Bravo, or is that Brava? So much in here I agree with, my only sadness is that people that should read it won't.
Freud was accused of overgeneralising childhood sexuality as an explanation for all psychological ailments due to him personally being obsessed with this. So I think there is definitely something to the selection bias in academic feminists.
Agree also with what I would call undermining of biological sex by feminism broadly, which has allowed a disembodied view of people to perpetuate, with everything socially constructed.
As I commented on another post, this disembodied epistemology, aided by the internet, has created a strange cultural milieu, where young people are being told that Jo, who they suspect is a boy, and in fact is a boy, is 'really' a girl-- not a trans girl. Also that you can literally change your sex - all along we were imprecise with this expression (which Steersman has highlighted before), and now we are being beaten with the cudgel...
I would argue in addition to your points that the current gender ideology view of trans is in fact existentially unsound from the perspective of adolescent psychology. Mixed in with social media subcultures and negligent education, we have created an environment where struggling teenagers are encouraged to think of themselves as trans, without being aware of basic facts (ie that you can not, in fact, change your sex)
But, although you have pointed to the contributing factors, and some solutions, how do we influence the middle-aged handmaidens that unthinkingly and stubbornly perpetuate this, most of them women?
I find that many are tied into the 'dark mother's complex, obsessed with being 'kind'...
I completely agree. Unfortunately, I don't expect there's much chance of influencing the "true believers" at this point. However, the denial of the reality of sex is so offensive to common sense that it doesn't seem likely to ever find mainstream acceptance. This issue seems to be a hard line that many people are not willing to cross, and it has even caused many people to "change teams" so to speak, so I have hope that reality will win out eventually here.
Though one might suggest that some "malodourous" aspects to feminism have, rather unfortunately, "wreaked" much of it.
Though quite impressed with your uses of DALL E-3. Been thinking of trying to learn how to use it myself -- any pointers to get me started?
But I've periodically argued that the efforts of the woke to shoehorn the foot of social justice into the glass slipper of biology have just crippled the former and shattered the latter, so to speak -- seems an ideal subject for DALL E-3. I've certainly had a few Likes and a "threat" to steal the idea in response ... might even pay good money to see it in living colour ... 😉🙂
Ah! Thank you for catching that - hopefully the ideas presented are better than my proofreading 😉
Thanks! For DALL E I don't really have any tricks. The only thing I can recommend is once you get it to produce an image that is close to what you want tell it to reference that image and give it a specific modification. Also, regenerate a few times so you have choices.
No problemo -- me and all of the other GrammarNazis ... 😉🙂 Somewhat apropos of which and ICYMI, a golden-oldie on The Sisterhood of the Oppressed -- speaking of your criticisms of feminists in general 🙂:
Paula Kirby: "There are many of us who are proud to be called Grammarnazis and who know perfectly well that no aspersions are being cast on our intentions towards either Jews or Poland."
Though it looks like a well-written essay -- I'd only had time for a quick skim, and that "reeks" had sort leaped out at me. But hope to look into your post a bit closer a little later -- particularly interested in your discussion of "integration of gender theory into elementary school curriculum" in Ontario. I'd written a letter to several Conservative Shadow Ministers about that "gender ideology" here in Canada -- I'm out here in "God's Country" [BC] 🙂 -- which has been well received. Apparently it's been shopped around to several MLAs so I think I could probably send you a copy if you were interested and if you think it might be of interest or value to you.
Basically about my objections to Statistics Canada's own peddling of that ideology -- link to my submission to them in this post of mine:
Really do think that a big wooden stake needs to be driven through the heart of that "ideology", and been trying to make "common cause" with anyone who will listen. 🙂
Thanks for the suggestions on the DALL E, though it seems I'd need to subscribe to the full-blown version of ChatGPT to get that. But think I need to learn how to walk before trying to run. 🙂
Thank you, I look forward to looking at your submission as well as the first link you shared.
