It's well known that men generally are stagnating economically, while women are catching up. In many metro areas, single women out earn single men.
And so I came across this paper[0], which had some interesting research about that. And what struck me was this: there's an explicit assumption that men have worse socio-emotional skills than women, and that can be used to explain the gap.
By itself, I don't take any issue with it. It's true. But if you turned it around and explained the CS gap starting from the assumption that men are disproportionately represented among the upper levels of spatial and mathematical abstraction skills, there'd be an uproar. Petitions would be signed, scalps would be taken. I say that as someone who thinks much of those differences can be explained by childhood socialization.
And you're not even allowed to talk about it. I'm hesitant to post this comment, for fear someone might hunt me down and dox me to my employer. (Even now, I ponder if I should be making a throwaway account.)
In real life, I had been willing to have conversations about this because I find it an interesting and nuanced topic. But now both sides have taken to treating anyone who doesn't take a stance of complete agreement with their respective ideologies as the Enemy.
It's creating a class of people who know just to shut up and withdraw from any discussion about the topic, because there's clearly no good that can come from it, either socially or professionally. Even academics. And I genuinely don't get why anyone would want that.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-192...
"The Majority of Children Live With Two Parents, Census Bureau Reports"
Maybe I should have said "usual" not "normal" - being a single mother is a normal thing. But so is being a single dad. Claiming that women are somehow worse off because they spend more on childcare is completely bizarre.
>>Google that...
Or you could just tell me - I googled it and there's absolutely nothing that relates to women, several pages of results on google are just taking about filing my taxes with HMRC when I search for ping tax.
>>Most primary care givers are women. Women are hurt by that more.
And? What's the argument here? You were saying that women are paid less for the same work(something which you completely ignored in my reply) and that they have more expenses than men(I would say a subset of people who are raising children on their own have more expenses than people who don't. They don't have more expenses because they are women, they have more expenses because of the choices they made).
Is it? I'm pretty sure it was debunked time after time after time, with studies basically finding that women work fewer hours(by choice) and even when presented with an opportunity to advance to a higher, more stressful position, they decline more often than men do. Women tend not to take the well paying, but risky jobs that men take, skewing the proportions further. On the other hand, men account for nearly all workplace deaths in the civilized world - but it looks like they are rewarded for taking those risks.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy...
>> Family is not really a choice.
Having a choice whether to have or not have children is a generally accepted fact, at least in 1st world countries.
Also, Google even agrees with him: https://twitter.com/JamesADamore/status/958138574171287552
"Did I read this right? Susan Wojicicki said that women find “geeky male industries” (as opposed to “social industries”) “not very interesting” and Sundar cites research on gender differences."
Economically speaking, I suspect this is more to do with the superior position of women, as a class, in setting the standards of what an acceptable relationship looks like.
If husbands are willing to do heavy lifting, wives would be economically irrational to do their own heavy lifting. I'm pretty suspicious that the deal offered to a housewife comes with better quality of life outcomes than the deal offered to most engineers. I've always assumed it is linked to the relative excess of young men to the number of young women (something like 107:100 or close to [1]).
It makes sense to me that the group with most power in establishing a relationship would choose not to be an engineer if they could be, say, mind the house.
Was it really rife with fallacies? Lee Jussim (professor of social psychology at Rutgers University) wrote:
> The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right.
Geoffrey Miller (evolutionary psychology professor at University of New Mexico) wrote:
> For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate.
Debra W Soh (PhD in sexual neuroscience):
> Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.
http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...
It doesn't seem reasonable to characterize this memo as rife with fallacies or unsupported generalizations when multiple scientists are willing to go on the record saying the memo's science is generally correct. I have not seen similar in-depth rebuttals from other scientists claiming it's wrong. (If anyone knows of one I'd be glad to read it. I have seen brief quotes from scientists in articles written by reporters, but nothing with depth or analysis.)
EDIT: I wish I understood why I've been downvoted so that I could improve my comments in the future. Would anyone be willing to explain the downvote?
> Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at. http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...
More from her about Damore's memo and scientific research in this space:
> Despite how it's been portrayed, the memo was fair and factually accurate. Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour.
> As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men.
> We see evidence for this in girls with a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, who are exposed to unusually high levels of testosterone in the womb. When they are born, these girls prefer male-typical, wheeled toys, such as trucks, even if their parents offer more positive feedback when they play with female-typical toys, such as dolls. Similarly, men who are interested in female-typical activities were likely exposed to lower levels of testosterone.
