I worked for 27 years for a large, multinational corporation. Before they hired me, a clerk, someone who had no authority to hire or fire, gave me a written test that included math, science, logic, electronics, and miscellaneous stem information. I passed the test, and the clerk gave me an appointment to return to speak to a manager. He explained that managers were not allowed to see candidates before they had reviewed the results of the test. It was a way of protecting the manager from his own bias, sort of in the same way as in the video when the committee evaluated candidates for chief of police without knowing the names of the candidates. Seems like a good idea, even for CEOs.
It's as simple as this: respect ability. When anyone does something better than you, shut up and learn. I was taught by a female professor about computer tech. She was an amazing teacher. But I will not respect you because of your gender. What can you do that is of worth to myself or society? At the end of the day, that is what is important.
@@lockandloadlikehell I disagree. I am sure you like to be respected, as does everyone else. I am not saying let everyone walk all over you and not to have boundaries, as that would not showing respect for oneself.
There is no neuroscience in this presentation. "Neuroscience (or neurobiology) is the scientific study of the nervous system.[1] It is a multidisciplinary branch of biology,[2] that deals with the anatomy, biochemistry, molecular biology, and physiology of neurons and neural circuits."
LMAO at all the comments... It seems that just about everyone missed the entire point of the talk. What is being said here is that there is inherent bias in all of our thought patterns and decision making in regards to gender. Even women unconsciously judge themselves and other women based on subtle patterns and messages picked up from language, behavior, and media within our culture. Men do the same to themselves, and that is not fair. Our realities are not made up of infallible facts--we are fed many untruths, even when the people who are serving them to us earnestly believe that they are true. Basically, not everything we think is true, and it is important for us to recognize that there are subconscious biases that affect the way we think and decision-make in order for us to consider things in an objective way.
Anslee Smith LOL. Yeah, we are so, so oppressed! Keep teeling this to yourself. I don't judge myself, I know I can do everything I want. Ideologists like you just can't accept the fact that men and women are biologically different. Science shows very clear that there are inborn differences between men and women in physiology, hormone balance, and brain microstructure that causes significantly different behavior and physical characteristics between sexes. Gender studies and social constructionism are based mainly on ideology. Everytime when the 'nurture' folks are asked for the basis of their ideas, they cannot produce anything.
Yes but that was not her point her point was that the most importent difference between the sexes that our brain has stored should now be ignored if you say strong ofc im gonna think of a male thats because mens are phisicly stronger if u say emotions i will think women just look at the number of men in jail and the number of women to understand that men are less emotional The reality is instinct and hormons influence behavior and thats what makes women and men so different
These talks have one flaw: they do not address alleged biological bases from which the gender bias may arise. Until these talks can explain why the biological differences between the genders do not matter, these talks would continue to fail to be compelling.
I studied Engineering and after working for several years went on to study for a masters degree. There were 16 of us on the course - all men. I'm sure the Univerity would have loved to have accepted some women but there was a lack of applicants. When we went to our degree ceremony, the group before us had studied for diplomas for library studies - virtually all women. The men/engineers were heading towards jobs earning twice the national average while the women/librarians were heading for jobs earning half the national average. Why did the women make such bad choices and the men such good choices? Well, perhaps they were deciding what was best for themselves as individuals and ignoring what was best for their intersectional groupings. Were they making good or bad choices? - No, the choices were best for themselves. Barron-Cohen showed that one week old baby girls look longer at faces than moving objects while one week old boys do the opposite. The effect correlates with testoterone levels in the womb producing overlapping distributions of interest in people/things such that most women are predominantly interested in people while most men are interested in things. Of course, because it is a distribution and not a binary, this means that some women are, never-the-less, predominantly interested in things and they often go on to study Engineering - good luck to them! The women engineers bring a different perspective which is valued by the Engineering community as it is very welcoming of diversity of thought, unlike feminism. Engineering and Science accept that diveristy of thought makes us as a group smarter because we can debate a subject and the truth then emerges as the bad ideas get knocked down. Feminism does not believe in debate but orthodoxy so that bad ideas are never challenged and the result is the nonesense in this video. According to the talk, all differences in outcome between men and women are down to bias or wrong-think because men and women are actually identical. Wrong! Smell the politics and notice the lack of rationality.
Women are discouraged from birth to interact with objects, math and leadership while boys are encouraged to do these things. The main reason women tend to choose a type of occupation is because they’ve been groomed into thinking that way. Nature vs nurture. There isn’t that big a difference between men and women cognitively speaking. Cultural studies also show this result.
by printing pictures of boys or boys-associated images/colors in toys about building, trains, videogames, firefighting and others that encourage any number of professions, and on the other hand girls have little kitchens, babies, trophy wife barbies and braid makers. since birth we are surrounded with associations of what our gender is supposed to do or be
If people associate "tall" with men and "short" with women, does it mean bias, or does it mean men are mostly taller them women? The IAT doesn't prove prejudice, it may just show an accurate association with natural differences between groups. And of course one should always judge the individual - like noticing a tall woman is tall, rather than assuming she's short because women are shorter. Same with leadership, strength, fragility, etc.
Society expect from tall women to bend and from short men to walk on tiptoe, that's the problem, not that the average woman is shorter than the average man, to stay in this example.
@@anitafrieda It does? Even if that's true, there's a simple solution: ignore "society". It's not hard. I do it constantly. Women are pre-wired by nature to be more agreeable and neurotic. Blame nature, in that case, not society, since you're looking for someone to blame for your perceived inadequacies.
Don't get why this has that many downvotes. In my opinion that's quite a nice talk, although I didn't find the neuroscience aspect in it. However, I support the overall message; we all as a society have to work on solving inequalities for women and men.
I was born in Soviet Union, where women "were equal to men" they were "Men in skirts" and they were expected to work just as hard as men; hauling iron ore, chopping wood, tilling ground, inhaling deadly chimicals in labs, you name it women did it. Any and all jobs were EQUAL & no one cared if they were pregnant, breastfeeding or on your period. Soviet women became sick, barren and angry at the world... and the government covered up all the stats... the population dwindled (and is still droping)... and then, soviet empire unraveled and fell apart - thank God! Now I'm going to go hugg my husband for working like a man, so I can be a mom to our kids at home!
cs -- I applaud you and wish you the best, but you are anecdotal and statistical outliers. I, personally, do not like some of the realities presented in this talk, but I do accept them. I, as much as possible, will try to help change the disparities that arise because of parental/societal skewed expectations/encouragements, but I also acknowledge the biological gender disparities, and trying to go against them is definitely swimming upstream, at least in the short term relative to actual evolutionary changes. We probably want to keep some of them for the long term.
David Voss - It means you agree with me. People should have free choice to develop & find work of their interest. I do not see any more support for boys in STEM, in USA. All is about girls & women. Generally, there is just support for women and there are more & more women in college than men. Women only, no male only conferences & events. I do not care what genders or race my colleagues are, as long as they know what they do & there is good atmosphere to strive at work. I see lately young women who struggle in STEM jobs, who were pushed there for sake of equal outcome.
The designers of the "implicit association test" themselves admitted that it cannot be used to draw any meaningful conclusions due to its flaws and ambiguity.
If there was a consensus that people are racial bias that would include every race not just one individual race. I think maybe people should start trying to focus on things that unit us together and things we all have in common instead of pushing this false claim that “diversity” is our strength. How is it possible that what makes us different from each other is our strength? Our unity on the basic principles of believing in living in a free society is what makes us all unit together that then allows us all to appreciate our differences and respect them.
All I hear in the media is how much sexism exists out in the workforce and in the world. However, in my 25 years of life I have YET to directly encounter it. Now, if it is SO prevalent in our society (as the media puts it) how have I not experienced it yet?
Me too and I'm 38! The only 2 men who lectured me on how oppressed I am as a woman, were the only men who treated me with sexism/in a very creepy way. Like one lied, said he was going the same direction as me, followed me home and started screaming when I wouldn't let him walk me to my door. After an hour of telling me how awful society is for women, patriarchy etc...hmm. Nope, there are just a few psychos out there. It's not all of men who are like that and we need to stop stereotyping men.
Having worked in a tech industry for a decade and seen/suffered everything from "being invisible" to sexist comments yes it exists. Having to deal with the harassment in uni colleges yes it exists. You have been very lucky, and I grateful for that.
@CEOofFRESH1 the more deserving ones should get the first priority . This filtering also nurtures the real talent and can lead to amazing results . Survival of the fittest .
@@ianturner3613 It's a key part of meritocracy, and has been for a long time. Some Canadian Christian who stirs up controversy for book money wasn't the first to propose the idea lol
I found Janet's talk heavily biased. She focused only on professions dominated by men. Interesting that she didn't mention 9 of 10 teachers are female in K-12 with a study showing that they grade boys 30% lower than girls for equal work.
Stephen Mueller idk how you can get a lower score for the same work unless you are saying shes awarding more points per question , soley based on gender
On average men have more muscle mass. Men produce more testosterone and have an amplified response to testosterone, which leads to stronger muscles and denser and stronger bones. They also, on average, have a larger cardiac and respiratory capacity. I don't think that men are better than women, but associating the word "strong" more easily with men isn't bias, it's anatomical and physiological science.
I went to a nearly all male school. Lots of bullying went on, never was gender a part of it. I was an oddball for many different other reasons. Maybe it's just a cultural thing. I rarely encounter gender bias anywhere, except my own. I personally don't get along with women at all, even though i am one myself. I find it extremely unpleasant to work with women. I live in a society where it's all about finding your niche in life and making choices that fit your personality. I don't see why it has to be set in stone, 'this is right and this is wrong'. I'm female so i should love the baby chat, the coffee breaks with the gossip, the talking behind people's back, the invitations to go for coffee, the never ending chatter. No, i don't. I like hanging out with the guys, silently drinking a beer, slump in the chair, flipping through a magazine on a friday after work, "Bye, John, see ya", "Yep, later" kind of thing. I would hate to think i got a job because i needed to fill some kind of quotum. That's depressing and sad, to be honest. I prefer a workplace where i can sit with the people i enjoy being around in the breaks instead of being in some kind of forced group-hug situation where everyone should get along and like eachother. That forces unnecessary stress on people. I'm in a place where the mix and match culture is alive and vibrant. It provides a unique and ever changing athmosphere where you can freely explore people on your own terms. Of course, there are women i care deeply about but mostly because their personality matches mine. Not because we were forced to get along. I don't see what's wrong with proving your worth and showing your personality first. Why should anyone accept you for anything simply because you are female. Instead, let your knowledge and capacity shine. I promise you, it shines brighter than the equality banner you're holding up. We are not in fact the same and we all have preferences. Why should a preference be forced upon any of us. I was kind of a racist too... until i met my best friend. Although i still think his and my culture are a bit oil and water but at least we found eachother on a personal level. Racism from the other side is also a very, very real thing as are cultural differences. Don't kid yourself. I also found out many of my friends rejected him innitially. I do not think so highly of them now and distanced myself from a fair few of them. Some of my cultural bias was true, most was not. so what if you admit you were wrong. Life is dynamic and full of surprises! Why bother trying to capture it in rules or some graph. It's proving or fixing nothing.
See my experience is that female friends are awesome. Extremely supportive, encouraging and helpful. Extremely kind. Have I met horrible women/girls? Of course. But just as many as I've known horrible men. Most of my friends are women but I also have a few male friends from early childhood. I find it more difficult to be friends with males I meet as an adult because of the issue of "romantic feelings" developing without me realizing and then it ruins the friendship. I have a very good relationship with both my father and mother and my brother and all other members of my close family whether male or female, yet with friendships I have always had mainly female friends. You say you find it unpleasant to work with other women but I wonder if you enter your interactions with other women with a bias that other women will display traits like "baby chat" (what is that?) gossiping and talking behind people's backs. Those things are extremely negative sexist stereotypes which aren't actually related to reality at all. I've heard, believe it or not, just as many men in a workplace "talking behind people's backs" as I've heard women doing the same. Gossiping is not exclusive to gender, it's just that when men do it's often not called gossiping. Also my female best friend is very quiet while I have male friends who are very chatty. Also I'm not very emotional at all, I hardly ever cry, and I'm the most feminine person you'd probably ever meet... and I've got really burly masculine family members who cry at weddings and sad songs. So yeah, you're working with unfair stereotypes. Look at the other women around you with fresh eyes and I think you may easily find some great friends of your own gender.
So right on the hiring quotas companies must abide by. Same goes for hiring to even out the racial employment at companies. It's counterproductive and dangerous...but to a business owner, very very costly cause the result of protecting themselves from lawsuits due to the EOE laws they end up going through employees at a terrifyingly rate which means they lose millions a year training New employees over and over again
sanaa94 "stereotypes which aren't actually related to reality at all" Stereotypes are based in reality. It doesn't mean that ALL women are malicious gossips and NO men are. It deosn't mean that ALL men are loud an ALL women are quiet. It doesn't mean that men don't show their emotions. (most just don't use their emotions to manipulate people) But there are trends. Obviously everybody should be given the benefit of the doubt, but you can usually fairly quickly figure out whether somebody totally fits the stereotypes or totally doesn't fit the stereotypes or, like most people, is somewhere in between. There are so many possible reasons why melovescoffee has met lots of people who match stereotypes and you haven't. Everybody's experience is different. Baby chat is talking about babies all the time. Your cousin just had one, you want one, the one next door is SO cute... Some women couldn't care less about babies, some can't seem think about anything else.
She keeps saying that improving the education of women/girls will help men/boys too, but then how does that explain boys performing worse in school and less boys graduating high school or college in a education system geared towards girls?
Building construction, steam engineering, electricians, plumbers, HVAC, marine engineering, auto mehcanics, etc etc etc. Woman are more than welcome in these common vocations, and a "few" do, yet they overwhelmingly choose not to take up these careers. Why? Because women "generally" don't have the mindset or desire to "choose" these careers. They make different life choices than men, and no one is forcing them too. Women think differently than men, so get over yourself. It's called biology.
She was talking about the brain and how it works with the subconscious, and how the brain associates things and uses that association to help us to form an opinion about reality. Watch it again and listen.
+Justwantahover but she really didn't. She didn't say why and how it works. She just said we have subconscious biases, which is a no brainer. Talking about why we have it and how our brain structure makes us have it is neuroscience. Saying "we have brains therefor we think X" is NOT in anyway neuroscience. It's just common fucking sense.
"When we associate masculinity with money, and muscles, and domination, and agression, we dishonor legions of good men who do not embody these characteristics". Men are selected by women on these very characteristics. It's not about being "good" or "bad", it's all about getting "laid". Then it's about helping our offspring against others' offspring. It's natural selection.
To men it's all about getting "laid" and planting as many seeds as possible. Women are generally the ones more concerned about the success of their offspring (biologically speaking). The success of offspring is not only determined by good genes (looking at masculinity), but also in securing enough resources. The muscular and dominant men are not bringing in all the resources anymore. Resources in this day and age is money and while trade/skilled/labor jobs are still highly paid jobs, many men are making more money from jobs that aren't associated with aggression, domination and traditional masculinity.
@@kristaanderson8055 But women still choose to breed with aggressive douchebags. That's why we still have so many of them (their offsprings) in the population.
It's hard to take this seriously when I have never heard people that fight for equality in jobs show interest in leveling the gender gap in mining and construction working or any jobs they don't like the look of. It's always higher paid or higher education jobs that are chased. People only care about issues when it benefits them which is another form of bias that should be discussed more.
Women used to mine coal in England. When the miners' wives found out that it's hot in the mines and everybody worked topless, they petitioned the government to make it illegal for women to work in mines because "it wasn't appropriate work for women."
I agree... academic work is far different to work that requires heavy lifting, and work that imposes certain risks or danger. However, I do think that certainly in the fields of medicine and some sciences, women should be entitled to equal pay. HOwever men who work in mining or construction should definitely get bigger paychecks
@@alessiotisi774 agree with all you said. Sometimes I wonder would the framing "Everyone must get the same pay for the same job. No exceptions" or something like that get a better reception as it is not instantly creating a separation of the population(which isn't even always applicable to situations) for people to attempt to take sides on. Interested to hear your opinion
On average, men have five inches in height and more than 25 pounds more skeletal muscle than women. It's hardly surprising then that our unconscious association for 'strong' would be the male rather than the female figure, and for 'fragile' the reverse, or that, in order to advance 'gender equality' we've had to adjust the standards for physical strength in some professions to get even a small proportion of women into them. Wouldn't it be better to simply acknowledge that, in a job that rewards physical strength, there will most likely be more men than women? There will be women who are physically strong enough, just not as many. Big-five personality testing has the mean for women at the 60th percentile for agreeableness, but for men at the 40th percentile. Why should we expect equal numbers of male and female lawyers (who benefit from disagreeableness) or therapists (the reverse)? There will still be women lawyers (speaking from experience, there ARE women who score in the bottom 10th percentile on agreeableness, believe me!) and male therapists, just not, perhaps, equal numbers. That doesn't rule women out of any career, but it gets us away from this obsession with equality of outcome as the measure of whether we have succeeded in making the career open to women, as it should be, or whether, instead, we are afflicted with the mysterious disease of "implicit bias." Bias is making a judgment about an individual, without adequate data. We actually all have adequate data to make judgments about "normal"* men and "normal" women. The latter are weaker. Fact. But any one woman may well be much stronger than any one man. That's where the need for data comes in. But that's not what these "implicit bias" tests measure, and the science behind them is mostly bogus. *I am using the word "normal" here to refer to the population at or near the mean on a standard distribution curve, not to imply anything pejorative about those who fall outside that range, either above or below.
Exactly. Thanks for writing this. I don't know why people can't accept reality. It's not bad to be a woman! I personally like it! And I don't need to be a muscle man, or be as physically strong, to be equal as a human. We don't need to put men down to be strong in our own ways as women. Why don't we just appreciate one another? I personally think it's important to value others in our society who have strengths we don't, and vice versa.
So to summarise: This person came into gender science with a bias, did some research, ''looked at the data'', and arrived at the normal conclusion on gender which is that there is a natural unconsious bias, and discovered herself that woman are just as biased towards men as men are to woman. And the proposed solution is to do what normal individuals were already doing anyway. ''To commit yourself to becoming a good observer of your enviroment' That's some interesting neuroscience right there.. *Standing ovation.
Tbh she didn't state that evolutionary ,men are more attracted to material things and women to more emotional things . So as star wars is more material i.e. with space ships and all , it's more naturally appealing to men than women .
Men have more pressure to earn money, therefore take said studies and said jobs. I LOVE history...but damned, it's not exactly reliable, go into teaching? No thanks. Money not good enough. So I became an accountant. My sister loves children, therefore studied to work with disadvantaged children. We need people like my sister, but I'm sure I'll be earning a lot more because I didn't follow my passion, I followed what I could tolerate and make money with.
Wow it's almost like she studied this to prove her point rather than to understand it. We use this bias system unconsciously to decide the best potential of outcome for any given situation with too many unknown variables. It's instinctual. As much as we need to ignore bias against known information, like the resume test, and why we shouldn't be afraid to embrace it. We know factually the differences between the male and female brain, we know how that effects the male and female body, and we now know stereotypically what to assume from a candidate we otherwise know nothing about. We shouldn't be worried so much about the "what" that were trying to fix, but rather understand the "why" it is that way.
I wish the speaker would have gone into a little more depth on the study with the two rooms: the stereotypically nerdy one and the neutral one. Men's interests apparently were unaffected by the environment, but the women's were. Is this bias? Is it something inherent in how men and women see things due to biology differences? There was some deeper insight that could have been gleamed from that but she didn't mention it. One could infer that the problem women run into in science and technology fields is environmental, not due to how they are treated - basically "I'd enjoy lab stuff more if there wasn't all that lab stuff in the lab..."
The 'neuroscience' brought up here is a very basic outline at best. There is nothing of substance here, just another feminist pushing her agenda. Which, on the subject of bias, I find quite ironic.
ok, i'll tell you when i see bias: i see a ridicuolously privileged woman, who went to friggin berkeley, tell men how they should treat other women who went to berkeley. and as for men taking advice from women, it has a lot to do with attitude. people are less likely to take advice from someone who struts around acting like the world owes them something, than someone who is humble. here's a bias for ya: boys score on average 30% lower when the female teacher know they are boys, than in blind tests.
Jacqueline McCook I couldn't easily (via Google) find any such stat but I did find an interesting article written by someone from MIT. Boys Lag Behind: How Teachers’ Gender Biases Affect Student Achievement Camille Terrier SEII Discussion Paper #2016.07 November 2016 It is a working paper it looks like and so not peer reviewed as far as I can guess. Might be that one of the cited articles mentions what he is talking about? Or maybe not.
I see somebody that allowed a personal bias to colour their understanding of an interesting and fair TED talk. Janet Crawford was not lecturing men, and several times acknowledged that gender bias affects men too, both in making men who don't conform to traditional gender roles feel somehow less, and also in condescending to them by giving them praise for normal activities that every person should do. I see somebody wanting to push their own personal agenda and who has created a persona for somebody that has very little to do with reality, or even what's presented here because they feel threatened or like somebody is blaming them.
how does going to college make her a privileged woman? i don't get it, if she was a man would she be less privileged and just average? You can go to a very pro woman place and still be hit on and harassed. It sound to me like you are trying to nit pick because the topic upsets you for some reason.
Maybe gender biases exists because men and women are actually different? Yes some of the biases may be negative but should we really strive to eliminate them by dismantling gender roles and concurrently dispensing with basic biological mechanism by which we've evolved to function?
If I understand you correctly, EerieEcho, you're questioning whether we should bother at attempting to eliminate negative biases within ourselves and society. And in your run on sentence application of a shred of logic championing the argument for a status quo state of being, you're apprehensive that further societal equalization and growth would jeopardize the many stride our ancestors accomplished during the vast history of evolution. Am I getting that right?
@@ca2712 _"you're questioning whether we should bother at attempting to eliminate negative biases within ourselves and society"_ It's not always clear if these biases are negative.
If these things truly were innate, you wouldn't be so threatened by someone questioning them. They'd continue to exist regardless. But gender roles are indeed flimsy social constructs that are harmful when pushed on everyone. How can you dudes not grasp that putting all humans into two categories and destinies is a bad thing?
Thank You Janet Crawford ... even if you did not exactly use "neuroscience" ... OR you did not make the neuroscience aspect clear??? Anyway, in the field of psychology I have read many studies that look at many forms of Bias ... and what you say here does indeed reflect the general findings of Bias (we all have effects of bias (not Just gender bias) due to how we take in ... store and use ... the information we are exposed to (be that from first or second hand experience or read etc ...) ... It was interesting for me to read the comments here and find tons of gender bias ... and they seem to have no clue. Those of us who do understand need to speak up at every opportunity available (and especially the males who understand because help is needed from males, for those males, who do not yet understand (they will see what males say as more valid) ... sad but true. Love & Peace to All
I agree with all your points and really enjoyed this presentation. Unconscious bias is such a influence on our everyday behaviour and interaction i wish it was discussed more.
@@Victoria-jo8up When a neuroscientist choose to talk about the imaginary pay gap myth as a fact, she has left the realm of science and wandered into fairy land. Can't expect people to take any study she mentions to be serious after that.
08:25 But if the "Nerdy Male" decor affected the female students negatively. While the abscence of "Nerdy Male" decor didnt make any difference to the male students... doesnt that suggest that the female students were the ones who were more biased? The idea of coffee cups and plants being "neutral" decor is after all subjective. Also, im kind of curious to whether that study took into account the ammount of Trekkies who are female.
I'll like your post because you're thinking. What if the study was males (the female are the Control as in the above)..Do I want a job as a Nurse? With it's white Gown & Cap? No! Even though Studies have claimed this is an expanding field for over forty years! Not me! If the room showed blown-up photos of Orderlies pushing wheel chairs....I would've thought: That makes sense. And who's going to lift them out of that chair? A woman!? Yes; I notice women who carry a twenty-pound baby in one arm & do all the rest single-handedly are quiet able! But my Future in Nursing would have been a clarion call!
"in this case, fortune magazine told us necessary that melissa mayer is the real deal because as a blonde attractive young woman we might assume she wasn't". this. or, maybe, she was hired to turn a company around and she only just managed to sell the company to be dismembered and give a profit to stock holders. having acquired yahoo stocks around the time she was hired, and having sold the remainder of the company with a good profit some years later, i would personally vouch for the second: many a times it looked like i had thrown the money down the flush. and, rest assured, the doubts and the hard looks at the company actions weren't aired because mayer was a "blonde attractive young woman". i had fca, too, and i can assure you things were *much* harder for marchionne in a more or less similar situation, who was anything but blonde, attractive, or female. so, who's gender biased here? note: fca was much more worse off than yahoo. i did acquire it when marchionne had already worked some serious miracles into the company. and yet, the disbelief continued on and on and on, pretty much until the day he died.
@Nikki E. specifically, then: if we all carry implicit gender bias, then it's ok to have then, no? perfectly normal. why is this person bias wrong, while that other is ok? and if one substituted biased men in power with women, would there be any progress? no, because women would be just as biased. it's a self defeating proposition, it doesn't serve gender equality, and, sorry, i believe it's false, unless one passes for "bias" even the most remote preference. in addition, research has shown that the fact that an *attractive* woman can become CEO is indeed something remarkable. the gender bias normally had in the workplace makes attractive women advantaged compared to unattractive women when it comes to hiring them for lower positions, but actually puts them at a disadvantage when they need to be promoted to position of real power, such as one as CEO of a big company. as for the "young" part, i'll tell you a secret: they point that stuff out even when it's a young man. so, even when there is a bias, it is strong, and it is pointed out, however obliquely, this speaker fails to appreciate it, because everything MUST be normal. if you care, i will dig up all the scientific references from my nonverbal communication days, but i suspect that you do not care. this is just another internet discussion in which you came with your ideas and nothing will make you change your mind. in addition, despite not knowing anything about me, you prefer to dismiss my rather long and articulate original reply with a couple of lines, also containing an insult directed to me and whoever disagrees with you. gender biased, you too?
My god, this comment section. You guys don't see the irony in your comments, do you. "how is that neuroscience", "where are the facts", "blah blah blah" - you're the ones blahing. Instead of engaging in real arguments about the issue presented you try to push it away as far as possible by talking her down, by belittling her point without actual arguments on your side. Yes, it's neuroscience, these studies come from the field and it's easy to look up these things. If she went into any more detail on a deeper level, the super numbery, cross-sectiony analytical field level, you'd be unable to follow her. She broke it down so that non-neuroscientists can understand it, too. Easy as that.
I want to get to a point where the next titanic disaster results in 70% of the men surviving and 17% of the women because the women gave up their seats. True equality.
