The Atlantic: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

[s0crates]

Jordan Peterson interviewed the author of the screed, and he seems to think most of what the guy said is scientifically accurate:

 

https://youtu.be/SEDuVF7kiPU

 

He includes links to a dozen or so academic journal articles in the description of the video to support each of the screed's central claims.

[dfitzo53]

30 minutes ago, tshile said:

Another thing that would help is a restructuring of how we teach stem classes in grade school.

 

There's definitely a way to think about these things that makes it easier. In my experience people that are "bad at math" seemed to simply have not had access to a good teacher along the way. When you work with a person who says their bad at math, and see how they solve things, it's absurd. When I start showing them a better way, I often get the feed back of "how did you know that,  no one's ever shown me that." I'm talking about multiplication and division.

 

(I do math in my head the way common core teaches it - you know, that thing some people in our country think is evil or something. Idiots on foxnews mocked the steps for basic multiplication being completely oblivious to the dividends down the road when you're doing algebra or trig, and the benefits further in calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, etc)

 

(There's a pun in there)

I agree. There's a growing body of research that suggests that being "bad at x" is generally not a thing. Good teaching and consistent practice can let most people learn most things. 

 

(I could go into quite a rant about the state of math education, but this probably isn't the place.)

 

One other point about women putting careers on hold - in most places in the US maternity leave policies are much more generous than paternity leave. Until that shifts you won't see nearly as many men staying home to care for the babies. There are obvious biological concerns like nursing as well, but right now it almost never makes financial sense for the man to take family leave unless the woman was already making more money. 

[PokerPacker]

28 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I've pointed out several things he failed to mention that contradict his conclusions.  If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.  I even pointed out that you've recognized one.

 

Start with why he doesn't mention that females in the US under achieve in STEM as compared to other countries and go from there.

 

Throwing out alternative hypothesis as excuses and solutions while ignoring existing information doesn't help you.

Perhaps his research showed something contrary to your own.  If you had gone over the link PF Chang posted, it covers women's enrollment in computer class around the world.  If I may lift from the author:

 

Quote

Galpin investigated the percent of women in computer classes all around the world. Her number of 26% for the US is slightly higher than I usually hear, probably because it’s older (the percent women in computing has actually gone down over time!). The least sexist countries I can think of – Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, etc – all have somewhere around the same number (30%, 20%, and 24%, respectively). The most sexist countries do extremely well on this metric! The highest numbers on the chart are all from non-Western, non-First-World countries that do middling-to-poor on the Gender Development Index: Thailand with 55%, Guyana with 54%, Malaysia with 51%, Iran with 41%, Zimbabwe with 41%, and Mexico with 39%. Needless to say, Zimbabwe is not exactly famous for its deep commitment to gender equality."

I did not see you explain that in any of your posts.  So does that mean your research was not fair and balanced?  Or perhaps we should be looking up to Iran as our example on how to treat women.

 

Throwing out accusations of sexism does not help, either.

[Destino]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Start with why he doesn't mention that females in the US under achieve in STEM as compared to other countries and go from there.

 

Is the reason for it that those other countries are less sexist?  Are their STEM employers less sexist? 

[PeterMP]

43 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

Perhaps his research showed something contrary to your own.  If you had gone over the link PF Chang posted, it covers women's enrollment in computer class around the world.  If I may lift from the author:

 

I did not see you explain that in any of your posts.  So does that mean your research was not fair and balanced?  Or perhaps we should be looking up to Iran as our example on how to treat women.

 

Throwing out accusations of sexism does not help, either.

 

There's a difference between explaining why somebody is wrong and that they have ignored important points and making an argument that we should take specific actions based on certain evidence.  I've done the first.  He's done the second.

 

The funny thing is you are citing another point that shows the flaws in his research.

 

Here's from the memo:

 

"On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

• They’re universal across human cultures

• They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone

• Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males

• The underlying traits are highly heritable

• They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective"

 

Here's from the link you are now citing:

 

"Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (n = 17,637)."

 

The ways that females are different than males aren't universal across human cultures.  Personality differences aren't highly tied to prenatal testosterone.   They are more highly tied to opportunities available to women.

 

Well, what do you want to call it?

