Politically Correct and Expensive Hiring Of University Teachers

[JoeKitchen]

If what you say is correct, then I think we could expect to see occupational differences in men and women up to one standard deviation. Yet the differences appear to be much greater, which may mean that something else is at play.

Okay, you are missing the point of the graphs I have been showing and talking about.

Yes, the difference amongst the average man vs the average woman is small and not as much as actually exists in occupations.  However, it is not the average person who often goes into these careers, it is the most interested person. 

Look at the graphs below, they are only off by a little bit.  However, at the far right side, the area under the blue graph is significantly more then the area under the red graph from the same point on the scale.  (Note not two different corresponding points on each curve, but from the same exact location.)  Even though the difference is minimal overall, the difference at that extreme is extremely large. 

This is what accounts for the difference; the area under the extremes of the curves. 

The difference in averages is measured directly since it is by far the easiest to do so directly.  But the extremes is where the real interest is.  (Sort of like how altimeters don't actually measure altitude but barometric pressure and use the relationship between the two to determine altitude, which would be much harder to measure directly.) 

Think of it this way, the average difference is what we are measuring, which would be those people in the middle of the graph.  Yes, it's not really off by a lot, but it is not those people, in the middle, who are interested enough to become engineers.  It are those at the far right side who are interested enough to go into that field of study.  For this field the red curve would be women and the blue man.  As you can see, there are certainly women at that end with enough interest to want to become engineers.  However, there are significantly more men (area under curve is greater by a lot), many times more then the difference in the overall average, and this is what explains the disparity, not the average. 

[faberryman]

Okay, you are missing the point of the graphs I have been showing and talking about.

So, do you think the only factor in the discrepancy between men and women among the occupations is biological.

[JoeKitchen]

So, do you think the only factor in the discrepancy between men and women among the occupations is biological.

No, there are other forces at play and a combination of many that create these differences. 

I would foolish to assume that there are not misogynistic men of power who hold back women in the STEM fields.  Just like it would be foolish to assume there are not misandrogynistic women of power who hold men back in say nursing. 

Then you also have to throw in competition and aggression, the fact that women more often then men take off for child rearing (another controversial but true fact, and not that I am advocating this just pointing out this is what happens), and a whole host of other reasons. 

So certainly many things account for occupational differences.  Looking at these difference in occupation is always going to be complicated and it will be impossible to determine which is more important, directly.  (We should also try and minimize all of the non-biological items (as best we can) that effect outcomes and discourage people, becoming less sexist.) 

However, just like altimeters indirectly measure altitude, I think looking at differences in fields of study at universities can give us a good idea of what are the main causes.  Choice of study is not going to be effected by another's prejudice (like employment or being promoted), people don't compete in their choice of major (yes, when studying they do, but not in choosing what to study) children and child rearing are not an issue yet, etc.  So a lot of these issues are cancelled out.  Whats left, biology and child socialization. 

Regardless of the liberal or conservative socialization of a culture, large difference in choice of field of study exist.  So, biological differences play a large part. 

[Rob C]

I can't understand how anyone who has been a child at a co-ed school has difficulty understanding the differences between genders, and no, not just standing up to pee.

The thing works the opposite way round: people who claim not to be able to accept the evidence of their own eyes and experiences are the ones I believe have the problem.

To that, I'd add: anyone who has had both a son and daughter has few doubts about which is which.

[faberryman]

Regardless of the liberal or conservative socialization of a culture, large difference in choice of field of study exist.  So, biological differences play a large part.

Do you think they play a larger part than sociological influences?

[OmerV]

Nope, you got this all wrong. 

Sure, a person can overcome his or her biological traits.  What a single person is will not necessarily dictate who they become, which is why I have been very careful to talk about populations here and not persons.  However, from a mass population perspective (what statistics really looks at), this is just not the case.  Biological differences do have effects, and some people within a mass will succumb to them, thus effecting the overall average.  This is unavoidable with the masses, which take into account all persons, those whom have overcome and those whom simply don't care too. 

I don't know how else to insert within your post so I'm using the quote thing.

