Support NeoGAF

[Epsilon-delta]

Mastering out is pretty much a badge of shame if you enrolled in a PhD program, mostly since the person that decided that a Master's degree is the right career choice and the person who didn't make the cut for a doctorate leave with the same piece of paper. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a debate for another thread, but people shouldn't put too much stock on the worth of his opinion due to credentials he does not have.

It depends.

I knew someone in my PhD program who left with a masters because life happened and he had to leave the program.

If you really look into it, the attrition rate for all PhD students is pretty high.

But in the case of this fired engineer, I think he was kicked out due to his skit creating controversy.

 

[Lesath]

Sort of true. The individual completed their coursework but failed to have their research published and defend their thesis. It is a black mark if you plan to stay in academia but industry does not really care outside of pay. He clearly lied in his LinkedIn profile.

From my limited experience in the programs I've observed, biology coursework at the PhD training level is more or less a boot camp to make sure that everyone meets some minimal level of background knowledge, with a couple of electives for the more cutting edge stuff. I suppose difficulty of the coursework varies from program to program, but from my experience it's nothing to be proud of for completing.

Either way, they don't nearly matter as much as the comprehensive/qualifying exams or the publications you'll need afterwards. At two years though, there are three possibilities: he decided it wasn't the right career path, he didn't pass his exams, or he got quietly kicked out for the aforementioned sexist skits.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I thought this piece was also interesting:

We're asking the wrong questions about the Google “anti-diversity memo”

Fantastic read, thank you.

 

[Rabid Dwarf 76]

Peterson explains the research behind most of the claims made in the memo in GREAT technical detail in the second half of this conversation. A really good listen for people who have no idea where these claims comes from.

I found it very fascinating as well. Totally recommend watching it.

 

[Kill3r7]

From my limited experience in the programs I've observed, biology coursework at the PhD training level is more or less a boot camp to make sure that everyone meets some minimal level of background knowledge, with a couple of electives for the more cutting edge stuff. I suppose difficulty of the coursework varies from program to program, but from my experience it's nothing to be proud of for completing.

Either way, they don't nearly matter as much as the comprehensive/qualifying exams or the publications you'll need afterwards. At two years though, there are three possibilities: he decided it wasn't the right career path, he didn't pass his exams, or he got quietly kicked out for the aforementioned sexist skits.

Agreed. There is also the possibility of a PI leaving to go to a different institution which means you either have to transfer with them, continue your research under another PI or start from scratch.

EDIT: It looks like he was a summer intern at google and started there immediately after getting his masters. Maybe he got an offer from google and jumped on it.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Peterson's discussion with Damore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

This was more or less an echo chamber, and the diversity section made that obvious.

 

[Bolivar687]

So what you're saying is that we should coddle those that think POC are inferior and try to nicely convince them that POC deserve to be treated humanely.

I don't think Sue has said anything remotely resembling that at all.

 

[I'm new be nice]

This was more or less an echo chamber, and the diversity section made that obvious.

Why do you say this? Can you elaborate?

 

[Palette Swap]

This was more or less an echo chamber, and the diversity section made that obvious.

There's a really good Silicon Valley scene at the end of season one where they draw what's going on in that video.

 

[I'm new be nice]

There's a really good Silicon Valley scene at the end of season one where they draw what's going on in that video.

What do you mean by this? What do you see or hear when you watch this discussion?

 

[cubicle47b]

What do you mean by this? What do you see or hear when you watch this discussion?

I think you know.

edit: I watched the Dr. Peterson interview and thought it was okay. It was amusing when he took back his apology for any influence on his decision to go ahead with the memo because James Damore and Bret Weinstein are exactly the people he wants to encourage. The one thing I'd point out is his reasoning for the left believing in the importance of diversity is faulty. They don't think diversity is important because of biological determinism, but because of differences in culture and lived experiences.

 

[fuzzyset]

It depends.

I knew someone in my PhD program who left with a masters because life happened and he had to leave the program.

If you really look into it, the attrition rate for all PhD students is pretty high.

But in the case of this fired engineer, I think he was kicked out due to his skit creating controversy.

In ECE (signal processsing / comms is my area), leaving with a masters is relatively common. Professors usually don't fund MS students, so applying as a PhD candidate is an easy way to get a free masters degree. The prof is usually fairly understanding, at least in my program, especially if they get a publication or two out of you before you leave.

