How come this is okay?

How come this is okay?

Other urls found in this thread:

slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

if hormones are the reason, then why are women's interests suddenly changing? enlighten me, polturd.

Chemicals in the water stupid commie

Nice graph. Now post one that shows the subset of actual programmers and not glorified human calculators.

Because the business changed.

Best argument I've seen:
>slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/
>My impression is that there were lots of women in CS in 1980 for the same reason there were lots of Jews in banking in 1800: they were banned from doing anything else.
>Computer programming was originally considered sort of a natural outgrowth of being a secretary (remember, 77% of data entry specialists are still female today, probably because it’s also considered a natural outgrowth of being a secretary). Women had lots of opportunity in it, and a lot of women who couldn’t break into other professions naturally went into it.
>Then people let women become doctors and lawyers, so a bunch of the smart ones went off and did that instead.
>You can see the same thing going on with teachers. There’s been a huge decline in the percent of the most talented women who become teachers. This article is a good overview, although it’s mostly focused on the point that measures of teacher quality don’t predict anything anyway so we shouldn’t care. In the late 1950s, about 16% of top-decile-intelligence women became schoolteachers; by the 1990s, only about 7% did. Again, no change in biology. No change in stereotypes. But a huge change in other options.

x affects y =/= x is the sole cause of y

If it has anything to do with biology or endocrinology, explain why the effect is not international? India has over a 50:50 ratio, for example.

Best theory I've seen suggests the current low proportion of women in technology jobs in the West has to do with inertia from the introduction of the first home computers in the late 1970s/early 1980s, whose ads were (inexplicably) targeted at dads and boys (there were a lot of inexplicable things about those ads, to be fair). Early exposure to computers in more than a pure consumption setting during childhood is thought to be a major contributor in spurring interest in working with computers; largely, only those who grew up as boys in that time period did so, and many of those who grew up as girls in that time period did not.

This developmental inertia also helps to explain why there are proportionately more trans women in tech compared to cis women, or the proportion in the general population: we were bought boys' things, and computers were often perceived as boys' things.

So, it became a "boys' club" and much of the feminine narrative since then has been about piercing that and reactionary to it, which (paradoxically) also reinforces the perception.

The oversaturation of the profession hasn't helped either since.

But of course you're not interested in actually talking about this. You're posting on Sup Forums. You have no idea that this is the home of the secret plot by trans women in tech to boost the number of women in tech by turning ya'll into traps, one pair of programming socks at a time.

Tell me it's not working. I know you've seen the threads. You've wondered. Wouldn't it be so comfortable. No-one would know. Diversity quotas would love you. You're a faggot anyway: you must be, you're OP. You could call yourself a femboi if that makes you feel better.

Join us.

Right answer.

The truth probably lies somewhere between Sup Forums's "ALL WOMEN ARE SHIT" and Tumblr's "MUHSOGGYKNEES".

Maybe they're out getting arts degrees because that's what feminists do. Maybe they're becoming doctors instead. Maybe they THINK we're all sexist and never bother with it.

>The truth probably lies somewhere between Sup Forums's "ALL WOMEN ARE SHIT" and Tumblr's "MUHSOGGYKNEES".

>AIDS exists, but not everyone is infected with AIDS
>therefore half of the population of Earth is infected with AIDS

1990's:
>IT is for nerds.
>OMG who wants to date a stinky tech nerd?
>No wonder it's 99.9% male, why would any women want a stupid job in IT with all the rejects. - Am I right girlfriends?

2010's:
>OMG IT is making so much money!
>Why do programmers make more than us?
>Those jobs belong to us! IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!!

Everyone needs something to bitch about

I remember going to "computer club" after school. This was in 1997 basically we just played with older Apple IIs computers. I was in fith grade, the club was ran by Mrs Kennedy anyone could join. It was all guys, she even made a special effort to appeal to everyone and she made snacks too. Girls just don't give a shit unless their dad was a massive computer geek and they associate paternal approval with computer skill.

>his statement about a complicated system in which many humans participate doesn't apply to a simple binary statement, therefore I win :^)

Next you'll unironically post the picture where you claim that because not hiring a prostitute is better than hiring a prostitute, any extremism you agree with must be A-OK.

You are missing the point of all this, they are not pushing for more women programmers and engineers for progress. It's just a ploy to broaden the pool of available staff in order to suppress wages. More people that can do the work the less you need to pay each one, only it might not work this time

That image is clearly sexist

>Why is the effect not international
Because India is poor as shit and the women don't have the luxury of choosing a career they would like to have.

