I came to 'Inferior' after reading Saini's article on The Guardian comparing the Google Memo to eugenics. The book came recommend by Scientific American and seemed a great start to get a better handle on the science contradicting Damore's position. It is a firm policy of mine to question my own believes and correct for my biases as much as possible so I started reading. One of Damore's points was the idea espoused by Simon Baron-Cohen that empathizing–systemizing theory is a better predictor than gender for who chooses STEM subjects and that there are reliable sex differences in the general population where more females showing the profile E>S and more males showing the profile S>E.
Saini covers this theory in some depth. She introduces her counter expert, professor Melissa Hines, as "the most balanced and fair researcher in her discipline" and quotes her saying that "sex differences in empathising and systemising is about half a standard deviation". She says that "It's small" and "for a lot of things, we do not show any sex difference". Later Hines is quoted as following "I do believe that testosterone prenatally sets things in motion in a certain direction, but that doesn't mean it's inevitable. It's like a river. You can change its course if you want to." Saini also quotes a study that says that "there are more men of extremely low intelligence and more men of extremely high intelligence" as well as a former collaborator of Baron-Cohen who states that "it's only at the extremes where researchers seem to find any discrepancies". Saini concludes the chapter by stating "Changing the river's course is easier than it seems. It depends on society wanting to change in the first place".
In summary these are the facts of the matter according to Saini:
a) 0.5 standard deviation in empathizing–systemizing between the sexes
b) discrepancies at the extremes in intelligence and possibly E/S
c) possible to social engineer biological predispositions away
Re a: 0.5 standard deviations is no slam dunk - but it is not 0. To make up your own mind how small or large 0.5 standard deviations are I suggest going to wolframalpha.com and entering "0.5 standard deviations" in the search field and looking at the resulting graphic. Now overlay two standard distribution curves on top of each other that are 0.5 standard deviations apart and you essentially get the bell curve graph in the Google Memo.
Re b: According to Saini's own research and expert opinion there are differences at the extreme ends of the spectrum. In the case of the Google Memo we are not comparing the middle of the bell curves, we are comparing the extreme ends. After all Google is notorious for only employing the best of the very best i.e. the extremes.
Re c: Water flowing down hill is a great example of the path of least resistance. Yes - we can change the flow of rivers. Saini does not make a case for why we should do that however. I would have liked to see an analysis in favour of socially engineering, but it was not provided. This leaves the question: if the river flows naturally in a certain direction why not run with that?
In summary, I could find nothing in 'Inferior' that allows Saini to liken the Google Memo to eugenics. Not by a long shot. Quite the opposite - her findings overlap the data in the Google Memo very well. The only difference is her interpretation. In addition it should be clear from my own extensive writing over the past 10 years that I am holding the position that empathizing is the higher virtue when compared to systemizing. The real question should not focus on explaining away the biological predispositions between the sexes but what can be done to place a higher value on the vital skill of empathizing in society.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
Audio CD, MP3 Audio, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $20.99 | $32.56 |
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Frequently bought together
- +
- +
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Limited-Time Offer
Join Audible Premium Plus for 60% off. Get this deal
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Customer reviews
Full of marks. Not like new at all. It is annoying.
Images in this review
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on August 11, 2017
Saini covers this theory in some depth. She introduces her counter expert, professor Melissa Hines, as "the most balanced and fair researcher in her discipline" and quotes her saying that "sex differences in empathising and systemising is about half a standard deviation". She says that "It's small" and "for a lot of things, we do not show any sex difference". Later Hines is quoted as following "I do believe that testosterone prenatally sets things in motion in a certain direction, but that doesn't mean it's inevitable. It's like a river. You can change its course if you want to." Saini also quotes a study that says that "there are more men of extremely low intelligence and more men of extremely high intelligence" as well as a former collaborator of Baron-Cohen who states that "it's only at the extremes where researchers seem to find any discrepancies". Saini concludes the chapter by stating "Changing the river's course is easier than it seems. It depends on society wanting to change in the first place".
In summary these are the facts of the matter according to Saini:
a) 0.5 standard deviation in empathizing–systemizing between the sexes
b) discrepancies at the extremes in intelligence and possibly E/S
c) possible to social engineer biological predispositions away
Re a: 0.5 standard deviations is no slam dunk - but it is not 0. To make up your own mind how small or large 0.5 standard deviations are I suggest going to wolframalpha.com and entering "0.5 standard deviations" in the search field and looking at the resulting graphic. Now overlay two standard distribution curves on top of each other that are 0.5 standard deviations apart and you essentially get the bell curve graph in the Google Memo.
