4 ms·

Where is the sexism in that post? Or racism?

by fosap 13y ago

jamesaguilar 13y ago
The sexism is the position, sans evidence, that psychology is the most likely explanation for the difference in women and men in programming.
- fosap 13y ago
  Ok, Occams razor is sexist? /edit: Also there is sound evidence that psychology tends to biases the interest in technical stuff toward the male gender. /edit 2: I'd like to answer, but it seem I'm banned. There is my reply: I'm not saying that this is necessarily the simplest explanation. But it's looks like a far simpler explanation than a worldwide cultural conspiracy against women. Also, in my personal experience the environment in school and in university always encouraged women and girls to do "computer stuff" and yet the quota was about 10%. But that do also mean, as far as i could witness it, encouragement by male and female peers. I know, it's purely anecdotal, but make me think of this can't be that simple. I'm sorry about the quotes. If i could quote i would have done it earlier, but i have atm no access to the scientific search engines. I'm not suggesting there is a consensus, but labeling this off as absurd... is absurd. If you are lucky enough to have access to papers search for "gender differences newborn" yields to several results. And, as far as i can remember, differences in language development, in preference pictures of faces or abstract pictures. That said, I'm not a fan of evo psych. It's highly inductive, and often far from the simplest explanation. There are parasites, Toxoplasma gondii, that do change human behavior to the point of making suicide more likely and cause mensurable changes in social interaction. (These do depend on gender aswell). If you think that the vastly different hormones in the human body do not affect social interaction, while a simple infection can, that seems to me something you have to prove and not something i have to disprove.
  - quinnchr 13y ago
    No assuming that the simplest explanation is that women are genetically less suited is sexist. Gender imbalances in society is just as simple of an explanation. Your use of Occam's razor here is essentially just a sexist "common sense argument."
  - eropple 13y ago
    > Ok, Occams razor is sexist? Assuming "because they have two X chromosomes" is the simplest answer (rather than, oh, the environment around them constantly suggests not to do technical things for such sterling reasons as "math is hard") is stupid. Doing it to circle the wagons and keep the tech-bruvs happy is sexist. > /edit: Also there is sound evidence that psychology tends to biases the interest in technical stuff toward the male gender. I read a lot about both evolutionary psych and gender and I've never seen this seriously buttressed. Where's your cites? Plural?

Where is the sexism in that post? Or racism?

by fosap 13y ago

Where is the sexism in that post? Or racism?

The sexism is the position, sans evidence, that psychology is the most likely explanation for the difference in women and men in programming.

fosap 13y ago
Ok, Occams razor is sexist? /edit: Also there is sound evidence that psychology tends to biases the interest in technical stuff toward the male gender. /edit 2: I'd like to answer, but it seem I'm banned. There is my reply: I'm not saying that this is necessarily the simplest explanation. But it's looks like a far simpler explanation than a worldwide cultural conspiracy against women. Also, in my personal experience the environment in school and in university always encouraged women and girls to do "computer stuff" and yet the quota was about 10%. But that do also mean, as far as i could witness it, encouragement by male and female peers. I know, it's purely anecdotal, but make me think of this can't be that simple. I'm sorry about the quotes. If i could quote i would have done it earlier, but i have atm no access to the scientific search engines. I'm not suggesting there is a consensus, but labeling this off as absurd... is absurd. If you are lucky enough to have access to papers search for "gender differences newborn" yields to several results. And, as far as i can remember, differences in language development, in preference pictures of faces or abstract pictures. That said, I'm not a fan of evo psych. It's highly inductive, and often far from the simplest explanation. There are parasites, Toxoplasma gondii, that do change human behavior to the point of making suicide more likely and cause mensurable changes in social interaction. (These do depend on gender aswell). If you think that the vastly different hormones in the human body do not affect social interaction, while a simple infection can, that seems to me something you have to prove and not something i have to disprove.
- quinnchr 13y ago
  No assuming that the simplest explanation is that women are genetically less suited is sexist. Gender imbalances in society is just as simple of an explanation. Your use of Occam's razor here is essentially just a sexist "common sense argument."
- eropple 13y ago
  > Ok, Occams razor is sexist? Assuming "because they have two X chromosomes" is the simplest answer (rather than, oh, the environment around them constantly suggests not to do technical things for such sterling reasons as "math is hard") is stupid. Doing it to circle the wagons and keep the tech-bruvs happy is sexist. > /edit: Also there is sound evidence that psychology tends to biases the interest in technical stuff toward the male gender. I read a lot about both evolutionary psych and gender and I've never seen this seriously buttressed. Where's your cites? Plural?