At 11:19 AM 3/12/2013, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
At 07:56 AM 3/12/2013, Dan Harkins wrote:
While these studies are interesting and thought provoking, I think it is
wrong, and very dangerous, to use these studies to justify blanket
statements about intelligence, group or otherwise.
I'm laughing a bit about this thread. For example, there's also
"substantial evidence" that young women and young men do better in gender
segregated schools because the women's IQs plunge due to primping and
displaying and men's IQs plunge due to testosterone if they're kept
together. Unfortunately, there's also "substantial evidence" that doing
things this way can lead to some socialization issues (where both groups
tend to have warped views of the members of the other groups). (I myself
doubt both versions of the "substantial evidence")
[MB] I too find your response and some others laughable. I would
agree that some of your statements with regards to all boys and girls
schools are wrong, however, there is indeed research highlighting that
girls do better in all girls schools due the fact that they are given
the attention that often goes to the boys in math and science classes.
I somewhat agree with this, but other studies have indicated that this has
quote a lot to do with the specific teacher and general disciplinary
environment of the school than being an absolute characteristic of gender
divided studies.
The rest I is untrue based on my experiences, but I would certainly
welcome someone pointing out research supporting your statements.
Both my sons have gone to or go to all boys schools (since first
grade). Their girlfriends go to all girls schools. There is no
socialization issues in general. That all said, my sons' school has
some of the geekiest kids in the DFW area,
Sorry - geekiness *is* a socialization issue. I say that as one of the more
geeky people at my school.
With respect to supporting research - didn't you note the quotation marks? And
the statement "I myself doubt both versions of substantial evidence" I've read
a few main stream press articles on the gender divided schooling issue and
"socialization" was mentioned pretty much in the same breath (paragraph?) as
the "girls do better in all girl schools". I considered both of the statements
somewhat suspect for the same reasons. But I mentioned them - with the
quotation marks - to indicate that cherry picking data to support a conclusion
is generally problematic.
Here's where I'm at: The school studies were done with random (e.g. public
school) and non-self-selected (e.g. parent selected) groups as the subjects.
AFAIK the IETF is pretty much a completely self-selected group of people and
most especially the women are self-selected - and I wouldn't consider that the
school study applies much given those difference. I mentioned it because its
conclusion - that women and men are "smarter" when separate (yup -
paraphrasing) seems to be at odds with the other mentioned conclusion that
"groups are smarter the more women in them".
For the other study mentioned by Margaret (Wolley et al) it actually said this:
Finally,c was positively and significantly correlated with the proportion of
females in the group (r=0.23,P=0.007).However, this result
appears to be largely mediated by social sensitivity (Sobel z=1.93,P =0.03),
Which actually says that "the more sensitive people in the group, the better
the result, and by the way women tend to be more sensitive".
But the problem set for the study bears not a lot of resemblance to the problem
set for the IETF. So again, I'd claim it's mostly inapplicable, hence cherry
picking.
so it is likely that there
may be *slightly* more issues with socialization than the average
public school. [/MB]
Seriously - diversity is generally good. I think we all get that. Going
off and trying to support that general statement with (Dan's words, but I
think I agree) "cherry picked" data isn't going to advance that cause much.
[MB] The data isn't cherry picked - there has been *lots* of research
on this topic over the past decade (and even those previous). Such
studies are doubted because I am sure they are not of any interest to
the folks that suggest they don't exist. So, these wouldn't have been
on your radar. Not surprising, those that are doubting that IETF has
any issue with diversity are folks that aren't in the minority- it's
really hard to understand an issue if you haven't dealt with it
yourself. There's lots of research showing lots of bias in our
society - the fact that many have never chosen to read any of it does
not mean it doesn't exist. [/MB]
I've read it (them) or things like it. What I've gleaned from each and every
study is that their conclusions are suspect when you try to generalize them to
groups not constituted like the study group or to problem sets not tested by
the study. If you want to convince me via objective standards that an IETF WG
with more women in it does a better job than a WG with few women (or even the
reverse of that where an IETF WG with more women does a worse job than a WG
with few women), you'll need to do the study on the IETF and publish the
criteria for "better" before you start. Or find a group that has been studied
that has a population and work mode much more similar to ours than the studies
that have been pointed to.
I don't disagree with desire for more diversity, I just don't think the case
needs to be made by citing studies that don't necessarily have anything useful
to say about the IETF.
Mike
Mike