I took a shot at generating the image you described with DALL-E. I can't post it here but I sent it by email - note that DALL-E struggles with hands, feet, and spelling but let me know what you think!
My pleasure; share the wealth, praise the lord and pass the ammunition. 🙂
Though you need to subscribe to that Scribd site to get all of the article -- only the first few paragraphs are visible otherwise. But I'd snagged a copy when it was on Google Docs some dozen years ago -- July 2012, in fact. But I'd be happy to send a PDF by email if you were interested.
Likewise on that letter to Conservative Shadow Ministers ("Innovation, Science, & Industry", and "Women and Gender Equality and Youth"). I really would like to see them make some political hay out the depredations of various gender ideologues in education, science, and government. I expect your link to the Ontario schools will serve as some grist for the mill at some point on that score. 🙂
But many thanks for the DALL-E image; I'd looked at it and was sort of in the midst of responding -- too many irons in the fire. 🙂 You no doubt know the story of Cinderella which is largely what I was getting at, though there seems to be a few different perspectives thereon 🙂:
But your DALL-E image certainly captures the basic idea -- may even post a short Note highlighting it if you don't mind. Though I'd like to compensate you somehow for that -- you have a tip jar? Maybe I can make a pledge? 🙂
I think there is more to be said in regards to the variation between/within groups discussion. This is a quantitative statement with a precise meaning:
For two groups of people, their average numerical scores on some trait often form two separate bell curves. These bell curves will each have their own mean and each have their own standard deviation. If the standard deviation(s) are greater than the difference in mean, then people say that, "the variance within groups is greater than the variance between groups." However, it is important to remember that this is not true for all sex-distributed traits.
For example, the height of the average U.S. female is about 5 feet and 3.5 inches, while the height of the average U.S. male is about 5 feet and 9.5 inches. This is a difference of about 6 inches. Meanwhile, the standard deviations are both about 2.5 inches. So in this case, the variance between groups is GREATER than the variance within groups.
The other point to remember is that while individual traits may have negligible differences, if there are a lot of traits each with a small difference it can still be very easy to categorize groups. For example, let's say that there are two groups of people: group A and group B. There are 10 traits on which they differ on average by only about 0.3 standard deviations. Then, the TOTAL average distance between a person from group A and group B will be about 3.0 standard deviations when measured on a collective composite variable.
A good example of this is facial differences between men and women. Any given trait you look at and can measure like lip size, eye size/separation, cheekbone height, etc. has very small differences between the groups. However, it is still very easy to recognize female versus male faces.
Thanks, Joe! Good point and well explained. Obviously this is most clear with physical things, but it’s likely true that based on all the small average psychological differences most people could classify a man vs woman on that basis as well (I think Spencer Greenberg has a test trained to do this). But I find that the lack of focus on how much intrasexual variance exists on certain traits (among people who write about sex differences) is common and leads to misunderstandings so always highlight the heterogeneity
This was a difficult but important read for my sedentary brain. Each paragraph is packed with great points and clear rationale for society's actions at an individual/group level. I was frustrated with how often I found myself thinking “that makes sense” with the explanations of how we got here, even though I couldn’t make sense of the big picture - where we ended up. It’s incredible that you not only presented the situation so clearly but also suggested a way out of this mess with the well-aligned but loosely enforced paradigm.
I thought the girl-boss feminism was a particularly good example. It follows that the same simplistic reasoning that leads to the popularity of books like “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”, can also lead to career-oriented women valuing traditionally masculine traits - seeking to imitate what success has looked like in a previously male-dominated sphere. Career-oriented but mild-mannered men aren’t spared from this ideal either - they’re regularly encouraged to be more competitive (read: aggressive). “Marketing Guru” Scott Galloway claimed that if you’re locked in a boardroom with others, everyone should know that you would eat them alive to be the last one standing (somewhat paraphrased). Agree that girl-boss feminism should rightly be faulted for being poorly aligned, but with the grace that it’s understandable where the idea originated. It’s natural for entrants (e.g to high status roles) to model the existing/accepted successful behaviors until that peer-group learns to rewards other behaviors.
