[Excel_Wizard]

Let's say that there is a population bell curve of the variable "propensity to enjoy being a programmer". One curve for men, and one curve for women. In some dystopian future, everyone takes a career aptitude test, and if an individual falls within the top 10% of the overall population, they get turned into a programmer by the government. This is assuming a perfectly-trained AI judges the variable, and that it controls against the underlying variables of societal bias in order to ensure that long-term human resources are properly allocated, and that long-term biases, informed by people's interactions with eachother, trend toward actual biological differences.

It may well be the case that the gender split is 80% / 20% male to female (as is roughly the case today). It may not. However, the left-leaning zeitgeist opinion would seem to be that this outcome is impossible, and current observed differences are only due to systematic oppression. The right-leaning zeitgeist opinion would seem to be that this outcome would make sense.

I tend to think that the left-leaning opinion on this is so wrapped up in double-think that it can't even understand itself- it tends to argue too much in favor of "biological differences would mean permanent, uncorrectable injustice, therefore it is impossible that biological differences exist."

[dbt00]

> It may well be the case that the gender split is 80% / 20% male to female (as is roughly the case today)

Ask the same question in 1965 and get the opposite result.

There’s a lot of motivated reasoning by men that their innate characteristics are selected for computer programming. There’s a lot of hostile behavior by men towards women who are in computer science. You can view this like any other resource scarcity turf protection gambit.

It’s impossible to separate any apparent belief in the natural order of male dominance of the field from this behavior, so to draw conclusions from it is extremely dangerous.

[commandlinefan]

> Ask the same question in 1965

To be fair, though, a LOT has changed about the nature of computer programming since 1965.

[chmod775]

> To be fair, though, a LOT has changed about the nature of computer programming since 1965.

Has it though? The Von-Neumann-architecture was already a thing back then, programming languages (BASIC, Fortran, ...) already had many of the things you are still using today (such as for-loops) and any algorithm and data structure thought up back then is still perfectly usable today in most modern languages.

Sure, the whole tooling and library situation is not comparable to back then, but the fundamentals haven't really changed.

Consider these things:

- Binary search trees (1960)

- Linked lists (1955)

- Quicksort (1959)

- Hash tables (1953)

Looking back I rather have to say I am not impressed with advances in practical computer programming since then. The only major change was the introduction of type systems and OO imho, though these were technically a thing already back then too on an academic level.

[gamblor956]

True, programming is much easier now that you can use words to code, and have programs do all of the actual work of turning that code into usable machine code for you.

[fzeroracer]

Probably the biggest change was the introduction of personal computers, which were primarily marketed towards boys at the time. It should come at no surprise that the result of a huge marketing apparatus appealing solely to one gender would create a generation or two of predominately male programmers.

When you examine the fundamental nature of programming though, not much has changed. In fact things have become significantly easier over time.

[pdonis]

> Ask the same question in 1965 and get the opposite result.

Really? Reference, please.

[MayeulC]

Well, any history book should do.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing

Women were litterally employed as computers ca. WWII. When the transition was made to programmable machines, they were in majority the first ones to use, operate, program and design algorithms for them. The field was regarded as uninteresting, tedious, and not real engineering by their male counterparts.

[delecti]

Early programming was viewed as "women's work" because of the similarity between between the work and sewing [1]. I don't think it was quite 80:20 women:men in 1965, but it was certainly higher than 20:80.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_rope_memory

[reroute1]

> There’s a lot of motivated reasoning by men that their innate characteristics are selected for computer programming. There’s a lot of hostile behavior by men towards women who are in computer science. You can view this like any other resource scarcity turf protection gambit.

That is entirely your opinion. Framing biological differences as turf protection is laughable in my opinion.

[tsimionescu]

You're looking at a societal bias, and inferring a biological difference. In other societies, this bias is much reduced, which would not likely be the case if differences were truly biological.

In particular, Eastern Europe of all places is relatively egalitarian in men-vs-women in programming.

