5 ms·

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 yo

by 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.
    - cauch 2y ago
      > Math proofs only need to convince other people Wait, what? A math proof does not need to convince anyone: the proof exists or does not exist. If I prove X, then I don't need to convince other people that X is proven, they just have to read the proof. So, in practice, math is even worst than computer science. In computer science, you have to convince the compiler. In math, you need to convince math. You need to build an algorithm that compiles under the tons of math logic rules. > 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 But learning math and trying to build math proofs is even more "coal face-y". There is no pre-build debugger and you need to check things yourself, by hand, and when it fails it may be because you mess up the algorithm part or the compiler part. > 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. All of that is cultural. The developer mentality cultivates this idea that being burnout and being socially rude is a sign of success and is a manly thing to do. There is no reason why writing code causes damage, because it does not happen to plenty of other activities that are as grinding. Again, developers are not special, what they do and what they live is similar to a lot of other things. It feels more like a rationalization: the reason men get worse at relating to other people and become weirdos is because these men are failing at social life because of their mentality.
  - jimbokun 2y ago
    I was not aware of that and it looks like math is an interesting exception. Any theories on what’s responsible for that difference?
- cauch 2y ago
  But it is as human-oriented as other science fields that are typically considered as more people-oriented and these fields attract a bigger proportion of women. Also, one of my point is that the "non human oriented" is also part of the image, but not of the reality. I see more and more successful developers that explains that "sit down and write or debug the code" on your own is not a fundamentally big part of the job, but it is in practice a big part because of the current mentality and because some developers want to work like that. I keep seeing developers thinking that they are "special". But in practice, it is a job very similar to other role in a company. An accountant, for example, also need to sometimes sit down and do careful work that requires not being disturbed. It often feels like developers are talking about "breaking the flow" or "all these useless meetings" or "the managers that invent work to justify their role" or ... as if it is not identical for all the other roles (there are small differences, but nothing justifying that developer is somehow less human oriented than accountant).
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    > But it is as human-oriented as other science fields that are typically considered as more people-oriented and these fields attract a bigger proportion of women. Bigger, sure, but not by much. STEM (presumably what you mean by "science fields") are bigger in aggregate ~25% women. Some of these are smaller (~10% of electrical engineers are men). Some are bigger, biology IIRC is about 50/50. Computer science is about 20% women. This is actually pretty close to the average of "science fields" as a whole. I agree that developers aren't special. But neither is the gender disparity among software developers. People so often forget that gender imbalances >20% is actually the norm not the exception. If you dig through the Bureau of Labor statistics, most jobs have significant gender disparities. Dog groomer have as stark a gender disparity as developers. So do driving instructors, and insurance adjusters. There's actually nothing unusual about the level of gender disparity in STEM.
    - cauch 2y ago
      I agree with that. My comment here is about the idea that the disparity can be explained because "computer science is more thing-oriented and women are more interested in people-oriented activities". If it was true, we would not see different numbers in different STEM fields. Personally, I think that the cultural image of the field, rather than it being intrinsically thing- or people-oriented, has a bigger impact. In practice, biology and computer science are both activities where you work on your algorithm. And in practice, I would argue that computer scientists need to have more people skills than biologists, as computer scientists need to interact more between each others and with non-dev people (managers, internal teams that need to have internal tools built, external users giving feedbacks, ...). But biology has an image of "nature and animals" that is associated with women and computer science has an image of "nerd coding alone in his mancave" that is associated with men. The thing is that these images are cultural, not intrinsic to the activity in itself.

by cauch 2y ago

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.
  - cauch 2y ago
    > Math proofs only need to convince other people Wait, what? A math proof does not need to convince anyone: the proof exists or does not exist. If I prove X, then I don't need to convince other people that X is proven, they just have to read the proof. So, in practice, math is even worst than computer science. In computer science, you have to convince the compiler. In math, you need to convince math. You need to build an algorithm that compiles under the tons of math logic rules. > 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 But learning math and trying to build math proofs is even more "coal face-y". There is no pre-build debugger and you need to check things yourself, by hand, and when it fails it may be because you mess up the algorithm part or the compiler part. > 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. All of that is cultural. The developer mentality cultivates this idea that being burnout and being socially rude is a sign of success and is a manly thing to do. There is no reason why writing code causes damage, because it does not happen to plenty of other activities that are as grinding. Again, developers are not special, what they do and what they live is similar to a lot of other things. It feels more like a rationalization: the reason men get worse at relating to other people and become weirdos is because these men are failing at social life because of their mentality.
- jimbokun 2y ago
  I was not aware of that and it looks like math is an interesting exception. Any theories on what’s responsible for that difference?
cauch 2y ago
But it is as human-oriented as other science fields that are typically considered as more people-oriented and these fields attract a bigger proportion of women. Also, one of my point is that the "non human oriented" is also part of the image, but not of the reality. I see more and more successful developers that explains that "sit down and write or debug the code" on your own is not a fundamentally big part of the job, but it is in practice a big part because of the current mentality and because some developers want to work like that. I keep seeing developers thinking that they are "special". But in practice, it is a job very similar to other role in a company. An accountant, for example, also need to sometimes sit down and do careful work that requires not being disturbed. It often feels like developers are talking about "breaking the flow" or "all these useless meetings" or "the managers that invent work to justify their role" or ... as if it is not identical for all the other roles (there are small differences, but nothing justifying that developer is somehow less human oriented than accountant).
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  > But it is as human-oriented as other science fields that are typically considered as more people-oriented and these fields attract a bigger proportion of women. Bigger, sure, but not by much. STEM (presumably what you mean by "science fields") are bigger in aggregate ~25% women. Some of these are smaller (~10% of electrical engineers are men). Some are bigger, biology IIRC is about 50/50. Computer science is about 20% women. This is actually pretty close to the average of "science fields" as a whole. I agree that developers aren't special. But neither is the gender disparity among software developers. People so often forget that gender imbalances >20% is actually the norm not the exception. If you dig through the Bureau of Labor statistics, most jobs have significant gender disparities. Dog groomer have as stark a gender disparity as developers. So do driving instructors, and insurance adjusters. There's actually nothing unusual about the level of gender disparity in STEM.
  - cauch 2y ago
    I agree with that. My comment here is about the idea that the disparity can be explained because "computer science is more thing-oriented and women are more interested in people-oriented activities". If it was true, we would not see different numbers in different STEM fields. Personally, I think that the cultural image of the field, rather than it being intrinsically thing- or people-oriented, has a bigger impact. In practice, biology and computer science are both activities where you work on your algorithm. And in practice, I would argue that computer scientists need to have more people skills than biologists, as computer scientists need to interact more between each others and with non-dev people (managers, internal teams that need to have internal tools built, external users giving feedbacks, ...). But biology has an image of "nature and animals" that is associated with women and computer science has an image of "nerd coding alone in his mancave" that is associated with men. The thing is that these images are cultural, not intrinsic to the activity in itself.