Ultimately, reading this gave me an appreciation for how just how hard we struggle with updating learned/ingrained behavior when personal benefit isn’t immediately obvious. The cognitive load of interrupting the pattern recognition machine is not easily borne, especially on someone else’s behalf. As society continues to become more diverse, creating space for the non-conforming minority requires either: a) Introducing personal cost - cancel culture or shaming as a punishment b) A more inclusive generalization, which like you pointed out, introduces redundancy or compromises fidelity but avoids both alienating new entrants and the risk of social cost.
I would argue that the inclusive pattern, though inefficient, needs to exist to facilitate the transition to a more inclusive society. There may need to be a mechanical check on prior behavior/generalizations, at least until the new default is in place. For example, the aspirational finish-line of equal representation should exist initially, no matter how practically infeasible, if only to signify a shift in thinking and act as a push to promote access to high status roles. As absurd as it may be, stating expected preferred pronouns can exist temporarily, if it helps the more-resistant to change members of society pause and become aware of their assumptions.
That being said, we shouldn’t be encouraging option a) punishment as the vehicle of transition. It’s a mistake to claim any kind of moral high ground and use one’s inclusive pattern as a stick to beat those who are either still in the process of updating their generalizations or choose not to update them. Women who find success and fulfillment in avenues unrelated to “girl-boss career” should not be criticized for their choices. It’s ironic that the point of being inclusive is lost by those who would seek to exclude the people who don’t get with the program.
There’s also a time-value to the evangelization and adoption of new generalizations. A lot of them are helpful in the early stages of transitioning to a more inclusive society but outlive their use pretty quickly. Once we reach the point where those who wanted to update their generalizations have or are at least now aware of the best way to integrate new entrants, the mechanical check loses its effectiveness. A good barometer tends to be when these patterns begin to become weaponized and used as a form of punishment by those who are more “woke”. In general though, I feel that society is bad at determining when a practice has become obsolete, mainly due to the variability in population samples. This probably explains the frustration that most polite circles feel about practices that have now become infantilizing.
To re-iterate - I learnt a lot from this post, particularly the concerns of gender questioning. At the same time, I’ve come away wondering if this played out exactly how it had to? Something about always having to break eggs to make the omelette?
I totally agree with this: “It’s natural for entrants (e.g to high status roles) to model the existing/accepted successful behaviors until that peer-group learns to rewards other behaviors” - that behavior only changes when the norms change, either as a result of social pressure or as a result of the peer group shifting over time (in this case to include more women in the workplace)
I don’t totally agree on this point though: “For example, the aspirational finish-line of equal representation should exist initially, no matter how practically infeasible, if only to signify a shift in thinking and act as a push to promote access to high status roles.” The reason I would push back on that is that even making it the “initial goal” bakes in values which denigrate non-economically productive roles relative to economically productive roles. I do think representation matters though, and seeing some women and people of other races in powerful positions can inspire those who want to follow those paths to do so, bringing the best talent to where it is best suited which is beneficial for everyone. But still, don’t think we can or should focus on completely equal representation for the reason I mentioned above as well as the fact that there’s no logical end to such slicing and dicing. For instance ... why stop at male/female representation or racial representation... why not think about gender-age combos or representation of immigrants from various places, rural vs urban, religious, political, IQ representation etc.
I think your point about introducing (often clunky) language or practices as a check on assumptions which are rightfully being questioned may be a phase that helps facilitate a society to do better in terms of accommodating non-conformers... but there’s two sides to that coin - if you push this stuff too far you end up radicalizing people who otherwise would’ve been happy to be inclusive. You acknowledge this to some degree in noting that punishment of people who don’t “get with the program” is counterproductive and hypocritical.
