Facebook, Apple, Microsoft

[bleeding heart]

What is the obvious argument when the Left is confronted with a contrarian fact?

Leaving aside the notion of "fact," it is anything but "contrarian." It could scarcely be more conventional.

[TimG]

.in this case, the methodology is inherently sound, inherently unbiased, and is not a subjective evaluation by a human observer.

51% of science and engineering grads are women today. The is no way that would be true if the "system is biased" as claimed by this study. What I see is a study done by people that wanted to find bias and they watched teachers until they found something that they could claim was bias. They then developed a "methodology" that would allow them to observe their carefully cherry picked interactions while quietly ignoring interactions that such no bias or bias in the opposite way. Edited May 18, 2012 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

51% of science and engineering grads are women today. The is no way that would be true if the "system is biased" as claimed by this study. What I see is a study done by people that wanted to find bias and they watched teachers until they found something that they could claim was bias. They then developed a "methodology" that would allow them to observe their carefully cherry picked interactions while quietly ignoring interactions that such no bias or bias in the opposite way.

I'm only pointing out the uncontroversial truth that your formulation--"[t]here is simply no way to get an unbiased result from a study based on subjective evaluations by a human observer"--must apply to your own observation here. By definition.

[jbg]

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?

Does Clara Barton, founder of the Red Cross count?

[August1991]

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.

Zuckerberg was born in 1985. Women were a majority in business schools from about 2000 on. IOW, on the balance of probabilties, Zuckerberg should have been a woman.

Does Clara Barton, founder of the Red Cross count?

The Red Cross offers nothing new to society. It provides more or less the same basic care that others have offered for hundreds if not thousands of years. Morover, the Red Cross seeks voluntary (and involuntary) contributions from people.

Apple, and Microsoft, are different from the Red Cross. They innovated. In a way different from the Red Cross, Google has made the world a different/better place.

Edited May 19, 2012 by August1991

[kimmy]

So it seems to me that there are two separate questions in this thread, and I'm not sure that they're actually related. The first question is, how did people like Zuckerberg and Gates become billionaires in the first place? And the second question is, why aren't there more women in technical fields?

Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sergei Brin... people whose ideas made them billionaires.

Would J.K. Rowling belong on that list? She also became a billionaire based on her ideas. Unlike the others, her ideas were literary characters and stories, rather than technology. But aside from that, it seems to me that it's quite similar. The root of it is that none of these people are billionaires because of their technical expertise, they are billionaires because they connected with the mass market in a way that their competitors didn't. Why Facebook and not Myspace? Why Google and not Webcrawler or Lycos or Yahoo? Why MS Windows and not any of the supposedly superior competitors it has had at every stage of its life? Why Harry Potter and not some other teen hero? Why Twilight? How did Stephanie Meyer get hundreds of millions of dollars? If success was a reflection of technical skill, Stephanie Meyer would be broke. She's a terrible writer. Stephanie Meyer has hundreds of millions of dollars, while many much better writers toil in obscurity. Why? Stephanie Meyer had an idea that connected with some vast audience.

I think that's the real source of wealth, and I don't think it's the exclusive domain of men.

Why aren't there more women in technical and scientific fields? That's a good question. I've written about it before:

In school we had guests from an organisation that was dedicated to promoting science, engineering, and technology as fields for women. We met a female engineer one week. A female computer programmer another time. A female PhD candidate who was doing research on plant DNA or something.

It is really disheartening to think back and recall how my peers reacted after those sessions. "How LAME!" "What a nerd!" "LOL! As IF!" And most sadly, I was one of them, because peer pressure is pretty powerful.

If at some point I do return to university, it'll probably be in an engineering field, because I have become very interested in technology now. But if I'd gone into university right out of highschool, I probably wouldn't have even considered it.

My dad and my long-time special guy are engineers. They've both told me that they have never met any mediocre or below-average female engineers, because mediocre and below-average women don't go into engineering in the first place. The few women who do venture into these fields are likely exceptional individuals to start with. But they're a small percentage of the students in these programs at universities.

Women now outnumber men in universities, but the bulk of them remain in areas that have always had higher female participation. I don't know if there's a cultural reason for that or if it's biology.

I think that business and law used to be seen as male fields, but that changed at some point. Maybe the arrival of sexy lady lawyers on TV helped it along, who knows. But I bet that at some point, people were making arguments to explain male prevalence in business and law as biological too.

-k

[TimG]

But I bet that at some point, people were making arguments to explain male prevalence in business and law as biological too.

40 years ago there were plenty of real social and structural barriers that kept women out of all traditional male occupations. These barriers have been largely removed. At some point it becomes silly to hunt for excuses and look to the obvious answer: women, as a group, have different interests than men therefore there will always be some male dominated and some female dominated professions. These different interests will be partially cultural but biology most likely plays a role too. Edited May 19, 2012 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

These different interests will be partially cultural but biology most likely plays a role too.

Earlier:

There are more men at the higher end of the computer science ability distribution for biological reasons.

You're evolving! Well done.

[TimG]

You're evolving! Well done.

Whatever turns your crank. The fact that there more males at the top end of the computer science ability spectrum is the biological driver but motivated people can often overcome a biological disadvantage. The fact that women are not motivated to enter computer science is cultural in the sense that most woman do not see programming software as a 'fun' thing to do. This preference may be driven by biological factors too.

