5 ms·

the snide addition of "Hopefully she doesn't get fired for it." makes it hard to be objective about the rest of your comment, but putting that aside, i agree th

the snide addition of "Hopefully she doesn't get fired for it." makes it hard to be objective about the rest of your comment, but putting that aside, i agree that there is a tinge of implicit buy-in of gender stereotyping in her writing. it's almost certainly more complicated than just "biology did it". that biology simply _dictates_ the way we learn is naive, rather than being a complicated dance between biological inputs that get filtered through dynamic social perceptions rippling through an ocean of brains ever more intricately tied together by computer networks. i don't pretend to know the truth here, but i fully expect it to be marvelously complex and in possibly fascinatingly counterintuitive ways. i wanted to like and even agree with the article, but it basically boiled down to "we learn differently", and i just find that woefully inadequate in explaining why women are underrepresented in tech.

GhostVII 9y ago
> the snide addition of "Hopefully she doesn't get fired for it." makes it hard to be objective about the rest of your comment True, although I honestly hope she doesn't, and think there is a decent chance of her getting some backlash/having a risk of getting fired.
- clairity 9y ago
  thanks for acknowledging, i know that can be hard to do. i think the difference here is that she didn't announce it in her workplace, but rather brought it up for public debate in an open forum.
nullc 9y ago
> there is a tinge of implicit buy-in of gender stereotyping in her writing She emphasized that you can't predict an individual from population characteristics many times. But if you're concerned about overall diversity and not just if a particular individual has access, then you must concern yourself, at least somewhat, with population characteristics. Sterotyping is a sin if you use it for discrimination, it's humanitarian when you use it -- for example-- to save people from breast and prostate cancer. > it basically boiled down to "we learn differently", and i just find that woefully inadequate It may not take much of a difference in averages in the gendered sub-populations to make a big difference in tech's gender balance if you make the assumption that tech is selecting for people several standard deviations away from the norm.

GhostVII 9y ago

> the snide addition of "Hopefully she doesn't get fired for it." makes it hard to be objective about the rest of your comment True, although I honestly hope she doesn't, and think there is a decent chance of her getting some backlash/having a risk of getting fired.

clairity 9y ago
thanks for acknowledging, i know that can be hard to do. i think the difference here is that she didn't announce it in her workplace, but rather brought it up for public debate in an open forum.

nullc 9y ago

> there is a tinge of implicit buy-in of gender stereotyping in her writing She emphasized that you can't predict an individual from population characteristics many times. But if you're concerned about overall diversity and not just if a particular individual has access, then you must concern yourself, at least somewhat, with population characteristics. Sterotyping is a sin if you use it for discrimination, it's humanitarian when you use it -- for example-- to save people from breast and prostate cancer. > it basically boiled down to "we learn differently", and i just find that woefully inadequate It may not take much of a difference in averages in the gendered sub-populations to make a big difference in tech's gender balance if you make the assumption that tech is selecting for people several standard deviations away from the norm.