[Hitton]

Easter European here. I rather agree that Easter Europe is relatively egalitarian, but it doesn't seem to affect ratio of men and women in IT. There is less than 20 % female students in IT related fields and smaller percent of women stays in the field after graduation compared to men.

[reroute1]

I could just as easily say you are looking at a biological difference and inferring a societal bias. Just because it doesn't exist in the same proportion everywhere doesn't mean that the difference is not biologically based. There are endless confounding factors that would lead to variations in different locations. The fact that the overall difference stems from biological differences doesn't require universal equivalence of the effect.

For example men on average have more muscle mass than women. If you found a random population of women that had proportionally higher muscle masses compared with their male peers, that doesn't discount the biological fact.

[gamblor956]

You're citing an actual biological difference in human biology to try and support an unsupported claim of a nonbiological difference...

One that is refuted by the history of computer programming, which used to be a female-dominated field back when programming was significantly harder than it is today.

[reroute1]

I chose a clear biological difference to illustrate the point that was being argued, about one sample population disproving the larger trend. And it's not an unsupported claim there is plenty of science and argument for why men and women choose different careers.

Please note that this doesn't discount any actual gender bias that may exist. The biological claim is only that men and women in general have a given set of personality traits. That isn't controversial science. It also isn't controversial because it doesn't claim that men are better engineers or better anything, just that more in general may naturally gravitate towards certain activities.

[gbrown]

Blame the "left leaning zeitgeist" all you want, I've seen no such evidence. What I have seen is a Hacker News thread full of people misunderstanding statistics and machine learning, advocating for bad models, and obsessing about biological explanations for the crazy gender disparity in tech. Whatever real, fundamental differences exist, it's preposterous to assert that our current situation is entirely biological in nature - especially when the toxicity is on such full and self-assured display.

[stevenhuang]

> it's preposterous to assert that our current situation is entirely biological in nature

Careful on misframing the thought experiment: no such assertion was made. The assertion through this thought experiment was that biological nature has an effect, no more no less. The degree to which the effect matters is uncertain, but it is reasonable to expect it does play a role. The reason biological explanation is mentioned at all is because many seem determined to think that no such effect is possible, full-stop.

If you agree that biological differences has a non-zero effect on preference, then there shouldn't be anything to disagree with here.

[gbrown]

I disagree with your reading entirely:

"It may well be the case that the gender split is 80% / 20%"

That's a preposterous hypothetical. You're also incorrect in your implication - the existence of minor (and as yet unsubstantiated) fundamental differences in propensity to pursue technology in no way precludes the (well established) social biases and inequities that result in the same. Neither would it prevent these issues from being reflected in statistical models.

Thought experiments about magical perfect AIs are completely and totally irrelevant to this real problem which everyone who uses models should be aware of.

To get on my cranky, gatekeeping high horse, I find it super frustrating to see people who call themselves data scientists misunderstanding this problem. I teach this in introductory statistics to non-technical audiences. I'd hope for better from engineers and computer scientists.

[Excel_Wizard]

It's interesting that this thread is still going today, and I'm glad that it is civil.

Thought experiments are relevant because they can tease out our moral intuitions. Calling it a preposterous hypothetical is not useful.

gbrown- I think that you have read my original post with a hostile interpretation. I left open the possibility of biological differences in preferences OR zero biological differences in preference. You act as if there is scientific consensus that biological difference in preference is impossible, and that all current differences in outcomes are based on culturally-imposed biases. This is not the case.

>You're also incorrect in your implication - the existence of minor (and as yet unsubstantiated) fundamental differences in propensity to pursue technology in no way precludes the (well established) social biases and inequities that result in the same.

I or other posters did not imply this. You are conflating my hypothetical case (where cultural bias was made irrelevant as much as possible) with real life. Real life does have bias. The reason the hypothetical was presented was for comparison.

I've got a couple (low-ball, civil) questions as a sanity check- 1. Would you agree that men have a stronger biological preference to be warriors than women? 2. Would you agree that there is a greater cultural expectation for men to be warriors than for women?

