Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 02.07.2015, 10:28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Zurich
Posts: 258
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 182 Times in 105 Posts
mgosia is considered knowledgeablemgosia is considered knowledgeablemgosia is considered knowledgeable
Re: Do women belong in Science?

Quote:
View Post
(probably why it was published in Journal with an impact factor of less that 2 )
Its social science eh
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 02.07.2015, 11:09
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 9,713
Groaned at 87 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 11,201 Times in 5,564 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Do women belong in Science?

Quote:
View Post
Its social science eh
Loads of our gender representants in that field.

Kiwigeek posted a link to another interesting twitter kneejerk storm..It was a tad difficult in all that hysterics to actually realize that volunteer science dude who got taken off the reviewers list might have had a helpful point (reviews are private, anonymous and voluntary, en plus - they got rejected before he reviewed, anyways, and, they didn't even wait for the review release).

I wonder if thoughts travel smoother when pople word them better, maybe more acceptably for wider audience (and leave their selfdeprecating humor for other places than gender sensitive reunions. Tim).

I think what the institutions react to, are particular words. Not the thoughts behind them. For personal and professional reasons, I think that's ok. That particular effort will at the end make people think. I just wish it was done via more noble means than word policing.
__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H.Pestalozzi
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 02.07.2015, 11:14
Chemmie's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Zurich
Posts: 3,708
Groaned at 27 Times in 23 Posts
Thanked 4,219 Times in 1,911 Posts
Chemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Do women belong in Science?

Quote:
View Post
Its social science eh

Fair enough--I can concede that I have never published in the soft-sciences. So in this case, the impact factor means nothing to me.

For those interested in the topic and want to know more, here's a very nice comprehensive study looking at many different variables, statistics and literature review.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/...ic-Science.pdf
(impact factor well over 12.8)

Very good read, but also pretty long for most EF purposes
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 02.07.2015, 11:17
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 9,713
Groaned at 87 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 11,201 Times in 5,564 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Do women belong in Science?

I read Virginia Valian. She is my kind of female scientist.

And then this is excellent, too

Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 02.07.2015, 12:12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Zurich
Posts: 258
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 182 Times in 105 Posts
mgosia is considered knowledgeablemgosia is considered knowledgeablemgosia is considered knowledgeable
Re: Do women belong in Science?

Quote:
View Post
So, the basis is comments on an internet story?
Good lord, people are really missing the smilies and the tongue-in-cheek way the article on this piece of research is written [as in: what a surprise, there is confirmation bias and sexism on the internet] and my linking of it to some comments in this thread. Some of the 'good' evidence was linked by me and also is linked in this article. That these are ignored and this link is singled out to attack my argumentation obviously makes me even more convinced that Im right

The point about quotas (or other affirmatve action policies) and few women as top candidates (in academia at least) is that often qualified women do not apply in the first place (for different reasons, one of them is that they are reluctant to compete as they do not consider themselves qualified for the job even if they clearly are (as opposed to men who tend to be overconfident), another is that they are not aware of some jobs because they are outside the informal networks through which these jobs are advertised). So promotion of women in these cases involves search commitees going out there to actively look for suitable candidates and inviting them to apply.

Back to the krippe: Im sure the guys working there have been hired on quotas, it is too much coincidence that in each single group there is exactly ONE male caretaker. Now I will advice all male teens to go into childcare. It must be MUCH easier for them to get jobs in the field. (Smiley alert!)

More general: if quotas mean that qualities of individuals are not evaluated objectively, and it has been shown convincingly that this already is the case while judging performance and qualifications of men and women, quotas for men have been there all along in male-dominated fields. (or yes, for women in female-dominated ones).

Finally, besides all the anecdata put forward here, here is more 'good' evidence that affirmative action policies (one of them quotas) attract more able women into a competition without reverse discrimination. Good enough impact factor for you Chemmie?

(yes I am aware this is nothing like the real world but such research is much more controllable than field studies and I think we can learn something from it and 2nd yes, Im aware people will now say 'If they are not willing to compete, what the hell are they looking for at the top' - I just disagree because I don't think it is good in general to have people in charge who are there just for the sake of winning (although in some cases it could be) - moreover, it shows that women very well are willing to compete if they think they stand a chance).
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 02.07.2015, 12:37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Zurich
Posts: 258
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 182 Times in 105 Posts
mgosia is considered knowledgeablemgosia is considered knowledgeablemgosia is considered knowledgeable
Re: Do women belong in Science?

Quote:
View Post
For those interested in the topic and want to know more, here's a very nice comprehensive study looking at many different variables, statistics and literature review.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/...ic-Science.pdf
(impact factor well over 12.8)
Very good read, but also pretty long for most EF purposes
Admit that I just glanced over this, but am not expecting bias-less review from the guy who wrote the flawed paper mentioned before that women are twice more likely to be hired for academic positions based on narratives of career paths (so nothing like a real-world hiring process). An op-ed ('Academic Science isn't sexist') written in the NYT by the same people advertizing this review has attracted a lot of criticism from the field (and links therein).

For a laugh (like a farmer with a toothache as we say in Holland) you can read the NYT piece treated by Red Ink here.

And here is shown in detail that quite a lot of statements are not supported by the authors own data. Written by a woman of course, so obviously biased

[edit] now that I start to look into the paper it gets more painfully laughable, have a look at figs 14-19 and tell me if you can conclude that women 'are paid roughly the same..., are generally tenured and promoted at the same rate..., remain in their fields at roughly the same rate, have their grants funded and articles accepted as often and are about as satisfied with their jobs.'???

Last edited by mgosia; 02.07.2015 at 13:54. Reason: added last link & comment
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do you trust Science(ists)? - Bible dun says nothing bout climate change. PlantHead General off-topic 32 28.10.2013 17:37
Women in science/technology in Europe RetiredInNH Education 1 03.10.2013 22:00
Where do Threads belong? Main Forum or Off-Topic? Longbyt Forum support 7 07.12.2011 21:40
The Science of Smooching: Why Men and Women Kiss Differently Doktor.B General off-topic 107 22.02.2011 18:21
Identity Concerns - where /which culture do you belong to? bluesky_2009 General off-topic 2 11.03.2010 21:30


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:03.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0