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

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#441

Post by naasking » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 6:46 PM UTC

soundwave106 wrote: post #414

naasking wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I don't think it holds up in all cases (50% of chemist bachelor degrees are female ( https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/membership/acs/welcom... ) and chemistry really isn't a "people" oriented discipline IMHO). The article I linked also discusses similar trends in mathematics, ie. ~50% of math bachelors are also for women. Of course, what you can do with a bachelors in math is become a teacher, which is wh…

Unfortunately "oppression" is a big selling popular point these days for ranty-type people across all portions of the "political" spectrum these days. It is easier to think, I suppose, to get angry about Some Malicious Force conspiring against you, rather then examine the often multi-faceted cultural and/or biological constructs behind any sort of divide. In some cases, there is some genuine concern behind the rant -…

> Unfortunately "oppression" is a big selling popular point these days for ranty-type people across all portions of the "political" spectrum these days.

Right, it wouldn't bother me so much if the academics pushing the "oppression" narrative were a little more honest about how non-robust the evidence is. Instead, it's often just conveyed as fact, which just blows my mind. No wonder there's so much manufactured outrage on college campuses these days.

Like when the Damore memo came out, and academics on both sides lined up to agree and disagree with Damore's points, which often just devolved into attacking straw men. I was thoroughly unimpressed with the quality of the arguments I read and how uncharitable people were with the people disagreeing with them.

Edit: Like, there are literal studies [1] demonstrating how much better a theory things-vs-people are in explaining the STEM gender divide, but the narrative seems immune to facts and better theories.

[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0018...

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#442

Post by mpweiher » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 6:47 PM UTC

Raphmedia wrote: post #435

mpweiher wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while the actual debate should be "what is it in our communities that is driving women away? Why? Women aren't, on the whole, passively "driven away". They actively choose other careers that interest them more. Or why is it that men are "driven away" from veterinary science and early childhood education, while women choose not to go into computer science and mechanical engineering? I find this the most distressing…

You are missing the point. Novia (the OP of this comments thread) already started a career in STEM and "wanted to study math [her] whole life". With those two facts, she should be the perfect candidate. However, she is still feeling pushed away. She actively chose STEM and is put in such situations that she has to (as you recommended yourself) block out entire topics simply to avoid reading distressful and distastefu…

> However, she is still feeling pushed away.

But why is that? Isn't what is driving these concerns these never-ending "women in STEM" discussions that paint the field in a very negative light?

If I were entering a field an constantly hearing how horrible it is, I would also be concerned.

> distressful and distasteful comments.

Why are comments that talk about distributions of preferences being a probable cause distressing? What is "distasteful" about them?

Why is it distressing/distasteful to say 'hey, the field you have chosen to enter is actually not full of horrible people that will treat you badly because you are a woman'? In fact, it is somewhat friendlier (some studies say a lot friendlier) to women than it is to men? How is that horrible?

To me, the consistent bombardment of claims that the field is horrible would be a much larger deterrent.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#443

Post by davehtaylor » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 6:58 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #440

davehtaylor wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what I've found, is that a vast majority of people lamenting "PC culture" are people who are pissed off that they can't call other people niggers and faggots in everyday conversation. Replace the phrase "PC" with "common decency", because that's what it is. It's not a list of taboos that are designed to attack WASPs. It's just being a decent person and not being an asshole to everyone around you.

How did you find this out? When people complained about PC, did you ask them 'Are you really upset that you can't call people niggers and faggots any more?'

Yes, in fact. Whenever I've had these conversations with people, I always try to probe deeper to figure out why they are so angry about what should be common decency. And the answers are always the same. They think it's not about decency, and that their rights, and their way of life, are being attacked. In their minds that attack always comes from "liberals" or "niggers" or "faggots trying to rape our children in the bathroom" or some other hateful, bigoted nonsense. They think that their right to call these people out ("call a spade a spade" is an oft used phrase) is being eroded, and that means "PC culture" is preventing "dialog" and "telling it like it is" or "turning us into liberal pussies."

I cannot tell you how many times I've had this same unfortunate discussion. And every time it makes me sick to my stomach.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#444

Post by Raphmedia » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:03 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #442

Raphmedia wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the point. Novia (the OP of this comments thread) already started a career in STEM and "wanted to study math [her] whole life". With those two facts, she should be the perfect candidate. However, she is still feeling pushed away. She actively chose STEM and is put in such situations that she has to (as you recommended yourself) block out entire topics simply to avoid reading distressful and distastefu…

> However, she is still feeling pushed away. But why is that? Isn't what is driving these concerns these never-ending "women in STEM" discussions that paint the field in a very negative light? If I were entering a field an constantly hearing how horrible it is, I would also be concerned. > distressful and distasteful comments. Why are comments that talk about distributions of preferences being a probable cause distre…

> In fact, it is somewhat friendlier (some studies say a lot friendlier) to women than it is to men?

That's one of the problems. Nobody wants to be the special kid. The one you invite to all the meetings to be a token. The one who can't even be certain if their achievements are worthwhile or simply artificially inflated.

Being insincerely friendlier to women in a professional environment is, in fact, sexism. It is a form of gender prejudice and gender bias.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#445

Post by dlwdlw » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:09 PM UTC

I'd say that in general, due to cultural expectations, men are better at anything that requires a domination mindset. Winning in zero-sum games.

