Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

quillette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 536 posts

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#41

Post by montyf »

scarmig wrote: post #26

This reminds me of something I was thinking about earlier today. It's well known that men generally are stagnating economically, while women are catching up. In many metro areas, single women out earn single men. And so I came across this paper[0], which had some interesting research about that. And what struck me was this: there's an explicit assumption that men have worse socio-emotional skills than women, and that…

Agreed. While we still legally have freedom of speech, the real-life ramifications for speaking your mind can be enormous these days. Try being an outspoken Trump supporter in the tech bubble and see what happens. That's why I exclusively engage in internet discourse using pseudonyms like this one. When I was growing up, it was common sense that you don't use your real name on the internet. Now people have surrendered common sense to the social media companies and happily (and ignorantly) identify themselves in their posts, comments, tweets, blogs, etc. Many of them have suffered drastic consequences for doing so.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#42

Post by natch »

shard972 wrote: post #22
natch wrote: post #9

it’s fine and valid to research whether people encounter improper bias in their careers, which is clearly often the case. But their discussion is incomplete without at least recognition of another possible partial cause of gender disparity in tech, the fact that many sexist anti-STEM cues are given to children at a much earlier stage, way before careers are even on the horizon. These cues are delivered by parents, te…

> the fact that many sexist anti-STEM cues are given to children at a much earlier stage, way before careers are even on the horizon. Would you say that is a problem that can or should be fixed after the fact? For instance, if we assume that we know the major cause to be social conditioning at young ages should we then try to correct that after they leave education?

Your question is orthogonal to my point. You seem to be wanting to be get to a different point. All I’m saying is that these social cues are often overlooked in these discussions.

As far as fixing the problem, no we can’t correct all limiting stereotypes overnight or even for a very long time. But we should work on it. The least we can do is be supportive of those who try to succeed in spite of the stereotypes.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#43

Post by tome »

cousin_it wrote: post #3

This is a "culture war" topic, let's prepare for the shitshow in the comments. I'd like to offer some advice to make things go a bit more smoothly. There's a widespread view that all beliefs are political, you can't be apolitical, and anyone arguing for a belief opposing yours must be an enemy. To me, that view is pretty much a type error. Beliefs are value-neutral. Only arguments for or against beliefs can be politi…

> Beliefs are value-neutral. Only arguments for or against beliefs can be political or not.

I wonder why you didn't go a step further to postulate "only actions can be political or not". Of course argument is action, but it could be claimed that only argument qua action is political.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#44

Post by jabot »

Scea91 wrote: post #34
jabot wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counter-point: People can hold beliefs because they have certain consequences. Simple example: "all people are created equal". This is a belief that is (probably) frequently held because it has assumed beneficial consequences for society. So if people choose to believe in something because that has certain consequences - then a belief can be political. EDIT: To expand on this a little... It seems to me that you…

Just note that believing something because it has nice consequences is just logically wrong. Formally: 1) A => B 2) I would really like B to be true, because it has some benefits. 3) Therefore A must be true. If we are in search of truth and want to build a consistent model of the world then we just can't accept this kind of reasoning. Also, even if A really turns out to be false, it doesn't mean that B can't be true…

First, please do not get too hung up about "all people are created equal". It's just an example in this context.

> If we are in search of truth and want to build a consistent model of the world then we just can't accept this kind of reasoning.

Yes, you can. It's called generalizing. Remember, we're not doing math here, this is ethics.

Think about all the different situations where being treated equally to someone else is a good thing. Now you generalize that into "everyone is created equal", and that turns into a justification for all these situations.

If you want to criticise the generalization into A, there is a way:

Construct some C so that

1) A => C

2) C is not beneficial

Alternatively, you can attack the implication "A => B" or you can question whether or not B is beneficial.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#45

Post by natch »

joshvm wrote: post #28
natch wrote: post #9

it’s fine and valid to research whether people encounter improper bias in their careers, which is clearly often the case. But their discussion is incomplete without at least recognition of another possible partial cause of gender disparity in tech, the fact that many sexist anti-STEM cues are given to children at a much earlier stage, way before careers are even on the horizon. These cues are delivered by parents, te…

The authors describe this as microagression. >Microaggressions are subtle behaviors (e.g., facial expressions) or statements that are not explicitly hostile but are nevertheless interpreted by the receiver as conveying contempt, stereotypical attitudes, or other negative beliefs.

