
Why Brilliant Girls Tend to Favor Non-STEM Careers - hudon
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers
======
11thEarlOfMar
By the time they are born, male and female brains are already different:

"A huge testosterone surge beginning in the eighth week will turn this unisex
brain male by killing off some cells in the communication centers and growing
more cells in the sex and aggression centers."

Since they are different at birth, we shouldn't be surprised that their
interests are different, and accept that these differences contribute to
varying populations of men and women in different professions.

Stamp out bias. Don't force a specific population distribution.

[0]
[http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=2274147&page=1](http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=2274147&page=1)

~~~
vectorpush
It does not follow logically that just because men and women are biologically
different that those differences are necessarily significant with regard to
career distributions.

~~~
hasenj
It does follow that we should not expect them to be the same.

~~~
vectorpush
Not necessarily (based solely on the axiom that men and women have different
brain chemistry).

It is logically possible that the differences we observe in career
distributions are more heavily influenced by other factors besides differences
in brain chemistry.

~~~
belorn
Lets consider a sociology view. When it comes to inter-sex competition there
is a sexual dimorphism where men competes and derive status over resources and
women over social relations. This would causes behavior divergence for both
boys and girls, especially during adolescence, where both sexes will do
status-seeking behavior and favor career choices that best fulfill their
goals.

That sexual dimorphism could in turn be caused by a different brain chemistry
or by cultural values. From studies that look at different indigenous people,
it seems universal that women select men based on a mans ability to gather
resources, and men selects women based on their ability to raise and nurture a
family. Inter-sex dominance hierarchy also follow those lines.

~~~
weberc2
I feel you're being too permissive of the possibility that culture drives
gender roles. It seems implausible that culture would cause every civilization
however isolated to organize itself along very similar gender roles. I
understand you are alluding to this; I just want to put a fine point on it.

------
Spooky23
I never understood why certain female dominated fields like Nursing are
excluded from STEM. My mom was a nurse, my sister in law is a NP and my wife
is studying to be an RN.

It sure looks a lot more like STEM than my "tech" job, which has more elements
in common with what my aunt did as a secretary in the 70s than science.

~~~
michaelchisari
I often refer to most computer programming as "digital carpentry." Of course,
there are definitely jobs that require someone be more of an architect or a
scientist, but the vast majority of jobs just need someone who can build
common things that work and work well.

In that sense, most of the programming work I did in the first decade of my
career had more in common with the blue collar tradecraft that my father did
than it did with anything anyone would consider to be a STEM career.

~~~
weberc2
Agreed. I always thought of it more as a trade, though now that I've been in
the field for a few years, I'm realizing that technical prowess is secondary
to political skill. A sub par programmer with excellent political skills will
be seen by the organization as more valuable, whether or not he actually is.
(This isn't sour grapes, I've been on both sides of the evaluation).

~~~
coolgeek
Political skill can certainly get some people, in some situations, a lot
further than they deserve. But technical prowess is absolutely not secondary
to political skill in any general sense

And you can substitute just about anything else for 'technical skill' in the
above sentences and it will still read true

------
noobermin
Very interesting article, and sort of depressing for me, specifically the
conclusion of Wang et. al[0]. That if you're good at both math and
communication, you choose a more social field over the mathematical one is
almost a condemnation of the mathier fields.

Then again, being good at math in high school as Wang et. al measures doesn't
really translate to math in college, which is much more problem solving
oriented than math in high school. That's something to keep in mind here, so
the whole idea that they end up being spread more broadly and thus aren't
concentrated in STEM as the socially dumb men are is a more convincing
explanation, it really doesn't have to do with differences in ability, it's
merely other factors, mainly which major they try first.

How interesting.

[0]
[http://www.cds.web.unc.edu/files/2014/10/not_lack_of_ability...](http://www.cds.web.unc.edu/files/2014/10/not_lack_of_ability.pdf)

~~~
aidenn0
It's more complicated than that, even with very simple models. Consider the
toy model where there are two types of talent, "A" and "B" and that society
benefits roughly equally, but sub-linearly, from productivity added to "A"
talent jobs and "B" talent jobs. Consider the following talent distribution:

    
    
               A | B
        --------------
        Men   |1 | 2
        Women |2 | 2
    

As society tends towards the maximally efficient it will tend towards women in
all A jobs and men in all B jobs, despite the fact that women are just as good
at B jobs.

This obviously is a toy model, but it shows that even very simple assumptions
can lead to very odd outcomes.

