3 ms·

Okay. What is your mechanism for all this equality? I assume you're some sort of young earth creationist, right? Sure, if God made men and women absolutely equa

by thras 17y ago

Okay. What is your mechanism for all this equality? I assume you're some sort of young earth creationist, right? Sure, if God made men and women absolutely equal, then we're equal. The big guy can do anything. Probably right after he got done making fake dinosaur bones. Some of us here believe in evolution. And evolution doesn't bring about nice politically correct results. The best explanation for observed sexual behavioral dimorphism (for example, the 2009 math SATs by gender) is most parsimoniously explained by genetics.

wheels 17y ago
There are certainly differences, as you point out. It'd be amazing if you averaged up all male specimens and all female specimens on the planet and the averages lined up on anything. The question isn't so much if there are differences, but if they reasonably correspond to the gender gap in programming. There are obviously social factors at work since fields like being a high school math teacher, which usually requires a degree in mathematics, is dominated by women, but being a computer programmer, which requires less mathematics, is not. If the gap was, say, you know, 10% I might say, "Yeah, there you go. Gender differences." But given that a lot of software shops are upwards of 95% male, I don't think you can claim that the remaining 5% of women that crossed the bar were the only ones smart enough to write PHP. And see, that's the thing. If all of the great programmers were men and the bad programmers were about 50/50, that'd support the gender gap thesis more. I mean, certainly most women that are in the top 10% of their class could be trained to be poor PHP programmers. It's not rocket surgery. But they're not there and there is a dearth of bad male PHP programmers (who may be otherwise intelligent). So it seems to be a little more complicated than "innate ability".
- thras 17y ago
  Oh, the gap isn't anywhere near as big as 10%. Men and women differ by only a few points on average when you test for mathematical ability. The problem is that ability is distributed along a Gaussian. Small differences in the norm make for huge differences in the tails. So everybody can balance their check book about the same, but don't expect any women to win the Fields medal within the next millennium. Now, the female dislike of programming jobs goes beyond this tail effect. I think that as a big a problem is that programming is not a socially rewarding occupation, and women like socializing.
  - wheels 17y ago
    Now, the female dislike of programming jobs goes beyond this tail effect. I'd say it goes so far beyond that effect to render it pretty much meaningless. This discussion wasn't about who's more likely to win a Fields Metal, it's about women in programming. The gap between winning a fields medal and being a competent programmer is ginormus. Assuming I read you correctly, we'd both agree that there's not a strong correlation between the percentage of men and women with the basic mathematical ability to be programmers and the percentage of men and women who in fact are programmers. I think the real answer lies in some mix of actual physiological differences between men and women and roles that are engendered by society. Given the number of roles that people were sure of 50 years ago that women couldn't do that they are now debunked (as politicians, executives, doctors, lawyers) I tend to err on the side of the latter. This is especially poignant in the country where I live (Germany) where the Chancellor is a woman with a PhD in quantum chemistry.
    - thras 17y ago
      Well, if you'd like to apply actual numbers to the discussion, take a look here: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm He comes up with an expected upper bound of 29% participation in the technical workforce by women given current best measurements of sex differences.
zackattack 17y ago
Just because I know the gap is explainable through cultural differences doesn't mean that I implied I understood why there is no phylogenetic divergence with respect to genes for mathematical reasoning. Here is your argument genetics/evolution => In this world, there is some sexual behavioral dimorphism. && 2009 sat => In America, there is a specific type of sexual behavioral dimorphism. Here is my argument math tests => female performance at mathematics varies culturally => genetics does not determine everything and we have to take environment into account And let me be absolutely clear that I am not suggesting that mathematical ability is not heritable. See this study for evidence that it is indeed: [1] www.atypon-link.com/AAP/doi/pdf/10.1375/twin.8.6.585 P.S. I believe religion is a social phenomenon that makes much sense (as to why it exists, and, as you probably care, why it came into existence!) with a valid psychological perspective. And I am willing to elaborate on my logic if you are curious.
- thras 17y ago
  You have proposed a mechanism. Now Occam's razor it! You have replaced a simple explanation for which abundant evidence exists with a complicated explanation. You could spend time inventing even more complications for your theory to explain things like why there aren't any cultures that have the opposite effect on female mathematical behaviour, and why very high mathematical ability seems to be linked to androgyny in females, or you could just junk the theory as unlikely. Unless you'd rather rather say something politically correct than true, that is. But nobody would chose opinions about the world like that, would they?

