Is it really wrong to say that women could be better or worse (in general) at one thing or another? Is it sexist to even point out that men and women are different?
I think my wife is pretty awesome and capable of things I would not be able to do. Am I sexist for talking about it?
I think in the source PG even says that women are good (maybe better) than men at business focused startups. Or will the world not be balanced until just as many women are making hot or not for XYZ in the off hours
It can be damaging to talk about what any one group is better or worse at, statistically, because it leads some people to stereotype all members of that group. And I believe that most people that talk about things like this don't actually have statistic to back them up. For example, it's a pretty common to joke about "women drivers" and yet insurance companies, the folks with the most information, tend to charge women less because they're less likely to be in accidents, get speeding tickets, or DUIs.
Bone-headed people say bone-headed things and try to back them up with "common knowledge" that's just misinformation rooted in traditional views.
In regards to your wife, that can be different. I assume you're aren't saying things like "she's good at juggling because she's a woman" and instead just "she's good at juggling because she, as one individual, is good at juggling." My wife is amazing at art. It's not because she's a woman but because she's spent time practicing.
As much as I believe in the 'nurture' argument, given that our brains are wired very differently based on gender, I find it difficult to believe that this won't cause differences in both desire and aptitude. It seems absurd to me that so many smart people have to make the nurture XOR nature argument, and that there are so few people making nurture AND nature arguments.
Adjunct to this is that old chestnut about how we socialise girls to like toys they can care for and boys to like cars. Here we also now have evidence that suggests that we are born this way and the socialisation is just on top of what we started with [1].
I'm not trying to make the argument that it is more nature than nurture or that I know the precise underpinnings of a decent model. I just think that we needlessly politicise something which in my opinion will eventually be in the reach of empiricism.
I hope that the open-minded liberals will fare better than traditionalists in managing the separation between science and their own values.
You do realize that brains change in response to their experiences, right? That there are differences says nothing about whether the differences come from being treated differently by society.
And regardless, to the extent that there are genetic differences (as there certainly are), we still have no credible way to map those differences to phenotypes as complex and deep into development as "ability to program".
That said, if programming involved a lot of playing with toy cars, you might have the beginnings of an argument.
Sexual dimorphism is incredibly common in the animal kingdom, and humans are not an exception.
You are setting up a non-falsifiable belief system that asserts that men and women cannot be different above the neck. If that's what lets you sleep at night, who am I to deny you your comforting faith?
But you are fighting against mountains of evidence for cognitive differences between men and women. Are they all cultural? I'm friends with a few post-treatment transgendered people, and I'm inclined to believe at least that hormones have a powerful impact on personality.
Some things are non-falsifiable. And I find it funny that you follow up that accusation with anecdotal thoughts about hormones.
Just because we haven't found a falsifiable way to test a hypothesis doesn't mean you can take "mountains" of research that make very specific conclusions and randomly apply them to whatever generalization you want to.
Please slow down and be careful when you read. You've misunderstood my core point while also parroting back other things I said back in a highly patronising way.
>> You do realize that brains change in response to their experiences, right?
I made the argument that it's a combination of both nurture and nature. To quote myself: "It seems absurd to me that [...] there are so few people making nurture AND nature arguments."
What does the nurture argument mean to you other than the idea that are brains change as a result of experience?
I simply disagree that nurture and nature are mutually exclusive. Nature means that there might also be gene differences which cause different brains to start with or the later production of brain-altering hormones.
>> we still have no credible way to map those differences to phenotypes as complex and deep into development as "ability to program".
Likewise, I already said: "I'm not trying to make the argument that [...] I know the precise underpinnings of a decent model."
>> That said, if programming involved a lot of playing with toy cars, you might have the beginnings of an argument.
Why are you so obtuse? I did not make the argument that programming has anything to do with toy cars. I responded to a post which implies the differences between men and women are all stereotypes and that the differences which do exist are individual and bear no relation to their gender.
My argument is this:
1. Our brains are physically different.
2. Given that our brains are wired differently, it's highly unlikely for there to not also be differences in personality, desire and aptitude.
