6 ms·

> you seem to have very little curiosity into WHY those ratios are so skewed That's a weird take. How would you know what I'm curious about? Pardon the strawma

by elric 2y ago

> you seem to have very little curiosity into WHY those ratios are so skewed That's a weird take. How would you know what I'm curious about? Pardon the strawman, but I'm not interested in handwavy explanations which tend to border on bigotry ("$category simply isn't interested in $topic"). I suspect the fundamental reasons are myriad and complex, but that doesn't mean $field wouldn't benefit from more diversity. > It's impossible to change these distributions without understanding the underlying causes for how they got that way. Maybe, maybe not. The ratio is certainly a lot less skewed now than when I was a student over 20 years ago. My understanding (or lack thereof) certainly didn't have an impact, but throughout my career I have always tried to be supportive of people who are in some way different from me. Heterogeneity is a good thing. Monocultures result in weakness.

Sinthrill 2y ago
They can tell you aren't a curious person from your use of punctuation. This is why I always add ;`'([] at the end of every sentence ;`'([]
jimbokun 2y ago
> ("$category simply isn't interested in $topic"). First link that came up in my Google search: https://www.psypost.org/women-like-working-with-people-men-like-working-with-things-all-across-the-world/# https://www.psypost.org/women-like-working-with-people-men-l... It is almost certain that differences in interest play a large role in the different distributions of men and women in different occupations. The studies showing this are well known and I have not seen them debunked. Please note that labelling a claim with strong backing in empirical evidence "bigotry" does not magically change reality to conform with what you would like it to be. You need to produce actual evidence to the contrary.
- cauch 2y ago
  I find that interesting because I see more and more successful developers that explain that a successful developer is someone who has good people skills. If you think about it, there not intrinsic ground to support the idea that computer science activities in themselves are more "things" than "people". They may be more "things-oriented" right now _because_ it is currently male dominated, but it does not mean it is a fundamental characteristic of the computer science activities. I find it interesting because it shows the vicious circle of bias: step1: "Computer science is male dominated" + "men prefer X and women prefer Y" -> "Computer science is therefore fundamentally X" step2: "men prefer X and women prefer Y" + "Computer science is fundamentally X" -> "Computer science is therefore male dominated"
  - jimbokun 2y ago
    At some point, some one has to sit down and write or debug the code. It's never going to be as human oriented as something like teaching, being a therapist, or managing people full time.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      It's more human oriented than writing math proofs! Why is the gap between those two fields double digit percentage points?
      - Jensson 2y ago
        Statisticians works directly with managers, almost all math professionals are statisticians and not doing theoretical maths.
        cauch 2y ago
        Statisticians are working less with managers than developers. Developers are supposed to be constantly fed back from the product users, and in practice, it means they interact with a bigger surface than statisticians. They may find ways to avoid interactions, but it is not "because developer is not people-related", it's because they want themselves to not be people-related. So, no, computer science is not less people-oriented than statistics. You may personally interact less with people, but it is just because you are personally less people-oriented, not because your job is fundamentally less people-oriented.
        tptacek 2y ago
        In addition to what the sibling comment said, I am referring to academic mathematics.
      - _05hb 2y ago
        Math proofs only need to convince other people. Programs need to convince a compiler. If compilers were people and you talked to them for the first time, the only reasonable response would be to call them assholes and find new friends. The field of mathematics doesn’t have an equivalent of the “Norway Problem.” Here’s my theory. Learning how to write code causes damage to the mind, particularly in the area of how you relate to other people. When we’re learning to code, men and women both notice this happening, but men care less. Women, on the other hand, tend to think, “this is bad and I should stop.” It’s hard to become a programmer without becoming a weirdo in the process, and women have a lot more to lose by becoming weirdos. If we knew how to learn programming without the mind damage -- if we could figure out how to allow learners to skip the “coal face” of spending long hours into the night talking to a compiler -- then that would solve the gender imbalance. Just my theory. For a good long stretch I thought the explanation was that tech compensation wasn't actually all that great compared to what women could earn in other fields, and then the explosive comp growth of the mid-late 2010s happened and I've been wondering about what is the problem ever since.
Jensson 2y ago
> The ratio is certainly a lot less skewed now than when I was a student over 20 years ago You mean more skewed? The data shows there are less women now than 20 years ago. There is a lot more talk about women in tech today, but that doesn't mean there are more.