The non-domination mindset focuses on non zero-sum win win results. This requires creating something out of nothing. An example is relationships. There is nothing directly measurable or improveable, but meaning is can still be derived purely through reorganization of actors and the interfaces between actors.

The degenerate win-win situation is when both actors win due to the loss if a third party. A wealthy country can have win-win between all sorts of actors as long as the negative consequences can be outsourced.

This implies that all existing win-win methodologies are probably corrupt in some way because there are very few people who expand their bubble of humanity recognition to all humans. Whether it's a different country or a different ideology, the tendency to dehumanize is trigger-happy.

I'd say that society creates two mindsets. One geared to winning. The other to living. Culture specializes these two mindsets into 2 groups. The male/female divide being one that matches fairly well due to physical difference.

This isn't the case now since mentally there is no large difference. At least in potential.

To focus nowadays though is too much on having the "living" mindset learn how to win. Instead it should focus on the winning mindset learning how to live.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#446

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:15 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #337

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #94

I'm a PhD student at a UK university. From what I've seen in my department (Engineering) there are about 3 women for every 5 men, both in staff and students, a not unreasonable ratio. However, I struggle to remember more than a couple of women who are British or from an English-speaking country. The majority come from India, China, the rest of Europe, the Middle East etc. I've also seen this in the six years I worked…

Visas are overwhelmingly only granted to technical fields. So people who can immigrate to america are the ones in technical fields. You won't see lots of indian students studying philosophy because once you are done you have to go back. Bad monetary investment. Want a better life = study engineering. The explanation is as simple as that.

>> Visas are overwhelmingly only granted to technical fields. So people who can immigrate to america are the ones in technical fields.

Even so, why are there more of those technical immigrants female than the locals? That the majority of visas granted are for technical fields doesn't tell us anything about the gender of those who obtain them. There's nothing stopping 100% of immigrant IT workers from, e.g. India from being male. Why are they not?

Also, I'm not sure the assumption that visas are only granted to technical workers is correct. My experience is from the UK and I don't know what happens in the US, but over here, immigrants do all sorts of jobs. For example, many doctors and nurses in the NHS (the National Health Service) are from India or the EU; the majority of agricultural workers are from the EU; plumbers, famously, are all Polish; catering workers are from the EU; etc etc.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#447

Post by bluthru » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:20 PM UTC

Raphmedia wrote: post #437

bluthru wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Women are socially smarter What does this mean? Do women talk more? Yes. Is it substantive? Women are more willing to talk about their feelings but they also can be quite indirect compared to a man. Women also have a reputation of being more adversarial and catty: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/sunday/why-women-...

Socially smarter doesn't mean better social skills. It simply means that they are more socially aware. If you allow the metaphor, I would say that they are more likely to "play the game" and "play it well" at that. Social skills have very little relationship to "emotional intelligence", so I have no clue why you would bring up the point that women are more willing to talk about their feelings. You are comparing extra…

Thanks for the link.

>Replicating previous findings, women reported higher Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism scores than men.

Isn't this basically what got James Damore fired? Heh.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#448

Post by buckthundaz » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:22 PM UTC

kazagistar wrote: post #288

collyw wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Equality" is the sticking point. Equality of opportunity (meritocracy) or equality of outcome (sounds like a nasty place where people are selected on things like race, or gender)?

Equality of opportunity a way of saying "fair treatment by some measures, unfair by others". You are picking which traits inequlaity should happen by and, huh, imagine that, they probably happen to be traits that overall benefit you. "Equality of opportunity" is a phrase I no longer trust, because it obfuscates the true differences in moral ideology. Just be explicit about which factors you think should create unequa…

Is moral ideology beholden to demographics?

Equality of opportunity is meant as: Inequality should rise from personal choice and decisions, otherwise, why should anyone strive to be better than anyone else?

I suggest looking at the history of states that favor equality of opportunity (equality) against equality of outcome (equity).

I'll leave you with this Soviet joke: 'They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.'

Please see this idea illustrated in two ways: -http://deplorablyconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02... -https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S01680102140029...

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#449

Post by fixermark » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:24 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #191

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe he was fired not just because he made the company look bad, but also because he insulted about 30% of his co-workers, and on top of that kept trying to get his memo read by as many people as possible within Google. Banging on about a controversial subject that can cause upset and disruption in a work environment. Does that sound very professional, or something that a smart person would do? And do you really wan…

> he insulted about 30% of his co-workers He didn't insult anyone, although some amount of his coworkers did feel insulted. The difference between these two things is significant.

Insult is in the eye of the victim, not the perpetrator. Always has been.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#450

Post by Raphmedia » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 7:27 PM UTC

bluthru wrote: post #447

Raphmedia wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socially smarter doesn't mean better social skills. It simply means that they are more socially aware. If you allow the metaphor, I would say that they are more likely to "play the game" and "play it well" at that. Social skills have very little relationship to "emotional intelligence", so I have no clue why you would bring up the point that women are more willing to talk about their feelings. You are comparing extra…

Thanks for the link. >Replicating previous findings, women reported higher Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism scores than men. Isn't this basically what got James Damore fired? Heh.

He worded it in a socially unaware way.

If he ranked higher in Agreeableness, he would likely have found a way to communicate the information without getting fired.