2 ms·

> Mathematics is close to gender parity Where are you getting this data from? Mathematics has a pretty noticeable gender gap, it's not at all close to parity.

> Mathematics is close to gender parity Where are you getting this data from? Mathematics has a pretty noticeable gender gap, it's not at all close to parity. Besides, if your theory is correct, we shouldn't see parity. We should see women dominate the field, the same way that they dominated early computing. Even in a world with an actual 50/50 split in mathematics (which again, is not the current world), your theory still doesn't explain why women were over-represented in early computing, even after WW2 when men had returned home. ---- Let's make some other predictions based on your theory while we're at it. If what you're saying is correct and women are primed to find theoretical fields more interesting than men do, we might expect to see a higher proportion of women in research positions for hospitals than in practical positions like nursing, and similarly we might expect to see a higher proportion of men in practical medical fields like nursing and direct care. Do we see that? No. If your theory is correct and women are inherently more interested in theoretical fields, we should expect to see a gender inbalance in teaching fields based on education levels and practicality of subject. So for example, we should expect to see more men teaching lower-level mathematics and intro programming where their work has a direct impact on people's day-to-day life, and more women teaching higher-level mathematics and abstract programming courses in higher education settings. Do we see that? No. You've globbed onto an explanation based on one statistic because it might explain that statistic. You haven't formed a widely applicable explanation that can be used across the board to explain the different statistics that we see throughout multiple fields, or that can be used to predict what statistics we will see in the future.

Jensson 5y ago
> women were over-represented in early computing That is a lie, they were never over-represented in computer science. It is based on a small uptick in the 80's, math made an uptick at the same time and is now close to parity while computer science didn't follow the math curve. There where a lot of women working on the first computers since at the time most computers were women and they had to hand off their work, but the field computer science was always male. > Where are you getting this data from? Mathematics has a pretty noticeable gender gap, it's not at all close to parity. Are you arguing without even knowing about the data? You can see curves here, math is 40%, computer science made an uptick in the 80's for women at the same time women started to go into physical sciences and maths and engineering. Then Computer science made the anomalous dive down to engineering levels. When people say that women disappeared from computer science they are talking about that short uptick in the 80's, that is all it is based on: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ba.png https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ba.png
- danShumway 5y ago
  Come on. Your graph starts in 1971 and you're using that to argue about differences in the 1960s. > You can see curves here, math is 40% A 40/60 split in mathematics does not support your claim that women prefer abstract thinking more than men do, and also incidentally is a pretty noticeable gender gap to most people, hence the large amount of discussion you can find online about gender gaps in mathematics fields and mathematics testing.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > your claim that women prefer abstract thinking more than men do I never claimed that women prefer abstract thinking more than men do. I claimed that women prefer abstract thinking more than they prefer working with machines relative men. It would be massive if women in engineering or computer science were anything close to 40/60. > Come on. Your graph starts in 1971 and you're using that to argue about differences in the 1960s. You have provided no data supporting your claim. I wont dig up more data just because you can't look for it yourself. You are obviously ignorant about this topic and don't want to educate yourself.

Jensson 5y ago

> women were over-represented in early computing That is a lie, they were never over-represented in computer science. It is based on a small uptick in the 80's, math made an uptick at the same time and is now close to parity while computer science didn't follow the math curve. There where a lot of women working on the first computers since at the time most computers were women and they had to hand off their work, but the field computer science was always male. > Where are you getting this data from? Mathematics has a pretty noticeable gender gap, it's not at all close to parity. Are you arguing without even knowing about the data? You can see curves here, math is 40%, computer science made an uptick in the 80's for women at the same time women started to go into physical sciences and maths and engineering. Then Computer science made the anomalous dive down to engineering levels. When people say that women disappeared from computer science they are talking about that short uptick in the 80's, that is all it is based on: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ba.png https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ba.png

danShumway 5y ago
Come on. Your graph starts in 1971 and you're using that to argue about differences in the 1960s. > You can see curves here, math is 40% A 40/60 split in mathematics does not support your claim that women prefer abstract thinking more than men do, and also incidentally is a pretty noticeable gender gap to most people, hence the large amount of discussion you can find online about gender gaps in mathematics fields and mathematics testing.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > your claim that women prefer abstract thinking more than men do I never claimed that women prefer abstract thinking more than men do. I claimed that women prefer abstract thinking more than they prefer working with machines relative men. It would be massive if women in engineering or computer science were anything close to 40/60. > Come on. Your graph starts in 1971 and you're using that to argue about differences in the 1960s. You have provided no data supporting your claim. I wont dig up more data just because you can't look for it yourself. You are obviously ignorant about this topic and don't want to educate yourself.