I pretty much agree with everything in the article. I like math, physics, engineering, and computer science but they're all such asocial fields that the thought of devoting my life to one of them kind of creeps me out. Knowing (somewhat) how women's minds work it doesn't surprise me at all that they'd shun these fields as a professional pursuit. I wish the author had included more hard information though on these comments "Now any engineering, physics, math or computer-technology program that moves too slowly toward gender parity is inviting a government investigation and loss of funding. The nation's leading programs are under pressure to adopt gender quotas and to rein in their competitive, hard-driven, meritocratic culture-"
It reminds me of the joke "What's the difference between a physicist and a mathematician?"
Answer: The physicist looks at your shoes when he's talking, the mathematician looks at his own shoes.
Quote:No. You can't. The axioms of set theory do not allow a set to be a member of itself.
Yes, but we were talking about the time when Russel stated his paradox. There weren't current axioms in that time and thats why word 'paradox' is used. And this paradox started aspiration of building set of axioms, that no paradoxes would arise. Thats why I used word 'theoretically' earlier.
Quote:This makes no sense. The axiom of choice has nothing to do with Russell's Paradox.
Perhaps you are right. I remember too few about set theory, so maybe I was confused a bit.
I think there are many aspects here FoG and probably this is why nobody commented so far.
First of all, what do you mean by devotion; i.e. how many hours on a daily schedule ? How do you perceive this and what jobs do you have in mind ? I think the bottom line is what makes you / everyone happy, and this is pretty much the end of the story for our choices in our lives. There is not much to discuss here.
On the other hand, I never understood the 'asocial' tag that follows sciences / maths / cs / engineering. I honestly don't get it. You can have lots of fun discussing about these things (specific problems, solutions, and routes to solutions) and I believe we also have fun in this thread. * One version of continuing the thoughts here is that to some extent you also fullfil an inherent need of "discovering" new stuff (some sort of "truth") in a way that in the end people can object to these discoveries only if they start objecting about the very axioms that define the different fields. And usually this leads to hilarious arguments. A question here is, up to what extent is this need for "truth" inherent in women, even on a daily basis ? * The other line of continuing the above thoughts, is that the 'asocial' tag, in the end, really points to sex. But the requirements women have for sex, are in most cases minimal; reading a book every now and then, a little bit of arts, being updated with the news (i.e. live on this planet), and watching a show or two on tv (and of course having an opinion about all these). On the other hand, if you don't want to talk about short-term 'relationships', then, for long-term relationships subjects to discuss pop-up naturally on a daily basis because we simply live our lives. So, how on earth is that 'asocial' tag there ?
In the past, clearly there were discriminations against women, which was bad (whatever 'bad' is supposed to mean). However, in this era, it is more or less quite the contrary. One of the comments in the article is
Quote:I am so SICK of hearing women, minorities and religious nuts complain. I am a white middle aged male. I would LOVE to be treated as well as minorities!! Please Mr. Obama, give me 2 billion US taxpayers money( ie.Somalia). Get over it all you idiots that feel persecuted! Tags: women, idiots, Taxpayers, religious, white male, persecuted, minorities
And this is not just 'a' remark. Women s suffrage has succeeded in most parts of this world; on the other hand, in precisely those places I think a 'measure' was lost as years went by and women were striving for equality. In the end this leads to a discussion about 'equal rights' and 'equal opportunities'. In the working environment I understand women having more rights and conveniences than men since they are the ones who become mothers, or priority in seats in public transportation, and similar obvious stuff (again about mothers). But essentially, this is it. Is there something else to discuss ?
- Are women still trying to define their version of 'equality' ?
- Do programs like ADVANCE, WISE (Women in Science and Engineering), or whatever, really help their 'goal' of equality ?
- Should I also mention the discriminations in sports, even in chess ? Different categories for women everywhere.
Yeah, ... equality ...
To me, that article was more like a plea to 'policy-makers' (of both genders) to take a step back and try to be rational about the whole story of women in sciences and engineering. I think we just live in a transitional phase while we are struggling to find the right equilibrium for defining 'equality' between the two genders. Future will tell I guess. Besides, it is good not to be equal in everything and differentiate. This makes things interesting.
And to finish with a funny note, let's see a picture ____________
The empty set
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
posted March 27, 2010 12:22 AM
What I mean by "asocial" is that by and large a professional pursuit consists of people sitting by themselves and moving ideas around in their head. I don't mean "antisocial" by the way. "Antisocial" has a more negative connotation that brings to mind hating society and peeing on statues.
I'll frame it this way: All humans are born with a predilection to be around humans and to interact with them. This characteristic is stronger in some people than it is in others. Women tend to be on the "stronger" side. You can see this just from the type of books, movies, video games etc... they gravitate towards. Their culture centers around people and their relationships. You can also see this professionally. For example women will typically gravitate towards the service part of the restaurant while men will gravitate towards the kitchen. Clerks, telemarketers, nurses, real estate salespeople, teachers etc... These are all social professions that are dominated by women.
I personally tend to lean towards the "stronger" side. Occasionally I've done computer programming for long stretches of time and at the end I found myself depressed and asking myself "What was the point?". That's my internal mental machinery pulling me away from self-isolating activities. It happens whenever I dabble in math or physics for longer than a couple of hours. I excell at all those fields however if I was to do science as an occupation I'm pretty sure I would end up in something like genetics or microbiology, not because I'm better at it but because I would be dealing with creatures instead.