~~~
solidsnack9000
It would be great if you could (a) work through how that final distribution is
more optimal and (b) explain why the number of men sums to 3 but the number of
women sums to 4.

~~~
aidenn0
Sorry, the numbers are a measure of talent; so from that table, if a man were
to work a year in an "A" field, he would generate 1 unit of production, but if
he were to work a year in a "B" field he would produce 2 units of production.
A woman would produce 2 units of production regardless of whether it is in an
"A" or "B" field.

In many real-world cases you get diminishing returns for more production.
Let's say it's a square-root return, so 16 units of production in "A" is twice
as good as 4 units of production in "A" (if you do the math with other
diminishing returns like logarithmic you see a similar outcome).

Consider a population of 8 men and 8 women. If they are equally distributed
between jobs there are 12 units of production of "A" and 16 units of
production of "B" for a total value of sqrt(12)+sqrt(16) ~=7.5 units of total
value.

If instead all women work in "A" jobs and all men work in "B" jobs, then you
will see 16 units of production in each, for a total value of 8 units.

The most pessimal would be the reverse of that and it would generate ~6.8
units of value.

~~~
solidsnack9000
Thanks for explaining. That makes a lot of sense. I was obviously reading the
table wrong and had a sense that there was a good explanation underlying
things here, but no real intuition about it.

------
chrismealy
In 1970 law and medical school graduates were about 10% female. Now it's about
50%. Did women change their interests? Are interests fixed? It doesn't matter.
Just stop discriminating and give everyone the chance to develop their
interests and capabilities.

~~~
tachyonbeam
I think the bigger question here is: we now have over 50% of people enrolling
in medical fields being women. It stands to reason that this is because
discrimination was taken away. Why didn't the same thing happen in math and
engineering fields? Are we really supposed to believe that women entered the
medical field in vast numbers because the medical field rapidly became much
more welcoming of women? Do we really believe that women didn't enter
engineering fields, as they have done in medical fields, because of widespread
discrimination everywhere in North America?

~~~
weberc2
Particularly given the huge investment by the industry to incentive women to
pursue careers in stem. I can't imagine a more welcoming environment, unless
the Uber-esque fiascos really are commonplace and I've just had the good
fortune to avoid these people.

~~~
tachyonbeam
I really doubt that Uber-esque fiascos are representative of the experience of
most women working in STEM fields. Another point of comparison here though
would be: was the medical field not very macho at some point? When the medical
field was opened to women, early on, it was mostly men, in a field that had
been traditionally masculine. Women had to make their place, and they did. Why
did the same thing not happen in STEM? Why is it still not happening?

Surely tech companies now can't be less welcoming to women than the medical
field in the 1950s-1980s? Particularly since this is an issue that everyone in
tech is now consciously aware of.

------
hn_throwaway_99
I think the author's evidence that there is scientific bias (social scientists
preferring to see bias-based explanations for numeric disparities over other
reasons) is quite strong. I'm curious if there is other data on this subject.

------
le-mark
This blog posts challenges the gender gap in STM, does it exist? Why does it
exist? The author cites some studies that support his argument that women
simply prefer to work with people, not things.

------
EGreg
Many years ago, I happened upon this analysis of why things are the way they
are, and it rang true:

[http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm](http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm)

I def recommend Baumeister and Tice to HN.

~~~
cropsieboss
Brilliant!

------
PlugTunin
_1\. 70 percent more girls than boys had strong math and verbal skills;

2\. Boys were more than twice as likely as girls to have strong math skills
but not strong verbal skills._

No surprise on the 1st; I recognize that women can do/be anything they want in
this world. But I wonder if the 2nd stat is explained mostly by the fact that
MORE men are strong at math (not being a chauvinist pig; just running with
stereotype)...or are the two genders equally represented among Math Elite and
girls twice as likely to have strong verbal skills?

~~~
tnecniv
> or are the two genders equally represented among Math Elite and girls twice
> as likely to have strong verbal skills?

Going straight by the numbers, it seems like the former. Assuming you define
math elite to be PhDs holders, this AMS study from 2005 [1] (a little old, I
know), says that 30% of math PhDs are awarded to women. Societal factors could
also be at play, obviously.

[1] [http://www.ams.org/profession/data/cbms-
survey/chapter4.pdf](http://www.ams.org/profession/data/cbms-
survey/chapter4.pdf)

------
dlwdlw
A large weakness people have is the necessity of a sense of safety before
taking risks. A risk here is defined as a testing of a personal idea. 3rd
party ideas necessarily are already vetted to some degree by reality because
transportation to you require going through reality.

Risks as defined then are a necessity for living a unique life. It isn't
always the most desirable thing as the majority of people would rather follow
a crowd, but it does often have the most disproportionate rewards for work
input.

I don't know if it's biological or cultural, but girls/women often require a
much higher sense of safety before being willing to do risky things. There is
also a much higher "cost" from society from doing things that look foolish.
This results in less of a desire to learn, especially as you approach the
cutting edge where the failure rate rapidly rises and civilized structures
start deteriorating. (the social structure that works best in this "wild" is
the frat bro/alpha male structure)

Being born beautiful is actually a weakness due to an addiction to strength in
this regard. A corresponding male strength is academic excellence. Both these
strengths become weaknesses because of lack of experience dealing with
setbacks and shocks as well as the accumulated dry tinder that was never
periodically cleared via said setbacks. (old people are stubborn because they
have too much tinder to risk in a fire/refactor) I use academics as the male
example as it creates a drives to validate the prior excellence often forcing
them along paths into finance or other areas with high monetary compensation.
Selling soul for money, taking no risk by not being true to yourself.

Thus addiction to strength creates risk averseness and stagnates growth. Girls
are often shielded from reality and also have an escape route of marriage.
(men don't, an extreme example of an alternative for them for meaning is being
a suicide bomber)

Almost all social structures in the world heavily cause girls to become
addicted to social validation. (Note that individual validation can be
"proved" by money while social validation cannot. Objective and subjective
tokens of value) The stereotype of "ugly" girls in STEM is a result of being
beautiful increasing the chance of this addiction. (The stereotype of
smart/beautiful but crazy may have origins in life-changing experiences that
shatters the status addiction but did collateral damage. )

Safety is a necessity for learning which necessarily involves mistakes.
However the minimum safety level can be vastly lowered by encouraging a
dismissive attitude towards social validation.

