I mean this to be evidence against a genetic explanation of under representation.
It is evidence against such an explanation, but it's very weak evidence. It shows other factors are involved, which no one disputes, but it does not rule out genetics as a factor.
Incidentally, your Q&A argument is incomplete. We have data which shows accent is not genetic - correlation between the accent of genetic parent and child is gone if you look at adopted children. If there is a twin study on the topic, I'd give 1/p value of the study odds that identical twins raised apart have minimal correlation of accent.
In contrast, identical twins raised apart have a 75% correlation in intelligence and adoptees have a 25% correlation with genetic parents. (I'm working from memory here since I don't have the book with me. The numbers are far from zero, but might be 70% and 20% or 80% and 30%. http://www.amazon.com/Genome-Autobiography-Species-23-Chapte... )
The source you cite is simply being dishonest by leaving this part of the dialogue out of his conversation with a straw man.
Also, your source has a very different philosophical basis for knowledge than most people. He believes that aggregate quantities (e.g., pressure, temperature, possibly g) are statistical myths. See here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210600 , which is a response to http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html (which he cites in the article you link to).
It is evidence against such an explanation, but it's very weak evidence. It shows other factors are involved, which no one disputes, but it does not rule out genetics as a factor.
The core of my argument is that other factors have been shown to dominate underrepresentation for some time. While other factors persist and dominate, it is scientifically incorrect, and ethically irresponsible, to continually make reference to innate differences and outmoded, procrustean interpretations of how talent fits a curve.
It is genuinely too early, if not simply too brutal, to claim a group's intellectual inferiority. The evidence is flimsy, the mathematical framework naive, the conceptual underpinnings insufficiently examined, the data is simply not in.
Worse, people use tiny differences in group performance as justification for wildly unfair stereotypes, as applied to individuals. Even if those supposed group differences withstood criticism at the level of rigor exceeding that accorded to physics or mathematics, it still would be ethically irresponsible to make it publicly and commonly known, or the focus of so much discussion.
This statement: The core of my argument is that other factors have been shown to dominate underrepresentation for some time...
Directly contradicts this one: The evidence is flimsy, the mathematical framework naive, the conceptual underpinnings insufficiently examined, the data is simply not in.
You can't have it both ways. Either intellectual inferiority of some groups is a possibility (i.e., "the data is simply not in"), or else it has been accurately measured and shown not to be the case. Pick one.
Even if those supposed group differences withstood criticism at the level of rigor exceeding that accorded to physics or mathematics, it still would be ethically irresponsible to make it publicly and commonly known, or the focus of so much discussion.
It would be ethically irresponsible to make true facts public? Um, ok.
Have you considered the possibility that you don't actually object to the data/methodology, but rather you are seeking justification to reject conclusions that contradict your moral values?
I am totally confused by your misunderstanding. It is possible there are intrinsic differences, and anyone insisting that this has been shown through appeals to science is being insufficiently rigorous, and scientifically irresponsible.
Where did you get the idea that I was saying it was impossible?
"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth. - Richard Feynman."
Appeals to a supposed scientific justification of the inferiority of women in mathematics are extremely weak, and certainly damaging if untrue. The supposed scientific proof is thus pseudo-science - thinly veiled politics. I'm not going to spell it out again.
It is evidence against such an explanation, but it's very weak evidence. It shows other factors are involved, which no one disputes, but it does not rule out genetics as a factor.
Incidentally, your Q&A argument is incomplete. We have data which shows accent is not genetic - correlation between the accent of genetic parent and child is gone if you look at adopted children. If there is a twin study on the topic, I'd give 1/p value of the study odds that identical twins raised apart have minimal correlation of accent.
In contrast, identical twins raised apart have a 75% correlation in intelligence and adoptees have a 25% correlation with genetic parents. (I'm working from memory here since I don't have the book with me. The numbers are far from zero, but might be 70% and 20% or 80% and 30%. http://www.amazon.com/Genome-Autobiography-Species-23-Chapte... )
The source you cite is simply being dishonest by leaving this part of the dialogue out of his conversation with a straw man.
Also, your source has a very different philosophical basis for knowledge than most people. He believes that aggregate quantities (e.g., pressure, temperature, possibly g) are statistical myths. See here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210600 , which is a response to http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html (which he cites in the article you link to).