Still missing the point. If you choose to disregard everything she says, and dismiss it before she even speaks, there is no actual discussion going on. She is not saying that she is better than anyone--why are people so threatened by her talking about this?
The thing is, she has spoken. People are not bound to agree simply because something is said. Who said anything about being threatened, other than you, in the first place? Being in disagreement is not necessarily being threatened.
The issue is more that the "disagreements" are not substantive. They are superficial and dismissive and don't engage the conversation in a complex way. I agree with Fireworks here. She doesn't suggest that all men are sexist, and her comment acknowledging her own bias, in my opinion, is showing that implicit bias affects all of us. I'd rather have a generative conversation. I don't understand the need to be vitriolic when we disagree. I don' think it helps us move forward in the process of dialogue, but perhaps that is not a shared goal.
@jen berter it was actually not bad economically till feminism and women's suffrage came about. Patriarchal societies are still the most viable, but we don't live in a patriarchal society what we see are remnants of that with a matriarchal spin
suppose we take the inequality (which is thought of as the only source) reasonably out of the picture, then, what makes us think discrimination will go to sleep? many of us are heading towards a hard lesson, i believe. identifying a wrong thing as a source for a problem is another bigger problem. let us wait and see.
When they couldn't make women more, not even as powerful as men despite all efforts they shifted the focus on making men as weak, preferably weaker than women, by posing a compassionate pro-men stance that "O men, please understand, that it's ok and there's no dishonour or shame if you are weak, or even weaker than a woman".
Absolutely, and i'm sick of it. This "me, too" shite makes us (women) all sound like little, quivering butterflies. This is becoming a cottage industry-the victimization of ____(fill in the blank). Oh, and i agree with the person who noted her obvious bias against the young woman based on, guess what, her looks.
@@janetwhite7786 _"Oh, and i agree with the person who noted her obvious bias against the young woman based on, guess what, her looks."_ I think that was the whole point no? Don't you understand this was deliberate? The idea is that we all have these biases, regardless of our politics.
Women in STEM are never called geeks in the harsh way that both men and women call male STEM students and professionals geeks, virgins, etc. Let women imagine how they are rejected in dating by field of study, even when a higher pay job is secured
This video does not seem to answer any questions for me. For three generations myself and my sisters have for the largest part have been victimized by control freak women, who had been unrestrained by their husbands. These girls had a paticularistic empathy for each other, but no larger sense of justice or duty. Feeling substituted for probative evidence. Universal morality was a foreign concept to them. You could explain it to them but the explanation was made impervious toward them by their avidity and prejudices. So a retarded borderline woman gained enough favor among her coven to cheat her sister of her trust fund. And we got stuck in a marriage with a father who was very mentally ill. All this was in service to a handicapped woman who impersonated my mother at the bank. My own bias is not to automatically favor the woman as the superior in morality.
Bias is a very natural thing we need to get adjusted to the nature and the environment and survive at last We have to understand human being. We cannot ignore the outcome from biological progress. Why do we have to remove all the difference to make the world equity just to achieve the implementation of ideology. We need to focus on the harmony not on the equity. Even though we have to pursue the human right investing our resources for mechanical gender equality is not the top priority. Almost 50 vs 50 in every fields is not possible.We don't have to make such an unatural effort to achieve 50:50. Those who are uncomfortable for differences in gender is going to make unatural effort endlessly until they get 50:50 in the fields where they are only highly valued.
Take a good hard look at the Scandinavian countries. The more egalitarian a society becomes, the bigger the differences in interest, career paths and distribution among jobs between the genders become.
As of a few years ago, it was considered the best school in the world for math studies. I believe it has attracted elite mathematicians for a few decades now. I would expect it'd be strong in science fields at the graduate level.
@Seamus Donaghyhahaha men are not "superior" in any way, love. it is simply that men are generally more muscular meaning that they are physically stronger on average than the average women, not superior.
@Seamus Donaghy your physiological build has nothing to do with whether or not you have allegedly"earned" freedom. Freedom is a human right and women certainly have fought for and actually EARNED their rights and freedoms.again you are trying to claim superior simply for being male(not actually earning any privilege by DOING something), which is totally asinine. you would not exist were it not for a woman gestating you fro nine moths before birth, so again while men and women are different, mainly in the physiological, neither is superior to the other and there is reason to treat one preferentially than the other.
@@61505 also more logical. Not to mention faster, larger brains, taller, funnier, they make for better conversations, have way more humility, more confident. You get the picture
the gender pay gap is very well understood; it's largely a matter of different choices and priorities for men and women. have a look on youtube. it's debunked all over the gaff. this tripe has got to stop. you're driving a wedge between the sexes. that's good to no one, you are dishonest and biased.
If you are arguing with someone who claims that gender is a 'social construct,' note this; you may be arguing from a philosophical or biological viewpoint, but they are arguing from an ideological viewpoint. The social constructionist's viewpoint is embedded in ideology.
Humans are _always_ affected by the other humans around them, either men or women. And if a girl is raised and being told by society she can't do xyz, she will believe it and will have it much harder later in life to break this believe. If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe this lie.
You can be strong and being pushed as a child in a certain direction. Babies don't come to earth being strong already. And not all women are strong. Funny thing: there are women who are strong, there are women who are weak. Not all women are the same. Do _you_ believe, all women are the same? And even the strong ones have it harder because of social pressure.
"Neuroscience is a relatively young, exciting, and fundamentally interdisciplinary field devoted to the study of the nervous systems. Problems range from investigation of the evolution of nervous system in basal vertebrates to the application of neuroscience to education and law. Neuroscientists also seek to develop neurologically plausible models of human thinking, affect and behavior.Neuroscience creates a context for scholarly conversation about the nature of mind, brain, and behavior." - University of Notre Dame This video shows that clearly. Gender deals with human behaviors with regards social expectations. In my opinion, we can solve this boring gender issue. How? it is all about love man (the hippies got it hhaha). In more practical terms, it is respecting others to be who they are, and what they want to do with their own lives. (a virtue that is rapidly diminishing in our societies). The problem is fear. It is fear of anything out of the norm, fear of change, fear of diversities, fear of differences, fear of losing our identity, fear of growing power (other than one's own), fear of loss of authority to women? (last one was a hunch) I would like people to accept and respect me for my choices as i do respect them for being them. Those that don't, should watch out hahaha. I will leave you with some wise words: You know that term "the world is not fair or nothing is fair in this world?" Well, MAKE IT FAIR THEN, (that's not my answer, that's the grumbling of my six year old brother when i tell him he can't have what other kids have). Learn from our young, they see no limits.
@William Burr "responsibilities come with limitations" your word salad. 1. You gave a list of responsibilities. And continued with that quote. That's the focus of the comment
@William Burr okay, here is some logic, your limitations in how you raise your kids do not automatically make it my limits in how I raise my kids. Does that compute?
@Saint Stefanie Daniella I live in sweden, probably the most gender neutral country in the world, and has been for many decades. I can add the women had on average better grades from school, but had achieved far less in real work life. Alas, what companies pay for is not a good facade but results.
@@rikardberg1411 But why had they achieved less in the workplace? I'm not saying, btw, that they had achieved less because men barred their way. But it's quite possible that their confidence levels were lower than an average man's in your work environment, and the impact of that could affect their entire lives. It's worth considering. This goes for race issues and class issues too, needless to say.
@@nicolab2075 It is well known from personality studies that women tend towards negative emotion at a rate 60 - 40 to men, i.e. it is highly likely that more women have low confidence levels, even though school today tend to favour girls w r t grades and evaluations. Biology may make men recover from the initial downgrading? It certainly correlates with my own experience, 35 yr old males have more self confidence in the workplace than 35 yr old women but the opposite with 20 yr olds imho.
@@rikardberg1411 Bit of a minefield!! Attempts to level the playing field, or even set target % of women, or ethnic minorities etc, are hampered by too few applicants. Then some people say 'See! They dont even want to be engineers/politicians/whatever'. But others say 'Well they might, if the environment was welcoming, or offered flexibility etc etc.' I personally think that we need to keep trying, as our best efforts will eventually lead to a fairer society and more acceptance of difference. I think.
Let men take responsibility over their women and child. They don't need no talks. They need to raise up and claim their own. WOMAN AND CHILDREN! .. no queremos cobardía en éste alburio. A true man stands on his own. He listens and answers accordingly.
I agree on one point: the “repeating pattern” that obscures human perception. One repeating pattern is the myth of female oppression and male privilege. Do you really think females suck in computer science because of Star Trek posters and lack of coffee cups? Do you really think males are most certainly not effected by environmental factors but females surely are? It seems to me like you present yourself in a position of “moral high ground” and taking all the advantages for females (like yourself) and do not give a damn about males (except when supporting females). That's a very egoistic position.
When you grow up with privilege, you often can't see it. If somebody tries to take it away (e.g. insisting that you take responsibility for your own mistakes or pay for your own food) it can feel like oppression.
@MrHotPinkBanana - It is a reference to feminists response to men who say "hey, men are oppressed too!" Their number one response is "patriarchy hurts men too" but a close second is "men don't see their own privilege and when it is challenged it can feel like oppression." This may be, true but in my experience it is even more true of women. Many men understand that they are granted privileges by society IN RETURN FOR THEIR SELFLESS PRODUCTIVITY, whereas women take their privileges for granted and seem to consider them laws of nature. I never hear feminists complaining how few women there are in mining or how we need more women going out and repairing power lines in the middle of ice storms. I never hear them complaining that we need more male kindergarten teachers or nurses either. I can't remember how many stories I've heard of women who go out on a date and don't even bring any kind of money with them expecting, no, assuming that everything will be paid for. So you better not regret liking my comment. (but if you do you can always take it back)
@@GordieGii _"I can't remember how many stories I've heard of women who go out on a date and don't even bring any kind of money with them expecting, no, assuming that everything will be paid for."_ I would if I was a woman. If he's not willing to pay for dinner, he's just freeloading.
Unconscious bias has been de bunked by a quality group of scientists it has little evidence to support it and the training and testing indicate different result each time with the same people. It is barely science at all The test this women is talking about was poor result wise. They also commented about the money being wasted on training to remove the bias that we don't even no we have..
This sounded like an interesting topic, unfortunately, it did not turn out to be about _the surprising neuroscience of gender inequality._ Our speaker, Janet Crawford, does touch on neuroscience a bit when she explains that we all cope with the influx of data by using rafts of associations. So, if two concepts have a strong association in the world that we observe then they will very likely have a similar association in our minds. This will be true even if the observed association was in an artificial social construct. The rest of what she had to say was apparently the musings of a gender prejudiced ideologue whose field of study may ironically include bias when she cannot seem to recognize her own. Whenever anything which might not be leading to equitable outcomes for women is mentioned it does not lead to any examination of why that is the case, it just moves directly to the conclusion that it is something that must be changed. When something is brought up where men are receiving an inequitable outcome there is still no examination of why that is so, but this time the reaction is rejoicing an achievement. The achievement being that women were doing better than men in that regard. I really am sorry for whatever it was that happened to her that left her so bitter and unhappy. It must be horrible to view the whole of society as a competition between men and women with the two basic genders locked in a zero-sum game of domination. I do not think this avenue of research can be very good for her, nor do I think that it does this field of research much good to have her speak in public about it.
_"two basic genders locked in a zero-sum game of domination"_ But hasn't that become the case? 50 years ago, it was very easy to make the case that feminism was going to improve the condition of both men and women. But the low hanging fruit is no longer there and I can think of far more gender issues that are a zero sum game (or even negative sum games) than a positive sum game.
She conflates the word 'influence' with the word 'bias'. The classroom example is not a 'bias' but merely an influence. Bias has the implication of an agency of discrimination; not a passive presence e.g. having a 'garden city' is not a bias to make people vegetarians or gardeners.
T. König - To the extent that they are toxic against her talk (other than the just outright rude comments, which are inexcusable), I think it has to do with her narrative being pushed upon us in a toxic fashion for years, and without much evidence to back it up. And by people quite willing to ignore evidence to the contrary. We are tired of the toxic ideology, and so there is toxic push-back. Her basic assertions about bias I don't have a problem with. But her primary thesis is that unequal outcomes are primarily caused by (unfair) discrimination, and therefore the differences are wrong and we must fight to change them. There's quite a leap between the two, and she does not support her conclusion. She makes huge assumptions, and it is pretty clear that she is driven by her assumptions. Yes, biases do exist and cause us to discriminate unfairly. The question to what extent? And if all biases could be eliminated, would we see all the differences in outcome disappear? That is a huge question without an obvious answer. It seems that she thinks they would disappear. But even if that's true, how much about our society is worth dismantling to override our biases? What are the costs vs. the benefits? Many assume the benefits to be huge and the costs to be negligible, but I think they are naive.
Absolutely... If she's right and you agree that proves how right she is But is she's right and you disagree that also proves how right she is So, if it's a "she", she'll be always right. Arguments matter?? Call it feminism
Where was the neuroscience? She must have missed the first thing they tell you in your research statistic classes, personal observation and experience are not valid science but rather pseudo-science.
I wouldn't call it pseudoscience but rather not complete science. You form your hypothesis first then do experiments and then start the results and repeat the process again with different people. Viewing and hypothesizing things are important but they aren't the final step.