2020's:
>why has webdev pay gotten so low?
>stinky nerds must give up their algorithmically difficult jobs for us strong wymyn
>also meritocracy is unironically misogyny

>Lets keep pushing the issue of women being underrepresented in the tech field
>We will also keep pushing the idea of pay gaps between men and women.
>This allow us to hire more women, and pay EVERYONE less in order to make the pay equal among men and women
>We will benefit from an increased workforce whom is getting paid less and the number of employees will make up for the lack of quality in employees allowing us to push out software just as quickly as before

...

...

>baptist, 3 children, married to snownigger
>actually listing that on resume
I want to hope that Sup Forums didn't actually think that those have non-negative correlation with being competent at computers, but I know Sup Forums too well.

>everything I don't like is Sup Forums
> the Sup Forums boogey man is everywhere!

You're joking, right?
Sup Forums is deep into /poe/'s law, so I can't really be sure

>literally says Sup Forumsack on the comic
retard

Does pol genuinely bother you people? Why do you bring it up all the time? Sup Forums is boring and lame and doesn't warrant the attention it gets.
I mean we all hate the Jews but come on change the record every now and then

There is a huge shortage of programmers and engineers and that's not going to change any time soon.

But instead of encouraging young girls to take up programming it's easier to shout sexism and demand tech companies hire unqualified women.

Any IQ 110+ girl investing 2 weeks of her life could land a job as some web developer.
But the fact they don't do this doesn't fit the narrative that every male dominated industry is sexist.

>Any IQ 110+ girl investing 2 weeks of her life could land a job as some web developer.
After 2 weeks, she'd have fizzbuzz memorized, but without understanding it.
You greatly overestimate females and normies.

My sister in-law taught herself basic HTML in order to properly format her live journal in the mid 2000s.
I remember my aunt had a deal with my grandfather where if she took computer programming he would buy her a commodore 64 but if she dropped out he would take it back. Guess what happened, she dropped out and he took it back. She told me this years later and says it like can you believe what a jerk he was?
In my head I was like, what the fuck you made the deal you stupid bitch

Underrated post

...

How could they memorize fizzbuzz?
It's not a set test
I bet you think the turing test is an actual test.

What the fuck are you even trying to say?

Again why does a well paying job need to be sold so hard to these people? You can be an app developer in your own home. Can someone please post examples of non transexual high level innovators? I'm not sexist but this shit is paternalistic.

>diverse teams are more successful
citation needed

It really seems like they're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

>we need more women and brown people!
>"says who? "
>the women and brown people!
>"Ok, tell them to go to school for it and apply"
>..... Oh, uh, ok

Two overlapping explanations
>drastic increase in available humanities positions, for example women studies is a new thing
>ACM revised compuuter engineering guidelines in 1986 making it more abstract (from punchcards to instruction sets quite literally)

With powers combined icky girls be-gone!

Let's define measure of success of team as:
money_balance_per_day / (3.00001 * size_of_team - number_of_males_in_team - number_of_whites_in_team - number_of_white_males_in_team)

It becomes clear that most successful teams are diverse.

Well fuck me

Chem trails are making the frogs gay.

Did you know that estrogen hormones leaking into the water supply are actually turning frogs into hermaphrodites? Alex Jones always spices it up a bit too much

In general you need diversity to allow for a greater flow of ideas and perspectives. Kinda like the 1000 monkeys, 1000 type writers situation. Regardless, hiring people that aren't fit for the job isn't a good situation either.

>In general you need diversity to allow for a greater flow of ideas and perspectives.
Yeah, diversity of ideas, not skin color.

yea, that's circumstantial. You can be any skin colour, but if you're all coming from the same place then it's not really going to change much.

More like universities making goyim pay

Have Jews ever explained their books? How can you explain away the goyim stuff?

>only one reply

Fucking hell, UNDERRATED

Pointing out of evidence of biological differences isn't wrong in and of itself. But the idea that diversity is so important is itself founded on feminazi ideology to begin with. The feminist view of STEM is a circular argument: there are no women in tech because of sexism, and there is sexism because there are no women in tech. As such, alternative explanations are a moot point because the whole diversity argument doesn't make sense to begin with.

Why, exactly, there are less women in tech is likely impossible to prove one way or another because different people have different motivations, so the idea that we need more diversity lacks any empirical basis.

This actually makes sense.

> b-but muh equality

The problem with this argument is that easy job opportunities are the main appeal of CS in general, not just for women. Given how most programmers are code monkeys that work with boring and unpleasant ENTERPRISE software, it would not surprise me if a lot of men in the industry also hate their jobs. The movie Office Space is a good example of this.