[gbrown]

> Thought experiments are relevant because they can tease out our moral intuitions.

I understand this, but I don't agree that your thought experiment usefully does so. You're essentially begging the question: "Well, what if this is the way it's 'supposed' to be?". My understanding of the science is that there's little actual evidence of difference in fundamental propensity to enjoy certain types of intellectual labor, but lots of evidence of the impact of socialization on the development of young humans. As has been addressed elsewhere in the thread, we have a directly relevant historical example: the distribution of tech labor was quite different when computing was seen as "womens' work". To beg the question as you have, in the face of evidence to the contrary, is unhelpful. One can easily imagine the same hypothetical form applied to other groups - minorities, language groups, etc. While you've couched your argument in terms of "propensity", the structure works just as well (or poorly) for "ability" - and there's a long history in science and society of laundering the latter into the former.

> I think that you have read my original post with a hostile interpretation.

You are entirely correct - both with respect to the framing of your argument, and your apparent understanding of the methods discussed in the article. As to the former, you can't expect to receive a generous response when you accuse those you disagree with of being hopeless left-wing double thinkers. As to the latter, I'm not trying to be dismissive or condescending, but this is literally my area of expertise. I'm also an educator, and it is my responsibility to fight against explicit or implicit biases which affect my students (and which affect who is likely to become my student).

> I or other posters did not imply this. You are conflating my hypothetical case (where cultural bias was made irrelevant as much as possible) with real life. Real life does have bias. The reason the hypothetical was presented was for comparison.

Drawing the analogy between your hypothetical "perfect" system (which I maintain is still under-defined) and the actual problems being discussed is itself a misleading thing to do. There is not a meaningful analogy between (AI/ML/Stat) as practiced today and "perfect" AGI systems.

> 1. Would you agree that men have a stronger biological preference to be warriors than women?

Maybe, though I actually think this framing is problematic. "Warrior" is a social role, and changes in definition and scope over history and geography. Certainly there exists physical sexual dimorphism with males tending to be stronger and larger, if that's what you're asking.

> 2. Would you agree that there is a greater cultural expectation for men to be warriors than for women?

Sure, I think that's reasonable, subject to the previous caveats. Without evidence, I don't know that I'd immediately assume this will continue to be the case as physical ability has less and less to do with conflict - especially over the long term as we continue to evolve physically and socially.

To conclude, my understanding is that we have strong evidence of social structures influencing vocation choice and success. We have little to no evidence that suggests our current social organization with respect to intellectual labor is driven by primarily biological phenomena. In this context, I believe that trying to invent hypothetical scenarios which would justify (by their construction) current inequalities, in the face of evidence to the contrary, is a harmful act. Not only is it scientifically unfounded, it's part of the cultural problem. This kind of discourse creates exactly the environment which would serve to push women away from tech.

[Excel_Wizard]

I havent dove into evidence much during this discussion, but I agree that it is a good place to argue from. (I would tend to echo a good few Jordan Peterson-style points, such as gender employment ratios in scandinavian egalitarian countries, differences by gender in OCEAN personality factors, etc). I do think there is substantial evidence that personality trait differences between women and men correlate highly across the globe. This should add up to substantial (although not conclusive) evidence that preferences would also be different between genders. Conclusive evidence is impossible without having some hypothetical cultureless test case. I also believe that social science as practiced today is poorly equipped to conclusively answer these questions. Any individual must therefore decide for themselves what their predictions would be on a number of gender-related issues.

"Given an unbiased society, would I expect an equal number of male and female bricklayers?" I would not.

"Given an unbiased society, would I expect an equal number of male and female biologists?" I would not.

"Nurses?" I would not.

For almost any given profession, I would expect an unequal number of workers by gender. To the degree that the observed ratio differs from what I would predict, there lies the surprise. Computer programming is a strange activity, and shares enough in common with other male-dominated engineering fields that I wouldn't be surprised that it is equally male-dominated.

