The fact that it doesnt (because people _arent_ seeking _identical_ outomes) underlines the misinformation campaign that certain mischievous sections of society are engaging in.
@@onepartyroule In my country, as in many other in western europe, we have gender quotas in various places in the market. For example, large companies have to have 30% of management positions be occupied by women. If this isn't an example of completely ignoring male and female differences, and blindly pursuing "equity", I dont know what is.
@@nicobruin8618 30%? are you taking the piss? you think striving for less than a 3rd of available places in industries where there are more than enough qualified and capable women to fill those positions is some how problematic? To strive for a measly 1/3 to combat prejudices and bias in industries where qualified women are underemployed is the least that can be done. I guess youre one of the men who are unable to do math. That is not an equal outcome.
Daddy 30% would be a Dream in the US. Part of it may be the type of people that rise to the top. Narcissists and narcissistic psychopaths are disproportionately represented at the executive level. I’d bet men have an advantage there. Still, considering women make up 51% of the population, there should be more women in management.
@@nokoolaid 'Narcissists and narcissistic psychopaths are disproportionately represented at the executive level' -- I've read this a few times too. If true, it's a problem in an of itself. Capitalism -- by its nature -- requires employers to be exploitative to the point of abuse (of people and environment), but you add to that the leadership of literal psychopaths and the situation we're now in looks completely inevitable.
@@onepartyroule _"Where are people seeking equal outcomes? it isnt a thing."_ Virtually every time someone on the left says the word 'equality' (equal opportunity) they actually mean 'equity' (equal outcomes). The gender pay gap is a perfect example.
@@toobnoobify No they dont, and no it isnt. Give me the evidence they they usually mean equal outcomes. The 'gender pay gap' isnt a good example. People who express concern over significant differences in average earnings never make the argument that men and women should be doing the same jobs to the same degree and should be exactly equally distributed in seniority to the same degree. All they do is point out that the degree of disparity has negative social consequences and propose ways of reducing the level of inequality.
@@onepartyroule _"Give me the evidence they they usually mean equal outcomes."_ Equity absolutely does mean equality of outcome, here is an article from Medium and one from Forbes. My post was deleted which may be because I posted links, so here's the description: Website Medium Article: whats-the-difference-between-equity-and-equality-in-education Wesbite Forbes Article: the-difference-between-workplace-equity-and-equality-and-why-it-matters
@@onepartyroule _"The 'gender pay gap' isnt a good example."_ It is the perfect example. It is the definition of seeking equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. And it is often presented as though women are the victims of discrimination, which is simply false: deleting CNBC video Since you care so much about gender equity, what are you doing to address the fact that men are 10 times more likely to die at work?
Studio Skies And Water compassion is tough for most. Fear abounds. People worry about what they will lose instead of understanding what they will gain. Along with that is the fear they might be wrong.
Glad that you've liked it, Kivaras! You can check this other video of Heather Heying on Big Think talking about Helicopter parenting, until more videos featuring her are posted: ua-cam.com/video/zgNbBVqLAxc/v-deo.html
Is it 'rational' to say 'male and female are _concepts_ that are far older than us as humans; older than primates'? how can a _concept_ exist before the mind required to create the concept? this is a ridiculous thing to say.
Kiryk Drewinski What truth? Objective truth is not the same as personal truth nor political truth. Why should biology dictate policy? Ms. Heying has never explained exactly how we are to determine what is attributable to cultural circumstance and what is biologically innate. The bell curve example she uses has an enormous flaw in it. None of the data analysis represented in that bell curve comes from an egalitarian society for the simple fact that there hasn’t been an egalitarian society since humans began recording history. So how can we possibly determine anything about biology and math abilities? That bell curve is descriptive of the populations analyzed, not proof of a biological difference between males and females. There isn’t even agreement that mathematics is real. There are interesting arguments for how it is a human construct. If there isn’t even proof that math exists outside the human mind, how can math abilities be rooted in biology? It’s not like we can study the difference between male and female invertebrates’ math abilities. Ms. Heying is actually a great example of why academics so often fair poorly in politics. I understand that her work in biology informs her feelings, but just because she is a scientist doesn’t mean that her political conclusions are correct
No not equality in value, not from any economic point of view anyway. If men or women happen to be more likely to take more difficult jobs, then you should expect them to have more economic value. This doesn't mean they are unequal in societal value as a whole, and in those terms I'd say men and women are equal because both are needed to exist.
@strontiumXnitrate "...flowing uninterrupted from all facets of feminism" and "...silence from other feminists" don't match. I'm not sure what your point is. Perhaps if you tried using smaller words, your thinking might be clearer.
There are two equalities. Equality of opportunity is good and liberating. Equality of outcome is bad and authoritative. For example, everyone should have equal opportunities to pick a career, but we shouldn't force a 50/50 outcome in those careers. Claiming there aren't equal number of males/females in X position is claiming for equality of outcome. Rather, we should try to ensure both sexes have an equal opportunity to be in those careers, and then let personal decisions and differences play out. Pay keen attention to who refers to which equality.
There is no equal opportunity under capitalism, and if you think so I've got a bridge to sell ya. You *know* you do not have the same opportunities as Bill Gates' or any other oligarch's offspring
Agreed. Equality of outcome, or equity, is a supremely inhumane concept. A 50/50 society in all areas is not one I want live in because it will take away all my personal freedoms. I just don't understand why this appeals to some people. Being forced to take fixed place in society for someones visual comforts like dolls in a giant doll house sounds like absolute hell to me.
@@McHobotheBobo _"You know you do not have the same opportunities as Bill Gates' or any other oligarch's offspring"_ I love how you cherry picked pretty much the only valid inequality the left (rarely) ever screams about (class). What about their favorite perceived inequalities of immutable traits like race, sex and sexuality? Or the inequalities of ridiculous things like religion or whether someone feels like a purple stapler?
@@McHobotheBobo Strawman fallacy. You're misinterpreting my point. We're talking about equality of opportunity between sexes. If you're *that* bad at logical thinking, I'm a Nigerian prince and want to send you my fortunes.
There's an exception to every statistical probability. I'm a female who was measured as gifted in elementary school in 2010, with a very high IQ. I enjoy metaphysics, 'pataphysics, quantum theory regarding the block universe, and ecology and counterfactual history, and more. It would be intellectually more honest if she mentioned the phenomenology and qualia of women whom *are* at the extremes.
Agree with the basic argument that equality discourse should focus on equal opportunities. One thought on the evidence cited though: Heather is making a tacit assumption that the statistical distribution of the characteristics (mathematical intelligence and/or linguistic abilities) are functions of biology. However, the samples from which such evidence is collected are also necessarily bound by the confines of societal norms. It's very plausible that societal factors propel men/women to develop in ways that results the apparent statistical distribution. It is quite possible that in another, more equal society, such development might have been different, and the statistical distribution might have been different too.
The research was done with cross cultural societal impacts taken into account, which you’d know with a simple google. It’s easy to disregard a study you haven’t read and don’t already agree with based on empty assumptions, isn’t it?
@@PhilCallis Hi Phil, thanks for the comment. I actually am not entirely unaware of the literature, read some of the studies (it's a pretty vast body of literature), and am also aware of the controversy stoked by economist Larry Summers' comments on this topic, although I'm not claiming any expertise at all (so happy to learn more). But without getting too technical and pros and cons of some of the studies, just want to point that the biggest drawback imo in these studies is that they are cross sectional. And I'm not aware of any society within last 2000 years where the expectations from men and women are exactly same, even in present day Scandinavian countries. Consequently, the effects of societal expectations cannot be adjusted away mathematically, it's just a limitation of the available data. I think a possibly interesting way to study this question (though even that can't do away with the above problem entirely) is to study societies longitudinally (over 50- 100 years time, or say, comparing data between 1950 and 2020, or something such)and see if the variance in the trait under investigation persists, decreases or increases with increasing opportunity for women and increasingly equal expectations over time (which has happened in some societies at least). And I'm not neccesarily disagreeing with these studies, just pointing out what I consider a major flaw precluding very firm conclusions. It's always important to test one's assumptions in science. (Finally, please let me know if you know of more longitudinal data in this area, would be happy to learn more)
Regardless of whether biological differences are the reason for these differences or if it is purely societal, the differences exist in society now. We don't want to overhaul societal norms for the sake of equal outcomes that could and will likely cause a bit of unnecessary chaos. We want to make the steps to overhaul the things that keep equality of opportunity from being a reality, and if the societal norms disappear as a result then so be it. On an individual basis, these societal norms are not pressured in a truly free society, neither are they good at predicting the nature of one single individual. In that sense, we should focus more on the individual if we do want to remove those norms and determine the true differences between males and females. The true differences don't actually matter though in a truly free and open society because the difference in wages or female representation in a particular field don't matter. That being said, the very fact that women are the ones that do ALL of the child bearing undeniably counts for something significant when comparing societal norms between men and women, and we can therefore not expect equality of outcome given that fact. Hell, I bet there's evidence that child bearing gives women an advantage in certain fields and perhaps some level of advantage in all fields due to the adversity experience it brings. That's not to say men don't have some of the same advantages gained from experiences of adversity in other forms. All in all though, its foolish to ignore biological differences which do exist, not to pretend they aren't going to effect workplace representation. The trans movement is great for this too, because it will further reinforce the individual and get us away from divisions of sex, gender and the differences that we recognize between, if not for a purely scientific purpose.
