4 ms·

The term "neuroticism" stems from the five factor model of psychological traits. The memo author doesn't really mention this too much, but if you know about the

by jlouis 9y ago

The term "neuroticism" stems from the five factor model of psychological traits. The memo author doesn't really mention this too much, but if you know about the model, he uses the other factors throughout his work, which means he has read and understood the model. There have been several studies showing that women scores higher in the agreeableness and neuroticism factors, on average (and with a quite large variance and a rather small effect I might add). The memo author makes it clear by writing "in part" in multiple places: a moderate effect can't explain the whole story: either there is another factor which truly dominates, or we are just looking at one piece of the puzzle as a whole. Neuroticism has a very specific meaning in this case and it pertains to "negative emotion" in the sense that extremely high scores make you more likely to be stressed, anxious and so on. Likewise, extremely low scores make you overconfident and so stable you are unlikely to venture out into new ideas. From an evolutionary phsych. standpoint, any score which exist tend to serve a purpose some way or the other. There are no desirable or undesirable traits, because too much or too little of a trait will be challenging in some situations, but a great advantage in others. So the question to ask is: if women scores higher in neuroticism, what advantage does that buy them in what situations? More anxiety could for instance have you second-guessing yourself in more situations, and that could lead to you finding more bugs in programs up front, which is an excellent trait to have in software development. The other factor where there is a measurable gender difference, agreeableness, is a two-edged sword: High agreeableness scores are highly desirable for building coherent and working team/group structures. Low agreeableness allows people to pick an individualist/isolationist path when needed and make something great by ignoring the group consensus. Good group dynamic requires both traits to some extent. My hunch is that if you scored the women at Google on the five factor model, they'd be likely to fall somewhat outside the gender norms. There is a considerable selection bias if you only consider tech people who work for Google. You are easily looking at a small fraction of the population as a whole, and the hiring selection process is likely to skew the scores quite a lot from the average norm.

GVIrish 9y ago
The thing about pointing at the 5 factor psych model then applying it to something like gender disparity in tech, is that it's a pretty big leap to take scores from research studies to then draw conclusions about gender disparities in a given profession. Especially because at the core, it's very difficult to disentangle gender differences in psychological traits from learned social behaviors. You bring up a lot of questions about what effects predispositions have in this case and that is exactly why it creates problems when people take findings on predispositions and run with them.
- marrs 9y ago
  It's no greater than the leap required to attribute gender disparity to internalised misogyny.
  - UncleMeat 9y ago
    Except we do have direct evidence that gender bias leads to worse callback rates, worse initial evaluation of qualifications, worse promotion results, greater punishment for negotiating salaries, and expectations that are outside of job requirements.
    - marrs 9y ago
      But we also have direct evidence that the distribution of genders across the disciplines increases as opportunities between the genders become more equal. That strongly implies that biology does have an affect on life choices. It also has to be said that not all evidence is equal. I was reading an article about this just today, as it happens, complete with citations: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...
- jlouis 9y ago
  I think the key point the author is trying to make is: "Does biology play a role in what choices women make when it comes to selecting a career path?" Clearly, this is not attributable to a single argument or factor. Rather, you have to look at several different reasons. Some are likely cultural, some are likely genetic and the interplay is going to be vastly complex (see e.g., epigenetics). To make the argument, you have to survey a larger number of areas and show that they all point in the same direction, which is what the author is trying to do in the first place. And in particular, you have to demonstrate how the areas contribute to women making a choice against tech in general. Hence, the studies showing how men are more often systemizing than women and so on are far better markers/arguments from a pure biological standpoint, than a difference in the 5 factor model. Personally, I think most diversity programs fail to achieve any kind of success in improving the gender balance. In two prongs, you have to retain women who are already in tech, and you have to get more women into tech. The latter of those two is a hard sell if women simply don't want to be in the tech world, no matter how much you try to seduce and coerce them. And I think it would be too authoritarian to force them into a role they don't want to belong in. I think the author is spot on with the observation that more competitive fields are more likely to have men employed over women. And more cooperative fields are better at retaining women. E.g., Law in Denmark has an almost 50/50 gender split, but women are far more likely to be employed in the public sector as lawyers. The law firms, where 80+ work weeks are the norm, are usually employing men. Jordan B. Peterson, whether you like him or not, posed the question as to why men are willing to fucking do that, and I happen to find that question quite interesting. I also think tech in general would benefit from having some ventures which are more cooperative, but this is not likely to come from a highly competitive venture capitalist private sector, I'm afraid. Nor do I think Google can pull that one off.

by jlouis 9y ago

GVIrish 9y ago

The thing about pointing at the 5 factor psych model then applying it to something like gender disparity in tech, is that it's a pretty big leap to take scores from research studies to then draw conclusions about gender disparities in a given profession. Especially because at the core, it's very difficult to disentangle gender differences in psychological traits from learned social behaviors. You bring up a lot of questions about what effects predispositions have in this case and that is exactly why it creates problems when people take findings on predispositions and run with them.

marrs 9y ago
It's no greater than the leap required to attribute gender disparity to internalised misogyny.
- UncleMeat 9y ago
  Except we do have direct evidence that gender bias leads to worse callback rates, worse initial evaluation of qualifications, worse promotion results, greater punishment for negotiating salaries, and expectations that are outside of job requirements.
  - marrs 9y ago
    But we also have direct evidence that the distribution of genders across the disciplines increases as opportunities between the genders become more equal. That strongly implies that biology does have an affect on life choices. It also has to be said that not all evidence is equal. I was reading an article about this just today, as it happens, complete with citations: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...
jlouis 9y ago
I think the key point the author is trying to make is: "Does biology play a role in what choices women make when it comes to selecting a career path?" Clearly, this is not attributable to a single argument or factor. Rather, you have to look at several different reasons. Some are likely cultural, some are likely genetic and the interplay is going to be vastly complex (see e.g., epigenetics). To make the argument, you have to survey a larger number of areas and show that they all point in the same direction, which is what the author is trying to do in the first place. And in particular, you have to demonstrate how the areas contribute to women making a choice against tech in general. Hence, the studies showing how men are more often systemizing than women and so on are far better markers/arguments from a pure biological standpoint, than a difference in the 5 factor model. Personally, I think most diversity programs fail to achieve any kind of success in improving the gender balance. In two prongs, you have to retain women who are already in tech, and you have to get more women into tech. The latter of those two is a hard sell if women simply don't want to be in the tech world, no matter how much you try to seduce and coerce them. And I think it would be too authoritarian to force them into a role they don't want to belong in. I think the author is spot on with the observation that more competitive fields are more likely to have men employed over women. And more cooperative fields are better at retaining women. E.g., Law in Denmark has an almost 50/50 gender split, but women are far more likely to be employed in the public sector as lawyers. The law firms, where 80+ work weeks are the norm, are usually employing men. Jordan B. Peterson, whether you like him or not, posed the question as to why men are willing to fucking do that, and I happen to find that question quite interesting. I also think tech in general would benefit from having some ventures which are more cooperative, but this is not likely to come from a highly competitive venture capitalist private sector, I'm afraid. Nor do I think Google can pull that one off.