[s0crates]

4 hours ago, ixcuincle said:

 

http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320

 

To suggest that women are predisposed to succeed less in IT because of their gender is kind of stupid, don't you think? That's what I have such a problem with. A woman is just as qualified as a man to study computer science or physics. This sexist filth suggests clearly that women are inferior based on stereotypes. They're all listed above, written by the author. He spouses off these as if it were fact. Stereotypes and broad generalizations are not fact. 

 

1. If you check @PokerPacker's summary of his thesis, I think you'll find a more plausible reading. The screed is not about women being "predisposed to succeed less" or "inferior," it's about them choosing other things on average compared to men due to differences in biology and personality. I'm not sure that's true, but I'm not sure it's false either. I certainly don't see how it is obviously sexist. If anything it seems to me much less sexist to explain the STEM gap that way then to offer the infantilizing suggestion that American women need help navigating the oppressive patriarchy in the year 2017.

 

2. The fact that men and women are different for reasons that aren't socially constructed is only news to people in a certain ideological bubble. 

 

3. The sentence "A woman is just as qualified as a man to study computer science or physics" baffles me. A woman is just as free as a man to study computer science or physics, or if not she certainly should be, but the question of her qualifications is separate from the question of her equipment. Some woman are more qualified, some are less, some are "just as."  We don't judge her on her sex, but on her ability, anything else is sexism.

 

4. I don't much like the term "sexist filth." It brings to mind the suggestion we should break out the insecticide. 

[PokerPacker]

25 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

There's a difference between explaining why somebody is wrong and that they have ignored important points and making an argument that we should take specific actions based on certain evidence.  I've done the first.  He's done the second.

 

The funny thing is you are citing another point that shows the flaws in his research.

 

Here's from the memo:

 

"On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

• They’re universal across human cultures

• They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone

• Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males

• The underlying traits are highly heritable

• They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective"

 

Here's from the link you are now citing:

 

"Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (n = 17,637)."

 

The ways that females are different than males aren't universal across human cultures.  Personality differences aren't highly tied to prenatal testosterone.   They are more highly tied to opportunities available to women.

 

Well, what do you want to call it?

If you would read the whole thing instead of cherry-picking something you think supports your side, you would see just the opposite.  Yes, there is a nurture aspect in that more oppressive countries limit women's abilities to branch out into their interests.  But that you conclude that hormones in development must have nothing to do with anything is premature.  If you'd kept reading you'd see this part:

 

Quote

One subgroup of women does not display these gender differences at any age. These are women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition that gives them a more typically-male hormone balance. For a good review, see Gendered Occupational Interests: Prenatal Androgen Effects on Psychological Orientation to Things Versus People.

 

[s0crates]

57 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

"Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (n = 17,637)."

 

. . .

 

Well, what do you want to call it?

 

So the data says personality differences between men and women are largest in countries with the most equal treatment of men and women? Does this evidence corroborate or falsify the hypothesis that gender differences are socially constructed?

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

If you would read the whole thing instead of cherry-picking something you think supports your side, you would see just the opposite.  Yes, there is a nurture aspect in that more oppressive countries limit women's abilities to branch out into their interests.  But that you conclude that hormones in development must have nothing to do with anything is premature.  If you'd kept reading you'd see this part:

 

You are mixing and apples and oranges.  Differences between personalities between cultures change because the attitudes/personalities change across cultures.

 

"Changes in men’s personality traits appeared to be the primary cause of sex difference variation across cultures."

 

http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf

 

That is in a lot of countries women perform as well or even better then men in STEM and when compared to countries like the US, the difference is not the (personalities) of the women, the difference is the personalities of the men.

 

1.  Women do as well as men in STEM in other countries.

2.  The personality traits of women in those countries are similar to the US. 

 

There is nothing reported on congenital adrenal hyperplasia females across cultures.

 

You've gone back to they like boy toys and boys do better at STEM so there must be a connection between playing with boy toys and being in STEM though there is no evidence of it.

 

And certainly, I don't think girls in Iran and Hong Kong are playing with western boys toys and they seem to perform well in STEM.