Big Think has been providing us with this small golden nuggets of common sense and science that allow us to breathe deeply and relax a bit among the general intellectual and moral mediocrity. Thx.
@@rtd1791 yes, from a critical thinking, logically driven individuals point of view, that is the case. In other words, this isn't subjective. Just because some people feel differently about a thing doesn't mean both can be right.
@@rtd1791 Actually no. I see Professor Heying's technical expertise, as a biologist and reputed scientist - published in the best ranking peer-reviewed journals - as a fiable means of corroborating my beliefs on topics about which there's very few controversy in the context of respectable academia, and among the population in general, to the point they're almost comnon knowledge.
On a different channel they discussed if women can handle being Navy Seals. One person responded with a scientific study showing more double the bone injuries in women during combat training. Someone responded to the report as ‘hate speech’ and demanded it was removed. When did science become hate? I’m wondering how long before this gets reported to YT for the same reason.
It's interesting that these people thought that was hate speech. While we should certainly admit women as navy seals, we also realize that women on average will not have the physicality for the role. Just like many men won't either. It's the age old question of who you would want to rescue you from a burning building. A man or a woman? Depends on if they are typical or not.
brad Lute no women have even attempted buds, their trial ‘hell week’. Even the strongest most elite athletes few make it through, most try once an never return, while others take 3-4 times before they pass. So much effort and money goes into their training, to have a severe injury and to lose a candidate is a huge setback. I don’t know if bone density testing would help to screen our high risk candidates? I just find it odd how quickly we scream sexism when science makes a clear conclusion. Freedom of speech is defiantly being tried. I also feel bad when so many knee jerk accusations of sexism are made because it’s unfair to people that have actually faced discrimination.
If there's women that could handle it, more power to them. A study that shows they are more likely to not be able to handle it means just that. In the case of Navy seal training, if women fail at such a higher rate than men that it's becoming a financial problem then they can be denied in that front I suppose. But the person that makes that call should be prepared to defend it
There is a simple way to frame this question; equality of OPPORTUNITY, or equality of OUTCOME. You can only have one, and the only reasonable choice equality of opportunity. While there are on average differences between the sexes, the variation within a particular sex is greater than the variation between sexes. i.e.: The absolute fastest sprinters are male, but the fastest female sprinters are still faster than +99% of males. Any particular individual may have characteristics that are more typical of males or females regardless of their sex.
Iffy. Is there an equal opportunity to die in war or to give birth? The costs paid by each are difficult to quantify, and as women maintain that men should have little say in reproduction as they will not bear the majority of the costs, men could say the same in matters of foreign policy. While equality of outcome is a blunt instrument, equality of opportunity is so multifaceted as to be basically meaningless. A better reckoning needs to be developed.
This is an excellent presentation,... fair, balanced, a beautiful description of the "equality" that brings communities together, harmoniously. Thank you Heather!
I used to work at a toy store. Kids were very capable of choosing their toys. Nevermind why, but most girls did go to the pink section. When they did not, they headed either to the science or craft section. Sometimes they wanted musical toys. When the boys didn't want toy cars or action figures, they headed to the science. music, or, in a few cases, the crafts section. Parents had agendas for what they wanted to accomplish with their purchases (mostly to keep the kids busy so they could get other stuff done); grandparents and friends of the family usually just asked, "What is a 'hot' toy now for 8 year old boys?" They gave us a gender and age, and we knew what was age- appropriate. Finding just the right toy for each child didn't usually mean defying the gender line; it usually meant listening to their interests and sensitivities. Only very certain girls wanted a doll that would be a "friend;" most wanted dolls that would allow them to interface with the dolls other girls had (like Bratz dolls). Children, like all humans are very nuanced beings that can't be crammed into a box to fit our notions of what society should be. They need us to listen a little, guide a little, and mostly make them feel secure enough to play at peace and dream their way into who they want to become.
How do you achieve equality of opportunity when bigotry isn’t confined to one area of life? It isn’t as though subjugated groups only experience barriers created out of prejudice just in employment or education. For historically subjugated groups, subjugation actually impacts every aspect of life.
@Mishka Leigh Sites where you dont need to sign up please. Youre making the claim so you need to bring the evidence. I did a quick search on the BBC and the only thing that came up was something about boards in Scotland and the BBC aiming to use equal amounts of male and female expert contributors. The contributors thing seems of little relevance, but the boards in Scotland look like a clearer case. As far as i can tell theyre using femaleness as a qualification only in cases where male and female applicants are equally qualified and female representation is less than 50%. So less qualified women arent being prioritised. Their argument is that a disproportionately high number of women use public services. It seems unnecessary when 45% are already women, but i'm assuming its about politics arther than necessity, which is annoying. So thats 1 case so far. Youve got a long way to go to convince me this is a problem.
Poland, where I come from, is another country to implement this stupidity in their school system (luckily not everywhere but it’s there). ...or have you thought we are all making this stuff up?? Educate yourself.
@@violet-trash Because she's implying that companies are highering people based solely on their gender, not that they are qualified. I don't think that's true, but if it is then it can be addressed, as long as it doesn't give companies the right to discriminate against possible employees based on their gender.
@Josef K there is no reason to believe Jordan Peterson isn't aligned with Heying on this. They have likely talked about this over dinner, both being part of the intellectual dark web.
Fun thing, linguistics and logic are basically the "same task" for our brains, the difference is that one implies another person on the other side and the other one implies internal consistency. And apparently it's not only inside our brains, is not that our brains clumsily use our language processing skills to do math, as some suspect. (well, actually yes, it uses our language processing center and our spatial reasoning center.) but that really it's also the same task outside of brains. The differences comes pretty much all from orientation. It's object and social orientation.
Then why am I bad at linguistic stuff but great at math This is an actual question And why is everyone so bad at math but fine with English And why are they all worse at context clues
@@loremipsum2237 Because it distributes in a bell curve. Same thing with height. And as I said, stem is very unintuitive for most humans, is another case of what's most prevalent in females being the baseline of the species. The only mistaken observation here is that everyone is "fine" with english, or language all together. There's a baseline of language skills and math skills. On the body of the curve it will definitely seem like people have an easier time with language than math, but on the high ends both will be rare and seen as weird because both are uncommon. I can explain more if it's required.
She’s on to something, but the interpretation of what she’s saying will wildly vary, with a lot of confirmation bias from people with unself-examined beliefs. I see the social construct people railing against the XX and XY folks. It’s much more complicated than one POV and in some cases a facile understanding of science used to buttress their indoctrination. I’d like to ask her some follow up questions...and I will.
@@skellymom Ideally, let people be and find their own way. Musterbation and tribal expectation cause a lot of problems in this area and others and often lead to bad outcomes for a lot of folks.
I think the over-simplified sexist differences between women and men is that men are work-tools while women are communication-devices. If we going to achieve equality we also need to look at our values-systems. In these discussions it alway reduces all commodities down to questions about money. Money should only matter as security of having enough to live conformably. After that there are other values that might be more important than sacrificing your time for more money. Is it being able to have the freedom to be creative in you careers. Is it to be valuable in someones life. Is it to see the fruits of your labor. Or is it to have the time to have a family, friends and hobbies.
This is not true. Those men in the coal mines of West Virginia have been keeping women out of the mines for decades! ‘The old boys club’ has been pulling this crap in heavy construction, sewer work, industrial fishing, and many other professions. I say we make these monuments to misogyny 50-50! Bring on the equality!!!
to be fair though, under the pressures of time and money, life is often complicated and serious enough (more than choosing dolls to play with) that the only way you can be sure to be fair is to be equal
All the comments give me hope; maybe the general public agrees with what she is saying, but we have a very vocal minority in the spotlight making it appear that the world has gone crazy. There are obviously exceptions to the rule (and there is nothing wrong with these exceptions), but men and women are generally built to complement each other's strengths and weaknesses; we are supposed to be a kick-ass team in the game of life.
I adore such speeches but really dislike the social prejudice that makes these speakers so uncomfortable while engaging such a largely misunderstood subject. I hope one day we can enjoy talks around this matter without carefully choosing our words and curating our texts.
@@uschurch Luckily, no one asked for you opinion on this - and may God _still_ bless this woman (even though it saddens me that it takes a biologist to speak what should've been common sense)
@@thstroyur Luckily I don't need to be asked in order for me to voice my opinion. Something that had to be fought for, against most churches and religions bloodily over centuries. Down with oppressive and reactionary superstition. Long live the enlightenment, human rights and scientific curiosity!
@@thstroyur It's not an opinion, though. There's no evidence for a god. In any case, I share the sentiment - very grateful for voices of reason like Heying's in the current cultural/anti-science climate.
@@PiggySquisherCaleb "It's not an opinion, though. There's no evidence for a god" Which is _also_ an opinion - or, if you prefer, mere empty assertion; rather poor job in helping your buddy, there. But I do agree that it's good to have voices of reason like Heying's in the current cultural/anti-science climate.
I think we should move away from the word "Equality" and start using "Equity". Objective Equality is not possible, so equity, equal opportunity, should be our goal.
