The world at large isn't ready to hear these statistics, and overall that is probably a good thing. We shouldn't accept these disparities as driven by natural forces until we've tried everything we can imagine to try to bring the differences in line.
Over the course of history, far more bad has been wrought by assuming differences were innate than assuming they were the result of bias. Given that, we should assume and act as though differences are due to bias long after the differences are well proven to be natural. It is a case where being wrong in one direction is not very costly, but being wrong in the other direction (and thus institutionalizing bias) is disastrous.
Tldr: we should err on the side of caution.
Not the "world at large". Just (provincial) middle/upper class America.
>We shouldn't accept these disparities as driven by natural forces until we've tried everything we can imagine to try to bring the differences in line.
Shouldn't we in fact try to understand what's going on, instead of trying to change it because of a priori notion that there shouldn't be disparities (which, if disparities exist due to natural forces will be unatural and unjust).
Disparity (e.g less women in Tech) is NOT a problem in itself.
Obstacles to access is a problem (e.g a woman not being let to work Tech -- eg not being hired because she is a woman).
Also, why is IT somewhat different? I don't see much push for more female fishermen or male nurses, to name two random professions with similar disparities.
The standard for proving the hypothesis of inequality should be extremely high.
All people created equal until summarily proven otherwise, and even then still treated as equal in every way that matters.
Sure it is. Lack of diversity means lack of understanding about other uses. It also means that biases can go unchecked, and can develop into accepted wisdom.
> Also, why is IT somewhat different?
Because the (false) reasons given for other occupations don't apply at all for tech. "Men are stronger, that's why you don't get women in construction"; "women are nurturing, that's why they make good nurses".
> I don't see much push for more female fishermen or male nurses, to name two random professions with similar disparities.
Have you looked? I'm not sure about fishermen, but there are many programmes to increase the number of men in nursing, or women in construction.
I agree. Research and data might make people feel bad, and not making people feel bad is obviously way more important than increasing knowledge.
> We shouldn't accept these disparities as driven by natural forces until we've tried everything we can imagine to try to bring the differences in line.
I agree. Personally I think we should withhold all math education to males until they are 21. We can discontinue this policy when there is a 50/50 gender split among all STEM workers, educators, and investors.
> we should assume and act as though differences are due to bias long after the differences are well proven to be natural
Yep. 1+1=3. Doesn't matter if you can prove that 1+1=2.
> It is a case where being wrong in one direction is not very costly, but being wrong in the other direction (and thus institutionalizing bias) is disastrous.
Yep, unimaginable catastrophes.
> Research and data might make people feel bad, and not making people feel bad is obviously way more important than increasing knowledge.
Not what I said at all, I said the standard for proof should be extremely high. High standards for proof != don't do research (though I admit I should have said so more clearly as I used the example of Summers without condemning what happened to him. He shouldn't have been drummed out for asking the questions.)
> We can discontinue this policy when there is a 50/50 gender split among all STEM workers, educators, and investors.
I assumed that the word "reasonable" was implied in what I was saying. But you're right, some people might propose absurd attempts to bring things in line.
> 1+1=3. Doesn't matter if you can prove that 1+1=2.
First of all, I was commenting on the standard by which we should accept 1+1=3, and which of the two (1+1=3 or 1+1=2) should be our acting hypothesis until we know.
Secondly, I said we should act as if differences are due to bias _until long after_. I was arguing for the default standard, and when it would be acceptable to change the standard. I never said never.
> Yep, unimaginable catastrophes.
Are you actually ignorant of the human history of genocide, dismissal of female person-hood, and racially driven slavery?
An obvious counterexample would be sexual orientation: believing that being gay is a choice is used by many as an argument to justify discrimination.
Two similar but not identical dichotomies: * A population difference is due to innate differences vs a difference is due to systemic biases * An individual difference is due to innate makeup vs a difference is due to individual choices
The question: Why is the % of people with X characteristic in Y profession lower than the average. Applying my proposed standard above to that question, assume differences are due to biases until sumarily proven, we still aren't encouraging or abiding discrimination when X characteristic is sexual orientation.
I see more people causing harm trying to ignore natural differences, so I must ask, what have you observed that causes you to believe that?
"Don't just stand there, do something."
I am unaware of any reasonable comparisons of where trying to ignore natural differences has caused anything resembling the same level of suffering. I would be interested in some examples you could provide.
The countries where the percentage of women pursuing STEM is the highest, are the countries where STEM careers are disproportionately lucrative.
