Sounds like you've read a lot of Jordan Peterson? Aren't you going to directly quote Simon Baron-Cohen?
Please read some Cordelia Fine and Gina Rippon to get the another perspective, instead of just repeating the misogynist lens and false research you've mentioned here
I did skim some Jordan Peterson a few years ago, though I find him a to be a bit too much of a rambler. I don't know who any of these other people are, though I'm happy to inform myself better.
My ideas on that are mostly shaped... Well if I think about it, probably significantly by reading Hacker News, over the years. As well as matching them with with the way I perceived reality around me and different cultures. I was fortunate enough to grow up in between three massively different cultural landscapes divided in two continents (my parents had a strong migration background on both sides), eventually move to a fourth cultural area in a third country where I met my wife and had a child, and I now live in yet another country, in a third continent (where she's from) in a country where the culture is completely unlike any of these four other cultural landscapes.
From your links it seems like Testosterone Rex and The Gendered Brain are the books I could use to approach another perspective on this subject? Along with I guess The Essencial Difference as well, in order to contextualize better what they're refuting? I'll add these three to my reading list.
I'm happy to get other recommendations.
> instead of just repeating the misogynist lens and false research you've mentioned here
Please refrain from accusations of misogyny without substantiating evidence. You're better than that. We're all adults here and free to disagree. Describing research as "false", in the way you did, ascribes to either it or me ill intent; within the scientific process, ideas can and will turn out to be wrong sometimes and that's ok. A core tenet of Hacker News is that we assume positive intent when engaging our interlocutor and their ideas.
> Please refrain from accusations of misogyny without substantiating evidence.
I wrote them from my perspective. They are my opinions/conclusions. If you have other views, that's fine for me. I am claiming my truth, not a universal truth.
> From your links it seems like Testosterone Rex and The Gendered Brain are the books I could use to approach another perspective on this subject? Along with I guess The Essencial Difference as well, in order to contextualize better what they're refuting?
Yes, that's the ones.
You wrote in a comment above mine:
> In general, one can broadly summarise these into saying that, on average (again, we're not talking about individuals, we're talking about populations), men will prefer to work with things while women will prefer to work with people.
I say, no, we can not summarize that at all.
You mentioned that you read a lot of stuff from Hackernews. Have you had a chance to look at the actual sources? Wikipedia has a great summary, with many sources to back up it's claims:
"Baron-Cohen has faced criticism by some for his "empathizing-systemizing theory", which states that humans may be classified on the basis of their scores along two dimensions (empathizing and systemizing); and that females tend to score higher on the empathizing dimension and males tend to score higher on the systemizing dimension. Feminist scientists, including Cordelia Fine, neuroscientist, Gina Rippon, and Lise Eliot have opposed his extreme male brain theory of autism, calling it "neurotrash" and neurosexism.[35][36][37][38] Rippon also argues against using "male" and "female" for describing different types of brains, and that brain types do not correspond to genders.[36][39]
A 2009 study led by Baron-Cohen which reported that autistic individuals possessed superior visual acuity has been subject to heavy criticism. The developers of the software he used said that his results were impossible based on the technology used in the study. Additionally, the results of the study could not be replicated in a follow-up study.[40][41][42]"
Basically the author you quote, Simon Baron-Cohen, is widely known for his many misrepresentations and un-replicable studies.
I guess his success is in spreading sexist psuedoscience, which supports the continuation of a patriarchal status quo, gaining widespread popularity for his unscientific science before it was challenged/discovered to be so.
My ideas on that are mostly shaped... Well if I think about it, probably significantly by reading Hacker News, over the years. As well as matching them with with the way I perceived reality around me and different cultures. I was fortunate enough to grow up in between three massively different cultural landscapes divided in two continents (my parents had a strong migration background on both sides), eventually move to a fourth cultural area in a third country where I met my wife and had a child, and I now live in yet another country, in a third continent (where she's from) in a country where the culture is completely unlike any of these four other cultural landscapes.
From your links it seems like Testosterone Rex and The Gendered Brain are the books I could use to approach another perspective on this subject? Along with I guess The Essencial Difference as well, in order to contextualize better what they're refuting? I'll add these three to my reading list.
I'm happy to get other recommendations.
> instead of just repeating the misogynist lens and false research you've mentioned here
Please refrain from accusations of misogyny without substantiating evidence. You're better than that. We're all adults here and free to disagree. Describing research as "false", in the way you did, ascribes to either it or me ill intent; within the scientific process, ideas can and will turn out to be wrong sometimes and that's ok. A core tenet of Hacker News is that we assume positive intent when engaging our interlocutor and their ideas.