3 ms·

There's nothing fallacious about spatial reasoning being stronger in males on average, and math (and presumably programming) being heavy on utilizing spatial re

There's nothing fallacious about spatial reasoning being stronger in males on average, and math (and presumably programming) being heavy on utilizing spatial reasoning. It's certainly an open question how much spatial reasoning is relevant, but its not irrelevant and so such data has explanatory power. Of course one doesn't have to be in the top 1% of spatial reasoning to be a capable software developer, but no one is making such a claim. We're looking for factors that help explain women's apparent disinterest in becoming software developers. But its a given that people are drawn to things they're good at and disinclined towards things they struggle with. And so the gender disparities in spatial reasoning is a relevant data point in this discussion.

danans 7y ago
> There's nothing fallacious about spatial reasoning being stronger in males on average If you read my comment again, you'll see that's not what I pointed out as fallacious. What I said was fallacious is arguing from just that factor to explain women being lower represented in tech. You can't argue something this complex from any single factor. > Of course one doesn't have to be in the top 1% of spatial reasoning to be a capable software developer, but no one is making such a claim. The very specific claim by the OP was that women have more difficulty understanding pointers, classes, closures, etc, and therefore are lower represented in tech. Also, arguing what is needed for the top 1% is irrelevant because we are talking about gender participation rates across the industry. > And so the gender disparities in spatial reasoning is a relevant data point in this discussion. And even more relevant is the significant historical cultural signaling that women don't belong in tech. I'd never claim it's an exclusive factor, but to exclude it from the debate, just like excluding any type of relevant logical reasoning capability, spatial or otherwise, is fallacious.
- btilly 7y ago
  The very specific claim by the OP was that women have more difficulty understanding pointers, classes, closures, etc, and therefore are lower represented in tech. You will never see that stated as a claim. It appears as a guess, as a suspicion, and at multiple points I was at pains to point out that I have no evidence for it. It certainly is not a claim. That said, men are way overrepresented in programming. It doesn't matter whether you look at CS departments of self-taught programmers, they are overwhelmingly (though not all) men. I am arguing that this fact is not in itself proof of discrimination. Of the claims that I have made, one is that in my anecdotal experience I personally witnessed a lot of people in the early days of the web start in the same role, but the ones who followed a track to "programmer" were overwhelmingly men. When I personally asked women who both had and hadn't taken that path, they told me that discrimination was not a factor in their decisions. Actual responses, "You guys never pushed me away from programming, but I want to make things pretty." "Sure, there have been a few jackasses, but there are jackasses everywhere. Most of you are very welcoming as long as I can do the job." Again, my personal experiences are anecdote, not data. YMMV and all that. But experiences like these are part of why I don't believe that the skewed ratios are the result of discrimination, no matter how many essays I read claiming otherwise. (Essays whose only real data point seems to be the fact that there is a gender ratio.)

danans 7y ago

> There's nothing fallacious about spatial reasoning being stronger in males on average If you read my comment again, you'll see that's not what I pointed out as fallacious. What I said was fallacious is arguing from just that factor to explain women being lower represented in tech. You can't argue something this complex from any single factor. > Of course one doesn't have to be in the top 1% of spatial reasoning to be a capable software developer, but no one is making such a claim. The very specific claim by the OP was that women have more difficulty understanding pointers, classes, closures, etc, and therefore are lower represented in tech. Also, arguing what is needed for the top 1% is irrelevant because we are talking about gender participation rates across the industry. > And so the gender disparities in spatial reasoning is a relevant data point in this discussion. And even more relevant is the significant historical cultural signaling that women don't belong in tech. I'd never claim it's an exclusive factor, but to exclude it from the debate, just like excluding any type of relevant logical reasoning capability, spatial or otherwise, is fallacious.

btilly 7y ago
The very specific claim by the OP was that women have more difficulty understanding pointers, classes, closures, etc, and therefore are lower represented in tech. You will never see that stated as a claim. It appears as a guess, as a suspicion, and at multiple points I was at pains to point out that I have no evidence for it. It certainly is not a claim. That said, men are way overrepresented in programming. It doesn't matter whether you look at CS departments of self-taught programmers, they are overwhelmingly (though not all) men. I am arguing that this fact is not in itself proof of discrimination. Of the claims that I have made, one is that in my anecdotal experience I personally witnessed a lot of people in the early days of the web start in the same role, but the ones who followed a track to "programmer" were overwhelmingly men. When I personally asked women who both had and hadn't taken that path, they told me that discrimination was not a factor in their decisions. Actual responses, "You guys never pushed me away from programming, but I want to make things pretty." "Sure, there have been a few jackasses, but there are jackasses everywhere. Most of you are very welcoming as long as I can do the job." Again, my personal experiences are anecdote, not data. YMMV and all that. But experiences like these are part of why I don't believe that the skewed ratios are the result of discrimination, no matter how many essays I read claiming otherwise. (Essays whose only real data point seems to be the fact that there is a gender ratio.)