These findings have been confirmed by multiple studies with enormous sample sizes (e.g. Richard Lippa's n=200,000 survey of 53 countries).
Feminists will spend the next couple of years staunchly denying these findings, while the number of women in STEM has flatlined, and the percentage of students that are female only rises because men are systematically discriminated against.
He is essentially arguing that women are inherently worse at founding tech companies because they're under-represented in an area where people discriminate against them based on the belief they're inherently worse at founding tech companies.
First, let's talk about mathematical ability. It's widely known that men outnumber women in the upper percentiles of mathematical ability. However, that's an explanation for why there are so few female Fields Medalists (in fact, there are none), not why there are so few female engineers.
Among people who score a perfect 800 on the Math SAT (top 1% starts at 770), men outnumber women only 2:1. Even if mathematical ability is totally determinative, and being a programmer required top 0.3-0.5% of mathematical ability, we would expect to see ratios of maybe 65/35 in the programming world, not 90/10 or 95/5. Due to the shapes of the bell curves in question, the disparity between men and women gets quite large when you get into the 0.1% or 0.01% of mathematical ability. But, by and large, Silicon Valley isn't made up of those people. They're more run of the mill smart people (Stanford's SAT Math inter-quartiles are 93rd-99th percentile).
With regards to the points about competitiveness versus cooperation and risk-taking and caring about people, they all beg the question. Why is competitiveness a good thing for the business of writing software? Don't you think cooperation would be better for such a deeply team-oriented discipline? Why isn't caring about people a positive strength, when much of Silicon Valley 2.0 is fluffy social stuff? Finally, while more risk-aversion might explain why there are fewer female founders, it doesn't seem to be the case that females are less represented in startups than in technology companies in general. What's risky about going to work at Microsoft or Google?
The refrain of "these statistics are things nobody is willing to talk about!" is a cop-out. Most people will not pillory you for pointing out that women are more risk-averse or do things differently. Indeed, it's something women themselves often talk about. My wife was recently at a social gathering for women attorneys. She recounted a discussion of how women tend to disclose when they haven't done something before, while men tend to say "sure I can do that." It's not 1990 and people are quite willing to discuss how men and women approach work differently. But the statistics only support conclusions as strong as the scope of the evidence. And in this article, the author wanders far beyond what the statistics support into blatant conjecture and rationalization.
Personally, I don't think that's the whole story (according to my observations, it's also upbringing, girls socialize more than boys, who are more likely to keep to themselves, and differences in topics of interest, which I have no idea what they come from).
Mostly because compensation, benefits, raises, promotions and incentives are in most cases at individual levels. So people chase goals what you want them to chase.
Also note what's good for the team is often not good for the individual. I know this from personal experience, if you have a mix of high and low performers in a team and the rewards for them are going to be the same regardless of performance- The next thing that happens is the low performers make no attempt to increase their performance and high performers are always supposed to make up for it.
This creates immense frustration for people who are performing well. They see no reason why they must be doing heroics to take the same amount of money as the guy who isn't putting even a fraction of their effort. So the whole team collaboration stuff collapses.
That's true. But he described multiple factors that bias men towards programming. Even if individual factors (like mathematical ability) only cause 65/35 differences in isolation, combining a few of them together results in pretty extreme distributions.
So you are selecting outliers to justify the "proper" average outnumbering? That doesn't add up.
This article reads like those (thankfully) classic evolutionary biology texts. Statistics bookend arguments that draw wild inferences. I feel sorry for the numbers, they're crying out, "Wait a second, I'm just a standardized test score, I can't tell you that it's because men always fashioned weapons! Weapons didn't even factor into my study!" How does it follow that standardized test scores can prove anything about nature vs. nurture, especially when they have a history of not doing so?
It's a hallmark of that area of modern evolutionary biology to say, "I'm saying what everyone else is afraid to." Well, people are afraid to say it because they're afraid to say wrong things! One should not ignore statistics that show differences between populations, but one should certainly not use them to confirm one's own essentialist beliefs.
Especially in this environment. The burden of proof should be squarely and severely on the one arguing that differences are innate, not on those arguing that differences are malleable/cultural. Why? Because once society has concluded that differences are innate, then glass ceilings turn into concrete ceilings, and discrimination becomes institutionalized.
Or those unthankfully modern evolutionary psychology texts.
I tend to think of it as the same reason minorities are not prevalent in these places either, probably because society held them as "lower class" until recently and they are just now making gains which are long overdue.
