3 ms·

The difference in participation within STEM between men and women is not well explained by biological differences. Blow has repeatedly claimed that it is actual

by __alexs 10mo ago

The difference in participation within STEM between men and women is not well explained by biological differences. Blow has repeatedly claimed that it is actually the primary factor and seems actively disinterested in other explanations. This is "controversial" in that it's a position that is not well supported by evidence and he has repeatedly used his platform in the past to make unsupported claims to the contrary.

mariusor 10mo ago
OK, he's wrong. But is that enough to state that he "doesn't seem to think that women have any role to play in his profession"?
- __alexs 10mo ago
  I don't think he's said exactly that in his own words but I think on balance it's fair to say he doesn't seem welcoming about it. He clearly has right leaning and libertarian views, and seems to be not very articulate or sensitive in how he discusses them so I can see why people might read into that more than they should maybe.
  - psyopsy 10mo ago
    Thekla currently has 10 core permanent employees. 5 of them are women, including their studio manager, creative and art Director, a programmer, and 2 additional artists. You can say whatever the hell you want. Or you could spend 3 minutes actually looking at public information to see if you're wrong.
    - __alexs 10mo ago
      I don't think these statements are contradictory.
      - psyopsy 10mo ago
        Half his employees are women—including leadership, programming, and creative roles. If that doesn’t count as “thinking women have a role,” what would? 51%? 90%? You’re relying on blatant social media mischaracterizations over real actions. He actually employs women at parity. You feel like this is unwelcoming. One of those statements is data. The other is fanfic.
        __alexs 10mo ago
        I didn't say he thinks women don't have a role.
        psyopsy 10mo ago
        You said, "I don't think he's said exactly that in his own words but..." That's implicitly saying, "well, he hasn't admitted it outright, but yeah, he basically believes it." Now faced with evidence contrary to your beliefs, you're claiming you didn't say that. When presented with proof, It's ok to just admit that you were wrong.
        __alexs 10mo ago
        You seem very defensive of Blow. I didn't say the things you seem to think I was saying. Sorry for the confusion.
        psyopsy 10mo ago
        Am I supposed to be embarrassed for defending someone against a baseless smear? Anyway, call it "defensive" all you want. It doesn't change the historical thread: You argued, at best, his views made the workplace unwelcoming; the data shows he hires women at parity. You're just backpedaling because the reality didn't match your narrative vibes.
        __alexs 10mo ago
jstimpfle 10mo ago
Is the opposite explained? I haven't read literature on the topic, and I'm by the way also somewhat of a sceptic of science on such topics, as a layman. But it seems super obvious that girls/women on average are not wanting to spend their teenage years in the basement programming geek stuff, like many boys/men do. In my experience, here in Germany, and you can probably extrapolate to the West in general, it's not like girls aren't encouraged to pursue programming or science. Men are, on average, just more willing to put in the hours of social neglect in order to become good at such things as programming, or also gaming, or whatever other fringe unsocial hobby. A big part of that is probably competitiveness, but also I believe there are more loners among men. Again, this is not scientific, just personal observations, also ideas I've picked up that I can agree with. I'm not even saying that it must be mostly for biological reasons (though I assume it is), just that there is a deeper reason for fewer girls to exist in tech than just "there is patriarchy and power structures and misogynist gatekeeping and shit". Never forget that the social neglect is not exactly healthy, and programming isn't actually that prestigious and externally rewarding, except for maybe the compensation that you can currently earn in some places. Adding that for example in math or other sciences, we are much closer to gender parity.
- wahnfrieden 10mo ago
  They are encouraged in surface level, performative ways. The actual communities are incredibly off-putting. edit: speaking industry-wide. of course there are "not all men" type spaces in local communities.
  - jstimpfle 10mo ago
    For all I know, being a male programmer myself, with a significant proportion of females in all my programmer circles so far, I can attest the exact opposite. Every one of those circles has been welcoming and inclusive.
- __alexs 10mo ago
  Given the success of women in sports such as ultra marathoning, medicine etc I don't think it is that conclusive that women are not willing to put the hours into difficult and isolating activities. There are a great number of studies of the social aspects of gender differences in work but I don't have a single authoritative source for you.
psyopsy 10mo ago
When you say, "not well support by evidence," you're either wrong, anti-science, or lying. Numerous studies absolutely show very large average differences in interests based on sex. And those carry over into occupation preferences. Just one more recent study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268122003201 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726812... Plus: Jon never said it's the "primary" factor, as you claim. He said it's a large factor, that doesn't apply at the individual level, but on average. Which is entirely factual and supported by copious amounts of research. Just because people like you want to be offended by science, doesn't make it wrong, or controversial.
- onraglanroad 10mo ago
  Well, no, you're the one that is "wrong, anti-science, or lying". The very first sentence of the article you linked to says, "Occupational choices remain strongly segregated by gender, for reasons not yet fully understood." So claiming that its for biological reasons is bullshit. You have no idea whether it is or not. And neither does Blow.
  - psyopsy 10mo ago
    LOL. You're going to dismiss the study because of the justification for doing the study. Here, let me help you understand: "not fully understood" -> "so we studied it" -> "here's what we found" Besides that obvious point, the sentence you quoted says "not yet fully understood," not "we have no idea." Those aren't the same thing. We actually have substantial evidence pointing in a clear direction. - The most egalitarian countries show the largest gaps, not the smallest. - Women exposed to elevated androgens in utero become more things-oriented despite being raised normally as girls. - Male and female monkeys show the same toy preferences we do. Nobody's socializing rhesus monkeys into gender roles. - A 1.28 standard deviation gap in every culture that emerges in infancy and grows as societies get freer is not what socialization looks like. You're treating "not fully understood" as "both hypotheses are equally supported." They aren't. The evidence overwhelmingly favors a substantial biological component. Just because you don't like the implications of that, doesn't make it false. Seethe harder.

by __alexs 10mo ago

mariusor 10mo ago

OK, he's wrong. But is that enough to state that he "doesn't seem to think that women have any role to play in his profession"?