I stopped in the middle of this video when she suggested the "Implicit Association Test" and went and took a "Implicit Association Test" through Harvard and found it to be very frustrating. It had 7 stages and each staged almost seemed rigged. The answers you're able to select from are seemingly designed to force the outcomes. For instance- A few of the stages asked questions like "Which category does this word fall under? Category being: Family/Women or Men/Career" and then gives you words like Family, Business, Success, Marriage but it forces you to select these categories under a fixed association that you cannot change. Obviously, I'm going to associate the word Career with Career/Men and Business with Career (of which Men have been assigned to by the test, not by me). Just the same, I'm going to associate Marriage with Family/Women because FAMILY is the topic and you've attached women to that answer. By lumping in Women with Family, you're forcing me to categorize these by gender - not because of a bias, but because you've ONLY given me that choice. The test seems dangerously malicious. I stopped listening to this women speak after that
@@noterenjaeger read my comment and then explain to me how my the results could possibly have been different , regardless of “knowing what the test was for”. In what world would anyone associate the word “business” with “family” when the other choice is “career”? No world, is the answer. By choosing “career” and attaching “man” with “career” , there’s no option to make a different choice. The test is moronic and embarrassing. I would be completely willing to take another test if there was one that wasn’t so skewed and misleading or poorly designed as the Harvard version that I took
It's measuring how quickly you found the answer. So if you consistently recognize the answer more quickly when the option is "men/career" than when the option is "women/career," that reveals your implicit association.
Reasons for the gender pay gap: 1. Women, on average, major in fields that pay less. 2. Women, being biologically different (less testosterone), are less likely to ask for a raise. 3. Women may leave on pregnancy while at their job, this may take a couple years off of the earnings that they could have made.
Those are some of the reasons for the wage gap. The pay gap is caused by statistical manipulation. Women who work "full time" work about 35 to 40 hours a week, while full time men work 70 to 80 hours a week. (on average) Female college graduates who are single and have no children are payed more than male college graduates who are single and have no children, for the same work. And have been since the mid-80s. There are just a lot more women are either not college graduates, not single or have children. As soon as they get married or have children it reverses. Presumably because the women realize there are more important things in life than a career, and the men realize that there are more important things in life than going out drinking or hunting with the boys, and there are other people depending on his income.
1. how well a job in a certain field pays is highly dependent on how much that field is valued culturally. and it just so happened that jobs that are typically done by women are valued less than jobs done by men. A good example for this is movie editing. at the beginning, cutting was a predominantely female profession. But when more value and regard was placed on editing, men took over. it's different the other way around for the job of a secretary; first, a predominantely male job - women started doing it, and it lost its caltural status and got payed less. 2. that's really not how testosterone works. 3. while it is true that women leave because of pregnancy, there is no real reason why they should stay out of work for a couple of years. news flash: men get children, too. why shouldn't fathers stay home and look after the children? statistics show that the chances of a woman getting hired decreases with every child she has, but for a man, it increases. this is directly due to bias!
1. How well a job is paid depends on how dangerous, uncomfortable and isolated it is. Why do feminists never complain how few women work on arctic oil rigs, crab boats, underwater welding, etc? Those jobs pay really well. They only complain about being underrepresented in jobs that entail a lot of talking indoors and prestige. They also never mention jobs where wen are under-represented, like doctors and psychologists, or actually discouraged, like child care workers and grade school teachers. Now there's some bias. 2. How does testosterone really work? Maybe you are thinking of serum testosterone while Matthew was talking about prenatal testosterone. Serum (blood) testosterone level biases how people act dynamically. Prenatal testosterone affects how the brain structure develops and thus permanently biases their behavior. 3. For one thing men aren't all that great at breastfeeding. Children respond better to high pitched voices and made up faces. Men tend to work more hours after they get children. Women who do go back to work tend to work fewer hours, are less willing to go on business trips, etc. The more children, the more she prioritizes parenting and the more he prioritizes gathering resources. That might be due to social bias, or it might be due to instinctive bias. (prenatal and/or serum testosterone levels)
GordieGii well, that’s a very biased post. So you’re saying that if a man and a woman start as audit associates in a big 4 accounting firm, it’s acceptable for the woman to work less?
It's annoying. Men and women should respect each other. They have different roles in society. One is not better than the other. It's just different. I'm tired of being the punished rose. My thorn made me sharp. Pissed off rose.
This talk on unconscious bias begins with an anecdote about the speaker literally judging a book by its cover, along with the wealth/intellect/status of its reader - I wonder if the irony was intended? The claimed insights drawn from the IAT have been widely debunked, including by the Harvard academics who designed it, but it is easiest to see the inherent flaws of the test when you just take it yourself. And although hiring bias certainly exists, it’s not all one-way: a 2017 study of the Australian Public Service found that removing gender and ethnicity markers on applications actually increased the likelihood of preferring white male candidates, i.e. there was otherwise a bias towards hiring women and ethnic minorities. All that said, I agree with the underlying message - we all have natural biases and should be careful to control the unhelpful and unjustified ones - but oversimplifying these issues doesn’t further the cause.
Hey you!! The structures out there aren't self design but naturally expressions of gender characteristics. And THAT'S WHY there's a relationship between the two. Isn't gender bias, is gender identifiers.
Why wouldn't a male chef be hired over a female (who might land up being pregnant and being a stay-at-home mum for the next few years?) Why shouldn't men who are willing to work in the risky STEM fields be worthy of more pay? I don't see many women jumping at the opportunity to do the very risky and heavy lifting jobs, like mining or landscaping, underwater welding, plumbing, construction work etc. I'm not saying women who work in those scientific or tech roles shouldn't get a fair pay, but they certainly shouldn't be expected to be 'an equal' to men because their biology and physiology is very different.
This isn't bias, of course if you force participants to pick a gender associated with a trait then they will pick the one that is exhibited the most in society and history. If you HAVE to pick a gender associated with strength, of course you will pick a man because you will most likely think of pure physical strength which is without doubt a main physiological difference between men and women scientifically. That's just logical association, not bias. It will of course work in reverse too, so if you say strength for man then logically you will say fragile for women, even if you don't associate the word with that gender at all. To draw such conclusions about unconscious bias is a massive leap to push forward an ideological agenda on people. It is in fact an incredibly biased study, or at least very biased interpretation of the study. She is right, we are all responsible, responsible to actually exercise some critical thinking and not believe everything people like her try and push on us. Take some time to really think about issues and be willing to listen to others when making opinions. Maybe then we will actually be able to solve a lot of societies greater issues. Uneducated, biased reading of botched studies being preached to people as evidence is far from responsible.
Now I would like to see this cross referenced with the bias of those who believe in identity politics vs those who do not, and then compared to the bias of those who prefer ketchup over mustard.
As soon as I found an inaccuracy in her speech, it made everything else she said potentially wrong as well. All the so called facts she stated, may also be untrue. So I stopped watching, as it then appeared to be simply just another woman who's unhappy with what she sees in the world, rather than someone who really examined the situation.
The long and short is that once you're on the cutting edge you have to face the pain to get the rewards. Male or female - it doesn't matter. The only real difference is that males have been brought up to know that this is the world they face. Women have recently been told that this is a terrible world which discriminates against them and they should mobilise to deconstruct it. Yes, it's terrible and it's hard, but it's not discriminatory. The only antidote is to grow a pair of balls and not play the victim
You are very right , we know the world we are facing,our orientation as men is to think of a solution to a problem rather than complaining about it or playing a victim , we are already thinking how to face this new wave of ideas.
Can I just say that she heavily leans into the idea that women are being discriminated against without actually presenting any evidence of this while also saying that people have an unconscious bias against women which is actually untrue though my biggest gripe is that she says that women aren’t equally payed or represented in the science field in which your pay is decided by your findings and reputation she also says that this happens in other fields which occurs because women choose to go into different fields and many of those that don’t are usually worse than their male counterparts but not always well either way I’m gonna end my ramblings but for those who read this far have a nice day
She starts with the presumption that equality is good or isn't biologically driven, and if I claim she's being unconsciously bias with this talk......what defense does she have to rebut my claim......hint......THERE IS NONE!!!! It turns into "in know you are - you said you are but what am i" This is religious in nature NOT science
I worked for 27 years for a large, multinational corporation. Before they hired me, a clerk, someone who had no authority to hire or fire, gave me a written test that included math, science, logic, electronics, and miscellaneous stem information. I passed the test, and the clerk gave me an appointment to return to speak to a manager. He explained that managers were not allowed to see candidates before they had reviewed the results of the test. It was a way of protecting the manager from his own bias, sort of in the same way as in the video when the committee evaluated candidates for chief of police without knowing the names of the candidates. Seems like a good idea, even for CEOs.
It's as simple as this: respect ability. When anyone does something better than you, shut up and learn. I was taught by a female professor about computer tech. She was an amazing teacher. But I will not respect you because of your gender. What can you do that is of worth to myself or society? At the end of the day, that is what is important.
Why can we not respect all human beings on this earth?
@@blueskiesneyes
Because not every human being deserves respect.
Your comment smacks of excessive agreeableness.
@@lockandloadlikehell I disagree. I am sure you like to be respected, as does everyone else. I am not saying let everyone walk all over you and not to have boundaries, as that would not showing respect for oneself.
@@blueskiesneyes
Fair enough.
Not once did she ever say respect someone because of their gender alone....narrow mindedness can be cured through psychiatric intervention.
There is no neuroscience in this presentation.
"Neuroscience (or neurobiology) is the scientific study of the nervous system.[1] It is a multidisciplinary branch of biology,[2] that deals with the anatomy, biochemistry, molecular biology, and physiology of neurons and neural circuits."
LMAO at all the comments...
It seems that just about everyone missed the entire point of the talk. What is being said here is that there is inherent bias in all of our thought patterns and decision making in regards to gender. Even women unconsciously judge themselves and other women based on subtle patterns and messages picked up from language, behavior, and media within our culture. Men do the same to themselves, and that is not fair.
Our realities are not made up of infallible facts--we are fed many untruths, even when the people who are serving them to us earnestly believe that they are true. Basically, not everything we think is true, and it is important for us to recognize that there are subconscious biases that affect the way we think and decision-make in order for us to consider things in an objective way.
what is being said is - Women can't handle stuff alone so men have to help them. Witch is in of it self gender bias
Anslee Smith LOL. Yeah, we are so, so oppressed! Keep teeling this to yourself. I don't judge myself, I know I can do everything I want. Ideologists like you just can't accept the fact that men and women are biologically different. Science shows very clear that there are inborn differences between men and women in physiology, hormone balance, and brain microstructure that causes significantly different behavior and physical characteristics between sexes. Gender studies and social constructionism are based mainly on ideology. Everytime when the 'nurture' folks are asked for the basis of their ideas, they cannot produce anything.
Elizabeth H. intelligent lady not driven by media brainwashing,.. i want a girl like you in my life...
Yes but that was not her point her point was that the most importent difference between the sexes that our brain has stored should now be ignored if you say strong ofc im gonna think of a male thats because mens are phisicly stronger if u say emotions i will think women just look at the number of men in jail and the number of women to understand that men are less emotional The reality is instinct and hormons influence behavior and thats what makes women and men so different
Anslee Smith THANK YOU
These talks have one flaw: they do not address alleged biological bases from which the gender bias may arise. Until these talks can explain why the biological differences between the genders do not matter, these talks would continue to fail to be compelling.
Agreed. The problem is much deeper than “just don’t be so sexist”. These things stem from waaaaaay down
agreed
The issue _isn't_ the biological differences at all.
It's about *_how those differences are valued._*
We can get to work right away on that issue.
If they look at it and incorporate it, their narrative would fall. So long live this flaw.
I studied Engineering and after working for several years went on to study for a masters degree. There were 16 of us on the course - all men. I'm sure the Univerity would have loved to have accepted some women but there was a lack of applicants. When we went to our degree ceremony, the group before us had studied for diplomas for library studies - virtually all women. The men/engineers were heading towards jobs earning twice the national average while the women/librarians were heading for jobs earning half the national average.
Why did the women make such bad choices and the men such good choices? Well, perhaps they were deciding what was best for themselves as individuals and ignoring what was best for their intersectional groupings. Were they making good or bad choices? - No, the choices were best for themselves.
Barron-Cohen showed that one week old baby girls look longer at faces than moving objects while one week old boys do the opposite. The effect correlates with testoterone levels in the womb producing overlapping distributions of interest in people/things such that most women are predominantly interested in people while most men are interested in things. Of course, because it is a distribution and not a binary, this means that some women are, never-the-less, predominantly interested in things and they often go on to study Engineering - good luck to them!
The women engineers bring a different perspective which is valued by the Engineering community as it is very welcoming of diversity of thought, unlike feminism. Engineering and Science accept that diveristy of thought makes us as a group smarter because we can debate a subject and the truth then emerges as the bad ideas get knocked down. Feminism does not believe in debate but orthodoxy so that bad ideas are never challenged and the result is the nonesense in this video.
According to the talk, all differences in outcome between men and women are down to bias or wrong-think because men and women are actually identical. Wrong! Smell the politics and notice the lack of rationality.
Well said!
Stuart: I'll have to block you as you are making entirely too much sense.
Excellent response Stuart. These are facts that I've seen before and can be backed up. Bravo.
Women are discouraged from birth to interact with objects, math and leadership while boys are encouraged to do these things.
The main reason women tend to choose a type of occupation is because they’ve been groomed into thinking that way.
Nature vs nurture.