I believe Carl is right, I know the formal definition is not clear but every time I've heard it used by academics, equity means equality of outcome. If anything, people on the left need to _stop_ using the word 'equality' when they actually mean 'equity.'
@@toobnoobify your use of "people on the left" invalidates your response by implying subjective bias. Please keep your identity politics out of objective conversations.
Two questions (1) are you willing to make this same argument about the differences in races and Affirmative Action policies? and (2) do you really believe reason and good will can stop ideologues, especially after they've obtained institutional powers? To get ahead of the curve, check out John Mark's videos.
The problem is that race and are very different concepts. It is very hard to compare the historical oppression of the two. For one, perhaps women were oppressed but did they might incur a lot of benefits from this? When a man and woman reproduce, do they not both give a copy of their genes to their child, regardless of their sex? That said, affirmative action is a flawed system as well because it also strives for equal outcomes. Racially, we should be expected to have differences in genetics and upbringing that will lead to different outcomes. We can't just erase that by giving jobs to black people. Are we willing to discuss the possible benefits of slavery and colonialism on the oppressed classes? That is sticky and no one really has the tools to take that topic, not even biologists maybe.
brad Lute slave owners used to expound on the benefits of slavery for the slaves. I suspect you are coming from the same POV. Unless you’ve lived it, meaning in a marginalized group such as women or people of color, you’re partaking in rectal parlance.
Heather Heying and her husband, Brett Weinstein, are both such great, intelligent speakers on all these things. They are the two former Evergreen professors you might remember from that insanity over at that school a couple of years ago. I'd encourage anyone to look up more from both of them just if you're interested in their field, Evolutionary Biology, at all. They're the kind of teachers we need. Again, it all speaks to my personal mantra of individualism: The only thing we all truly have in common is that we are all different. To expect the same outcome for every human is the height of fantasy because none of us are completely identical. Enter Cultural Marxism, and how do you think they'd ever actually achieve that goal of theirs? I can't see any other way but force if you want to fit billions of oddly shaped pegs into mismatched holes.
Hey big think, I object to your use of “enforced “ in reference to Evergreen College’s Day of Absence in the description below the video. It was never required by the college administration that white people leave campus, merely encouraged by the group that held all of the previous days of absence. I happen to think that the entire concept of a day of absence is stupid regardless of the melanin level of the absentees. But we shouldn’t misrepresent what actually happened. Bret Weinstein (Heying’s spouse) expressed an unpopular opinion and encouraged other melanin poor individuals to join him in not cooperating. Many people did not respect his opinion and expressed their disagreement. While I don’t think it was acceptable for anyone to express displeasure through violent threats or harassment, I understand why so many in the Evergreen College community felt like Heying and Weinstein were jerks. I too find individuals who seem to believe that their right to free expression also includes a right to force that expression on others disagreeable. I also think it is just fine to think that an individual is a bellend who has amply demonstrated this quality over the course of your relationship and to conclude you no longer wish to listen to anything the bellend has to say. Heying and Weinstein resigned their positions at Evergreen and reportedly settled their lawsuit for 500k. I don’t have an opinion on whether this was the right course of action or adequate compensation for Heying’s and Weinstein’s experience. Big Think should not leave the impression that Heying was forced to do anything she chose to do in response to Evergreen’s Day of Absence. I hope that Heying finds another professorship; she also has a great Twitter feed in that she regularly links to entertaining and informative articles.
You speak very eloquently, but used the word 'bellend' randomly. Felt so out of place. I'm assuming you are North American, why are you using an English slang word 😃
You're largely correct apart from one major distinction, as I see it anyway :) : it was technically only "encouraged", yes, but they made it so one's absence was a sign of one's allyship against racism. Therefore if you didn't absent yourself, you will presumed a racist. That's not voluntary, (as Admiral Akbah would say) it's a trap. Much like what we can see in some cities, where if you don't put BLM displays on your shop windows you could/will be vandalised. The original day of absence was truly voluntary. Not all PoC were absent on those days and there was (rightly) no consequence, however there was an implied heavy consequence for the proposed day of absence if you didn't absent yourself.
I think we are equal but not the same , we have all contributed to the society from the birth of mankind to now thru differnt roles which we were inherently good at . Thats why we have managed to come from 0-8billon ppl and so much advancement i think its stupid to make man and women comparison on same metrics . Since we will ofc not be same in general dude gender biological evolution.
The fact someone is ready and able to say this gives me hope that we are over the worst emotion-driven SJW craze and heading towards more rational times.
Just curious but does that kind of deviation imply that there are more women that are linguistic idiots as well? (Personified by your stereotypical "ditsy blonde") and to stick to the same subject is there a difference in race? (Personified by your stereotypical MC or rapper)
Now, how many of you can see the link between what she is saying and how our economy is organized? The issues we’re having with career paths, the issues with peoples wellbeing, and so on. The inequality caused by our current capitalist system is literally going to pigeon-hole our children if we don’t make changes right now. Sorry, but if we don’t losen up peoples financial constraints by debt relief, healthcare, and wage increases, we are going to continue to have these “woke” vs “traditional role “ arguments that lead nowhere. This woman’s logic makes so much sense to me in regards to bringing sanity back to the conversation. Acknowledge the differences, build a society that allows those differences to flourish. That includes a 21st century understanding of what socialism means, NOT a 20th century understanding. If you want to know more, look up Richard Wolff on you tube.
In today's world where people are misinformed seemingly more they they are informed and where it's difficult to remove the bias built by indoctrination from that misinformation, i think it's best to not change the meaning of socialism, but use a different word. It takes longer than a century to change the definition of a word, primarily because there are still people alive from the 20th century referring to the old definition. For healthcare, education, debt relief, wages and the like, it's easier to explain the need on a case by case basis, rather than advocating for a new socialism. Leave socialism where it is and go for a logical explanation to prove the need for those things. A capitalist form of government is truly good for most industries. Its worked great to increase the quality of lots of things from cars to smart phones, and the progress of each industry has greatly benefited other industries too. There are now computers in cars now that are partly as good as they are because of the progress with smart phone technology. The competition argument that capitalism brings really is a good one. The definition of capitalism is private ownership of industry for profit. This is a good thing, by and large. The profit incentive is a great thing for innovation. And the thing about the profit incentive is that it exists even with high taxes on the very wealthy. The higher your tax rate in that case, the more money you are making, so pretending that raising taxes is taking the profit incentive away is complete bogus. No one is going to buy a Honda Civic-esque car or a gallon of milk for half a million dollars, because there are cheaper options that do the same thing. But when you put a price on someone's life in the form of medical costs, people will sign the dotted line into any amount of debt because they will do anything to survive. In other words, price gouging will exist anywhere it can in a capitalistic system, especially when patents protect the price gouging and government loans inflate prices. Furthermore, I would argue that healthcare is not a place that competition is needed to obtain the maximum level of innovation. On a base level, people were refining methods in which to start a fire and make weapons long before there was any profit incentive apart from survival. People as a whole greatly desire living, and as a result, we find it beneficial to invest time and money into innovation that keeps us alive. The evidence proves so to, given that government run healthcare throughout other wealthy countries keeps on pace or surpasses that of the United States. There is an argument that says the United States pharma invests more into healthcare innovation than everyone else (which is debatable at it is), but I think there are better ways to fund that research anyway. The logic behind investing into the people of your country by keeping them healthy and educated is sound, and the very fact that moneyed interests are able to misinform people that an educated and healthy population is bad is the only evidence you need to know that we are failing on the education front. No matter what argument you make against free college, none of them can possibly hold up to the logic that educating people directly benefits progress, and that includes the progress of every single capitalistically driven industry in existence. I would actually say education is more important than healthcare. With each passing minute, more children are born into a world filled with misinformation, and they grow up with a lack of critical thinking skills. We need to nip that problem in the ass as fast as possible, because every moment we don't is making the battle exponentially more difficult. If not for the internet, I'd say we would have already been beyond the point of no return. At the same time though, the internet can do more harm than good if we wait too long. I don't mean to write so much, especially when I'm preaching to the choir. But I guess I'm hoping someone that isn't quite so certain about these issues will read this and understand the logic behind it.
For me, Gender Equality has always been about equal treatment, not equal capabilities. Not including the few standouts, on average, men are going to do a lot of things better than women, and women will do a lot of things better than men. Yes some jobs are better suited for men, and some are better suited for women. But it's the assumption that one can't do the other's job, or is ignorant of the job that is my biggest problem. Don't assume female mechanics are worse at their jobs than men, because they're female. Or that male nurses are worse at their job because they're male; simply because these jobs are dominated by one gender or another. All that said, pay differences should be handled by efficiency. If you're inefficient at your job, you should get paid less, regardless of your gender. If a woman can only do half as many tasks as a man in the same line of work because of physical limitations, then yeah, you should get paid less, and vise-versa.. Even if it means switching careers. Because the company now has to hire more employees to do the same amount of work. This is an extreme example i know, but a valid one. More people's pay needs to be affected by their efficiency. We'd see a lot more raises for the hard workers of the world, and a lot more cutbacks on the lazies(like myself.. whoops).
