4 ms·

Dude, you can't use Occam’s razor to select between one theory and "the idea of there being a better theory" o_0 Fine, there might be an underlying theory that

Dude, you can't use Occam’s razor to select between one theory and "the idea of there being a better theory" o_0 Fine, there might be an underlying theory that explains everything better than the "power" theory, BUT YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE IT before you can argue that it is superior.

sfk 11y ago
Here it is: http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science Obviously this is about averages, there will be several women here to whom the theory does not apply.
- pron 11y ago
  That's your theory? Women participation in math and the physical sciences is extremely high relative to their participation in software, where it used to be much, much higher (same as in other professions) and is constantly declining. That decline actually coincides with increasing, rather than decreasing salaries and prestige, and is not due to increasing work hours (that are lower in software than in medicine and law, where women participation is high). Software is a very clear anomaly. That theory is even wrong for science in general, especially considering that women participation has been increasing, and that some scientific fields -- that are just as demanding -- are actually dominated by women.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
My theory is very simple: more math less women. This predicts the % of women in academic physics relative to academic bio, IT relative to HR, and quite a bit more. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to try and find cases where this theory fails to fit the data.
- pron 11y ago
  Except it doesn't, unless you squint really, really hard. Finding cases where this theory fails to fit the data is too easy: women participation in physics and math is growing and is far higher than in CS, where it's declining; more women go into biology than into history (women participation in history and physics is quite similar). It also doesn't explain the low women participation in politics (again, similar to or lower than in physics[1][2]). That you continue to believe this theory despite so much contradictory evidence is perplexing. Also, it's a bad theory in that it's a description rather than an explanation. Even supposing it fit the data better than it does, why would it be the case that more math = less women? I mean, no one suggests that men are 5x or 8x better at math than women as direct studies clearly show it is not the case. So even if it were a good description (though it isn't) it is not the least bit explanatory. The ultimate explanation of such a theory is still likely to be social. It is probably true that women, on average, are more empathic than men, and therefore would prefer professions that involve working with others more, but that difference is nowhere near the actual participation rates that we find, so it can't be a major explanation. A "theory" which fits the data -- on average, of course -- much, much better than yours would be "women choose professions with less money and less prestige". This "theory" is surprisingly predictive because, amazingly enough, women choose to be paid less money than men even while doing the very same job, so it must be right. [1]: http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-politica... [2]: https://www.american.edu/spa/wpi/upload/2012-Men-Rule-Report-web.pdf https://www.american.edu/spa/wpi/upload/2012-Men-Rule-Report...

sfk 11y ago

Here it is: http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science Obviously this is about averages, there will be several women here to whom the theory does not apply.

pron 11y ago
That's your theory? Women participation in math and the physical sciences is extremely high relative to their participation in software, where it used to be much, much higher (same as in other professions) and is constantly declining. That decline actually coincides with increasing, rather than decreasing salaries and prestige, and is not due to increasing work hours (that are lower in software than in medicine and law, where women participation is high). Software is a very clear anomaly. That theory is even wrong for science in general, especially considering that women participation has been increasing, and that some scientific fields -- that are just as demanding -- are actually dominated by women.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

My theory is very simple: more math less women. This predicts the % of women in academic physics relative to academic bio, IT relative to HR, and quite a bit more. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to try and find cases where this theory fails to fit the data.

pron 11y ago
Except it doesn't, unless you squint really, really hard. Finding cases where this theory fails to fit the data is too easy: women participation in physics and math is growing and is far higher than in CS, where it's declining; more women go into biology than into history (women participation in history and physics is quite similar). It also doesn't explain the low women participation in politics (again, similar to or lower than in physics[1][2]). That you continue to believe this theory despite so much contradictory evidence is perplexing. Also, it's a bad theory in that it's a description rather than an explanation. Even supposing it fit the data better than it does, why would it be the case that more math = less women? I mean, no one suggests that men are 5x or 8x better at math than women as direct studies clearly show it is not the case. So even if it were a good description (though it isn't) it is not the least bit explanatory. The ultimate explanation of such a theory is still likely to be social. It is probably true that women, on average, are more empathic than men, and therefore would prefer professions that involve working with others more, but that difference is nowhere near the actual participation rates that we find, so it can't be a major explanation. A "theory" which fits the data -- on average, of course -- much, much better than yours would be "women choose professions with less money and less prestige". This "theory" is surprisingly predictive because, amazingly enough, women choose to be paid less money than men even while doing the very same job, so it must be right. [1]: http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-politica... [2]: https://www.american.edu/spa/wpi/upload/2012-Men-Rule-Report-web.pdf https://www.american.edu/spa/wpi/upload/2012-Men-Rule-Report...