 

1 hour ago, s0crates said:

 

So the data says personality differences between men and women are largest in countries with the most equal treatment of men and women? Does this evidence corroborate or falsify the hypothesis that gender differences are socially constructed?

 

Well, I wouldn't say it falsifies anything.  It certainly supports an important role in social construct of gender differences.

[s0crates]

10 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Well, I wouldn't say it falsifies anything.  It certainly supports an important role in social construct of gender differences.

 

Wait, let's think about this. The data shows that places with less social pressure to conform to gender roles and more equal treatment of the sexes have higher sexual dimorphism in personality, and you think that shows sexual dimorphism in personality is socially constructed? I think you might have made a mistake here.

[PeterMP]

18 minutes ago, s0crates said:

 

Wait, let's think about this. The data shows that places with less social pressure to conform to gender roles and more equal treatment of the sexes have higher sexual dimorphism in personality, and you think that shows sexual dimorphism in personality is socially constructed? I think you might have made a mistake here.

 

If I took a male infant from Iran and raised in American house hold with an American social construct, I suspect on average he would have an American male personality (i.e. larger differences on average than females as compared to the an identical male left in Iranian house hold).

 

The US social construct vs. the Iranian social construct is generating males with different personalities. The US social construct results in males that behave in a manner that generates fewer females in tech.

 

And I'll point out, we don't have to go to something as extreme as Iran.  On STEM tests, in places like Hong Kong, there is very little gender gap.

[s0crates]

34 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

If I took a male infant from Iran and raised in American house hold with an American social construct, I suspect on average he would have an American male personality (i.e. larger differences on average than females as compared to the an identical male left in Iranian house hold).

 

The US social construct vs. the Iranian social construct is generating males with different personalities.

 

Obviously the environment is a factor in personality, I don't dispute it. The answer to the nature versus nurture question is always "both," but of course the devil is in the details. Now please, for the sake of my sanity, think a little more carefully about this detail for a moment:

 

According to the data we're discussing, the more similar we make the environment in which males and females are raised, the more exaggerated the sexual dimorphism in behavior becomes. Decreased environmental differences correlate with increased behavioral differences. That's exactly the opposite of the result you would predict based on the social constructionist hypothesis that environmental differences cause behavioral differences.  I suggest that means the hypothesis is falsified, but you might at least say the result is surprising.

[PokerPacker]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

You are mixing and apples and oranges.  Differences between personalities between cultures change because the attitudes/personalities change across cultures.

 

"Changes in men’s personality traits appeared to be the primary cause of sex difference variation across cultures."

 

http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf

 

That is in a lot of countries women perform as well or even better then men in STEM and when compared to countries like the US, the difference is not the (personalities) of the women, the difference is the personalities of the men.

 

1.  Women do as well as men in STEM in other countries.

2.  The personality traits of women in those countries are similar to the US. 

 

There is nothing reported on congenital adrenal hyperplasia females across cultures.

 

You've gone back to they like boy toys and boys do better at STEM so there must be a connection between playing with boy toys and being in STEM though there is no evidence of it.

 

And certainly, I don't think girls in Iran and Hong Kong are playing with western boys toys and they seem to perform well in STEM.

 

 

Well, I wouldn't say it falsifies anything.  It certainly supports an important role in social construct of gender differences.

 

I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore.  So you say women do as well as men in STEM in other countries.  Okay.  Firstly, no one is arguing that women don't do well in STEM.  Quite the contrary.  The argument that was made was that they seemingly have less interest in it.  Secondly, you are now trying to say that it is the men who are the variable upon which the reason for the gap exists across nations.  So I am trying to figure out if you are claiming that there are relatively fewer women working in computers in the US because the men here are all flocking to it and diluting the women?

 

As for the connection between toys and occupation, it is, again, about interest.  And not only that, but just after the part I had quoted, it goes on to mention that females with CAH have a tendency when younger to play with male-typical toys and that it continues into adulthood as they go into more male-typical occupations.

Quote

Consistent with hormone effects on interests, females with CAH are considerably more interested than are females without CAH in male-typed toys, leisure activities, and occupations, from childhood through adulthood (reviewed in Blakemore et al., 2009; Cohen-Bendahan et al., 2005); adult females with CAH also engage more in male-typed occupations than do females without CAH (Frisén et al., 2009).