[bleeding heart]

Whatever turns your crank. The fact that there more males at the top end of the computer science ability spectrum is the biological driver but motivated people can often overcome a biological disadvantage. The fact that women are not motivated to enter computer science is cultural in the sense that most woman do not see programming software as a 'fun' thing to do. This preference may be driven by biological factors too.

I'm not sure you're wrong. But you've moved into almost agreeing with the people with whom you were previously arguing (except for the "cultural/institutional factors are everything" folks, an idea discredited by, among other notables, Noam Chomsky).

But it's not sheerly and only biology, as was your original claim.

[TimG]

But it's not sheerly and only biology, as was your original claim.

It never was my only claim but it was not relevant to the conversation I was having with someone who was arguing that "cultural/institutional factors are everything".

[bleeding heart]

It never was my only claim but it was not relevant to the conversation I was having with someone who was arguing that "cultural/institutional factors are everything".

Ok...well, I agree with you that they're not. There tends to be a mishmash of biological and social/institutional factors for most societal distinctions between men and women; I imagine they're connected, in fact, and in fairly complex (or at least deeply-felt) ways.

[RB]

It is really disheartening to think back and recall how my peers reacted after those sessions. "How LAME!" "What a nerd!" "LOL! As IF!" And most sadly, I was one of them, because peer pressure is pretty powerful.

/quote]

Kimmy

Not only we can dream but it is never too late return to school and continue what is never finished.

I can agree with you on this peer pressure on youths, our kid succumbed to peer pressure as soon as she entered into 1st year university. Friends become very important and a support system to rebel. She was seventeen at that time. Luckily, we recognised the symptoms and were able to intervene and meddle a bit and keep her on track. But, we are happy she is still in medical school with the good grades. I think we are like most parents hopeful for a good future for the off-spring, no expectation for them to make a difference.

Similar also to your story our neighbor's daughter went to work at a retail store from high school, never continued to college, and seem to lose her self-worth. We watched her grow up but she had a good solid path to choose. As parents you are always wanting the kids to do something better for themselves.

So, it is really sad about this negative types peer pressure that mostly affect the youths. If youths have to fight, rebel, engage in undesirable behaviours, it really sucks all the energy off of you then you are left with no time to recognise let alone capitalise on what is creative.

[RB]

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 am an adult and I have seen the first Mean Girls - it is a funny movie. It hits close to home for the teens. To let you know this is my 5th year doing research on youths ages 16-29 for my dissertation and advise to myself, stay very clear of teens and youths, over the years they have become very mean, they are unafraid, they are demanding, they are vicious and believe in their entitlements.

However, I do agree women in business do NOT promote other women. Well, only few do and the ones that do promote choose carefully. It is my experience that women feel you have to go though the hardship they did and prove yourself in order to make it to the top. It is no wonder women are not creative they have other priorities such as being too busy protecting themselves.

It is a difficult task to work and manage women ... look at the apprentice show.

[bleeding heart]

It is a difficult task to work and manage women ... look at the apprentice show.

Just because we use the term "reality tv" does not mean it isn't fictional. It largely is.

[GostHacked]

51% of science and engineering grads are women today. The is no way that would be true if the "system is biased" as claimed by this study. What I see is a study done by people that wanted to find bias and they watched teachers until they found something that they could claim was bias. They then developed a "methodology" that would allow them to observe their carefully cherry picked interactions while quietly ignoring interactions that such no bias or bias in the opposite way.

Now what is the percentage of those women finding a job in the field they studied for? I would not rely on grad statistics too much if they can't find placement in the workforce.

[RB]

Just because we use the term "reality tv" does not mean it isn't fictional. It largely is.

Try again - that is the true colors of women in business - and I am not mistaken.

[bleeding heart]

Try again - that is the true colors of women in business - and I am not mistaken.

I'm not talking about women in business, I'm talking about reality television programs...which are edited, and which, it would seem inevitably, characters are "written"--whether directly, or, more often I imagine, through the editing process. I strongly suspect that the people themselves rather naturally fall into the act of playing to character, which adds to the fictionalization.

You are not watching "reality," in the sense that this is the way people would behave anyway, were the cameras not present. (And that point evades another layer...the editing process, which I've mentioned already.)

Reality shows have (not always, but usually) villains and good guys; someone to root for and someone else to wish for their comeuppance...much like watching the soap-y dramas they have distinctly replaced, like "Melrose Place" and Dynasty." ("The Real Housewife Douchebags of Such-and-Such," anyone?)

"The Apprentice" is no different.

Hell, what do you think you're watching when the dramatic music cues up, for chrissake, and when there is a long and pregnant dramatic pause, until finally someone is chosen...or "fired,"....which has nothing to do with the business ostensibly at hand (or not much) and everything to do with the business of dramatic television fiction?

[Smallc]

Wow. These are some of the world's smartest people.

Not a lot of women.

Yeah, not a lot of women.

http://www.livedash.com/transcript/family_guy-(the_splendid_source)/4590/TOONP/Sunday_October_31_2010/490476/

[CPCFTW]

It's pretty simple.

What do people compete for? To find a suitable mate.

What do men need to find a suitable mate? Money/wealth (good looks help).

What do women need to find a suitable mate? Good looks (money/wealth helps).

Women are generally just as competitive as men, just they spend most of their young adult lives competing at being the most attractive, not the richest or most successful.

Whether you want to call that cultural or biological is up to you.