They only describe it in the context of the workplace and in degree-granting institutions, not in earlier schools or in the home where minds are in their formative stages. It’s microagression for sure, but they are overlooking the more powerful instances of it.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#46

Post by jabot »

tome wrote: post #43
cousin_it wrote: post #3

This is a "culture war" topic, let's prepare for the shitshow in the comments. I'd like to offer some advice to make things go a bit more smoothly. There's a widespread view that all beliefs are political, you can't be apolitical, and anyone arguing for a belief opposing yours must be an enemy. To me, that view is pretty much a type error. Beliefs are value-neutral. Only arguments for or against beliefs can be politi…

> Beliefs are value-neutral. Only arguments for or against beliefs can be political or not. I wonder why you didn't go a step further to postulate "only actions can be political or not". Of course argument is action, but it could be claimed that only argument qua action is political.

Then again, a lot of beliefs have direct, strong and immediate consequences on your actions. So if your action is political, and you did that action because of your belief, is your belief still apolitical?

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#47

Post by dmichulke »

scarmig wrote: post #26

This reminds me of something I was thinking about earlier today. It's well known that men generally are stagnating economically, while women are catching up. In many metro areas, single women out earn single men. And so I came across this paper[0], which had some interesting research about that. And what struck me was this: there's an explicit assumption that men have worse socio-emotional skills than women, and that…

FWIW, I often read about these PC-related things in the US (and sometimes Canada). Much less so in Europe, although they start playing catch-up with their new hate speech laws.

As a German I can (mostly) speak my mind about men vs women, the only minefield there is IMO (remotely) Nazi-related stuff, e.g., try to criticize Israel foreign policy or mass immigration.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#48

Post by Noos »

What's really annoying about this is that women are not underrepresented in STEM careers! The article mentions if anything, they are overrepresented in the life sciences, and are only underrepresented in math at the doctoral level. The issue is that we are suddenly defining STEM as computer science and engineering only, and that those are apparently the only worthwhile aspects of STEM. The sexism thing and message thing is odd when you realize women in general can make up to two thirds of science teachers.

I think the problem with computer science in general is that it's one of the few careers you need to like at an early age and do a lot of self-directed study before you even enter college, or you are at a disadvantage compared to others. This affects both men and women, and keep in mind most men aren't interested in those fields either.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#49

Post by tome »

jabot wrote: post #46
tome wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Beliefs are value-neutral. Only arguments for or against beliefs can be political or not. I wonder why you didn't go a step further to postulate "only actions can be political or not". Of course argument is action, but it could be claimed that only argument qua action is political.

Then again, a lot of beliefs have direct, strong and immediate consequences on your actions. So if your action is political, and you did that action because of your belief, is your belief still apolitical?

There are a number of different lines of enquiry one might take on this subject (and I'm sure they have been taken by those in research in philosophy or politics). For example, is being able to restrain oneself from acting on one's deeply held beliefs necessary to function in civilised society? Isn't it even possible to have mutally contradictory beliefs, thus making acting on them impossible under certain circumstances?

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#50

Post by ghaff »

montyf wrote: post #41
scarmig wrote: post #26

This reminds me of something I was thinking about earlier today. It's well known that men generally are stagnating economically, while women are catching up. In many metro areas, single women out earn single men. And so I came across this paper[0], which had some interesting research about that. And what struck me was this: there's an explicit assumption that men have worse socio-emotional skills than women, and that…

Agreed. While we still legally have freedom of speech, the real-life ramifications for speaking your mind can be enormous these days. Try being an outspoken Trump supporter in the tech bubble and see what happens. That's why I exclusively engage in internet discourse using pseudonyms like this one. When I was growing up, it was common sense that you don't use your real name on the internet. Now people have surrendere…

>When I was growing up, it was common sense that you don't use your real name on the internet.

That may have been true in some circles and at some times, but in early (especially pre-Web) Internet days when it was primarily academic along with some early tech companies, true names were definitely the norm.

For BBSs and the like, it varied. For hacker sites and the like anonymity/pseudonymity was certainly common but for more mainstream discussion boards, lots of people used their real names. We even had IRL get togethers.

Post reply on HN