3 ms·

If it is such a broad classification, maybe it is not very meaningful then to say "tech has less women than any other non-routine cognitive profession". Why us

If it is such a broad classification, maybe it is not very meaningful then to say "tech has less women than any other non-routine cognitive profession". Why use the classification at all, if it so broad? If you use "all professions", you get perhaps things like garbage men and miners who are worse than tech? So you can always select a filter that makes tech look worst.

tptacek 10y ago
I don't understand the premise of your objection. The point of the comparison is that tech is uniquely unbalanced among the professions. I'm also disinclined to try to rebut an argument that seesaws like yours now is --- first the comparison is so idiosyncratic that it must be biased, then so broad as to be meaningless. If you object to the classification of labor as "cognitive" or "manual" and "routine" or "nonroutine", you should probably take that argument up with r/badeconomics.
- facepalm 10y ago
  My question is/was: do you think sexism is the main thing that differentiates tech from other non-routine cognitive professions? That economists created such a classification is pretty irrelevant. The point about the broadness was that if it is so broad, you might as well take all professions and get a different result.
  - tomlock 10y ago
    I think your original argument was worded "only thing" not "main thing". It feels like you've changed your argument slightly.
    - facepalm 10y ago
      Are you sure you can not decipher the argument I am making? Feel free to either replace "only thing" with "main thing" in my first comment, or "main thing" with "only thing" in the later comment, to make it consistent enough for you to parse.
      - tomlock 10y ago
        "Only" and "main" have two significantly different meanings so you actually stated two different arguments.
        facepalm 10y ago
        Sorry then my English isn't good enough for such nuances. Maybe replace all instances of "main" and "only" with "significant" or something like that? I think with some goodwill, you could see the point I was trying to make.

tptacek 10y ago

I don't understand the premise of your objection. The point of the comparison is that tech is uniquely unbalanced among the professions. I'm also disinclined to try to rebut an argument that seesaws like yours now is --- first the comparison is so idiosyncratic that it must be biased, then so broad as to be meaningless. If you object to the classification of labor as "cognitive" or "manual" and "routine" or "nonroutine", you should probably take that argument up with r/badeconomics.

facepalm 10y ago
My question is/was: do you think sexism is the main thing that differentiates tech from other non-routine cognitive professions? That economists created such a classification is pretty irrelevant. The point about the broadness was that if it is so broad, you might as well take all professions and get a different result.
- tomlock 10y ago
  I think your original argument was worded "only thing" not "main thing". It feels like you've changed your argument slightly.
  - facepalm 10y ago
    Are you sure you can not decipher the argument I am making? Feel free to either replace "only thing" with "main thing" in my first comment, or "main thing" with "only thing" in the later comment, to make it consistent enough for you to parse.
    - tomlock 10y ago
      "Only" and "main" have two significantly different meanings so you actually stated two different arguments.
      - facepalm 10y ago
        Sorry then my English isn't good enough for such nuances. Maybe replace all instances of "main" and "only" with "significant" or something like that? I think with some goodwill, you could see the point I was trying to make.