> As well, new research from the field of genetics shows that testosterone alters the programming of neural stem cells, leading to sex differences in the brain even before it's finished developing in utero. This further suggests that our interests are influenced strongly by biology, as opposed to being learned or socially constructed.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manife...
EDIT: I wish I understood why I've been downvoted so that I could improve my comments in the future. Is the problem that it's too verbose? OK, I've tried to shorten it and replaced the links to three studies with a link to Deborah's article above.
It's just normal VAT, the issue is that many "necessary" products don't have VAT on them, but tampons or pads do, even though they are a biological necessity.
I would characterize programming as very far on the “Things” side of the axis that is “People vs Things”.
See: Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/47af/4a7e87267aba681fb69715...
The fundamental task of programming – sitting in front of a computer, reasoning about the machine and the system, and writing code and debugging systems for hours on end — is about as “thing”-oriented as I can conceive of. One needs to do a great deal of this to get a CS degree.
Another dimension to consider is Systematizing versus Empathizing (citations omitted). Programming seems to be far on the systematizing side.
As a thought experiment, what jobs might be further on the side of “things“ and “systematizing” than programming?
(I don’t know of any studies that characterize the programming in these dimensions. I’m providing my intuition.)
I’m not super familiar with the practice of law, but I would guess that it’s actually fairly close to the middle of both of those spectrums. The law itself is systematic but practicing it involves working with people at every level (client, counterparty, judge, regulator). It’s possible to write and deliver code, or root-cause and fix a bug report, without interacting with another soul.
I see the memo personally as more young-and-naive and I'm not one who thinks naivety is something that should get you fired, per se (though, much of his whines at the end were directed directly at Google being explicitly anti-conservative; rightly or wrongly, employees who noisily complain in public about their employer do often get dismissed). But he certainly wade into some touchy waters armed more with opinionated commentary sources versus hard science. There is a century's worth of troubling eugenics-oriented history on that "IQ and biological differences" quote that should inform one that this is not a remark to toss off lightly, and merely semi-support that with a link to a conservative think-tank link (that itself IMHO was pretty naive).
Chop the last bunch of the manifesto and it would be more interesting, but as it stands, the memo was not just "men and women are different" and how that applies to STEM careers. In the end, it was also a whine about how Google is Capital-L Left and "alienating conservatives" too.
A notable point advanced in the video is that there is a difference in the summary statistics (not the entire distributions) which indicate men prioritize status and family different from women (with men more likely to prioritize status at the expense of family, the opposite of women). Another notable difference (again in the summary statistics, not the entire distribution) is that men prefer careers that are thing-centered over people-centered.
I wish statistics were better understood by the general population.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality
Software developers have a $102,280 median salary. [1]
[0] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/mobile/registered-nurses....
[1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...
This is very misleading. Female post docs in the maths are below 30%, and computer science post docs are at about 20%:
https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/digest/fod-wome...
There is no really justification to think that the maths "are doing better" than other STEM fields. It's certainly not a double digit difference.
> Whatever is holding women's participation in our field at or below twenty percent is artificial, and a travesty.
That's pure conjecture. There is very little evidence that this is artificial, and a few good reasons to think it's not. For instance, female participation in STEM in more repressive countries like Iran is at 50%, because it's one of a small number of careers they can choose from.
Pretty much every country in which women have more opportunities to choose from a wider selection of careers shows the exact same gendered STEM trends. Do you really believe these prejudices holding back women from STEM are somehow universal in precisely the same ways across dozens of cultures? And furthermore, that the fields that were even more sexist and old-boys-club, like law and medicine, couldn't keep women out, but a bunch of nerds with keyboards are far too scary for women? That frankly stretches credulity.
A better theory that reasonably explains all of this data is the things-vs-people hypothesis:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...
Stereotype threat has been proposed as 1 potential explanation for the gender difference in standardized mathematics test performance among high-performing students. At present, it is not entirely clear how susceptibility to stereotype threat develops, as empirical evidence for stereotype threat effects across the school years is inconsistent. In a series of 3 studies, with a total sample of 931 students, we investigated stereotype threat effects during childhood and adolescence. Three activation methods were used, ranging from implicit to explicit. Across studies, we found no evidence that the mathematics performance of school-age girls was impacted by stereotype threat. In 2 of the studies, there were gender differences on the mathematics assessment regardless of whether stereotype threat was activated. Potential reasons for these findings are discussed, including the possibility that stereotype threat effects only occur in very specific circumstances or that they are in fact occurring all the time. We also address the possibility that the literature regarding stereotype threat in children is subject to publication bias.