by elric 2y ago

Sinthrill 2y ago

They can tell you aren't a curious person from your use of punctuation. This is why I always add ;`'([] at the end of every sentence ;`'([]

jimbokun 2y ago

> ("$category simply isn't interested in $topic"). First link that came up in my Google search: https://www.psypost.org/women-like-working-with-people-men-like-working-with-things-all-across-the-world/# https://www.psypost.org/women-like-working-with-people-men-l... It is almost certain that differences in interest play a large role in the different distributions of men and women in different occupations. The studies showing this are well known and I have not seen them debunked. Please note that labelling a claim with strong backing in empirical evidence "bigotry" does not magically change reality to conform with what you would like it to be. You need to produce actual evidence to the contrary.

cauch 2y ago
I find that interesting because I see more and more successful developers that explain that a successful developer is someone who has good people skills. If you think about it, there not intrinsic ground to support the idea that computer science activities in themselves are more "things" than "people". They may be more "things-oriented" right now _because_ it is currently male dominated, but it does not mean it is a fundamental characteristic of the computer science activities. I find it interesting because it shows the vicious circle of bias: step1: "Computer science is male dominated" + "men prefer X and women prefer Y" -> "Computer science is therefore fundamentally X" step2: "men prefer X and women prefer Y" + "Computer science is fundamentally X" -> "Computer science is therefore male dominated"
- jimbokun 2y ago
  At some point, some one has to sit down and write or debug the code. It's never going to be as human oriented as something like teaching, being a therapist, or managing people full time.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    It's more human oriented than writing math proofs! Why is the gap between those two fields double digit percentage points?
    - Jensson 2y ago
      Statisticians works directly with managers, almost all math professionals are statisticians and not doing theoretical maths.
      - cauch 2y ago
        Statisticians are working less with managers than developers. Developers are supposed to be constantly fed back from the product users, and in practice, it means they interact with a bigger surface than statisticians. They may find ways to avoid interactions, but it is not "because developer is not people-related", it's because they want themselves to not be people-related. So, no, computer science is not less people-oriented than statistics. You may personally interact less with people, but it is just because you are personally less people-oriented, not because your job is fundamentally less people-oriented.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        In addition to what the sibling comment said, I am referring to academic mathematics.
    - _05hb 2y ago
      Math proofs only need to convince other people. Programs need to convince a compiler. If compilers were people and you talked to them for the first time, the only reasonable response would be to call them assholes and find new friends. The field of mathematics doesn’t have an equivalent of the “Norway Problem.” Here’s my theory. Learning how to write code causes damage to the mind, particularly in the area of how you relate to other people. When we’re learning to code, men and women both notice this happening, but men care less. Women, on the other hand, tend to think, “this is bad and I should stop.” It’s hard to become a programmer without becoming a weirdo in the process, and women have a lot more to lose by becoming weirdos. If we knew how to learn programming without the mind damage -- if we could figure out how to allow learners to skip the “coal face” of spending long hours into the night talking to a compiler -- then that would solve the gender imbalance. Just my theory. For a good long stretch I thought the explanation was that tech compensation wasn't actually all that great compared to what women could earn in other fields, and then the explosive comp growth of the mid-late 2010s happened and I've been wondering about what is the problem ever since.

Jensson 2y ago

> The ratio is certainly a lot less skewed now than when I was a student over 20 years ago You mean more skewed? The data shows there are less women now than 20 years ago. There is a lot more talk about women in tech today, but that doesn't mean there are more.