There isn’t that big a difference between men and women cognitively speaking. Cultural studies also show this result.
by printing pictures of boys or boys-associated images/colors in toys about building, trains, videogames, firefighting and others that encourage any number of professions, and on the other hand girls have little kitchens, babies, trophy wife barbies and braid makers. since birth we are surrounded with associations of what our gender is supposed to do or be
If people associate "tall" with men and "short" with women, does it mean bias, or does it mean men are mostly taller them women? The IAT doesn't prove prejudice, it may just show an accurate association with natural differences between groups.
And of course one should always judge the individual - like noticing a tall woman is tall, rather than assuming she's short because women are shorter. Same with leadership, strength, fragility, etc.
Society expect from tall women to bend and from short men to walk on tiptoe, that's the problem, not that the average woman is shorter than the average man, to stay in this example.
@@anitafrieda
It does?
Even if that's true, there's a simple solution: ignore "society".
It's not hard. I do it constantly.
Women are pre-wired by nature to be more agreeable and neurotic.
Blame nature, in that case, not society, since you're looking for someone to blame for your perceived inadequacies.
@Jan Postema : It was a parable!
@@florzinnha
Did you have your 5th daily breakdown and cry yet today?
😭😂
Your argument might be sound but it doesn't suit their narrative. So you are wrong.
Don't get why this has that many downvotes. In my opinion that's quite a nice talk, although I didn't find the neuroscience aspect in it. However, I support the overall message; we all as a society have to work on solving inequalities for women and men.
I was born in Soviet Union, where women "were equal to men" they were "Men in skirts" and they were expected to work just as hard as men; hauling iron ore, chopping wood, tilling ground, inhaling deadly chimicals in labs, you name it women did it. Any and all jobs were EQUAL & no one cared if they were pregnant, breastfeeding or on your period. Soviet women became sick, barren and angry at the world... and the government covered up all the stats... the population dwindled (and is still droping)... and then, soviet empire unraveled and fell apart - thank God! Now I'm going to go hugg my husband for working like a man, so I can be a mom to our kids at home!
She’s so right... men and women are different. How could I have not seen this before.
What is she on about
It's funny that the people who complain there are no female engineers or business leaders never went into those fields themselves...
I did. My mother did. My sisters did. My daughter did. We do not agree with this talk.
Best.
cs -- I applaud you and wish you the best, but you are anecdotal and statistical outliers. I, personally, do not like some of the realities presented in this talk, but I do accept them. I, as much as possible, will try to help change the disparities that arise because of parental/societal skewed expectations/encouragements, but I also acknowledge the biological gender disparities, and trying to go against them is definitely swimming upstream, at least in the short term relative to actual evolutionary changes. We probably want to keep some of them for the long term.
David Voss - It means you agree with me. People should have free choice to develop & find work of their interest. I do not see any more support for boys in STEM, in USA. All is about girls & women. Generally, there is just support for women and there are more & more women in college than men. Women only, no male only conferences & events.
I do not care what genders or race my colleagues are, as long as they know what they do & there is good atmosphere to strive at work. I see lately young women who struggle in STEM jobs, who were pushed there for sake of equal outcome.
But however they're here watching this video....
The designers of the "implicit association test" themselves admitted that it cannot be used to draw any meaningful conclusions due to its flaws and ambiguity.
If we can already prove gender bias, why is it so hard for the world to accept racial bias?
If there was a consensus that people are racial bias that would include every race not just one individual race. I think maybe people should start trying to focus on things that unit us together and things we all have in common instead of pushing this false claim that “diversity” is our strength. How is it possible that what makes us different from each other is our strength? Our unity on the basic principles of believing in living in a free society is what makes us all unit together that then allows us all to appreciate our differences and respect them.
Of course there's a gender bias for VERY good reasons
Did reality stop existing
Femaies and males are anything but equal in capacity and capabilities
Agreed Affirmative action is a horrific racial bias
This is a really fantastic explanation of bias in general - maybe one of the simplest and clearest I've heard!
All I hear in the media is how much sexism exists out in the workforce and in the world. However, in my 25 years of life I have YET to directly encounter it. Now, if it is SO prevalent in our society (as the media puts it) how have I not experienced it yet?
Me too and I'm 38! The only 2 men who lectured me on how oppressed I am as a woman, were the only men who treated me with sexism/in a very creepy way. Like one lied, said he was going the same direction as me, followed me home and started screaming when I wouldn't let him walk me to my door. After an hour of telling me how awful society is for women, patriarchy etc...hmm. Nope, there are just a few psychos out there. It's not all of men who are like that and we need to stop stereotyping men.
Having worked in a tech industry for a decade and seen/suffered everything from "being invisible" to sexist comments yes it exists. Having to deal with the harassment in uni colleges yes it exists. You have been very lucky, and I grateful for that.
Remember kids, gender equity, not equality.... it's about outcome, not equal treatment.
i say equity is a much more disastrous thing...cause it compromises competence
@CEOofFRESH1 in today's world everyone is getting education and everyone wants job . But the talented ones are filtered out
@CEOofFRESH1 the more deserving ones should get the first priority . This filtering also nurtures the real talent and can lead to amazing results . Survival of the fittest .
@CEOofFRESH1 I'm talking about filtering for talent , exams like SAT , MCAT,etc . Internships, interview etc
equity is a very dangerous concept, what we need is equality of opportunity and a hierarchy of competence, not a hierarchy of oppresion
DSifin i see someone has been watching good old jordan peterson
@@ianturner3613 It's a key part of meritocracy, and has been for a long time. Some Canadian Christian who stirs up controversy for book money wasn't the first to propose the idea lol
@@ALLIRIX hmmm, so why didn't you write a book?
@@endthefed1448 I'm not sure how that question is relevant. I'm a supporter of Jordan Peterson and respect his work.
I found Janet's talk heavily biased. She focused only on professions dominated by men. Interesting that she didn't mention 9 of 10 teachers are female in K-12 with a study showing that they grade boys 30% lower than girls for equal work.
Link to the study please?
Asia L, fire up Google, don't be lazy. You'll find it.
Hmm.. Couldn’t find it!
Boys Lag Behind: How Teachers' Gender Biases Affect Student Achievement
You're welcome.
Stephen Mueller idk how you can get a lower score for the same work unless you are saying shes awarding more points per question , soley based on gender
I have an inherent bias against anyone who uses 'deliciously' in reference to anything other than food.
Can you imagine coming home and listening to this?
@@lockandloadlikehell You will never go home and have a woman like her waiting for you, sweetheart.
@@florzinnha Thankfully.
@@Chebab-Chebab you wish
@@florzinnha Not at all.
On average men have more muscle mass. Men produce more testosterone and have an amplified response to testosterone, which leads to stronger muscles and denser and stronger bones. They also, on average, have a larger cardiac and respiratory capacity. I don't think that men are better than women, but associating the word "strong" more easily with men isn't bias, it's anatomical and physiological science.
But then again, strength is not just physical
@@Iyanjebu strength: the quality or state of being physically strong.
Then where does emotional and mental strength belong.
@@swathysreer4422both of those men are stronger. Men are leaders for a reason.
Men are stronger on all fronts
I went to a nearly all male school. Lots of bullying went on, never was gender a part of it. I was an oddball for many different other reasons. Maybe it's just a cultural thing. I rarely encounter gender bias anywhere, except my own. I personally don't get along with women at all, even though i am one myself. I find it extremely unpleasant to work with women. I live in a society where it's all about finding your niche in life and making choices that fit your personality. I don't see why it has to be set in stone, 'this is right and this is wrong'.
I'm female so i should love the baby chat, the coffee breaks with the gossip, the talking behind people's back, the invitations to go for coffee, the never ending chatter. No, i don't. I like hanging out with the guys, silently drinking a beer, slump in the chair, flipping through a magazine on a friday after work, "Bye, John, see ya", "Yep, later" kind of thing. I would hate to think i got a job because i needed to fill some kind of quotum. That's depressing and sad, to be honest. I prefer a workplace where i can sit with the people i enjoy being around in the breaks instead of being in some kind of forced group-hug situation where everyone should get along and like eachother. That forces unnecessary stress on people.
I'm in a place where the mix and match culture is alive and vibrant. It provides a unique and ever changing athmosphere where you can freely explore people on your own terms. Of course, there are women i care deeply about but mostly because their personality matches mine. Not because we were forced to get along. I don't see what's wrong with proving your worth and showing your personality first. Why should anyone accept you for anything simply because you are female. Instead, let your knowledge and capacity shine. I promise you, it shines brighter than the equality banner you're holding up. We are not in fact the same and we all have preferences. Why should a preference be forced upon any of us.
I was kind of a racist too... until i met my best friend. Although i still think his and my culture are a bit oil and water but at least we found eachother on a personal level. Racism from the other side is also a very, very real thing as are cultural differences. Don't kid yourself. I also found out many of my friends rejected him innitially. I do not think so highly of them now and distanced myself from a fair few of them. Some of my cultural bias was true, most was not. so what if you admit you were wrong. Life is dynamic and full of surprises! Why bother trying to capture it in rules or some graph. It's proving or fixing nothing.
See my experience is that female friends are awesome. Extremely supportive, encouraging and helpful. Extremely kind. Have I met horrible women/girls? Of course. But just as many as I've known horrible men. Most of my friends are women but I also have a few male friends from early childhood. I find it more difficult to be friends with males I meet as an adult because of the issue of "romantic feelings" developing without me realizing and then it ruins the friendship. I have a very good relationship with both my father and mother and my brother and all other members of my close family whether male or female, yet with friendships I have always had mainly female friends.
You say you find it unpleasant to work with other women but I wonder if you enter your interactions with other women with a bias that other women will display traits like "baby chat" (what is that?) gossiping and talking behind people's backs. Those things are extremely negative sexist stereotypes which aren't actually related to reality at all. I've heard, believe it or not, just as many men in a workplace "talking behind people's backs" as I've heard women doing the same. Gossiping is not exclusive to gender, it's just that when men do it's often not called gossiping. Also my female best friend is very quiet while I have male friends who are very chatty. Also I'm not very emotional at all, I hardly ever cry, and I'm the most feminine person you'd probably ever meet... and I've got really burly masculine family members who cry at weddings and sad songs. So yeah, you're working with unfair stereotypes. Look at the other women around you with fresh eyes and I think you may easily find some great friends of your own gender.
melovescoffee amen!
So right on the hiring quotas companies must abide by. Same goes for hiring to even out the racial employment at companies. It's counterproductive and dangerous...but to a business owner, very very costly cause the result of protecting themselves from lawsuits due to the EOE laws they end up going through employees at a terrifyingly rate which means they lose millions a year training New employees over and over again
sanaa94
"stereotypes which aren't actually related to reality at all"
Stereotypes are based in reality. It doesn't mean that ALL women are malicious gossips and NO men are. It deosn't mean that ALL men are loud an ALL women are quiet. It doesn't mean that men don't show their emotions. (most just don't use their emotions to manipulate people) But there are trends.
Obviously everybody should be given the benefit of the doubt, but you can usually fairly quickly figure out whether somebody totally fits the stereotypes or totally doesn't fit the stereotypes or, like most people, is somewhere in between.
There are so many possible reasons why melovescoffee has met lots of people who match stereotypes and you haven't. Everybody's experience is different.
Baby chat is talking about babies all the time. Your cousin just had one, you want one, the one next door is SO cute... Some women couldn't care less about babies, some can't seem think about anything else.
melovescoffee i get on so much better with women.
She keeps saying that improving the education of women/girls will help men/boys too, but then how does that explain boys performing worse in school and less boys graduating high school or college in a education system geared towards girls?
It doesn't explain it. Just listen and believe.
That's another issue we need to talk about, but that doesn't mean what she says is not true.
What's your theory onto why men perform worse? I'd like to have the percpective of a man
Thats because bad parentin, cola and sugar.
Schools literally cater to women, so does the teachers.
I don't see women in the coal mines either.
Building construction, steam engineering, electricians, plumbers, HVAC, marine engineering, auto mehcanics, etc etc etc. Woman are more than welcome in these common vocations, and a "few" do, yet they overwhelmingly choose not to take up these careers. Why? Because women "generally" don't have the mindset or desire to "choose" these careers. They make different life choices than men, and no one is forcing them too. Women think differently than men, so get over yourself. It's called biology.
In Australia, women are 40% of the mining workforce.
Well, good for them.
Christine Nicolson liar. It's %13.
In Sweden there are a huge number of female employees in the mines. Thank you.
Online words that hurt your feelings are not VIOLENCE.
How was that neuroscience??
She was talking about the brain and how it works with the subconscious, and how the brain associates things and uses that association to help us to form an opinion about reality. Watch it again and listen.
+Justwantahover but she really didn't. She didn't say why and how it works. She just said we have subconscious biases, which is a no brainer. Talking about why we have it and how our brain structure makes us have it is neuroscience. Saying "we have brains therefor we think X" is NOT in anyway neuroscience. It's just common fucking sense.
+Bio-Sexual Interface yes, and also the discriptions said "evolutionary biology", i didn't hear her say anything about evolution.
+Kevin Uchiha Is evolution true?
+Kevin Uchiha So you are saying it's not neuroscience, it's just here opinion?
"When we associate masculinity with money, and muscles, and domination, and agression, we dishonor legions of good men who do not embody these characteristics". Men are selected by women on these very characteristics. It's not about being "good" or "bad", it's all about getting "laid". Then it's about helping our offspring against others' offspring. It's natural selection.
