[ryderm]

> Is it such a huge deal that most women are not interested in technology?

If this is because they have been systematically discriminated against in tech and primed at a young age with BS like "cars are for boys and dolls are for girls" then yes, absolutely this is a huge deal. If it just so happened that they were not interested because they don't have the "technology gene" then this would not be a big deal, but that is nonsense and all the evidence points to the former.

[_0ffh]

>all the evidence points to the former

That is patently false, and you should not make factual claims under these circumstances. These claims add to the noise, not the signal.

The scientific evidence for innate psychological differences between girls and boys is overwhelming. There is a clear scientific consensus on this. I cannot fathom how this can still be controversial.

Specifically about your "cars vs dolls" example, I'll give you two quotations right of the bat:

- Shown two pictures, one of a mobile (physical-mechanical object) and one of a face (social object), there is a clear gender difference how much a child will look at the mobile vs face. (Yes, boy likes mobile, girl likes face.) In newborns btw. so that is hardly an artifact of human societal norms. [1]

- Offered a choice between a toy truck and a doll, there is a clear gender difference how much an adolescent will play with the truck vs doll. (Yes, boy likes truck, girl likes doll.) In monkeys btw, so that is hardly an artifact of human societal norms. [2]

[1] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.627...

[2] https://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-truck...

{Ed. spelling}

[laughinghan]

You are correct that narrowly speaking, it is false to say that "all evidence" points in any one direction.

However, your claim that there is a "overwhelming", "clear scientific consensus" is lacking in citations, your one broken link to what I assume was supposed a scientific study and one link to a pop science blogpost (which links only to other posts on the same blog and not any actual scientific papers) notwithstanding.

In fact the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the opposite is true. Check out this blogpost with working links to 22 different peer-reviewed scientific papers on how social priming can differentially affect how men and women, or white students and black students, etc perform at various academic and cognitive tasks (there are actually 27 links to such papers but 5 are broken; there are also links to 9 more scientific papers besides, just to flesh out the argument): http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/picture-yourself-as-a-s...

I challenge you to find working links to 22 different peer-reviewed scientific papers arguing that women's underrepresentation in STEM is not due to systemic discrimination but is explained wholly by other factors such as innate psychological differences.

In fact, I'll give you a head start. The blogpost I linked to already links to 6 such papers, so if you can find 16 more, I'll concede that maybe there isn't the scientific consensus I thought there was.

[_0ffh]

The scientific consensus is real, it's just not the one you seem to make it out to be. It's about the claim that there are "innate psychological differences" between boys and girls. I did not claim that these differences are solely responsible for 100% of observable statistical variations between genders. To try to ascribe all effects to a single set of causes, be it nature or nurture, is really a fool's errand. The blank slate is out of the window. Humans come into the world primed, and boys and girls are primed differently.

That notwithstanding, I wouldn't think of claiming that societal norms do not at all affect outcomes. Because it would be next to impossible to prove, and I'd give it a rather low a priori probability. Just what these effects really are and how big they are is a matter of ongoing debate. C.f. "The Norway Paradox".

[laughinghan]

As noted by the other reply to GP, even if your links worked and were to actual, peer-reviewed scientific papers, they do little to support the argument that women's underrepresentation in STEM is not due to systemic discrimination. I think it would be an uphill battle for you to argue that they count towards the 16 in my challenge.

[usmeteora]

This is true and I read a book based off of this study. However, how does this prove that a female is less capable of being a good software engineer?

[vcjohnson]

I don't think it makes that claim? Clearly women can be capable and competent software engineers. I think the study was showing there is an inherent preference for different interests among large population of the sexes and then people who are concerned about the gender gap take this study to argue that the differences (and others) may manifest later in life as choices in career path.

[ryderm]

Sure, clearly that was hyperbole. All the evidence never points anywhere. This means the vast majority of actual peer reviewed science.

[_0ffh]

It's good to hear that. I guess that was a communication problem then. I'd be careful with any kind of hyperbole on the net because, just as with sarcasm, it will be taken seriously. People will read what you wrote and take it straight and it will mislead and confuse them.

So I guess we're roughly on the same page then, that the observable variation in outcome is caused by a mix of innate and societal factors, and the real discussion to be had is about how to tease them apart and quantify their respective contributions?

[nol13]

just to be clear, they're not dolls, they're action figures!

[fvdessen]

> all the evidence points to the former.

There is an interesting documentary called "The Norway Paradox"[1] that explores why do we see a much higher rate of gender segregation in developed countries. The thesis the documentary advances is that there are indeed innate differences between the sexes, and with higher freedom that can be found in advanced societies, the people are freer to choose a job that fits their innate tendencies rather than be forced into something else by economic or social circumstances.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

[krrrh]

Another video worth watching on this subject is the debate between Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke on The Science of Gender & Science[1] which was held in the wake of the Larry Summers controversy at Harvard in 2005. They both make many good points, and it is clear that while discrimination exists, it is probably not adequate to explain outcomes which are aligned with innate preferences and distribution of specific skills.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bTKRkmwtGY

[denzil_correa]

The question then I would like to pose is : Are these innate tendencies genetic or are they due to social conditioning?

[vcjohnson]

That question appears to be addressed in the post to which you are responding. I won't be as bold as some to lay causation purely on biological differences, maybe there could be some factor we're not accounting for on why socially flattened societies tend to have larger exaggerations in traditional gender roles. However, if your policy platform wants to push equality of outcome for career paths on the sexes then this deviation from expectation should be disconcerting.

[koonsolo]

> but that is nonsense and all the evidence points to the former.

First of all, what evidence? And secondly, does it? (Like the horrific experiment on David Reimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)

I have 1 son and 2 daughters, and I have plenty of nieces and cousins. The personality of each child has a bigger impact on how they behave than I had imagined. And also, boys are way different than girls. They are equal, but they are different none the less.

So instead of trying to throw them all in one pile and expect to have a 50-50 men-women working in technology, accept the difference, and let any person decide what they want to do in their lives.

Boys are different than girls. They are equal, but different. If you can't accept this, then I can imagine you have all kinds of diversity problems where you expect that everyone is the same, likes to do the same things, etc.

I recall a funny answer when one of my computer science professors asked "What can we do so that more girls sign up of Master in Computer Science". One smart guy answered: "Make sure it has less to do with computers". (In US you would probably get kicked out of the university because someone felt offended, or that it's a sexist remark)

Women are very welcome in technology, I worked with a lot of very nice and smart women, and had one of the best managers that was a woman and mother of 2 kids. But why do you expect that the average woman will have as much interest in technology as the average man?

[laughinghan]

> First of all, what evidence?

You might be interested in this blogpost which cites 27 different peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting an argument that social priming can explain much of observed gender gaps in STEM (and another 9 more scientific papers just to flesh out the argument): http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/picture-yourself-as-a-s...

> "Make sure it has less to do with computers" > someone felt that it's a sexist remark

Ignoring for a moment whether that's "sexist", can we agree that if those 27 scientific papers are to be believed, such remarks directly hurt women in computer science who would otherwise be do better?

[anon12345690]

This has been proven false several times. Men and women are also biologically different. This doesnt mean they're limited in capability but that they have slight natural biases. Why is this such a hard reality to accept?

[ryderm]

Obviously they are biologically different! That is not the question. The question is: Do these differences make women less interested in tech, or are there less women in tech because experiences they have had since birth make them feel unwelcome or unable.

[anon12345690]

Yes, biological differences can and does impact career interests.