4 ms·

I'm saying the disparity is due to personality difference. Which, even if cultural, can't be changed by the tech industry. I find it very implausible that the d

I'm saying the disparity is due to personality difference. Which, even if cultural, can't be changed by the tech industry. I find it very implausible that the differences are cultural at any level. And many possible cultural explanations have been ruled out. Poor and communist countries have less gender disparities because people have less choice over their careers. E.g. poor parents shove their kids into STEM because it's see it as a way out of poverty. In rich countries people have the freedom to pursue their actual interests. And so statistical differences in interests start to matter.

dguaraglia 9y ago
> And many possible cultural explanations have been ruled out. You say this, but quote absolutely no science to back it up. Maybe this is just an intuitive perception that you have, rather than a fact? I actually quoted two articles that prove the contrary, and you have no retort for them, but rather just glance over them as if they didn't exist. > Poor and communist countries have less gender disparities because people have less choice over their careers. E.g. poor parents shove their kids into STEM because it's see it as a way out of poverty. In rich countries people have the freedom to pursue their actual interests. So you are going against your previous statement and saying here that culture plays a major role? Unless you use the word 'culture' in a very narrow definition that only includes things such as food, drinks and folk dances. Communist countries, especially Russia, made a big deal about erasing gender inequality (they saw gender roles as another form of oppression.) That's the main reason why Russia had such a high participation of women in STEM, it wasn't because "parents would force them because they were poor." I'm all for having a conversation about this, but are you willing to take new evidence and process it, rather than keep pushing your intuitive notion?
- Houshalter 9y ago
  >You say this, but quote absolutely no science to back it up. Yes I do, and I've been over some of it with you in this thread. >I actually quoted two articles that prove the contrary, and you have no retort for them, but rather just glance over them as if they didn't exist. What, the poor countries have different gender ratios claim? I addressed that. >So you are going against your previous statement and saying here that culture plays a major role? In poor countries, yes. How is Russia doing today after a ton of economic growth? I had trouble finding statistics, the only stat I could find is this: >In 2016 Russia had the highest percentage of patents filed by women, at about 16%. Which is about the ratio of women in STEM in the West.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    > Yes I do, and I've been over some of it with you in this thread. I looked for all your comments with your name in my history. Not a single one of them links to anything. > What, the poor countries have different gender ratios claim? I addressed that. You haven't addressed it, though. You claim it's based on economic growth, yet cite no evidence. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary: the UK has a bigger (and more advanced) economy than India, and a bigger participation of women in STEM. The same goes for Norway vs. US. In fact, Latin America has a much higher participation when compared with, say, Asia for comparable economic growth. Even if we take the US in isolation, your claim doesn't hold up: we have grown at a relatively steady pace for the past few decades and more women participate on STEM fields today that they did in the 80s and 90s. If "economic growth" was the one driving factor, you'd see the exact opposite. Again, are you sure you are putting enough effort into validating your statements? Here are two sets of statistics you might want to consider [1][2] > How is Russia doing today after a ton of economic growth? Russia has gone through a huge amount of "Westernization" since the Berlin Wall came down, so trying to make the case that economic growth or cultural shift are 100% to account for the changes is a fool's errand. > In 2016 Russia had the highest percentage of patents filed by women, at about 16% What makes you think that patent filings of all things represents industry participation? You have to be careful, you could easily conclude there are no males younger than 24 in a given industry if you used patents filed as your only data source. I think the links I posted above, in particular [2] are a better reference. [1] https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-inclusive-growth-and-development-report-2017 https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-inclusive-growth-and-dev... [2] http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs43-women-in-science-2017-en.pdf http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs43-wom...
    - Houshalter 9y ago
      Your hypothesis doesn't explain the data any better than mine. Would you really predict the Arab states, with their incredibly progressive views on feminism, to have higher percentage of female researchers? It really isn't weird to you that Russia, in just 20 years, went back to the same levels of everyone else after all the "progress" they made? Cultures don't change that quickly. The statistics are nearly useless anyway because of how differently they are measured. Women are much more represented in "soft sciences" like biology. But in math etc, the percentage has been pretty consistent. Math majors show a huge increase in women. But when you dig into it, it turns out that they are going into it to become math teachers. And the actual percentage of female Math researchers is the lowest of all of STEM. And pretty consistent through time. And our culture has changed a hell of a lot. Why is it so implausible to you that it's biology? You want some links and statistics? Try reading this: http://www.sci-hub.la/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x http://www.sci-hub.la/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x >gender differences on the people–things dimension of interests are ‘very large’ (d= 1.18), with women more people-oriented and less thing-oriented than men. Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender- inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolution- ary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences. d=1.18 is one of the largest effect sizes I've seen in a social science. It means something like 93% of men are more "thing oriented" than the average woman.