One of the reasons I think that programming is such a tilted activity is that it is a really weird activity. By what strange circumstance did monkeys descend from the trees to formalize logical constructions into software? Given how strange it is to adapt biological creatures to this task, you would expect outliers to participate in the task- it is not unusual to expect the personality differences between genders to dominate in who participates, when the outliers are the only individuals who participate to start with.

Regarding the warrior example- I would argue that even if we all fought wars with robots, such that physical stature was irrelevant, men would still self-select to become warriors (robot-pilots) more often than women. On the OCEAN model, men are less agreeable than women, and across the most cultures of the world, men are more agressive than women. This will likely remain true for millenia.

I'm presenting most of my arguments here amorally. I think the reason you moralize my arguments is that they are construed as justifying existing oppression by gender. I do my best to judge individuals as individuals. I cannot pretend to deny the existence of larger patterns while judging an individual, but I can understand that they will influence my judgement no matter how hard I try. To pretend otherwise is blinding myself. To the degree that I broadcast these opinions, I hope to do so in a way that leads people to only judge other groups in accordance with the predictive power such judgements can actually afford, to hold such judgements weakly, and to always understand that variation between individuals is critical more than anything else. My manner of thinking does risk failing to fight the good fight against oppression- however, I think most injustices in the world are cases of individual conflict, and tinting the daily conficts I resolve on a daily basis with overtones of wider societal struggle does more to confuse than clarify.

My main remaining question to you- if you take my last paragraph in good faith- is whether you think that my manner of thinking can yield good results.

[sgslo]

> in favor of "biological differences would mean permanent, uncorrectable injustice, therefore it is impossible that biological differences exist."

That's because the issue of men vs women in programming really is an all-or-nothing topic. Either you believe that a female is capable of being an equivalently skilled programmer to a male, or you don't.

Referencing biological differences always cascades to a question about the innate ability of a female to program. The best example I can point to is the infamous internal Google manifesto on male vs female programmers. If you read that text, it appears reasonable enough: the author thinks that there are biological differences, and these differences might lead to differences in programming strengths. But it is a wolf in sheep's clothing; as soon as you believe that there are differences, it follows that one set of differences must be advantageous to the other.

I can understand that there are biological differences between females and males, but I absolutely and vehemently choose to believe that there is no inherent difference in ability - females are 100% as capable as males when it comes to programming. Full stop.

Yes, this is double think. But I'd rather be a hypocrite than hold a secret belief that my biological sex makes me a better engineer.

[Excel_Wizard]

It's really strange of you to admit this double-think. You are admitting to yourself that you hold two contradictory opinions simultaneously. I think the best thing to do (which you might be arguing for but cutting corners?) is to understand that population-level trends exist but to still judge individuals as individuals, not as members of their groups.

I also disagree about the quote below:

>That's because the issue of men vs women in programming really is an all-or-nothing topic. Either you believe that a female is capable of being an equivalently skilled programmer to a male, or you don't.

When populations are on bell curves, this statement is nonsensical. Imagining the statement "Either you believe that a female is capable of being an equivalently skilled competitive wrestler to a male, or you don't" would be similar.

[WhiskeyJack55]

What if the question isn't one of capability, but a question of self selection and preference?

Does those things even play a role? If yes, how does that play a role? How large of a role? If it does play a role, why? What's important to women in career choice vs what's important to men? Why is that the case? Is it nature or nurture or both (and to what degree of each influence those choices)? Is it upbringing? Is it pressure from society? Is it barrier's to entry? And to what degree does all that play a role?

I see the potential for a much more nuanced conversation with this topic.

Saying women aren't capable of being a programmer or being successful in STEM is in my mind a garbage assertion.

[commandlinefan]

> Saying women aren't capable of being a programmer or being successful in STEM is in my mind a garbage assertion.

Good, then, that nobody has said, or even implied, that.

[rurp]

That's literally the argument that sgslo was countering. I agree that it does not seem like the most charitable position to argue against though.

[commandlinefan]

That isn't even remotely what the person that sgslo was arguing with said.

