6 ms·

I don't recall the exact source but I believe that overall, women score lower in tests for mathematical and logical aptitude, and higher in tests for verbal and

I don't recall the exact source but I believe that overall, women score lower in tests for mathematical and logical aptitude, and higher in tests for verbal and social aptitude. This correlates with the low numbers of women that choose to enter the industry, despite increasing incentives. It also correlates with female domination of fields such as nursing.

geofft 9y ago
OK. I'd argue that software engineering and especially senior software engineering (architecture, designing APIs and interfaces, reading and writing documentation, team management) is better correlated with verbal and social aptitude than with mathematical and logical aptitude. Being able to get a tricky sorting algorithm right is the sort of thing a junior engineer is more likely to do than a senior engineer; when the senior engineer does it, they also tend to need to explain to others why the algorithm is right. Of course this is just my belief, as a member of the industry, and not a scientifically-researched conclusion. So, again, I'm curious to see evidence of why women's aptitude is poorly correlated with the specific industry of software engineering. (I would even buy, based on your argument, that women's aptitude is poorly correlated with academic computer science, but that's a very different field.)
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  It's true communication skills are more important once the senior level is reached. Perhaps the work involved in moving through the junior ranks is not appealing. It's clear women on the whole are not drawn to STEM. It's not clear why but there does appear to be a biological component. It's certainly not primarily socially constructed. That's my observation anyway. I haven't studied the issue in great detail.
  - BugsJustFindMe 9y ago
    > It's clear women on the whole are not drawn to STEM. It's also clear that girls on the whole are not driven toward STEM by their adult mentors, and outside the bubble are actively discouraged from it. > It's certainly not primarily socially constructed. Certain, are you? Based on what?
    - hyperdunc 9y ago
      No one should be driven toward any field they aren't interested in, nor should they be actively discouraged from anything they are interested in. Today, different families and schools push varying expectations onto children. This cultural aspect is layered on top of biological differences in body and intelligence. If we remove cultural impediments and allow biology to express itself more fully, the uneven distribution of gender in different fields increases. In other words, the relative evenness of the distribution we currently have is socially constructed. So I'm not convinced by the argument that women (and indeed many men) are dissuaded because they hold negative stereotypes of people and working culture in STEM fields. However, I'm willing to keep an open mind on this, so if this is true then more effort should be made to welcome in talented outsiders.
  - geofft 9y ago
    > It's clear women on the whole are not drawn to STEM. It's not clear why but there does appear to be a biological component. It's certainly not primarily socially constructed. I don't think I believe any of these three claims. For these I don't think asking for supporting evidence would help - these aren't claims where you can easily point to a research paper, but these are interpretations of a large amount of data (some rigorous, some anecdotal). But it's interesting that we have such different interpretations, worldviews if you will, of the data we've seen. I think women are drawn just fine to STEM as a whole (if by "drawn" you mean "innate interest"), I think they're somewhat structurally discouraged by socially-constructed barriers to STEM as whole and, importantly, quite a bit more discouraged to software engineering in particular. And I don't think there's anything biological about it (unless you count the fact that many people with wombs plan to bear children and nobody without wombs does, and long parental leave is a serious career hit, but I'd still argue that 90% of that is a socially-constructed barrier and not a biological one).

geofft 9y ago

OK. I'd argue that software engineering and especially senior software engineering (architecture, designing APIs and interfaces, reading and writing documentation, team management) is better correlated with verbal and social aptitude than with mathematical and logical aptitude. Being able to get a tricky sorting algorithm right is the sort of thing a junior engineer is more likely to do than a senior engineer; when the senior engineer does it, they also tend to need to explain to others why the algorithm is right. Of course this is just my belief, as a member of the industry, and not a scientifically-researched conclusion. So, again, I'm curious to see evidence of why women's aptitude is poorly correlated with the specific industry of software engineering. (I would even buy, based on your argument, that women's aptitude is poorly correlated with academic computer science, but that's a very different field.)

hyperdunc 9y ago
It's true communication skills are more important once the senior level is reached. Perhaps the work involved in moving through the junior ranks is not appealing. It's clear women on the whole are not drawn to STEM. It's not clear why but there does appear to be a biological component. It's certainly not primarily socially constructed. That's my observation anyway. I haven't studied the issue in great detail.
- BugsJustFindMe 9y ago
  > It's clear women on the whole are not drawn to STEM. It's also clear that girls on the whole are not driven toward STEM by their adult mentors, and outside the bubble are actively discouraged from it. > It's certainly not primarily socially constructed. Certain, are you? Based on what?
  - hyperdunc 9y ago
    No one should be driven toward any field they aren't interested in, nor should they be actively discouraged from anything they are interested in. Today, different families and schools push varying expectations onto children. This cultural aspect is layered on top of biological differences in body and intelligence. If we remove cultural impediments and allow biology to express itself more fully, the uneven distribution of gender in different fields increases. In other words, the relative evenness of the distribution we currently have is socially constructed. So I'm not convinced by the argument that women (and indeed many men) are dissuaded because they hold negative stereotypes of people and working culture in STEM fields. However, I'm willing to keep an open mind on this, so if this is true then more effort should be made to welcome in talented outsiders.
- geofft 9y ago
  > It's clear women on the whole are not drawn to STEM. It's not clear why but there does appear to be a biological component. It's certainly not primarily socially constructed. I don't think I believe any of these three claims. For these I don't think asking for supporting evidence would help - these aren't claims where you can easily point to a research paper, but these are interpretations of a large amount of data (some rigorous, some anecdotal). But it's interesting that we have such different interpretations, worldviews if you will, of the data we've seen. I think women are drawn just fine to STEM as a whole (if by "drawn" you mean "innate interest"), I think they're somewhat structurally discouraged by socially-constructed barriers to STEM as whole and, importantly, quite a bit more discouraged to software engineering in particular. And I don't think there's anything biological about it (unless you count the fact that many people with wombs plan to bear children and nobody without wombs does, and long parental leave is a serious career hit, but I'd still argue that 90% of that is a socially-constructed barrier and not a biological one).