I remember reading that in college for those specific fields (M,P,E,CS) women burn out at a much higher rate then men. This totally makes sense. You get somebody who likes physics or math and did well at it in high school (a few hours a day) and then you put them in a situation where they do it for the entire day and they find that it's not as fulfilling as they thought it would be. It happened to me too when I tried to go for an engineering degree. Even though college itself was socially enriching I found it extremely unnerving to be alone with my thoughts for hours on end.
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
posted March 27, 2010 08:13 AM
Well I think it's pretty well established that when you look among physicists, mathematicians and engineers, you'll find an overrepresentation of people with Asberger's Syndrome and like light social disorders, which basically is in line with what you describe.
____________
What will happen now?
Asperger's may be overrepresented, but they are such a small minority to start with that they are insignificant. Overall, I think there is probably an above average number of "nerds" and socially awkward types in engineering, but they are still a minority.
I grew up surrounded by engineers, along with a smaller number of scientists and other technical types. I started working in engineering in 1979 myself. Since 1982 I've done consulting and worked in a lot of different companies. I've done a lot of other stuff during that time and probably less than half of it was in engineering. During all that time and all those companies, I never met a woman engineer until 2001. So there aren't many out there. Although without really having a good reason for thinking this, my guess is that the larger companies have a higher percentage of women than the smaller ones where I typically work.
Anyway, to more directly address the question, I don't see what the big deal is. The opportunity is there and if women want to go into those fields they can, if not then they don't. I don't see any reason why a program is needed to increase the number of women. If there are less women in the sciences then so what? (I suspect there are a LOT more in research science than in engineering, with more in civil engineering than in electrical)
I've never bought into all the stuff about "equality" between men and women. They aren't equal, simple as that. The opportunity is there for men or women either one to enter sciences and engineering. If men more commonly enter those fields then so what? As long as they are given the choice, why do some people consider it some kind of social injustice because women choose not to do it?
What FOG says about burning out is interesting, but is there really anything to that? Hmmm, maybe. I don't know if there's a difference between men and women, but what I do is definitely a discipline that requires keeping the mind alert and highly concentrated for hours at a time. It's very mentally exhausting and stressful. I'm barely able to handle it myself, and I turn down contracts with heavy overtime and/or durations over 3-4 months. (if I could do heavy overtime I'd be filthy rich by now)
But hey, I also worked as a framer/carpenter for many years, and VERY few women would even be physically capable of doing that. At least that one is easy to explain.
I don't understand the argument of people sitting by themselves and moving ideas around their head; in two different ways:
(i) In the same article, it is mentioned, that women more than hold their own share in other disciplines, like sociology and biology. Do you believe that these people don't spend time on their own thinking about stuff related to their work ? This is certainly not true.
(ii) But probably this is not what you want to say. It is more like implying that in sciences and engineering people kind of socialize less when they work. But it really depends on how you view things here. It is not true that people in S/M/CS/E are kind of locked in a cellar trying to do stuff, invent new machines, discover something new, and this is their world. This is kind of science fiction. They exchange ideas with their colleagues probably daily, and this motivates their current and future work. Under that perspective, what else do people in e.g. english literature do more ? What about arts ? I don't see anything more. The only thing that I kind of see is more people being 'right' while they might have different opinion / perspective / interpretation about the same things / objects / phrases / etc. This is certainly not true in S/B/M/CS/E (or if it is, it is only temporarily, when one of the two sides concedes to the other sooner or later; e.g. a miscalculation, or something). Of course at certain points people in S/M/B/CS/E want peace of mind, be alone, and try to do the work that they really care/like. But isn't this true for others too ? Doesn't a painter want peace of mind in order to do his work ? What about people in literature ? Don't they want time on their own to write down clearly their thoughts or ideas ? I believe that this is the sort of comparison that we are trying to make.
Moreover, with years and experience, all these guys don't spend much time moving ideas around their head, or if you prefer, they do it less frequently. And the reason is obvious; with years and experience, they understand things easier, solve them easier, or others simply request from them to 'review' solutions and their names also show up. You can think of examples that in the past might have puzzled you, but now when you look at them or some variation of them, you know instantly the solution, or an approach to the solution, before you even write it down. Plus, as the years go by, they tend to have more bureaucratic work to do, more responsibilities, days become more hectic, and in the end this really leaves very little time (if any) to work on problems on a daily basis.
Of course, I agree with the other parameter that women tend to want company so that they have 'peace of mind' in a bigger proportion compared to men. But I don't see how e.g. women prefering not to go to a bar alone, or go and watch a movie alone has something to do with not being in sciences / engineering. As of the question, "what's the point (in programming something for one's interests) ?", well ... this is more or less a "to be, or not to be ?" question.
Now, working as a programmer can be intriguing in the beginning, but very soon this becomes a job like the rest of them (at least for the vast majority who work in companies). You have to do more or less the same stuff every day and rarely innovate. It is just a job like the rest. Same is true for clerks, nurses, teachers, and others. It is more or less the same story every day, or every month, or every year. And if you want to bring the argument of 'socialization' here again, then my question is (assuming that for S/M/B/CS/E above you talk about people in academia), why don't you apply the same thing to them too ? After all they interact (at least) with many students or in other institutions (these are probably the lucky guys) with many colleagues daily.
There was also another thing on what you described, regarding how much students like what they find in college. My opinion is that if the education system doesn't provide the students problems that might require lots of time to be solved (e.g. 2 hours, 2 days, or a week) before they finish high-school (and actually when the students attempt to solve these problems they should fail occasionally), then the system needs major revision. Simple as that. It is not the student's fault. The system crappy. It only promotes confusion. Let's see another comment from that article which incidentally gives insight here too:
Quote:Her article brings to mind a family story. My daughter is in college. Her boyfriend is a top science talent, having been one of the International Science Fair winners while in high school. He was passed over for the school's best engineering scholarship in favor of a dramatically less accomplished but gender favored female who, promptly after freshman year, dropped out of engineering to become a psychology major. As a student in good standing, she retains the scholarship that was intended for someone with a serious commitment to engineering while he struggles to stay in engineering by taking on debt to meet the cost of each semester.