by thras 17y ago

wheels 17y ago

There are certainly differences, as you point out. It'd be amazing if you averaged up all male specimens and all female specimens on the planet and the averages lined up on anything. The question isn't so much if there are differences, but if they reasonably correspond to the gender gap in programming. There are obviously social factors at work since fields like being a high school math teacher, which usually requires a degree in mathematics, is dominated by women, but being a computer programmer, which requires less mathematics, is not. If the gap was, say, you know, 10% I might say, "Yeah, there you go. Gender differences." But given that a lot of software shops are upwards of 95% male, I don't think you can claim that the remaining 5% of women that crossed the bar were the only ones smart enough to write PHP. And see, that's the thing. If all of the great programmers were men and the bad programmers were about 50/50, that'd support the gender gap thesis more. I mean, certainly most women that are in the top 10% of their class could be trained to be poor PHP programmers. It's not rocket surgery. But they're not there and there is a dearth of bad male PHP programmers (who may be otherwise intelligent). So it seems to be a little more complicated than "innate ability".

thras 17y ago
Oh, the gap isn't anywhere near as big as 10%. Men and women differ by only a few points on average when you test for mathematical ability. The problem is that ability is distributed along a Gaussian. Small differences in the norm make for huge differences in the tails. So everybody can balance their check book about the same, but don't expect any women to win the Fields medal within the next millennium. Now, the female dislike of programming jobs goes beyond this tail effect. I think that as a big a problem is that programming is not a socially rewarding occupation, and women like socializing.
- wheels 17y ago
  Now, the female dislike of programming jobs goes beyond this tail effect. I'd say it goes so far beyond that effect to render it pretty much meaningless. This discussion wasn't about who's more likely to win a Fields Metal, it's about women in programming. The gap between winning a fields medal and being a competent programmer is ginormus. Assuming I read you correctly, we'd both agree that there's not a strong correlation between the percentage of men and women with the basic mathematical ability to be programmers and the percentage of men and women who in fact are programmers. I think the real answer lies in some mix of actual physiological differences between men and women and roles that are engendered by society. Given the number of roles that people were sure of 50 years ago that women couldn't do that they are now debunked (as politicians, executives, doctors, lawyers) I tend to err on the side of the latter. This is especially poignant in the country where I live (Germany) where the Chancellor is a woman with a PhD in quantum chemistry.
  - thras 17y ago
    Well, if you'd like to apply actual numbers to the discussion, take a look here: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm He comes up with an expected upper bound of 29% participation in the technical workforce by women given current best measurements of sex differences.

zackattack 17y ago

Just because I know the gap is explainable through cultural differences doesn't mean that I implied I understood why there is no phylogenetic divergence with respect to genes for mathematical reasoning. Here is your argument genetics/evolution => In this world, there is some sexual behavioral dimorphism. && 2009 sat => In America, there is a specific type of sexual behavioral dimorphism. Here is my argument math tests => female performance at mathematics varies culturally => genetics does not determine everything and we have to take environment into account And let me be absolutely clear that I am not suggesting that mathematical ability is not heritable. See this study for evidence that it is indeed: [1] www.atypon-link.com/AAP/doi/pdf/10.1375/twin.8.6.585 P.S. I believe religion is a social phenomenon that makes much sense (as to why it exists, and, as you probably care, why it came into existence!) with a valid psychological perspective. And I am willing to elaborate on my logic if you are curious.

thras 17y ago
You have proposed a mechanism. Now Occam's razor it! You have replaced a simple explanation for which abundant evidence exists with a complicated explanation. You could spend time inventing even more complications for your theory to explain things like why there aren't any cultures that have the opposite effect on female mathematical behaviour, and why very high mathematical ability seems to be linked to androgyny in females, or you could just junk the theory as unlikely. Unless you'd rather rather say something politically correct than true, that is. But nobody would chose opinions about the world like that, would they?