5 ms·

> but they're particularly off putting to women. This is the crux of the issue. For this to be true, it must also be true that men and women are, at least in s

> but they're particularly off putting to women. This is the crux of the issue. For this to be true, it must also be true that men and women are, at least in some ways, intrinsically different (otherwise why would these things pose a greater challenge for women relative to men)?

foldr 6y ago
Contrary to a popular straw man, few people deny that men and women are different in some respects. The point is that there is no reason to think that these differences should, in a healthy culture, put women off becoming programmers, or make them less capable of doing a good job.
- milankovic 6y ago
  But maybe they are? I mean, if you agree on differences ("in some respects"), how can you then seriously expect to not see any differences in outcome at the end?
- spangry 6y ago
  Sure, and that's not an argument I'd make. But, as Damore suggested in his memo, mightn't these innate differences mean that women are less likely, on average, to prefer careers in software engineering? And mightn't these innate differences also explain why women are strongly over-represented in certain other professions like nursing (91%), elementary and middle school teaching (81%) and social work (80%)?
  - foldr 6y ago
    Any difference between two things might turn out to be responsible for some other difference between the two things. Perhaps men are better at software engineering because they're taller. Perhaps women don't enjoy programming because they have breasts. It is pointless -- and in this context, often harmful -- to speculate.
    - spangry 6y ago
      So, because the cause is uncertain, we should not discuss female under-representation in software development at all?
      - foldr 6y ago
        I don't think that the cause is uncertain. Broadly speaking, the cause is sexism. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence whatever for a biological cause, and it is harmful to speculate wildly on biological causes in the absence of evidence.
        lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        There is far more evidence for biological causes than there is for sexism.
        foldr 6y ago
        If you look closely, there is very little evidence for biological causes. There are many alleged biological differences which are alleged to be relevant, but rarely, if ever, evidence for a causal link.
        fastball 6y ago
        This seems like a strange argument, given the start to this entire subthread ("women used to be the majority"). Let me get this straight: 1. Most women were programmers. 2. Women aren't sexist, so they let men in. 3. Men overwhelmed the women. 4. Men are sexist, so they stopped letting women in. 5. Now we need to deliberately reverse the results of stage (4). Is that the sequence of events as you see it?
        foldr 6y ago
        You have 1 the wrong way round. Women would not have been in charge of hiring, so no to 2. (The programming jobs men were hired for would likely not have been considered the same kind of job.) Not sure what you mean by 3. Roughly yes to 4, although the issue is systematic sexism, not the personal prejudices of men and women. Society in general, including many women, disapproved of women becoming programmers once it began to be seen as a high-status high-skill profession. Yes to 5, with the preceding caveats.
  - pydry 6y ago
    >Damore suggested in his memo, mightn't these innate differences mean that women are less likely, on average, to prefer careers in software engineering? As far as I understood it, this wasn't the bit of the memo that people were attacking.
acdha 6y ago
Humans are social creatures and very little of what we do is innate, and we have extremely flexible brains which change based on use. Social cues and training are enormously influential, and arguments based on biological determinism have a steep bar to reach controlling for those factors. For example, there are significant variations around the world on math and science academic performance so it’s unlikely to be innate. Even when you do find differences in a study (e.g. spatial reasoning) it takes years to test whether those are due to practice (i.e. are children equally encouraged to develop those skills?) and also establish whether those low-level differences are key to a high-level task. There are some low-level differences (e.g. ratios of different cell types in the brain) but there’s no conclusive evidence linking that to academic skills or job performance (just how does 3-d reasoning affect your ability to write Python, anyway?), but there has been a history of earlier results attributed to gender not holding up under scrutiny.
pydry 6y ago
>This is the crux of the issue. For this to be true, it must also be true that men and women are, at least in some ways, intrinsically different I don't see why it's the crux. It's really only necessary that men and women be socialized differently for this to be true - to grow up surrounded by people telling you that you need to be more "agreeable" and "not too pushy". I think whether it is true or not is rather beside the point. Toxic working environments are anti-meritocratic and anti productive. Even if we didn't give a fuck how many women entered the profession we should fix them. Intellectual dick waving leads to worse code, not better.

foldr 6y ago

Contrary to a popular straw man, few people deny that men and women are different in some respects. The point is that there is no reason to think that these differences should, in a healthy culture, put women off becoming programmers, or make them less capable of doing a good job.

milankovic 6y ago
But maybe they are? I mean, if you agree on differences ("in some respects"), how can you then seriously expect to not see any differences in outcome at the end?
spangry 6y ago
Sure, and that's not an argument I'd make. But, as Damore suggested in his memo, mightn't these innate differences mean that women are less likely, on average, to prefer careers in software engineering? And mightn't these innate differences also explain why women are strongly over-represented in certain other professions like nursing (91%), elementary and middle school teaching (81%) and social work (80%)?
- foldr 6y ago
  Any difference between two things might turn out to be responsible for some other difference between the two things. Perhaps men are better at software engineering because they're taller. Perhaps women don't enjoy programming because they have breasts. It is pointless -- and in this context, often harmful -- to speculate.
  - spangry 6y ago
    So, because the cause is uncertain, we should not discuss female under-representation in software development at all?
    - foldr 6y ago
      I don't think that the cause is uncertain. Broadly speaking, the cause is sexism. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence whatever for a biological cause, and it is harmful to speculate wildly on biological causes in the absence of evidence.
      - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        There is far more evidence for biological causes than there is for sexism.
        foldr 6y ago
        If you look closely, there is very little evidence for biological causes. There are many alleged biological differences which are alleged to be relevant, but rarely, if ever, evidence for a causal link.
      - fastball 6y ago
        This seems like a strange argument, given the start to this entire subthread ("women used to be the majority"). Let me get this straight: 1. Most women were programmers. 2. Women aren't sexist, so they let men in. 3. Men overwhelmed the women. 4. Men are sexist, so they stopped letting women in. 5. Now we need to deliberately reverse the results of stage (4). Is that the sequence of events as you see it?
        foldr 6y ago
        You have 1 the wrong way round. Women would not have been in charge of hiring, so no to 2. (The programming jobs men were hired for would likely not have been considered the same kind of job.) Not sure what you mean by 3. Roughly yes to 4, although the issue is systematic sexism, not the personal prejudices of men and women. Society in general, including many women, disapproved of women becoming programmers once it began to be seen as a high-status high-skill profession. Yes to 5, with the preceding caveats.
- pydry 6y ago
  >Damore suggested in his memo, mightn't these innate differences mean that women are less likely, on average, to prefer careers in software engineering? As far as I understood it, this wasn't the bit of the memo that people were attacking.

acdha 6y ago

Humans are social creatures and very little of what we do is innate, and we have extremely flexible brains which change based on use. Social cues and training are enormously influential, and arguments based on biological determinism have a steep bar to reach controlling for those factors. For example, there are significant variations around the world on math and science academic performance so it’s unlikely to be innate. Even when you do find differences in a study (e.g. spatial reasoning) it takes years to test whether those are due to practice (i.e. are children equally encouraged to develop those skills?) and also establish whether those low-level differences are key to a high-level task. There are some low-level differences (e.g. ratios of different cell types in the brain) but there’s no conclusive evidence linking that to academic skills or job performance (just how does 3-d reasoning affect your ability to write Python, anyway?), but there has been a history of earlier results attributed to gender not holding up under scrutiny.

pydry 6y ago

>This is the crux of the issue. For this to be true, it must also be true that men and women are, at least in some ways, intrinsically different I don't see why it's the crux. It's really only necessary that men and women be socialized differently for this to be true - to grow up surrounded by people telling you that you need to be more "agreeable" and "not too pushy". I think whether it is true or not is rather beside the point. Toxic working environments are anti-meritocratic and anti productive. Even if we didn't give a fuck how many women entered the profession we should fix them. Intellectual dick waving leads to worse code, not better.