There are many cases like this, where people change disciplines.
Finally, the comment about people with Asperger's syndrome initially seemed off-topic, the way it is written, because you really want to address some 'fuzziness' in the state of mind of all those guys and kind of laugh with them. But the initial discussion is about the proportion of men vs women in M/S/CS/E. As Binabik said, I also believe, that these guys are just a minority (in fact a very small one, if this is even true); this is certainly not a characteristic for the entire class. So, I don't get it.
However, searching online for the proportion of men vs women with Asperger syndrome, I ended up here, where in the end, under paragraph Sex, they write
Quote:The estimated male-to-female ratio is approximately 4:1.
I hardly believe that this was the point of bringing Asperger syndrome into play though ... Moreover, while searching for the above ratio, I also bumped into this page, which incidentally, within a paragraph tries to explain why we have that gap between men and women in S/M/CS/E:
Quote:Men’s greater systemizing and mechanistic skills are the primary reasons why they are better than women at mathematics, physics, and engineering, because all of these fields deal with various rational “systems” governed by rules. Women’s greater empathizing and mentalistic skills are the primary reasons why they are better at languages and why they are better judges of character. Women also dominate primatology, which, like mothering of infants, requires understanding and reading the minds of individuals with whom they cannot communicate by language.
As I said, I just bumped into them, skimmed the text, and thought I should share.
____________
The empty set
I probably overplayed the word "asocial" in terms of 'not having contact with other people'. I should have made more clear my idea that each of those fields is intrinsically asocial because they deal with math and objects. There's definitely a spectrum, with math being at the far end. Physics would be next, where it only has a few areas that intersect humans, such as astrophysics and human consciousness. Engineering is mostly objects and tolerances and resistances etc... but any time you're designing something for user-friendliness you're engaging the social aspect of your brain. Same thing can be said of computer programming. If you're designing a user interface or dealing with certain video game elements you're using the 'animist' social part of your mind. To me that's fun. But the idea of going deep into machine language to make some type of engine makes me leary.
Iris a good example of this whole discussion. She got an engineering degree but last I heard she was in line to become a type of team manager. She'd be dealing less with the nuts and bolts and more with organizing other people, which is something that I could see myself doing if I had managed to complete my engineering degree.
Here's a recent article about a Russian mathematican which kind of confirms what I've been talking about.
Quote:Disillusioned with the world around him, he effectively withdrew from society about five years ago, taking a monk-like vow of silence. Eventually, he stopped answering emails. It was not always thus.
Dimis:
Quote: Doesn't a painter want peace of mind in order to do his work ? What about people in literature ? Don't they want time on their own to write down clearly their thoughts or ideas ? I believe that this is the sort of comparison that we are trying to make.
Continuing in my efforts to redefine 'asocial' I would say that these are all highly social activities. Literature especially revolves around people scheming against each other, people exploring mysteries and new things, people's evolving nature, etc... Painting is similar though I would say less so. If you're painting landscapes you're engaging the viewer's attention with the prospect of "What if I was there?" Anytime you put a face in a picture or play around with the concept of what a face was, such as Picasso did, you are engaging the social aspect of the mind. You're correct though that both the artist and the writer sit for long stretches of time moving thoughts around in their head. It's the nature of the thoughts that make it different.
Dimis:
Quote:My opinion is that if the education system doesn't provide the students problems that might require lots of time to be solved (e.g. 2 hours, 2 days, or a week) before they finish high-school (and actually when the students attempt to solve these problems they should fail occasionally), then the system needs major revision.
The main idea that most educational facilities aspire to nowadays is to provide a 'well-rounded' education. On the whole I'd agree with that aspiration. I would totally approve of the idea though for the summer months (typically 2 months) to be taken up in focused projects such as you're talking about, if only so that students could get a taste of what their projected career path could be like.
That last quote of yours was kind of strange in that it appears to support my thesis but I find myself disagreeing with it.
Quote:Men’s greater systemizing and mechanistic skills are the primary reasons why they are better than women at mathematics, physics, and engineering, because all of these fields deal with various rational “systems” governed by rules.
errr...
No I think it has everything to do with spatial skills and nothing to do with systemizing skills, or the ambiguous phrase "mechanistic skills". This is kind of straying from the topic though because it's referring to the idea that men are better at these fields, not why women are disinclined to pursue them professionally.
First of all, I think that you really underestimate all the people working in M/B/S/CS/E. And it is even hard to start from somewhere and give some order in the arguments.
I can talk about a few things though. Regarding the link about about Perelman, it doesn't support anything; for many reasons. You can not place *anyone* from the other end of the spectrum against him; you have nothing to compare. You can take Perelman's proof and go all the way down to 0 + 1 = 1 (or something similar). In the other end of the spectrum, there is nothing strict; everything is fuzzy and can be manipulated. Everyone can be "right" simply because we have freedom of speech. This can not compare to Perelman's proof (or *any* proof in Maths/CS). Take him (or any proof in Maths/CS) 'all the way down'. In the end, if you want to play against the proof (unless there is a mistake), you really have to face the axioms, and as I said in my first post, this will end up in hilarious arguments (this is a provocation; try it, otherwise you will never know). This is precisely what I meant. Moreover, Perelman can not be a regular guy in any case. He is an outlier; he is not a characteristic sample of the class. He solved a problem that was 'open' for many decades. Is there something like that in the other end of the spectrum ? Precisely zero. Everyone can fantasize about anything and give a "solution" to their 'problem'. I can comment on the quote that you have on Perelman; but later.