Did you read a different paper, or do you disagree with the author's own abstract?
There's no evidence supporting the supposition that there is an innate ability gap. Social explanations are supported by the evidence and that's why people are trying to change the field to be more welcoming.
One of the key things to remember is that this isn't some fixed quantity – any argument for innate characteristics would have to explain why the rates started going down in the 1980s despite the field becoming increasingly popular and lucrative over the same decades and not seeing a similar trend in comparable fields such as math:
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
First, this is a straw man argument: I never argued for "innate ability gap". I argued for "innate affinity", which I understand as (quoting myself) "they do not like working in it".
Second, I never claimed there was evidence to support the correctness of "innate affinity" argument. I only claimed that it is a possibility, and OP should not have ignored it.
Third, there is no consistent evidence supporting "social explanations", and that's why people resist attempts to "change the field to be more welcoming" at the expense of hard-working, deserving white males.
> any argument for innate characteristics would have to explain why the rates started going down in the 1980s despite the field becoming increasingly popular
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...
To paraphrase Data O'Briain, "zombies are at an all-time low but the fear of zombies could be incredibly high, doesn't mean we should have government policies to deal with the fear of zombies": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zopCDSK69gs
If we're getting meta, I think that the first thing that should be discussed is: What are we optimizing for, and how do we measure it?
What does this mean? Do women talk more? Yes. Is it substantive? Women are more willing to talk about their feelings but they also can be quite indirect compared to a man.
Women also have a reputation of being more adversarial and catty: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/sunday/why-women-...
A related read that I found quite illuminating: http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05...
(I run in fairly left-leaning liberal circles and you know what I hear about? NOT actually being PC (whatever that is -- define it, I dare you) but people complaining about something being PC. This has been going on since the year 2000 so much that I'm pretty sure jokes about something being PC are PC, while actually being PC is not PC..)
The "people / things" role postulate is interesting, it may explain some of the differences. But I don't think it holds up in all cases (50% of chemist bachelor degrees are female (https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/membership/acs/welcom...) and chemistry really isn't a "people" oriented discipline IMHO).
In general culture, I do think some things get grouped into one sex or another based on pure marketing and image. The marketing style or image itself might play on certain characteristics of the sexes that are biological (for instance, men have more testosterone of course, so men will respond better to marketing and imagery that plays on testosterone oriented characteristics). But this might say nothing about the product itself.
For instance, I see nothing biological at all why in most Western societies, beer tends to be seen as a "masculine" drink and wine a "feminine" one. Rather, to me it seems to be pure marketing positioning at this time.
With CS, there may be some biological explanation which will produce a natural bias in the ratio. But there may also be a marketing / image / "role" component of CS that does depress the ratio as well. IMHO, the marketing / image part of this is always worth challenging.
And there is an ingrained stereotype with computer programmers: the popular image of someone into computers in Western media is, pretty much almost always, a socially awkward, non-athletic, nerdy male. (This stereotype honestly is actually honestly unfair to male programmers that aren't socially awkward or are athletic or aren't terribly nerdy.)
It would be interesting to examine the popular stereotypes and generalizations of programmers in other countries and see if sex ratios differ based on what the positioning is.
Congrats!
> extremely distressing to me.
Why?
> just imagine [..] appears to an aspiring programmer
Hmm...how do you think it should appear? You hint (strongly), but you don't really say.
> none of you are saying that ALL women are less capable than ALL men,
Yes. As in: not even a bit.
First, most of the talk is about preferences, not ability. Second, if anything it is about distributions that have large overlaps, with average ability being the same and with differences (in STEM), if anywhere, mostly in the width of the distribution (so males may have wider variance). Third, there is apparently one difference in ability, which then reflects itself in preference: women with high math scores tend to also have high verbal scores, whereas men with high math scores tend to only have high math scores, they are not good at the verbal bits. And statistically, people of either gender with high scores in both prefer going into non-STEM fields.
Fourth (going back to the second point): all of these are at most distributions. They say absolutely nothing about any individual. For example, I am a guy but despite the fact that I scored high in both math and verbal parts (and absolutely atrociously at the 3D mental rotation that supposedly explains a slight edge for guys in STEM), and was interested in (a) physics (b) english literature and linguistics (c) philosophy here I am as a programmer.
