4 ms·

> It's my opinion that most women probably don't want to be programmers/ICs deep down... Yes. But why most women don't want to be programmers? Damore pointed t

by ordu 9y ago

> It's my opinion that most women probably don't want to be programmers/ICs deep down... Yes. But why most women don't want to be programmers? Damore pointed to some reasons, but they are not convincing. Society makes girls to belive that CS is not for girls. There are some differences caused by hormone levels, but I belive that differences caused by nurture is much more influential. > So in context, his memo is really challenging the idea that women prefer economic equality. Maybe. But the point is if this is so, than this preferences should be considered carefully and probably equalized.

js8 9y ago
> There are some differences caused by hormone levels, but I belive that differences caused by nurture is much more influential. Why does it matter so much for everybody, whether the preference is nature or nurture? I like garlic, and hate cauliflower, and my mother's preferences are exactly opposite. It is quite obviously a nurture thing. Does it mean, ipso facto, that I should change? Or she should change? There is nothing wrong with having preferences determined by nurture!
- euyyn 9y ago
  It matters a great deal, to tech companies that are fighting to get the best talent in the world, that the pool misses half its potential candidates.
- ordu 9y ago
  > Why does it matter so much for everybody, whether the preference is nature or nurture? Because you cannot change nature, while nurture can be changed. If there are huge differences caused by nature, then it would be stupid to invest efforts to remove this differences by changing society. If there are huge differences caused by nurture, then changes to society can change nutrure and reduce differences. > I like garlic, and hate cauliflower, and my mother's preferences are exactly opposite. It is quite obviously a nurture thing. Does it mean, ipso facto, that I should change? No, it does not. Any improvement is a change, but not every change is an improvement. Changes is not the terminal goal but instrumental one. If there are reasons to make everyone to like garlic and to hate cauliflower, then we should consider to change nurture to change individual preferences. If there are no reasons than there are nothing to consider. If your preferences lead to economic inequality, if this preferences make hard to you to find job you like, than you should change your preferences, or at least shouldn't allow them to propagate to your descendants. > There is nothing wrong with having preferences determined by nurture! I cannot agree more.
  - js8 9y ago
    > If your preferences lead to economic inequality Except they can't, by definition (hence the word, "preference", as in prefer A to B). If you accept a less paid position A rather than better paid position B, because you prefer doing job A rather than job B, then it's a CHOICE. Why you should be forced to take position B for some higher societal goal of "equality"? That's completely insane, and I say that as a leftist who understands what is economic inequality (which is always, by definition, driven by either lack of choice or non-rational choices).
    - ordu 9y ago
      You are making mistake thinking that person is something whole. Person could want a high paid job but at the same time couldn't stop drinking. Or not drinking but eating garlic every morning, or hating math or someting else. Mind easily can hold any number of inconsistent ideas. It is the reason why sometimes people needs psychologist help. Moreover preferences is something that person could change. For example one can stop smoking, drinking, or start to love math. But not everyone is able to do it. It needs some psychological traits that not everyone possesses. You seems to believe that person have free will from birth and have ability to consciously choose which preferences she would have as an adult. if you are than it is the second your mistake. If person nurtered in white supremacy environment from birth to twenty, it would be very hard for him to change his views later. It would be very hard to society to change his view later. Because as I said, not everyone is capable to change himself. I do not know when person becomes able to think himself about his preferences and choose them consciously. Is it age of 12, 18, 21? I don't know, really. But I'm sure that at age of 12-16 when the love or hate to math can be nurtured, person is not ready to manage strategically his/her personality traits. No one at that age is ready. And notice, than I didn't even tried for now to talk about how girls average attitude to math affects society in a way to make society more unequal for girls who like math. One of the reasons why I'm afraid to touch this topic is my bad English, it is hard to me to think such an ideas in English. I'm more stupid when I think in English. Therefore I need to think such a controversial ideas in one language and than translate to other. It is a pain and translation inevitable lose something. The other reason: before we start to discuss society we need to find some common understanding what person is. > I say that as a leftist who understands what is economic inequality If you was a PhD in social sciences I might want to get two days pause to rethink all my understaning of inequality and personality before continuing to argue. If you was a PhD in STEM I might just ignore that, because it didn't matter when we speak about society. But "leftist" or "democrat" or any other political attachment is not an evidence of deeper than average understanding. Even other way round: people who have political attachment tends to be believers and to have faith. Therefore there are more likelyhood that their views is not better then average.

