6 ms·

There's a difference between "fewer women wind up having the skills for X" and "women are worse at X".

ng12 9y ago
It's a little grating, to be honest. The tech world loves statistics and empirical research until it clashes with their world view.
- threeseed 9y ago
  What a ridiculous comment. (a) There is no consistent world view for tens of millions of people distributed across the globe, (b) there is no research, none, that specifically states that women are genetically predisposed to be less suited to engineering and (c) there is no clear rules about what aspects of our biology are required to be a great engineer.
  - ng12 9y ago
    I mean this stuff has been studied for years: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157091/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157091/ Maybe these studies are wrong, maybe the conclusions Damore drew were wrong (I certainly think they are). However, I think witch-hunting people for asking questions about sensitive topics is a much more clear and present danger.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - threeseed 9y ago
      I just don't think you understand the problem here. Nobody is arguing that men and women aren't biologically different. Of course they are. The point is whether those biological differences significantly affect your ability to be a professional engineer. And you or Damore have provided zero evidence of this.
      - ng12 9y ago
        I don't agree with him. I just think the witch-hunt is intellectually dishonest. I highly suggest reading the memo if you haven't. To rephrase what I'm talking about: some studies say women are less good at spatial reasoning than men -- maybe you can make an argument that Task X requires spatial reasoning skills. Assuming that argument is true it would stand to reason that statistically more men are capable of doing Task X than women. That's a far cry from saying women lack the ability to do Task X. To refrain, I think Damore's conclusions are probably wrong. However I think there's a shocking abundance of willful ignorance whenever this topic gets raised.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        nuet 9y ago
        I have read the memo, I have looked at the studies. The studies suggest that there is a large overlap between men and women concerning personality traits. Further more there it suggest no correlation between these traits and other things we deem import in engineering like intelligence. You speak of willful ignorance, yet talk of studies you don't even link nor explain why they have anything to do with this. Why would this study about spatial reasoning by more important than e.g. SAT scores? How does that actually relate to women becoming engineers when there is no shortage of women who are capable of completing a CS degree? You also seem to suggest that Damore's voice is important because other people aren't talking about this. As well as that people who disagree with him doesn't do so legitimately but because they don't like his opinions. That people don't talk about this isn't true, they just don't reach the same conclusions. Here is one example from the summery of the study "The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics": "We conclude that early experience, biological factors, educational policy, and cultural context affect the number of women and men who pursue advanced study in science and math and that these effects add and interact in complex ways. There are no single or simple answers to the complex questions about sex differences in science and mathematics." So why doesn't Damore, or yourself, mention a study like this that can be easily be found online?
        9y ago
  - Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
    it is not about who is the greater engineer. it's a fact that women on average prefer to go more to fields other than engeneering. Some state that this a culture problem and that there is a hidden bias. Some also state that women might go to other fields because they have a greater capacity at empathy. which is a proven fact. women that go and study those fields won't apply to cs positions they will apply to positions in their fields. and by the way there was a study that indicated that women get short-listed less in sex-blind hiring "The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview." "Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria... this is getting downvoted with no replies if someone has a porblem with what I said, I'm happy to debate.
- UncleMeat 9y ago
  Except that the empirical research does not prove his assertion. Citing papers is not enough to rigorous science. Small differences between the personality distributions of men and women are not themselves sufficient to explain the gap between men and women in software.
  - ng12 9y ago
    It's okay for his conclusions to be wrong. It's not okay to misrepresent his argument and publicly shame him for it.
richmarr 9y ago
Men are worse at understanding the overlap in response to those two variants.
dopamean 9y ago
But is he not saying that fewer women end up having the skills for engineering because of something in their biology? When I read the memo I thought that was his whole point...
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Is there really a difference if you believe the reason women "wind up" lacking the skills for X is due to biology? Asserting biology makes it essentialist, it's the same as saying "women are worse at X."
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  Yeah, there is. "Women are worse" implies that there's a gendered difference after applying the "is an engineer" filter. "Fewer women gain entry into the class of engineers" doesn't imply anything about ability afterwards. And for what it's worth, James Damore explicitly called out this distinction, saying that he was not making a claim about any sort of skill differential between male engineer and female engineers. Like, male and female high jumpers that make it over a certain height of bar are approximately as good at jumping. There's more men in that category. This all might be playing semantics, but I think there's a real thing here to disentangle, and it'd be nice to say one without implying the other.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >Yeah, there is. "Women are worse" implies that there's a gendered difference after applying the "is an engineer" filter. ...No it doesn't. That's just something you're adding to preserve the distinction. >Like, male and female high jumpers that make it over a certain height of bar are approximately as good at jumping. There's more men in that category. This all might be playing semantics, but I think there's a real thing here to disentangle, and it'd be nice to say one without implying the other. Yes yes but the problem comes with Damore's reasoning for why there are more men in that category - biological determination of better programming ability.
    - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
      >Yes yes but the problem comes with Damore's reasoning for why there are more men in that category - biological determination of better programming ability. Whether or not the representation gap is biological is an important factual matter that should be discussed on the merits. It'd do women no good to try to get their best sprint times up to men's by fixing society to be more accepting of female sprinters. There are real biological differences between the sexes, and trying to fix downstream effects of them by making up sociological causes and attacking them is very quixotic.
kharms 9y ago
“Distribution of...abilities” suggests “women are worse.” If the quote merely spoke of skills I could see your point, but it speaks of abilities and points to genetics as an root cause.
- jstanley 9y ago
  > “Distribution of...abilities” suggests “women are worse.” No, it doesn't. It suggests fewer women are good. It doesn't suggest that the women in the field are any worse than the men in the field, it just explains why there may be fewer women than men.
  - swsieber 9y ago
    It doesn't even suggest that. Other interpretations include that women are better at non-programming skills than men, pulling them away from tech. (That would be a plausible explanation for there being less women in tech than men, given the two groups have equal tech abilities)
    - threeseed 9y ago
      The more obvious reason is women are sick of having to deal with an industry full of people like Damore. I know I am.
      - 5ilv3r 9y ago
        You will never achieve social justice with hate.
- Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
  if more woman are better at empathy ( already proven as fact), wouldn't you agree that some women might prefer jobs that can capitalize on that empathy. this argument uses "Distribution of...abilities" without indicating in any part that women are worse at anything. the phrase “Distribution of...abilities” does not suggest that “women are worse.”
- 9y ago
ncallaway 9y ago
However there's not much of a different between: "fewer women wind up having the skills for X in part due to biological causes" and "women are worse at X".
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  The latter implies far more about the competence of women who do have the skills for X.
- Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
  women are better at empathy, due to biological reasons. women ,on average not all women of course, go into fields that need more empathy on average. they endup having less skills in this field on average because more of them went and studied another field due to biological reasons. source:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476221 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476221 from the abstract: "This study contributes information on women's greater empathic disposition in comparison with men by means of a longitudinal design in an adolescent population"
  - UncleMeat 9y ago
    Does this paper actually demonstrate the "due to biological reasons" part?
    - Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
      You are correct I took a conclusion that my data might not support. the paper measured empathy in the same group at age 13 and age 16 they found that girls had higher empathy at both ages but the difference increased with age. there is also this study: "Testosterone may reduce empathy by reducing brain connectivity" http://www.psypost.org/2016/03/testosterone-may-reduce-empathy-blocking-brain-connections-41985 http://www.psypost.org/2016/03/testosterone-may-reduce-empat... "Half of the women were given an orally administered dose of testosterone sufficient to increase the levels of the hormone in their blood by a factor of ten, while the other half received a placebo. The women who were given testosterone subsequently took significantly longer to identify the emotions depicted images of eyes, and made significantly more errors while doing so."

