https://sysbio.med.harvard.edu/
"Systems biology is the study of systems of biological components, which may be molecules, cells, organisms or entire species. Living systems are dynamic and complex, and their behavior may be hard to predict from the properties of individual parts. To study them, we use quantitative measurements of the behavior of groups of interacting components, systematic measurement technologies such as genomics, bioinformatics and proteomics, and mathematical and computational models to describe and predict dynamical behavior. Systems problems are emerging as central to all areas of biology and medicine."
That doesn't necessarily qualify him to comment on human behaviour. This is clearly demonstrated by his use of the term "evolutionary psychology", a branch of research which is basically regarded as nonsense by actual evolutionary biologists. For the most part, it's people trying to demonstrate that the mores of the era from the Paleolithic to the Idealized 1950s are genetically locked into our brains. When you read that "science says beards are sexy" in some magazine? That's evo psych. It's not well respected, despite the media hype it gets. Yet many of his opinions clearly have their roots in the latest "evo psych" output.
As an example, the fact that the gentleman who wrote the memo refers to evo psych, and then uses ideas like "giving women part time work because they care about work-life balance" shows that he's missing the point. The social push for women to have "work-life balance", more so than men, is the *cause* of the problem. We rarely ask a man how he balances work and a family, but we ask women all the time. That's something our society does to women, and almost all societies have done to women.
Yet, mysteriously, sometime in the 1950s, the universal, biological fact that women couldn't do math, or couldn't handle the stress of being heart surgeons, went away. But, before that, it was a universal fact across human cultures that -=mumble mumble hunting spatial awareness=- women couldn't handle numbers and three dimensional thinking.
I don't find his arguments compelling. No more compelling than the exact same arguments made by radio talk show hosts in the 1980s. No more compelling than the 18th and 19th century arguments that women were crazy and unreliable because their uteri wandered around their bodies and messed them up.
Toque.
How is he not qualified? From the description he is more qualified to speak on this than just about anyone here.
This is an error in attribution, so I will clarify, even if only to repeat what I wrote:
1. The definition of systems biology tells us that he is not
necessarily qualified to comment on human behaviour.
Not necessarily. Those were my words.
His work may have been at any "system" level and may not be applicable to understanding humans beings.
2. His acceptance of "evolutionary psychology" in the phrase:
"They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective"
indicates that he is
not qualified to comment on human behaviour. Evo psych is fairly random field involving a lot of pop psych mixed with 1950s mores and a few good studies.
You can tell by the things he's attributing that he's taking the worst of the field.
"Women are more interested in people than things"
"Women are more cooperative"
"Women look for more work-life balance"
I mean, if men were the hunters, wouldn't they be better at cooperating while out on the hunt? While the women were at home, competing to see who could collect the most berries? (Or whatever the current evo psych fad is.) If we were having this discussion 15 years ago, it would be about how
male workplaces have better cooperation because we're the hunters, and women are always bickering with each other because something-mumble-something-caveman.
Toque.