> but what I'm reading here is the subtext.
What is the subtext you're reading? Can you be specific?
What I see, text and subtext is an entire field defending itself from being smeared as sexist assholes with zero credible evidence of this being true and due almost entirely to choices other people make, choices that the people in this field have absolutely no influence over.
> [How will be perceived/respected etc.]
This will depend almost entirely on your individual circumstances, meaning most people will treat you with respect if you treat them with respect and behave respectably yourself. If you enter as a gender warrior, things might be different. Is this a 100% guarantee? Nope, nothing is. Assholes exist. In every industry.
If I told you the things that have happened to me in this industry, you probably wouldn't believe me, and if I claimed this happened to a woman, it would be seen as surefire proof of the systemic sexism in the industry. Except it happened to a guy, so whatever. And if shit happens to you, you probably want to assume it is because there are shitty people, not because of your gender.
A 2008 survey[1] by the ACM that actually interviewed both men and women didn't find significant differences in most parameters of job satisfaction, and in fact women reported slightly higher support by their superior than men did.
[1] https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-...
> Before 1970, women took between 10% and 15% of computer science bachelor’s degrees. By the early 1980s, the number rose to 37%. However, the trend began to reverse in 1985. In 2013, 18% of bachelor’s degrees in computing were earned by women. Part of this decline is due to the fact that computer science became a male-identified field. But during the 1990s, hiring practices also began to favor men, according to the AAUW study, and “the creation of professional organizations, networks, and hierarchies” that supported the entry of men into the field helped pushed women out. In fact, as the study notes, once employed in the field, women are more likely to leave than men. They tend to suffer from isolation.
http://fortune.com/2015/03/26/report-the-number-of-women-ent...
The article I linked also discusses similar trends in mathematics, ie. ~50% of math bachelors are also for women. Of course, what you can do with a bachelors in math is become a teacher, which is why the number of women doing grad and post doc math work falls to roughly similar levels as computer science.
There is no comparable horizontal skill transfer for a computer science degree into teaching, so there's less enticement from the beginning, and so less engagement. No doubt some women actually continue with math post docs because they actually find it more interesting than expected, and they change their minds about using the math degree for something else.
As for chem, besides teaching-oriented goals as with math, a lot of chem is closely related to life sciences, pharmacology and other disciplines which typically do show high enrollment among women.
The things-vs-people effect seems quite strong. I agree that it may not account for all of the differences, and this would need to be quantified to be sure, but it does seem to account for the many of them. Certainly much better than the oppression hypothesis, so why is the latter still the prevailing narrative?
> IMHO, the marketing / image part of this is always worth challenging.
Agreed. I think this should apply to all fields, like male nursing, pro dancing and flight attendants, whose stereotypes are typically highly feminized.
But we shouldn't then be up in arms if people still openly and naturally choose to segregate by gender, as seems to be the trend across all nations with high gender equality.
Becoming a Nurse Practitioner requires, at a minimum, a Bachelor of Science in Nursing, followed by licensure as an RN, followed by a Master's in a NP specialty, followed by certification as an NP. Practically, it requires more because most NP programs require practice as an RN in the specialty for at least 1-2 years prior to admission. Its a very small, elite subset of nursing.
Further, Glassdoor estimates are something like a real-time estimate of what the current values of a nonrepresentative measure would be; they really should be marked "for entertainment use only". Per BLS data, the median salary of the 1,930 NPs in the Chicago-Naperville-Arlington Heights Metropolitan Division is $101,930, about on par with the far more numerous software developers (Software Developers, Applications: 20,570 jobs, $99,430 median salary; Software Developers, Systems Software, 9,930 jobs $103,620.) [0] The Glassdoor numbers you give are way high for NPs and way low for devs.
Contrary to your suggestion of massive geographical distortion in median salary due to concentration of tech jobs in high-cost locations, this elite level of nursing is paid generally similar to software developers nationally, as well. (Nurse Practitioners, 150,230 jobs, $104,610 median salary; Software Developers, Applications, 794,000 jobs, $104,300 median salary; Software Developers, System Software, 409,820 jobs, $110,590 median salary.) [1] (Yes, these national numbers are a little different than those from the Occupational Outlook Handbook, also from BLS, that I posted upthread: the OOH is a high-level publication updated more recently, which also uses slightly different categorizations; so here I've used the national data that corresponds directly to the geographic specific data.)
edit: nvm, I misread. You lump MechE (and I'd guess EE) with CS, and I think are pointing out they're in the 15-20% range as opposed to the other engineering disciplines mostly around 30%. I incorrectly thought you were saying the other fields were around 50%.