 

[Nesotenso]

South Asia has a higher percentage of female graduates in the engineering field because engineering (along with medicine) is seen as a sure fire way to have a successful well paid career for both men and women.

A lot of graduates in India particularly get into engineering not because they like it or have an aptitude for it. It is because they have been told all their lives it is a worthwhile degree to have.

 

[I'm new be nice]

I think you know.

No I don't remember the end of that season. I just find Jordan Peterson well reasoned, I'd like to understand the dissenting opinion.

 

[cubicle47b]

No I don't remember the end of that season. I just find Jordan Peterson well reasoned, I'd like to understand the dissenting opinion.

He's talking about this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5jF5jtMM_4

 

[I'm new be nice]

He's talking about this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5jF5jtMM_4

Thanks for the link!

I love that scene. I don't think anything in that video resembled any kind of wankery though. Jordan Peterson is a pretty intellectually critical individual, I think he did a wonderful job describing the feeling I've had following this thread since its inception.

It's hard to find the time to cover the full spectrum of what this ex Googler said, so it's nice to have it condensed in that video, and if someone is critical of it I'd love to understand why and see if I can expand my spectrum of understanding.

 

[dohdough]

I don't think Sue has said anything remotely resembling that at all.

Explain it to me then

 

[LiK]

How did this guy not expect to get fired over this?

 

[Lesath]

Thanks for the link!

I love that scene. I don't think anything in that video resembled any kind of wankery though. Jordan Peterson is a pretty intellectually critical individual, I think he did a wonderful job describing the feeling I've had following this thread since its inception.

It's hard to find the time to cover the full spectrum of what this ex Googler said, so it's nice to have it condensed in that video, and if someone is critical of it I'd love to understand why and see if I can expand my spectrum of understanding.

51 minutes is hardly condensed. If you want to discuss it, mind doing some of us a favor and give us his arguments in a nutshell?

 

[cubicle47b]

It's hard to find the time to cover the full spectrum of what this ex Googler said, so it's nice to have it condensed in that video, and if someone is critical of it I'd love to understand why and see if I can expand my spectrum of understanding.

I haven't found any truly satisfactory articles so far, but these things take time, so here's hoping for the best.

 

[Rabid Dwarf 76]

51 minutes is hardly condensed. If you want to discuss it, mind doing some of us a favor and give us his arguments in a nutshell?

It would be better to just watch the video and see them in their entirety. Putting them in a nutshell wouldn't give an accurate representation of them.

 

[Kill3r7]

51 minutes is hardly condensed. If you want to discuss it, mind doing some of us a favor and give us his arguments in a nutshell?

According to Peterson, Damore got the science right for the most part. Google is a giant echo chamber. He then goes on to explain the science/articles mentioned in the memo. Peterson is a strong believer that there needs to be room for such discussions and a difference of opinion. I am greatly simplifying it but that is the gist of it.

 

[superbeau]

Thanks for the link!

I love that scene. I don't think anything in that video resembled any kind of wankery though. Jordan Peterson is a pretty intellectually critical individual, I think he did a wonderful job describing the feeling I've had following this thread since its inception.

It's hard to find the time to cover the full spectrum of what this ex Googler said, so it's nice to have it condensed in that video, and if someone is critical of it I'd love to understand why and see if I can expand my spectrum of understanding.

I'm at a hospital & cant watch. Would posting a few points you strongly agree with?

This is the study Peter mentioned:

Brain development doesn't end at birth. I have a linked post in this reply that discusses gendered brains.

Western countries have the strongest legal and cultural gender equality protections in the world. Accordingly, women in the West are freer to choose and work in the field they want than women in more traditional societies. With the breadth of choice afforded to women in the West, on average they choose fields other than computer science.

Switzerland, which tops the UN's Gender Development Index, had a 14% rate of female enrollment in undergraduate CS programs when this study was compiled.

Would you like to read my replies here
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=245695794
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=245750620

That drop in the eighties is stunning

 

[I'm new be nice]

51 minutes is hardly condensed. If you want to discuss it, mind doing some of us a favor and give us his arguments in a nutshell?

The things Damore discussed were grossly misrepresented, were described with words he did not use, are founded from the science derived from The Big Five Personality model, and were produced to promote a healthy discussion of our differences as individuals.