You are not taking into account the considerable pressure that most people feel to abide by society's norms, both past and to a lesser degree present. Prenatal testosterone levels are a tiny influence that are easily managed, one way or the other, by more formidable postnatal influences. How else to explain the explosion within "the masses" of women who strongly reject the past expectancy of a deferential female.


Since you've quoted from the article I suggested, then I guess I should too:

Regardless of whether nature or nurture is more powerful for explaining the lack of women in tech careers, people should guard against acting on the assumption of a gender binary. It makes more sense to treat individuals of both sexes as located somewhere on a continuum of masculine and feminine interests and abilities. Treating people as individuals rather than merely stereotyping them as male or female is difficult, given how quickly our automatic stereotypes kick in. But working toward this goal would foster equity and diversity in tech and other sectors of the economy. 

 

Even the article you provided explained as much.  It specifically said that reasons why less women are in tech is due to both nature and nurture, and that for anyone on the left or right to assume it is only one of them is foolish.  The problem with what you are suggesting is that we can somehow control for both. 

Perhaps we can decrease the social nurturing that effects the outcome, but since we can not stop nature (and since nature is also part of the equation), the disparities are not something we can fully eliminate since many individuals will choose to live with those inherently different traits and not be bothered by them.  Even with recognizing this fact, do you really think many are going to care?  Do you really think the average man is going to change his interests just to fight against his biology and work in an industry he is not really interested in for the sake of social progress?  And do you really want a male nurse serving you who is not fully interested in his job and just doing it for social progress? 

Sorry, I don't really care the gender of any nurse that serves me, I just want them to be really interested in helping me. 

I mean really, if men (lets use men since I guess it's more justified to be sexist against men by how you are acting) are biologically less interested in people, and this is part of the reason why they dont go into nursing, how do we overcome this?  How, please tell, do we get the entire population of men to suddenly be more interested in working with people? 

Furthermore, I am not advocating using these differences to "support bigotry and discrimination;" this is your inherent liberal bias against conservatives and your inability to think logical without completely removing your emotions that is causing you to believe I believe in this interpretation of what I wrote.  I am only pointing out the causes of such disparities, and admitting it is part nature and nurture.  Extrapolating the reasons for these disparities to justify bigotry is a totally different line of thought and not one I am advocating. 

Last, women are not forced into lower paying jobs because we feel that is where they should be.  It is simply the case that women choose to work more with people, and you can only work with so many people at the same time.  Think of a nurse, how many persons can she care for at once?  Not many, which is why her salary is not terribly high.  However, an engineer can serve many 1000s with his work all at once.  Although the amount he can get from each is significantly smaller, the shear number of people an engineer can serve multiplies this amount to being a much higher value. 

Now the above paragraph has to be bait. 

There is no multiplier effect when working directly with people, and that is why the social sciences pay much less.  It will always be this way.

I'm done. Peace.

[JoeKitchen]

Do you think they play a larger part than sociological influences?

I do, but by how much I am not sure. 

There has been no real research contrasting the two directly, primarily since it is such an abrasive and not so politically correct issue not to mention how would you do it?  So many social science research relies on correlations without a control group, which is just the nature of the game.  (This is unlike the study I posted that had a control group showing a causal relationship between hormones and interest in things vs. people.)

However, studies have been done in many different countries, all with varying degrees in the extent and length of time at which they have gone to make the sexes equal (all of which can be quantified), contrasting the occupational disparities, and those disparities are still very apparent in even the most liberal of societies.  These are all correlational studies, not causal since you could not really do a causal study on this. 

There is even evidence to suggest that if you compare countries (minus the one which are blatantly sexist like Saudi Arabia), at a certain middle point, where gender social biases have been very well mitigated, the disparities start to increase.  So essentially, from the most repressive countries to some middle point, disparities decrease, but then, after that middle point, they start to increase again.  The best explanation for these instances are biological.  It could very well be that when a society becomes the most equal, the natural differences are free to manifest themselves more greatly? 

Now I am not so sure as how well done or not these specific interpretations have been done, but they have come from liberal social scientists who would be bias in the other direction.  I also find it hard to believe, even being a libertarian, and just relaying what I read. 

