Facebook, Apple, Microsoft

[August1991]

Personal Computers arrived about 40 years go.

The Internet is the latest innovation of human interraction, and it dates from the 1990s - 20 years.

Women love Facebook - it's about 5 years old.

All created/invented/discovered by men.

----

Other than the obvious, why can't women produce/create/invent stuff?

And please don't tell me about Marie Curie or past sexism. In 2004, any woman could have invented Facebook - women certainly use it now.

But a woman didn't invent Facebook. Why?

[Boges]

Because she was too busy cooking, cleaning and washing her hair duh!

[TimG]

Other than the obvious, why can't women produce/create/invent stuff?

In any field where merit is the primary means of success you find that differences at the end of distribution are more important than the mean. See the diagrams here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

i.e. you can have two groups with exactly the same mean but if one group has a wider distribution (called variance in statistics) then that group will dominate the field because even a slightly larger variance results in a much larger number of individuals at the top end.

In many fields like engineering and math the distribution for males is wider than the distribution for females. This means that if you select for the top performers in these fields they will always be disproportionately male. This is true even if the 'average woman' and the 'average man' are exactly the same.

Edited May 16, 2012 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

In many fields like engineering and math the distribution for males is wider than the distribution for females. This means that if you select for the top performers in these fields they will always be disproportionately male. This is true even if the 'average woman' and the 'average man' are exactly the same.

This. There are just a lot more men in engineering, computer science etc.

[guyser]

Other than the obvious, why can't women produce/create/invent stuff?

Lets start here.

What would be the obvious?

And as a teaser, I can state women have out-produced what men have produced since the dawn of man.

Edited May 16, 2012 by guyser

[TimG]

There are just a lot more men in engineering, computer science etc.

The question is why?

I think it is combination of interest and ability.

The population of people with above average ability in engineering and computer science tends to be male because the distribution has higher variance for males. People with an ability tend to be interested in a field.

Edited May 16, 2012 by TimG

[guyser]

The question is why?

I think it is combination of interest and ability.

And the #1 answer is institutional bias.

[TimG]

And the #1 answer is institutional bias.

Complete nonsense. The are biological differences between men and women. They mean men are generally taller and more muscular than women. There are also biological differences in how the brain works. This means that men will been better at some jobs than women and vise versa.

The 'institutional bias' argument had merit 40 years ago. Women have flooded in the medical and legal professions as these barriers were torn down. But they stay away from engineering and computer science. There is no rational reason to believe those fields are any more biased than medicine or law. The fact is women stay away because there are other jobs they would rather do.

Edited May 16, 2012 by TimG

[guyser]

Complete nonsense.

Theres only one shady , and you aint it.

The are biological differences between men and women.

Really? We are not the same?

They mean men are generally taller and more muscular than women. There are also biological differences in how the brain works. This means that men will been better at some jobs than women and vise versa.

Not sure what this is about but anyway...

The 'institutional bias' argument had merit 40 years ago. Women have flooded in the medical and legal professions as these barriers were torn down. But they stay away from engineering and computer science(Myth #1). There is no rational reason to believe those fields are any more biased (Myth #2)than medicine or law. The fact is women stay away because there are other jobs they would rather do.

Tell ya what , you can call them and tell them they are wrong.

http://www.livescience.com/7349-top-5-myths-girls-math-science.html

Like I said, institutional and perceptual bias.

Edited May 16, 2012 by guyser

[TimG]

Like I said, institutional and perceptual bias.

Of course, studies by people who have decided in advance that there must be bias claim that there is a bias! I don't find them remotely credible. Their examples of 'bias' are so minor that even if they were real it is insignificant compared to the many other influences in a child's life.

Here is another take: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/01/22/he-s-not-as-smart-as-he-thinks.html

Universally, men tend to score higher on certain specialized skills, such as spatial awareness. In the real world, that means they might be better at reading maps or navigating. Women score higher in terms of language development and emotional intelligence. But most experts agree there is no real, important overall difference when it comes to gender and intelligence.

The skills that boys are better at are exactly the skills that are required for engineering and science.

[RB]

Personal Computers arrived about 40 years go.