ng12 9y ago

It's a little grating, to be honest. The tech world loves statistics and empirical research until it clashes with their world view.

threeseed 9y ago
What a ridiculous comment. (a) There is no consistent world view for tens of millions of people distributed across the globe, (b) there is no research, none, that specifically states that women are genetically predisposed to be less suited to engineering and (c) there is no clear rules about what aspects of our biology are required to be a great engineer.
- ng12 9y ago
  I mean this stuff has been studied for years: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157091/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157091/ Maybe these studies are wrong, maybe the conclusions Damore drew were wrong (I certainly think they are). However, I think witch-hunting people for asking questions about sensitive topics is a much more clear and present danger.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - threeseed 9y ago
    I just don't think you understand the problem here. Nobody is arguing that men and women aren't biologically different. Of course they are. The point is whether those biological differences significantly affect your ability to be a professional engineer. And you or Damore have provided zero evidence of this.
    - ng12 9y ago
      I don't agree with him. I just think the witch-hunt is intellectually dishonest. I highly suggest reading the memo if you haven't. To rephrase what I'm talking about: some studies say women are less good at spatial reasoning than men -- maybe you can make an argument that Task X requires spatial reasoning skills. Assuming that argument is true it would stand to reason that statistically more men are capable of doing Task X than women. That's a far cry from saying women lack the ability to do Task X. To refrain, I think Damore's conclusions are probably wrong. However I think there's a shocking abundance of willful ignorance whenever this topic gets raised.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - nuet 9y ago
        I have read the memo, I have looked at the studies. The studies suggest that there is a large overlap between men and women concerning personality traits. Further more there it suggest no correlation between these traits and other things we deem import in engineering like intelligence. You speak of willful ignorance, yet talk of studies you don't even link nor explain why they have anything to do with this. Why would this study about spatial reasoning by more important than e.g. SAT scores? How does that actually relate to women becoming engineers when there is no shortage of women who are capable of completing a CS degree? You also seem to suggest that Damore's voice is important because other people aren't talking about this. As well as that people who disagree with him doesn't do so legitimately but because they don't like his opinions. That people don't talk about this isn't true, they just don't reach the same conclusions. Here is one example from the summery of the study "The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics": "We conclude that early experience, biological factors, educational policy, and cultural context affect the number of women and men who pursue advanced study in science and math and that these effects add and interact in complex ways. There are no single or simple answers to the complex questions about sex differences in science and mathematics." So why doesn't Damore, or yourself, mention a study like this that can be easily be found online?
        9y ago
- Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
  it is not about who is the greater engineer. it's a fact that women on average prefer to go more to fields other than engeneering. Some state that this a culture problem and that there is a hidden bias. Some also state that women might go to other fields because they have a greater capacity at empathy. which is a proven fact. women that go and study those fields won't apply to cs positions they will apply to positions in their fields. and by the way there was a study that indicated that women get short-listed less in sex-blind hiring "The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview." "Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria... this is getting downvoted with no replies if someone has a porblem with what I said, I'm happy to debate.
UncleMeat 9y ago
Except that the empirical research does not prove his assertion. Citing papers is not enough to rigorous science. Small differences between the personality distributions of men and women are not themselves sufficient to explain the gap between men and women in software.
- ng12 9y ago
  It's okay for his conclusions to be wrong. It's not okay to misrepresent his argument and publicly shame him for it.

richmarr 9y ago

Men are worse at understanding the overlap in response to those two variants.

dopamean 9y ago

But is he not saying that fewer women end up having the skills for engineering because of something in their biology? When I read the memo I thought that was his whole point...

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Is there really a difference if you believe the reason women "wind up" lacking the skills for X is due to biology? Asserting biology makes it essentialist, it's the same as saying "women are worse at X."

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
Yeah, there is. "Women are worse" implies that there's a gendered difference after applying the "is an engineer" filter. "Fewer women gain entry into the class of engineers" doesn't imply anything about ability afterwards. And for what it's worth, James Damore explicitly called out this distinction, saying that he was not making a claim about any sort of skill differential between male engineer and female engineers. Like, male and female high jumpers that make it over a certain height of bar are approximately as good at jumping. There's more men in that category. This all might be playing semantics, but I think there's a real thing here to disentangle, and it'd be nice to say one without implying the other.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >Yeah, there is. "Women are worse" implies that there's a gendered difference after applying the "is an engineer" filter. ...No it doesn't. That's just something you're adding to preserve the distinction. >Like, male and female high jumpers that make it over a certain height of bar are approximately as good at jumping. There's more men in that category. This all might be playing semantics, but I think there's a real thing here to disentangle, and it'd be nice to say one without implying the other. Yes yes but the problem comes with Damore's reasoning for why there are more men in that category - biological determination of better programming ability.
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    >Yes yes but the problem comes with Damore's reasoning for why there are more men in that category - biological determination of better programming ability. Whether or not the representation gap is biological is an important factual matter that should be discussed on the merits. It'd do women no good to try to get their best sprint times up to men's by fixing society to be more accepting of female sprinters. There are real biological differences between the sexes, and trying to fix downstream effects of them by making up sociological causes and attacking them is very quixotic.

kharms 9y ago

“Distribution of...abilities” suggests “women are worse.” If the quote merely spoke of skills I could see your point, but it speaks of abilities and points to genetics as an root cause.

jstanley 9y ago
> “Distribution of...abilities” suggests “women are worse.” No, it doesn't. It suggests fewer women are good. It doesn't suggest that the women in the field are any worse than the men in the field, it just explains why there may be fewer women than men.
- swsieber 9y ago
  It doesn't even suggest that. Other interpretations include that women are better at non-programming skills than men, pulling them away from tech. (That would be a plausible explanation for there being less women in tech than men, given the two groups have equal tech abilities)
  - threeseed 9y ago
    The more obvious reason is women are sick of having to deal with an industry full of people like Damore. I know I am.
    - 5ilv3r 9y ago
      You will never achieve social justice with hate.
Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
if more woman are better at empathy ( already proven as fact), wouldn't you agree that some women might prefer jobs that can capitalize on that empathy. this argument uses "Distribution of...abilities" without indicating in any part that women are worse at anything. the phrase “Distribution of...abilities” does not suggest that “women are worse.”
9y ago

ncallaway 9y ago

However there's not much of a different between: "fewer women wind up having the skills for X in part due to biological causes" and "women are worse at X".

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
The latter implies far more about the competence of women who do have the skills for X.
Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
women are better at empathy, due to biological reasons. women ,on average not all women of course, go into fields that need more empathy on average. they endup having less skills in this field on average because more of them went and studied another field due to biological reasons. source:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476221 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476221 from the abstract: "This study contributes information on women's greater empathic disposition in comparison with men by means of a longitudinal design in an adolescent population"
- UncleMeat 9y ago
  Does this paper actually demonstrate the "due to biological reasons" part?
  - Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
    You are correct I took a conclusion that my data might not support. the paper measured empathy in the same group at age 13 and age 16 they found that girls had higher empathy at both ages but the difference increased with age. there is also this study: "Testosterone may reduce empathy by reducing brain connectivity" http://www.psypost.org/2016/03/testosterone-may-reduce-empathy-blocking-brain-connections-41985 http://www.psypost.org/2016/03/testosterone-may-reduce-empat... "Half of the women were given an orally administered dose of testosterone sufficient to increase the levels of the hormone in their blood by a factor of ten, while the other half received a placebo. The women who were given testosterone subsequently took significantly longer to identify the emotions depicted images of eyes, and made significantly more errors while doing so."