Denis Dutton

I recommend to all gender warriors on either side of the debate to read this talk given by Baumeister, which later became a book by Baumeister + Tice. It has a lot of insights into origins of the differences between men and women. http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm One should not discount the additional biased inherent in the discussion, by the way. This is the corporate world and people are talking about selling their time or money. Perhaps one answer to all this is to opt out of the full-time corporate treadmill, start your own business or be self-employed.

The best explanation I've come across so far is Roy Baumeister's Is There Anything Good About Men? [0], which explains gender determinisms by regarding the evolutionary history of our species. The article was already posted several times on HN [1]. [0]: http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm [1]: http://hn.algolia.com/#!/story/forever/prefix/0/Is%20There%20Anything%…

I think the article you're referring to is called "Is There Anything Good About Men", and has been submitted to Hacker News multiple times. Even though it doesn't have anything to do with technology it's one of the most insightful articles I've found here. Here's a link to the article: http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm (Note, I think this location copied the article from http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm, but I find the formatting on the first link is a bit nicer and easier to read) If you want to browse the comments on previous submissions to HN, you can just follow the links on HNSearch: http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=anything+good+about+m…

"Arrhenius estimated doubling CO₂ would produce a world 5℃ hotter. This, thankfully, is higher than modern calculations but not too far off, considering he wasn’t using a sophisticated computer model!" This is talking about the variable called "equilibrium climate sensitivity". Climate sensitivity is a key question in any fact-based discussion of climate change. There are three problems with this statement: 1. ECS calculations based on empirical measurement come in far, far lower than 5 degrees, more like 1.7-2.5 degrees and this has been falling over time, e.g. measurement based estimates of ECS in 2001 were higher than they are today. 2. ECS calculations based on models (which scientists should consider weaker evidence than observational data, but don't) are extremely uncertain, with estimates ranging from 2 to 4 degrees. 3. The range of values models use for ECS are getting wider over time, not narrower as you'd expect. So it's really tough to say that Arrhenius was close given that modern climatologists have no idea what the correct value for ECS is even though they've been studying it intensively for 40 years, that their "sophisticated computer models" disagree very deeply about the right value and this is getting worse with time, and that all those values are still too high when compared to studies that aren't modelling based. It's also worth noting that even the headline is totally misleading. Today climate change is used as a synonym for global warming but for…

Before getting too keen on geo-engineering, take a few minutes to ponder the following paragraph from an article in Newsweek: "Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf If this paragraph makes no sense to you, it's because - with the exception of the proposed geo-engineering project - it sounds like something that could have been written last week. It was actually written in 1975 when climate change meant the coming ice age. Here's Spock to tell you more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQSBn50o_8M It's a good thing they didn't try to melt the arctic, right? But notice how there's absolutely no communication of any nuance, uncertainty or the possibility that the scientists were wrong. Only laments about how the "planners" were…

The article "Is There Anything Good About Men?" by Roy Baumeister [1] takes some interesting angles on the reasons and motivations for men choosing war, and generalizes why the worlds most powerful people, as well as the overwhelming majority of most prison populations, are men. In some ways, the reasons look to clearly stem from culture and society's influence, as discussed in the Baumeister article. On the other hand, there is definitely a some element of the innate [2] "us vs. them" at play, allowed to run unbridled in the suspenseful environment of war. I imagine this would result in an experience not easily replicated in the real world. No where else offers this: 1. You might get to kill "bad people" 2. You won't get in trouble for it 3. You don't have time to think or process it. It just happens, split second, you die or they die, you panic, resort to your training, you live. Instead of being punished, you are a hero. 4. You might die. Hearing a bullet whiz by your head and surviving, followed by the subsequent huge adrenaline rush. 5. If you don't die, you see yourself as an invincible super hero that gets to save the world. There are ways to replicate a lot of this, like joining a street gang or getting involved in organized crime, but instead of becoming a hero, you get 20-to-life. Not quite the same risk-reward. Something about it seems very juvenile, in the sense of getting to do "bad things" with very little risk of negative consequence, and there's…

I think you should re-read the post. The phrase "on his/her/their computers" is repeated 4 times in the (fairly short) post. I think it's pretty clear that this doesn't apply when comparing a pad/paper CEO and an engineer. And we very purposefully didn't draw any conclusions (though we did admittedly ask leading questions to fuel the conversation!). We say a few times in the comments that this could well be a reflection of the types of jobs that the 4000 women have compared to the 4000 men-- they may have more social jobs or more "afk" jobs. It'd be an interesting followup to grab 1000 female engineers and 1000 man engineers to see if the differences hold up. I don't know if it will, but what if it did? Would it be so horrible if women were less suited for multitasking and knowledge work? Because they sure as heck are better at a lot of other things. They're, on average, smarter than men. They have better reflexes. Check out "Is there anything good about men" - great essay: http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm If they WERE less suited for it, it would be interesting to see how much culture and education influenced their suitability. i.e. Does the difference fade away if you correct for educational differences, etc. At the end of the day, it's just an interesting chunk of from a single web service that has a very strong bias towards geeky users.

Edit: I believe you are referring to "Is There Anything Good About Men?": http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm. It was discussed multiple times on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=Is+There+Anything+Good+About+Men%3F

> but I can't find the link right now :( Are you thinking of this: http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

Based on genome analysis, that's been true about human males also. http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

I found an interesting talk called "Is there anything good about Men?" that includes potentially useful ways to frame questions about differences between men & women: http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm "Nature rolls the dice with men more than women." and "Culture has plenty of tradeoffs, in which it needs people to do dangerous or risky things, and so it offers big rewards to motivate people to take those risks. Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women."