To men it's all about getting "laid" and planting as many seeds as possible. Women are generally the ones more concerned about the success of their offspring (biologically speaking). The success of offspring is not only determined by good genes (looking at masculinity), but also in securing enough resources. The muscular and dominant men are not bringing in all the resources anymore. Resources in this day and age is money and while trade/skilled/labor jobs are still highly paid jobs, many men are making more money from jobs that aren't associated with aggression, domination and traditional masculinity.
@@kristaanderson8055 But women still choose to breed with aggressive douchebags. That's why we still have so many of them (their offsprings) in the population.
@@cancelled_user hehehe you got it
This gender equality agender will only ruen the world. Its the more reason why women are surfering.
@@cancelled_user I don't. I avoid those men
It's hard to take this seriously when I have never heard people that fight for equality in jobs show interest in leveling the gender gap in mining and construction working or any jobs they don't like the look of. It's always higher paid or higher education jobs that are chased. People only care about issues when it benefits them which is another form of bias that should be discussed more.
*Many* women have fought for rights to work in fields such as mining and suffered major consequences. Do we not learn true history in our schools?
Women used to mine coal in England. When the miners' wives found out that it's hot in the mines and everybody worked topless, they petitioned the government to make it illegal for women to work in mines because "it wasn't appropriate work for women."
@@tracyburt3621 You Need a therapist
I agree... academic work is far different to work that requires heavy lifting, and work that imposes certain risks or danger. However, I do think that certainly in the fields of medicine and some sciences, women should be entitled to equal pay. HOwever men who work in mining or construction should definitely get bigger paychecks
@@alessiotisi774 agree with all you said. Sometimes I wonder would the framing "Everyone must get the same pay for the same job. No exceptions" or something like that get a better reception as it is not instantly creating a separation of the population(which isn't even always applicable to situations) for people to attempt to take sides on. Interested to hear your opinion
On average, men have five inches in height and more than 25 pounds more skeletal muscle than women. It's hardly surprising then that our unconscious association for 'strong' would be the male rather than the female figure, and for 'fragile' the reverse, or that, in order to advance 'gender equality' we've had to adjust the standards for physical strength in some professions to get even a small proportion of women into them.
Wouldn't it be better to simply acknowledge that, in a job that rewards physical strength, there will most likely be more men than women? There will be women who are physically strong enough, just not as many. Big-five personality testing has the mean for women at the 60th percentile for agreeableness, but for men at the 40th percentile. Why should we expect equal numbers of male and female lawyers (who benefit from disagreeableness) or therapists (the reverse)? There will still be women lawyers (speaking from experience, there ARE women who score in the bottom 10th percentile on agreeableness, believe me!) and male therapists, just not, perhaps, equal numbers.
That doesn't rule women out of any career, but it gets us away from this obsession with equality of outcome as the measure of whether we have succeeded in making the career open to women, as it should be, or whether, instead, we are afflicted with the mysterious disease of "implicit bias."
Bias is making a judgment about an individual, without adequate data. We actually all have adequate data to make judgments about "normal"* men and "normal" women. The latter are weaker. Fact. But any one woman may well be much stronger than any one man. That's where the need for data comes in. But that's not what these "implicit bias" tests measure, and the science behind them is mostly bogus.
*I am using the word "normal" here to refer to the population at or near the mean on a standard distribution curve, not to imply anything pejorative about those who fall outside that range, either above or below.
Exactly. Thanks for writing this. I don't know why people can't accept reality. It's not bad to be a woman! I personally like it! And I don't need to be a muscle man, or be as physically strong, to be equal as a human. We don't need to put men down to be strong in our own ways as women. Why don't we just appreciate one another? I personally think it's important to value others in our society who have strengths we don't, and vice versa.
@@JulieMelillo how about woman can do whatever they want as long as they are not Harming anyone why bash someone for having ambitions and capability
So to summarise: This person came into gender science with a bias, did some research, ''looked at the data'', and arrived at the normal conclusion on gender which is that there is a natural unconsious bias, and discovered herself that woman are just as biased towards men as men are to woman. And the proposed solution is to do what normal individuals were already doing anyway.
''To commit yourself to becoming a good observer of your enviroment'
That's some interesting neuroscience right there..
*Standing ovation.
_"and discovered herself that woman are just as biased towards men as men are to woman."_
Actually, she doesn't talk about bias against men.
So what you're saying is women have unconscious bias against Star Wars.
Sorry its just boring to me
...Is THAT why I love star trek so much more?
Tbh she didn't state that evolutionary ,men are more attracted to material things and women to more emotional things . So as star wars is more material i.e. with space ships and all , it's more naturally appealing to men than women .
Men have more pressure to earn money, therefore take said studies and said jobs.
I LOVE history...but damned, it's not exactly reliable, go into teaching? No thanks. Money not good enough.
So I became an accountant.
My sister loves children, therefore studied to work with disadvantaged children.
We need people like my sister, but I'm sure I'll be earning a lot more because I didn't follow my passion, I followed what I could tolerate and make money with.
Men do not have more pressure to make money.
More men have just as much pressure as women to make money.
Get it right.
Wow it's almost like she studied this to prove her point rather than to understand it. We use this bias system unconsciously to decide the best potential of outcome for any given situation with too many unknown variables. It's instinctual. As much as we need to ignore bias against known information, like the resume test, and why we shouldn't be afraid to embrace it. We know factually the differences between the male and female brain, we know how that effects the male and female body, and we now know stereotypically what to assume from a candidate we otherwise know nothing about. We shouldn't be worried so much about the "what" that were trying to fix, but rather understand the "why" it is that way.
I wish the speaker would have gone into a little more depth on the study with the two rooms: the stereotypically nerdy one and the neutral one. Men's interests apparently were unaffected by the environment, but the women's were. Is this bias? Is it something inherent in how men and women see things due to biology differences? There was some deeper insight that could have been gleamed from that but she didn't mention it. One could infer that the problem women run into in science and technology fields is environmental, not due to how they are treated - basically "I'd enjoy lab stuff more if there wasn't all that lab stuff in the lab..."
Seems like you gleaned it anyway though
Seems like a reach to confirm your bias to me.
Seems like selective inequalities. This is definitely bias.
The 'neuroscience' brought up here is a very basic outline at best. There is nothing of substance here, just another feminist pushing her agenda. Which, on the subject of bias, I find quite ironic.
Are women more x than men (or vice versa).
If you answered yes, then you are biased.
But you may also be correct...
this comment is art XD
Many thumbs uppies
Chromosomes.
Although I agree with the sentiment, there's physiology at the very least. Being different, or more or less x, doesn't mean better or worse though.
@@leahx1701 and your emotional
you are my hero! we need more strong, intelligent, outspoken, constructive people like you!
Wow. You're easily impressed.
Very very veeeery easy
ok, i'll tell you when i see bias: i see a ridicuolously privileged woman, who went to friggin berkeley, tell men how they should treat other women who went to berkeley. and as for men taking advice from women, it has a lot to do with attitude.
people are less likely to take advice from someone who struts around acting like the world owes them something, than someone who is humble.
here's a bias for ya: boys score on average 30% lower when the female teacher know they are boys, than in blind tests.
Could you post the citation of this study? I'd be interested in reading it, and I'm sure others would be too. Thanks!
Jacqueline McCook I couldn't easily (via Google) find any such stat but I did find an interesting article written by someone from MIT.
Boys Lag Behind: How Teachers’ Gender Biases Affect Student Achievement
Camille Terrier
SEII Discussion Paper #2016.07
November 2016
It is a working paper it looks like and so not peer reviewed as far as I can guess. Might be that one of the cited articles mentions what he is talking about? Or maybe not.
I see somebody that allowed a personal bias to colour their understanding of an interesting and fair TED talk. Janet Crawford was not lecturing men, and several times acknowledged that gender bias affects men too, both in making men who don't conform to traditional gender roles feel somehow less, and also in condescending to them by giving them praise for normal activities that every person should do.
I see somebody wanting to push their own personal agenda and who has created a persona for somebody that has very little to do with reality, or even what's presented here because they feel threatened or like somebody is blaming them.
how does going to college make her a privileged woman? i don't get it, if she was a man would she be less privileged and just average?
You can go to a very pro woman place and still be hit on and harassed. It sound to me like you are trying to nit pick because the topic upsets you for some reason.
Maybe gender biases exists because men and women are actually different? Yes some of the biases may be negative but should we really strive to eliminate them by dismantling gender roles and concurrently dispensing with basic biological mechanism by which we've evolved to function?
If I understand you correctly, EerieEcho, you're questioning whether we should bother at attempting to eliminate negative biases within ourselves and society. And in your run on sentence application of a shred of logic championing the argument for a status quo state of being, you're apprehensive that further societal equalization and growth would jeopardize the many stride our ancestors accomplished during the vast history of evolution. Am I getting that right?
@@ca2712
_"you're questioning whether we should bother at attempting to eliminate negative biases within ourselves and society"_
It's not always clear if these biases are negative.
If these things truly were innate, you wouldn't be so threatened by someone questioning them. They'd continue to exist regardless. But gender roles are indeed flimsy social constructs that are harmful when pushed on everyone. How can you dudes not grasp that putting all humans into two categories and destinies is a bad thing?
Thank You Janet Crawford ... even if you did not exactly use "neuroscience" ... OR you did not make the neuroscience aspect clear??? Anyway, in the field of psychology I have read many studies that look at many forms of Bias ... and what you say here does indeed reflect the general findings of Bias (we all have effects of bias (not Just gender bias) due to how we take in ... store and use ... the information we are exposed to (be that from first or second hand experience or read etc ...) ... It was interesting for me to read the comments here and find tons of gender bias ... and they seem to have no clue. Those of us who do understand need to speak up at every opportunity available (and especially the males who understand because help is needed from males, for those males, who do not yet understand (they will see what males say as more valid) ... sad but true. Love & Peace to All
I agree with all your points and really enjoyed this presentation. Unconscious bias is such a influence on our everyday behaviour and interaction i wish it was discussed more.
But have you given a thought as to whether those unconscious biases may actually be good for us?
Your unconscious is here for a reason.
Two minutes into it and it's already clear there will be no science based discourse but ideology. It's not even worth a try
clearly you don't know what a scientific study is, multiple were mentioned throughout the presentation.
@@Victoria-jo8up When a neuroscientist choose to talk about the imaginary pay gap myth as a fact, she has left the realm of science and wandered into fairy land. Can't expect people to take any study she mentions to be serious after that.
08:25
But if the "Nerdy Male" decor affected the female students negatively. While the abscence of "Nerdy Male" decor didnt make any difference to the male students... doesnt that suggest that the female students were the ones who were more biased?
The idea of coffee cups and plants being "neutral" decor is after all subjective.
Also, im kind of curious to whether that study took into account the ammount of Trekkies who are female.
I'll like your post because you're thinking.
What if the study was males (the female are the Control as in the above)..Do I want a job as a Nurse? With it's white Gown & Cap?
No! Even though Studies have claimed this is an expanding field for over forty years! Not me!
If the room showed blown-up photos of Orderlies pushing wheel chairs....I would've thought: That makes sense. And who's going to lift them out of that chair? A woman!?
Yes; I notice women who carry a twenty-pound baby in one arm & do all the rest single-handedly are quiet able!
But my Future in Nursing would have been a clarion call!
"in this case, fortune magazine told us necessary that melissa mayer is the real deal because as a blonde attractive young woman we might assume she wasn't".
this. or, maybe, she was hired to turn a company around and she only just managed to sell the company to be dismembered and give a profit to stock holders. having acquired yahoo stocks around the time she was hired, and having sold the remainder of the company with a good profit some years later, i would personally vouch for the second: many a times it looked like i had thrown the money down the flush. and, rest assured, the doubts and the hard looks at the company actions weren't aired because mayer was a "blonde attractive young woman". i had fca, too, and i can assure you things were *much* harder for marchionne in a more or less similar situation, who was anything but blonde, attractive, or female.
so, who's gender biased here?
note: fca was much more worse off than yahoo. i did acquire it when marchionne had already worked some serious miracles into the company. and yet, the disbelief continued on and on and on, pretty much until the day he died.
@Nikki E. you are only a couple of years late...
@Nikki E. specifically, then: if we all carry implicit gender bias, then it's ok to have then, no? perfectly normal. why is this person bias wrong, while that other is ok? and if one substituted biased men in power with women, would there be any progress? no, because women would be just as biased.
it's a self defeating proposition, it doesn't serve gender equality, and, sorry, i believe it's false, unless one passes for "bias" even the most remote preference.
in addition, research has shown that the fact that an *attractive* woman can become CEO is indeed something remarkable. the gender bias normally had in the workplace makes attractive women advantaged compared to unattractive women when it comes to hiring them for lower positions, but actually puts them at a disadvantage when they need to be promoted to position of real power, such as one as CEO of a big company. as for the "young" part, i'll tell you a secret: they point that stuff out even when it's a young man.
so, even when there is a bias, it is strong, and it is pointed out, however obliquely, this speaker fails to appreciate it, because everything MUST be normal.
if you care, i will dig up all the scientific references from my nonverbal communication days, but i suspect that you do not care. this is just another internet discussion in which you came with your ideas and nothing will make you change your mind. in addition, despite not knowing anything about me, you prefer to dismiss my rather long and articulate original reply with a couple of lines, also containing an insult directed to me and whoever disagrees with you.
gender biased, you too?
Wasn’t she biases when assuming that Forbes was biases by informing that Marissa Mayer is a “real deal”?