And speaking of 'spectrum' give me a good word that characterizes the entire 'spectrum' that we are talking about. This will certainly give insight and guide the discussion. Or try to define the spectrum with a sentence or two.
Before I comment on the justification that writers are more 'social' when they write a book on their own, I have a question: Would you say that gambling is a social event ?
Quote:The main idea that most educational facilities aspire to nowadays is to provide a 'well-rounded' education. On the whole I'd agree with that aspiration.
You make it sound as if I don't agree, which is certainly not true. What I am saying is, *speed-up* the process throughout a period of 12 years. The idea of having a summer session with more advanced problems is interesting too (but for one summer at most; summers should belong to children). In any case I can not 'buy' the current system with phenomena like that one in the earlier quote. There is something fundamentally wrong if you earn a scholarship to study engineering and you end up having a major in psychology. I hope you accept at least that. But in any case, this is irrelevant with the topic, so, let's just leave it on the side.
Quote:That last quote of yours was kind of strange in that it appears to support my thesis but I find myself disagreeing with it.
Quote:Men’s greater systemizing and mechanistic skills are the primary reasons why they are better than women at mathematics, physics, and engineering, because all of these fields deal with various rational “systems” governed by rules.
This supports my thesis too; however, I find myself agreeing with it.
As of the spatial skills, I guess you are only thinking about shapes (or orientation where women typically have no hope), which is usually not what it is all about. You really have a 'system' of rules (not only axioms) which you should respect throughout the process. From the moment that you define something (i.e. give a definition about a concept), then you are sort of a 'hostage' of that definition. Also, it kind of makes sense, that if you feel good at something, you are going to pursuit that something. So, although it seems a weak argument for the topic, we don't have anything better at the moment. Or do we ?
____________
The empty set
Quote:Before I comment on the justification that writers are more 'social' when they write a book on their own, I have a question: Would you say that gambling is a social event ?
Poker is a highly social form of gambling because you're constantly engaged in trying to guess what the other players are up to. Another game with a high social aspect is if you're a card counter in blackjack and trying to hide your counting skills. Most casino games, having fixed odds, are not. Just being in a casino though is a highly social activity compared to playing over the internet (though I'm willing to bet that many internet sites are set up so that you can chat with other people.) So you have a spectrum from playing poker in a casino to sitting at home playing pretty much any game where the odds are fixed.
It would be useful to clarify some meanings before we continue. I'm going to define spatial skills as this: Being able to visualize three dimensional structures and mentally manipulate them. Generally speaking girls are either bad or terrible at this. I've encountered this in my personal experience and I've seen various scientific studies that confirm this.
Here's the definition of 'systemizing' and 'mechanistic' from the paper you quoted.
Quote:The male brain is characterized by systemizing tendencies (to use Baron-Cohens term) and mechanistic thinking (to use Crespi and Badcocks term). "Systemizing" is the drive to analyze, explore, and construct a system. The systemizer intuitively figures out how things work, or extracts the underlying rules that govern the behavior of a system. The purpose of this is to understand and predict the system, or to invent a new one.
Note that in the second sentence the author uses the word "drive" In this sentence what's being discussed is a natural inclination, not a natural facility. The sentence after that somewhat contradicts it when it says "intuitively figures out how things work, or extracts the underlying rules that govern the behavior of a system." This is talking about natural facility, not drive. So already the thesis is kind of confusing.
I think its perfectly natural to say that men prefer analyzing, exploring, and constructing inanimate systems but I highly object to the idea that men can more intuitively figure out how things work, or extract the underlying rules that govern the behavior of a system. If this was true I believe it would show up in a lot more fields than just the ones that we're discussing. The author mentions primatology for example, why would the phrase "extract the underlying rules that govern the behavior of a system" not apply to that field? Biology is all about "extracting the underlying rules" yet women supercede men in that field.
Moreover if this assertion was true it suggests that men would be naturally more organized at whatever they do, which is patently false. What is true is that "analyzing, exploring, and constructing systems" could be equally applied to all the mental processes associated with social calculations, of which women are more inclined.
Unlike the spatial skill disparity I've never seen any gender disparity for an intrinsic skill in figuring out how things work or extracting the underlying rules that govern the behavior of a system. Nor have I ever seen any scientific studies that would confirm this.
I'm going to interject a personal story here. In my high school there were more girls in the top grade mathematics class. Not only that, they consistantly had slightly better grades than the guys. This changed when we got to geometry -the girls were clueless. After geometry when we got into calculus things went back to normal with the girls getting slightly better grades. The same thing was basically true in physics, where the girls had rough grade parity except for the semester spent on mechanics. The situation was very different for the extra-curricular activities however. There were only a few girls in physics club and no girls at all in the math club. Everything I've seen after I got out of high school has been in line with this experience, which is that when sufficiently motivated (getting a nice scorecard to show to colleges) they show an equivalent ability for non-spatial math,physics,computer programming etc... Generally speaking though these fields are not something that they enjoy doing as either a hobby or a profession. I believe the reason for this is because of what I've been talking about, that each of these fields engages the non-social aspect of the brain, the part that deals with in-animate objects.
this article, entitled "Few Gender Differences in Math Abilities, Worldwide Study Finds" confirms my personal experience.
Quote:representing 493,495 students ages 14-16 from 69 countries......focuses on basic math knowledge, while the PISA test assesses students' ability to use their math skills in the real world......Despite overall similarities in math skills, boys felt significantly more confident in their abilities than girls did and were more motivated to do well.
here's an article by the Boston Globe that fully explains my own viewpoint. I don't have any problem subscribing to this theory because it's in line with my personal experiences.
Quote:Another study followed 5,000 mathematically gifted students and found that qualified women are significantly more likely to avoid physics and the other "hard" sciences in favor of work in medicine and biosciences......
Rosenbloom's study found, men and women who enjoyed the explicit manipulation of tools or machines were more likely to choose IT careers - and it was mostly men who scored high in this area. Meanwhile, people who enjoyed working with others were less likely to choose IT careers. Women, on average, were more likely to score high in this arena.
Starting more than 30 years ago, the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth began following nearly 2,000 mathematically gifted adolescents, boys and girls, tracking their education and careers in ensuing decades....
Math-precocious men were much more likely to go into engineering or physical sciences than women. Math-precocious women, by contrast, were more likely to go into careers in medicine, biological sciences, humanities, and social sciences. Both sexes scored high on the math SAT, and the data showed the women weren't discouraged from certain career paths.
(btw I've seen arguments that this 'avoidance' is due to long inculcated cultural factors but I don't believe that simply because it doesn't jibe with the sum total of my personal experience)
I'm going to create a hypothetical scenario where the cultural factors and the "inclination factor", which is my thesis, don't come into play. Let's say the Alpha Centaurians try to invade our solar system. They have much more advanced technology than we do and if we don't catch up we're all going to be annihilated (The purpose of the invasion is to create a need for self-preservation which would completely overrule the inclination to pursue personal fulfillment). Meanwhile our president is a woman who used to be a mathematician, a computer programmer, a physicist, and an engineer. She's gotten a nobel prize plus a prize in every other field she's been in (Her entire purpose in my scenario is to minimize cultural factors). So she says in her State of the Union address "We need every brain cell in the nation working to advance our technology."
So what we have left is the "spatial factor" working against women. Here's what I believe would happen. Computer programming and mathematics would be the first fields to achieve complete parity in terms of the gender ratio. (This is in complete disagreement with your's and the article's thesis that women are impaired at fields that deal with systems governed by rules.) It's tough to say what would happen in physics because I'm not really sure how much of high level physics nowadays relies on spatial skills. I don't think it's too much so I think the physics field would be skewed but not greatly. From what I know of electrical engineering I don't think it would be terribly skewed either. Mechanical engineering, structural engineering, etc... would be the most lopsided because in this case the spatial factor would be working most heavily against women.
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
posted March 31, 2010 05:41 PM
Well, gambling has inspired many people to work in probability theory. If you look up for example "french mathematicians" (around 17th-18th century) combined with "gambling" or "gamblers" it will return many results. Some important phrases are "gambler's ruin" and "martingales" in the texts. What I am saying here, is that I can use the arguments that you use about being "social" for writers for all those guys. If you want, you can also pick a subject and I can try to give you social events where the subject that you chose is applied. Hence, I can use that social event as a motivation in a similar way that you use it for writers, painters, or others and counter the arguments about a fuzzy description of the "social part of the brain".
I will come back to your earlier example; be a chef or a waitress. Well, if I have to choose (assuming more or less equal salaries, which is may be unrealistic), I pick the kitchen, but not because I am asocial as you think. I do so, because the kitchen has a "challenge" and requires creativity. I have to be good in every dish that I prepare and leave no customer complain. I don't see much of a challenge or creativity by being a waitress, taking orders, and serving food. In fact it would kill me because of boredom; I am serious. You can not really blame the waitress if you don't like the food that they serve you; can you ? That sort of challenge, appears everywhere where you see more men than women (even jobs that require physical strength have an inherent "challenge" but let's forget them anyway). Women on the other hand do not really like a "challenge". They want "peace". So, all those things like art, literature, are more or less "natural" for women since the criticism on their work can not be absolute. This is not true in sciences/engineering. Even on primatology where you refer to, women may be more than men, but if you look on the top figures of the fields (according to Wikipedia the three main disciplines are biology, anthropology, and psychology; I am not sure about the exact translation, that's why I mention this), the people who have actually shaped these fields by being pioneers, you will find way more men, which is in contrast with what you suggest and clearly with the proportion of men and women in the fields. It still fits (for me at least) with the idea of a "challenge".
As of girls being better than boys in maths; I don't know what to say. I have never ever met a girl being better than me in what we are supposed to do in sciences/engineering. And I mean not even one. I have met boys though. As of the (first) article that you give where girls are as good as boys at math, it is not even signed by somebody. It is adapted from materials provided by APA, blah-blah (look in the end). It is not the real story; the article where they refer to; so already, it may contain many logical jumps and it may be written subjectively. That's one thing. The other thing is that I tend not to believe much in psychologists; for many reasons, one of them is that they want to give you quantitative estimates in the end in order to convince you and in principle they do not know math. Another reason is logical jumps in their arguments by addressing 'human intuition'. Well, sorry, but human intuition on average sucks. So, simply because many people find something intuitive "just because it is intuitive", does not mean anything to me.
