Whether or not these few specific effects they claim to have debunked are real or not, to explain the gaps, you have to go far beyond a few narrow sociological effects. There's a self-reinforcing culture of same-hiring-same that glorifies algorithmic intuition as the end-all be-all of software development. There are cultural and fashion trends in the social media landscape that reinforce what's appropriate to be interested in based on your self-identity. The authors claim that gendered interest in CS and the like has remained "stubbornly low" because "women prefer working with people", ignoring huge evidence that even as CS has become far more human-centered and collaborative since the 80s, the numbers of women declaring it as a major have plummeted.
Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies
151–160 of 536 posts
Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies
#152One thing all these fields have in common is that they are more intellectually rigorous and harder to succeed in than the computer software industry.
Clearly, they have something else in common. We just need to figure out what it is.
This essay, which invokes the "Google Memo", is subtly attacking a straw man. Even those almost the entire rest of STEM is better than CS, it's true that it's not balanced; it remains deeply imperfect. Physics and mechanical engineering, clustered with CS, remain the province of men. There's a expanse of STEM fields with female participation between 25-40% that you'd want to explain or correct. Is it stereotype threat? Implicit bias? Who knows? Probably not?
But that has nothing to do with why Google has so few women engineers. The work that a commercial software engineer does --- even at the lofty heights in which the profession is practiced in such a cathedral of software design as the Alphabet Corporation --- is simply not that hard; most of it is just wiring form fields to databases in new and exciting ways.
Whatever is holding women's participation in our field at or below twenty percent is artificial, and a travesty.
Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies
#153Well, what was actually tested was if showing girls and boys a video declaring that girls are bad at math would make them perform worse at a math test right after[0]:
> Students in the two groups were brought to separate classrooms and watched the video that either activated stereotype threat or nullified the stereotype and then completed the mathematics test. The testing session took approximately 40 min.
> The video shown to the stereotype threat group depicted a scientist telling students that recent research “shows that math intelligence levels among students do not change as students get older. Students are born with a certain amount of natural math ability which does not change.” Students were then shown brain imagery and were given a detailed explanation regarding how some students are born with better mathematics skills (as indicated by more brain activity). In this condition, the students were also told that “females have lower levels of this kind of brain activity than males. This makes sense because girls often get lower scores on standardized tests compared to boys.” These students were also told that the “test that you will take today is a very good measure of your natural math ability.”
[0]: An examination of stereotype threat effects on girls’ mathematics performance. Developmental Psychology Vol. 49, Iss. 10, (Oct 2013): 1886-1897.
Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Germany is usually roughly 5 years behind US in social trends or tech, so it's coming soon.
Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies
#155Earlier 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…
Yes, beliefs are chosen for consequences. And the optimal way to choose a belief based on consequences is to choose the truth. For example, my decision whether to take an umbrella today must be based on my honest best guess whether it'll rain today (and the relative utilities of various outcomes). If I shift my best guess one inch away from what's warranted by evidence, to obey social pressure or something, then acti…
Two minor points:
1) What is truth? How do you know whether something is true? By perceiving it? Is your perception not influenced by belief?
I'm not saying that we cannot know truth, ever. But we have to keep in mind we might be wrong, too...
2) Believing in something might _make_ it become true. Or, to put it differently: Belief may lead to actions which change reality - essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Damore’s screed was also rife with fallacies and unsupported generalizations, let’s not forget that Was it really rife with fallacies? Lee Jussim (professor of social psychology at Rutgers University) wrote: > The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. Geoffrey Miller (evolutionary psychology professor at University of New Mexico)…
Fwiw: I think you're being down voted because the citations you mention have all become a part of the controversy rather than being external evidence. Each of the scientists you mentioned above have at times before this controversy shown a willingness to say things specifically to get limelight. In culture war topics, the only real citations that can count are people above reproach, or people who are unknown but expe…
I was mostly poking my head in to answer the question of why you're being down voted, IMO. I'm on the opposite side of your understanding of this research based on a cursory glance (nothing says 'unbiased' like including the phrase 'feminist campaigners' in the conclusion of a scientific publication).
This week's Weeds podcast has some interesting alternative theories based on the results from various Scandinavian countries where they legislated some gender equality stuff and it neither worked out as well as people on the left would like, nor as much of a disaster as people on the right predicted.
Reply to a reply, so I'm out, back to what I'm actually good at, building stuff for other humans to use.
Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies
#157> The real issues concern the magnitude of these effects on women’s STEM participation and the foregone opportunities of not focusing on other factors that might have an even stronger impact on their participation. I am not sure that I agree with the entire article, but this part stood out to me. I never know how to express this in a way that sounds appropriate, but I feel that some of us might be better off if we fo…
For some agendas, exarcebating an issue and exposing a divide between groups of people is more desirable than solving the issue itself (which is counter-productive to the agenda )
Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, because he was wrong about something that he had no business or expertise or business position to even be discussing, and because he did it in a very loud way. Damore got what he wanted, he wanted to be a martyr, probably because that was all he was ever going to be good for. He’s the truest of snowflakes, stop giving idiots this platform and maybe they’ll go away.
To me that reads like a lot like credentialism. "Unless you've been formally vetted by the institutions we like you can't participate". It's like a bizzarro-world anti-intellectualism, where you can't read a scientific paper unless you have the right degree in that particular sub-field.
Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, beliefs are chosen for consequences. And the optimal way to choose a belief based on consequences is to choose the truth. For example, my decision whether to take an umbrella today must be based on my honest best guess whether it'll rain today (and the relative utilities of various outcomes). If I shift my best guess one inch away from what's warranted by evidence, to obey social pressure or something, then acti…
You are right with your juxtaposition of belief and truth. Two minor points: 1) What is truth? How do you know whether something is true? By perceiving it? Is your perception not influenced by belief? I'm not saying that we cannot know truth, ever. But we have to keep in mind we might be wrong, too... 2) Believing in something might _make_ it become true. Or, to put it differently: Belief may lead to actions which ch…
Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same thing works the other way around but I don't know if it has a name. I frequently see things like yoghurt/juice or shampoo/antiperspirant/shaving accessories to be priced higher if they are branded "for men". You can literally buy the same thing in pink colour and it's cheaper. The only case where I agree is that stupidly, UK government applies extra tax to sanitary items for women, while cosmetics for men do not…
Mind to give a link for that UK extra tax? I wonder how it's worded :)
It's just normal VAT, the issue is that many "necessary" products don't have VAT on them, but tampons or pads do, even though they are a biological necessity.