Those who thought he was being critical of diversity, literally speaking, are wrong, and they are wrong because they did not understand the material or read the material presented (the way it was intended to be presented).

 

[I'm new be nice]

It would be better to just watch the video and see them in their entirety. Putting them in a nutshell wouldn't give an accurate representation of them.

According to Peterson, Damore got the science right for the most part. Google is a giant echo chamber. He then goes on to explain the science/articles mentioned in the memo. Peterson is a strong believer that there needs to be room for such discussions and a difference of opinion. I am greatly simplifying it but that is the gist of it.

Yup, the material really requires reading, or in the case of the video watching!

People need to understand that the words people were using to describe the document were literally not in the document. The best course of action is to look at the material yourself, and decide for yourself what you think.

 

[Calabi]

This is really sad, its getting blown way out of proportion. It seems like its turning into a narrative where its the poor victimised hero, who's just trying to tell things like they are.

Its just really depressing, we know what will happen things will continue or they will get worse. Opinions will be hardened and more polarised, its so predictable. All because some people are so insecure.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Yup, the material really requires reading, or in the case of the video watching!

People need to understand that the words people were using to describe the document were literally not in the document. The best course of action is to look at the material yourself, and decide for yourself what you think.

The racist and sexist subtext is about as subtle as a chimpanzee with a chainsaw.

You're not fooling anyone.

 

[I'm new be nice]

The racist and sexist subtext is about as subtle as a chimpanzee with a chainsaw.

You're not fooling anyone.

Have you watched Jordan Peterson's interview with him? What was it you found racist and sexist?

 

[watershed]

Yup, the material really requires reading, or in the case of the video watching!

People need to understand that the words people were using to describe the document were literally not in the document. The best course of action is to look at the material yourself, and decide for yourself what you think.

Google's internal memo itself pointed out that it is fine to question Google's outreach programs and spending related to increasing the number of women and people of color working at Google. But the memo this guy wrote was full of logical fallacies and violated Google's Code of Conduct when he claims that women at Google are worse at their jobs than men at Google. He on one hand wrote that Google should judge individuals as individuals and at the same time made broad judgments about women and POC at Google instead of recognizing them as individuals.

 

[I'm new be nice]

he claims that women at Google are worse at their jobs than men at Google.

He didn't say this.

What he said was women have different personalities that might make them less interested in that kind of work, and if you know the big five personality model you'd see that the implication of that doesn't mean that the women who are there are any worse at the job.

What he was describing is the temperament of the statistics, and the likely-hood that you might see a women in that kind of job.

 

[TTOOLL]

Google's internal memo itself pointed out that it is fine to question Google's outreach programs and spending related to increasing the number of women and people of color working at Google. But the memo this guy wrote was full of logical fallacies and violated Google's Code of Conduct when he claims that women at Google are worse at their jobs than men at Google. He on one hand wrote that Google should judge individuals as individuals and at the same time made broad judgments about women and POC at Google instead of recognizing them as individuals.

Bold 1: As a lot of people have said here already and based on his interview with Jordan Peterson, they are not fallacies, they are backed by science. The guy didn't invent anything, he even talks and uses graphs to show the overlapping that occurs between men and women's preferences.


Bold 2: NO, HE DIDN'T.

 

[Abinash117]

Eh, maybe he's just a bad writer but that just seems like its in there as a save-fall. He seems to spend the rest the document arguing against that paragraph.

He also brings up how his reasons are based on biology which he doesn't cite and none of the Big Five tests he seems to get all his talking points ever attribute to biology. They always hypothesize its social development that brings these gendered differences about. Because unless the people being tested then had their brains dissected that's a big leap in logic. Now people do still believe men and women have different brains.

No malice the following quote, friend


However,
The genders physiology is like that of their emotional responses; on a spectrum. Basing policy on gendered biases is misguided at best when is impossible to predict how an individual will react to or handle any situation.

Google Guy also throws in that the gender biases are which like his biotruthbombs is uncited. Its also very not true. The majority of Big Five testing has been done in urban, developed, very literate, westernized cultures. When someone found a culture to test the hypothesis on unlike that:


Google Guy also says his points are Which, boy, kinda screams confirmation bias and is also uncited because his other citations simply speculate to this and most other gender studies don't include at all.

