4 ms·

>I think the parent's (and general) argument against that is that we are socialized early on to have biases Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more n

>I think the parent's (and general) argument against that is that we are socialized early on to have biases Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture. >That if you grow up exposed to a situation were a majority of those in a field are unlike you in some very obvious way, you are less likely to want to be in the field. Except I did grow up like that, and it did not influence what fields I was interested in at all. >I don't think we can accurately claim "few women wish to be in X field" without some form of empirical data to back it up. Many studies have shown innate gender preferences begin before socialization. It seems unlikely that STEM is somehow uniquely affected by it. Especially since the number of women in CS has been going down as we've been making such a big fuss about women in CS.

jolux 12y ago
>Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture. Is there? Where? And if it truly is nature over nurture, then why is it that women are interested in STEM at all? Why isn't the field entirely male instead of majority male? And the answer is, because people are different. Yes, they have different preferences. Yes, those preferences differ by gender. No, it is not solidly linked to genetics.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  I have a very hard time believing you are trying to have a serious conversation here. "If men are on average taller than women, then why aren't all men taller than all women?". Surely you must realize the absurdity of your question. Yes, those preferences differ by sex and it is solidly linked to genetics. These preferences are exhibited before any socialization has occurred. Even other apes exhibit similar differences in preferences, can you seriously try to claim that is due to sexism?
  - jolux 12y ago
    I'm saying that your points on genetics and nature vs nurture aren't correct. Not to appeal to authority but I'm an evolutionary biology major with a focus on computational evolution. There is no solid genetic basis for job preference of any kind, and when I say solid I mean it's not definitive. Even if it were, it's pretty clear to even non-biologists that 10% (of women in tech fields) is a pretty high incidence rate for not following the genetic norm. Mutations are far fewer than that and they don't present as regularly.
Infinitesimus 12y ago
> Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture. Do you mind providing links/references that support the claim? That would be very helpful for the overall argument. I also grew up in a similar fashion. But I don't think we can accurately extrapolate our anecdotal data over an entire population, no? I agree that it is hard to tell whether something is nature vs nurture and it is rather short-sighted for us to blindly assume that all disinterest by a group in a field is due to nurture, but I don't have hard data backing it up. Mind sharing if you have any?

jolux 12y ago

>Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture. Is there? Where? And if it truly is nature over nurture, then why is it that women are interested in STEM at all? Why isn't the field entirely male instead of majority male? And the answer is, because people are different. Yes, they have different preferences. Yes, those preferences differ by gender. No, it is not solidly linked to genetics.

imanaccount247 12y ago
I have a very hard time believing you are trying to have a serious conversation here. "If men are on average taller than women, then why aren't all men taller than all women?". Surely you must realize the absurdity of your question. Yes, those preferences differ by sex and it is solidly linked to genetics. These preferences are exhibited before any socialization has occurred. Even other apes exhibit similar differences in preferences, can you seriously try to claim that is due to sexism?
- jolux 12y ago
  I'm saying that your points on genetics and nature vs nurture aren't correct. Not to appeal to authority but I'm an evolutionary biology major with a focus on computational evolution. There is no solid genetic basis for job preference of any kind, and when I say solid I mean it's not definitive. Even if it were, it's pretty clear to even non-biologists that 10% (of women in tech fields) is a pretty high incidence rate for not following the genetic norm. Mutations are far fewer than that and they don't present as regularly.

Infinitesimus 12y ago

> Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture. Do you mind providing links/references that support the claim? That would be very helpful for the overall argument. I also grew up in a similar fashion. But I don't think we can accurately extrapolate our anecdotal data over an entire population, no? I agree that it is hard to tell whether something is nature vs nurture and it is rather short-sighted for us to blindly assume that all disinterest by a group in a field is due to nurture, but I don't have hard data backing it up. Mind sharing if you have any?