Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Because clearly all women make decisions on whether to enter a field based on some absurdly gross overgeneralization of that field.

There is at least some research suggesting this is the case.

Archived article: http://web.archive.org/web/20100106021904/http://scicom.ucsc...

HN Discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=969646




There isn't any research that suggests that all women make decisions on whether to enter a field based on some absurdly gross overgeneralization of that field

Some people do run their careers like this, some don't. But to suggest that this is the case for all women and furthermore that the claim is backed up by research, is more than a little bit foolish.

-----


I mentally translated guimarin's exaggeration "all women" to a more reasonable "many women" or "women more so than men".

You'll note that in the quote guimarin responded to, the word "all" was not used.

-----


I sincerely apologise for responding to the point that you made, rather than the one you meant to make. My psi abilities are weakest around the full moon.

reconsidering your two new points that you have made there,

(a) many women make decisions on whether to enter a field based on some absurdly gross overgeneralization of that field

&

(b) women more so than men make decisions on whether to enter a field based on some absurdly gross overgeneralization of that field

Well, I think that (a) is probably true, but is also true for men. And that if (b) has any measurable truth to it I would strongly doubt it to have any statistical significance.

However if you pick any way to divide a large group into two (size of ears, for instance) and then measure something unconnected to that division, you will almost always find a small, measurable, but insignificant difference.

By the way, would you like a shovel?

-----




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: