El dom., 12 ago. 2018 11:58, Jonathan Moules <jonathan-li...@lightpear.com> escribió:
> > No, this is not a dismissal based on opinions. It is based on facts. > This paper falls into the "correlation does not imply causation" > fallacy: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation > > You will find it is rarely the case that a peer-reviewed scientific > paper in what is one of the most influential journals in its field > (Psychology in this case) can be dismissed so readily. > > I suspect you have not read it. Given it's behind a paywall, the entire > paper is available via sci-hub: > https://sci-hub.mu/10.1177/0956797617741719 > > As you can see if you read it, it only states the correlation, there is > no causation. Indeed, it too like you, I, and most folks expected > different results, that's why they called it the > "educational-gender-equality paradox". It's a paradox - it's doing the > opposite of what is expected - it's quite literally in the title of the > paper. > > The core of the paper: > > "One of the main findings of this study is that, para- > doxically, countries with lower levels of gender equality > had relatively more women among STEM graduates than > did more gender-equal countries. This is a paradox, > because gender-equal countries are those that give girls > and women more educational and empowerment oppor- > tunities and that generally promote girls’ and women’s > engagement in STEM fields (e.g., Williams & Ceci, 2015)." > > They do try and take a guess as to what the reason is for this > (causation), but they make it clear it's just a guess (a "suggestion" as > it's phrased). That doesn't change the core correltation of the paper: > that given more education and empowerment, women choose against STEM. > > Or put even more simply: given equal opportunity, it appears men and > women preferentially choose different careers. > That's the thing: they jump into that conclusion with biased prejudices. Right now, we don't have equal opportunity anywhere in the world. Not women, not PoC. You are proving me right, they are biased! > > You can aim for 37%, I will still aim for 50% > > I don't have any aim at all in this beyond 100% of people having equal > opportunity to choose whatever career they wish, and I believe FOSS4G > and OSGeo should have a similar aim. Anything else will be a dis-service > to people of both genders. > > > On 2018-08-12 10:14, María Arias de Reyna wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Jonathan Moules > > <jonathan-li...@lightpear.com> wrote: > >>> Let me tell you something: having legal rights doesn't mean you have > >>> equal opportunities. Those studies are falling into the wrong > >>> conclusions probably because bias of the researchers. > >> > >> Apologies, but that's a general dismissal of a peer-reviewed scientific > >> paper, seemingly because you don't like the result. That's not how > science > >> works. If there is a problem with the paper (and most papers have a few > >> quirks) I would suggest the correct way to refute it is to start by > pointing > >> out the methodological and/or statistical flaws, not dismissing it out > of > >> hand. If done thoroughly enough you can probably get a subsequent paper > >> published via peer-review with some other experts in the field that > refutes > >> it which is usually good for career prospects. > >> Like you I would have expected more women to choose STEM given the > >> opportunity, but apparently they do the opposite and so I've updated my > >> world-view accordingly to fit the facts. As the saying goes: You're > welcome > >> to your own opinions, but facts are facts. > >> > > No, this is not a dismissal based on opinions. It is based on facts. > > This paper falls into the "correlation does not imply causation" > > fallacy: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation > > > > The first and second waves of feminism focused on legal. And we > > advanced a lot. But still, this "forces of society" has been detected > > and studied since "The Second Sex" of Simone de Beauvoir. There was > > this general feeling (the same bias the researches of the studies fall > > into) that when you change legality, society will follow happily. But, > > as we can see (and study), this is not what happens. > > > > And we should have known it: the same happened when racism was removed > > from law country after country: it was not removed from society. > > Society follows more slowly, if it follows. Seriously, you should at > > least watch the video of Neil. > > > > That's why third/fourth? wave of feminism (depends on how you count > > them) are focusing on behavior of society and acceptance. > > > >> Anyway, we're heading off-topic. I was originally simply pointing out > that > >> Dar doesn't have gender diversity in the keynotes either (a point I > >> maintain), and I question the unfounded assertion that 50% females in > the > >> industry/speakers/etc is something that is feasible given the research > on > >> female career preferences. I'll leave it at that. > >> Cheers, > >> Jonathan > > You can aim for 37%, I will still aim for 50%. And this is not a > > change that only OSGeo has to do, but we should push from different > > perspectives to get something really done. As said, this is a > > long-distance race, and by that I mean: I doubt my generation will > > have equal opportunity ever, no matter how hard and how far we get. I > > am aiming for the next generation. > > > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