As of the "inclination factor" that you refer to in the end, we are in aggreement (yes!); because the way you state it, it is very general. However, my primary inclination factor does not rely on being 'social/asocial'. For me, it is more a way of thinking in terms of 'challenges' and taking responsibility of your actions (both of which are against women's nature). If you look around you and drop nature, everything that remains is there because of scientists and engineers; not because of day-dreamers and "philosophers". Regarding what I wrote above about Perelman, you didn't comment and I am afraid you are making other logical jumps on interpreting what I write. The comments that I have are not there because this guy became my hero or some other non-sense explanation. I don't really care about the conjecture, neither on how he spends his days. However, I recognize that he did something good. And this is because any advance in sciences has no turning back (no-one can object to his "proof"; not even gods). And we are talking about a million dollar baby/problem. As of prefering to work in isolation, that one has an easy explanation too; and to be brief: "work without distraction". It is not that these guys are 'asocial' and prefer to work in isolation. This is a more efficient way of accomplishing their goals. You can try to be social by exchanging ideas, but there are certain points, where you discuss problems, and you see that the others follow paths that you used to follow days, months, or years earlier and do not lead anywhere. They are just holding you back. And in the end, life is too short FoG to spend it on non-sense (which is precisely the feeling when others have 'bad' ideas/approaches on problems). So, after the fact that he solved a million dollar question, you want to judge this guy (and essentially laugh) because he wants to spend his life in a particular way (may be not conventional) ? Well, keep me out of this; thank you. Everyone tries to be happy. I will not criticize his path to happiness. I am sure that I can not even understand the proof that he wrote.
Of course, we can agree to disagree, but this doesn't lead anywhere. This is like playing "hide and seek". This is why I asked you to try to define the so-called "spectrum". And here I think I win the argument already. If you do define it, I will find a 'hole' in the definition and then you will want to twist the definition again (i.e. hide and seek; more or less what we do so far); if you don't define it, then you can not crystallize your opinion. Try it and prove me I am wrong on this one. In other words, I asked you about this definition, in order to make you realize how it is to work in sciences. You will become a 'hostage' of that intuition that you use about a "spectrum". You will have to comply with the definition once you give the definition. You will have to respect some rules in the arguments and not make logical jumps because you want an easier path to explanations. Give it a shot.
____________
The empty set
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted March 31, 2010 05:56 PM
This thread is the perfect example of one that deserves some QP attention. Where are the moderators? Hmmm.
In any case, FOG I think you overgeneralize scientists as being "asocial" (as you put it). Certainly, the field of science has its share of introverts. I am, indeed, one of them. However, being successful in the modern scientific landscape is as much about marketing and managerial skills as it is about being good at the actual science. I could write pages on the subject, but suffice it to say that by and large, the successful scientists are the ones who know how to hire and manage underlings and how to sell their lab's products to high profile print journals and business investors. Success in these endeavors demands good networking skills and socials skills. In the modern day, with a few notable exceptions, you won't succeed in science if you're asocial. Which is a neverending source of irritation for those of us who don't like interacting with people, I assure you. ____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
Asocial is defined by it's antonym, social. I'd define social as the sum total of all the biochemical processes in the brain that lead an organism to seek out other like organisms and to try to acquire their desires within the context of a social group. These biochemical processes are intrinsically stimulating and thus desireable. A good way to think of them would be as "cravings"
INTERACTING
Social animals have an instinct to want to interact with other like organisms. You can see this most obviously by the multi-billion dollar pet industry. A pet's sole function is to satisfy the human craving for interaction with other like organisms. Generally speaking the closer a creature is to humans on the evolutionary tree the more it will satiate these cravings - cats and dogs topping the list because they most closely mirror human emotions.
You can also see this any time you encounter a "Do not feed the animals" sign. What the sign is really saying is "Please suppress your desire to interact with the critters, it's harming them more than it's helping them."
I've mentioned animals but it obviously includes humans: Social clubs, internet forums, sports taverns, etc... (notice that I'm not including sexual motivations such as can be found at dance clubs.)
GOSSIP
who's sleeping with who? Who's fighting who, and who is on who's side? Who's being ostracized because of bad behaviour? The slew of magazines next to every grocery store checkout testify to human's craving for gossip. Typically this type of craving is associated with women but the recent Tiger Woods scandal shows that men can eat it up too. Biographies are chock full a' gossip, and do I even need to mention daytime TV? You can say what you want about whether human's craving for gossip is good or bad but from an evolutionary viewpoint it's all perfectly justified.
MENTAL MODELING OF OTHER PEOPLES MINDS
Part of the human mind is devoted to trying to figure out what is going on in other people's minds. It's called mental modeling, and to humans it's highly stimulating. Anytime a person creates a sales presentation they're fully engaged in mental modeling. Scheming, influence building, and politicking are all activities that require huge amounts of mental modeling. Likewise you can find this in any sport, game, or contest that involves strategy.
My thesis: On average these cravings are more substantial in women than they are in men and it is due to these heavier cravings that women will gravitate towards disciplines that feature them more.
So now we begin to examine the spectrum of sciences, as I said we can begin with math.
Mathemathics: If there's anything intrinsically social about math I don't know what it is.
Physics:In physics there is one branch that is relevant to the social part of the brain, and that is astrophysics, or more specifically the part of astrophysics that deals with the question "Is there anybody else out there?". Questions such as:
-How does the evolution of galaxies affect heavy metal distribution?
-How does solar system evolution affect the likelihood of the creation of earthlike planets?
-How does a gas giants' radiation fields affect its moons?
-How does galaxy collision affect star generation?
etc...
Each one of those questions at least partly engages the part of the brain that leads an organism to instinctively seek out other like organisms and interact with them. In the overall scope of physics however these topics are comparitively minor, which is why I place it next to pure mathematics.
