No, the predominant view is that there is no evidence that women are genetically predisposed to be worse at programming (on average) than men.
The idea that women might be worse at programming for biological reasons is an entirely post-hoc hypothesis deriving from the current gender distribution in the field. As lots of other STEM fields have seen a sharp increase in the number of women over the past decades, while computer science and software engineering have not, the grounds for thinking that biological differences between men and women are relevant are extremely shaky, and really are nothing more than pseudoscientific rationalizations of the status quo.
Please lets not have any more of this absurd straw man argument that men and women must be equally good at programming because men and women are exactly the same. No-one thinks this.
I have no real knowledge on this, but what if women just don't, as a generalistic point of view, find programming as interesting? There are plenty of things I don't find that interesting, or enthralling enough to pursue a career in. Midwifery, primary-school teaching, gardening.
Now, I'm not sure if that's just society having pushed me in that direction, or if I, as a human, just don't enjoy those. If it's the former, maybe it needs some work. If it's the latter, does 'equal outcome' really work?
I don't see as big a push to equal out the playing fields in things such as janitorial work. This may be due to the fact that it's not as cognitive, which I understand. I think we need more women in tech to expand our (currently male) viewpoint. But I'm not sure that aggressively targetting people who may not be as interested, from either gender, is the way to do it.
>No, the predominant view is that there is no evidence that women are genetically predisposed to be worse at programming (on average) than men.
That might or might not be so -- they might even be better than men.
But note that programming is not just the act of programming. When we talk about "programming jobs" we also talk about specific management structures, deadlines, pressure, long hours, etc. which women might not care about, while men, idiotic as they are, might find "cool" or "macho". After all, men are the idiots that companies lure with free sodas and fussball tables -- I don't think many women would fall for that kind of crap.
"Please lets not have any more of this absurd straw man argument that men and women must be equally good at programming because men and women are exactly the same. No-one thinks this."
Sure, but you seem to be implying another straw man that women have to be functionally worse at some task for a difference in outcome to be genetic. People talk much more often about a difference in interest, which could very much be partially genetic.
Exactly the same considerations apply to differences in interest. Men and women don't have to have the same interests to find programming equally interesting, since there are a great many different respects in which someone might find programming interesting and rewarding.
"Men and women don't have to have the same interests to find programming equally interesting, since there are a great many different respects in which someone might find programming interesting and rewarding."
This just doesn't make any sense. Just because a hypothesis hasn't been proven doesn't mean that it isn't the case. People don't argue that, "Men and women are different in some respects therefor we presume that they won't have the same performance in this particular field." They argue that, "There is a marked difference in outcome in this particular field and that difference may have something to due with the differences between men and women."
You are trying to argue (it seems) that the difference in outcome in tech is due entirely or primarily to social factors. If that's the case, the burden of proof is on you to show that alternative hypotheses don't apply. If it's not the case, then we need to evaluate how we pursue quotas and other diversity initiatives.
For myself, I've seen arguments that a pretty convincing case (from statistics and known biological factors) for the "interest" hypothesis. It certainly applies to the men and women in my personal life. (I've never worked in the Valley.) It could, I suppose still be largely wrong, but that's not a-priori obvious.
>They argue that, "There is a marked difference in outcome in this particular field and that difference may have something to due with the differences between men and women."
That is not an argument. It's speculation.
>You are trying to argue (it seems) that the difference in outcome in tech is due entirely or primarily to social factors. If that's the case, the burden of proof is on you to show that alternative hypotheses don't apply
The burden of proof is on anyone who claims to know why there are fewer women than men in tech. It doesn't apply exclusively to people with one particular opinion on the matter, as you seem to think it does.
If you look at other fields, radical shifts in gender balance have occurred quite frequently over the past few decades. And women keep telling us about sexism in tech and how it dissuades them from participating in it. And there are far more women in equally geeky fields like, say, mathematics. So it's not really that hard to figure out what's going on.
>For myself, I've seen arguments that a pretty convincing case (from statistics and known biological factors) for the "interest" hypothesis
Then please reveal these arguments so that they can be evaluated.
So is the stance that there are fewer women primarily because of social factors. Regardless, when attempting to establish a statistical effect, you have to rule out alternative explanations, even those based on speculation.
"The burden of proof is on anyone who claims to know why there are fewer women than men in tech. It doesn't apply exclusively to people with one particular opinion on the matter, as you seem to think it does."
No, I do not think it does. The burden of proof is on anyone who advocates for one reason over another. I haven't actually argued for stance over another, only corrected your attempts to frame the debate a certain way.
"Then please reveal these arguments so that they can be evaluated."
The SSC post shared multiple times in this thread is one example and I don't see any attempts to rebut this on your part.
"If you look at other fields, radical shifts in gender balance have occurred quite frequently over the past few decades. And women keep telling us about sexism in tech and how it dissuades them from participating in it. And there are far more women in equally geeky fields like, say, mathematics. So it's not really that hard to figure out what's going on."
Sure 'women keep telling us about sexism in tech'. I've read some of those anecdotes. But there is and was also sexism in those other fields you mention. And there are anecdotes such as the one that this thread is on that suggest that sexism in tech can have the opposite effect. So your argument isn't any more clear cut than the reverse argument. It certainly depends on a lot of anecdotes and assumptions about the direction of causation.
I want to be clear here. My intent isn't to argue that there isn't sexism in tech, or that it isn't a problem. (Again, I don't work in the Valley and wouldn't know) My intent is to argue that there are potentially other factors at play and if you don't consider them in your policy decisions, you will have a hard time correcting the problem.
>So is the stance that there are fewer women primarily because of social factors.
No, it is not speculation. In my previous comment I mentioned a number of converging lines of evidence supporting this position.
>The SSC post shared multiple times in this thread is one example and I don't see any attempts to rebut this on your part.
Check the comments, and the reddit thread that he links to correcting his mistakes regarding Harvey Mudd. The argument is full of holes. Remember that SSC is just a blog, and it's written by someone who is not very well informed on these issues.
>Sure 'women keep telling us about sexism in tech'. I've read some of those anecdotes.
It's quite offensively dismissive to refer to multiple independent and credible reports of sexist behavior merely as "anecdotes". But I guess it's clear from this what your position really is, despite your claims to neutrality.
>And there are anecdotes such as the one that this thread is on that suggest that sexism in tech can have the opposite effect.
This isn't what the article actually says. The title is click-bait.
>My intent is to argue that there are potentially other factors at play
There are always "potentially" other factors at play. That is so weak a statement as to be meaningless.
Not all aspects might be important enough to have somebody consider it such a career. And most important might be just 1-2 aspects that men happen to care about more (or vise versa, but we don't see that).
The idea that women might be worse at programming for biological reasons is an entirely post-hoc hypothesis deriving from the current gender distribution in the field. As lots of other STEM fields have seen a sharp increase in the number of women over the past decades, while computer science and software engineering have not, the grounds for thinking that biological differences between men and women are relevant are extremely shaky, and really are nothing more than pseudoscientific rationalizations of the status quo.
Please lets not have any more of this absurd straw man argument that men and women must be equally good at programming because men and women are exactly the same. No-one thinks this.