No go back and listen to what she says , very slowly if that helps maybe do it more than once , it just might sink in ...
My god, this comment section. You guys don't see the irony in your comments, do you.
"how is that neuroscience", "where are the facts", "blah blah blah" - you're the ones blahing.
Instead of engaging in real arguments about the issue presented you try to push it away as far as possible by talking her down, by belittling her point without actual arguments on your side.
Yes, it's neuroscience, these studies come from the field and it's easy to look up these things. If she went into any more detail on a deeper level, the super numbery, cross-sectiony analytical field level, you'd be unable to follow her. She broke it down so that non-neuroscientists can understand it, too. Easy as that.
I want to get to a point where the next titanic disaster results in 70% of the men surviving and 17% of the women because the women gave up their seats. True equality.
Still missing the point. If you choose to disregard everything she says, and dismiss it before she even speaks, there is no actual discussion going on. She is not saying that she is better than anyone--why are people so threatened by her talking about this?
The thing is, she has spoken. People are not bound to agree simply because something is said. Who said anything about being threatened, other than you, in the first place? Being in disagreement is not necessarily being threatened.
The issue is more that the "disagreements" are not substantive. They are superficial and dismissive and don't engage the conversation in a complex way. I agree with Fireworks here. She doesn't suggest that all men are sexist, and her comment acknowledging her own bias, in my opinion, is showing that implicit bias affects all of us. I'd rather have a generative conversation. I don't understand the need to be vitriolic when we disagree. I don' think it helps us move forward in the process of dialogue, but perhaps that is not a shared goal.
Tracy - Was my comment not 'generative' enough for you? Too vitriolic? Or did you realize that you were supporting a charlatan?
Women complain about problems , men solve the problems..
Yup by telling women they are princess they don't need to work
@jen berter it was actually not bad economically till feminism and women's suffrage came about. Patriarchal societies are still the most viable, but we don't live in a patriarchal society what we see are remnants of that with a matriarchal spin
I think gender inequality is normal, but gender discrimination is bad!
What about discrimination because of inequality?
then you probably don't think enough.
suppose we take the inequality (which is thought of as the only source) reasonably out of the picture, then, what makes us think discrimination will go to sleep? many of us are heading towards a hard lesson, i believe. identifying a wrong thing as a source for a problem is another bigger problem. let us wait and see.
Arwyn lol love it.
inequality is a result of there being differences.
but some people are scared of differences, so try to twist fact.
When they couldn't make women more, not even as powerful as men despite all efforts they shifted the focus on making men as weak, preferably weaker than women, by posing a compassionate pro-men stance that "O men, please understand, that it's ok and there's no dishonour or shame if you are weak, or even weaker than a woman".
I'm still waiting for the science bit . . . .
You and the 15 likes must have not been paying attention. She named off a few scientific studies throughout this presentation.
A few studies does not make it a scientific theory though.
her whole talk was on sociological biases...... do u even know what science encompasses
This is feminisim not neuroscience
Absolutely, and i'm sick of it. This "me, too" shite makes us (women) all sound like little, quivering butterflies. This is becoming a cottage industry-the victimization of ____(fill in the blank). Oh, and i agree with the person who noted her obvious bias against the young woman based on, guess what, her looks.
Actually, implicit bias has been studied extensively and the data show that it's quite real.
But what effect does it have in real life? We don't make decisions just from word association.
@@janetwhite7786
_"Oh, and i agree with the person who noted her obvious bias against the young woman based on, guess what, her looks."_
I think that was the whole point no? Don't you understand this was deliberate? The idea is that we all have these biases, regardless of our politics.
Women in STEM are never called geeks in the harsh way that both men and women call male STEM students and professionals geeks, virgins, etc. Let women imagine how they are rejected in dating by field of study, even when a higher pay job is secured
This video does not seem to answer any questions for me. For three generations myself and my sisters have for the largest part have been victimized by control freak women, who had been unrestrained by their husbands. These girls had a paticularistic empathy for each other, but no larger sense of justice or duty. Feeling substituted for probative evidence. Universal morality was a foreign concept to them. You could explain it to them but the explanation was made impervious toward them by their avidity and prejudices. So a retarded borderline woman gained enough favor among her coven to cheat her sister of her trust fund. And we got stuck in a marriage with a father who was very mentally ill. All this was in service to a handicapped woman who impersonated my mother at the bank. My own bias is not to automatically favor the woman as the superior in morality.
Bias is a very natural thing we need to get adjusted to the nature and the environment and survive at last We have to understand human being. We cannot ignore the outcome from biological progress. Why do we have to remove all the difference to make the world equity just to achieve the implementation of ideology. We need to focus on the harmony not on the equity. Even though we have to pursue the human right investing our resources for mechanical gender equality is not the top priority. Almost 50 vs 50 in every fields is not possible.We don't have to make such an unatural effort to achieve 50:50. Those who are uncomfortable for differences in gender is going to make unatural effort endlessly until they get 50:50 in the fields where they are only highly valued.
Take a good hard look at the Scandinavian countries. The more egalitarian a society becomes, the bigger the differences in interest, career paths and distribution among jobs between the genders become.
So women should just sit at home and breed for you
Watched Dr. Peterson videos didn't you?
I too am a big fan...
I trusted her until she said she was credentialed from UC Berkeley
LOL but she said that was so hard, because of the discrimination she got being a woman!!!!
Exactly! same here. LOL
lol
As of a few years ago, it was considered the best school in the world for math studies. I believe it has attracted elite mathematicians for a few decades now. I would expect it'd be strong in science fields at the graduate level.
How can there be gender disparity if men and women are identical?
Men and women are different , we are physiological unequal.
different not unequal
@Seamus Donaghyhahaha men are not "superior" in any way, love. it is simply that men are generally more muscular meaning that they are physically stronger on average than the average women, not superior.
@Seamus Donaghy your physiological build has nothing to do with whether or not you have allegedly"earned" freedom. Freedom is a human right and women certainly have fought for and actually EARNED their rights and freedoms.again you are trying to claim superior simply for being male(not actually earning any privilege by DOING something), which is totally asinine. you would not exist were it not for a woman gestating you fro nine moths before birth, so again while men and women are different, mainly in the physiological, neither is superior to the other and there is reason to treat one preferentially than the other.
I agree with u
@@61505 also more logical. Not to mention faster, larger brains, taller, funnier, they make for better conversations, have way more humility, more confident. You get the picture
the gender pay gap is very well understood; it's largely a matter of different choices and priorities for men and women. have a look on youtube. it's debunked all over the gaff. this tripe has got to stop. you're driving a wedge between the sexes. that's good to no one, you are dishonest and biased.
If you are arguing with someone who claims that gender is a 'social construct,' note this; you may be arguing from a philosophical or biological viewpoint, but they are arguing from an ideological viewpoint. The social constructionist's viewpoint is embedded in ideology.
Take a look at workforce participation then...in the U.S. and the world.
Girls are being pushed into the low-wage jobs. Boys are pushed into technics. Ask any girl who loves science how often she heard she's unfeminine.
Humans are _always_ affected by the other humans around them, either men or women. And if a girl is raised and being told by society she can't do xyz, she will believe it and will have it much harder later in life to break this believe. If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe this lie.
You can be strong and being pushed as a child in a certain direction. Babies don't come to earth being strong already. And not all women are strong. Funny thing: there are women who are strong, there are women who are weak. Not all women are the same. Do _you_ believe, all women are the same? And even the strong ones have it harder because of social pressure.
I would have rather listened to the woman reading about angel investing.
"Neuroscience is a relatively young, exciting, and fundamentally interdisciplinary field devoted to the study of the nervous systems. Problems range from investigation of the evolution of nervous system in basal vertebrates to the application of neuroscience to education and law. Neuroscientists also seek to develop neurologically plausible models of human thinking, affect and behavior.Neuroscience creates a context for scholarly conversation about the nature of mind, brain, and behavior." - University of Notre Dame
This video shows that clearly.
Gender deals with human behaviors with regards social expectations.
In my opinion, we can solve this boring gender issue. How? it is all about love man (the hippies got it hhaha).
In more practical terms, it is respecting others to be who they are, and what they want to do with their own lives. (a virtue that is rapidly diminishing in our societies). The problem is fear. It is fear of anything out of the norm, fear of change, fear of diversities, fear of differences, fear of losing our identity, fear of growing power (other than one's own), fear of loss of authority to women? (last one was a hunch)
I would like people to accept and respect me for my choices as i do respect them for being them. Those that don't, should watch out hahaha.
I will leave you with some wise words:
You know that term "the world is not fair or nothing is fair in this world?" Well, MAKE IT FAIR THEN, (that's not my answer, that's the grumbling of my six year old brother when i tell him he can't have what other kids have). Learn from our young, they see no limits.
thank you. you made my day.
@William Burr your limits are not mine, and neither are my limitations yours.
@William Burr "responsibilities come with limitations" your word salad.
1. You gave a list of responsibilities. And continued with that quote.
That's the focus of the comment
@William Burr okay, here is some logic, your limitations in how you raise your kids do not automatically make it my limits in how I raise my kids. Does that compute?
@William Burr you claimed kids had no responsibilities, and adults do. And that sets limits for adults when facing problems. Correct?
12 mins of nothing
Neuroscience? Where?
in her head, i guess
lise eliot
11:07 we are creators and consumers of the environments that drive by us.
The two genders are _not_ equal. This is not a bad thing.
Graduates with a science degree, answers the question of where do we get our gender bias from with "Google images". I have the cancer now.
I am sorry to hear that, I hope your treatment is going well.
Does anyone know if there is a way to get a transcript of this video?
this video is BS
I like bias. Bias is good. Its an evolutionary survival trait that leads to ... us.
This is a really good talk
When applications were anonymised in my company fewer women were employed and promoted. What was the bias before that?
Saint Stefanie Daniella wow... someone’s been listening to their looney Marxist professors at university 🤦♂️
@Saint Stefanie Daniella I live in sweden, probably the most gender neutral country in the world, and has been for many decades.
I can add the women had on average better grades from school, but had achieved far less in real work life. Alas, what companies pay for is not a good facade but results.
@@rikardberg1411 But why had they achieved less in the workplace?
I'm not saying, btw, that they had achieved less because men barred their way.
But it's quite possible that their confidence levels were lower than an average man's in your work environment, and the impact of that could affect their entire lives.
It's worth considering.
This goes for race issues and class issues too, needless to say.
@@nicolab2075 It is well known from personality studies that women tend towards negative emotion at a rate 60 - 40 to men, i.e. it is highly likely that more women have low confidence levels, even though school today tend to favour girls w r t grades and evaluations. Biology may make men recover from the initial downgrading? It certainly correlates with my own experience, 35 yr old males have more self confidence in the workplace than 35 yr old women but the opposite with 20 yr olds imho.
@@rikardberg1411 Bit of a minefield!! Attempts to level the playing field, or even set target % of women, or ethnic minorities etc, are hampered by too few applicants. Then some people say 'See! They dont even want to be engineers/politicians/whatever'. But others say 'Well they might, if the environment was welcoming, or offered flexibility etc etc.'
I personally think that we need to keep trying, as our best efforts will eventually lead to a fairer society and more acceptance of difference.
I think.
"Gender equality", "pay gap" and "representation". I've heard enough, nothing will surprise me in this video.
Women and men are like two people who drive their cars in different ways and meet at the same point
No men and women aren’t different apparently
Let men take responsibility over their women and child. They don't need no talks. They need to raise up and claim their own. WOMAN AND CHILDREN! .. no queremos cobardía en éste alburio. A true man stands on his own. He listens and answers accordingly.
I don't know what the definition of a man really is, what I do know is the definition of a male
But the most egalitarian societies like Sweden, Denmark and Norway report that fewer women want to go into STEM, most want to be a wife and mom.
I wasnt expecting such attractive men to be CEOs...damn
I agree on one point: the “repeating pattern” that obscures human perception.
One repeating pattern is the myth of female oppression and male privilege.
Do you really think females suck in computer science because of Star Trek posters and lack of coffee cups?
Do you really think males are most certainly not effected by environmental factors but females surely are?
It seems to me like you present yourself in a position of “moral high ground” and taking all the advantages for females (like yourself) and do not give a damn about males (except when supporting females).
That's a very egoistic position.
Könnt ich nicht besser sagen.
When you grow up with privilege, you often can't see it. If somebody tries to take it away (e.g. insisting that you take responsibility for your own mistakes or pay for your own food) it can feel like oppression.
@MrHotPinkBanana - It is a reference to feminists response to men who say "hey, men are oppressed too!" Their number one response is "patriarchy hurts men too" but a close second is "men don't see their own privilege and when it is challenged it can feel like oppression." This may be, true but in my experience it is even more true of women. Many men understand that they are granted privileges by society IN RETURN FOR THEIR SELFLESS PRODUCTIVITY, whereas women take their privileges for granted and seem to consider them laws of nature. I never hear feminists complaining how few women there are in mining or how we need more women going out and repairing power lines in the middle of ice storms. I never hear them complaining that we need more male kindergarten teachers or nurses either.
I can't remember how many stories I've heard of women who go out on a date and don't even bring any kind of money with them expecting, no, assuming that everything will be paid for.
So you better not regret liking my comment. (but if you do you can always take it back)
@@GordieGii
_"I can't remember how many stories I've heard of women who go out on a date and don't even bring any kind of money with them expecting, no, assuming that everything will be paid for."_
I would if I was a woman. If he's not willing to pay for dinner, he's just freeloading.
