Why do men dominate the technical fields so much?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
When my son was born, we tried to give him dolls to play. He didn't even bother. Then we had little cars and trains lying around, he jumped on them immediately.

Now that my daughter is born, we will give her cars and trains first and study the response.

Experimenting on children.

[Lazerus]

yeah was just going to say that

[KrazyHorse]

At school the girls were normally better at math than the boys and those few ladies I know that study/have studiesd mathematics were very good in their field.

The average quality of female physicists I've met is significantly lower than the average quality of male physicists that I've met.

"Doing well" in high-school mathematics is meaningless. Anybody who's not completely retarded can learn that stuff if they work hard (which women are generally better at than men).

[Dis]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
because more men are very good at maths than women

I think thats the way God/nature made us

agreed. As an add on men think logically, women think irrationally. . JK

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The average quality of female physicists I've met is significantly lower than the average quality of male physicists that I've met.

Care to speculate why?

[Sava]

PMS

[Arrian]

I think "working hard" can be looked at as an ability in most contexts. Perhaps not high-end physics, I dunno. But in most things, people who are reasonably smart and work their tails off are more valueable than lazy geniuses.

-Arrian

[Sava]

I'd take a lazy super-genius over an above-average over-achiever any day. It's easier to exploit a lazy super-genius as long as you don't piss him (or her) off.

[Arrian]

Take them for what purpose? Any purpose? If so, you're a fool.

Ah, you DanSed me. I still don't really know what you mean, but ok.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

To use a sports analogy, this is sort of the debate between a super-talented player who has injury issues and a less talented guy who plays every game.

Which guy you prefer depends on how the rest of your team is constructed.

-Arrian

[Sava]

I am thinking about this purely from a research point of view. Say I am funding research and my super-genius has a break-through. I can exploit it and make a ton of money and he'll be none the wiser as long as I keep him content because a lazy super-genius is too lazy to do anything about it.

Over-achievers will fight like hell if you try to exploit them.

exploitation

profit

[Arrian]

From the standpoing of research, ok, the supergenius is a valid choice. For most other things, not so much. That's all I'm saying.

Most people don't work in research labs.

-Arrian

[Sava]

Originally posted by Arrian


Most people don't work in research labs.

Maybe they should.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Care to speculate why?

There's a number of possible explanations whih spring to mind:

1) Men are intrinsically better at mathematics or are more intelligent than women. Therefore no matter which sample you take (assuming that becoming a physicist selects in an unbiased way for mathematical ability or intelligence...which is not true) the average male in that sample will have a higher IQ or better mathematical abilities than the average female in that sample. This would additionally explain the relative dearth of female physicists.

2) Women are less drawn to physics than men are (despite having identical mathematical abilities as men on a statistical level). To "correct" the gender imbalance thus caused, physics departments encourage female applications and grant priority to female applicants (this part is not speculation). This means that the selection process for male physicists is more stringent than the selection process for female physicists, meaning that the females selected will have lower average ability than the males selected.

3) Similar to 1, except instead of postulating a different "average" intelligence or ability in mathematics you propose a similar average with different standard deviations. In other words, larger numbers of very stupid males, but also larger numbers of very smart males. When sampling the top end of the spectrum, you again expect the females caught by this sample to have lower average ability than the males caught by this sample.

Simple "women aren't encouraged to go into technical fields" can explain the lower numbers, but cannot explain my observation of the relative abilities of the males and females which I've seen. In fact, if it was simple selection bias against women who have the ability to enter physics then you would expect the average female physicist to be significantly smarter than the average male physicist. Since my sampling is based on physicists in their mid to late 20s, this may well have been true in previous generations of physicists, but as far as I can tell it's not true today.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Sava

Maybe they should.

Just say NO to Savasploitation!

-Arrian