31–40 of 228 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've avoided any discussion at all with your confusing use of a variable instead of just making a clear statement
I agree. I think X = nerd.
That's why I used X. The name is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our field rapidly evolves. If I don't spend at least 10-20 hours a week improving my skills and experience new tech, I can find myself obsolete in 5 years time.
Why not do job-related training on company time?
I have never seen any career that is so deeply tied to a certain culture as CS/SWE and a certain culture that I'll call X, to avoid any discussions on naming and so on. I see far more diversity in tastes and interests in most other majors and careers, while in CS/SWE, X seems to hold a monopoly. CS/SWE goes far beyond a career, usually becoming close to a religion or way of life. I rarely see doctors, lawyers, or mos…
There's actually plenty of room for that type of programmer personality: the jobs at non-software companies where programmers are a cost center. E.g. enterprisey - line-of-business - type of programming. Actually, the "back-office" type of software dev is the majority of programming jobs out there. Yes, there may be a few "enterprise" managers here or there that might be impressed with extra-curricular programming but it's often not a reasonable scenario. (E.g. virtually no programmer that knows a 4GL like SAP ABAP language (business process programming) will be maintaining a github profile full of ABAP code.)
It's the founders and managers at tech companies that value the developers that enjoy programming on their own. The founders themselves often started programming as kids and so it makes the most sense to them to try and attract programmers with the same enthusiasm.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to be strictly a 9-to-5 Mon-Fri programmer. That life approach meshes better with companies outside of Silicon Valley.
At that moment I realized that fundamentally, these are not my people. I liked the work. But I was never going to like it enough to blow a weekend doing more of it for free. Which meant that I was never going to be as good at that job as the guys around me.
I actually think some portion of this is strongly culturally determined. Women focus on the private stuff, and I don't think it is just because our brains are full of estrogen. I think a large share of this is culturally/experientially derived.
The guy who built the neural network? That may have been his means to deal with a failed romance. He just didn't say that because his love life is not the business of his office mates. This is a distinction I think men are taught to make more than women: These people you work with? They aren't your friends, your BFF, or your soul mates. These are just people you WORK with and if you bond with them, you need to bond over the WORK.
At least, that's my current working hypothesis.
Similar to the diagnosis by Jordan Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eieVE-xFXuo Personally I think it is oversimplification - the thing is that - yes there is a root cause in biology - but than that root cause is multiplied by social circumstances. If there are few women in tech - then it is costly for employers to adjust to them (stuff like adding women sizes t-shirts) - plus it is also cheaper intellectual…
No.
Proof: http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachel...
If there was a root cause in biology, in 1980 there wouldn't be the same % of women in CS as in business, or almost the same as social sciences. Or almost the same as there are women in math/stats today.
Something happened in the early 80's. I have a hypothesis for that, tied to the rise of video-games, sci-fi, etc. that eventually came to dominate CS. But don't have any non-anedoctal evidence for that.
I have never seen any career that is so deeply tied to a certain culture as CS/SWE and a certain culture that I'll call X, to avoid any discussions on naming and so on. I see far more diversity in tastes and interests in most other majors and careers, while in CS/SWE, X seems to hold a monopoly. CS/SWE goes far beyond a career, usually becoming close to a religion or way of life. I rarely see doctors, lawyers, or mos…
>There's not a lot of room for people to be in CS/SWE and not take part in all this non-work community. There's actually plenty of room for that type of programmer personality: the jobs at non-software companies where programmers are a cost center . E.g. enterprisey - line-of-business - type of programming. Actually, the "back-office" type of software dev is the majority of programming jobs out there . Yes, there may…
And how do you get into those jobs when even CS students still share the same culture? It goes back to the chart I mentioned:
http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachel...
Great article and hits on what I think is the main difference between men and women: men seem to be far more likely to become obsessive and devote massive amounts of time to hobbies and study. I mean if you're not popular and girls aren't interested in you, what else are you going to do? And spending years being obsessed with computers is naturally going to lead you down a path towards a degree and job in computers,…
I'm not sure being unpopular or not being the object of attention for girls has anything to do with this. Hobbies on the other hand was a pretty good spot. Nearly every male I know has hobbies that are either directly related to tech or engineering or of not are mechanical engineering or crafting related (e.g. metal working, cars etc.). I know on a very personal level 6 females in tech, including my current partner t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. I think X = nerd.
Could be, but I don't want to get into a pointless discussion of the name of a culture, call it whatever you want. That's why I used X. The name is irrelevant.
Similar to the diagnosis by Jordan Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eieVE-xFXuo Personally I think it is oversimplification - the thing is that - yes there is a root cause in biology - but than that root cause is multiplied by social circumstances. If there are few women in tech - then it is costly for employers to adjust to them (stuff like adding women sizes t-shirts) - plus it is also cheaper intellectual…
> yes there is a root cause in biology No. Proof: http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachel... If there was a root cause in biology, in 1980 there wouldn't be the same % of women in CS as in business, or almost the same as social sciences. Or almost the same as there are women in math/stats today. Something happened in the early 80's. I have a hypothesis for that, tied to the rise of video-games, s…
I don't say that nothing happened in 1980s - and your theory about video-games only moves the problem to another area, why women don't like video-games like men?