If people kinda take mental shortcuts and people conform to what they glean about their type of person (and they code what they mean in gendered terms in clothing etc), then any difference in taste or performance at scale will produce stereotypes. If the power in a particular society is consolidated in one field, then this view requires accepting the possibility of a gender being aligned with what a society values. If business performance rewards risk taking and this isn't distributed equally, then the power to dictate tastes will be compounded. And based on vision of society, someone could argue that one gender or another should naturally tend to be underrepresented (and possibly in economic terms disempowered). So if you consider the implications of difference tendencies, then a lot of people will reject it as naturalizing effects that would produce patriarchy. Others might embrace gendered difference, but argue that a gender was more aligned to a primitive existence and should ideally pull carts and move heavy objects. There are reasons why people are so challenged by the notion of different tendencies and might be motivated to reject these. The revere is that if labor tends to be divided as a matter of natural processes, devaluing one genders labor or tendencies at scale would often be an exercise is self loathing.
Male and female are not so much sexes but principles. A human being may be a man, but he still carried both the male and female principles within him, and so with women. Each side of this equation gets into tangles when they are tempted to think that a man is all male and a woman is all female. But similarly, if this is taken too far, we may also make the mistake of thinking that men and women can live without each other. That the limited amount of masculine or feminine energy we have corresponding to the opposite sex is sufficient for us to stand on our own as men separate from women or women separate from men. It is not so much that there is a distinction that we are all getting wrong and more that there is no distinction between male and female in the natural world to begin with. I am not less female than a woman. It's just that the majority of my femininity resides in them, just as the majority of their masculinity resides in me and the other men. What doesn't get talked about in the conversation of the bees and the flowers is that bees cannot live without flowers, nor flowers without bees. Where there are bees, there are flower. There there are flowers there are bees. The whole point of a flower is that it attracts bees. Thus the bees and the flowers, while appearing to be two separate beings from a limited perspective, are actually one organism. The flower is the nectar-producing organ of the bee complex. The bees are the reproductive transmission organ for the flowering plants.
@@PiggySquisherCaleb Nope. Gender used in this way is just a synonym for a person's sex, so using that word wouldn't explain anything. A principle of nature is analogous to a natural law, but instead of being a form of perceived and superimposed order, it is an internal and organic form of order. It is what the Chinese call 理.
This is so self evidently the way forward, or back to reality if you will, it is hard to believe how far it is divorced from the superficial mainstream opinion.
I dnt expect equality. I see both men and women are different are fundamentally different in nature. Not only physically but psycologically. Their is no one above other
Heather Heying: “there are huge spectrum spanning differences across” all men and women”. Also Heather Heying: “there are only two types of people”. Simplistic binary thinking that completely misses her own point
@@robdale88 Men and Women are different on average, but the difference between multiple women or multiple men is much bigger than the difference between the averages of men and women. So yes, men and women are a spectrum, but there is distinction. Likewise: Bengal tigers are on average bigger than African lions... but SOME African lions are bigger than SOME Bengal tigers. So while tigers on average are bigger than lions, the spectrum of size of both animals has overlap, just like men and women. This does not make Lions and Tigers the same animal.
We're all just HUMAN. The differences between two individuals is per definition far larger than the differences between gender. Perceived differences between male & female are mostly dictated by society and vary significantly over time. Usefulness of stereotyping will outlive itself. Just because we all, as a society, make the same choices doesn't make those choices true, valid or good.
Please delete the part where you call men “idiots.” It is not appropriate to call women “idiots” and it is not appropriate to call men “idiots.” Thank you.
Not being able to really follow such sophisticated ideas and instead judging by her body language... I'd be willing to embrace Heather's Presentation more readily if her head didn't seem perpetually cocked to the right.
@@alfa_kenny_body I'm mostly being silly, but there are those on the left that seem to deny human biology and the cognitive differences between men and women. It's all an attempt to divide us in any way "they" can. Men and women are different and we compliment each other. We're nothing without each other.
I think the biggest equality issue comes from what we choose to value -- and men have been in charge of that for a long time. It's easy to come out ahead when you rig the game in your favor.
It has to do with how environments operate on genes. We are a species that thrives on sexual division of labour. Differences in sexes are likely growing over time because why learn to do two jobs okay when you can learn to do one really well.
Thank God this was said. Please share this with your liberal friends! Did this woman take this conclusion from Dr. Jordan Peterson? Hes been saying this shit for years but has been called a bigot.
Thank God? Please provide evidence of your imaginary sky wizard. Peterson? The pseudo intellectual hack? He is so intelligent that he just eats meat despite not being an obligate carnivore and not possessing claws or a short digestive tract. You right wing nut jobs are all hilariously insane.
@@sexytiff7539 Please provide a better argument against the "imaginary sky wizard" than shifting the burden of proof to others. As for Peterson's dietary habits, this particular pseudointellectual is so intelligent that he can be an omnivore and act like it. Pull up your pants - your sickeningly biased political paranoia is showing
She is in the same group of thinkers called the intellectual dark web. She is an evolutionary biologist so just as qualified to talk about it as Peterson.
@@sexytiff7539 Jordan Peterson had said some stupid shit and some intelligent shit. I've also seen him admit to being wrong, and almost no public figured do that, so I give him credit there. Just because he aligns poorly with you on some issues doesn't mean you can't have the decency to admit when he's right
@@sexytiff7539 and attacking him based on his diet is foolish, you're not helping your argument there. In fact, nothing in your comment helps your argument
Γρηγόρης Πανούσης Shapiro is different. He’s more of a doctrinaire conservative. According to what I’ve read, heather and her husband consider themselves left libertarian. Petersen is somewhere in between.
If you liked Heather Heying's take on Gender Equality, we think you'll dig her stance on Diversity: ua-cam.com/video/CCiUx6K05vQ/v-deo.html
Finally, an intelligent statement about equality that's not concerned with 'wokeness'.
How about getting Jordan B. Peterson on here for this subject as well?
The fact that this has to be explained is a direct snapshot of the condition of the current zeitgeist
The fact that it doesnt (because people _arent_ seeking _identical_ outomes) underlines the misinformation campaign that certain mischievous sections of society are engaging in.
@@onepartyroule In my country, as in many other in western europe, we have gender quotas in various places in the market.
For example, large companies have to have 30% of management positions be occupied by women.
If this isn't an example of completely ignoring male and female differences, and blindly pursuing "equity", I dont know what is.
@@nicobruin8618 30%? are you taking the piss? you think striving for less than a 3rd of available places in industries where there are more than enough qualified and capable women to fill those positions is some how problematic?
To strive for a measly 1/3 to combat prejudices and bias in industries where qualified women are underemployed is the least that can be done.
I guess youre one of the men who are unable to do math. That is not an equal outcome.
Daddy 30% would be a Dream in the US. Part of it may be the type of people that rise to the top. Narcissists and narcissistic psychopaths are disproportionately represented at the executive level. I’d bet men have an advantage there. Still, considering women make up 51% of the population, there should be more women in management.
@@nokoolaid 'Narcissists and narcissistic psychopaths are disproportionately represented at the executive level' -- I've read this a few times too. If true, it's a problem in an of itself. Capitalism -- by its nature -- requires employers to be exploitative to the point of abuse (of people and environment), but you add to that the leadership of literal psychopaths and the situation we're now in looks completely inevitable.
Finally a sane person.
Such a smart woman. And her husband alike. Fuck yeah to the Weinstein's
We shouldn’t seek equal outcomes we should seek equal opportunities, as you basically said.
Where are people seeking _equal_ outcomes? it isnt a thing.
@@onepartyroule _"Where are people seeking equal outcomes? it isnt a thing."_
Virtually every time someone on the left says the word 'equality' (equal opportunity) they actually mean 'equity' (equal outcomes). The gender pay gap is a perfect example.
@@toobnoobify No they dont, and no it isnt. Give me the evidence they they usually mean equal outcomes.
The 'gender pay gap' isnt a good example. People who express concern over significant differences in average earnings never make the argument that men and women should be doing the same jobs to the same degree and should be exactly equally distributed in seniority to the same degree. All they do is point out that the degree of disparity has negative social consequences and propose ways of reducing the level of inequality.
@@onepartyroule _"Give me the evidence they they usually mean equal outcomes."_
Equity absolutely does mean equality of outcome, here is an article from Medium and one from Forbes. My post was deleted which may be because I posted links, so here's the description:
Website Medium Article: whats-the-difference-between-equity-and-equality-in-education
Wesbite Forbes Article: the-difference-between-workplace-equity-and-equality-and-why-it-matters
@@onepartyroule _"The 'gender pay gap' isnt a good example."_
It is the perfect example. It is the definition of seeking equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.
And it is often presented as though women are the victims of discrimination, which is simply false: deleting CNBC video
Since you care so much about gender equity, what are you doing to address the fact that men are 10 times more likely to die at work?
I cried watching this. Finally someone who speaks logic.
Equal opportunity, not equal outcome
Heather Heying is truly a refreshing voice to hear. Thank you Heather.
Refreshingly boring XD
if we treat all sentient life with compassion, men and women equality would naturally follow
Studio Skies And Water compassion is tough for most. Fear abounds. People worry about what they will lose instead of understanding what they will gain. Along with that is the fear they might be wrong.
Compassion is open to interpretation and why should it be limited to the sentient?
Equality of opportunity > Equality of outcome
yap
This is so spot on. Push this video Big Think!!
