4 ms·

One thing I noticed / learned about when we had our child is that we are all social creatures. We yearn to be with others like ourselves and to fit in. It's an

by gdubs 11y ago

One thing I noticed / learned about when we had our child is that we are all social creatures. We yearn to be with others like ourselves and to fit in. It's an incredibly strong pull, and the attitude of "if they really were interested, they'd be interested" that is prominent here greatly underestimates how strong our desire to fit in is. In poor neighborhoods, few rise out of their situations to become scholars and professionals. Do we believe it is because they don't want to? Or is it because the social currents -- the pull to fit in, sell drugs, check out, be cool -- are too strong? We have deeply evolved social genes, and our fear of being alienated trumps a lot of things. Unconscious bias is real. You can take a test and see for yourself. We think we view the sexes, other races, other tribes as we view ourselves. But the fact is we're deeply biased. It is ingrained. So, we might not be best suited to say whether our tribe is inclusive -- we probably couldn't give an objective answer if we tried. But what we can do is make a better attempt to be more inclusive of ideas; especially the ones that make us uncomfortable.

T2_t2 11y ago
> We yearn to be with others like ourselves and to fit in. The idea is that this is what "keeps people out". Surely, the flip side is true, and people are defined / made happy by the same notions. People in the west are so far up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, that we've stopped caring about the basics of life. Specifically, of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#/media/File:MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#... we no longer choose a job that gives us food, shelter or safety (the first two), and instead we choose jobs based on how well it provides us with love/belonging, esteem and self-actualisation. That is why young people choose jobs less and less with money as the sole or even primary determinant. If this is the case, that people are choosing professions that help them feel self-actualised or belonging, no matter what tech does, or what Public Relations, Child-care workers or predominantly female dominated occupations do, is less important that the people it attracts / already has attracted. And these same sorts of people will dominate, as this belonging and fitting in becomes increasingly entrenched, and snowballs on itself like runaway recurssion. That seems, to me, the logical conclusion of slight biological gender differences combined with a rise up the pyramid of needs, which lessens the pressure of the former two to create cultures that trump biology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE is a documentary about Scandinavia's attitude to gender relations, and the whole series is brilliant, and shows that gender separation is, if not inevitable, certainly understandable.
- gdubs 11y ago
  Not buying the argument, since according to Maslov, very few people become self-actualized. His own research was sparked by a very limited set of individuals that exhibited the qualities of being what he later described as 'self-actualized'. So it's hard to believe that enough people in tech are self-actualized for that to be a big differentiator. In other words, it just doesn't seem realistic that the current gender balance snowballed out of males being drawn to technology out of self-actualization.

by gdubs 11y ago

T2_t2 11y ago

> We yearn to be with others like ourselves and to fit in. The idea is that this is what "keeps people out". Surely, the flip side is true, and people are defined / made happy by the same notions. People in the west are so far up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, that we've stopped caring about the basics of life. Specifically, of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#/media/File:MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#... we no longer choose a job that gives us food, shelter or safety (the first two), and instead we choose jobs based on how well it provides us with love/belonging, esteem and self-actualisation. That is why young people choose jobs less and less with money as the sole or even primary determinant. If this is the case, that people are choosing professions that help them feel self-actualised or belonging, no matter what tech does, or what Public Relations, Child-care workers or predominantly female dominated occupations do, is less important that the people it attracts / already has attracted. And these same sorts of people will dominate, as this belonging and fitting in becomes increasingly entrenched, and snowballs on itself like runaway recurssion. That seems, to me, the logical conclusion of slight biological gender differences combined with a rise up the pyramid of needs, which lessens the pressure of the former two to create cultures that trump biology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE is a documentary about Scandinavia's attitude to gender relations, and the whole series is brilliant, and shows that gender separation is, if not inevitable, certainly understandable.

gdubs 11y ago
Not buying the argument, since according to Maslov, very few people become self-actualized. His own research was sparked by a very limited set of individuals that exhibited the qualities of being what he later described as 'self-actualized'. So it's hard to believe that enough people in tech are self-actualized for that to be a big differentiator. In other words, it just doesn't seem realistic that the current gender balance snowballed out of males being drawn to technology out of self-actualization.