3. I agree with the nurture argument.
4. I also agree with the nature argument.
5. I think the burden of proof is with those that believe these are mutually exclusive to prove that this is the case.
6. In this context, I believe that both nature and nurture cause differences in society.
7. It looks like there are brain differences in boy/girl infants previous to socialisation not just in humans but also in monkeys.
8. I make a point that there is not enough empirical evidence right now for anybody to create a precise model of what is happening.
9. I make the point that we needlessly politicise the argument when we should just wait for science to come to some kind of agreement.
10. I make the point that it's not just traditionalists that are having difficulty with ingesting scientific results. I value those that can stop and change their value system based on any facts that they receive.
> "Is it really wrong to say that women could be better or worse (in general) at one thing or another? Is it sexist to even point out that men and women are different?"
Yes to both questions. On the other hand, it's science[1][2]! There's lots of proven differences in personality and ability between the sexes.
When the official ideology is against reality, you have to choose between being a "good person" and a good scientist. It's best for your career to choose the first.
>When the official ideology is against reality, you have to choose between being a "good person" and a good scientist. It's best for your career to choose the first.
Unless your career is in something like insurance, medicine, or any field where those differences actually matter.
Statistically speaking because I am short I am less likely to do well in my career compared to tall people. If you told me that my code sucked because I was short, I would be pretty mad at you.
Yes, there are differences between the genders recorded by science - but you don't have to choose between science and being a good person. Science doesn't compel anyone to attempt to apply statistical differences over a large group to individuals.
Furthermore, a difference that is proven now proves nothing other than the current state of affairs. It doesn't dictate what things would be if playing fields were more level, nor does it dictate how things should be or how things will be.
Why, when assessing people's abilities and shortcomings, do you reach for the two categories "men" and "women"? Why not:
Is it really wrong to say that brunettes could be better or worse (in general) at one thing or another? Is it haircolourist to even point out that blondes and brunettes are different?
I think my brunette life partner is pretty awesome and capable of things I would not be able to do. Am I haircolourist for talking about it?
If we truly were post-sexism, it would be as weird as that ^ to divide people by gender when talking about things that have absolutely nothing to do with their gender. Like programming.
> Is it sexist to even point out that men and women are different?
It may not be obvious to you, but there is a huge amount of uncertainty about the actual amount and severity of differences. One of the many problems with even ascertaining the nature of those differences is the inherent difficulty of separating culture from biology, and in biology interpreting the actual meaning of physical differences. Combine that with the fact that most studies conducted in these areas have a huge bias in one way or the other and are designed to mostly further the agendas of certain interest groups, or in the absence of that: to make for interesting headlines in popular magazines.
The "pointing out of differences" is mostly an act of voicing a certain kind of opinion at best, sometimes this opinion is disguised as fact-like by meaningless cave-dweller analogies and other unscientific bullshit that is usually trotted out to support the status quo of gender separation. But even if, by some miracle, you could obtain absolutely untainted data on this, it would still be a matter of statistics and there are still way too many variables involved.
The insidious nature of differences between men and women is that they become whatever society says they should be. In this way the expectation that CS is uncool and unsuited for women becomes fact simply by virtue of being declared a fact. Social expectations and feedback statistically play a huge role in people's choices.
> I think my wife is pretty awesome and capable of things I would not be able to do.
This isn't about your wife, but since you brought it up: not all women are good at the things your wife is good at. Conversely, not all men are like you. You are both a product of not only genetics, but also social pressures and expectations, internal mental states, and subject to different kinds of support for capabilities your environment deems appropriate for your roles in society. Even things where you might be convinced they are down to gender differences might conceivably be very different if you had grown up in a different culture.
> Am I sexist for talking about it?
You are certainly someone with strong opinions about what traits are linked to which gender, so yes, you are sexist in a way that you impose an artificial segregation unto the world that lines up with your values. It seems (although implicitly) that you are more likely to support people doing things you deem to be gender-appropriate and more likely to discourage people from doing something which you judge to be not a good fit because of your sex.