Please keep featuring Heying on here. This is the quality content I'm here for.
Glad that you've liked it, Kivaras! You can check this other video of Heather Heying on Big Think talking about Helicopter parenting, until more videos featuring her are posted: ua-cam.com/video/zgNbBVqLAxc/v-deo.html
Finally! A rational voice. Maybe there's hope for the equality discussion after all.
Is it 'rational' to say 'male and female are _concepts_ that are far older than us as humans; older than primates'? how can a _concept_ exist before the mind required to create the concept? this is a ridiculous thing to say.
@@onepartyroule You know excactly what she meant. Don't try to be purposefully stupid.
@@nicobruin8618 I know what she clearly said; it was unambiguous. I guess youre projecting your own meaning on to it. One that suits you.
@@onepartyroule In the same manner that the earth and the universe are far older than the modern intelligences conceptualizing them.
@@PiggySquisherCaleb They arent concepts. She's talking about 'concepts' (her own words).
Wow brave to tell the truth on this. Good on you Big Think... 👍🏼👍🏼
Targa Ray Yes, sadly you have to be brave to tell the truth these days if it comes to topics like those.
Kiryk Drewinski What truth? Objective truth is not the same as personal truth nor political truth. Why should biology dictate policy? Ms. Heying has never explained exactly how we are to determine what is attributable to cultural circumstance and what is biologically innate. The bell curve example she uses has an enormous flaw in it. None of the data analysis represented in that bell curve comes from an egalitarian society for the simple fact that there hasn’t been an egalitarian society since humans began recording history. So how can we possibly determine anything about biology and math abilities? That bell curve is descriptive of the populations analyzed, not proof of a biological difference between males and females.
There isn’t even agreement that mathematics is real. There are interesting arguments for how it is a human construct. If there isn’t even proof that math exists outside the human mind, how can math abilities be rooted in biology? It’s not like we can study the difference between male and female invertebrates’ math abilities.
Ms. Heying is actually a great example of why academics so often fair poorly in politics. I understand that her work in biology informs her feelings, but just because she is a scientist doesn’t mean that her political conclusions are correct
What evidence does she suggest that proves women are better linguistically than men? She just pulled that out of her ass.
@@rtd1791 This is the comment Big Think should be highlighting.
Equal in value, different in digits
No not equality in value, not from any economic point of view anyway. If men or women happen to be more likely to take more difficult jobs, then you should expect them to have more economic value. This doesn't mean they are unequal in societal value as a whole, and in those terms I'd say men and women are equal because both are needed to exist.
@@limitisillusion7 2+3 = 5 = 1+4...
@@syd4n well saying equal in value of an overarching statement that I was trying to clarify
@@limitisillusion7 i sorta maybe understand what you're saying...but my angle is that equal in value of life, not in an economic sense,
A breath of fresh air 😌
It is painful that in this modern climate, saying such a basic fact as this is considered offensive.
Man and Woman are to be Complementary.
Wow, wife material
😮😮🙂 Don't Mind Comments...
You seem so good...
As Men say...Mature and Intelligent Women/or girl..🙂
Men vs women...therein lies the problem!
And the joy!
@strontiumXnitrate "...flowing uninterrupted from all facets of feminism" and "...silence from other feminists" don't match. I'm not sure what your point is. Perhaps if you tried using smaller words, your thinking might be clearer.
I'm so happy to hear this because I thought stupidity was beginning to reign supreme
There are two equalities.
Equality of opportunity is good and liberating.
Equality of outcome is bad and authoritative.
For example, everyone should have equal opportunities to pick a career, but we shouldn't force a 50/50 outcome in those careers. Claiming there aren't equal number of males/females in X position is claiming for equality of outcome. Rather, we should try to ensure both sexes have an equal opportunity to be in those careers, and then let personal decisions and differences play out.
Pay keen attention to who refers to which equality.
There is no equal opportunity under capitalism, and if you think so I've got a bridge to sell ya. You *know* you do not have the same opportunities as Bill Gates' or any other oligarch's offspring
Agreed. Equality of outcome, or equity, is a supremely inhumane concept. A 50/50 society in all areas is not one I want live in because it will take away all my personal freedoms.
I just don't understand why this appeals to some people. Being forced to take fixed place in society for someones visual comforts like dolls in a giant doll house sounds like absolute hell to me.
@@McHobotheBobo _"You know you do not have the same opportunities as Bill Gates' or any other oligarch's offspring"_
I love how you cherry picked pretty much the only valid inequality the left (rarely) ever screams about (class). What about their favorite perceived inequalities of immutable traits like race, sex and sexuality? Or the inequalities of ridiculous things like religion or whether someone feels like a purple stapler?
@@McHobotheBobo Strawman fallacy. You're misinterpreting my point. We're talking about equality of opportunity between sexes. If you're *that* bad at logical thinking, I'm a Nigerian prince and want to send you my fortunes.
Finally someone with common sense, logic and scientific proof...
gkork6 her science wasn’t in depth. She needs detail and possibly access to research. She’s on the right track, but she’s missing some nuances.
@@nokoolaid that goes without saying..
There's an exception to every statistical probability. I'm a female who was measured as gifted in elementary school in 2010, with a very high IQ. I enjoy metaphysics, 'pataphysics, quantum theory regarding the block universe, and ecology and counterfactual history, and more. It would be intellectually more honest if she mentioned the phenomenology and qualia of women whom *are* at the extremes.
Nice to hear a reasonable voice!
Agree with the basic argument that equality discourse should focus on equal opportunities. One thought on the evidence cited though: Heather is making a tacit assumption that the statistical distribution of the characteristics (mathematical intelligence and/or linguistic abilities) are functions of biology. However, the samples from which such evidence is collected are also necessarily bound by the confines of societal norms. It's very plausible that societal factors propel men/women to develop in ways that results the apparent statistical distribution. It is quite possible that in another, more equal society, such development might have been different, and the statistical distribution might have been different too.
The research was done with cross cultural societal impacts taken into account, which you’d know with a simple google. It’s easy to disregard a study you haven’t read and don’t already agree with based on empty assumptions, isn’t it?
@@PhilCallis Hi Phil, thanks for the comment. I actually am not entirely unaware of the literature, read some of the studies (it's a pretty vast body of literature), and am also aware of the controversy stoked by economist Larry Summers' comments on this topic, although I'm not claiming any expertise at all (so happy to learn more). But without getting too technical and pros and cons of some of the studies, just want to point that the biggest drawback imo in these studies is that they are cross sectional. And I'm not aware of any society within last 2000 years where the expectations from men and women are exactly same, even in present day Scandinavian countries. Consequently, the effects of societal expectations cannot be adjusted away mathematically, it's just a limitation of the available data. I think a possibly interesting way to study this question (though even that can't do away with the above problem entirely) is to study societies longitudinally (over 50- 100 years time, or say, comparing data between 1950 and 2020, or something such)and see if the variance in the trait under investigation persists, decreases or increases with increasing opportunity for women and increasingly equal expectations over time (which has happened in some societies at least).
And I'm not neccesarily disagreeing with these studies, just pointing out what I consider a major flaw precluding very firm conclusions. It's always important to test one's assumptions in science.
(Finally, please let me know if you know of more longitudinal data in this area, would be happy to learn more)
Regardless of whether biological differences are the reason for these differences or if it is purely societal, the differences exist in society now. We don't want to overhaul societal norms for the sake of equal outcomes that could and will likely cause a bit of unnecessary chaos. We want to make the steps to overhaul the things that keep equality of opportunity from being a reality, and if the societal norms disappear as a result then so be it. On an individual basis, these societal norms are not pressured in a truly free society, neither are they good at predicting the nature of one single individual. In that sense, we should focus more on the individual if we do want to remove those norms and determine the true differences between males and females. The true differences don't actually matter though in a truly free and open society because the difference in wages or female representation in a particular field don't matter. That being said, the very fact that women are the ones that do ALL of the child bearing undeniably counts for something significant when comparing societal norms between men and women, and we can therefore not expect equality of outcome given that fact. Hell, I bet there's evidence that child bearing gives women an advantage in certain fields and perhaps some level of advantage in all fields due to the adversity experience it brings. That's not to say men don't have some of the same advantages gained from experiences of adversity in other forms. All in all though, its foolish to ignore biological differences which do exist, not to pretend they aren't going to effect workplace representation. The trans movement is great for this too, because it will further reinforce the individual and get us away from divisions of sex, gender and the differences that we recognize between, if not for a purely scientific purpose.
Big Think has been providing us with this small golden nuggets of common sense and science that allow us to breathe deeply and relax a bit among the general intellectual and moral mediocrity. Thx.
Ugh. In other words you see Ms. Heying’s viewpoints as justification for your ideas to which others have objected.
@@rtd1791 yes, from a critical thinking, logically driven individuals point of view, that is the case. In other words, this isn't subjective. Just because some people feel differently about a thing doesn't mean both can be right.
@@rtd1791 Actually no. I see Professor Heying's technical expertise, as a biologist and reputed scientist - published in the best ranking peer-reviewed journals - as a fiable means of corroborating my beliefs on topics about which there's very few controversy in the context of respectable academia, and among the population in general, to the point they're almost comnon knowledge.
