Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>There's just so many more men out there dedicated to climbing hard than women.

There's a study that looked into this for chess and found that for the amount of people who actually stick at it, 96% of the the split in chess can be accounted for by it being what you would expect for the amount of men and women playing.

>Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains

>A popular explanation for the small number of women at the top level of intellectually demanding activities from chess to science appeals to biological differences in the intellectual abilities of men and women. An alternative explanation is that the extreme values in a large sample are likely to be greater than those in a small one. Although the performance of the 100 best German male chess players is better than that of the 100 best German women, we show that 96 per cent of the observed difference would be expected given the much greater number of men who play chess. There is little left for biological or cultural explanations to account for. In science, where there are many more male than female participants, this statistical sampling explanation, rather than differences in intellectual ability, may also be the main reason why women are under-represented at the top end.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1659/1161




"the amount of people who actually stick to it" is an absolutely massive sampling bias, even at age under 10. Even among people of same general intelligence, areas of interest matters a lot.

I don't doubt there are sexism and cultural effects on participation disparities, but ask anyone raising chess-playing children and you'll find notable gender differences in interest level in chess from a young age. Similar is seen on mathematics. There's a classic book from Soviet Russia) where girls' math education was rather highly supported) by an author extremely excited about teaching math to small children. He found that his son lapped it up but he could never get his daughter interested (she would turn his math games into non-math social games), even though she was younger and so had earlier exposure and also benefit of his increased experience practicing teaching on her older brother first. She turned out to be academically successful, but not exceptional in math. Countless parents can tell similar stories.

https://www.amazon.com/Math-Three-Seven-Mathematical-Prescho...


> There's a classic book [..] by an author extremely excited about teaching math to small children. He found that his son lapped it up but he could never get his daughter interested (she would turn his math games into non-math social games)

It is ridiculous to suggest based on a sample of 2 (!) siblings that the sister’s precocity at drawing and storytelling and the brother’s greater interest in patterns and numbers is generally representative of their gender.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: