6 ms·

Gender Differences in Research Areas and Topics: An Analysis of Publications

29 points by infodocket 8y ago

fizwhiz 8y ago
Not trying to pick sides here, but the abstract seems to resonate with James Damore's hypothesis [1]. [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
- josteink 8y ago
  Clearly you are picking sides, but seem afraid to admit so. To yourself or others, one might ask. Clearly not much has changed since James Damore started this internal discussion.
- yorwba 8y ago
  Only insofar as Damore was partially basing his arguments on previous studies with similar results. In my opinion, Damore's mistake wasn't collecting studies like this to support his point, but that he 1) didn't also collect their predicted effect sizes and 2) didn't collect studies on effects in the opposite direction and 3) didn't compare the so-obtained prediction with the situation at Google to see whether he had the full picture but 4) directly jumped to suggesting changes in the way Google does things while 5) tying himself to an unpopular political platform. Then citing a bunch of studies in the opposite direction likewise without regard for effect sizes is an equal-effort response and you get a nice little flame war. The rest is politics. I doubt that this submission will fare any better.
  - gizmo686 8y ago
    Damore's piece was fundamentally reactionary, responding to holes present in the diversity training program and the justifications presented for the diversity programs at Google. It is not nessasary to provide a complete account of a situtaion to point out flaws in an existing account. It is not nessasary to have a complete account in order to improve the existing account. There are some really hard questions to answer here. We do not answer hard questions by locking ourselves in a room until we figure it all out and write up a paper to present to the world. We answer hard questions by making incremental progress and sharing and collaborating with that progress so we can work with others to find the answers. Damore's mistake was thinking that the diversity advocates were interested in a good faith discussion, or evidence based policy.
curiousgal 8y ago
I will never understand why a gender difference is necessarily a negative thing. In some developing countries (Tunisia), females compose 60% of people in STEM fields, which is simply due to economic difficulties, STEM jobs pay more so that's where everyone wants to be. Following the same logic, less women in STEM means that they are prioritizing other things than their economic well-being which is taken care of (better life style in the developed world).
- danharaj 8y ago
  In which year did social forces that marginalized women in STEM fields become negligible? They were obviously substantial in, say, 1963. And I think it's mostly accepted that such forces have become weaker over time. Now, how does one deduce when the work of reducing those marginalizing social forces is done? Maybe its unreasonable for advocates of increasing representation of women in STEM to take their benchmark as equal representation. Maybe that's too naive. But what alternative goal do people who say it is too naive provide? No matter which time period you choose, the same cohort makes the argument that representation in their era is just fine, or even overtuned. That's not honest disagreement. One can come up with hypotheses to explain any distribution in any industry along any lines. That's not constructive.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - pochamago 8y ago
    Women have vastly more scholarship opportunities than men. The number of programs pushing women into STEM vastly outnumbers those doing the same for men. Every department openly pushes for equality. Women outnumber men in University, in high school graduation, and in college graduation. If the factor keeping the stem disparity in place is implicit bias, it is one of the strongest social forces ever to exist
    - danharaj 8y ago
      > If the factor keeping the stem disparity in place is implicit bias, it is one of the strongest social forces ever to exist Gender? Yea. Gender may very well be the most powerful, persistent, and ancient of social forces.
buboard 8y ago
Gonna watch as this thread accumulates votes but nobody comments because of its unspeakable nature. It’s slightly entertaining to watch SV from outside
j7ake 8y ago
How much of this is cultural and how much of this biological? It is hard to know from aggregates across cultures. If you stratify by different countries across a wide range of cultures you may be able to infer this from a linear model.
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago
  >How much of this is cultural and how much of this biological? It would probably vary by job classification

29 points by infodocket 8y ago

Not trying to pick sides here, but the abstract seems to resonate with James Damore's hypothesis [1]. [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

josteink 8y ago
Clearly you are picking sides, but seem afraid to admit so. To yourself or others, one might ask. Clearly not much has changed since James Damore started this internal discussion.
yorwba 8y ago
Only insofar as Damore was partially basing his arguments on previous studies with similar results. In my opinion, Damore's mistake wasn't collecting studies like this to support his point, but that he 1) didn't also collect their predicted effect sizes and 2) didn't collect studies on effects in the opposite direction and 3) didn't compare the so-obtained prediction with the situation at Google to see whether he had the full picture but 4) directly jumped to suggesting changes in the way Google does things while 5) tying himself to an unpopular political platform. Then citing a bunch of studies in the opposite direction likewise without regard for effect sizes is an equal-effort response and you get a nice little flame war. The rest is politics. I doubt that this submission will fare any better.
- gizmo686 8y ago
  Damore's piece was fundamentally reactionary, responding to holes present in the diversity training program and the justifications presented for the diversity programs at Google. It is not nessasary to provide a complete account of a situtaion to point out flaws in an existing account. It is not nessasary to have a complete account in order to improve the existing account. There are some really hard questions to answer here. We do not answer hard questions by locking ourselves in a room until we figure it all out and write up a paper to present to the world. We answer hard questions by making incremental progress and sharing and collaborating with that progress so we can work with others to find the answers. Damore's mistake was thinking that the diversity advocates were interested in a good faith discussion, or evidence based policy.

curiousgal 8y ago

I will never understand why a gender difference is necessarily a negative thing. In some developing countries (Tunisia), females compose 60% of people in STEM fields, which is simply due to economic difficulties, STEM jobs pay more so that's where everyone wants to be. Following the same logic, less women in STEM means that they are prioritizing other things than their economic well-being which is taken care of (better life style in the developed world).

danharaj 8y ago
In which year did social forces that marginalized women in STEM fields become negligible? They were obviously substantial in, say, 1963. And I think it's mostly accepted that such forces have become weaker over time. Now, how does one deduce when the work of reducing those marginalizing social forces is done? Maybe its unreasonable for advocates of increasing representation of women in STEM to take their benchmark as equal representation. Maybe that's too naive. But what alternative goal do people who say it is too naive provide? No matter which time period you choose, the same cohort makes the argument that representation in their era is just fine, or even overtuned. That's not honest disagreement. One can come up with hypotheses to explain any distribution in any industry along any lines. That's not constructive.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- pochamago 8y ago
  Women have vastly more scholarship opportunities than men. The number of programs pushing women into STEM vastly outnumbers those doing the same for men. Every department openly pushes for equality. Women outnumber men in University, in high school graduation, and in college graduation. If the factor keeping the stem disparity in place is implicit bias, it is one of the strongest social forces ever to exist
  - danharaj 8y ago
    > If the factor keeping the stem disparity in place is implicit bias, it is one of the strongest social forces ever to exist Gender? Yea. Gender may very well be the most powerful, persistent, and ancient of social forces.

buboard 8y ago

Gonna watch as this thread accumulates votes but nobody comments because of its unspeakable nature. It’s slightly entertaining to watch SV from outside

j7ake 8y ago

How much of this is cultural and how much of this biological? It is hard to know from aggregates across cultures. If you stratify by different countries across a wide range of cultures you may be able to infer this from a linear model.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago
>How much of this is cultural and how much of this biological? It would probably vary by job classification