 

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, s0crates said:

 

Obviously the environment is a factor in personality, I don't dispute it. The answer to the nature versus nurture question is always "both," but of course the devil is in the details. Now please, for the sake of my sanity, think a little more carefully about this detail for a moment:

 

According to the data we're discussing, the more similar we make the environment in which males and females are raised, the more exaggerated the sexual dimorphism in behavior becomes. Decreased environmental differences correlate with increased behavioral differences. That's exactly the opposite of the result you would predict based on the social constructionist hypothesis that environmental differences cause behavioral differences.

 

As I said, I wouldn't say it falsifies anything, but suggest an important role in culture.  Certainly based on the data available stating anything has been falsified of anything would be a massive over step.  Any conclusion beyond that requires dangerous assumptions.

 

Don't personalities make environments?  Do you really want to say that for the important things that the environments are more similar and that there are larger personality differences between males and females?

 

I think you are taking overly simplistic view of the situation in asserting the environments are more similar.

 

Let's take a trait like say assertiveness and say as compared to women US males are more assertive than Iranian males.  Doesn't that actually create a larger environmental difference for male/female children in the US than Iran?  Iranian children are likely to see more equal assertiveness from either of their parents, while US children are not.

 

Which is more of an environmental impact?  Women being forced to wear a veil by the government or being in environment where men are regularly more assertive than females in day in and day out life.

 

That at least at a superficial level creates environmental differences (now it is possible that the assertive nature of males is due to biological differences, but they you get back to having to argue that there is some difference between Iranian males and US males that it isn't environmental.).

 

I'll ask you the same question I asked below, if it is biologically driven interest, why are female numbers in "male" medical fields pretty much across the board up over the last 30 years?  Have we changed the underlying biology of females?

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

 

I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore.  So you say women do as well as men in STEM in other countries.  Okay.  Firstly, no one is arguing that women don't do well in STEM.  Quite the contrary.  The argument that was made was that they seemingly have less interest in it.  Secondly, you are now trying to say that it is the men who are the variable upon which the reason for the gap exists across nations.  So I am trying to figure out if you are claiming that there are relatively fewer women working in computers in the US because the men here are all flocking to it and diluting the women?

 

As for the connection between toys and occupation, it is, again, about interest.  And not only that, but just after the part I had quoted, it goes on to mention that females with CAH have a tendency when younger to play with male-typical toys and that it continues into adulthood as they go into more male-typical occupations.

 

 

Historically, there has been a gender gap in STEM academic performance, though the gap has closed over the last few decades, though it appears it still exist among lower income families and at the very high end of performance.  As part of that, we've seen an increase in females in STEM classes.

 

https://web.stanford.edu/~niederle/NV.JEP.pdf

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2015/02/girls_edging_out_boys_in_stem_.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/05/data-girls-stem/483255/

 

Obviously, 20 years ago people would have argued this performance difference was due to interest (e.g. females did less well on STEM tests and took fewer STEM classes because they were less interested in it.  Those differences are going away though and that argument is dying.)

 

Undoubtedly part of the problems that tech companies have in hiring females was a lack of (perceived to be) qualified candidates as pursuing higher degrees required excelling on tests and females were doing less well on tests.

 

I think it is likely as the gap has closed, you'll see more females in leadership roles in the tech industry (and in STEM in general), which will create more role models and mentors for other females and more work environments conducive to females.

 

The end result is that the "interest" gap will also decrease further then.

 

http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/10/12/why-do-some-stem-fields-have-fewer-women-than-others-uw-study-may-have-the-answer/

 

(Which going back to my other post about why Google should care about diversity, long term it is likely to generate them a larger pool of job applicants.)

 

But don't you see.  You still have to make the jump from biology (not environment/culture to interest) in females with CAH.  Is it possible that females with CAH are less susceptible to societal ques about gender roles/interest and so show more interest in "boys" things because of this?

 

70% of the people in STEM majors in Iran are women.  In the US that number is only 37%.  Why are women so much more interested in STEM in Iran than in the US?  Do they have different hormone development?