Gender corresponds to the societal and cultural difference between the sexes, as opposed to the biological, and is socially constructed [4]. Gender is part of what changes how we act and think, both as normal psychological and behavioral processes, and in more inherent ways as determined by some studies [3]. It commonly is assigned based on sex, but in many cases, some people innately feel that their gender is different than the one assigned to them.
In biological terms, sex may be determined by a number of factors present at birth, including the number and type of sex chromosomes, the type of gonads (ovaries or testicles), the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia. People whose characteristics are not either all typically male or all typically female at birth are intersex. [1]
There are many different conditions in which a person's sex organs may not match up with levels of hormones in their body, primary or secondary sex characteristics[2], or someone's internalized gender identity. It's important to note that these are not deformities, but simply conditions that different people are born with. Doctors around the world have for centuries actually been surgically intervening and modifying the sex organs of babies to fit the surgeon's or parents' expectations, which is now considered a human rights violation and widely condemned by the international community [5].
So some people are born with one set of chromosomes, and/or one set of genitalia that may not be typical, yet exhibit some or all of the other characteristics and thoughts of someone with a different set. Their gender may not correspond to their sex, or sex organs.
Hence, it is better to refer to gender differences than sex differences when talking about the roles of people in society. Unless we're specifically talking about making babies, and even then it's not totally simple.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virilization [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation_in_huma... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_assignment#Controversy
But I also think it's a fair question why gender differences are such a huge focus right now, as compared to say class problems (MOST Americans don't have $500 in savings [1]), or environmental problems (Men's sperm counts have gone down by half in the last 30 years [2]).
Obviously these aren't mutually exclusive, but there is a case to be made that the amount of energy/money going into this problem isn't proportional to its severity.
1. http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings... 2. https://www.npr.org/2017/07/31/539517210/sperm-counts-plumme...
It simply means that they are more socially aware. If you allow the metaphor, I would say that they are more likely to "play the game" and "play it well" at that.
Social skills have very little relationship to "emotional intelligence", so I have no clue why you would bring up the point that women are more willing to talk about their feelings.
You are comparing extraversion and agreeableness. While both are statistically higher in women, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Here, have some science: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/
Right, it wouldn't bother me so much if the academics pushing the "oppression" narrative were a little more honest about how non-robust the evidence is. Instead, it's often just conveyed as fact, which just blows my mind. No wonder there's so much manufactured outrage on college campuses these days.
Like when the Damore memo came out, and academics on both sides lined up to agree and disagree with Damore's points, which often just devolved into attacking straw men. I was thoroughly unimpressed with the quality of the arguments I read and how uncharitable people were with the people disagreeing with them.
Edit: Like, there are literal studies [1] demonstrating how much better a theory things-vs-people are in explaining the STEM gender divide, but the narrative seems immune to facts and better theories.
[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0018...
Your account also looks like it's tending to use HN primarily for ideology and politics. We don't allow that, because it's destructive of the intellectual curiosity that HN is supposed to be for. I've posted about this a lot, if anyone wants to understand how we apply that rule: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
I think equal power means just that (see [1] for definitions of power), and as to what actions would bring that about, that's a matter of debate among progressives. But the main question is whether you want to bring it about with all the social change that entails; conservatives generally don't (they find the status quo satisfactory, and some even want to roll the clock back). My main issue is not with conservatives who admit their conservativeness, but with those who've convinced themselves that their conservative and (sometimes extremely so) values aren't conservative but neutral. If you don't think social action of any kind should be taken to change the current power distribution in society (and let alone if you want to roll back changes already made), then you're advocating for conservative policy. Wanting to do nothing is conservative by definition, and it means that your values are such that you find the status quo preferable over a change in the distribution of power.
> It's also likely that due to unfair distribution of personality traits among the population that a fair distribution of power is unlikely in practice unless enforced on society.
No, because we're talking about statistical distribution, not an equality among all individuals.
> I also think women and men have different values and priorities in life, in part due to women's fertility declining sooner than men's. It's hard to have a high-status job and it's extremely hard to care for young children while doing a high-status job.