With that said, I do believe at this point, where our society has evolved to be much less sexist then 50 years ago, biology has a greater cause to the differences than society.  I would say sub-cultural (like difference between ethnicities and/or regions) socialization would be 2nd. 

[JoeKitchen]

 
Regardless of whether nature or nurture is more powerful for explaining the lack of women in tech careers, people should guard against acting on the assumption of a gender binary. It makes more sense to treat individuals of both sexes as located somewhere on a continuum of masculine and feminine interests and abilities. Treating [persons] as individuals rather than merely stereotyping them as male or female is difficult, given how quickly our automatic stereotypes kick in. But working toward this goal would foster equity and diversity in tech and other sectors of the economy. 

I'm done. Peace.

Oh my dear lord!  Once again you are completely misinterpreting what I am saying.  I am not advocating that we should act on the assumption of gender binary in our dealings with persons.  And of course all persons are a combination of both masculine and feminine traits, and a person should be dealt as a person free of stereotypes. 

But for you to ignore the basic fact that overall females are more feminine and that males are more masculine, even by slightly, is ignoring SCIENCE.  To ignore that this could be a real reason on why people choose (THEMSELVES, NOT FORCED INTO) the professions they do, is also ignoring science. 

The problem you are having is that you are completely incapable of thinking about this from a societal point of view, and not an individual one.  You keep on thinking that I am insisting on judging a person based on population studies that cover a large group. 

Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows this is not what I am doing.  You can not, and should never, extrapolate traits of a people onto an individual person of those people.  Statisticians, and those like me who have degrees in mathematics, understand this, which is why I have been careful to talk about overall populations. 

By the way, I changed in the quote people to persons.  You cant treat people since a people is a combinations of many persons of similar traits, by definition.  That sentence was poorly written and should be persons, whom are individuals. 


PS, to prove a point, below is an example of a fully gender binary set of bell curves, which Omer seems to think I am imply exist in the real world.  Notice, they don't overal lap at all.  None of the curves I have present do this; they all overlap.  What I have been talking about is the degree at which they do and how this effects the extremes.  Completely different. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

But for you to ignore the basic fact that overall females are more feminine and that males are more masculine, even by slightly, is ignoring SCIENCE.  To ignore that this could be a real reason on why people choose (THEMSELVES, NOT FORCED INTO) the professions they do, is also ignoring science. 

The problem you are having is that you are completely incapable of thinking about this from a societal point of view, and not an individual one.  You keep on thinking that I am insisting on judging a person based on population studies that cover a large. 

Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows this is not what I am doing.

The problem with these types of studies is that it is critical to understand the group of people being studied.  I venture to say that in some areas of the US there is not much change in sexual stereotypes and probably very few females go into STEM.  In our area of suburban Maryland there is no difference and many females in both my daughters high school cohort went into STEM research areas. 

[JoeKitchen]

The problem with these types of studies is that it is critical to understand the group of people being studied.  I venture to say that in some areas of the US there is not much change in sexual stereotypes and probably very few females go into STEM.  In our area of suburban Maryland there is no difference and many females in both my daughters high school cohort went into STEM research areas.

This is true, which is why I mention sub-cultural socialization as being probably the 2nd most important aspect in todays more liberal world. 

With that said, I would much rather rely on data contrasting girls to boys in your area followed up by research to see how many kept their major once in school then just second hand observations you made.  No offense, but from a statistical point of view, casual observations are notorious for having confirmation bias in them. 


PS
Just to add what I mean by bias, since some people hear obviously have little to no understanding of statistics (not you Allen), casual observations by nature are filled with bias.  First, people tend to look for things that confirm their belief structures.  Alan is a liberal, and (no offense to Allan) he is going to naturally look for things that fulfill this world view, hence an observation bias.  So, for someone who believes social constructs are what causes professional choices, not biological, he will look for females entering STEM to fulfill his world view and will tend to ignore those instances where they did not.  Second, Alan's casual observations are by no means random.  Since he brought up his daughters, it is more then likely the case these observations are based off of his daughters and their friends.  This is by no means a random sample, so it is filled with selection bias.  On top of that, birds of a feather flock together, and if Alan's daughters were science oriented and determined, more then likely their friends were too.  Furthermore, judging by the fact Alan was a rather successful individual it would not be out of the question to assume his daughters went to a private school, especially since he lives in a major urban center.  If this is the case, most of their friends also went to a private school, which would alienate them further from the overall population and make the observations even less random. 