If you look at cultures of segregation historically, they often did attribute certain core skills even to the out-group. It was judged that non-whites, non-arians, females, homosexuals, or whatever group was defined as "different" did in fact have certain hard-wired capabilities (although not always good ones).
> I think in the source PG even says that women are good (maybe better) than men at business focused startups.
It may not sound problematic to have this view, unless you are a woman hacker standing in front of a VC who is predisposed against accepting your company into the program on account of judging you unfit to program. But meeting someone with the power to make decisions about your future who explicitly declared these views beforehand is not even the worst case. The worst case would be meeting someone who holds these views but isn't conscious of them.
But, to make sure, this is not a comment intended to be about Paul Graham specifically. I think as far as that interview is concerned, this whole discussion is a huge waste of time.
> Or will the world not be balanced until just as many women are making hot or not for XYZ in the off hours
It's not just a matter of balance. It's about two things mainly. First, many people (including me) would prefer a world where certain voices and talents are not missing or even actively silenced. Could a world without women hackers succeed? Certainly. By the same token, so could a world without black hackers, gay hackers, or non-american hackers. It's just not the world I'd like to live in, and I do believe such a segregated world would miss out on a lot of important developments.
Secondly, taking up the point from above, even in a world where a myriad cultural factors are stacked against them, sometimes women hackers emerge and do make it to critical junctions. At these points it's hugely disappointing to be turned back because they don't fit the profile for some superficial reason.
>> It may not be obvious to you, but there is a huge amount of uncertainty about the actual amount and severity of differences.
Is severity the right word here? It seems like you entered the conversation with this implication that heterogeneity was a bad thing - but I can't tell whether this was accidental.
>> Combine that with the fact that most studies conducted in these areas have a huge bias in one way or the other and are designed to mostly further the agendas of certain interest groups, or in the absence of that: to make for interesting headlines in popular magazines.
That's interesting if it's true. However, it's the sort of allegation that reminds me of this acquired derogatory meaning which the term "conspiracy theory" took on. May you expand? Is this just a feeling you have, or do you have concrete samples from the scientific world, or even somebody that shares this view who may be trusted on matters such as this?
Probably not. You can replace it with "amplitude" or "magnitude" if you like.
Speaking of poor word choices, I strongly disagree with your usage of heterogeneity ;)
> Is this just a feeling you have, or do you have concrete samples from the scientific world, or even somebody that shares this view who may be trusted on matters such as this?
There is some material that can be googled with terms like "gender bias in research" on similar terms. For a popularized take on a part of the dynamic, start here: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/421746.article
But an even better method would be to simply engage in critical observation. The next time a big study announces (and most likely confirms already expected) gender differences, look at who is doing the study. Check whether the methodology is even half-way sound, if there were enough test subjects and look at how they were recruited. Especially in psychological studies, search for ways the study might have been primed. Also, what's the track record of the researchers themselves, is this a study to follow up on previously uttered extreme claims? Look for cultural bias. Look for warning signs such as the invocation of fictitious prehistorical "facts". Look at the assumptions behind the study, and at the way the media spins the results to conform with accepted stereotypes.
In the end, no, you will probably choose to trust people and researchers who already agree with you. But it's worth a shot taking a look behind the scenes of these big "scientific explanations" that seem to be evolutionary (=pop) psychological justifications for convenient cultural norms.
I am somewhat pessimistic about finding common ground if you self-identify as a religious or conservative person, however, this is a point where we might start:
Discard science and evidence, discard models and reasoning, discard culture. Let's just talk about people. In the parent post I already talked about female programmers being saddled with additional hurdles. Obviously we can agree that this is a bad thing. The only other thing we should probably agree on is the idea that female voices are somewhat missing in our hacker culture, based on the assertion it'd be a richer and more prolific culture if we worked even a little bit on seizing the incessant discouragement of women to enter this profession. That's really it, the whole thing. I'm not even talking about this controversial notion of active encouragement, let's just stop the discouragement.
I think my wife is pretty awesome and capable of things I would not be able to do. Am I sexist for talking about it?
I think in the source PG even says that women are good (maybe better) than men at business focused startups. Or will the world not be balanced until just as many women are making hot or not for XYZ in the off hours