4 ms·

> Do you have children? Do you teach your children everything, or send them to school / daycare? > And from that observation that boys and girls are different

> Do you have children? Do you teach your children everything, or send them to school / daycare? > And from that observation that boys and girls are different, I wouldn't call it a stretch to assume that men and women might not be exactly the same, either It is a giant leap in logic to conclude that a slight difference in average personality must undermine women's professional abilities in software engineering. There is no scientific consensus that toy preferences are linked to prenatal testosterone or career choice. Those who say they are linked, such as Damore, are pushing scientism– using undercooked research to back up the status quo.

roel_v 9y ago
For me personally, my children went to daycare since they were 3 months old, but for people I know who stayed at home until the children were 2.5 or 3, it's the same. So from observation, I don't find your argument convincing. I mean, let's be clear here - are you saying that if boys and girls would be kept in isolation, well at least not exposed to the outside world which would fill them with tradtional gender role behaviours, until they are say 3 years old, you're claiming that boys and girls would end up both playing with dolls and playing dressup, and play fight with sticks and climb trees, in equal amounts? Or at least that the ratio of boys/girls having a preference for one thing or another would be the same? Because to me that sound just as preposterous as denying climate change, and it requires a similar level of fact distortion to believe. As to the second point, I'm not going to argue here what this google guy did or did nit say, I didn't read the thing and frankly I don't care much either. But if one would assume (humour me here) that men and women and not the same (as in, have different preferences - not morally or so), how would that not logically lead to some professions being more preferred by one gender? It would be an extraordinary claim that despite differences, the outcome would be that every profession had people to a ratio matching society in general, along many axises - gender, skin color, etc. I realize that it's easy to spin my argument as saying that some people are good managers and others can run very fast and that's just the natural order of thing, but that's not what I'm saying at all, so let's all spare ourselves the effort of going there. And then finally, if some people with certain traits prefer one thing over another, is it then not perfectly obvious and even inevitable that there will be more people of that group doing that thing, and just as inevitable that that does not mean that those who are not like that, aren't automatically unqualified? If you combine two normal distributions, with different modes, isn't the outcome then a mathematical certainty? Including an explanation for the statistically expected properties of each individual? I'm not saying anything here about software engineering, just trying to establish a baseline to understand your argument. Because you seem to be saying that there can be no differences ever, which is so obviously non-intuitive and irrational that I can't believe this would actually be your standpoint.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > you seem to be saying that there can be no differences ever, which is so obviously non-intuitive and irrational that I can't believe this would actually be your standpoint Where did I say that? The notion that either biology or environment determines everything is outdated, according to one environmental biologist [1]. She says modern research is based on the view that "neurological traits develop over time under the simultaneous influence of epigenetic, genetic and environmental influences. Everything about humans involves both nature and nurture" That said, it's a huge leap to assume that sex differences can determine whether or not someone is likely to be a good software engineer. You said you didn't read it. Well, Damore wrote this, "I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership." "This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading." He goes on to claim that there is a scientific consensus showing this, however, it's easy to see from his sources that there is no scientific basis for that claim. [1] https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
  - roel_v 9y ago
    "There is no scientific consensus that toy preferences are linked to prenatal testosterone or career choice" This is weasel wording for "there are no difference". But just in case, let me ask flat out - do you think there are any differences between men and women in what sort of activities and/or behaviour they prefer to do, take part in or be around? If so, would it not be reasonable to assume that this would result in different preferences in job choice? "Everything about humans involves both nature and nurture" Well yeah that was obvious I thought, but at least we agree on this. So then, if preferences and behaviour are at least partially explained by biology, does it then not follow that men and women would have different preferences? Otherwise, to reach parity, the 'nurture' part should cancel out the nature part. Again, I'm not going to be lured into saying something specific about software, but wouldn't it follow naturally from what you said (which is the uncontested scientific consensus) that women would, in the aggregate, prefer some other professions than men do, in the aggregate? Furthermore, even if you for some reason say no, do you find it offensive when people say so? Or do you feel that how people answer reflects on them as a person? Because to me, it's like liking hot dogs or not - something that does absolutely nothing to the way I think about someone. Whereas I get the impression that simple, factual things like this is really an identity thing for some - which I just cannot wrap my head around.

