[cSoze]

There is significant scientific evidence that most of the differences in employment observed between women and men and minorities and white men can be explained by socialization.

When conditions are set that reduce or control for these social factors (including implicit bias) the differences in performance that James Demore attributes to "biological" factors disappear.

How is this not related to the bulk of his claims?

[JakeAl]

If you watch Peterson's video, or more importantly looked at the links in the description, the theory of social constructivism has been disproven through experimentation. The more gender equity there is in a social, the more disparity there is between the interests of men and women and this is universal across all cultures. And what you said about conditions that reduce social factors is false. As Peterson explained there's no reproducible valid science showing that what you say is true.

[galacticpony2]

> When conditions are set that reduce or control for these social factors (including implicit bias) the differences in performance that James Demore attributes to "biological" factors disappear.

That's a bold prediction supported by no real-world evidence whatsoever. Where's your control group? Where's the retort society that has all this bias removed or even quantified?

Of course societal effects affect the outcome of a person's career, but the idea that there is absolutely zero influence of biological differences is pure dogma. However, it's convenient (if not imperative) to believe, if you're a strong social constructivist.

[cSoze]

Or... you know, you've actually got a PhD in sociology and have read the research. This is armchair-pundit-bullshit akin to climate change denial. Everyone knows better than the researchers who've actually done the work and are immersed in the field.

How about we accept the consensus of the scientists? Rather than calling it dogma because it doesn't agree with YOUR world view.

[JakeAl]

csoze: "Rather than calling it dogma because it doesn't agree with YOUR world view." galacticpony2's statement was valid, csoze, yours is not. As Damore and the scientists who have done the research have stated is biology is PART of the reason. The social constructivists TEND to say the opposite, meaning they TEND to say it's entirely social and literally deny any evidence of a role played by biology even when the evidence is undeniable, such as when experiments involve manipulation of brain chemistry, or control for social influence. That's dogma, and validates galacticpony2's assertion.

[galacticpony2]

First of all, you didn't answer my question. Where is your research that brings evidence to support your prediction? Sociology in particular isn't very diligent in actually applying the scientific method.

Secondly, you're making an "argument from authority", which is an intellectual embarrassment. Scientific knowledge is not based on consensus, but on evidence. The theory behind climate change is not supported by the amount of scientists that "believe" in it, but by the evidence they bring forth.