 

To make a related point, in 1980, 19% of all new anesthesiologist (a non-person profession based on your link were women are not interested and so is a "male" medical field) in the US were women.  In 2015 that number is 33%.  As the gender gap in medicine in general has fallen so has it across the board.  Did the hormonal development of women change from 1980 to 2015 to increase their interest in a "male" medical field (based on your link) or have exposure and other cues been important?  Want to bet in 20 years, that number is higher than 33%?

 

Radiology has seen a similar increase (21% to 32%), internist (I'm assuming that is the same as internal medicine at your link) (20% to 41%), emergency medicine (15% to 37%), my link has surgery broken down to fields, but for example general surgeon has gone from 9% to 41%.

 

https://amino.com/blog/how-the-gender-gap-is-shifting-in-medicine-medical-specialties-by-gender/

 

Think about that.  The supposedly "male" field of general surgery has gone from 9% of new doctors being females to 41% being female over 35 years.

 

If we can drive down the gender gap in those fields, why can't we do it in tech?

 

Have there been hormonal changes that have driven up the interest of females in all of the "male" medical fields over the last 30 years?

 

I suspect something similar will happen in tech.  Given how the historical gap in STEM testing and course taking has fallen and the known importance of examples, role models, and mentors in traditionally under represented minorities in STEM fields and the lack of them until more recently in tech and our greater understanding of how environmental issues affect interest in CoSci (https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2016-10-20/study-computer-science-gender-gap-widens-despite-increase-in-jobs), I suspect we will see the role of women in tech increase over the next 20 years.

 

In some jobs are we likely to see some biologically gender driven differences in interest and so a gender gap?  Yes

 

But based on the total data that we have there is no reason to believe the US STEM gap and in particular tech gap is largely driven by biologically driven interest vs. societal cues and environments and things like exposure, role models, mentors, and examples.

 

Anybody that strongly asserts that the US stem gap is heavily driven by biologically mandated interest isn't thinking logically about the available data.

 

And if you are a company, it is stupid to allow your (future) available work force to be dictated to you by things like that.

[Elessar78]

In one of Damore's citations it says:

 

"In contrast, gender differences on the people–things dimension of interests are ‘very large’ (d = 1.18), with women more people-oriented and less thing-oriented than men. Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, "

 

Damore says, "Hey guys there's a genetic difference". His source says, "There is evidence of it BUT seems like the effect is exacerbated by a societal construct (egalitarian/inegalitarian)." 

 

If it's a societal construct, that to me largely arose subconsciously—society can De-construct it if it doesn't reflect their values.

[tshile]

the response this guy's article has received, including his firing, is laughable.

 

people from the SJW community wonder why they're mocked and have a hard time getting through to people outside their bubble.

 

it's because you're ridiculous, that's why.

[tshile]

27 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

 

If it's a societal construct, that to me largely arose subconsciously—society can De-construct it if it doesn't reflect their values.

Which is great/fine, the question really is:
What were the drivers of the social construct

Is it more important to just deconstruct it, or is it more important to consider why it exists?

 

If women aren't in the IT workplace because they are harassed, or otherwise poorly treated, then it's easy to make an argument that things must change and that there's something to be fixed.

 

If women aren't in the IT workplace because they find the job/environment uninteresting, then maybe it's better to ask why and consider if we should change it than to just demand everyone change and fix the under-representation because it must be inherently bad/biased/sexist/etc?
 

An article that sought to have a dialogue about how Google's solutions to a problem are bad (or potentially bad in some cases) has turned into a "women are inferior in tech" accusation which is nonsense.

 

It's telling that it leaked and resulted in his firing. Google has changed a lot over the years. I'm curious how someone in leadership from 5 years ago would compare then to now, about this sort of thing. I have my own ideas based on various "Why I left google" articles that have come out from their leadership over the last ~8 years.

[Elessar78]

You make a huge assumption that "people" haven't considered whether the case of under-representation is bad/biased/sexist (and then came to a conclusion different than yours). 

 

But hey, let's analyze why black baseball players were under-represented in MLB until, say, the late 60s. Or why the NFL needs the Rooney Rule—sometimes organizations just have to push or be pushed, cajoled into a more enlightened place.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Elessar78 said:

You make a huge assumption that "people" haven't considered whether the case of under-representation is bad/biased/sexist (and then came to a conclusion different than yours). 