But I slightly disagree about whether we can tell when such a practice has gone too far or has outlived its usefulness. Sure, you can’t precisely identify the moment it tips over but you can identify when it’s gone way too far. And I think much of the gender questioning stuff has gone way too far. It’s one thing to encourage people to be inclusive of some group but quite another to ask people to mime membership to that group as a norm (which is how I see stating preferred pronouns as well as the requirement for teachers to “challenge cisgenderism” at all grade levels and in all subjects in Ontario).
Thanks again for your comments! Engagement like this also helps me further understand my own positions on all of this stuff 😊
I'm shocked and surprised by the integration of gender theory into the school curriculum. If schools need parental consent on almost everything else including school trips, medication, leave application etc , how is gender identity a less important family matter? Would religious identity be the next line to be crossed?
I think of stereotypes generally as extremely low-bandwidth (1 or 2 bits) units of information, best used in the absence of more information and worst used in the availability of more information. For example, if I see a chair-looking thing, I first "stereotype" it as a chair. As I step closer, I see its color, its material, its comfortability, and so on. Stereotyping is adaptive due to its raw efficiency, but equally primitive in its neglect of nuance, variability and idiosyncrasy.
Stereotypes ideally convey a certain amount of signal about the thing they actually represent. As you step closer, one hopes the chair-looking thing is actually a chair. If not, the stereotype conveys low signal. This may happen if there is simply an encoding error, but also if actual chairs are too diverse to be collapsed into 1 or 2 bits of information.
Generally the solution here is to invent more nuanced, higher-bit stereotypes (sofas vs. desk chairs vs. toilet seats), but not too high (red sofas vs. yellow desk chairs vs. orange toilet seats, etc.) so as to be cognitively burdensome.
As to the question of gender stereotypes, there is of course considerable debate over how much female (and male) stereotypes actually represent real, observed behavior.
The first question is what "default stereotype" should you have, which leads to different consequences in aggregate (as you illustrate in your matrix), and which also changes over time.
The second question is how much you should weight these stereotypes at all. I lean toward initially high weight in the absence of any more information (imagine you had to guess the characteristics of a person and all you see is "she is biologically female" on an index card), but quickly updating based on newly revealed information. Given the large variance in individual behavior within sexes, I would place low weight on my prior and high weight on the observed evidence.
I totally agree about the relatively low value of sex/gender stereotypes (and most stereotypes) at the individual level. Once you've interacted with, and certainly once you have a relationship with, a given person they provide little additional value. BUT the same is not true when looking at population averages. There, it's quite important to understand average sex differences and how those would be expected to show up in average employment and other outcomes. For instance, if you believe there are absolutely no inherent differences between men and women you'll find the gender balance at tech companies incomprehensible UNLESS there is discrimination at play or unjust socialization from childhood onward. One other nuance about the individual level... in contradiction of what I just said... I do think there's likely some value in understanding the expected future personal value changes of men vs. women that relate to average sex differences - my opinion here is a bit fuzzy but basically I think there's a reason people tell women "you'll likely change your opinion about the desire to have kids when you get over the age of 30", of course men's desires shift in this direction as well but I think the pattern is more pronounced for women.
Very good point of conditioning "average behavior" not just on gender, but also on (gender, age). The general rule is the more information you have, the more you should update with that information and the better predictions you will make. (gender, age, works_in_finance) may completely flip the prediction.
“As I said above, well-aligned gender roles partially reduce the individual burden that comes with generating an ideal to strive for.”
I think I’ll need more evidence to be convinced about this idea that more flexible gender options is a burden and that some enforcement of gender stereotypes is valuable. As you say biological sex is real and has real impacts on our psychology so for me the ideal is to neither program kids against this reality nor to stream them towards the average attributes of their sex. I say put the focus on creating *good people* and let a billion flowers bloom.
Bravo, or is that Brava? So much in here I agree with, my only sadness is that people that should read it won't.
Freud was accused of overgeneralising childhood sexuality as an explanation for all psychological ailments due to him personally being obsessed with this. So I think there is definitely something to the selection bias in academic feminists.