roel_v 9y ago

For me personally, my children went to daycare since they were 3 months old, but for people I know who stayed at home until the children were 2.5 or 3, it's the same. So from observation, I don't find your argument convincing. I mean, let's be clear here - are you saying that if boys and girls would be kept in isolation, well at least not exposed to the outside world which would fill them with tradtional gender role behaviours, until they are say 3 years old, you're claiming that boys and girls would end up both playing with dolls and playing dressup, and play fight with sticks and climb trees, in equal amounts? Or at least that the ratio of boys/girls having a preference for one thing or another would be the same? Because to me that sound just as preposterous as denying climate change, and it requires a similar level of fact distortion to believe. As to the second point, I'm not going to argue here what this google guy did or did nit say, I didn't read the thing and frankly I don't care much either. But if one would assume (humour me here) that men and women and not the same (as in, have different preferences - not morally or so), how would that not logically lead to some professions being more preferred by one gender? It would be an extraordinary claim that despite differences, the outcome would be that every profession had people to a ratio matching society in general, along many axises - gender, skin color, etc. I realize that it's easy to spin my argument as saying that some people are good managers and others can run very fast and that's just the natural order of thing, but that's not what I'm saying at all, so let's all spare ourselves the effort of going there. And then finally, if some people with certain traits prefer one thing over another, is it then not perfectly obvious and even inevitable that there will be more people of that group doing that thing, and just as inevitable that that does not mean that those who are not like that, aren't automatically unqualified? If you combine two normal distributions, with different modes, isn't the outcome then a mathematical certainty? Including an explanation for the statistically expected properties of each individual? I'm not saying anything here about software engineering, just trying to establish a baseline to understand your argument. Because you seem to be saying that there can be no differences ever, which is so obviously non-intuitive and irrational that I can't believe this would actually be your standpoint.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> you seem to be saying that there can be no differences ever, which is so obviously non-intuitive and irrational that I can't believe this would actually be your standpoint Where did I say that? The notion that either biology or environment determines everything is outdated, according to one environmental biologist [1]. She says modern research is based on the view that "neurological traits develop over time under the simultaneous influence of epigenetic, genetic and environmental influences. Everything about humans involves both nature and nurture" That said, it's a huge leap to assume that sex differences can determine whether or not someone is likely to be a good software engineer. You said you didn't read it. Well, Damore wrote this, "I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership." "This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading." He goes on to claim that there is a scientific consensus showing this, however, it's easy to see from his sources that there is no scientific basis for that claim. [1] https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
- roel_v 9y ago
  "There is no scientific consensus that toy preferences are linked to prenatal testosterone or career choice" This is weasel wording for "there are no difference". But just in case, let me ask flat out - do you think there are any differences between men and women in what sort of activities and/or behaviour they prefer to do, take part in or be around? If so, would it not be reasonable to assume that this would result in different preferences in job choice? "Everything about humans involves both nature and nurture" Well yeah that was obvious I thought, but at least we agree on this. So then, if preferences and behaviour are at least partially explained by biology, does it then not follow that men and women would have different preferences? Otherwise, to reach parity, the 'nurture' part should cancel out the nature part. Again, I'm not going to be lured into saying something specific about software, but wouldn't it follow naturally from what you said (which is the uncontested scientific consensus) that women would, in the aggregate, prefer some other professions than men do, in the aggregate? Furthermore, even if you for some reason say no, do you find it offensive when people say so? Or do you feel that how people answer reflects on them as a person? Because to me, it's like liking hot dogs or not - something that does absolutely nothing to the way I think about someone. Whereas I get the impression that simple, factual things like this is really an identity thing for some - which I just cannot wrap my head around.