On a different channel they discussed if women can handle being Navy Seals. One person responded with a scientific study showing more double the bone injuries in women during combat training. Someone responded to the report as ‘hate speech’ and demanded it was removed. When did science become hate? I’m wondering how long before this gets reported to YT for the same reason.
It's interesting that these people thought that was hate speech. While we should certainly admit women as navy seals, we also realize that women on average will not have the physicality for the role. Just like many men won't either. It's the age old question of who you would want to rescue you from a burning building. A man or a woman? Depends on if they are typical or not.
brad Lute no women have even attempted buds, their trial ‘hell week’. Even the strongest most elite athletes few make it through, most try once an never return, while others take 3-4 times before they pass. So much effort and money goes into their training, to have a severe injury and to lose a candidate is a huge setback. I don’t know if bone density testing would help to screen our high risk candidates? I just find it odd how quickly we scream sexism when science makes a clear conclusion. Freedom of speech is defiantly being tried. I also feel bad when so many knee jerk accusations of sexism are made because it’s unfair to people that have actually faced discrimination.
If there's women that could handle it, more power to them. A study that shows they are more likely to not be able to handle it means just that. In the case of Navy seal training, if women fail at such a higher rate than men that it's becoming a financial problem then they can be denied in that front I suppose. But the person that makes that call should be prepared to defend it
There is a simple way to frame this question; equality of OPPORTUNITY, or equality of OUTCOME. You can only have one, and the only reasonable choice equality of opportunity.
While there are on average differences between the sexes, the variation within a particular sex is greater than the variation between sexes.
i.e.: The absolute fastest sprinters are male, but the fastest female sprinters are still faster than +99% of males. Any particular individual may have characteristics that are more typical of males or females regardless of their sex.
Iffy.
Is there an equal opportunity to die in war or to give birth? The costs paid by each are difficult to quantify, and as women maintain that men should have little say in reproduction as they will not bear the majority of the costs, men could say the same in matters of foreign policy.
While equality of outcome is a blunt instrument, equality of opportunity is so multifaceted as to be basically meaningless.
A better reckoning needs to be developed.
This is an excellent presentation,... fair, balanced, a beautiful description of the "equality" that brings communities together, harmoniously. Thank you Heather!
I used to work at a toy store. Kids were very capable of choosing their toys. Nevermind why, but most girls did go to the pink section. When they did not, they headed either to the science or craft section. Sometimes they wanted musical toys. When the boys didn't want toy cars or action figures, they headed to the science. music, or, in a few cases, the crafts section. Parents had agendas for what they wanted to accomplish with their purchases (mostly to keep the kids busy so they could get other stuff done); grandparents and friends of the family usually just asked, "What is a 'hot' toy now for 8 year old boys?" They gave us a gender and age, and we knew what was age- appropriate. Finding just the right toy for each child didn't usually mean defying the gender line; it usually meant listening to their interests and sensitivities. Only very certain girls wanted a doll that would be a "friend;" most wanted dolls that would allow them to interface with the dolls other girls had (like Bratz dolls). Children, like all humans are very nuanced beings that can't be crammed into a box to fit our notions of what society should be. They need us to listen a little, guide a little, and mostly make them feel secure enough to play at peace and dream their way into who they want to become.
Equality recongizing differnce, not a completion.
People have taken to refer as desiring equity to the people who want parity in outcomes rather than opportunity
How do you achieve equality of opportunity when bigotry isn’t confined to one area of life? It isn’t as though subjugated groups only experience barriers created out of prejudice just in employment or education. For historically subjugated groups, subjugation actually impacts every aspect of life.
Heather, your succinct fact based presentations are very valuable. Please keep it up.
Heather needs to be the internets mum. So wise
Where is the cultural phenomena of forcing boys to play with dolls and girls to play with trucks? This is not a thing, anywhere, as far as I'm aware.
The forcing comes later in life when we mandate that women should have 50% of all desirable job roles.
@@Bradley_Lute No ones doing that either.
@Mishka Leigh Link.
@Mishka Leigh Sites where you dont need to sign up please. Youre making the claim so you need to bring the evidence.
I did a quick search on the BBC and the only thing that came up was something about boards in Scotland and the BBC aiming to use equal amounts of male and female expert contributors. The contributors thing seems of little relevance, but the boards in Scotland look like a clearer case. As far as i can tell theyre using femaleness as a qualification only in cases where male and female applicants are equally qualified and female representation is less than 50%. So less qualified women arent being prioritised. Their argument is that a disproportionately high number of women use public services. It seems unnecessary when 45% are already women, but i'm assuming its about politics arther than necessity, which is annoying.
So thats 1 case so far. Youve got a long way to go to convince me this is a problem.
Poland, where I come from, is another country to implement this stupidity in their school system (luckily not everywhere but it’s there).
...or have you thought we are all making this stuff up?? Educate yourself.
Wow. Finally an honest and logical viewpoint in this topic.
Intelligence is not only keen to academics. Intelligences touches on different abilities. Good Vid though
The more you go into the real nature of intelligence, the more you find there isn't a thing in the universe that doesn't exhibit it.
Don't confuse instincts with intelligence. Both are passed through our genes.
She says this in the video.
Jonathan Mott 👍🏿
Stephen V truee
Finally!!! Thank you!
Amazing this isn't the more mainstream view on equality.
Fine, as long as everyone is given the same chances and not denied opportunities based on their sex.
What did she just said. Thanks for underlying what was just underlined by someone more eloquent.
Why do you say that as though accepting reality is some kind of compromise?
@@violet-trash Because she's implying that companies are highering people based solely on their gender, not that they are qualified. I don't think that's true, but if it is then it can be addressed, as long as it doesn't give companies the right to discriminate against possible employees based on their gender.
@@jackmuaddib3745 Where exactly does she make that implication?
Finally, Big Think, a rational explanation, not filled with empty platitudes and virtues. Please, more.
Well spoken. Thank you.
Jordan Peterson has been saying this for the last 10 years.
@Josef K if he would say it and you still would'nt believe him then the problem would be you.
@Josef K "Citation needed"
@Josef K there is no reason to believe Jordan Peterson isn't aligned with Heying on this. They have likely talked about this over dinner, both being part of the intellectual dark web.
Fun thing, linguistics and logic are basically the "same task" for our brains, the difference is that one implies another person on the other side and the other one implies internal consistency.
And apparently it's not only inside our brains, is not that our brains clumsily use our language processing skills to do math, as some suspect. (well, actually yes, it uses our language processing center and our spatial reasoning center.) but that really it's also the same task outside of brains.
The differences comes pretty much all from orientation.
It's object and social orientation.
Then why am I bad at linguistic stuff but great at math
This is an actual question
And why is everyone so bad at math but fine with English
And why are they all worse at context clues
@@loremipsum2237 Because it distributes in a bell curve. Same thing with height.
And as I said, stem is very unintuitive for most humans, is another case of what's most prevalent in females being the baseline of the species.
The only mistaken observation here is that everyone is "fine" with english, or language all together.
There's a baseline of language skills and math skills.
On the body of the curve it will definitely seem like people have an easier time with language than math, but on the high ends both will be rare and seen as weird because both are uncommon.
I can explain more if it's required.
@@lloydgush no I think I understand
Thanks for the explanation
She’s on to something, but the interpretation of what she’s saying will wildly vary, with a lot of confirmation bias from people with unself-examined beliefs. I see the social construct people railing against the XX and XY folks. It’s much more complicated than one POV and in some cases a facile understanding of science used to buttress their indoctrination. I’d like to ask her some follow up questions...and I will.
I agree. Since brain wiring, gender, and sexual orientation is on a spectrum. Needs more nuance in the conversation.
@@skellymom Ideally, let people be and find their own way. Musterbation and tribal expectation cause a lot of problems in this area and others and often lead to bad outcomes for a lot of folks.
I'm a male working in an elementary SPED classroom and 1st grade. I take the good with the bad, I guess.
Simple and true, thank you.
Simplistic discussion, in my view.
Was this filmed in a library
why is she telling the obvious things in such passionate tone?
She would like you to believe she came up with it.
A great video, a great speaker to showcase.
Sooo great she didn't say that we women are made to get children. Because not everyone wants that! :)
I think the over-simplified sexist differences between women and men is that men are work-tools while women are communication-devices. If we going to achieve equality we also need to look at our values-systems. In these discussions it alway reduces all commodities down to questions about money. Money should only matter as security of having enough to live conformably. After that there are other values that might be more important than sacrificing your time for more money. Is it being able to have the freedom to be creative in you careers. Is it to be valuable in someones life. Is it to see the fruits of your labor. Or is it to have the time to have a family, friends and hobbies.
This is not true. Those men in the coal mines of West Virginia have been keeping women out of the mines for decades! ‘The old boys club’ has been pulling this crap in heavy construction, sewer work, industrial fishing, and many other professions. I say we make these monuments to misogyny 50-50! Bring on the equality!!!
to be fair though, under the pressures of time and money, life is often complicated and serious enough (more than choosing dolls to play with) that the only way you can be sure to be fair is to be equal
Saw her on Rogans podcast. Good to know there are still sane people out there.
Yes, finally, thank you.
I want this written 🙌🏻
Differences in reproduction are not insignificant. This very much limits life path and opportunity.
She is right. I was taught this in my women’s studies. About the bell curve.