~~~
jhanschoo
I understand the point you are trying to illustrate, but your choice of
examples require more evidence than folk knowledge and stereotypes.

For example, you talk about men and academic excellence being such an example.
But isn't it the case that women in general excel academically more than men?
Why do you not point out/why do we not obeserve such a pattern, then?

------
peterwwillis
A coherent article trying to establish evidence of a particular argument or
claim would include all available studies and weigh them against their various
differences in order to find a viable conclusion. It would, at the very least,
attempt to search for alternate explanations and present them, and then make
an attempt to debunk them.

The article's main problem is it's trying to attack a very specific problem,
which is actually part of broader trends in human behavior and culture. It
doesn't address that at all.

The author claims "gap != discrimination", which is true in basic definition
and theory. But if you look at all the other studies that show things like
hiring discrimination, discrimination getting into a good school,
discrimination based on where/how one grows up, cultural discrimination, etc,
gaps immediately form and cause a ripple effect.

That there are about as many black men as white women (or less) in a given
tech field is one example of this. Pick any other discriminated-against
minority and you see the same, except when hiring from overseas (economic
benefit) or hiring someone with a preferred social stereotype.

If the author's argument is that women simply prefer not to go into this field
due to some weird connection between math and speech, then you have to ask why
the connection? Is it due to "biology", or social conditioning, or the
wariness of sexual harassment in a male-dominated field, or the low pay, or a
combination of these things? This article doesn't attempt to look at those,
and its limited view of the subject leaves it running into the same
correlation-is-causation conclusions it laments.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
> Pick any other discriminated-against minority and you see the same, except
> when hiring from overseas (economic benefit) or hiring someone with a
> preferred social stereotype.

So you really think that the huge over-representation of Indians and East
Asians (relative to population) in STEM fields is just because people are
hiring a preferred social stereotype? Could in perhaps be that they're
actually more qualified?

That's my main problem with arguments that all numeric disparities are because
on discrimination. I've never seen any convincing argument or study that
Indians and East Asians suffer less discrimination than, say, Hispanics, but
as they are no longer "under-represented minorities", they no longer "count"
toward diversity goals.

~~~
peterwwillis
More qualified women (and people with "ethnic names" and other discriminators)
often get passed over for jobs or promotions by people who are less qualified,
but have a preferred social stereotype. So the idea that qualification or
merit is going to result in commensurate representation across the board
doesn't work.

People who self-identify as Asian may be the best qualified for the position,
but it doesn't hurt that it also reinforces their social stereotype. Asians
are actually significantly over-represented in STEM, and make more money than
any other group.

~~~
droidist2
> make more money than any other group

They also tend to live in the most expensive cities in the country. A lot more
Asians live in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles than in other regions
that cost less and pay less. I'm not sure if that gets factored into the
statistics.