Indeed. Roy Baumeister has written about it (where I first picked up the fact, having grown blind to it all my life): http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

Maybe it's biology that allows men to lead less balanced lives It can't be ignored. Males are nature's crapshoot. In many measures when comparing men against women, we'll see more men at the extremities. Most bay area CEOs are men. But so are most prisoners. This essay helped to shape my views around the topic: http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

A good essay on this phenomenon: http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm. In short, evolutionary biology; variance of number of children in men is much higher and it makes sense to take risk (both in terms of genes and behaviour).

The last time this topic came up, buried in the comments somewhere I found this gem: http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm It's controversial, but it has some ideas not usually tossed around in these debates. It certainly brings at least as much to the table as an article suggesting a small study done in Israel explains America's STEM gender differences.

http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=589346

I was considering phrasing my comment as "conversations between stoned philosophy students", so yes, that sounds about right. Not to mention the fact that a philosophy course about Borges will likely be examining the work of the philosophers Borges was referencing. I've yet to see anyone make the claim that Borges originated any of the important philosophical ideas in his stories. Edit: Just to back this up a little more, here is a quote from the man himself: "But I wonder if they are my ideas. Because really I am not a thinker. I have used the philosophers’ ideas for my own private literary purposes, but I don’t think that I’m a thinker. I suppose that my thinking has been done for me by Berkeley, by Hume, by Schopenhauer, by Mauthner perhaps." http://denisdutton.com/jorge_luis_borges_interview.htm

This is really really really hard to believe, unless man and woman play the same role in the process of evolution. Think in this way: if evolution made man and woman physically different, how come it made man and woman mentally same? Read: Who is Against Evolution? http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-is-against-evolution.ht… Read: Is There Anything Good About Men? http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

Everyone posits an oppressor. Maybe it all happened naturally. http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

Better formatted version here: http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

That would create the blandest option, the epitome of "meh". For a similarly inspired experiment in art, see http://denisdutton.com/most_wanted.htm

Previous submissions and interesting discussions at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=589346 and http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1634955 The first submission points to http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm (which has the same post with better formatting than this submission)

>Nah, this is just a stereotype. It is born out of the stereotype that the female oriented jobs all tend to be inclined in that way; female oriented jobs are historically non-academic, practical and not usually physically taxing. This is due to historical prejudice against female ability. Or arguably a historical prejudice against female expendability. Males are expendable - http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm (this comes up here quite frequently, you've probably seen it already). Quoting that link: "A second thing that makes men useful to culture is what I call male expendability. This goes back to what I said at the outset, that cultures tend to use men for the high-risk, high-payoff undertakings, where a significant portion of those will suffer bad outcomes ranging from having their time wasted, all the way to being killed."

Really? That seems unlikely. Very few people have ever made such a claim, though it does seem that it could be possible. http://www.denisdutton.com/jupiter_moons.htm

I read wheaties' reply as being a response to your comment that > Unless/until society finds a way for men and women to have financial parity of some sort, quite a lot of women will continue to trade sex for money on some level which seems to suggest that a lack of financial parity is the driving force behind women choosing to trade sex for money. The response was that, even if financial parity were achieved (i.e, if there were as many homeless, and also hugely rich women as there are men), women would still trade sex for money. See http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm which was linked on here recently for another viewpoint on the debate over financial disparity between the sexes, which you may find interesting.

fallacious "skeptical" arguments You're being a bit kind to yourself, don't you think? You're skeptical, as are those you agree with, but those you don't agree with are "skeptical". The climate change debate was a controversial new idea thirty years ago See, this revisionist stuff drives me crazy. 30 years ago, it was called "global cooling". Now, sophisticated punters call it "climate change", instead of the less sophisticated and more embarrassing flip-flop of "global warming". http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm Just call it global warming and admit that 30 years ago, climatologists were wrong. Don't try to obfuscate their lack of perfection (nobody expects perfection anyway) with this "climate change" nonsense of "we knew it all along, see, we predicted climate change 30 years ago!"

I take it you don't. Is it because you think there are no meaningful differences across sexes? Really, give this a shot: http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm.

There is another post on HN (or it was recently) about men vs. women. It discusses (in a reasonably but not strictly rigorous manner) the differences between the sexes. Link: http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

Alright, I'll bite. But, I've never heard of any research suggesting women have a different cognitive capacity than men. I read some research a number of years ago suggesting cross-culturally women had better language skills than men, but I don't know if this is still considered to be true. I can't remember reading anything in the manifesto which suggested women are less capable as software engineers. The essay did suggest women were less interested in programming than men (obviously true - see enrolment figures) and that at least some of the effect size is due to biological factors (probably true - see below). --- None of these links suggest any capacity difference. Only that there is a biologically influenced gender difference in interests. Here's an essay contextualising and summarising the historical specifics of male and female gender roles in society: http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm Here's a study of how prenatal androgen effects psychological thing vs people orientation, and how it influences career choice: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/ A summary of studies looking at big 5 personality distributions and other effects. Of note is the long section describing blindspots in current research: "Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where and Why?" http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x Here's a Dutch documentary where they send a camera crew around asking different researchers about gender…

Here's a few: http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm