5 ms·

I was willing to listen to your point (that perhaps some companies favor women and so women disproportionately percolate to those companies… at least in theory

I was willing to listen to your point (that perhaps some companies favor women and so women disproportionately percolate to those companies… at least in theory seems like a possible argument, even if I’m skeptical) until you got here: >> Also, because the intelligence distribution skews more male at the higher end, a company will be disproportionately male simply by being more technical and having a more difficult hiring bar. Okay, buddy. Women used to be dominant in computing. Literally were the computers. And when artificial computers came to the fore, many transitioned to writing programs for them. Until it became a more prestigious field and men came to dominate. And once the personal computer became widespread with computer game culture arising and a culture of harassing women until they leave became common enough to be an issue, why wouldn’t one expect that those who developed an interest in computer programming (ie from contact with computer games, etc) to be predominantly men? (And I love computer games, but there is an insane amount of harassment. Everyone who plays knows this.) It has nothing to do with intelligence curves.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zozbot234 5y ago
> It has nothing to do with intelligence curves. Agreed. A vast majority of supposedly "high tech" jobs are solidly average intelligence, including coding, so if anything women should be rewarded in such positions because males' wider variance in I.Q. cuts both ways. It's only pure delusional thinking that keeps up the "muh I.Q. is one of the highest" attitude among "tech" bros.
- AdrianB1 5y ago
  Average intelligence (around 100 points) does not get you hired in any high tech job. It is called "high tech" for a reason, it's not "average work" by any measure.
- SamReidHughes 5y ago
  Programmers are not solidly average intelligence at all. Everybody writing software is at the upper end, even if defined very loosely to mean something like top 10% of Americans. Note that among SAT scorers, the top 11% of males score >700 on the math section and top 7% of females score >700. This isn't some super-elite group, and you're already looking at 1.6x as many men. But you're arguing somehow that we should specifically discriminate in an attempt to hire dumber people, so... well, that seems like a bad idea to me.
  - leaflets2 5y ago
    > Everybody writing software is at the upper end Gah. You need to insert "and does it well"
ryan93 5y ago
They weren’t dominate. The “computer programming” work they did was borderline clerical in nature.
- pgcj_poster 5y ago
  Most computer programming is still borderline clerical in nature.
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    Thank you! I was worried this point was being lost.
BlargMcLarg 5y ago
>And once the personal computer became widespread with computer game culture arising and a culture of harassing women until they leave became common enough to be an issue, why wouldn’t one expect that those who developed an interest in computer programming (ie from contact with computer games, etc) to be predominantly men? (And I love computer games, but there is an insane amount of harassment. Everyone who plays knows this.) I'm sure this is a part of it, but I think you're overselling how impactful the harassment part is. The skewed ratio in CS has been something going on for decades. Online gaming, especially with voice, is the primary offender of online sexism in games. These types of games weren't that popular until early/mid 2010s. If you were interested in other types of games and largely avoided online games, sexism wasn't nearly as bad. That's not to mention a sizeable portion of CS graduates have no interest in games, let alone online games, as a whole. Meanwhile, this doesn't answer the gender-equality paradox. At the same time, these "less gender-equal" countries definitely don't have a shortage of misogynist messages on their online boards, gaming communities, forums, etc. Still as misogynist, but more women entering CS: what gives?
SamReidHughes 5y ago
Not at all. It still holds. Let's suppose the field were overall 90% women, 10% men. Even then, companies looking to hire the smartest candidates would be disproportionately male -- say, 15% male instead of the average 10% -- as the population male:female ratio increases as you raise the intelligence bar.
twofornone 5y ago
>Women used to be dominant in computing. Literally were the computers This is pathetic cope and completely misleading. The "programming" of that time had almost nothing to do with the modern practice. These "computer" roles were for number crunching, not software development. You're bending over backwards to deny the fact that men and women are biologically predisposed to certain interests. Why? Is it some weird sort of insecurity? >It has nothing to do with intelligence curves. It has literally everything to do with intelligences curves. The male distribution of intelligence has a wider variance - that's a statistical descriptor of the normal distribution. This means there are more men at the extremes of both ends of the curve. And an inescapable consequence is that men will be overrepresented among knowledge workers in meritocratic system. Don't worry, you can take solace in the fact that this also suggests a larger population of male criminals because it also means there are more dumb men at the other end of the spectrum. The lengths to which people will go to deny the effects of meaningful, proven differences among demographics is infuriating. It's gaslighting and it helps absolutely no one in the long run, assuming you want a functioning society.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, but I agree with the other poster that EVEN IF you think the male/female curve distribution thing is completely correct without caveats, you just don’t have to be massively intelligent to do software development. You’re building a corporate SAP system, not proving some theorem or unifying the fundamental forces or something.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    This isn't about my personal feelings, it's about the insistence that the demographics are not a reflection of the distribution of competence and personal choice, but discrimination. The entire foundation of discrimination against white males is dishonest because proponents refuse to allow for any explanation for overrepresentation beyond unfair hiring practices - which are being used to implement the systemic discrimination that they claim to be fighting. >You’re building a corporate SAP system, not proving some theorem or unifying the fundamental forces or something. And regardless of what you're building, you want the most competent employees that you can get for the lowest price if you are operating within a meritocracy. In that case your demographics will be strongly influenced by the distribution of competence, before even considering that the pipeline is skewed because women are simply not choosing to pursue software development - and that's not a problem that needs correcting unless you're playing tribalist team sports. The anti-tribalists are using mere accusations of tribalism to justify their own vicious, exclusionary tribalism, and simply not allowing for discussion of alternative explanations which could appear to be motivated by tribalism. That's what keeps me up at night.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

zozbot234 5y ago

> It has nothing to do with intelligence curves. Agreed. A vast majority of supposedly "high tech" jobs are solidly average intelligence, including coding, so if anything women should be rewarded in such positions because males' wider variance in I.Q. cuts both ways. It's only pure delusional thinking that keeps up the "muh I.Q. is one of the highest" attitude among "tech" bros.

AdrianB1 5y ago
Average intelligence (around 100 points) does not get you hired in any high tech job. It is called "high tech" for a reason, it's not "average work" by any measure.
SamReidHughes 5y ago
Programmers are not solidly average intelligence at all. Everybody writing software is at the upper end, even if defined very loosely to mean something like top 10% of Americans. Note that among SAT scorers, the top 11% of males score >700 on the math section and top 7% of females score >700. This isn't some super-elite group, and you're already looking at 1.6x as many men. But you're arguing somehow that we should specifically discriminate in an attempt to hire dumber people, so... well, that seems like a bad idea to me.
- leaflets2 5y ago
  > Everybody writing software is at the upper end Gah. You need to insert "and does it well"

ryan93 5y ago

They weren’t dominate. The “computer programming” work they did was borderline clerical in nature.

pgcj_poster 5y ago
Most computer programming is still borderline clerical in nature.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Thank you! I was worried this point was being lost.

BlargMcLarg 5y ago

>And once the personal computer became widespread with computer game culture arising and a culture of harassing women until they leave became common enough to be an issue, why wouldn’t one expect that those who developed an interest in computer programming (ie from contact with computer games, etc) to be predominantly men? (And I love computer games, but there is an insane amount of harassment. Everyone who plays knows this.) I'm sure this is a part of it, but I think you're overselling how impactful the harassment part is. The skewed ratio in CS has been something going on for decades. Online gaming, especially with voice, is the primary offender of online sexism in games. These types of games weren't that popular until early/mid 2010s. If you were interested in other types of games and largely avoided online games, sexism wasn't nearly as bad. That's not to mention a sizeable portion of CS graduates have no interest in games, let alone online games, as a whole. Meanwhile, this doesn't answer the gender-equality paradox. At the same time, these "less gender-equal" countries definitely don't have a shortage of misogynist messages on their online boards, gaming communities, forums, etc. Still as misogynist, but more women entering CS: what gives?

SamReidHughes 5y ago

Not at all. It still holds. Let's suppose the field were overall 90% women, 10% men. Even then, companies looking to hire the smartest candidates would be disproportionately male -- say, 15% male instead of the average 10% -- as the population male:female ratio increases as you raise the intelligence bar.

twofornone 5y ago

>Women used to be dominant in computing. Literally were the computers This is pathetic cope and completely misleading. The "programming" of that time had almost nothing to do with the modern practice. These "computer" roles were for number crunching, not software development. You're bending over backwards to deny the fact that men and women are biologically predisposed to certain interests. Why? Is it some weird sort of insecurity? >It has nothing to do with intelligence curves. It has literally everything to do with intelligences curves. The male distribution of intelligence has a wider variance - that's a statistical descriptor of the normal distribution. This means there are more men at the extremes of both ends of the curve. And an inescapable consequence is that men will be overrepresented among knowledge workers in meritocratic system. Don't worry, you can take solace in the fact that this also suggests a larger population of male criminals because it also means there are more dumb men at the other end of the spectrum. The lengths to which people will go to deny the effects of meaningful, proven differences among demographics is infuriating. It's gaslighting and it helps absolutely no one in the long run, assuming you want a functioning society.

Robotbeat 5y ago
Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, but I agree with the other poster that EVEN IF you think the male/female curve distribution thing is completely correct without caveats, you just don’t have to be massively intelligent to do software development. You’re building a corporate SAP system, not proving some theorem or unifying the fundamental forces or something.
- twofornone 5y ago
  This isn't about my personal feelings, it's about the insistence that the demographics are not a reflection of the distribution of competence and personal choice, but discrimination. The entire foundation of discrimination against white males is dishonest because proponents refuse to allow for any explanation for overrepresentation beyond unfair hiring practices - which are being used to implement the systemic discrimination that they claim to be fighting. >You’re building a corporate SAP system, not proving some theorem or unifying the fundamental forces or something. And regardless of what you're building, you want the most competent employees that you can get for the lowest price if you are operating within a meritocracy. In that case your demographics will be strongly influenced by the distribution of competence, before even considering that the pipeline is skewed because women are simply not choosing to pursue software development - and that's not a problem that needs correcting unless you're playing tribalist team sports. The anti-tribalists are using mere accusations of tribalism to justify their own vicious, exclusionary tribalism, and simply not allowing for discussion of alternative explanations which could appear to be motivated by tribalism. That's what keeps me up at night.