Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies • Hacker News Board

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#251

Post by naasking » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #168

jabot wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was with you until you wrote: > But that has nothing to do with why Google has so few women engineers. Uh. What? As far as I can tell, it has _everything_ to do with that. These two things are so closely related i cannot fathom how you can make such a statement... Also... You make the same point twice. To paraphrase you: a) "academic CS is less intellectually rigorous and less hard to succeed in than chem/etc -- bu…

This is an essay that knocks down two extrinsic causes for gender disparity in STEM and then suggests, using Finland as an example, that the cause of disparity is probably intrinsic. It may be the case that some intrinsic difference between men an women keeps the field of chemical engineering at 40-60 women/men, or mathematics at 35-65. But those fields are cognitively more demanding than commercial software developm…

> No cognitive ability or innate affinity explains the degree of disparity in computer science as practiced in industry. If it did, you'd see it in related STEM fields.

We do see it in related fields. Women comprise at least 50% of medicine, but they are not evenly distributed like men. Men are disproportionately surgeons, and women are disproportionately gynecologists and pediatricians. Similar distributions occur in actual STEM fields.

As I said in my other post, things-vs-people explains all of this data, but the sexism/oppression hypothesis does not. It's not a matter of cognitive ability, but it is a matter of affinity.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#252

Post by kirillkh » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 2:40 PM UTC

mantas wrote: post #102

JorgeGT wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thus gender imbalances [in lower-level technical jobs] don’t have the same supposed impact and perpetuating effect on structural imbalances as those in high-level fields . Others have commented in this thread how gender-biased attitudes towards engineering fields are present even in young children. There's an obvious connection between this and the fact that when you're a child most of the adults you met in your ev…

Or cool dude teaching them at school. More men at education -> more positions in tech for women. As well as more women looking for these positions. Can't wait for the next campaign to make men 50:50 in kindergardens and schools!

It's when you talk about young men in kinder gardens that you realize how ridiculous this whole discussion truly is. There will never be 50:50 young men to young women in kinder gardens. Not even 20:80. That much is obvious.

Most young men do not like to be with children. Most young women do not like working in car repair. While none of these claims are sufficiently substantiated in research, if the first can be true, then surely the second one can be, as well?

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#253

Post by edna314 » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 2:42 PM UTC

tscs37 wrote: post #141

edna314 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Equality of Chance is more desirable than Equality of Outcome as it values the decisions of a neutral individual more than the later. More desirable to whom? To the one with the worse outcome equality of outcome will always be more desirable than equality of chance. Plus, from a probabilistic point of view, wouldn't equal chances mean that for large numbers of trials (people) the outcome would also be equal? > I wo…

>Plus, from a probabilistic point of view, wouldn't equal chances mean that for large numbers of trials (people) the outcome would also be equal? Yes. For most people those two options would be the same, which is why the difference between those two options matter. Equality of Chance merely means that everyone gets a shot at becoming, for example, a Math PhD. You still have to put in as much elbow grease as everyone…

> With brain I mean just that, I don't know why it lacks definition. I mean the raw organ of thought in the human skull.

If I understood correctly in your original argument you tried to point out that you need this "brain/mind" to be good in STEM. I would argue that anything which has certain mental capabilities (which I'm not able to define) can be good at STEM whether or not it has a brain or even is human or not, would you agree to that? If so, to keep your argument valid you would have to define these properties which are necessary for being good at STEM. In the previous comment I was just doubting that you can do that, as these properties are not bound to a certain physical form under that assumption.

> That question feels slightly loaded since it proposes that an equal outcome leads to less tension.

I agree to that. So, it seems like both equal outcome and equal chances create social tension. Or are you claiming once this hypothetical convincing theory is out "feminists" will be gone?

> (for example, nobody minds that someone with low strength will be unable to participate in olympic weight lifting, there is an unequal chance of participation and outcome, but it's a fair process)

Yet people are concerned about doping. It's the athletes decision to risk his life for better outcome. Why does that make the competition unfair then?

> Not a lot of people complain when the outcome of the game is inequal but fair.

I would claim in real life situations it is almost impossible for me to objectively tell whether the game is rigged or I just performed very well/bad. But I can tell that the larger the differences in outcome averaged over many people, the more I'm suspicious.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#254

Post by Khol » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 2:42 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #232

lawlessone wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Whatever is holding women's participation in our field at or below twenty percent is artificial, and a travesty. CS is often toxic in my opinion. I can recall one instance were a lecturer harped on about why "men are better than women" . Wish i spoke up, but the guy ruled the place.

So one douche bag makes a whole field toxic? Come on.

If one douche bag can harp on without being challenged on this?

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#255

Post by gambiting » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 2:43 PM UTC

xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #226

gambiting wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampon_tax 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.

Toilet paper is often taxed too, but of course it doesn't fit the narrative.

You can use a bidet instead and never buy any toilet paper. If you are a woman you need to buy some sanitary products at least once a month.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#256

Post by blub » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 2:45 PM UTC

qwr23qwer wrote: post #183

tptacek wrote: post #152

Once again: compared to other STEM fields, women participate less in CS than any other field except physics. By double digits percentage more in mathematics PhDs. Statistics is almost 50/50. Several rigorous earth sciences fields --- chem and biochem, for instance --- have 50% or greater female participation. One thing all these fields have in common is that they are more intellectually rigorous and harder to succeed…

Maybe women just see CS for what it is - 'simly not that hard, wiring form fields to databases', and think, let others tap away at the keyboards, I'll be a surgeon or whatever. So, if that were the case, would you say that it's fair to now force these would be neuro surgeons, doctors, lawyers, microbiologists, etc.. to 'wire fields to databases', because in 2018 some people believe that has a somewhat high status in…

A female relative was considering a career change, but even though the salary and perks sounded nice, the work itself seemed meaningless to her.