That is a largely irrelevant question (or a secondary one [2]). The question is whether you want to change society so that women and men have equal power (statistically).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
[2]: That's because we can ask why that's so. No biological basis for that has been proven and even if biological factors play a significant roles, we constantly use technology to overcome biological limitations to achieve desirable goals. For example, biology is certainly a 100% complete explanation for humans' inability to fly, but because we've deemed flight desirable, we overcame that limitation with technology. I always find it amusing how people who normally see technology as a solution to many problems and are reluctant to admit defeat use the slightest hint for small biological effects as a satisfactory explanation that some change cannot or should not be achieved.
We do have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assista...
Lets say I have a preference for MMs over Skittles - a 2:1 preference. How often will I eat each? Probably in that ratio over a lifetime, because I'll eat snacks lots of times.
Now lets say I have a 60:40 preference for Driving a car as a career over being a shop assistant. What is the chance that the I will be a driver? Given I can only choose one, in a less than ideal world, it will be influenced by lots of things beyond my personal preference, opportunity most of all. But in an ideal world, the chance I am a driver starts to approach 100%, because why would I choose the 40% option, when I have a better one?
Free societies enable lots of choice, and tiny differences, 60:40 or even 55:45, will start to skew towards 100:0 over time. This is likely to play out right to the bottom, where people with fewer options are still likely to choose based on preference, hence garbage collectors and manual labourers vs shop assistants / PAs.
The consequence of tiny differences in preference and the small instances per person are likely to lead to some radical results.
>in general men are much more capable then women in STEM and I asked for a theory supporting that claim in my original comment
Short, inexact, unnuanced version: The same thing that causes a 4M:1F ratio in autism diagnosis causes the similar gender skew in CS/Engineering.
First, I am going to narrow STEM to CS/Engineering which has a worse gender skew than the other parts of STEM. To massively over simplify assume we can plot all possible jobs/careers on two axis of ideas vs people. This is how much you get to work with ideas and how much you get to work with people. You could have low ideas high people (kindergarten teacher), low ideas low people (watching for forest fires), high ideas high people (college professor), high ideas low people (engineering). All the different jobs are spread around this plot. Lets simplify and assume a Person picks the job that best matches there Preference.ideas and Preference.people. Once they pick a job they get Income based on their Ability.
We now have a loose correlation in the population where Person.Preference affects count(XJob()) and Person.Ability affects avg(Job().Income) (and simplifications/assumptions abound).
Now, assuming 1) CS/Engineering is a job that requires high (90%) Person.Preference.ideas and a low (20%) Person.Preference.people. Also, lets assume that 2) std(randM().Preference.ideas) > std(randF().Preference.ideas) and std(randM().Preference.people) < std(randF().Preference.people) (std == standard deviation). These two things in combination could cause us to see more Males than Females in CS/Engineering because standard deviation has large effects at the tails of the population.
Now, is there an basis for assumptions 1 and 2? I am going to say that you agree with 1 as how CS/Engineering currently is. The 2nd is a little bit hard to prove, in fact I don't have hard proof. I have evidence that makes me think it is the case. If you request, I can try and find sources for my claims.
1) Baby boys like to play with trucks/balls, baby girls like to play with dolls. Objection: That is cultural conditioning and not sexually determined. Response: Baby monkeys have shown the same gendered preferences.
2) When looking at college application, males apply for CS/Engineering at rates much higher than females. Objection: Culture preprograms this into people. Response: If this was only cultural preprogramming, it should have went away as it when away in Law, Medicine, and Finance.
3) Autism affects males over females 4:1. One explanation of this is the Extreme Male Brain theory of autism [0]. From that portion of wiki "Baron-Cohen's research on relatives of people with Asperger syndrome and autism found that their fathers and grandfathers are twice as likely to be engineers as the general population." Also, "Another similar finding by Baron-Cohen in California has been referred to as the Silicon Valley phenomenon, where a large portion of the population works in technical fields, and he says autism prevalence rates are ten times higher than the average of the US population. These data suggest that genetics and the environment play a role in autism prevalence, and children with technically minded parents are therefore more likely to be diagnosed with autism."
My laymen's take on the above, the same thing that makes males more likely to have autism make them more likely to be engineers. Objection: Haven't heard yet.
So in summary, since CS/Engineering is an outlier on the ideas/people axis and males are more likely to match that outlier we see more males in CS/Engineering.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin...
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clarence-thomas-and-...