Geology: Geology is similar to physics in that it is intrinsically asocial however there are several areas that are related to human's biological and historical evolution (lots of faction making going on there)
Engineering and Computer Science: In both of these disciplines the job is to create something that will be useful to humans. Thus there will always be a user interface that inspires questions such as
-Do I keep it simple or do I dare add complexity?
-How do I design it such that it can easily be maintained by the boneheads likely to be hired for the job?
-What exactly does the user want from the design?
In all of those cases you're trying to model the mind of an unknown person who might be using your creation. In most cases the work is pretty far removed from the user interface but in some cases, such as if you were creating a submarine, these questions would play a large part in the designs.
Botany: This is an interesting question. Botany certainly qualifies as a job that requires interaction but there's no mental modeling such as there is with Biology. My first guess without doing any kind of research is that botany would lean towards the male gender, perhaps 62/38.
Chemistry: There is a huge spectrum here between the asocial aspects and the social aspects. If you're trying to create a new type of primer for undersea cables that would be close to a zero on the social scale. If you're trying to isolate a gene for schizophrenia that would be a good example of an endeavour at the other end of the spectrum. The science of chemistry/biochemistry/genetics might actually serve as a good test case for my thesis. You could take 100 chemistry students of comparable mathematic ability and give them complete freedom to choose what projects they wanted to work on.
Architecture: This resembles an engineering discipline however the social aspect is far higher because every aspect of a building has to account for the humans who will be living or working there. Designing a building requires extensive mental modeling of the buyers, the regulators, the users, etc... Architecture's heavy spatial facets however would make it skew heavily towards the males, thus it's place in my social spectrum is not representative of my thesis.
Biology: This discipline intrinsically requires interacting with creatures and in this regard it is heavily social. Also, the more complex the animal being studied the more you will engage the part of the brain involved in mental modeling. At it's apex, primatology, you're actively engaging all aspects of the social mind, the interacting quality, the mental modeling quality, and the gossiping quality.
Sociology:
Not only does sociology fully engage the "gossip" aspects of the mind but also the "mental modeling". Since the field also requires dealing with people it heavily stimulates the "interaction" portion of the mind as well.
Psychology: Here we come to the polar opposite of mathematics. There is nothing in psychology that doesn't deal with mental modeling, gossip, or interaction.
And as we've seen in studies I linked in the previous posts, women tend to shun the disciplines in the far end of the spectrum in favor of disciplines in the near end of the spectrum.
Quote:For me, it is more a way of thinking in terms of 'challenges' and taking responsibility of your actions (both of which are against women's nature)
errr...I don't know how to respond to that. I've met plenty of brainy chicks that like to challenge themself so that statement doesn't resonate with me.
Quote:Even on primatology where you refer to, women may be more than men, but if you look on the top figures of the fields (according to Wikipedia the three main disciplines are biology, anthropology, and psychology; I am not sure about the exact translation, that's why I mention this), the people who have actually shaped these fields by being pioneers, you will find way more men, which is in contrast with what you suggest and clearly with the proportion of men and women in the fields. It still fits (for me at least) with the idea of a "challenge".
I have to respond to this. Before the middle of the twentieth century there was a broad and stiflingly heavy cultural pressure against women becoming scientists. Sometimes it was outright discrimination, sometimes it was a family's refusal to support scientific aspirations, mostly though it was the idea drilled into females since the time they were born that being a scientist wasn't feminine, wasn't lady-like, and wasn't attractive to men. It was an all encompassing insinuation that if they became a scientist they would never be able to find a mate, never achieve social respect, never achieve financial security, and never have kids. Powerful stuff indeed. Since almost all modern scientific disciplines were founded during this era it's not a surprise that all the pioneers were male.
In the last two generations though there has been a cultural change. Nothing represents this better than the case with primatologists. The first four primatologists that come to my mind are Louis Leakey, Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, and the chick that made friends with the orangutans...(googling) Birut Galdikas. No wonder I couldn't remember her name...
The latter three were all protoge's of Louis Leakey and they all made a name for themselves by hugely expanding the world's knowledge about chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans respectively. If the idea of going into the jungle and try to embed yourself in a tribe of apes isn't challenging then I don't know what is.
Quote:What I am saying here, is that I can use the arguments that you use about being "social" for writers for all those guys.
The reason I say creating a novel is a highly social activity is because the novelists first job is to make a plausible plot and that requires constant mental modeling. At every step you have to place yourself in the character's mind and ask "would they really do this?". Then you have to step back and ask "Will the reader continue to believe the story if the character does this?" Also, in many cases a novel reflects the real-world experiences of the author. In this way it engages the part of the mind that is stimulated by gossip.
Quote:Well, if I have to choose (assuming more or less equal salaries, which is may be unrealistic), I pick the kitchen, but not because I am asocial as you think. I do so, because the kitchen has a "challenge"...
Well turn this around and view it from the other angle. A professional waiter could point to the hundreds of little details that go into creating a successful dining experience such as:
-being familiar with everything on the menu so that they are prepared for customer's questions,
-getting the timing precisely right such that you aren't pushing the customers but yet you're still turning tables over as quickly as possible.
-pushing booze and dessert in the most effective way
-making sure the presentation is perfect (glasses, dishes, linens, etc...)
-effectively communicating between the customers and the kitchen
and finally, anybody who thinks that there's no challenge in being a waiter hasn't had the experience of a waiter trying to charm a fat tip out of them.
Quote:
and requires creativity.