All in all, women are catching up fast to men in mathematics as well. They account for the fastest growing percentage of graduate degrees in the sciences and I, personally, work in a high-tech field dominated still by male developers, but also women managers who supervise them and do a fantastic job at it.
It's not biological, it's history. Until recently those spatial learning and building toys for children were all male-focused, but that is changing.
I firmly believe that women will easily overtake men in technology in the future because attitudes have changed for the better.
Do you have any reason for this belief?
Also, if you really believe that is true, wouldn't it be proper to start promoting technology amongst boys?
sure...
I firmly believe that women will easily overtake men in technology
Huh?
I would love to see this theory getting more researched. So given that the original article used just numbers and assume that the time derivative of these are flat, you're suggesting that the time derivative is not, and I feel like there must be stats backing this in a more.. cited manner.
Except that they are. Do Chinese and Indian people cease to be minorities when discussing tech?
My mother built one business after another even though my grandfather was forcing her to be a math teacher. She started 4+ businesses and each one carried the name of a guy in my family (even my brother, as soon as he turned 18) because businesses weren't supposed to be led by women.
I am female. At 8 I was hit on as the only girl hanging out in a robotics lab. At 13 I was mocked for writing code. At 15 I was asked to quit school to work at a tech firm, but instead I kept working on my own freelance business in parallel. At 18 I ranked second among peers in my country. I moved to the US, kept working, and continue to grow my skills and tech startup in the valley today. There are many more like me. Wait 10 more years and see what happens to the statistics and attitudes. In the mean time, my job is to keep proving those that bet against me and other female hacker-founders wrong through the product of my work.
So, what's the point you're trying to make - that women are offered opportunities but turn them down, and therefore there is no problem?
Edit: I'm asking because @dnautics gave us an anecdote that doesn't add anything useful. Knowing why would be much more interesting, although still an anecdote.
This post could only come from someone sitting comfortably in a position of considerable privilege and unawareness.
If you’re going to completely ignore issues of societal pressures, open misogyny in technology industries and a thousand other subtle (and not so subtle) ways that a fundamentally patriarchal society maintains the status quo, then you gain no insight at all. A thousand studies will tell you the outcome of this system of oppression – but you’ll interpret is “gender differences” because you are blind to oppression that you have never been subject too.
The sad thing is that you’ve now added another nail, unaware of the damage that you do to the humans around you. Congratulations, you’ve helped to solidify your position on top of the heap.
And who can blame them really?
"Males around the world on average tend to be better at doing [math] than females; likely due to the need to fashion weapons and objects for warfare, hunting, and competing throughout evolutionary history."
There are a lot of stupid guys out there. And when you mix stupidity and risky behavior, you often get death. In the United States, men make up about 92% of workplace deaths
Exercise for the reader to think about why that might be the case…
And another:
A study of attrition of women in engineering and science programs found that frequently cited barriers were isolation, lack of self-confidence, and lack of interest in the subject matter (Brainard & Carlin, 1998). That’s hardly the stuff of societal discrimination.
That is exactly the stuff of societal (and social) discrimination. Not because people are saying "You're a woman, and you'll be rubbish at this," but because the extant lack of gender balance in these fields perpetuates itself; if women don't want to be scientists and engineers, it becomes harder for those women who do. There's a tipping point.
From a statistical point of view, there are ultimately psychological differences between men and women. That fact has as near as possible no relevance to this discussion - obviously so, because it's patently obvious that men are not - what, ten times better at running tech businesses? Twenty times better? And we can conclude from this that there is an obvious bias in terms of the people who end up running them.
Mika points out that there has been decades of work put into encouraging girls into STEM. That's true, kind of, but this is something which does take decades to achieve. Kids' career preferences can often start at a very early age, and the only way to improve the proportion of women in tech is by making the field open and accessible to young girls, and to promote that option to them.
Hamfisted "women are just different and we shouldn't worry about it" articles are probably not helping.
And why aren't people getting up and arms over that?
Sure, anyone can be the victim of really unpleasant attacks from others on the Internet, and it's been going on for years. But try creating different online characters. Give one a male name, give the other a female name. And make that the only difference. Now see the different ways people interact with you.
Having more diverse workforce can help you understand the problems of not having good blocking tools or reporting tools or privacy controls.
But then again, Google has a ton of women working for them and they've fucked up real names and G+ integration. So maybe I'm wrong.
