I would like people claiming that it was an inappropriate way to make those points to tell me what the appropriate way would have been.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Vague generalizations from non-scientists who read a paper and think it supports a reactionary change to their workplace shouldn't be. 2/2
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Memo guy wants to see diversity targets, special support systems out. Many people disagree with him. The science does not simplify this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BigBadSystems
Biological gender differences are something to consider when setting targets. There's a reason we won't see 50/50 representation everywhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
The point is that those differences don't reduce to things that make simple profession preferences fit. As memo guy himself sees.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BigBadSystems @HPluckrose
And our understanding of biological differences is not robust enough to support business decisions, esp. at lay level.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BigBadSystems
And our understanding of culturally constructed differences is even poorer and much harder to measure. So let's work on both.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
As the author of the study points out, though, culture is likely an accelerant or inhibitor to whatever bio dif exists
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BigBadSystems @HPluckrose
And culture is never neutral. If we object to these kind of programs because they're meddling against nature were ignoring all other culture
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Base the programs on research which looks at both nature and culture. And don't abuse, misrepresent & punish ppl who talk abt nature
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.