 

But hey, let's analyze why black baseball players were under-represented in MLB until, say, the late 60s. Or why the NFL needs the Rooney Rule—sometimes organizations just have to push or be pushed, cajoled into a more enlightened place.

 

So you think black people not being allowed to play basement in the 60's and black coaches not being in the NFL decades ago is related to women not being equally represented in the IT work place?

 

I'm not against the idea, but I'd like to actually see you back it up with something.

 

The IT sector, across the board, hates women and/or thinks they aren't smart enough to perform? They consider women gross and don't want them to be in tehir locker room? Because that seems to have been the bias against black coaches and black people in baseball?

 

And let's take leadership out of it because women are under represented in leadership across all sectors, something that is changing and doing so pretty rapidly. Especially as more and more studies come out showing women actually perform better in leadership positions than men.

 

STEM really took off within the last 20 years. You really want to apply rational from 60 years ago to it?

 

[grego]

Not sure if I read this on here or somewhere else, but it's an interesting point - 

Google can fire this guy for having different ideas about diversity (as plainly as I can say it). 

 

And

 

A baker cannot discriminate and must cater a same sex wedding that he feels is against his religion. 

 

Do you see these as contradictory with regards to private businesses and their freedoms? 

[PeterMP]

23 minutes ago, tshile said:

Which is great/fine, the question really is:
What were the drivers of the social construct

Is it more important to just deconstruct it, or is it more important to consider why it exists?

 

If women aren't in the IT workplace because they are harassed, or otherwise poorly treated, then it's easy to make an argument that things must change and that there's something to be fixed.

 

If women aren't in the IT workplace because they find the job/environment uninteresting, then maybe it's better to ask why and consider if we should change it than to just demand everyone change and fix the under-representation because it must be inherently bad/biased/sexist/etc?
 

An article that sought to have a dialogue about how Google's solutions to a problem are bad (or potentially bad in some cases) has turned into a "women are inferior in tech" accusation which is nonsense.

 

It's telling that it leaked and resulted in his firing. Google has changed a lot over the years. I'm curious how someone in leadership from 5 years ago would compare then to now, about this sort of thing. I have my own ideas based on various "Why I left google" articles that have come out from their leadership over the last ~8 years.

 

First, the document didn't seek to have a dialogue.  Asserting things are true is not a process by which you start a dialogue.

 

Second, tech/STEM fields contain a high percentage of high paying jobs and it is thought in the future that trend will be even more pronounced so social constructs that diminish the likelihood that women will pursue careers in those fields likely puts them at a significant economic disadvantage.

 

http://www.sciencealert.com/women-s-code-found-to-be-better-than-men-s-but-is-rejected-unless-they-hide-their-gender

"In what the authors are claiming is the largest-scale study of gender bias to date, researchers in the US have found that code written by female programmers is rated more highly than code written by men.

 

But this higher rating – based on code acceptance from other coders – is lost when female programmers publicly identify their gender online, with acceptance of their contributions then falling below the acceptance level of code written by men."

[PeterMP]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

So you think black people not being allowed to play basement in the 60's and black coaches not being in the NFL decades ago is related to women not being equally represented in the IT work place?

 

I'm not against the idea, but I'd like to actually see you back it up with something.

 

The IT sector, across the board, hates women and/or thinks they aren't smart enough to perform? They consider women gross and don't want them to be in tehir locker room? Because that seems to have been the bias against black coaches and black people in baseball?

 

And let's take leadership out of it because women are under represented in leadership across all sectors, something that is changing and doing so pretty rapidly. Especially as more and more studies come out showing women actually perform better in leadership positions than men.

 

STEM really took off within the last 20 years. You really want to apply rational from 60 years ago to it?

 

 

Given equal performing male and female students based on any measurable metric, elementary teachers on average will believe the male student is better at math.