This is why evidence is so important and you need to shape you view around independent non-bias evidence, that should be also peer-reviewed.  It is also very important in whatever study you come across to ask how the sample was put together.  You can prove anything with the right sample, but if that sample was not random and large (and in some instances stratified), your study is probably meaningless. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

STEM degrees almost guarantee high employability and high income. So girls should definitely go there. To find future husbands.

[LesPalenik]

STEM degrees almost guarantee high employability and high income. So girls should definitely go there. To find future husbands.

Good one, Slobodan!
But the job opportunities in the nursing field seem to outlast the ones in programming. Especially for the young seniors.

[Kevin Gallagher]

Good one, Slobodan!
But the job opportunities in the nursing field seem to outlast the ones in programming. Especially for the young seniors.

 Ha!! Quite so!!

[Alan Klein]

I also have to wonder what effect this will have on the male professors. 

Most don't like getting paid less than someone who is not as qualified, regardless of gender.  If male professors realize they make less than their female counterparts just because they are a male, I cant see many of them accepting this. 

Could this cause the most qualified male professors to move on? 

This could not fly in the US due to laws against salary differences based on gender.  The men would sue in court.

[JoeKitchen]

This could not fly in the US due to laws against salary differences based on gender.  The men would sue in court.

Oh the irony that would have. 

[Alan Klein]

Getting back to photography, when I look at photos on the web, I think women on average have more interesting photos that connect.  I believe this comes from their natural affinity of relations with people while men tend to get caught up in technique rather than feeling.  Women also tend to focus on people shots leaving landscapes to the men. Again, for the same reason I mentioned. 

What do you see between men and women's photography? 

[JoeKitchen]

Getting back to photography, when I look at photos on the web, I think women on average have more interesting photos that connect.  I believe this comes from their natural affinity of relations with people while men tend to get caught up in technique rather than feeling.  Women also tend to focus on people shots leaving landscapes to the men. Again, for the same reason I mentioned. 

What do you see between men and women's photography?

This is complicated, and my feelings on this kind of go against what I have stated somewhat.  Also, I am looking at this professionally, insofar as what female professionals shoot compared to male professionals, not the average hobbyist. 

My wife is a food photographer, which has nothing to do with people.  However, she is very determined and tough as nails when it comes to negotiating.  I would not want to be on the opposite side of a negotiation with her.  On top of that, it is a commercial field of photography more dependent on B2B marketing then B2C.  Overall, I, and my wife, think the negotiating aspect of commercial photography (having the guts to ask for those high prices) and the B2B marketing aspect is less geared to women than men.  My wife often gets on other women to get more on the ball with negotiating and just picking up the phone and calling someone, which many women seem to have trouble with.  Now many male photographers I talk with have issues with cold calling too, sales and just reaching out to people.  However, I think the very nature that boys are expected to ask a girl on a date, and most girls never deal with this very hard to get over adolescence experience filled with denials, holds them back in B2B dealings. 

I think back to when I was a teenager and I was super shy.  Every girlfriend I had asked me out aside from my wife (so I guess I picked the right one  ).  So I was never really used to dealing with denials in sales.  I just had an intense desire to be a professional so much so, I forced myself to get over it.  But to get to the point of being able to pick up the phone and not let a denial bother you mentally took a while.  I think this is just something young men have an edge on just do to dating norms. 

The real issue is that with B2B marketing there is a very small number of people you market to.  For me I have a list of 5000, which sounds big, but a wedding photographer goes after an entire metro area.  5000 contacts is a decent amount to manage and being able to just pick up the phone and call makes a boat load of difference.  I, and my wife, have great clients gotten from just making a call to someone who had no reason at all to talk to us. 