[barry-cotter]

Propensity to enjoy a job != capability to do the job

[WhiskeyJack55]

...maybe I misunderstood this statement then.

"That's because the issue of men vs women in programming really is an all-or-nothing topic."

Was there subtext I missed?

[twyabcde]

Commendable you found the strength to admit the double think. The questions of "innate ability" is ill posed. Let's agree that both males and females can achieve similar levels of skill, given similar level of effort applied in acquiring the skill. There is still a difference. Either:

A. The average male and the average female afford applying the same level of effort in becoming programmers, with no extraneous constraints.

B. Motherhood represents a non-trivial portion of the average female lifetime effort. Though not as large as in preindustrial times, where the norm was conceiving, feeding and raising ten children, most of them not making to adulthood, leaving little energy for anything else.

To the extent child rearing cost remains unequally distributed between males and females, we're going to see statistical disparities in occupations, especially in occupations with high skill acquisition cost. Or we banish motherhood, and go extinct.

[knolax]

Your example assumes that the AI isn't taking your 80/20 split and integrating that back into the test. Even if your ever so nebulous "biological differences" exist, you have already acknowledged that an objective measure of programming ability can be measured independent of gender, what TFA and "the left" are talking about is the distortion of that objective measure by lazily applying that correlation back into the measuring system, eg. making a 80/20 into a 90/10 split, then a 95/5 split, which in your example would be a waste of society's resources and would earn whoever made the AI a death sentence for incompetence.

[sbov]

And if the algorithm came out with the reverse result - an 80 female/20 male split, then the right-leaning opinion would call the outcome impossible (tech does have a strong left-wing bias!). I'm not sure your theoretical example proves anything except most people won't believe reality even if it smacks them in the face.

[alasdair_]

>However, the left-leaning zeitgeist opinion would seem to be that this outcome is impossible, and current observed differences are only due to systematic oppression.

Almost no one thinks this way and it's definitely not a popular enough opinion to qualify as a common spirit of our times, left-leaning or otherwise.

You are arguing against a very weak straw-man.

[stevenhuang]

> Almost no one thinks this way

You would hope. But don't you remember the huge backlash from Demore's memo? Many people (or at least a very very vocal population) do think this way, unfortunately.

So no, not a strawman.

[jackpirate]

Your response doesn't at all address gbrown's example of how a misapplied algorithm can exacerbate a systemic inequality. Specifically, you provide an example of gbrown's points 1 and 2 while ignoring point 3, which is the crux of the issue.

[Excel_Wizard]

The detail "This is assuming a perfectly-trained AI judges the variable, and that it controls against the underlying variables of societal bias in order to ensure that long-term human resources are properly allocated, and that long-term biases, informed by people's interactions with eachother, trend toward actual biological differences" should address that concern.

[gbrown]

"Assume a perfect and impossible thing, which is not precisely defined enough to formally reason about, but which nevertheless by construction supports my point, and you'll see that I'm clearly correct."

"controls against...." doesn't mean anything here - you're using the language of modeling, and attempting to discuss a concrete issue, but not connecting the two. Is your goal just to get an accurate prediction based on the status quo? Congrats, you've got a model that still requires nuance and understanding in application.

[Excel_Wizard]

Well, to create a well-enough formalized method of control for the AI-

As part of a 1,000,000 year long project, 1,000,000 groups of 1,000 human babies (with different groups having different gender ratios) are installed on remote habitable planets and raised from birth by genderless robots, tabula rasa. They grow up and form languages and societies that last for 1,000,000 years. Robots are used to observe their choices and outcomes. The distribution of cultural traits is gathered as data, and cultures which create good outcomes for individuals in accordance with their preferences and for society as a whole are noted as benefit-maximizing. Additionally, the degree to which each society deviates from mean gender-bias characteristics is noted, and the degree to which these gender-bias expectations mold the choices of each individual to a degree greater than mean gender-bias is noted. This data is used to train the "sorting hat" robot which will be used in the example in my original post.