3 ms·

>"The 'things vs people' dichotomy is extremely vague and obviously bullshit." Is it? Or have you simply not taken a moment to do a little bit of research? He

by pdubs1 6y ago

>"The 'things vs people' dichotomy is extremely vague and obviously bullshit." Is it? Or have you simply not taken a moment to do a little bit of research? Here is a study with 500,000 participants, for example: "Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93) on the Things-People dimension. "Men showed stronger Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d = -0.35), Social (d = -0.68), and Conventional (d = -0.33) interests. "Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering (d = 1.11), science (d = 0.36), and mathematics (d = 0.34) interests. " [1] Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests. Psychological Bulletin 135(6):859-84 · November 2009 Here's another: "Career choices have been shown to be driven in part by interests, and gender differences in those interests have generally been considered to result from socialization. We explored the contribution of sex hormones to career-related interests, in particular studying whether prenatal androgens affect interests through psychological orientation to Things versus People. "We examined this question in individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), who have atypical exposure to androgens early in development, and their unaffected siblings (total N = 125 aged 9 to 26 years). Females with CAH had more interest in Things versus People than did unaffected females, and variations among females with CAH reflected variations in their degree of androgen exposure. "Results provide strong support for hormonal influences on interest in occupations characterized by working with Things versus People." [2] Gendered Occupational Interests: Prenatal Androgen Effects on Psychological Orientation to Things Versus People. Horm Behav. 2011 Sep; 60(4): 313–317. Published online 2011 Jun 12. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.06.002

foldr 6y ago
Most software engineering jobs aren't predominantly about things rather than people, so I doubt any of that research is relevant, regardless of its quality. You can't just uncritically lump software engineering in with "science", "engineering" and "mathematics" (themselves enormously diverse fields). It's dangerous to do a "little bit" of research. What you'd actually need to do to get any information (if any really exists in this domain, which I doubt) is to become an expert and read through thousands of papers and books, including all the critiques of the ones you cite.
- pdubs1 6y ago
  >"What you'd actually need to do to get any information ... is to become an expert ..." I strongly disagree, citing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Taking your claim to heart would require a person to be so focused on becoming an expert (in an academic environment where new studies are constantly published) that they would be so focused on staying abreast of their expertise that they would be unable to comment at all-- for fear of missing some study somewhere. It would require a fanatical obsession with gaining all information and perspectives that one would be precluded from commenting at all: for fear of not being a 100% perfect expert. Hence, I think one can cite studies without being a 100% perfect expert on all angles within a discipline. I think your claim lacks introspection to be honest. >"Most software engineering jobs aren't predominantly about things rather than people" First I ask "Relative to what?" But let's backup: You state a claim of ratio, "most". "A claim of ratio, "most" "-- If we're getting into ratios of people within occupations, then I would ask for a quantitative assessment, though I suspect no confident, non-subjective one exists, to prove your point. "Relative to what?"-- I suspect people's experiences differ-- in my near future, I will be working on an engineering team. However, even there-- I suspect I will largely be sitting at a computer, typing into it for hours, rather than interfacing directly with a human for hours (as I previously did in Sales roles). Ultimately I dispute your claim via my personal experience: Working on projects (mostly by myself at this point) where I am programming for 6 hours per day and have little human contact, yet still accomplish project goals and receive my paycheck.
Traster 6y ago
You've missed what his comment was about, it's not that the things vs people dichotomy doesn't exist. It's that it has no relation to engineering. Architecture is just as much things over people as engineering, Architecture is balaanced, engineering isn't. The problem is that in reality, you can do engineering from a people first approach or from a things first approach, and in reality, only one of those approaches will get you through university and into Google.
- camelite 6y ago
  I take the engineering-from-a-things-first-approach bridge. You feel free to enjoy the other one. I'm sure you'll feel very validated as you spiral into the abyss
- pdubs1 6y ago
  Actually, I merely responded to a particular quote (which I quoted), simply to note that perhaps the thing which that person said is "vague and bullshit" may not entirely be so.

by pdubs1 6y ago

foldr 6y ago

Most software engineering jobs aren't predominantly about things rather than people, so I doubt any of that research is relevant, regardless of its quality. You can't just uncritically lump software engineering in with "science", "engineering" and "mathematics" (themselves enormously diverse fields). It's dangerous to do a "little bit" of research. What you'd actually need to do to get any information (if any really exists in this domain, which I doubt) is to become an expert and read through thousands of papers and books, including all the critiques of the ones you cite.

pdubs1 6y ago
>"What you'd actually need to do to get any information ... is to become an expert ..." I strongly disagree, citing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Taking your claim to heart would require a person to be so focused on becoming an expert (in an academic environment where new studies are constantly published) that they would be so focused on staying abreast of their expertise that they would be unable to comment at all-- for fear of missing some study somewhere. It would require a fanatical obsession with gaining all information and perspectives that one would be precluded from commenting at all: for fear of not being a 100% perfect expert. Hence, I think one can cite studies without being a 100% perfect expert on all angles within a discipline. I think your claim lacks introspection to be honest. >"Most software engineering jobs aren't predominantly about things rather than people" First I ask "Relative to what?" But let's backup: You state a claim of ratio, "most". "A claim of ratio, "most" "-- If we're getting into ratios of people within occupations, then I would ask for a quantitative assessment, though I suspect no confident, non-subjective one exists, to prove your point. "Relative to what?"-- I suspect people's experiences differ-- in my near future, I will be working on an engineering team. However, even there-- I suspect I will largely be sitting at a computer, typing into it for hours, rather than interfacing directly with a human for hours (as I previously did in Sales roles). Ultimately I dispute your claim via my personal experience: Working on projects (mostly by myself at this point) where I am programming for 6 hours per day and have little human contact, yet still accomplish project goals and receive my paycheck.

Traster 6y ago

You've missed what his comment was about, it's not that the things vs people dichotomy doesn't exist. It's that it has no relation to engineering. Architecture is just as much things over people as engineering, Architecture is balaanced, engineering isn't. The problem is that in reality, you can do engineering from a people first approach or from a things first approach, and in reality, only one of those approaches will get you through university and into Google.

camelite 6y ago
I take the engineering-from-a-things-first-approach bridge. You feel free to enjoy the other one. I'm sure you'll feel very validated as you spiral into the abyss
pdubs1 6y ago
Actually, I merely responded to a particular quote (which I quoted), simply to note that perhaps the thing which that person said is "vague and bullshit" may not entirely be so.