But a woman didn't invent Facebook. Why?

August this is an interesting take sad but true.

First, I do believe based on sheer women population numbers, men will be outnumbered on this women group think, and go along with the ways to women. Men are already becoming effeminate, and will be colonised to ways of women. In essence men will be reduced to the "sub-standard" or standard ways of women think, perhaps then we can see women dominance.

While playing sports the other day, a fellow mentioned to me that "women" do not have the "killer" instinct, and are not strong (also meaning spatial)as men. Men have the exploitative instinct to adjust quickly, believe they are much more powerful than women, and can manipulate moves that leads to a winning point quickly.

Such is the development of Facebook ranking female beauty (their face) - sort of pitting one female, ranking them against the other. I don't think women have that kind of "je ne sais quoi" to exploit other female this way, and also looking at a bigger picture see it as a business.

For other industries such as science and machines, women historically have had limited opportunity to enter these sectors and is seen mostly heading up sort of protest groups to be inclusive in male agenda.

The above is my believe.

I also think now that women primary instinct is to procreate, and that is the miracle of life itself. The women it seems like she is contented to let the male be ruthless, savvy, creative genius. Plus she spends considerable amounts of time, attention and energy with these offspring with no time to be a creative genius. All she can do while peeling potatoes is perhaps to write some article on the home and eventually become an editor or a receptionist. But, she is happy.

Edited May 17, 2012 by RB

[guyser]

Their examples of 'bias' are so minor that even if they were real it is insignificant compared to the many other influences in a child's life.

Says you I suppose?

Here is another take: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/01/22/he-s-not-as-smart-as-he-thinks.html

Take on what exactly?

The skills that boys are better at are exactly the skills that are required for engineering and science.

Thabks for the link, it goes to support what I posted above.

Does any of this matter in the real world?

Men aren't more clever or smarter. But since they think they are, they are more confident about their abilities

But women think they aren't as smart as men?

That's the conundrum. What I study is "perceived intelligence," essentially how smart people think they are. I analyzed 30 international studies, and what I found was that women, across the world, tend to underplay their intelligence, while men overstate it.

The above ties right in with Myth # 3....Myth 3: Science and math teachers are no longer biased toward their male students.

Reality: In fact, biases are persistent, and teachers often interact more with boys than with girls in science and math. A teacher will often help a boy do an experiment by explaining how to do it, while when a girl asks for assistance the teacher will often simply do the experiment, leaving the girl to watch rather than do

Edited May 17, 2012 by guyser

[TimG]

Men aren't more clever or smarter. But since they think they are, they are more confident about their abilities

That is not the point I am making. The point I am making is at the top end of the ability spectrum for science and engineering you will find more men. This has nothing to do with generalized intelligence. Nothing to do with confidence. And NOTHING to do with bias of teachers.

In fact, biases are persistent, and teachers often interact more with boys than with girls in science and math.

Fact: studies like this are subjective opinion that never fail to find the 'bias' that the researcher wants to find. i.e. if a researcher believes that teachers are biased the researcher will find things to justify that view.

1) All institutional barriers preventing women from choosing whatever careers they want have been removed.

2) Women have flooded into fields like medicine and biology.

3) Women have stayed away from engineering and computer science.

Occam's razor says the the only rational explanation is women don't want to enter those fields.

Edited May 17, 2012 by TimG

[Guest Manny]

A teacher will often help a boy do an experiment by explaining how to do it, while when a girl asks for assistance the teacher will often simply do the experiment, leaving the girl to watch rather than do

What if the girl happens to be a really smart scientifical type, like another Marie Curie? Will the teacher, being aware of this treat her any differently than if she was a "dumb" girl? What about a "dumb" boy, would the teacher treat him any differently when doing a lab experiment?

Or does it really matter at all to the teacher if they're male or female, vs. if they are a person that really cares about science or not. Because that is my impression- any teacher will recognise a girl as equally capable to a boy if she demonstrates that she has a real interest in science. Especially if she's cute as well...