Agree also with what I would call undermining of biological sex by feminism broadly, which has allowed a disembodied view of people to perpetuate, with everything socially constructed.
As I commented on another post, this disembodied epistemology, aided by the internet, has created a strange cultural milieu, where young people are being told that Jo, who they suspect is a boy, and in fact is a boy, is 'really' a girl-- not a trans girl. Also that you can literally change your sex - all along we were imprecise with this expression (which Steersman has highlighted before), and now we are being beaten with the cudgel...
I would argue in addition to your points that the current gender ideology view of trans is in fact existentially unsound from the perspective of adolescent psychology. Mixed in with social media subcultures and negligent education, we have created an environment where struggling teenagers are encouraged to think of themselves as trans, without being aware of basic facts (ie that you can not, in fact, change your sex)
But, although you have pointed to the contributing factors, and some solutions, how do we influence the middle-aged handmaidens that unthinkingly and stubbornly perpetuate this, most of them women?
I find that many are tied into the 'dark mother's complex, obsessed with being 'kind'...
Thank you for the thoughtful comment!
I completely agree. Unfortunately, I don't expect there's much chance of influencing the "true believers" at this point. However, the denial of the reality of sex is so offensive to common sense that it doesn't seem likely to ever find mainstream acceptance. This issue seems to be a hard line that many people are not willing to cross, and it has even caused many people to "change teams" so to speak, so I have hope that reality will win out eventually here.
"This brand of feminism wreaks of internalized misogyny."
Indeed. Though I think you mean "reeks" ... 😉🙂
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reek
Though one might suggest that some "malodourous" aspects to feminism have, rather unfortunately, "wreaked" much of it.
Though quite impressed with your uses of DALL E-3. Been thinking of trying to learn how to use it myself -- any pointers to get me started?
But I've periodically argued that the efforts of the woke to shoehorn the foot of social justice into the glass slipper of biology have just crippled the former and shattered the latter, so to speak -- seems an ideal subject for DALL E-3. I've certainly had a few Likes and a "threat" to steal the idea in response ... might even pay good money to see it in living colour ... 😉🙂
Ah! Thank you for catching that - hopefully the ideas presented are better than my proofreading 😉
Thanks! For DALL E I don't really have any tricks. The only thing I can recommend is once you get it to produce an image that is close to what you want tell it to reference that image and give it a specific modification. Also, regenerate a few times so you have choices.
No problemo -- me and all of the other GrammarNazis ... 😉🙂 Somewhat apropos of which and ICYMI, a golden-oldie on The Sisterhood of the Oppressed -- speaking of your criticisms of feminists in general 🙂:
Paula Kirby: "There are many of us who are proud to be called Grammarnazis and who know perfectly well that no aspersions are being cast on our intentions towards either Jews or Poland."
https://www.scribd.com/document/98971743/Sisterhood-of-the-Oppressed
Though it looks like a well-written essay -- I'd only had time for a quick skim, and that "reeks" had sort leaped out at me. But hope to look into your post a bit closer a little later -- particularly interested in your discussion of "integration of gender theory into elementary school curriculum" in Ontario. I'd written a letter to several Conservative Shadow Ministers about that "gender ideology" here in Canada -- I'm out here in "God's Country" [BC] 🙂 -- which has been well received. Apparently it's been shopped around to several MLAs so I think I could probably send you a copy if you were interested and if you think it might be of interest or value to you.
Basically about my objections to Statistics Canada's own peddling of that ideology -- link to my submission to them in this post of mine:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted
Really do think that a big wooden stake needs to be driven through the heart of that "ideology", and been trying to make "common cause" with anyone who will listen. 🙂
Thanks for the suggestions on the DALL E, though it seems I'd need to subscribe to the full-blown version of ChatGPT to get that. But think I need to learn how to walk before trying to run. 🙂
Thank you, I look forward to looking at your submission as well as the first link you shared.
I took a shot at generating the image you described with DALL-E. I can't post it here but I sent it by email - note that DALL-E struggles with hands, feet, and spelling but let me know what you think!