Re b: According to Saini's own research and expert opinion there are differences at the extreme ends of the spectrum. In the case of the Google Memo we are not comparing the middle of the bell curves, we are comparing the extreme ends. After all Google is notorious for only employing the best of the very best i.e. the extremes.
Re c: Water flowing down hill is a great example of the path of least resistance. Yes - we can change the flow of rivers. Saini does not make a case for why we should do that however. I would have liked to see an analysis in favour of socially engineering, but it was not provided. This leaves the question: if the river flows naturally in a certain direction why not run with that?
In summary, I could find nothing in 'Inferior' that allows Saini to liken the Google Memo to eugenics. Not by a long shot. Quite the opposite - her findings overlap the data in the Google Memo very well. The only difference is her interpretation. In addition it should be clear from my own extensive writing over the past 10 years that I am holding the position that empathizing is the higher virtue when compared to systemizing. The real question should not focus on explaining away the biological predispositions between the sexes but what can be done to place a higher value on the vital skill of empathizing in society.
'Inferior' findings in line with Google Memo
By Kindle Customer on August 10, 2017
I came to 'Inferior' after reading Saini's article on The Guardian comparing the Google Memo to eugenics. The book came recommend by Scientific American and seemed a great start to get a better handle on the science contradicting Damore's position. It is a firm policy of mine to question my own believes and correct for my biases as much as possible so I started reading. One of Damore's points was the idea espoused by Simon Baron-Cohen that empathizing–systemizing theory is a better predictor than gender for who chooses STEM subjects and that there are reliable sex differences in the general population where more females showing the profile E>S and more males showing the profile S>E.By Kindle Customer on August 10, 2017
Saini covers this theory in some depth. She introduces her counter expert, professor Melissa Hines, as "the most balanced and fair researcher in her discipline" and quotes her saying that "sex differences in empathising and systemising is about half a standard deviation". She says that "It's small" and "for a lot of things, we do not show any sex difference". Later Hines is quoted as following "I do believe that testosterone prenatally sets things in motion in a certain direction, but that doesn't mean it's inevitable. It's like a river. You can change its course if you want to." Saini also quotes a study that says that "there are more men of extremely low intelligence and more men of extremely high intelligence" as well as a former collaborator of Baron-Cohen who states that "it's only at the extremes where researchers seem to find any discrepancies". Saini concludes the chapter by stating "Changing the river's course is easier than it seems. It depends on society wanting to change in the first place".
In summary these are the facts of the matter according to Saini:
a) 0.5 standard deviation in empathizing–systemizing between the sexes
b) discrepancies at the extremes in intelligence and possibly E/S
c) possible to social engineer biological predispositions away
Re a: 0.5 standard deviations is no slam dunk - but it is not 0. To make up your own mind how small or large 0.5 standard deviations are I suggest going to wolframalpha.com and entering "0.5 standard deviations" in the search field and looking at the resulting graphic. Now overlay two standard distribution curves on top of each other that are 0.5 standard deviations apart and you essentially get the bell curve graph in the Google Memo.
Re b: According to Saini's own research and expert opinion there are differences at the extreme ends of the spectrum. In the case of the Google Memo we are not comparing the middle of the bell curves, we are comparing the extreme ends. After all Google is notorious for only employing the best of the very best i.e. the extremes.
Re c: Water flowing down hill is a great example of the path of least resistance. Yes - we can change the flow of rivers. Saini does not make a case for why we should do that however. I would have liked to see an analysis in favour of socially engineering, but it was not provided. This leaves the question: if the river flows naturally in a certain direction why not run with that?
In summary, I could find nothing in 'Inferior' that allows Saini to liken the Google Memo to eugenics. Not by a long shot. Quite the opposite - her findings overlap the data in the Google Memo very well. The only difference is her interpretation. In addition it should be clear from my own extensive writing over the past 10 years that I am holding the position that empathizing is the higher virtue when compared to systemizing. The real question should not focus on explaining away the biological predispositions between the sexes but what can be done to place a higher value on the vital skill of empathizing in society.
Images in this review
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 25, 2019
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on September 30, 2019
Top reviews from other countries
Mr. Howard Long
Well researched, but doesn't do what its title says, and reading it is like swimming in treacle.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on November 17, 2018Amazon Customer
Inspiring and thought-provoking, but a lot to take in
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on March 8, 2019M Stojanova
Feminism in aid of science
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on March 15, 2019JWH
Nuanced & Engaging Treatment of Sex Differences
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on November 13, 2020Helen Rowe
Best book I’ve read all year!
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on January 12, 2019
