4 ms·

> Damore points to studies showing that, e.g. women are more agreeable and more people-oriented. From that, he concludes women on average are less likely to pre

> Damore points to studies showing that, e.g. women are more agreeable and more people-oriented. From that, he concludes women on average are less likely to prefer programming. That's Diekman 2010: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20631322 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20631322 "Although women have nearly attained equality with men in several formerly male-dominated fields, they remain underrepresented in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We argue that one important reason for this discrepancy is that STEM careers are perceived as less likely than careers in other fields to fulfill communal goals (e.g., working with or helping other people). Such perceptions might disproportionately affect women's career decisions, because women tend to endorse communal goals more than men. As predicted, we found that STEM careers, relative to other careers, were perceived to impede communal goals. Moreover, communal-goal endorsement negatively predicted interest in STEM careers, even when controlling for past experience and self-efficacy in science and mathematics."

taysic 9y ago
I found that study here: https://sc.lib.miamioh.edu/bitstream/handle/2374.MIA/6026/diekman%20et%20al.%20STEM%20in%20press.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://sc.lib.miamioh.edu/bitstream/handle/2374.MIA/6026/di... "Participants were 333 introductory psychology students (193 women) who participated for partial course credit, and 27 paid participants (14 women) from STEM classes. The majority (86.94%) were of European American descent. The median age was 19 years, ranging from 18 to 43. " "For each of the core careers, participants rated how much the career fulfills agentic goals (“power, achievement, and seeking new experiences or excitement”) and communal goals (“intimacy, affiliation, and altruism”; definitions from Pohlmann, 2001). Participants rated goals according to “how important each of the following kinds of goals is to you personally." I really found this study not very compelling as jumping from point A to conclusion B. It seems more than they've proved that women from the small subset in this study prefer more "communal goals" and the STEM careers are not perceived that way. I can say as a women in STEM, I sort of choose tech on a whim. I came to see coding as a tool for many of the creative aspirations I had. If anything, I think some of the STEM career paths are poorly understood and marketed to women. Though I probably would have answered my questions about my career decisions in one way when I started college, it would have been different by the end of it. And after understanding what to expect out of a career, being years into my career, I would answer what's important to me in yet another way. So I really question this study.
- tshadley 9y ago
  She's done some research since in this area, see publication list: https://miamioh.edu/cas/academics/departments/psychology/about/current-faculty-staff/diekman-amanda/index.html https://miamioh.edu/cas/academics/departments/psychology/abo...
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  Let me just say this is why "show me the study" is never a productive line of debate. If someone agrees with the point the study seems to support, they say, "Hah! Studies!" and call anyone who disagrees "anti-science". But if someone disagrees with the point, they pull up the study, pick out some section of it where any type of subjective judgment call was made (usually the details of the sample, because that's the most clearly subjective thing, making it the easiest thing to criticize), and say "There are real problems with this study, how about a real study? [that is, a study that agrees with my point]". Also popular is "Yes, but this author is affiliated with former employer x, y, or z". This is true of all sides, all the time. Very rarely do you see a study actually impact anyone's opinion about an important topic. It is usually only the impression that more studies support a specific position (that is, "the consensus", aka social pressure to appear studious and informed, which affects academics as much or more than it affects non-academics), that does it.
  - bayonetz 9y ago
    Given the power we see in 100+ study meta-analysis in medicine, I think we have to move towards a model where research grants in other fields (psych, sociology, etc.) are jointly awarded to multiple independent groups to jumpstart the meta-analysis for a given new topic from the outset. How to keep the "independent" groups from colluding will be a challenge unfortunately. As will funding for the extra replications. For the reasons you cite, single, stand-alone studies are almost useless these days.
  - tshadley 9y ago
    > But if someone disagrees with the point, they pull up the study, pick out some section of it where any type of subjective judgment call was made (usually the details of the sample, because that's the most clearly subjective thing, making it the easiest thing to criticize), and say "There are real problems with this study, how about a real study? [that is, a study that agrees with my point]". Also popular is "Yes, but this author is affiliated with former employer x, y, or z". This is virtually impossible to do effectively unless one is an expert in the field. Studies that have been published by reputable journals have gone through a rigorous peer review process. A layperson criticizing such a study is highly unlikely to discover any valid points that have escaped the experts.
rayiner 9y ago
That study doesn't support either of Damore's premises. It doesn't address biological tendencies--it was conducted on adult women. Nor does it address traits actually linked to professions. It focuses on perception. That's an important distinction. In the age of the internet, software is much more about fulfilling communal goals--e.g. helping people communicate with family and friends--than many women-dominated professions like accounting. To the extent women perceive the opposite to be true, a strong argument can be made that it is the result of a male-dominated profession characterizing itself as such, rather than anything inherent about the profession. Peoples' perceptions of various professions are the result of socialization. For example, my mom grew up in a society where teaching was a male profession--it was characterized as being about instilling wisdom and discipline in children. She found it very upsetting that teachers in the US were overwhelmingly women.
- tshadley 9y ago
  > Peoples' perceptions of various professions are the result of socialization. But interests come first. If women on average perceive technology as not fulfilling communal goals and therefore avoid the field, they must first be interested in communal goals. It's also not controversial that interests have some biological component. So both here and in your original comment, I'm not sure exactly what specific criticism of Damore you're making. Maybe a quote would help? Generally, you raise the possibility that software engineering could be a very people-oriented profession now but misportrayed as such by male engineers. But surely there must be some non-people, thing-oriented job that is just hours of long hacking at a keyboard with zero to minimal social contact, completely male-dominated, which women on average would tend to avoid. Why wouldn't that be some form of software programming?