[guyser]

That is not the point I am making. The point I am making is at the top end of the ability spectrum for science and engineering you will find more men. This has nothing to do with generalized intelligence. Nothing to do with confidence. And NOTHING to do with bias of teachers.

Heres part of the reason why.

Reality: In fact, biases are persistent, and teachers often interact more with boys than with girls in science and math. A teacher will often help a boy do an experiment by explaining how to do it, while when a girl asks for assistance the teacher will often simply do the experiment, leaving the girl to watch rather than do

Fact: studies like this are subjective opinion that never fail to find the 'bias' that the researcher wants to find. i.e. if a researcher believes that teachers are biased the researcher will find things to justify that view.

Oh FFS....

Sez you ....right?

Edited May 17, 2012 by guyser

[TimG]

Heres part of the reason why.

So what if a researcher seeking evidence of bias found a few examples which supported their predetermined view?

A few of the questions that come to mind:

1) How many examples of bias in the other direction were ignored?

2) How many examples of teachers showing no bias were ignored?

3) How representative are the teachers observed?

4) How much of this bias was actually driven by the student rather than the teacher?

It is impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from subjective studies like this.

For me the objective *fact* that women are flooding into science centered professions but they are staying out of computer science. This objective *fact* is enough to tell me that whatever the reason it is *not* teaching bias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16digi.html

When all science and engineering fields are considered, the percentage of bachelor’s degree recipients who are women has improved to 51 percent in 2004-5 from 39 percent in 1984-85, according to National Science Foundation surveys.

When one looks at computer science in particular, however, the proportion of women has been falling. In 2001-2, only 28 percent of all undergraduate degrees in computer science went to women. By 2004-5, the number had declined to only 22 percent.

Edited May 17, 2012 by TimG

[guyser]

What if the girl happens to be a really smart scientifical type, like another Marie Curie? Will the teacher, being aware of this treat her any differently than if she was a "dumb" girl? What about a "dumb" boy, would the teacher treat him any differently when doing a lab experiment?

Or does it really matter at all to the teacher if they're male or female, vs. if they are a person that really cares about science or not. Because that is my impression- any teacher will recognise a girl as equally capable to a boy if she demonstrates that she has a real interest in science. Especially if she's cute as well...

The link provided discusses these points. They make the case that teachers do treat boys and girls differently, and boys think they are smarter (even tho they are not) and girls tend to think themselves not as bright as boys , even when they are. Thus they come to the conclusion (among other reasons) as one of the ways that keeps women from these faculties.

The bold part is commented on, and apparently they fouind evidence that it is not as true as one would think

[guyser]

So what if a researcher seeking evidence of bias found a few examples which supported their predetermined view?

Tim, you determined from the get go that any link was biased.

It is impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from subjective studies like this.

And once again, as you have determined. You dont like it, it is biased.

But nothing to show why it is biased.

For me the objective *fact* that women are flooding into science centered professions but they are staying out of computer science. This objective *fact* is enough to tell me that whatever the reason it is *not* teaching bias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16digi.html

So you know it isnt bias on the part of the teacher, yet no offer of what other reason it could be.

[TimG]

And once again, as you have determined. You dont like it, it is biased.

It is not about whether I like it or not. It is about methodology. There is simply no way to get an unbiased result from a study based on subjective evaluations by a human observer.

I also provided this:

When all science and engineering fields are considered, the percentage of bachelor’s degree recipients who are women has improved to 51 percent

So 51% of science and engineering grads are women? That is pretty concrete evidence that the study you quoted is wrong.

So you know it isnt bias on the part of the teacher, yet no offer of what other reason it could be.

I already made that argument: interest and aptitude. There are more men at the higher end of the computer science ability distribution for biological reasons. And (more importantly) women are not that interested in entering these professions and make a free choice to do something else. Edited May 17, 2012 by TimG

[August1991]

In any field where merit is the primary means of success you find that differences at the end of distribution are more important than the mean. See the diagrams here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

i.e. you can have two groups with exactly the same mean but if one group has a wider distribution (called variance in statistics) then that group will dominate the field because even a slightly larger variance results in a much larger number of individuals at the top end.