On conditioning, until about 8th grade boys and girls are near as makes no difference in school performance. After that, a gap begins with girls pulling ahead and never looking back. Girls get better grades, are more likely to enroll in math and science classes (including AP courses), and more likely to finish in the top 10% of their class after being more likely to take math and science courses all four years. 70% of valedictorians are girls. If colleges accepted applicants based solely on grades, every male race besides Asian would be nearly nonexistent. Women at a base level are much more likely than boys to attend and graduate from college and go on to graduate schools. And yet for some reason these super-qualified, highly math and science educated women often choose to not enter STEM fields and those that do are greeted by Google Guy and all the people who agree with him.



Citation 11 is... a little much.

I don't know much about studies, but one criticism I can point out is that some of studies have a tendency to only conduct them in western societies. Of course then if the study gets popularized it gets simplified by many media outlets and the average person, and the study is then applied to the rest of humanity despite being mostly conducted in western cultures.

 

[watershed]

He didn't say this.

What he said was women have different personalities that might make them less interested in that kind of work, and if you know the big five personality model you'd see that the implication of that doesn't mean that the women who are there are any worse at the job.

What he was describing is the temperament of the statistics, and the likely-hood that you might see a women in that kind of job.

He says that women are less interested in success at a workplace like Google and that their success is being artificially inflated by the expensive programs Google has put in place to facilitate their entry into Google and their success in the workplace.

Instead of thinking about what factors make the tech industry more "friendly" towards men and less towards women he argues in favor of biological factors. Maybe the industry and workplace culture of Big Tech should change. He argues against this, on biological grounds and on the grounds that it is too expensive and exclusionary towards people that aren't women or POC.

 

[I'm new be nice]

The big five personality model doesn't describe competence, it describes temperament. Two very different things.

It's all really interesting, and it can teach you a lot about yourself!

I personally keep a Google doc of my traits with me, I tend to be high in vulnerability and anxiety, and I've written down techniques I can use to superceded those temperaments.

 

[Sue]

So what you're saying is that we should coddle those that think POC are inferior and try to nicely convince them that POC deserve to be treated humanely.

Oh is that what I'm saying? I typed up so many words and none of them indicated that at all lol. Oh whale

 

[Lil'DigiOp]

At the end of the day... who wants to work with all men?

I mean fucking seriously, I don't want to work with all men.

I don't understand anyone who wants to argue that a workplace full of only one sex is a good thing. You'd be a moron to believe this

 

[I'm new be nice]

He says that women are less interested in success at a workplace like Google and that their success is being artificially inflated by the expensive programs Google has put in place to facilitate their entry into Google and their success in the workplace.

Women, on average, have different considerations than men. It's a point worth considering and discussing, going forward. I don't recall him ever speaking of the competence of his female employees.

 

[Devildoll]

At the end of the day... who wants to work with all men?

I mean fucking seriously, I don't want to work with all men.

I don't understand anyone who wants to argue that a workplace full of only one sex is a good thing. You'd be a moron to believe this

I haven't seen anyone claiming that, that would be a good thing, certainly not the person this thread is about.

 

[MrJoobJoob]

"He doesn't say ALL women are inferior to men at engineering. He just says that ON AVERAGE they are and puts a nice graph to show this fact. See? Not sexist"

 

[watershed]

Women, on average, have different considerations than men. It's a point worth considering and discussing, going forward. I don't recall him ever speaking of the competence of his female employees.

Yeah it should be discussed. For example, in elementary school girls perform as well as boys in science classes. But once they enter middle school, a gap begins to show and grow with boys performing better and girls performing worse. This trend continues into high school and naturally impacts their post-high school studies. One could look at this and say "women are less interested in science than men" or we could look at social factors, how science is taught, and how girls are literally taught and spoken to differently specifically when it comes to science education. This was a big issue a few years ago and there are studies showing this gap and others recommending classroom level changes to address this gap. It turns out the major factors are environmental, not biological or related to inherent gender differences. Not shockingly:

There was bad news from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on Tuesday, which found that 15-year-old girls around the world, outperform boys in science – except for in the United States, Britain and Canada.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/us-news-blog/2013/feb/05/girls-science-gender-gap-fix

 

[Sianos]

Re: Citing OCEAN as evidence for why women are less suited for computer science careers: Doing so is close to a non sequitur and undermines the author's own points.