by ordu 9y ago

js8 9y ago

> There are some differences caused by hormone levels, but I belive that differences caused by nurture is much more influential. Why does it matter so much for everybody, whether the preference is nature or nurture? I like garlic, and hate cauliflower, and my mother's preferences are exactly opposite. It is quite obviously a nurture thing. Does it mean, ipso facto, that I should change? Or she should change? There is nothing wrong with having preferences determined by nurture!

euyyn 9y ago
It matters a great deal, to tech companies that are fighting to get the best talent in the world, that the pool misses half its potential candidates.
ordu 9y ago
> Why does it matter so much for everybody, whether the preference is nature or nurture? Because you cannot change nature, while nurture can be changed. If there are huge differences caused by nature, then it would be stupid to invest efforts to remove this differences by changing society. If there are huge differences caused by nurture, then changes to society can change nutrure and reduce differences. > I like garlic, and hate cauliflower, and my mother's preferences are exactly opposite. It is quite obviously a nurture thing. Does it mean, ipso facto, that I should change? No, it does not. Any improvement is a change, but not every change is an improvement. Changes is not the terminal goal but instrumental one. If there are reasons to make everyone to like garlic and to hate cauliflower, then we should consider to change nurture to change individual preferences. If there are no reasons than there are nothing to consider. If your preferences lead to economic inequality, if this preferences make hard to you to find job you like, than you should change your preferences, or at least shouldn't allow them to propagate to your descendants. > There is nothing wrong with having preferences determined by nurture! I cannot agree more.
- js8 9y ago
  > If your preferences lead to economic inequality Except they can't, by definition (hence the word, "preference", as in prefer A to B). If you accept a less paid position A rather than better paid position B, because you prefer doing job A rather than job B, then it's a CHOICE. Why you should be forced to take position B for some higher societal goal of "equality"? That's completely insane, and I say that as a leftist who understands what is economic inequality (which is always, by definition, driven by either lack of choice or non-rational choices).
  - ordu 9y ago
    You are making mistake thinking that person is something whole. Person could want a high paid job but at the same time couldn't stop drinking. Or not drinking but eating garlic every morning, or hating math or someting else. Mind easily can hold any number of inconsistent ideas. It is the reason why sometimes people needs psychologist help. Moreover preferences is something that person could change. For example one can stop smoking, drinking, or start to love math. But not everyone is able to do it. It needs some psychological traits that not everyone possesses. You seems to believe that person have free will from birth and have ability to consciously choose which preferences she would have as an adult. if you are than it is the second your mistake. If person nurtered in white supremacy environment from birth to twenty, it would be very hard for him to change his views later. It would be very hard to society to change his view later. Because as I said, not everyone is capable to change himself. I do not know when person becomes able to think himself about his preferences and choose them consciously. Is it age of 12, 18, 21? I don't know, really. But I'm sure that at age of 12-16 when the love or hate to math can be nurtured, person is not ready to manage strategically his/her personality traits. No one at that age is ready. And notice, than I didn't even tried for now to talk about how girls average attitude to math affects society in a way to make society more unequal for girls who like math. One of the reasons why I'm afraid to touch this topic is my bad English, it is hard to me to think such an ideas in English. I'm more stupid when I think in English. Therefore I need to think such a controversial ideas in one language and than translate to other. It is a pain and translation inevitable lose something. The other reason: before we start to discuss society we need to find some common understanding what person is. > I say that as a leftist who understands what is economic inequality If you was a PhD in social sciences I might want to get two days pause to rethink all my understaning of inequality and personality before continuing to argue. If you was a PhD in STEM I might just ignore that, because it didn't matter when we speak about society. But "leftist" or "democrat" or any other political attachment is not an evidence of deeper than average understanding. Even other way round: people who have political attachment tends to be believers and to have faith. Therefore there are more likelyhood that their views is not better then average.