dguaraglia 9y ago

> And many possible cultural explanations have been ruled out. You say this, but quote absolutely no science to back it up. Maybe this is just an intuitive perception that you have, rather than a fact? I actually quoted two articles that prove the contrary, and you have no retort for them, but rather just glance over them as if they didn't exist. > Poor and communist countries have less gender disparities because people have less choice over their careers. E.g. poor parents shove their kids into STEM because it's see it as a way out of poverty. In rich countries people have the freedom to pursue their actual interests. So you are going against your previous statement and saying here that culture plays a major role? Unless you use the word 'culture' in a very narrow definition that only includes things such as food, drinks and folk dances. Communist countries, especially Russia, made a big deal about erasing gender inequality (they saw gender roles as another form of oppression.) That's the main reason why Russia had such a high participation of women in STEM, it wasn't because "parents would force them because they were poor." I'm all for having a conversation about this, but are you willing to take new evidence and process it, rather than keep pushing your intuitive notion?

Houshalter 9y ago
>You say this, but quote absolutely no science to back it up. Yes I do, and I've been over some of it with you in this thread. >I actually quoted two articles that prove the contrary, and you have no retort for them, but rather just glance over them as if they didn't exist. What, the poor countries have different gender ratios claim? I addressed that. >So you are going against your previous statement and saying here that culture plays a major role? In poor countries, yes. How is Russia doing today after a ton of economic growth? I had trouble finding statistics, the only stat I could find is this: >In 2016 Russia had the highest percentage of patents filed by women, at about 16%. Which is about the ratio of women in STEM in the West.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  > Yes I do, and I've been over some of it with you in this thread. I looked for all your comments with your name in my history. Not a single one of them links to anything. > What, the poor countries have different gender ratios claim? I addressed that. You haven't addressed it, though. You claim it's based on economic growth, yet cite no evidence. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary: the UK has a bigger (and more advanced) economy than India, and a bigger participation of women in STEM. The same goes for Norway vs. US. In fact, Latin America has a much higher participation when compared with, say, Asia for comparable economic growth. Even if we take the US in isolation, your claim doesn't hold up: we have grown at a relatively steady pace for the past few decades and more women participate on STEM fields today that they did in the 80s and 90s. If "economic growth" was the one driving factor, you'd see the exact opposite. Again, are you sure you are putting enough effort into validating your statements? Here are two sets of statistics you might want to consider [1][2] > How is Russia doing today after a ton of economic growth? Russia has gone through a huge amount of "Westernization" since the Berlin Wall came down, so trying to make the case that economic growth or cultural shift are 100% to account for the changes is a fool's errand. > In 2016 Russia had the highest percentage of patents filed by women, at about 16% What makes you think that patent filings of all things represents industry participation? You have to be careful, you could easily conclude there are no males younger than 24 in a given industry if you used patents filed as your only data source. I think the links I posted above, in particular [2] are a better reference. [1] https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-inclusive-growth-and-development-report-2017 https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-inclusive-growth-and-dev... [2] http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs43-women-in-science-2017-en.pdf http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs43-wom...
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    Your hypothesis doesn't explain the data any better than mine. Would you really predict the Arab states, with their incredibly progressive views on feminism, to have higher percentage of female researchers? It really isn't weird to you that Russia, in just 20 years, went back to the same levels of everyone else after all the "progress" they made? Cultures don't change that quickly. The statistics are nearly useless anyway because of how differently they are measured. Women are much more represented in "soft sciences" like biology. But in math etc, the percentage has been pretty consistent. Math majors show a huge increase in women. But when you dig into it, it turns out that they are going into it to become math teachers. And the actual percentage of female Math researchers is the lowest of all of STEM. And pretty consistent through time. And our culture has changed a hell of a lot. Why is it so implausible to you that it's biology? You want some links and statistics? Try reading this: http://www.sci-hub.la/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x http://www.sci-hub.la/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x >gender differences on the people–things dimension of interests are ‘very large’ (d= 1.18), with women more people-oriented and less thing-oriented than men. Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender- inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolution- ary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences. d=1.18 is one of the largest effect sizes I've seen in a social science. It means something like 93% of men are more "thing oriented" than the average woman.