I think people who were under the impression he made up all of his data are extrapolating that from the fact that of the little that is presented, very little is explained in a way that supports his ideas.

It's clear he knows about the five factor model of personality (OCEAN), but just saying "women are more agreeable, therefore they have a harder time leading" (wouldn't agreeableness make for a more effective leader? isn't agreeableness being a detriment to salary negotiation because of the social construction of how salaries are negotiated for?) and "women are more neurotic, therefore the stress of computer science turns them off" (but not off of the medical field, where they have 60% of biology degrees? and have to experience the horrifying routine of hospital life, working among the scent of decaying flesh as the sense of helplessness bubbles up within you like bile?) is not a compelling argument.

And the biological factors aren't even mentioned outside of testosterone. If you can't describe what the biological factors are, don't write a manifesto about them. It's bad form.

To top it all off, the irony with the amount of women receiving computer science degrees decreasing is that it correlates with programming becoming more accessible.

Excellent point, and just another example of how saying "but agreeableness" without context is meaningless.

Eh, maybe he's just a bad writer but that just seems like its in there as a save-fall. He seems to spend the rest the document arguing against that paragraph.

He also brings up how his reasons are based on biology which he doesn't cite and none of the Big Five tests he seems to get all his talking points ever attribute to biology. They always hypothesize its social development that brings these gendered differences about. Because unless the people being tested then had their brains dissected that's a big leap in logic. Now people do still believe men and women have different brains.

No malice the following quote, friend


However,
The genders physiology is like that of their emotional responses; on a spectrum. Basing policy on gendered biases is misguided at best when is impossible to predict how an individual will react to or handle any situation.

Google Guy also throws in that the gender biases are which like his biotruthbombs is uncited. Its also very not true. The majority of Big Five testing has been done in urban, developed, very literate, westernized cultures. When someone found a culture to test the hypothesis on unlike that:


Google Guy also says his points are Which, boy, kinda screams confirmation bias and is also uncited because his other citations simply speculate to this and most other gender studies don't include at all.

On conditioning, until about 8th grade boys and girls are near as makes no difference in school performance. After that, a gap begins with girls pulling ahead and never looking back. Girls get better grades, are more likely to enroll in math and science classes (including AP courses), and more likely to finish in the top 10% of their class after being more likely to take math and science courses all four years. 70% of valedictorians are girls. If colleges accepted applicants based solely on grades, every male race besides Asian would be nearly nonexistent. Women at a base level are much more likely than boys to attend and graduate from college and go on to graduate schools. And yet for some reason these super-qualified, highly math and science educated women often choose to not enter STEM fields and those that do are greeted by Google Guy and all the people who agree with him.

Citation 11 is... a little much.

It turns out that personality psychology is complicated and is not reducible down to simple sweeping statements, especially so when trying to make connections to a topic equally as complicated and fluid as gender and its expression.

And of course, this continues to fail to answer my question of how female biology radically changed in the span of a single generation in the 1980s. That's a pretty critical hurdle no one has cleared, considering prior to the 1980s it was women who invented software engineering.

 

[Laiza]

The notion that women are freer to choose their paths in life than they've ever been in the past is a cute notion to justify the flight of women from CS in a post-hoc fashion, but it'd be foolish to claim that it is some kind of inborn preference when society is still, to this very day, exceedingly hostile to women who go into fields that are viewed as masculine or male-dominated.

You need only look at Gamergate and the absolute bile that spewed out of the mouths of the misogynistic shitheels that participated to understand how deep (and violent) the bias can get. It's no surprise at all that we see a general aversion from many women to these fields when the men who occupy these positions so often balk at female coworkers or actively discourage them with sexist rhetoric (see the comments previously posted in this thread about the shit professors say to female students).

Only when we have actually removed any negative pressures from our educational system can we ever possibly claim that people have just settled into their "natural" preferences. Until then, any claims of such are specious at best and downright malicious at worst. Don't make that mistake.

 

[Devildoll]

"He doesn't say ALL women are inferior to men at engineering. He just says that ON AVERAGE they are and puts a nice graph to show this fact. See? Not sexist"

The graph in the document is an example of how a trait distribution can look when comparing two groups.
it shows major overlap between the two, and specifically advises against reducing individuals into their group identity.

read it if you have time, will you?