__alexs 10mo ago
I don't think he's said exactly that in his own words but I think on balance it's fair to say he doesn't seem welcoming about it. He clearly has right leaning and libertarian views, and seems to be not very articulate or sensitive in how he discusses them so I can see why people might read into that more than they should maybe.
- psyopsy 10mo ago
  Thekla currently has 10 core permanent employees. 5 of them are women, including their studio manager, creative and art Director, a programmer, and 2 additional artists. You can say whatever the hell you want. Or you could spend 3 minutes actually looking at public information to see if you're wrong.
  - __alexs 10mo ago
    I don't think these statements are contradictory.
    - psyopsy 10mo ago
      Half his employees are women—including leadership, programming, and creative roles. If that doesn’t count as “thinking women have a role,” what would? 51%? 90%? You’re relying on blatant social media mischaracterizations over real actions. He actually employs women at parity. You feel like this is unwelcoming. One of those statements is data. The other is fanfic.
      - __alexs 10mo ago
        I didn't say he thinks women don't have a role.
        psyopsy 10mo ago
        You said, "I don't think he's said exactly that in his own words but..." That's implicitly saying, "well, he hasn't admitted it outright, but yeah, he basically believes it." Now faced with evidence contrary to your beliefs, you're claiming you didn't say that. When presented with proof, It's ok to just admit that you were wrong.
        __alexs 10mo ago
        You seem very defensive of Blow. I didn't say the things you seem to think I was saying. Sorry for the confusion.
        psyopsy 10mo ago
        Am I supposed to be embarrassed for defending someone against a baseless smear? Anyway, call it "defensive" all you want. It doesn't change the historical thread: You argued, at best, his views made the workplace unwelcoming; the data shows he hires women at parity. You're just backpedaling because the reality didn't match your narrative vibes.
        __alexs 10mo ago

jstimpfle 10mo ago

Is the opposite explained? I haven't read literature on the topic, and I'm by the way also somewhat of a sceptic of science on such topics, as a layman. But it seems super obvious that girls/women on average are not wanting to spend their teenage years in the basement programming geek stuff, like many boys/men do. In my experience, here in Germany, and you can probably extrapolate to the West in general, it's not like girls aren't encouraged to pursue programming or science. Men are, on average, just more willing to put in the hours of social neglect in order to become good at such things as programming, or also gaming, or whatever other fringe unsocial hobby. A big part of that is probably competitiveness, but also I believe there are more loners among men. Again, this is not scientific, just personal observations, also ideas I've picked up that I can agree with. I'm not even saying that it must be mostly for biological reasons (though I assume it is), just that there is a deeper reason for fewer girls to exist in tech than just "there is patriarchy and power structures and misogynist gatekeeping and shit". Never forget that the social neglect is not exactly healthy, and programming isn't actually that prestigious and externally rewarding, except for maybe the compensation that you can currently earn in some places. Adding that for example in math or other sciences, we are much closer to gender parity.

wahnfrieden 10mo ago
They are encouraged in surface level, performative ways. The actual communities are incredibly off-putting. edit: speaking industry-wide. of course there are "not all men" type spaces in local communities.
- jstimpfle 10mo ago
  For all I know, being a male programmer myself, with a significant proportion of females in all my programmer circles so far, I can attest the exact opposite. Every one of those circles has been welcoming and inclusive.
__alexs 10mo ago
Given the success of women in sports such as ultra marathoning, medicine etc I don't think it is that conclusive that women are not willing to put the hours into difficult and isolating activities. There are a great number of studies of the social aspects of gender differences in work but I don't have a single authoritative source for you.

psyopsy 10mo ago

When you say, "not well support by evidence," you're either wrong, anti-science, or lying. Numerous studies absolutely show very large average differences in interests based on sex. And those carry over into occupation preferences. Just one more recent study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268122003201 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726812... Plus: Jon never said it's the "primary" factor, as you claim. He said it's a large factor, that doesn't apply at the individual level, but on average. Which is entirely factual and supported by copious amounts of research. Just because people like you want to be offended by science, doesn't make it wrong, or controversial.

onraglanroad 10mo ago
Well, no, you're the one that is "wrong, anti-science, or lying". The very first sentence of the article you linked to says, "Occupational choices remain strongly segregated by gender, for reasons not yet fully understood." So claiming that its for biological reasons is bullshit. You have no idea whether it is or not. And neither does Blow.
- psyopsy 10mo ago
  LOL. You're going to dismiss the study because of the justification for doing the study. Here, let me help you understand: "not fully understood" -> "so we studied it" -> "here's what we found" Besides that obvious point, the sentence you quoted says "not yet fully understood," not "we have no idea." Those aren't the same thing. We actually have substantial evidence pointing in a clear direction. - The most egalitarian countries show the largest gaps, not the smallest. - Women exposed to elevated androgens in utero become more things-oriented despite being raised normally as girls. - Male and female monkeys show the same toy preferences we do. Nobody's socializing rhesus monkeys into gender roles. - A 1.28 standard deviation gap in every culture that emerges in infancy and grows as societies get freer is not what socialization looks like. You're treating "not fully understood" as "both hypotheses are equally supported." They aren't. The evidence overwhelmingly favors a substantial biological component. Just because you don't like the implications of that, doesn't make it false. Seethe harder.