In many fields like engineering and math the distribution for males is wider than the distribution for females. This means that if you select for the top performers in these fields they will always be disproportionately male. This is true even if the 'average woman' and the 'average man' are exactly the same.

I've heard that argument before, with even a genetic basis. Males have an XY chromosome (whereas females are XX). The mix of chromosomes supposedly leads to more variant results/behaviour. "On average, men are stupider than women but since men vary more, there are more smart men than smart women." Whatever.

----

1. Is Mark Zuckerberg really smart/exceptional? Is Bill Gates? Sergei Brin? Steve Jobs? Other than a (vague) Jewish connection, I note that they are all men, and also all American. Am I to believe that American citizenship confers outlier behaviour?

2. TimG, if you are right, and men really do have a wider variance in creative behaviour, why do we have equity pay and non-discrimination laws? Would you be willing to base society rules on such - that men have more variant behaviour whereas women are closer to the norm?

Edited May 18, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

What would be the obvious?

What is the obvious argument when the Left is confronted with a contrarian fact? Institutional bias, and the usual litany that Leftist victimologists parade in such discussions.

This. There are just a lot more men in engineering, computer science etc.

Why?

The question is why?

I think it is combination of interest and ability.

The population of people with above average ability in engineering and computer science tends to be male because the distribution has higher variance for males. People with an ability tend to be interested in a field.

Your answer is a cop-out.

And the #1 answer is institutional bias.

Gimme a break. (See above.)

Sorry guyser, in 2004, any young woman could have invented Facebook. To use "institutional bias" as an argument in this context is pathetic. (I note that young women have no problem being typically first adopters of social media such as Facebook.)

Edited May 18, 2012 by August1991

[TimG]

Is Mark Zuckerberg really smart/exceptional? Is Bill Gates? Sergei Brin? Steve Jobs?

Success in the tech biz requires a wide range of skills and a some amount of luck (i.e. having a great idea 5 years before anyone wants it usually ends in failure).

2. TimG, if you are right, and men really do have a wider variance in creative behaviour, why do we have equity pay and non-discrimination laws?

Don't ask me to justify such laws. I think pay equity is an abomination. Equal pay if you are doing the same job but no one has any business deciding that a secretary is equal to a installation tech.

[August1991]

While playing sports the other day, a fellow mentioned to me that "women" do not have the "killer" instinct, and are not strong (also meaning spatial)as men. Men have the exploitative instinct to adjust quickly, believe they are much more powerful than women, and can manipulate moves that leads to a winning point quickly.

Such is the development of Facebook ranking female beauty (their face) - sort of pitting one female, ranking them against the other. I don't think women have that kind of "je ne sais quoi" to exploit other female this way, and also looking at a bigger picture see it as a business.

WTF? Have you seen the movie Mean Girls?

Women are vicious in bringing down other women in ways that men never would be. In many ways, women are far more competitive than men.

I also think now that women primary instinct is to procreate, and that is the miracle of life itself. The women it seems like she is contented to let the male be ruthless, savvy, creative genius. Plus she spends considerable amounts of time, attention and energy with these offspring with no time to be a creative genius. All she can do while peeling potatoes is perhaps to write some article on the home and eventually become an editor or a receptionist. But, she is happy.

Well, as Jean Charest recently said about student negotiations, it takes two to tango. To create a child, it takes both a woman and a man.

But I agree that men and women approach this endeavour in different ways because they have different roles, responsibilities - if not different benefits. (I reckon that women live longer than men as evolution's way to offer a family caregiver.)

[dre]

The people that invented those things were born in the 60's, 70's, or 80's. Woman are a majority in post secondary schools now, and this is going to change IMO.

[bleeding heart]

It is not about whether I like it or not. It is about methodology. There is simply no way to get an unbiased result from a study based on subjective evaluations by a human observer.

Except when the observer is TimG citing Occam's Razor, and calling out biases...in this case, the methodology is inherently sound, inherently unbiased, and is not a subjective evaluation by a human observer.

Up to and including the self-evident answer of "biological reasons" (the primary answer, according to you), presumably a thoroughly unproblematic and non-complex matter.

Edited May 18, 2012 by bleeding heart