@@BlunderCity That's an interesting use of the word "freeloading." What exactly is he getting for free if he pays for himself?
This video is very interesting.
Please point to the reputable study that unconscious bias training has a positive effect on a workforce.
Unconscious bias has been de bunked by a quality group of scientists it has little evidence to support it and the training and testing indicate different result each time with the same people. It is barely science at all The test this women is talking about was poor result wise. They also commented about the money being wasted on training to remove the bias that we don't even no we have..
This sounded like an interesting topic, unfortunately, it did not turn out to be about _the surprising neuroscience of gender inequality._ Our speaker, Janet Crawford, does touch on neuroscience a bit when she explains that we all cope with the influx of data by using rafts of associations. So, if two concepts have a strong association in the world that we observe then they will very likely have a similar association in our minds. This will be true even if the observed association was in an artificial social construct.
The rest of what she had to say was apparently the musings of a gender prejudiced ideologue whose field of study may ironically include bias when she cannot seem to recognize her own. Whenever anything which might not be leading to equitable outcomes for women is mentioned it does not lead to any examination of why that is the case, it just moves directly to the conclusion that it is something that must be changed. When something is brought up where men are receiving an inequitable outcome there is still no examination of why that is so, but this time the reaction is rejoicing an achievement. The achievement being that women were doing better than men in that regard.
I really am sorry for whatever it was that happened to her that left her so bitter and unhappy. It must be horrible to view the whole of society as a competition between men and women with the two basic genders locked in a zero-sum game of domination. I do not think this avenue of research can be very good for her, nor do I think that it does this field of research much good to have her speak in public about it.
_"two basic genders locked in a zero-sum game of domination"_
But hasn't that become the case? 50 years ago, it was very easy to make the case that feminism was going to improve the condition of both men and women. But the low hanging fruit is no longer there and I can think of far more gender issues that are a zero sum game (or even negative sum games) than a positive sum game.
there are a lot of men in this comment section and it shows
Yeah there's a lot of men on TH-cam
She conflates the word 'influence' with the word 'bias'.
The classroom example is not a 'bias' but merely an influence. Bias has the implication of an agency of discrimination; not a passive presence e.g. having a 'garden city' is not a bias to make people vegetarians or gardeners.
yeah, sure _unconscious_ bias has the implications of an agency...
:facepalm:
wow. reading through the comments - toxic. after all, she has point.
T. König indeed
T. König - To the extent that they are toxic against her talk (other than the just outright rude comments, which are inexcusable), I think it has to do with her narrative being pushed upon us in a toxic fashion for years, and without much evidence to back it up. And by people quite willing to ignore evidence to the contrary. We are tired of the toxic ideology, and so there is toxic push-back.
Her basic assertions about bias I don't have a problem with. But her primary thesis is that unequal outcomes are primarily caused by (unfair) discrimination, and therefore the differences are wrong and we must fight to change them. There's quite a leap between the two, and she does not support her conclusion. She makes huge assumptions, and it is pretty clear that she is driven by her assumptions.
Yes, biases do exist and cause us to discriminate unfairly. The question to what extent? And if all biases could be eliminated, would we see all the differences in outcome disappear? That is a huge question without an obvious answer. It seems that she thinks they would disappear. But even if that's true, how much about our society is worth dismantling to override our biases? What are the costs vs. the benefits? Many assume the benefits to be huge and the costs to be negligible, but I think they are naive.
Your analysis was more scientific than hers. Go get that UC Berkeley Degree.
Absolutely...
If she's right and you agree that proves how right she is
But is she's right and you disagree that also proves how right she is
So, if it's a "she", she'll be always right.
Arguments matter??
Call it feminism
Point or a point?
she right
Where was the neuroscience? She must have missed the first thing they tell you in your research statistic classes, personal observation and experience are not valid science but rather pseudo-science.
I wouldn't call it pseudoscience but rather not complete science. You form your hypothesis first then do experiments and then start the results and repeat the process again with different people. Viewing and hypothesizing things are important but they aren't the final step.
I stopped in the middle of this video when she suggested the "Implicit Association Test" and went and took a "Implicit Association Test" through Harvard and found it to be very frustrating. It had 7 stages and each staged almost seemed rigged. The answers you're able to select from are seemingly designed to force the outcomes. For instance- A few of the stages asked questions like "Which category does this word fall under? Category being: Family/Women or Men/Career" and then gives you words like Family, Business, Success, Marriage but it forces you to select these categories under a fixed association that you cannot change. Obviously, I'm going to associate the word Career with Career/Men and Business with Career (of which Men have been assigned to by the test, not by me). Just the same, I'm going to associate Marriage with Family/Women because FAMILY is the topic and you've attached women to that answer. By lumping in Women with Family, you're forcing me to categorize these by gender - not because of a bias, but because you've ONLY given me that choice. The test seems dangerously malicious. I stopped listening to this women speak after that
I feel like the results would be different if you had no idea what the test was for.
@@noterenjaeger read my comment and then explain to me how my the results could possibly have been different , regardless of “knowing what the test was for”. In what world would anyone associate the word “business” with “family” when the other choice is “career”? No world, is the answer. By choosing “career” and attaching “man” with “career” , there’s no option to make a different choice. The test is moronic and embarrassing. I would be completely willing to take another test if there was one that wasn’t so skewed and misleading or poorly designed as the Harvard version that I took
It's measuring how quickly you found the answer. So if you consistently recognize the answer more quickly when the option is "men/career" than when the option is "women/career," that reveals your implicit association.
@@noterenjaeger more illogical female reasoning
Reasons for the gender pay gap:
1. Women, on average, major in fields that pay less.
2. Women, being biologically different (less testosterone), are less likely to ask for a raise.
3. Women may leave on pregnancy while at their job, this may take a couple years off of the earnings that they could have made.
Those are some of the reasons for the wage gap. The pay gap is caused by statistical manipulation. Women who work "full time" work about 35 to 40 hours a week, while full time men work 70 to 80 hours a week. (on average)
Female college graduates who are single and have no children are payed more than male college graduates who are single and have no children, for the same work. And have been since the mid-80s. There are just a lot more women are either not college graduates, not single or have children.
As soon as they get married or have children it reverses. Presumably because the women realize there are more important things in life than a career, and the men realize that there are more important things in life than going out drinking or hunting with the boys, and there are other people depending on his income.
1. how well a job in a certain field pays is highly dependent on how much that field is valued culturally. and it just so happened that jobs that are typically done by women are valued less than jobs done by men. A good example for this is movie editing. at the beginning, cutting was a predominantely female profession. But when more value and regard was placed on editing, men took over.
it's different the other way around for the job of a secretary; first, a predominantely male job - women started doing it, and it lost its caltural status and got payed less.
2. that's really not how testosterone works.
3. while it is true that women leave because of pregnancy, there is no real reason why they should stay out of work for a couple of years. news flash: men get children, too. why shouldn't fathers stay home and look after the children? statistics show that the chances of a woman getting hired decreases with every child she has, but for a man, it increases. this is directly due to bias!
1. How well a job is paid depends on how dangerous, uncomfortable and isolated it is. Why do feminists never complain how few women work on arctic oil rigs, crab boats, underwater welding, etc? Those jobs pay really well. They only complain about being underrepresented in jobs that entail a lot of talking indoors and prestige. They also never mention jobs where wen are under-represented, like doctors and psychologists, or actually discouraged, like child care workers and grade school teachers. Now there's some bias.
2. How does testosterone really work? Maybe you are thinking of serum testosterone while Matthew was talking about prenatal testosterone. Serum (blood) testosterone level biases how people act dynamically. Prenatal testosterone affects how the brain structure develops and thus permanently biases their behavior.
3. For one thing men aren't all that great at breastfeeding. Children respond better to high pitched voices and made up faces. Men tend to work more hours after they get children. Women who do go back to work tend to work fewer hours, are less willing to go on business trips, etc. The more children, the more she prioritizes parenting and the more he prioritizes gathering resources. That might be due to social bias, or it might be due to instinctive bias. (prenatal and/or serum testosterone levels)
Welcome to Feminism, where idiots argue with feelings and the normal people argue with reasoning and facts.
GordieGii well, that’s a very biased post. So you’re saying that if a man and a woman start as audit associates in a big 4 accounting firm, it’s acceptable for the woman to work less?
Bad title... this is not neuroscience, it's basic psychology 101
Duncan Stroud neuroscience is part of psychology im watching this for tomorrows hwk
Actually, it's Basic Psychosis 101.
I've always had the sense that neuroscience wasn't a legitimate scientific discipline. It seems remarkably incompatible with evolutionary biology.
@@joeschmo5699
How so?
It's annoying. Men and women should respect each other. They have different roles in society. One is not better than the other. It's just different. I'm tired of being the punished rose. My thorn made me sharp. Pissed off rose.
You are the smartest one here. Seriously.
@@tedgrego1584 I promise you I'm not.
This talk on unconscious bias begins with an anecdote about the speaker literally judging a book by its cover, along with the wealth/intellect/status of its reader - I wonder if the irony was intended? The claimed insights drawn from the IAT have been widely debunked, including by the Harvard academics who designed it, but it is easiest to see the inherent flaws of the test when you just take it yourself. And although hiring bias certainly exists, it’s not all one-way: a 2017 study of the Australian Public Service found that removing gender and ethnicity markers on applications actually increased the likelihood of preferring white male candidates, i.e. there was otherwise a bias towards hiring women and ethnic minorities. All that said, I agree with the underlying message - we all have natural biases and should be careful to control the unhelpful and unjustified ones - but oversimplifying these issues doesn’t further the cause.
🤣🤣
Well said, ma'am or sir. Well said.
The "neuroscience" seems to be missing being the title is the "neuroscience of gender inequality"
Less opinion, more facts. It would be nice if someone a little more qualified spoke about such issues.
Like a man? LOL
Hey you!! The structures out there aren't self design but naturally expressions of gender characteristics. And THAT'S WHY there's a relationship between the two. Isn't gender bias, is gender identifiers.
When you hear: 'gender pay gap' and 'few woman at the top' you know what kind of 'science' is coming your way..
Why wouldn't a male chef be hired over a female (who might land up being pregnant and being a stay-at-home mum for the next few years?) Why shouldn't men who are willing to work in the risky STEM fields be worthy of more pay? I don't see many women jumping at the opportunity to do the very risky and heavy lifting jobs, like mining or landscaping, underwater welding, plumbing, construction work etc. I'm not saying women who work in those scientific or tech roles shouldn't get a fair pay, but they certainly shouldn't be expected to be 'an equal' to men because their biology and physiology is very different.
This isn't bias, of course if you force participants to pick a gender associated with a trait then they will pick the one that is exhibited the most in society and history. If you HAVE to pick a gender associated with strength, of course you will pick a man because you will most likely think of pure physical strength which is without doubt a main physiological difference between men and women scientifically. That's just logical association, not bias. It will of course work in reverse too, so if you say strength for man then logically you will say fragile for women, even if you don't associate the word with that gender at all. To draw such conclusions about unconscious bias is a massive leap to push forward an ideological agenda on people. It is in fact an incredibly biased study, or at least very biased interpretation of the study.
She is right, we are all responsible, responsible to actually exercise some critical thinking and not believe everything people like her try and push on us. Take some time to really think about issues and be willing to listen to others when making opinions. Maybe then we will actually be able to solve a lot of societies greater issues. Uneducated, biased reading of botched studies being preached to people as evidence is far from responsible.
I didn't learn anything and I watched the video twice :/
@Southvalleyfox makes sense
@Southvalleyfox or it means I already know all of this cause I'm a complex virus
Now I would like to see this cross referenced with the bias of those who believe in identity politics vs those who do not, and then compared to the bias of those who prefer ketchup over mustard.
All politics are identity politics my friend. Its a misnomer to believe its only on the left.
Wow, assuming that women cant enjoy star trek or video games
As soon as I found an inaccuracy in her speech, it made everything else she said potentially wrong as well. All the so called facts she stated, may also be untrue. So I stopped watching, as it then appeared to be simply just another woman who's unhappy with what she sees in the world, rather than someone who really examined the situation.
The long and short is that once you're on the cutting edge you have to face the pain to get the rewards. Male or female - it doesn't matter. The only real difference is that males have been brought up to know that this is the world they face. Women have recently been told that this is a terrible world which discriminates against them and they should mobilise to deconstruct it.
Yes, it's terrible and it's hard, but it's not discriminatory.
The only antidote is to grow a pair of balls and not play the victim
You are very right , we know the world we are facing,our orientation as men is to think of a solution to a problem rather than complaining about it or playing a victim , we are already thinking how to face this new wave of ideas.
@@sweetgent204 That's not true at all. There are plenty of men who complain and whine. The degree of self victimization is rather nuanced.
Can I just say that she heavily leans into the idea that women are being discriminated against without actually presenting any evidence of this while also saying that people have an unconscious bias against women which is actually untrue though my biggest gripe is that she says that women aren’t equally payed or represented in the science field in which your pay is decided by your findings and reputation she also says that this happens in other fields which occurs because women choose to go into different fields and many of those that don’t are usually worse than their male counterparts but not always well either way I’m gonna end my ramblings but for those who read this far have a nice day
She starts with the presumption that equality is good or isn't biologically driven, and if I claim she's being unconsciously bias with this talk......what defense does she have to rebut my claim......hint......THERE IS NONE!!!! It turns into "in know you are - you said you are but what am i"
This is religious in nature NOT science