This one requires a different paragraph, because here you are assuming that you have creative control over the menu, meaning that you are either the owner or the co-owner. This creativity has a counterpart in the front of the house too. The task there is to decide the decor and atmosphere of the restaurant. What are the linens, silverware, and glassware going to look like? What colors and styles are going to be used on the walls? High end or low end drinks? How are the furnishings and wall decorations going to contribute to the overall feel of the place? What kind of music are you going to have piped in? All of these creative decisions are in service to the overall goal of what type of clientele you want to attract and what type of mood you want to evoke.
So you see the fact that you could conceive of the challenges and creativity in the back of the house but not the front of my house kind of confirms my thesis that people follow what stimulates them.
Anyway, I get the sense that you're taking this personally, as if it's a kind of insult to call somebody asocial. It's not really, I've never seen asocial as being less than social. In fact I once got into an opposite situation. One of my roomies was a very gregarious person and I made a comment that he needed to be around people. He kind of took umbrage at that, perhaps because he thought needing something made him weaker somehow. I guess at the core of it people don't like being pigeonholed. If there was a woman reading this I'm sure she would be aghast at all the pigeonholing going on
Anyway, you can respond to this if you want but I think I've said just about everything I can possibly say on this topic.
@Corribus: Thanks for the QP nod. I certainly won't dispute anything you said, however at the risk of extending a discussion that's already exhausted me I'd have to ask you...
nah..nevermind
*flops on floor*
I didn't have time to come to this earlier (actually because of "social" reasons), but anyway. Moreover, I will try to keep it short.
It's hard to figure out what you are trying to say in the first three paragraphs.
-- Interacting: What are you trying to say with social clubs, internet forums, sports taverns, etc ? Clearly men are not much less in those places. My impression is that it is the other way around actually.
-- Gossip: From an evolutionary viewpoint is justified what exactly ?
-- Mental Modeling: Probably I don't understand what you are saying, but in any case women are owned (this is a fact) in sports, games, and contests that involve strategy. I can not see how all these can work as arguments for your case.
From what I read later on, you try to give a description about sciences and other fields, and essentially in the end justify with these descriptions some "mental modeling". However,
(1) I don't even agree with your statement above that women look for "mental modeling" more often than men, neither of course that they actually perform better. As I said, in all your examples (sports, games, contests that involve strategy) women *are owned*.
(2) I think you neglect the "social impact" compared to the "social aspect" (which is more immediate compared to the "impact") of all the fields. Clearly the sciences are motivated and driven by real-world problems, many of which have "social" nature that you don't even mention because you are accustomed to them; e.g. split the inheritance of a guy (you definitely need fractions). Moreover, I also gave you another example earlier about math; probabilities and gambling strategies.
(3) Your arguments in many instances are lacking power; e.g. engineering and cs: the primary job is *not* to create something that will be user-friendly; the primary goal is to develop something that will have the job done first and foremost. Once this is achieved you look for user-friendliness (which has way less challenge - no matter what you believe - compared to the primary objective). And trust me, all those guys who you classify as 'asocial' can do wonders in these areas (besides they have more insight about the tools in any case). But the main theme is, that this part of the process is not intriguing at all compared to actually solving the real problem that the various tools try to address.
Getting along, regarding the "challenge" of embedding yourself in a tribe of apes, what are your social conclusions for these ladies ? Are you sure that this wasn't another avenue of doing something pioneering simply because men find it boring ? How many men do you think you can find who are willing to do that ? Personally, I don't even want to read such a study (or even watch a documentary about it), even if it is supposed to be good. I am sorry, but for me this is boring and kind of pointless.
Later on, you associate writing a book with gossiping. No objection at all there. Gossip for as long as you like. But, regarding "mental modelling" ... well, I don't buy it.
Regarding the waiter. You can believe that all these things are indeed challenging, but as I said, for me (and many others) the kitchen has way more challenge. And no, I don't assume I am the owner or co-owner. Being a chef, I will have to work with many dishes in parallel. Moreover, an ingredient might be missing a day, and I will have to substitute it with something else. So, all the questions that you have later on do not reflect the meaning of what I said above about "challenge" and "creativity". The challenge and the creativity is on the actual work of the chef on a daily basis.
So, once again, I don't think that your thesis in confirmed.
It is probably true that people don't like to be pigeonholed. But this is far away from giving some credit to your "social/asocial" arguments. So far I haven't seen anything substantial to support your thesis. And no, I am not taking this personally. I just think that your beliefs are based on many fuzzy (= not clear) assumptions. And that part I don't like it; sorry, you are not convincing. That's all. I am being provocative because that's usually the shortest path on finding out something. If somebody's statements can endure provocative counter-statements, then usually you have something good.
____________
The empty set
Unfortunately Corribus what we have here is a failure to communicate. The posts are impressive, but unfortunately that causes two problems. 1) Which of the Impressive posts to give the bonus two..which leads to the second problem.
Understanding the posts in order to gage. Now I am taking Finite Math, and am no slouch in math..but it has been over 20 years since I have had to use the higher mathmatics. The circuits have become a bit clogged with gunk from non-use. So we moderators might need a point in the correct direction.
____________
Message received.
I was once told, that if you folded a paper correctly it should be possible with a single cut to create any text (the wholes becomes text) you want.
I have no idea if it is possible though, I'm not into the math behind it, or have the power to set myself into such complex geometry (simplify it), however if it is really possible, I'd say it's one way to tie down an extreme amount of information in very little space (as if one could learn to read the foldings of the paper by touching it, in stead of having to read it as the combination of the cut and the folds must be rather unique).
____________
Living time backwards
I need some quick help on my stats homework. Sample size and p^ are known. How do I calculate a certain confidence interval?
____________ Eccentric Opinion
This thread is pages long: 
posted March 26, 2010 07:49 AM
posted April 11, 2010 03:04 AM