I think the reason people are opposed to a cultural explanation is that they think it gives SJW free reign for their post-structuralist garbage. It doesn't. Nature and nurture are not mutually exclusive, how they tie into each other is usually very complicated, but people don't want to take this for an answer because they need a simple answer to everything in life to feel good about themselves.

INFOWARS

GAY FROGS!

kek, you are actually a retarded

They keep invading Sup Forums with their horseshit and we want them to keep their dumb shit out of here.

The left hates science.

Especially the parts of the left which is stuck in an ideological echo chamber where men and women are literally the same, just like all races are literally the same even if most of established science points the other way.

this made me sweat a little

Women are smart enough not to get into the soul crushing IT industry, good for them.

>There is a huge shortage of programmers and engineers and that's not going to change any time soon.
AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Thank you for the dumbest post ever made on Sup Forums but seriously my dude you need to stop.

Stop rubbing your hands.

SSC is my favorite SC.

>left hates science

troll plz go.

the point of affirmative action, diversity hires, etc is to slowly change society for a more equal future - sometimes at the expense of now. by "forcing" more women into STEM jobs for example, we can change the cultural norm of STEM jobs as only for men. other measures are required for such a plan to be 100% effective of course, but every bit helps.

the goal is to level the playing field, to make society more egalitarian. by making society more harmonious, maybe we can one day work together as humans with a common goal. a society without nazis and commies punching each other, a society without muslims bombing french people, a society where north koreans don't threaten to nuke japan. such a goal surely looks more pleasant than what we have now.

i know uniting with people you don't like is hard, but think of what all of humanity could accomplish if we stopped hating / resenting / killing each other.

>affirmative action
>egalitarian

>make the society more equal by treating people unequally

i wrote "at the expense of now" to address the specific point that you're making.

(You) new here?

I cannot agree with this type of philosophy, and it is simply a philosophy, any more. An idea, a postulate, a good feeling, that for all intents and purposes, debases and demoralizes the best and the brightest, and props up lesser talent who know they are lesser and cannot ever live up to the better talent so are simply happy to just be there and not contribute much at all beyond basics. Diversity quotas are great at losing companies the best possible talent, and when that best possible talent was a diversity hire, they tend to be demoralized and think they were only hired because of a bureaucratic mandate and not their actual talent.

> All white males hate women
> There's a conspiracy against women.

These are the extreme views that are not taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.


Technology is only incidental in this topic as it is entirely politcal.
Fuck off back to Sup Forums please.
better yet Kill yourself

Those idiots are always derailing threads by fucking politicizing anything and playing both sides.

Whenever you feel like criticizing any one just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.

oh youre mad, thats too bad, kill yourself pussy

Cause they're too stupid for modern technology.

He keeps it spicy so you'll buy the damn filters.

> retarded
> even BBC reports it
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1930658.stm
Look who is retarded now

>The memo suggests, that maybe women are underrepresented in tech, because most of them don't want to do this
>SJWs and the supporting media interprets is as "women are not suited for , claims memo. What a jerk"
Bad news sweetie. There is a conspiracy against white men

you're making an assumption that non-white males cannot ever be as good as while males could be at STEM-related jobs. i'd like to challenge this. how much of a person's life is determined by genetics, and how much is determined by their upbringing? studies of new guinean cultures that have had limited access to western society describe cultures where the men dress up in makeup and dance, while the women go out to hunt. such a society helps paint a picture of man as malleable by its environment, not driven by its genetics.

besides, how sad would it be to attribute all of one's accomplishments to superior genetics? does that not take away from the effort that person put in to those same accomplishments? who holds the power, man, or its DNA?

if the triumph of man over the other species on this planet is due to one thing, it's in our ability to be more than what is determined by our genetics. let's not turn around and use that as an excuse to picture our society's faults as virtues.

Currently looking at the variability hypothesis.

I can't grasp the validity for the idea.

I understand the concept. I don't understand the application. There seem to be many confounding variables and poor experimental design.

Sociological experiments are so frustrating to me. If men have a higher variance, or standard deviation, across the board, then what does that imply; even on the most basic evolutionary level?

More roasties therefore less women actually intelligent enough for techniacal professions.

this cant be right, it doesn't blame the patriarchy or white people

[Citation needed]

Wew it almost sounds like a Brave New World at the horizon.

>you're making an assumption that non-white males cannot ever be as good as while males could be at STEM-related jobs
The post didn't say that and even made the opposite example.

With that in mind the rest of your post doesn't make any sense but at least you'd be very good at making inspirational speeches. Keep it up.

>diversity of thought
>tech industry turns into echochamber that blacklists people for having the wrong opinions