4 ms·
Interesting how the mainstream media keeps doing circles around these issues. When you start with flawed assumptions, you will never get an accurate solution.
by FD3SA 12y ago
Interesting how the mainstream media keeps doing circles around these issues.
When you start with flawed assumptions, you will never get an accurate solution. The hypothesis that vicious and systemic oppression of females since birth is keeping them out of Computer Science is hardly sound. While there may be an element of discrimination in all professions that tend to be dominated by one sex, I think it's time to look a little more closely at the situation.
Humans are a sexually dimorphic species. This means that on a genetic and physiological level, our sexes are distinct barring genetic anomalies such as Klinefelter syndrome and other rare conditions. Now as with anything that deals with biology, there is a massive amount of variation within each classification category, i.e. sex. This being said, we can and have done studies measuring the distribution (mean and variation) of tendencies for both sexes to find that they are quite distinct at a physiological level.
This means that when comparing the mean male adult brain to the mean female adult brain, the neural architecture is quite distinctly different. This has natural consequences in our behavior, predispositions, illnesses and life outcomes.
For example, it is found that the mean male does better on visuospatial tasks than the mean female, whereas females tend to do better on verbal tasks. Now all the usual disclaimers apply about cognitive testing biases and sample populations, but there is a slight empirical difference.
This is why in certain Nordic countries which pride themselves on being the most sexually egalitarian, the polarization of traditional careers is at a record high. For example, comparing two equally lucrative professions, on average men tend to study engineering and females tend towards nursing. As these countries have worked tirelessly to eradicate discrimination from their education, social, legal and professional systems, the only variable left to control for is personal preference which tends to gravitate towards sexual averages.
In conclusion, I find it often helps to frame a problem from an empirical point of view before assuming the cause and prescribing a treatment a priori.
Now, are all the developed countries in the world at the level of the Nordic countries in terms of sexual egalitarianism? Most likely not, though I doubt they're exactly Saudi Arabia either, which some of the more radical pundits tend to vociferously imply publicly at every opportunity.
Empirical and rational thought are gifts left to us by our ancestors after thousands of years of toil. I find it disappointing that we constantly fall into these irrational situations simply due to knee-jerk emotional outrage over perceived injustices. I hope one day rationality and empirical thought become the core education platform for mankind.
- rayiner 12y agoBut this line of reasoning isn't rooted in empiricism at all. Your factual premise, sexual dimorphism, is true, and the end result, underrepresentation of women in certain careers, is readily observable, but you don't even attempt to provide a mechanism that links the purported cause to the observed effect. To turn the empiricism around a bit: the gender disparity among those with perfect SAT Math scores is about 2:1, and is less in the whole 700-800 range. Given that most engineering programs draw from the 600-800 range, how on earth do you explain the 4:1-5:1 disparities you observe in these programs in the face of a much lower disparity in mathematical aptitude in the relevant range? Moreover, if the disparities are rooted in biology rather than sociology, how do you explain why the percentage of CS degrees awarded to women is half of what it was 30 years ago? http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachelors-degrees-women-usa.png http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachel....
- FD3SA 12y ago> To turn the empiricism around a bit: the gender disparity among those with perfect SAT Math scores is about 2:1, and is less in the whole 700-800 range. Given that most engineering programs draw from the 600-800 range, how on earth do you explain the 4:1-5:1 disparities you observe in these programs in the face of a much lower disparity in mathematical aptitude in the relevant range? Moreover, if the disparities are rooted in biology rather than sociology, how do you explain why the percentage of CS degrees awarded to women is half of what it was 30 years ago? This is perfectly in line with the statement I made. Just because females with high SATs are more than capable of doing CS, doesn't mean they are interested in it as a career. This is most likely due to their innate predispositions for other types of work. This may be tough for lifelong programmers to understand, but the majority of computer scientists see this field as just work and nothing else. There is none of that Zuckerbergian passion that drives most programmers. A great example is a guy like Elon Musk, vs a guy like Linus Torvalds. Both undoubtedly prodigious programmers, but one kept doing it even when he no longer hand to, and the other jumped ship onto his other, more pressing, passions. From a personal example, a close female relative of mine is a brilliant girl who has outperformed me at every academic level. She chose to specialize in the medical field, because it suited her interests more. She is incredible at math and would have made an excellent programmer, but she just doesn't have a passion to spend the rest of her life doing it. What my argument boils down to is this: girls and boys are biologically different, and thus they enjoy doing different things. Why are certain vocal groups trying to force them into roles which they may not desire? Equality of opportunity will not yield equality of outcomes when individual choices vary. Edit: removed ad hominem