The visual arts are very close to having gender parity (47.4% female in the US, according to [1]). A quick look around a site like Deviantart reinforces this. If you've spent any time around such communities, you'll know that young female artists are just as mean and obsessed with petty drama as young male computer geeks are with trying to look smarter than everyone else. Yet, the amount of professional female artists that emerge from those conditions is roughly equal to the amount of males that do.
This suggests that "guys being jerks to girls" is only a symptom of a different problem; for cultural, historical, or perhaps, as the article suggests but doesn't really back up, biological reasons, girls just aren't as interested in computers as guys are. If we had gender parity in tech, little Susan would probably be calling Anna a bitch for copying her code, and they'd both get by somehow.
As an aside, I've noticed that artists are much better about giving and receiving criticism than supposedly objective and "meritocratic" programmers are.
I stopped reading right there. Should I change from a dress to some pants? Cut my hair short? Watch football? Didn't we have this argument about doctors and lawyers 80 years ago?
However, I think the real reason there are fewer women in tech is simply that it can be a boring, solitary, highly detail-oriented and even a socially confrontational job, ideal for "loners" perhaps.
People seem attracted to and revere other people who demonstrate leadership, charisma, social grace, and so on, and actual tech jobs aren't a place where those qualities are most highly valued or the best environment to nurture them.
Aside from the exciting and highly social "Startup, VC, Marketing" side of the industry, and of course the good salaries currently enjoyed by engineers, tech has a fairly low social status.
I say this as a programmer myself, but I acknowledge it's still considered (and in some ways, is) a job for unsociable loners. For whatever reason, women seem to be more socially inclined, or at least very much more attuned to the sociability aspect of social status, and tech is therefore not generally an attractive proposition.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-learning-brain/20121...
If you think the cause of girls being bad at math is biological you must conclude that swedish girls are more biologically different from US girls than from boys.
I'd scale it back, and draw the conclusions more conservatively. Along the lines of 'employment statistics don't necessarily imply discrimination'. Just because twitter's board is mostly male, doesn't necessarily mean that being male was a requirement. No one would argue that truck drivers are mostly men due to hiring policies.
I'd say it's simply because it's a crappy, low-paying, exhausting job with too many working hours, which not many people want. Men usually get such jobs.
Just because there's evidence for a correlation between gender and math scores doesn't mean there's a genetic reason for the disparity.
Note that I'm not saying that things are one way or another, or that the reason there are so few women in tech is genetic. Just explaining how the ideas go together. It COULD be that way.
I looked at all of the board members, and only 1 out of 7 has a CS background. 4 out of 7 have B.As/MBAs from elite schools, and immediately stepped into executive positions. I guess that's called "the trenches" these days. Their background literally screams "Old Boy's network." Evan Williams and Jack Dorsey have no education information mentioned and I don't think they did much coding on their way up.
So whatever the merits of this article, I don't see how the argument that the cause of this is in any way that not enough women go into STEM fields is a valid one.
In other words, what this article is saying is:
1. Women are demonstrably less represented in STEM fields.
2. Women do demonstrably less well in certain metrics we associate with STEM fields.
3. This is because women are biologically less interested/able/adept at STEM.
Every bit of evidence in the article supports 1 and 2 (at least as of 20 years ago). The only support 3 gets is repeated statements that 2 is the natural, inevitable order of things.
There is no reason to believe a word of it.
You can keep going back in history. How about those lowborn people during the dark ages? they must have been real dunces.
The advancement of people has been a long slow march that builds achievement upon achievement, with each achievement advancement can accelerate, but set-backs can and do happen.
Don't fool yourself into thinking you'd have anywhere near the mental ability you do today if it wasn't for all the work people did before you and the society you were raised in and given encouragement, opportunities and protections to pursue your goals. There are millions of techniques you use and benefit from that other people worked out before you. If you didn't have them, you'd be groveling in the dirt or likely gravely suffering or dead.
Women, it hasn't even been a hundred years since they've had the right to vote in the U.S. Religious and cultural attitudes have kept them oppressed and discouraged. Christian men(among others) have been encouraged to keep their wives in line with physical abuse and the women pressured to accept it.
As a society, we've figured out ways to encourage and protect things to let them advance and grow, things that wouldn't have gotten there without it and we know it. Let's call it systematic freedom. People have fought and died and worked their asses off for it. We do this. Let us(Society(men, women and institutions)) do this for women. protect, defend, encourage. We are all humans.
I'm also not sure about the maths argument. Anyone got the stats for accountants? There are more women, I think?
When I started in this industry, almost all the IT specialists had come straight from the accounting department. And the sexes were split 50/50. But even then it was very obvious that the next, university trained, generation were predominantly male.
