.
Haven’t thought of that generalization, but well, you know what is presumed by that phrasing by those who use it.
Yes, that “women are inherently more irrational than men by nature”—that may or may not be true, but I don’t think it’s an irrational belief. I prefer to keep the term “irrational” for things like “Well the evidence may say otherwise, but I still believe in my heart he’s innocent” or “I plan to get rich by playing the lottery”, or “that guy’s black, so he’s probably a criminal” or “since you can’t prove I’m wrong, I can keep on believing”—i.e. failures of logical inference and rationality, not inaccurate beliefs on factual claims.
you can always water these things down until everyone agrees: “due to a confluence of cultural and biological factors of unknown relative weights women seem less able/inclined to rational behaviors.”
yawn.
controversy is more fun (BEWARE!). I personally think that the whole women are irrational thing has to do with males just happening to be better suited to the vast divide between our current environment and the ancestral one*. Of course this is very seriously prone to the fundamental attribution error. So I would be interested to know if any women have ever thought the same thing about men.
*actually I think men had a relative advantage in farming civilizations but women will prove to have an advantage in information civilizations.
Why?
it wouldnt take much to argue me out of it. farming → overwhelmingly patriarchal. information → women continue to out pace men in educational attainment, power within organizations catches up with and then surpasses men as a result.
Women (and, more to the point, girls) outperform men and boys, on average, in verbal ability and grades up to and through college. This doesn’t show up much at the highest levels of intelligence/educational attainment, where boys perform well, but it’s significant in the midrange. Boys are also less likely to be compliant students (absenteeism, discipline problems, tardiness are more common with boys) which has long-term effects on their educational prospects.
Midrange colleges have to engage in significant affirmative action for boys to get a 50⁄50 gender balance. Women are also more likely than men to pursue post-college education of some kind. (Don’t visualize a top-tier engineering PhD, visualize a midrange master’s in social work.)
So, if current trends continue (more credentialization, more need for writing in the workplace, more of a culture of compliance) the average man will be at a disadvantage compared to women, even if the top men continue to earn the top salaries. (Note: I’m not sure how long these trends will continue. And I’m not sure they’re good, either—there might be bad effects to credential inflation and to stigmatizing rebellious/non-compliant attitudes.)
Most of my evidence comes from Richard Whitmire.
I’m skeptical that this is based on adequate information, but I’m not prepared to argue against it. It would take a serious in depth examination of the issue which I haven’t done before I felt that I could draw a conclusion at all, rather than simply writing a contrary conclusion at the bottom line and working my way down to it.
I expect the number of women graduating college to continue to out pace men and for a significant gap to begin to develop.