------
knbknb
My gut feeling is that women prefer jobs where one must communicate more. Many
tech professionals are required to spend their workdays lonely in front of the
computer. This is a very unattractive concept to most women. This may be a
biased view, yes, but that's just how they perceive it.

~~~
nostromo123
Funny, I perceive work in tech as having too much interaction! It definitely
depends on your personality, but I have yet to encounter the magical "no
interaction" software engineer job.

Just when you get in a good zone, there's some developer meeting or someone
needs some information from you. Workdays spent lonely in front of the
computer are rare and almost like vacation :-D

PS. I'm a woman, but I think this affects both genders, as it's more of a
personality factor (my husband is the same).

------
TimTheTinker
Is this being modded down? (93 points/6 hours, and already on page 3 after
being on the front front page 2 hours ago...)

------
SerLava
I've been questioning the general assumption that male-dominated things are
always desirable.

Maybe some things are stupid to do, and men tend to get tricked into them more
often. Maybe moderately high pay is a trick to get people to do draining,
unhealthy jobs, and men are more likely to succumb to the temptation.

It's not a good idea to become an underwater welder, but you do get paid a
lot. It all goes into medical care, but you do get paid a lot.

~~~
pmarreck
I would agree that there is a certain, eh... stupidity, around risk-taking,
lol. Or perhaps just a "not giving into loss aversion."

For whatever reason (and while it pains me to generalize), the high-risk,
high-reward jobs are all almost all men. Any woman who feels a calling should
of course go for it, and no one should stand in that person's way, but I
wouldn't ever expect, say, a 50/50 perfect proportion of gender participants
at some future date (as this article indicates, this is a dysfunctional
expectation)

Back when bitcoin was only $10 a pop, a bunch of guys in our programming shop
wanted to get involved. 100% of their wives nixed it. 100%. I was the only
single guy, so I put in some money... Crazy at the time? Perhaps. Crazy now?
Not with 20/20 hindsight...

~~~
Eridrus
Despite just-so explanations from evolutionary psychology, there is definitely
an argument to be made that this is the byproduct of our culture, rather than
something innate.

~~~
Turing_Machine
That a culture can survive the death of a much higher percentage of men than
it can of women is not a "just-so" story.

It is a fact.

~~~
holografix
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Are there any studies showing men
have a higher predisposition to taking risks? I cant quote one but I think
there are.

There is an evolutionary reason for men to take more risks and have a desire
to engage in hunting behaviours. We just have to be conscious of that and as
per one of the top commenter's remarks not "fall" for something irrational or
be driven by societal pressures.

~~~
sunstone
Men are 20 times more likely to die on the job than women.(at least in Canada)

[http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-
mens...](http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-mens-work-
can-come-at-high-risk)

~~~
weberc2
Wow, it's closer to 12 here in the US.

------
josephagoss
Should STEM be seen as desirable though?

It is one of those careers where you either make it before you are 25 or you
are replaced.

STEM fields are extremely ageist where at 25 and onwards you have to look over
your shoulder and watch out for the next 16 year old taking your job.

STEM for this reason is stressful and non sustainable.

Being in STEM and much older than 25 I feel that perhaps I made the wrong
decision getting into STEM. Perhaps a people orientated career would have
lasted me longer. I haven't been replaced yet, but can feel it coming...

~~~
koolba
The difference between STEM and non-STEM jobs is that as a worker, not a
manager, you can't fake it for as long. Eventually people will notice that
you're not keeping up with tech trends, learning, learning new things, or that
your overall productivity is sub par (or in a lot of cases zero or even
negative).

I see that as a plus for STEM jobs and more generally their sectors as it
naturally rewards meritocracy and progress.

If you think you can't keep up with new grads, despite years more experience,
I'm going to venture a guess that you don't find technology interesting enough
to learn on its own.

~~~
eropple
_> it naturally rewards meritocracy and progress_

That's a funny way of saying "in-group beliefs and identity."

At some point we will discard this nonsense notion of meritocracy. If one
exists, it's certainly not in tech.

------
WalterBright
Consider this clip:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BE476MvO_g&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BE476MvO_g&feature=youtu.be&t=124)

If this doesn't rock you down to your toes, you are not an engineer. At least
not a born engineer.

~~~
ridgeguy
I loved watching startup of a Diesel engine that probably occupies more volume
than my house, thanks.

But for sheer amazing operation at the very edge of what we know how to do, I
like [1]. There's just something about running !% short of destruction as
normal. That's engineering!

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEQI4lpdJGI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEQI4lpdJGI)

~~~
WalterBright
Watching the nozzles quiver under the load gives me goose bumps!

~~~
ridgeguy
Me too. When I see that, I wonder what how it would felt to be an SSME design
engineer viewing that behavior. I sure wouldn't have expected my design to
shake like a leaf in the wind.

~~~
WalterBright
I'm pretty sure I know what it'd feel like. An intense high.

(The levels of flexing and vibration would have been calculated in advance.
But it's different _seeing_ it.)

~~~
WalterBright
(When I was a kid I had a military ID, and would ride my bike out to the local
AF base and park near the runway. Watching the F-104s taking off and hitting
the afterburners halfway down the runway was the best show a kid could have.)

~~~
JabavuAdams
If you'd been able to buy some land near there, you might have acquired your
own 104 lawn dart!