Well that is a surprise to me! About the different tails in the bell curve?
She is just amazing
this person is a genuis
Speaking the truth? In public? In 2020? Mind blown.
So untriggrred by this
All the comments give me hope; maybe the general public agrees with what she is saying, but we have a very vocal minority in the spotlight making it appear that the world has gone crazy.
There are obviously exceptions to the rule (and there is nothing wrong with these exceptions), but men and women are generally built to complement each other's strengths and weaknesses; we are supposed to be a kick-ass team in the game of life.
I love Heather and Bret!
I adore such speeches but really dislike the social prejudice that makes these speakers so uncomfortable while engaging such a largely misunderstood subject. I hope one day we can enjoy talks around this matter without carefully choosing our words and curating our texts.
Me before video: I don't know man maybe she's a feminist either
Video: Heather Heying: evolutionary biologist
Me: ah OK.
@killbotone she doesn't seem to share femimist's opinions.
@killbotone I think so too, the question that matters is when do you believe that has happened.
God bless this woman!
There's no god. Luckily.
@@uschurch Luckily, no one asked for you opinion on this - and may God _still_ bless this woman (even though it saddens me that it takes a biologist to speak what should've been common sense)
@@thstroyur Luckily I don't need to be asked in order for me to voice my opinion. Something that had to be fought for, against most churches and religions bloodily over centuries. Down with oppressive and reactionary superstition. Long live the enlightenment, human rights and scientific curiosity!
@@thstroyur It's not an opinion, though. There's no evidence for a god. In any case, I share the sentiment - very grateful for voices of reason like Heying's in the current cultural/anti-science climate.
@@PiggySquisherCaleb "It's not an opinion, though. There's no evidence for a god" Which is _also_ an opinion - or, if you prefer, mere empty assertion; rather poor job in helping your buddy, there. But I do agree that it's good to have voices of reason like Heying's in the current cultural/anti-science climate.
I think we should move away from the word "Equality" and start using "Equity".
Objective Equality is not possible, so equity, equal opportunity, should be our goal.
You've got the definitions the wrong way around
I believe Carl is right, I know the formal definition is not clear but every time I've heard it used by academics, equity means equality of outcome. If anything, people on the left need to _stop_ using the word 'equality' when they actually mean 'equity.'
@@toobnoobify your use of "people on the left" invalidates your response by implying subjective bias. Please keep your identity politics out of objective conversations.
Two questions (1) are you willing to make this same argument about the differences in races and Affirmative Action policies? and (2) do you really believe reason and good will can stop ideologues, especially after they've obtained institutional powers? To get ahead of the curve, check out John Mark's videos.
Gerald Maserjian only if she likes jumping in a cesspool while beating her head with a hornets nest.
The problem is that race and are very different concepts. It is very hard to compare the historical oppression of the two. For one, perhaps women were oppressed but did they might incur a lot of benefits from this? When a man and woman reproduce, do they not both give a copy of their genes to their child, regardless of their sex?
That said, affirmative action is a flawed system as well because it also strives for equal outcomes. Racially, we should be expected to have differences in genetics and upbringing that will lead to different outcomes. We can't just erase that by giving jobs to black people. Are we willing to discuss the possible benefits of slavery and colonialism on the oppressed classes? That is sticky and no one really has the tools to take that topic, not even biologists maybe.
brad Lute slave owners used to expound on the benefits of slavery for the slaves. I suspect you are coming from the same POV. Unless you’ve lived it, meaning in a marginalized group such as women or people of color, you’re partaking in rectal parlance.
Heather Heying and her husband, Brett Weinstein, are both such great, intelligent speakers on all these things. They are the two former Evergreen professors you might remember from that insanity over at that school a couple of years ago. I'd encourage anyone to look up more from both of them just if you're interested in their field, Evolutionary Biology, at all. They're the kind of teachers we need.
Again, it all speaks to my personal mantra of individualism: The only thing we all truly have in common is that we are all different.
To expect the same outcome for every human is the height of fantasy because none of us are completely identical. Enter Cultural Marxism, and how do you think they'd ever actually achieve that goal of theirs? I can't see any other way but force if you want to fit billions of oddly shaped pegs into mismatched holes.
STOP OPPRESSING WOMEN WITH FACTS!!!!
Hey big think, I object to your use of “enforced “ in reference to Evergreen College’s Day of Absence in the description below the video. It was never required by the college administration that white people leave campus, merely encouraged by the group that held all of the previous days of absence.
I happen to think that the entire concept of a day of absence is stupid regardless of the melanin level of the absentees. But we shouldn’t misrepresent what actually happened. Bret Weinstein (Heying’s spouse) expressed an unpopular opinion and encouraged other melanin poor individuals to join him in not cooperating. Many people did not respect his opinion and expressed their disagreement. While I don’t think it was acceptable for anyone to express displeasure through violent threats or harassment, I understand why so many in the Evergreen College community felt like Heying and Weinstein were jerks.
I too find individuals who seem to believe that their right to free expression also includes a right to force that expression on others disagreeable. I also think it is just fine to think that an individual is a bellend who has amply demonstrated this quality over the course of your relationship and to conclude you no longer wish to listen to anything the bellend has to say.
Heying and Weinstein resigned their positions at Evergreen and reportedly settled their lawsuit for 500k. I don’t have an opinion on whether this was the right course of action or adequate compensation for Heying’s and Weinstein’s experience. Big Think should not leave the impression that Heying was forced to do anything she chose to do in response to Evergreen’s Day of Absence. I hope that Heying finds another professorship; she also has a great Twitter feed in that she regularly links to entertaining and informative articles.
You speak very eloquently, but used the word 'bellend' randomly. Felt so out of place. I'm assuming you are North American, why are you using an English slang word 😃
You're largely correct apart from one major distinction, as I see it anyway :)
: it was technically only "encouraged", yes, but they made it so one's absence was a sign of one's allyship against racism. Therefore if you didn't absent yourself, you will presumed a racist. That's not voluntary, (as Admiral Akbah would say) it's a trap. Much like what we can see in some cities, where if you don't put BLM displays on your shop windows you could/will be vandalised. The original day of absence was truly voluntary. Not all PoC were absent on those days and there was (rightly) no consequence, however there was an implied heavy consequence for the proposed day of absence if you didn't absent yourself.
If not cooperating leads to people shouting ''racist'' in your face and them trying to force you off the premise... I'dd say that's forcing.
Sad this isn't common sense anymore.
Stuff like this shouldn't have to be said as a reminder lol
I think we are equal but not the same , we have all contributed to the society from the birth of mankind to now thru differnt roles which we were inherently good at . Thats why we have managed to come from 0-8billon ppl and so much advancement i think its stupid to make man and women comparison on same metrics . Since we will ofc not be same in general dude gender biological evolution.
The pareto principle: outcomes are not evenly distributed. End of story.
Joe Jones Pareto is always out there, lurking.
The fact someone is ready and able to say this gives me hope that we are over the worst emotion-driven SJW craze and heading towards more rational times.
Does this qualify as hatespeech?
"Equality without sameness" is called 'equity', in case you wondered
"Men vs. women" Why in the title men mentioned before women?
Alphabetically
Just curious but does that kind of deviation imply that there are more women that are linguistic idiots as well? (Personified by your stereotypical "ditsy blonde") and to stick to the same subject is there a difference in race? (Personified by your stereotypical MC or rapper)
I think if it like height. Not all men are taller than all women, but the average man is taller than the average woman.
Now, how many of you can see the link between what she is saying and how our economy is organized? The issues we’re having with career paths, the issues with peoples wellbeing, and so on. The inequality caused by our current capitalist system is literally going to pigeon-hole our children if we don’t make changes right now. Sorry, but if we don’t losen up peoples financial constraints by debt relief, healthcare, and wage increases, we are going to continue to have these “woke” vs “traditional role “ arguments that lead nowhere.
This woman’s logic makes so much sense to me in regards to bringing sanity back to the conversation. Acknowledge the differences, build a society that allows those differences to flourish.
That includes a 21st century understanding of what socialism means, NOT a 20th century understanding.
If you want to know more, look up Richard Wolff on you tube.