In addition to that, commercial photography, especially those that fall under the still life genre, are much more technical and more applicable to people who are gear heads.  Going back to the study I listed, men tend to be more interested in things, so it just make sense more technical fields tend to be more male dominated.  Food photography certainly has it's technical aspects, but not nearly as much as architectural photography.  So, although men outnumber women in food photography, men really out number women in architectural photography.  I could rattle off a dozen competitors of mine who are men; it takes me a while to think of the few women I bid against.  Not say they are less good, just less of them.  Film production is even worse, and I specifically talking about the gaffers, techs and grips, not the DPs here.  I have a very progressive feminist female assistant who feels film guys are constantly talking gear with her to test her knowledge just because she is a woman.  I tend to disagree and think it's just a bunch of gear-heads being gear-heads.  (Film people really are super duper gear centric; even for someone as technical as I, I find it baffling how someone could talk nothing but gear all day.  Images need to have feeling, but I guess that is what the DP is for, not the gaffers and grips.)  So there is this too. 

With all this though, there is also the real fact that many commercial photographers don't like hiring female assistants, so they get less exposure to the industry.  It's sexist, but not for the reasons you are thinking.  Women are not as strong as men, and when you are a commercial photographer showing up with 500 lb of gear, the strength of your assistants make a difference.  This is a real (perceived at least) issue with photographers, and the worse offenders are actually other women.  I have tried to recommend female assistants to other female photographers and have been turned down.  The reason is always, "I'm a woman and I would rather have a man to carry the gear then another woman who may not be able to."  Makes sense, for location shoots, and I can not really argue that, but it does have the effect of less women in the commercial side of things. 

For studio shoots, I consider this absolute total bull shit since everything is pretty much already there and studio shoot tend to be less intense that location shoots. 

(Typically, I usually have no issue with a female assistant and could care less.  I am a 210 lb man in very good shape and if she cant lift something, I should be able to.  If I cant, then I should not have it.  The only time I can really think of when I choose to hire a man over a woman was when I shooting in the 5th story of a 5-story walk-up on West Broadway.  In NYC, for all of my shoots, I unload and then park somewhere.  It takes about 20 minutes to park, which means by the time I get back all the gear will have been brought to the location.  I just could not bring my first assistant, Amanda, to carry 500 lb. of gear up 4 flights of stairs by herself, so I hired Kelvin.  And yes, we always comment on Kelvin's name since he is a photographer.  Other then this one time, I cant think of any times I specifically choose a male assistant over a female one.)

[Alan Klein]

Joe, how do you feel about the average hobbyist photographer - male vs. female, as far as the photos are concerned?  Do you see a difference and what is it? 

[JoeKitchen]

Joe, how do you feel about the average hobbyist photographer - male vs. female, as far as the photos are concerned?  Do you see a difference and what is it?

To be honest, I don't really pay attention to the quality of the average hobbyist, nor what the average female vs male is producing. 

You have to remember as a professional, I am always looking up to those that are better then me.  Probably the main reason why I (and other professional artists) am never really happy with my work.  I am not going to analyze someone not as a good as me, since that will not teach me anything.  So, with this, I cant say.  Plus, would you really want a professional looking down at your work with a sense of superiority?  If I did that to you, unasked, you would think I am a condescending jerk, so I try not to critique those who do this as a hobby.  This about enjoyment for you; for me it is my life's work. 

Insofar as other professionals, I almost never think about the gender of the person who shot the image.  A great image is a great image regardless of gender.  If I see a great commisioned architectural image, my response is always the same.  Pure unadulterated hatred of that photographer, with the exceptions of my ideals. 

"How dare that photographer get hired to shoot that job without me even being asked so much as to bid on it.  I need to figure out his/her clients and take that person down!" 

My wife feels the same way when looking at great food photography.  I have yet to meet any successful photographer who does not think this way. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Furthermore, judging by the fact Alan was a rather successful individual it would not be out of the question to assume his daughters went to a private school, especially since he lives in a major urban center.  If this is the case, most of their friends also went to a private school, which would alienate them further from the overall population and make the observations even less random. 

Only successful in that I had a good career.   Both daughters went to public schools in Bethesda, but our schools are very good in terms of academic achievement.