5 ms·

Strawman. Nobody and especially not the memo made a claim about capacity. It was all about interest on average, which is absolutely backed by research : https:

Strawman. Nobody and especially not the memo made a claim about capacity. It was all about interest on average, which is absolutely backed by research : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/ Abstract : "There is considerable interest in understanding women’s underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Career choices have been shown to be driven in part by interests, and gender differences in those interests have generally been considered to result from socialization. We explored the contribution of sex hormones to career-related interests, in particular studying whether prenatal androgens affect interests through psychological orientation to Things versus People. We examined this question in individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), who have atypical exposure to androgens early in development, and their unaffected siblings (total N = 125 aged 9 to 26 years). Females with CAH had more interest in Things versus People than did unaffected females, and variations among females with CAH reflected variations in their degree of androgen exposure. Results provide strong support for hormonal influences on interest in occupations characterized by working with Things versus People."

yawaramin 9y ago
OK, in the paper you linked to presumably they've classified IT/CS jobs as 'thing-oriented' work. Now, let's classify them as 'people-oriented'. Whoops! Suddenly women are very interested. You see the problem? The study is biased from the outset because it's designed to 'prove' that women aren't interested in IT.
- renaudg 9y ago
  > The study is biased from the outset because it's designed to 'prove' that women aren't interested in IT. No, the study was designed to investigate a potential link between prenatal androgen exposure and a preference for Things vs People work, which it did find. > let's classify [IT/CS] as 'people-oriented'. Whoops! Suddenly women are very interested. But precisely, observation shows they're not, as a group ! That's the very thing we're here discussing, trying to find out why. And yeah, let's just arbitrarily switch jobs classifications like that without any grounding in reality, just because that's the only way your hypothesis will not fall apart. Can you see the extraordinary amount of unlikely premises it takes for your logic to stand, compared to the alternative, simpler explanation ? That is exactly the kind of situation Occam's razor is here for : "among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." This is starting to feel like a flat-earth debate, honestly. I'm pretty sure many people here would engage with the available evidence much more candidly, if this were a less politically charged topic (and I'm a liberal. But science before ideology, always.)
  - yawaramin 9y ago
    'Arbitrarily' switch job classifications? Sorry, what is the reality grounding of classifying IT jobs as 'thing-oriented'? It seems about as scientific as the zodiac. Tell me, if you're a programmer, how much time do you spend communicating with people versus actually coding? How much time reading and writing documentation? Choosing variable and class names to communicate your code's intentions? Can you see how classifying IT jobs as something women aren't interested in, leads to finding a 'result' that women aren't interested in IT jobs? That's literally a tautology.

yawaramin 9y ago

OK, in the paper you linked to presumably they've classified IT/CS jobs as 'thing-oriented' work. Now, let's classify them as 'people-oriented'. Whoops! Suddenly women are very interested. You see the problem? The study is biased from the outset because it's designed to 'prove' that women aren't interested in IT.

renaudg 9y ago
> The study is biased from the outset because it's designed to 'prove' that women aren't interested in IT. No, the study was designed to investigate a potential link between prenatal androgen exposure and a preference for Things vs People work, which it did find. > let's classify [IT/CS] as 'people-oriented'. Whoops! Suddenly women are very interested. But precisely, observation shows they're not, as a group ! That's the very thing we're here discussing, trying to find out why. And yeah, let's just arbitrarily switch jobs classifications like that without any grounding in reality, just because that's the only way your hypothesis will not fall apart. Can you see the extraordinary amount of unlikely premises it takes for your logic to stand, compared to the alternative, simpler explanation ? That is exactly the kind of situation Occam's razor is here for : "among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." This is starting to feel like a flat-earth debate, honestly. I'm pretty sure many people here would engage with the available evidence much more candidly, if this were a less politically charged topic (and I'm a liberal. But science before ideology, always.)
- yawaramin 9y ago
  'Arbitrarily' switch job classifications? Sorry, what is the reality grounding of classifying IT jobs as 'thing-oriented'? It seems about as scientific as the zodiac. Tell me, if you're a programmer, how much time do you spend communicating with people versus actually coding? How much time reading and writing documentation? Choosing variable and class names to communicate your code's intentions? Can you see how classifying IT jobs as something women aren't interested in, leads to finding a 'result' that women aren't interested in IT jobs? That's literally a tautology.