Bias against Female Scientists???

Its the way that science and math is taught in schools.

Here is an example:

http://www.nd.edu/~frswrite/issues/2002-2003/feldman.shtml

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok sam. I have some comments on this article. There's a lot in there, but the thing that strikes me is the assumption that the overwhelming gravitation of boys vs girls to technical areas is due to gender bias. This 'subtle' gender bias is barely identified in the article.

And it could mean that girls are less agressive than boys.

Did you notice that nowhere in the article is the idea that innate gender differences might have some effect, no matter how small?

Are you aware of a study that demonstrates this? I've been looking for it on the web with little success. It goes like this:

Infants, as soon as they are able to pull a srting, are seated in front of a screen. There is a small handle on a string that they can pull. They soon learn that pulling the string causes pictures on the screen to change or animate. At one point the researchers disable the picture function such that pulling the string no longer has an effect. The males begin pulling the string with more and more persistence, becoming steadily more agitated. The females pull the string far fewer times and then abandon the effort completely and begin to cry.

My point here is that gender discrimination is far from proven as the primary cause of girls performance in certain subjects.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's just operant conditioning, we do it with rats all the time.

Here is some data on gender differences ( I cannot find your paper but I'll keep looking)

http://homepages.luc.edu/~hweiman/GenderDiffs.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/13328083.htm

 

"Just" operative conditioning? I know what it is. Explain the gender difference if you please.

 

Here's one that has an infant study but there are no strings attached

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/spelke2005.pdf

 

I still don't see how this affects aptitude for science; do you mean to say that playing with a truck shows an aptitude for technology while playing with a doll does not?

How do you reach this conclusion?

 

So this paper generally notes the differences cognitive ability as being inherent. Yes?

 

Read the other paper.

 

Wait, wait, wait. Sammy. sam. samster. I'm not sure how many times I can emphasize this; I am in no way implying a difference in the aptitudes, especially of individuals, for one subject over another. I keep talking about tempermental predispositions. Again, the example of my daughter - she excels at math and science, but want's nothing to do with them as a career. It's the theater (british accent for emphasis) for her. Playing with a truck definitely indicates an interest in "gadgets" vs playing with a doll.

This boy may be far more likely to grow up with an interest in mechanical things and choose a career in technology. While the girl may grow up with no interest in technology whatsoever. It's more about interest than aptitude. So that girls who grow up with a great interest in physics, will be for more likely to choose a science career than a boy who grows up with an interest in culinary arts (although he may choose chemistry over chefistry).

Is the response of girls in science classes explainable as a lack of interest as much as subtle gender bias? I have evidence that says the former is certain and the latter is almost as certain.

What say you madame?

 

I read it even before you posted it! I know of Ms. Spelke. I believe she is considered a "radical" in this area and has an agenda. I can't say I trust her motives all that much. Despite that, I agree that aptitudes may vary very little between genders. It's temperments and behavioral predispositions that concern me.

 

So why do you think it an and/or situation?

Interest can be due to many things; it can change over time; one may choose a career due to financial reasons rather than aptitude, because the school is near, more accessible, the course is easy to complete, the chances for employment are good, whatever.

People who decide to go into science or technology generally have both an interest and aptitude; since it has been seen that both interest and perceptions of aptitude can be affected by social conditioning and learning environment, does that not indicate that the interest is determined to a large degree by what a person thinks he/she is capable of?

e.g. how many women could pilot an Airbus 380 50 years ago?
And yet I have a female pilot friend who is barely 5 feet 2 inches and the hardest part for her in simulation is pulling back on the brake! Do you think 50 years ago she would have been considered fit for the job ?

 

I am a radical too and I definitely have an agenda!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Never said I trusted your motives either.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes to all of that. But I'm still trying to get the idea of predispositions across. Taking the average population, and the data that suggest that girls, on average, are inherently less likely to be attracted to gizmos, I would predict exactly what we see. Far fewer females, as a percentage of the population, in science and engineering fields. I do not disagree that gender bias plays a role. I disagree on the degree to which you seem to think it does.

 

Why can't I find that stupid experiment?

 

You are an old fuddy duddy; you really should visit Asia or start your sentences about women saying "American women are...."

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/con/2001/01-06-21.html

 

"fuddy duddy"? I'm a goddamned hippy compared to other men my age.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So I read your link. It reminds me of my wife, who (more info than you may want, about to follow) gets turned on by tools and gadgets. In reality, it's about the effect of spending money on expensive tools and gadgets that's the stimulator. Explains the observations of your article nicely. Do we need to get into the OBVIOUS genetic predisposition of women to spend my money frivolously? :bugeye: :m:

 

I spend my own money, ye olde FD!

So you cannot generalize on that!

 

More cultural bias? Goddamn foreigners.