This post has failed to convince me that the issue is anything other than cultural - from the earliest age. By the time we're thinking about careers, there are so many barriers against women that the effect seen is inevitable.
The entire section about men being competitive and how boys act on the playground just demonstrates how little the author understands about social dynamics between women. Women try to do pro-social actions because egotistical actions get them ostracized very, very quickly. If a woman was so transparently cocky, she would have absolutely no friends and an endless gossip mill from jealous and/or insecure peers. We're also in a society where women who are 20 years old or older have still grown up in a society where-- as much as they were told they could do any job a man could-- they still mostly wanted to marry a guy who made more money than them, and knew that their success was not as critical to their social status as their beauty, kindness, or ability to do traditionally female activities well. Personally, as much as I have loved math all of my life and programming for the past few years, I have also been keenly aware that having a good sense of style, being able to cook, being good at dance and art, and being friendly and outgoing have been extremely helpful in my socialization as a female. Could I have neglected all of those things to be even better at math and programming? Of course. Would I have as much social status or friends? Definitely not. Additionally, male success attracts attractive women, while female success does not do the same. You have to be in a city or career or educational environment with "the right kinds of guys" in order for them to respect you MORE because of your intellect and accomplishments, not less. But for a man, being successful will aid him in attracting women who he finds "up to par" even if he is not in an environment full of other smart & accomplished people. The easiest way to see an example of this is by comparing the romantic and sexual experiences of smart males vs. smart females in high school. The boys have gone on more dates and had more sexual experiences, while many girls-- even pretty ones-- have not had such experiences.
Girls are fine interacting with machines, but please take a look at all the bazillions of articles written about Goldie Blox, and that great comic- http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1883#comic -you can't just say "well there are toys for kids made to be unisex" because most things that are unisex (ask a woman how awkward and uncomfortable "unisex" t-shirts are) are really just made for guys. I loved design as a kid. I thought it was arts & crafts, because that's what everyone calls it when you're a young girl, but it was really design. If I had toys that encouraged me to design webpages and programs, there's no doubt in my mind that I would have loved them, but boys toys involved rudimentary programming and engineering, while girl's toys were all about playing house, hosting tea parties, and dressing up dolls. The most mechanical they got were dolls who peed or said stupid phrases.
Business is very people-oriented! You are making products for PEOPLE. There is no way the author can argue that business in general, and tech businesses in particular, do not have aspects that appeal to both kinds of stereotypical interests from each gender. Tech businesses are creative and involve selling and designing things. Would this sexist author say that talking to a lot of people and designing something beautiful are traditionally male functions?
Isolation and lack of self-confidence are EXTREMELY societal. How can isolation be the fault of an individual? I DO feel very uncomfortable when I'm the only woman in a room full of men. Who wouldn't feel uncomfortable walking into a room and being the "only" of anything, especially anything REALLY obvious-- like gender or race, which you display on your body and can't hide.
These caveman arguments are also stupid. Who is to say that the women who would have to keep track of complex timing schedules for feeding their children, who had to ensure that they had enough food to feed everyone in their family or community, who counted and kept track of the objects stored at home, etc. did not also develop mathematical skills in an evolutionary manner? The author's reasoning is stupid.
Ever think those "sex" differences in spatial and mechanical thinking are because boys are building little cars and rockets or tossing around a football as a toddler, but girls are drawing and imagining and telling stories? Even if kids gravitate towards those and it's not entirely the fault of toy companies and clueless parents/educators, surely these years of practice can not be discounted or called "natural".
In conclusion, I went into this with a semi-open mind because I'm always waiting for an argument I will actually respect. But I was disappointed yet again. http://xkcd.com/385/
non aryan gingers are the true minority!
this is easily backed by data which shows that the level womens rights in a country has a strong inverse correlation to the number of women in STEM fields. this way, even before we consider the merits of the sexes we have a simple explanation which avoids the classic battle of the sexes arguments... and actually i'm sure women know this themselves - after all they are the ones who regularly decide that they would prefer to enter a non STEM field.
having few women in STEM fields is ironically an indicator of having a free and liberal society with strong rights for women.
There might be very slight natural differences in variance of ability, which would explain why more men come out at the top and bottom. I don't think there's value into coming in to that argument on either side. At any rate, the evidence seems to indicate that the gender disparity (at the relevant IQ level) is at most 2:1.
Going 100 steps further and justifying the good-ole-boy network that has taken over VC and Silicon Valley is another matter entirely.