taysic 9y ago

I found that study here: https://sc.lib.miamioh.edu/bitstream/handle/2374.MIA/6026/diekman%20et%20al.%20STEM%20in%20press.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://sc.lib.miamioh.edu/bitstream/handle/2374.MIA/6026/di... "Participants were 333 introductory psychology students (193 women) who participated for partial course credit, and 27 paid participants (14 women) from STEM classes. The majority (86.94%) were of European American descent. The median age was 19 years, ranging from 18 to 43. " "For each of the core careers, participants rated how much the career fulfills agentic goals (“power, achievement, and seeking new experiences or excitement”) and communal goals (“intimacy, affiliation, and altruism”; definitions from Pohlmann, 2001). Participants rated goals according to “how important each of the following kinds of goals is to you personally." I really found this study not very compelling as jumping from point A to conclusion B. It seems more than they've proved that women from the small subset in this study prefer more "communal goals" and the STEM careers are not perceived that way. I can say as a women in STEM, I sort of choose tech on a whim. I came to see coding as a tool for many of the creative aspirations I had. If anything, I think some of the STEM career paths are poorly understood and marketed to women. Though I probably would have answered my questions about my career decisions in one way when I started college, it would have been different by the end of it. And after understanding what to expect out of a career, being years into my career, I would answer what's important to me in yet another way. So I really question this study.

tshadley 9y ago
She's done some research since in this area, see publication list: https://miamioh.edu/cas/academics/departments/psychology/about/current-faculty-staff/diekman-amanda/index.html https://miamioh.edu/cas/academics/departments/psychology/abo...
cookiecaper 9y ago
Let me just say this is why "show me the study" is never a productive line of debate. If someone agrees with the point the study seems to support, they say, "Hah! Studies!" and call anyone who disagrees "anti-science". But if someone disagrees with the point, they pull up the study, pick out some section of it where any type of subjective judgment call was made (usually the details of the sample, because that's the most clearly subjective thing, making it the easiest thing to criticize), and say "There are real problems with this study, how about a real study? [that is, a study that agrees with my point]". Also popular is "Yes, but this author is affiliated with former employer x, y, or z". This is true of all sides, all the time. Very rarely do you see a study actually impact anyone's opinion about an important topic. It is usually only the impression that more studies support a specific position (that is, "the consensus", aka social pressure to appear studious and informed, which affects academics as much or more than it affects non-academics), that does it.
- bayonetz 9y ago
  Given the power we see in 100+ study meta-analysis in medicine, I think we have to move towards a model where research grants in other fields (psych, sociology, etc.) are jointly awarded to multiple independent groups to jumpstart the meta-analysis for a given new topic from the outset. How to keep the "independent" groups from colluding will be a challenge unfortunately. As will funding for the extra replications. For the reasons you cite, single, stand-alone studies are almost useless these days.
- tshadley 9y ago
  > But if someone disagrees with the point, they pull up the study, pick out some section of it where any type of subjective judgment call was made (usually the details of the sample, because that's the most clearly subjective thing, making it the easiest thing to criticize), and say "There are real problems with this study, how about a real study? [that is, a study that agrees with my point]". Also popular is "Yes, but this author is affiliated with former employer x, y, or z". This is virtually impossible to do effectively unless one is an expert in the field. Studies that have been published by reputable journals have gone through a rigorous peer review process. A layperson criticizing such a study is highly unlikely to discover any valid points that have escaped the experts.

rayiner 9y ago

That study doesn't support either of Damore's premises. It doesn't address biological tendencies--it was conducted on adult women. Nor does it address traits actually linked to professions. It focuses on perception. That's an important distinction. In the age of the internet, software is much more about fulfilling communal goals--e.g. helping people communicate with family and friends--than many women-dominated professions like accounting. To the extent women perceive the opposite to be true, a strong argument can be made that it is the result of a male-dominated profession characterizing itself as such, rather than anything inherent about the profession. Peoples' perceptions of various professions are the result of socialization. For example, my mom grew up in a society where teaching was a male profession--it was characterized as being about instilling wisdom and discipline in children. She found it very upsetting that teachers in the US were overwhelmingly women.

tshadley 9y ago
> Peoples' perceptions of various professions are the result of socialization. But interests come first. If women on average perceive technology as not fulfilling communal goals and therefore avoid the field, they must first be interested in communal goals. It's also not controversial that interests have some biological component. So both here and in your original comment, I'm not sure exactly what specific criticism of Damore you're making. Maybe a quote would help? Generally, you raise the possibility that software engineering could be a very people-oriented profession now but misportrayed as such by male engineers. But surely there must be some non-people, thing-oriented job that is just hours of long hacking at a keyboard with zero to minimal social contact, completely male-dominated, which women on average would tend to avoid. Why wouldn't that be some form of software programming?