 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/12/study-finds-bias-how-male-students-view-female-stem-students

 

"Male students appear to consistently and significantly overrate the abilities of other male students, whereas female students showed no such bias, according to a new study in the journal PLoS ONE

 

Researchers at the University of Washington surveyed more than 1,700 students in three introductory biology classes, asking them to nominate those who they felt were doing exceptionally well in the class. Even after controlling for outspokenness and actual graded performance, male students in each of the classes consistently overestimated the performance of other men to the tune of an assumed 0.765 bump in grade point average. Effectively, for an outspoken female student to be nominated at the same rate as an outspoken man, her class GPA would need to be three quarters of a point higher than that of the guys.

 

Female students, on the other hand, demonstrated no statistically significant bias. Researchers found they were equally likely to nominate male and female students with equivalent GPAs."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepreneurs-speak-out-sexual-harassment.html

 

Women in Tech Speak Frankly on Culture of Harassment

 

60% Of Women In Silicon Valley Have Been Sexually Harassed

 

https://www.fastcompany.com/3055395/60-of-women-in-silicon-valley-have-been-sexually-harassed

[tshile]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

First, the document didn't seek to have a dialogue.  Asserting things are true is not a process by which you start a dialogue.

 

Second, tech/STEM fields contain a high percentage of high paying jobs and it is thought in the future that trend will be even more pronounced so social constructs that diminish the likelihood that women will pursue careers in those fields likely puts them at a significant economic disadvantage.

 

You're right, it didn't seek to have a dialogue

 

That's why the heading on the first page includes two ways to comment/discuss the article

 

"Feel free to comment (they aren’t disabled, the doc may just be overloaded).
For longer form discussions see

g/pc-harmful-discuss"

 

He included references and was trying to explain why he has the opinions he has on what he sees. Instead of pointing providing competing information in an attempt to continue the dialogue his article was leaked to the media where they subsequently labeled him a sexist, and was fired.

 

But yeah, he's the one not seeking to have a dialogue

 

As for your second part, is that the root of your goal and opinion in this? That tech has high paying jobs, so women not having a bigger representation in tech means they're at an economic disadvantage? It seems to me you're look at it from such an abstracted point of view and arguing that equal representation is the only thing that matters, ignoring everything else? Women are 50% of the population, so if they're not 50% of the work force in a given sector that's inherently a problem? A problem that must be fixed? Complaints about how to fix it are unimportant?

 

The article proposed ways to do it without the elements he finds bad (or potentially bad), and in multiple places says that diversity is important to him. Curious why that gets ignored?

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

You're right, it didn't seek to have a dialogue

 

That's why the heading on the first page includes two ways to comment/discuss the article

 

"Feel free to comment (they aren’t disabled, the doc may just be overloaded).
For longer form discussions see

g/pc-harmful-discuss"

 

He included references and was trying to explain why he has the opinions he has on what he sees. Instead of pointing providing competing information in an attempt to continue the dialogue his article was leaked to the media where they subsequently labeled him a sexist, and was fired.

 

But yeah, he's the one not seeking to have a dialogue

 

As for your second part, is that the root of your goal and opinion in this? That tech has high paying jobs, so women not having a bigger representation in tech means they're at an economic disadvantage? It seems to me you're look at it from such an abstracted point of view and arguing that equal representation is the only thing that matters, ignoring everything else? Women are 50% of the population, so if they're not 50% of the work force in a given sector that's inherently a problem? A problem that must be fixed? Complaints about how to fix it are unimportant?

 

The article proposed ways to do it without the elements he finds bad (or potentially bad), and in multiple places says that diversity is important to him. Curious why that gets ignored?

 

Just because one gives people away to comment doesn't mean they actually want to have a dialogue.

 

The article proposed eliminating the best known ways to improve female performance in STEM fields and proposed things that there is no evidence they are going to work or even really related to the problem.

 

I addressed the idea of him saying diversity is important to him in my initial post in this thread so I certainly didn't ignore it.

 

6 hours ago, PeterMP said:

In some jobs are we likely to see some biologically gender driven differences in interest and so a gender gap?  Yes

 

But based on the total data that we have there is no reason to believe the US STEM gap and in particular tech gap is largely driven by biologically driven interest vs. societal cues and environments and things like exposure, role models, mentors, and examples.

 

The root of my problem is that there is an abundance of evidence that there are easily changed social constructs that will increase female involvement in STEM and instead of acknowledging that people seem to be throwing out any and every excuse/obstacle they can.