 

[tearsintherain]

Nice interview with the senior most female engineer at google on what the memo meant to her, I thought her giving a personal viewpoint - her daughter asking if there are fewer women in tech because of biology - was really humanizing the situation and why the memo would be offensive/disheartening to woman engineers:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ontroversial-memo-with-a-very-personal-essay/

On the flip side, from the Peterson interview he mentions that one of the impetus' for him doing this was attending a diversity summit and some of the things said there troubled him. I applaud Google having goals of increasing diversity and doing things to that end, but it shouldn't be secretive about it. I don't know if he mentions WHAT those things are, if they are illegal or not, and if they formed the basis of his complaint to the California labor department. I also didn't know this memo was published a month ago and only went viral last weekend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

 

[Sianos]

The graph in the document is an example of how a trait distribution can look when comparing two groups.
it shows major overlap between the two, and specifically advises against reducing individuals into their group identity.

read it if you have time, will you?

On why that image poorly supports the author's views and undermine the manifesto as a whole:

Well, there's one image linked in the twitter post itself.

I don't think minor differences in trait expression would explain why the percentage of computer science degrees awarded to women plummeted in 1984 while the percentage of biology degrees awarded to women continues to soar - the existence of organic chemistry as a class seems to suggest it isn't because women can't handle very difficult subjects.

But maybe reducing people to their group identity, or rather, the stereotypes that have been forcibly ascribed to that group identity, and assuming these stereotypes are representative is a more likely cause. This is something the author himself describes as "bad".

On how the rest of the manifesto ironically is representative of the latter half of the image:

I think people who were under the impression he made up all of his data are extrapolating that from the fact that of the little that is presented, very little is explained in a way that supports his ideas.

It's clear he knows about the five factor model of personality (OCEAN), but just saying "women are more agreeable, therefore they have a harder time leading" (wouldn't agreeableness make for a more effective leader? isn't agreeableness being a detriment to salary negotiation because of the social construction of how salaries are negotiated for?) and "women are more neurotic, therefore the stress of computer science turns them off" (but not off of the medical field, where they have 60% of biology degrees? and have to experience the horrifying routine of hospital life, working among the scent of decaying flesh as the sense of helplessness bubbles up within you like bile?) is not a compelling argument.

And the biological factors aren't even mentioned outside of testosterone. If you can't describe what the biological factors are, don't write a manifesto about them. It's bad form.

To top it all off, the irony with the amount of women receiving computer science degrees decreasing is that it correlates with programming becoming more accessible.

Excellent point, and just another example of how saying "but agreeableness" without context is meaningless.

Perhaps you should consider taking your own advice and read the thread.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

Wtf is happening in the above post?

Are you replying to yourself?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Wtf is happening in the above post?

Are you replying to yourself?

No they're showing the other poster that they've already addressed their concerns and instead of writing it again they're just quoting the relevant material they already wrote.

 

[I'm new be nice]

Yeah it should be discussed. For example, in elementary school girls perform as well as boys in science classes. But once they enter middle school, a gap begins to show and grow with boys performing better and girls performing worse. This trend continues into high school and naturally impacts their post-high school studies. One could look at this and say "women are less interested in science than men" or we could look at social factors, how science is taught, and how girls are literally taught and spoken to differently specifically when it comes to science education. This was a big issue a few years ago and there are studies showing this gap and others recommending classroom level changes to address this gap. It turns out the major factors are environmental, not biological or related to inherent gender differences.

Both need to be considered to have a fuller picture.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

No they're showing the other poster that they'already addressed their concerns and instead of writing it again they're just quoting the relevant material they already wrote.

Yea, I had too much coffee today lol.

 

[cubicle47b]

And of course, this continues to fail to answer my question of how female biology radically changed in the span of a single generation in the 1980s. That's a pretty critical hurdle no one has cleared, considering prior to the 1980s it was women who invented software engineering.

The number of computer programmers and even the number of people who had access to computers in the late '70's / early '80's was tiny. It's hard to draw much from the numbers back then, although it seems obvious from how the field was / is viewed that social factors mattered back then (it was viewed as secretarial work) and now (it's a male-dominated field). It would absolutely be a mistake to ignore the way girls are socialized and the impact of environment on women's interest in the field. And any ideas popping up that women aren't as capable in the field should be harshly rebuked. All that said, we might still end up with only 20-30% of the field being women because they're, on average, less interested, and that's okay.