Another friend did make the jump, mostly for the money and career opportunities and she's struggling and feeling a bit demotivated. The CS theory is quite hard, and it's not something she's especially interested in.

These anecdotes don't prove anything, but I've been thinking for a while if the mental toll of this profession is really worth it.

We say that the others didn't make it into the industry, but what if the others are clever enough to avoid having to spend all day in front of a computer working on very abstract things that aren't really understood by most of the people in their lives, including their managers and a significant number of their colleagues.

Having to spend their free time studying just to keep up with the latest fashion, doing overtime, going through the interview gauntlet every damn time, getting shafted by incompetent business leaders and managers.

Programmers are kind of the punching bag of the software industry.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#257

Post by Mountain_Skies » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 2:47 PM UTC

traverseda wrote: post #135

awinder wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This “war” has been going on for centuries. The difference is that white men were totally dominating it until recent times, and a lot of them really don’t like that they may need to adapt behavior. African Americans had a right side of the street to walk on within the last 2 generations, for risk of being lynched. You better believe they’ve been parsing every word out of their mouths, not for fear of being labeled a…

Most men I know are pretty heavily in favour of equality. That might change if we treat equality as a war against men, instead of something we all work towards. Adapting behavior is reasonable, but there's men also need to be able to have a voice, or you're going to get some major pushback. Hopefully we can keep this kind of war at a low simmer when trump is up for re-election. More specifically, that means making su…

The problem with silencing tactics currently in use that doesn't seem to be understood by those using them is that there is no such tactic that works in the voting booth. As long as we have secret ballots, the Shy Tory Effect is going continue to catch the censorship crowd off guard. I doubt this is going to be kept on simmer because we're already past that point. To continue the analogy, the pot will eventually boil over but eventually run out of water.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#258

Post by hackerbrother » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 2:47 PM UTC

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…

I think it is well-known that men as a group have more degrees and education in STEM fields, have higher numbers in STEM careers, and perform better in the subjects according to testing measures. As you say, it is also well-known that we view women as better adjusted socially. And as you say, it can be taboo to make this point. I think when making this point, the important thing to realize or clarify is that it doesn't have to be this way! There is no reason to think that women will necessarily not take to mathematics or that men will necessarily be socially stunted. We can create better environments for children so that both issues can improve. I think part of the taboo about making your point stems from a fear of a biological-determinism argument about math ability. Which may not always be the case.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#259

Post by kirillkh » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #240

kirillkh wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how from > those fields are cognitively more demanding than commercial software development or, for that matter, undergraduate computer science ... you arrive at > No cognitive ability or innate affinity explains the degree of disparity in computer science as practiced in industry. Even if software development is "cognitively less demanding" in every sense (though I'm not convinced there is just one universa…

> it may still be that women do not possess the "innate affinity" for it - namely, they do not like working in it, preferring other fields instead. To my understanding, there is nothing to contradict this explanation, and it makes perfect sense. There's no evidence supporting the supposition that there is an innate ability gap. Social explanations are supported by the evidence and that's why people are trying to chan…

> There's no evidence supporting the supposition that there is an innate ability gap.

First, this is a straw man argument: I never argued for "innate ability gap". I argued for "innate affinity", which I understand as (quoting myself) "they do not like working in it".

Second, I never claimed there was evidence to support the correctness of "innate affinity" argument. I only claimed that it is a possibility, and OP should not have ignored it.

Third, there is no consistent evidence supporting "social explanations", and that's why people resist attempts to "change the field to be more welcoming" at the expense of hard-working, deserving white males.

> any argument for innate characteristics would have to explain why the rates started going down in the 1980s despite the field becoming increasingly popular

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#260

Post by megaman22 » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

Pyxl101 wrote: post #173

rayiner wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You (and she) are focusing on the wrong part of the chain of reasoning. The issue is not whether there are gender differences in preferences, but why we have any reason to believe that programming is a “masculine” profession. The fact that men and women sometimes prefer different things due to biological factors does not mean that if you observe men and women preferring different things, that can be explained by biol…

Thank you for clarifying. Let’s not characterize programming as masculine or feminine (since that would begging the question and stereotyping). Let’s characterize it in terms of properties that have been scientifically studied. I would characterize programming as very far on the “Things” side of the axis that is “People vs Things”. See: Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests…

From your reply:

> The fundamental task of programming – sitting in front of a computer, reasoning about the machine and the system, and writing code and debugging systems for hours on end — is about as “thing”-oriented as I can conceive of. One needs to do a great deal of this to get a CS degree.

From the GP:

>You could easily say that programming is feminine. It’s not at all physical, all about cooperating and communicating with other people, it’s about managing expectations, etc.

Here's the real disconnect, and it's all about the environment that is cultivated wherever you happen to be. These are really two wildly different professions that happen to be lumped under one title. On the one hand you have the concrete, generative work where you are creating a thing out of the void. And on the other, you have the political infighting and jockeying to be allowed to do that generative work, and all of the overhead involved in such operations. These are wildly disconnected activities, and it should be no surprise that people gravitate towards one extreme or the other, with very few rare unicorns that can do both at a high level.