My pleasure; share the wealth, praise the lord and pass the ammunition. 🙂
Though you need to subscribe to that Scribd site to get all of the article -- only the first few paragraphs are visible otherwise. But I'd snagged a copy when it was on Google Docs some dozen years ago -- July 2012, in fact. But I'd be happy to send a PDF by email if you were interested.
Likewise on that letter to Conservative Shadow Ministers ("Innovation, Science, & Industry", and "Women and Gender Equality and Youth"). I really would like to see them make some political hay out the depredations of various gender ideologues in education, science, and government. I expect your link to the Ontario schools will serve as some grist for the mill at some point on that score. 🙂
But many thanks for the DALL-E image; I'd looked at it and was sort of in the midst of responding -- too many irons in the fire. 🙂 You no doubt know the story of Cinderella which is largely what I was getting at, though there seems to be a few different perspectives thereon 🙂:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella,_or_the_Little_Glass_Slipper
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/dec/18/cinderella-fairytale-glass-slipper-joke-royalty-louis-xiv
But your DALL-E image certainly captures the basic idea -- may even post a short Note highlighting it if you don't mind. Though I'd like to compensate you somehow for that -- you have a tip jar? Maybe I can make a pledge? 🙂
Yes, please send it over email, thanks :)
You're certainly welcome to use the image - and a pledge is more than welcome but not at all expected in return!
Many thanks. 🙂 Was in the midst of sending an email which I've just sent.
I liked this article!
I think there is more to be said in regards to the variation between/within groups discussion. This is a quantitative statement with a precise meaning:
For two groups of people, their average numerical scores on some trait often form two separate bell curves. These bell curves will each have their own mean and each have their own standard deviation. If the standard deviation(s) are greater than the difference in mean, then people say that, "the variance within groups is greater than the variance between groups." However, it is important to remember that this is not true for all sex-distributed traits.
For example, the height of the average U.S. female is about 5 feet and 3.5 inches, while the height of the average U.S. male is about 5 feet and 9.5 inches. This is a difference of about 6 inches. Meanwhile, the standard deviations are both about 2.5 inches. So in this case, the variance between groups is GREATER than the variance within groups.
The other point to remember is that while individual traits may have negligible differences, if there are a lot of traits each with a small difference it can still be very easy to categorize groups. For example, let's say that there are two groups of people: group A and group B. There are 10 traits on which they differ on average by only about 0.3 standard deviations. Then, the TOTAL average distance between a person from group A and group B will be about 3.0 standard deviations when measured on a collective composite variable.
A good example of this is facial differences between men and women. Any given trait you look at and can measure like lip size, eye size/separation, cheekbone height, etc. has very small differences between the groups. However, it is still very easy to recognize female versus male faces.
Thanks, Joe! Good point and well explained. Obviously this is most clear with physical things, but it’s likely true that based on all the small average psychological differences most people could classify a man vs woman on that basis as well (I think Spencer Greenberg has a test trained to do this). But I find that the lack of focus on how much intrasexual variance exists on certain traits (among people who write about sex differences) is common and leads to misunderstandings so always highlight the heterogeneity
This was a difficult but important read for my sedentary brain. Each paragraph is packed with great points and clear rationale for society's actions at an individual/group level. I was frustrated with how often I found myself thinking “that makes sense” with the explanations of how we got here, even though I couldn’t make sense of the big picture - where we ended up. It’s incredible that you not only presented the situation so clearly but also suggested a way out of this mess with the well-aligned but loosely enforced paradigm.
I thought the girl-boss feminism was a particularly good example. It follows that the same simplistic reasoning that leads to the popularity of books like “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”, can also lead to career-oriented women valuing traditionally masculine traits - seeking to imitate what success has looked like in a previously male-dominated sphere. Career-oriented but mild-mannered men aren’t spared from this ideal either - they’re regularly encouraged to be more competitive (read: aggressive). “Marketing Guru” Scott Galloway claimed that if you’re locked in a boardroom with others, everyone should know that you would eat them alive to be the last one standing (somewhat paraphrased). Agree that girl-boss feminism should rightly be faulted for being poorly aligned, but with the grace that it’s understandable where the idea originated. It’s natural for entrants (e.g to high status roles) to model the existing/accepted successful behaviors until that peer-group learns to rewards other behaviors.
