5 ms·

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

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.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  > Some are likely cultural, some are likely genetic and the interplay is going to be vastly complex (see e.g., epigenetics). OK, let's say that some segment of it is cultural. Now what? Let's say that I'm female, and I have some talent for engineering/programming, but I'm raised in a culture that says "Women don't do that. Women marry, stay at home, and raise children." And I look at my mother, who is doing exactly that, and I see how trapped she feels, how stifling it is, and I really don't want to wind up in the same place, but because my culture is what it is, I don't think I have any other choice. Clearly, that's bad. But let's say instead I look at my mother, and see that she's fairly content and happy, and I think, "That looks pretty good." It's still the same cultural constraint, but now I am willingly assenting to it. Now, is that still bad? (Yes, it's still bad as for the general culture, because it's still constraining others who don't want that. Is it bad for me specifically?) If you say "Yes, it's still bad", you're saying that you know better than I am what decisions I ought to make. (This presumes that I genuinely understand the alternative. But don't say that, if I really understood, I wouldn't want to choose that. That's cheating. It's also insulting.) Note that, in my example, the differences are neither genetic nor cultural. The difference is in the example that I see growing up, whether or not people are happy fitting into their culturally-assigned place.

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.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> Some are likely cultural, some are likely genetic and the interplay is going to be vastly complex (see e.g., epigenetics). OK, let's say that some segment of it is cultural. Now what? Let's say that I'm female, and I have some talent for engineering/programming, but I'm raised in a culture that says "Women don't do that. Women marry, stay at home, and raise children." And I look at my mother, who is doing exactly that, and I see how trapped she feels, how stifling it is, and I really don't want to wind up in the same place, but because my culture is what it is, I don't think I have any other choice. Clearly, that's bad. But let's say instead I look at my mother, and see that she's fairly content and happy, and I think, "That looks pretty good." It's still the same cultural constraint, but now I am willingly assenting to it. Now, is that still bad? (Yes, it's still bad as for the general culture, because it's still constraining others who don't want that. Is it bad for me specifically?) If you say "Yes, it's still bad", you're saying that you know better than I am what decisions I ought to make. (This presumes that I genuinely understand the alternative. But don't say that, if I really understood, I wouldn't want to choose that. That's cheating. It's also insulting.) Note that, in my example, the differences are neither genetic nor cultural. The difference is in the example that I see growing up, whether or not people are happy fitting into their culturally-assigned place.