In today's world where people are misinformed seemingly more they they are informed and where it's difficult to remove the bias built by indoctrination from that misinformation, i think it's best to not change the meaning of socialism, but use a different word. It takes longer than a century to change the definition of a word, primarily because there are still people alive from the 20th century referring to the old definition. For healthcare, education, debt relief, wages and the like, it's easier to explain the need on a case by case basis, rather than advocating for a new socialism. Leave socialism where it is and go for a logical explanation to prove the need for those things. A capitalist form of government is truly good for most industries. Its worked great to increase the quality of lots of things from cars to smart phones, and the progress of each industry has greatly benefited other industries too. There are now computers in cars now that are partly as good as they are because of the progress with smart phone technology. The competition argument that capitalism brings really is a good one. The definition of capitalism is private ownership of industry for profit. This is a good thing, by and large. The profit incentive is a great thing for innovation. And the thing about the profit incentive is that it exists even with high taxes on the very wealthy. The higher your tax rate in that case, the more money you are making, so pretending that raising taxes is taking the profit incentive away is complete bogus. No one is going to buy a Honda Civic-esque car or a gallon of milk for half a million dollars, because there are cheaper options that do the same thing. But when you put a price on someone's life in the form of medical costs, people will sign the dotted line into any amount of debt because they will do anything to survive. In other words, price gouging will exist anywhere it can in a capitalistic system, especially when patents protect the price gouging and government loans inflate prices. Furthermore, I would argue that healthcare is not a place that competition is needed to obtain the maximum level of innovation. On a base level, people were refining methods in which to start a fire and make weapons long before there was any profit incentive apart from survival. People as a whole greatly desire living, and as a result, we find it beneficial to invest time and money into innovation that keeps us alive. The evidence proves so to, given that government run healthcare throughout other wealthy countries keeps on pace or surpasses that of the United States. There is an argument that says the United States pharma invests more into healthcare innovation than everyone else (which is debatable at it is), but I think there are better ways to fund that research
anyway. The logic behind investing into the people of your country by keeping them healthy and educated is sound, and the very fact that moneyed interests are able to misinform people that an educated and healthy population is bad is the only evidence you need to know that we are failing on the education front. No matter what argument you make against free college, none of them can possibly hold up to the logic that educating people directly benefits progress, and that includes the progress of every single capitalistically driven industry in existence. I would actually say education is more important than healthcare. With each passing minute, more children are born into a world filled with misinformation, and they grow up with a lack of critical thinking skills. We need to nip that problem in the ass as fast as possible, because every moment we don't is making the battle exponentially more difficult. If not for the internet, I'd say we would have already been beyond the point of no return. At the same time though, the internet can do more harm than good if we wait too long.
I don't mean to write so much, especially when I'm preaching to the choir. But I guess I'm hoping someone that isn't quite so certain about these issues will read this and understand the logic behind it.
For me, Gender Equality has always been about equal treatment, not equal capabilities. Not including the few standouts, on average, men are going to do a lot of things better than women, and women will do a lot of things better than men. Yes some jobs are better suited for men, and some are better suited for women.
But it's the assumption that one can't do the other's job, or is ignorant of the job that is my biggest problem.
Don't assume female mechanics are worse at their jobs than men, because they're female. Or that male nurses are worse at their job because they're male; simply because these jobs are dominated by one gender or another.
All that said, pay differences should be handled by efficiency. If you're inefficient at your job, you should get paid less, regardless of your gender. If a woman can only do half as many tasks as a man in the same line of work because of physical limitations, then yeah, you should get paid less, and vise-versa.. Even if it means switching careers. Because the company now has to hire more employees to do the same amount of work. This is an extreme example i know, but a valid one.
More people's pay needs to be affected by their efficiency. We'd see a lot more raises for the hard workers of the world, and a lot more cutbacks on the lazies(like myself.. whoops).
If people kinda take mental shortcuts and people conform to what they glean about their type of person (and they code what they mean in gendered terms in clothing etc), then any difference in taste or performance at scale will produce stereotypes. If the power in a particular society is consolidated in one field, then this view requires accepting the possibility of a gender being aligned with what a society values. If business performance rewards risk taking and this isn't distributed equally, then the power to dictate tastes will be compounded. And based on vision of society, someone could argue that one gender or another should naturally tend to be underrepresented (and possibly in economic terms disempowered). So if you consider the implications of difference tendencies, then a lot of people will reject it as naturalizing effects that would produce patriarchy. Others might embrace gendered difference, but argue that a gender was more aligned to a primitive existence and should ideally pull carts and move heavy objects. There are reasons why people are so challenged by the notion of different tendencies and might be motivated to reject these.
The revere is that if labor tends to be divided as a matter of natural processes, devaluing one genders labor or tendencies at scale would often be an exercise is self loathing.
Male and female are not so much sexes but principles.
A human being may be a man, but he still carried both the male and female principles within him, and so with women. Each side of this equation gets into tangles when they are tempted to think that a man is all male and a woman is all female.
But similarly, if this is taken too far, we may also make the mistake of thinking that men and women can live without each other. That the limited amount of masculine or feminine energy we have corresponding to the opposite sex is sufficient for us to stand on our own as men separate from women or women separate from men.
It is not so much that there is a distinction that we are all getting wrong and more that there is no distinction between male and female in the natural world to begin with. I am not less female than a woman. It's just that the majority of my femininity resides in them, just as the majority of their masculinity resides in me and the other men.
What doesn't get talked about in the conversation of the bees and the flowers is that bees cannot live without flowers, nor flowers without bees. Where there are bees, there are flower. There there are flowers there are bees. The whole point of a flower is that it attracts bees.
Thus the bees and the flowers, while appearing to be two separate beings from a limited perspective, are actually one organism.
The flower is the nectar-producing organ of the bee complex. The bees are the reproductive transmission organ for the flowering plants.
Jonathan Mott preachhhh Professor
Great one!
What do you mean there is no distinction between male and female in the natural world?
How are you defining principles? I think the word you're looking for is 'gender', or 'masculinity/femininity'...
@@PiggySquisherCaleb Nope. Gender used in this way is just a synonym for a person's sex, so using that word wouldn't explain anything.
A principle of nature is analogous to a natural law, but instead of being a form of perceived and superimposed order, it is an internal and organic form of order.
It is what the Chinese call 理.
This is so self evidently the way forward, or back to reality if you will, it is hard to believe how far it is divorced from the superficial mainstream opinion.
I dnt expect equality. I see both men and women are different are fundamentally different in nature. Not only physically but psycologically. Their is no one above other
Heather Heying: “there are huge spectrum spanning differences across” all men and women”. Also Heather Heying: “there are only two types of people”. Simplistic binary thinking that completely misses her own point
I'm pretty sure you missed her point.
@@ObsoleteTutorials how so?
@@robdale88 Men and Women are different on average, but the difference between multiple women or multiple men is much bigger than the difference between the averages of men and women.
So yes, men and women are a spectrum, but there is distinction.
Likewise: Bengal tigers are on average bigger than African lions... but SOME African lions are bigger than SOME Bengal tigers. So while tigers on average are bigger than lions, the spectrum of size of both animals has overlap, just like men and women.
This does not make Lions and Tigers the same animal.
We're all just HUMAN. The differences between two individuals is per definition far larger than the differences between gender. Perceived differences between male & female are mostly dictated by society and vary significantly over time. Usefulness of stereotyping will outlive itself. Just because we all, as a society, make the same choices doesn't make those choices true, valid or good.
Please delete the part where you call men “idiots.” It is not appropriate to call women “idiots” and it is not appropriate to call men “idiots.” Thank you.
What other term to describe extremely low intelligence would you prefer? Dolt? Moron? Imbecile?
Not being able to really follow such sophisticated ideas and instead judging by her body language... I'd be willing to embrace Heather's Presentation more readily if her head didn't seem perpetually cocked to the right.
So when are we going to call her a far right bigot?
Please care to elaborate, I'd love to have your POV .
@@alfa_kenny_body
I'm mostly being silly, but there are those on the left that seem to deny human biology and the cognitive differences between men and women. It's all an attempt to divide us in any way "they" can. Men and women are different and we compliment each other. We're nothing without each other.
I think the biggest equality issue comes from what we choose to value -- and men have been in charge of that for a long time. It's easy to come out ahead when you rig the game in your favor.
So... *_Quotas_* equals *_Bad_* ???
Of course! And incredibly sexist to everyone 🙄
That's one corollary
Yes
Doesn’t everyone know this stuff at age 14? Just me? Ok.
I have no qualms about admitting that I'm a male math idiot.
you'd really think that after 200,000 years of human evolution this might have evened out. i mean aren't male and female turtles equal
It has to do with how environments operate on genes. We are a species that thrives on sexual division of labour. Differences in sexes are likely growing over time because why learn to do two jobs okay when you can learn to do one really well.
Thank God this was said. Please share this with your liberal friends! Did this woman take this conclusion from Dr. Jordan Peterson? Hes been saying this shit for years but has been called a bigot.
Thank God? Please provide evidence of your imaginary sky wizard. Peterson? The pseudo intellectual hack? He is so intelligent that he just eats meat despite not being an obligate carnivore and not possessing claws or a short digestive tract. You right wing nut jobs are all hilariously insane.
@@sexytiff7539 Please provide a better argument against the "imaginary sky wizard" than shifting the burden of proof to others. As for Peterson's dietary habits, this particular pseudointellectual is so intelligent that he can be an omnivore and act like it. Pull up your pants - your sickeningly biased political paranoia is showing
She is in the same group of thinkers called the intellectual dark web. She is an evolutionary biologist so just as qualified to talk about it as Peterson.
@@sexytiff7539 Jordan Peterson had said some stupid shit and some intelligent shit. I've also seen him admit to being wrong, and almost no public figured do that, so I give him credit there. Just because he aligns poorly with you on some issues doesn't mean you can't have the decency to admit when he's right
@@sexytiff7539 and attacking him based on his diet is foolish, you're not helping your argument there. In fact, nothing in your comment helps your argument
Nice to see Heather back in the day before her and Brett succumbed to batshit conspiracy and audience capture
Thank god Shapiro and Jordan Peterson aren't alone on this!
Γρηγόρης Πανούσης Shapiro is different. He’s more of a doctrinaire conservative. According to what I’ve read, heather and her husband consider themselves left libertarian. Petersen is somewhere in between.