Ultimately, reading this gave me an appreciation for how just how hard we struggle with updating learned/ingrained behavior when personal benefit isn’t immediately obvious. The cognitive load of interrupting the pattern recognition machine is not easily borne, especially on someone else’s behalf. As society continues to become more diverse, creating space for the non-conforming minority requires either: a) Introducing personal cost - cancel culture or shaming as a punishment b) A more inclusive generalization, which like you pointed out, introduces redundancy or compromises fidelity but avoids both alienating new entrants and the risk of social cost.
I would argue that the inclusive pattern, though inefficient, needs to exist to facilitate the transition to a more inclusive society. There may need to be a mechanical check on prior behavior/generalizations, at least until the new default is in place. For example, the aspirational finish-line of equal representation should exist initially, no matter how practically infeasible, if only to signify a shift in thinking and act as a push to promote access to high status roles. As absurd as it may be, stating expected preferred pronouns can exist temporarily, if it helps the more-resistant to change members of society pause and become aware of their assumptions.
That being said, we shouldn’t be encouraging option a) punishment as the vehicle of transition. It’s a mistake to claim any kind of moral high ground and use one’s inclusive pattern as a stick to beat those who are either still in the process of updating their generalizations or choose not to update them. Women who find success and fulfillment in avenues unrelated to “girl-boss career” should not be criticized for their choices. It’s ironic that the point of being inclusive is lost by those who would seek to exclude the people who don’t get with the program.
There’s also a time-value to the evangelization and adoption of new generalizations. A lot of them are helpful in the early stages of transitioning to a more inclusive society but outlive their use pretty quickly. Once we reach the point where those who wanted to update their generalizations have or are at least now aware of the best way to integrate new entrants, the mechanical check loses its effectiveness. A good barometer tends to be when these patterns begin to become weaponized and used as a form of punishment by those who are more “woke”. In general though, I feel that society is bad at determining when a practice has become obsolete, mainly due to the variability in population samples. This probably explains the frustration that most polite circles feel about practices that have now become infantilizing.
To re-iterate - I learnt a lot from this post, particularly the concerns of gender questioning. At the same time, I’ve come away wondering if this played out exactly how it had to? Something about always having to break eggs to make the omelette?
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment!
I totally agree with this: “It’s natural for entrants (e.g to high status roles) to model the existing/accepted successful behaviors until that peer-group learns to rewards other behaviors” - that behavior only changes when the norms change, either as a result of social pressure or as a result of the peer group shifting over time (in this case to include more women in the workplace)
I don’t totally agree on this point though: “For example, the aspirational finish-line of equal representation should exist initially, no matter how practically infeasible, if only to signify a shift in thinking and act as a push to promote access to high status roles.” The reason I would push back on that is that even making it the “initial goal” bakes in values which denigrate non-economically productive roles relative to economically productive roles. I do think representation matters though, and seeing some women and people of other races in powerful positions can inspire those who want to follow those paths to do so, bringing the best talent to where it is best suited which is beneficial for everyone. But still, don’t think we can or should focus on completely equal representation for the reason I mentioned above as well as the fact that there’s no logical end to such slicing and dicing. For instance ... why stop at male/female representation or racial representation... why not think about gender-age combos or representation of immigrants from various places, rural vs urban, religious, political, IQ representation etc.
I think your point about introducing (often clunky) language or practices as a check on assumptions which are rightfully being questioned may be a phase that helps facilitate a society to do better in terms of accommodating non-conformers... but there’s two sides to that coin - if you push this stuff too far you end up radicalizing people who otherwise would’ve been happy to be inclusive. You acknowledge this to some degree in noting that punishment of people who don’t “get with the program” is counterproductive and hypocritical.
