4 ms·

Uh huh, there are potential other explanations, yes. Are they evidenced? Not to my knowledge. > I personally think it's naïve to dismiss inherent biological pr

Uh huh, there are potential other explanations, yes. Are they evidenced? Not to my knowledge. > I personally think it's naïve to dismiss inherent biological preferences entirely... "naïve", huh... So, Adam Grant is one of the world's foremost experts in this area. Did you read his fully-sourced article, linked from my parent post, that refutes this exact "biological" point?

depressedpanda 9y ago
From the studies I've read it seems clear that there are biological differences between males and females. This was not fashionable to claim 20 or so years ago, but I suspect the dismissal was mostly based in politics, and the current trend in psychology is starting to acknowledge this. The problem is that many people seem to forget that the difference applies to averages, and therefore mean very little on an individual level. In other words, it's not far fetched to assume that a part of the gender gap in STEM/CS is because of biology, since an average trend would influence said gap. Conversely, it's incorrect to claim that a specific woman is more ill-suited doing STEM/CS than a man, just because she's a woman. Also, I didn't go through all the references, but Adam Grant (at least indirectly) cites the 1995 study by Steele & Aronson which has been proved to be of shoddy quality. Like everyone else who denies any possibility of biology influencing how people think, he seems to have a political axe to grind. I therefore consider his opinions somewhat unreliable.
- ece 9y ago
  Do you have any better studies to cite for what you're saying? Because if you don't you shouldn't be saying what you're saying.
  - depressedpanda 9y ago
    Regarding cognitive differences between men and women having a biological component: https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-... Regarding the quality and replicability of stereotype threat studies, that came in vogue after the seminal Steele & Aronson 1995 paper: https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/tag/does-stereotype-threat-influence-performance-of-girls-in-stereotyped-domains-a-meta-analysis/ https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/tag/does-stereotype-t... https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/hidden-figures-replication-failures-in-the-stereotype-threat-literature/ https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/hidden-fig... https://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/12/30/is-stereotype-threat-overcooked-overstated-and-oversold/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/12/30/is-stereotype-threat...
Kibber 9y ago
You might also want to read this fully-sourced response to Grant: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagge... (and also Grant's response to that response in the comments).
- richmarr 9y ago
  Yep, I think they fairly strongly agree that biological differences are not huge and that interest (which can be strongly swayed by culture) is that main contributing factor in the studies the memo cited. I think Scott Alexander makes one rather poor argument towards the end of his debate with Grant. > I agree this is surprising. But let’s also not claim it supports the sexism theory, unless you think people in computer science became more sexist between 1980 and today for some reason. Attitudes change precisely that quickly. Look at the massive change in attitudes towards homosexuality. Then look at the way computers were marketed directly at boys in exactly that period https://qz.com/911737/silicon-valleys-gender-gap-is-the-result-of-computer-game-marketing-20-years-ago/ https://qz.com/911737/silicon-valleys-gender-gap-is-the-resu...
  - Kibber 9y ago
    > I think Scott Alexander makes one rather poor argument towards the end of his debate with Grant. The way I read it, Grant claims that the decline can't have a biological explanation, Scott agrees but counter-claims that it does not necessarily follow the reason must be sexism then, and then goes on to provide a plausible non-sexism explanation. Are you reading it differently? Regarding the article you referenced, I'm not sure I understand how it supports the sexism theory either. Up to about '83 women CS share rapidly and steadily increased (indicating decreasing sexism, I presume?), then Apple started marketing to boys, video games producers started marketing to boys, and because of that sexism within the industry immediately and dramatically increased? Or is it "sexism increased, and that caused Apple and video game producers to market to boys"? What's the narrative here? More object-level, or nitpicking, if you will - the Apple ad they referenced didn't actually market "to boys" - nobody would buy an Apple II for a boy in 1985, it was too expensive, around $5K in today's money. The ad merely used a boy as the lead character, and no, mischievously pressing a button on the girl's keyboard does not constitute "teasing girls' computer skills".

depressedpanda 9y ago

From the studies I've read it seems clear that there are biological differences between males and females. This was not fashionable to claim 20 or so years ago, but I suspect the dismissal was mostly based in politics, and the current trend in psychology is starting to acknowledge this. The problem is that many people seem to forget that the difference applies to averages, and therefore mean very little on an individual level. In other words, it's not far fetched to assume that a part of the gender gap in STEM/CS is because of biology, since an average trend would influence said gap. Conversely, it's incorrect to claim that a specific woman is more ill-suited doing STEM/CS than a man, just because she's a woman. Also, I didn't go through all the references, but Adam Grant (at least indirectly) cites the 1995 study by Steele & Aronson which has been proved to be of shoddy quality. Like everyone else who denies any possibility of biology influencing how people think, he seems to have a political axe to grind. I therefore consider his opinions somewhat unreliable.

ece 9y ago
Do you have any better studies to cite for what you're saying? Because if you don't you shouldn't be saying what you're saying.
- depressedpanda 9y ago
  Regarding cognitive differences between men and women having a biological component: https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-... Regarding the quality and replicability of stereotype threat studies, that came in vogue after the seminal Steele & Aronson 1995 paper: https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/tag/does-stereotype-threat-influence-performance-of-girls-in-stereotyped-domains-a-meta-analysis/ https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/tag/does-stereotype-t... https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/hidden-figures-replication-failures-in-the-stereotype-threat-literature/ https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/hidden-fig... https://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/12/30/is-stereotype-threat-overcooked-overstated-and-oversold/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/12/30/is-stereotype-threat...

Kibber 9y ago

You might also want to read this fully-sourced response to Grant: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagge... (and also Grant's response to that response in the comments).

richmarr 9y ago
Yep, I think they fairly strongly agree that biological differences are not huge and that interest (which can be strongly swayed by culture) is that main contributing factor in the studies the memo cited. I think Scott Alexander makes one rather poor argument towards the end of his debate with Grant. > I agree this is surprising. But let’s also not claim it supports the sexism theory, unless you think people in computer science became more sexist between 1980 and today for some reason. Attitudes change precisely that quickly. Look at the massive change in attitudes towards homosexuality. Then look at the way computers were marketed directly at boys in exactly that period https://qz.com/911737/silicon-valleys-gender-gap-is-the-result-of-computer-game-marketing-20-years-ago/ https://qz.com/911737/silicon-valleys-gender-gap-is-the-resu...
- Kibber 9y ago
  > I think Scott Alexander makes one rather poor argument towards the end of his debate with Grant. The way I read it, Grant claims that the decline can't have a biological explanation, Scott agrees but counter-claims that it does not necessarily follow the reason must be sexism then, and then goes on to provide a plausible non-sexism explanation. Are you reading it differently? Regarding the article you referenced, I'm not sure I understand how it supports the sexism theory either. Up to about '83 women CS share rapidly and steadily increased (indicating decreasing sexism, I presume?), then Apple started marketing to boys, video games producers started marketing to boys, and because of that sexism within the industry immediately and dramatically increased? Or is it "sexism increased, and that caused Apple and video game producers to market to boys"? What's the narrative here? More object-level, or nitpicking, if you will - the Apple ad they referenced didn't actually market "to boys" - nobody would buy an Apple II for a boy in 1985, it was too expensive, around $5K in today's money. The ad merely used a boy as the lead character, and no, mischievously pressing a button on the girl's keyboard does not constitute "teasing girls' computer skills".