But I slightly disagree about whether we can tell when such a practice has gone too far or has outlived its usefulness. Sure, you can’t precisely identify the moment it tips over but you can identify when it’s gone way too far. And I think much of the gender questioning stuff has gone way too far. It’s one thing to encourage people to be inclusive of some group but quite another to ask people to mime membership to that group as a norm (which is how I see stating preferred pronouns as well as the requirement for teachers to “challenge cisgenderism” at all grade levels and in all subjects in Ontario).
Thanks again for your comments! Engagement like this also helps me further understand my own positions on all of this stuff 😊
I'm shocked and surprised by the integration of gender theory into the school curriculum. If schools need parental consent on almost everything else including school trips, medication, leave application etc , how is gender identity a less important family matter? Would religious identity be the next line to be crossed?
I think of stereotypes generally as extremely low-bandwidth (1 or 2 bits) units of information, best used in the absence of more information and worst used in the availability of more information. For example, if I see a chair-looking thing, I first "stereotype" it as a chair. As I step closer, I see its color, its material, its comfortability, and so on. Stereotyping is adaptive due to its raw efficiency, but equally primitive in its neglect of nuance, variability and idiosyncrasy.
Stereotypes ideally convey a certain amount of signal about the thing they actually represent. As you step closer, one hopes the chair-looking thing is actually a chair. If not, the stereotype conveys low signal. This may happen if there is simply an encoding error, but also if actual chairs are too diverse to be collapsed into 1 or 2 bits of information.
Generally the solution here is to invent more nuanced, higher-bit stereotypes (sofas vs. desk chairs vs. toilet seats), but not too high (red sofas vs. yellow desk chairs vs. orange toilet seats, etc.) so as to be cognitively burdensome.
As to the question of gender stereotypes, there is of course considerable debate over how much female (and male) stereotypes actually represent real, observed behavior.
The first question is what "default stereotype" should you have, which leads to different consequences in aggregate (as you illustrate in your matrix), and which also changes over time.
The second question is how much you should weight these stereotypes at all. I lean toward initially high weight in the absence of any more information (imagine you had to guess the characteristics of a person and all you see is "she is biologically female" on an index card), but quickly updating based on newly revealed information. Given the large variance in individual behavior within sexes, I would place low weight on my prior and high weight on the observed evidence.
I totally agree about the relatively low value of sex/gender stereotypes (and most stereotypes) at the individual level. Once you've interacted with, and certainly once you have a relationship with, a given person they provide little additional value. BUT the same is not true when looking at population averages. There, it's quite important to understand average sex differences and how those would be expected to show up in average employment and other outcomes. For instance, if you believe there are absolutely no inherent differences between men and women you'll find the gender balance at tech companies incomprehensible UNLESS there is discrimination at play or unjust socialization from childhood onward. One other nuance about the individual level... in contradiction of what I just said... I do think there's likely some value in understanding the expected future personal value changes of men vs. women that relate to average sex differences - my opinion here is a bit fuzzy but basically I think there's a reason people tell women "you'll likely change your opinion about the desire to have kids when you get over the age of 30", of course men's desires shift in this direction as well but I think the pattern is more pronounced for women.
Very good point of conditioning "average behavior" not just on gender, but also on (gender, age). The general rule is the more information you have, the more you should update with that information and the better predictions you will make. (gender, age, works_in_finance) may completely flip the prediction.
“As I said above, well-aligned gender roles partially reduce the individual burden that comes with generating an ideal to strive for.”
I think I’ll need more evidence to be convinced about this idea that more flexible gender options is a burden and that some enforcement of gender stereotypes is valuable. As you say biological sex is real and has real impacts on our psychology so for me the ideal is to neither program kids against this reality nor to stream them towards the average attributes of their sex. I say put the focus on creating *good people* and let a billion flowers bloom.