what
w h a t
W H AA TTTTTT
oh one of these citations of "evidence of gender differences" is not to a study that SHOWS gender differences, but to a study that SAYS we could THINK about gender differences. La Croix-flavor gender differences
Ashley: "is this really what you want to be doing right now? I mean maybe it is"
screaming. shut computer science down until we identify the source of the problem
Coming into reading this stuff after years of seeing the absolutely wasteland that is decades of work to gradually undo the horrific gender-diffs-based arguments about ability in the social sciences, it's like landing your spaceship on an alien planet after you escape a nuclear dystopia and the aliens have a Manhattan project going and they're really pleased about it
I'm going to tear this motherfucking piece of shit stuff to shreds once I have slept a little more.

If I have to see this goddamn "spatial ability" argument one more time. Get more specific. What type of spatial ability you absolute clowns. Exactly what task, and explain how you address the spatial ability conflation with gender problems. Explain why and how these diffs vanish when you include all the spatial tasks THAT RESEARCHERS REMOVED BECAUSE GIRLS WERE GOOD AT THEM

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-023-09728-2

Gender Differences in Spatial Ability: a Critical Review - Educational Psychology Review

Spatial ability has long been regarded as important in STEM, and mental rotation, a subcategory of spatial ability, is widely accepted as the cognitive ability with the largest gender difference in favor of men. Multiple meta-analyses of various tests of spatial ability have found large gender differences in outcomes of the mental rotation test (MRT). In this paper, we argue that more recent literature suggests that the MRT is not a valid measure of mental rotation ability. More importantly, we argue that the construct of “spatial ability” itself has been co-constructed with gender, and thus has not been devised in a neutral way, but in a manner that is influenced by gender beliefs. We discuss that though spatial thinking is also required in feminized fields, past research has cast spatial ability as only necessary in masculinized STEM fields. Due to a prevailing belief that spatial ability was an inherently male ability, researchers “selectively bred” some spatial assessment instruments to maximize gender differences, rather than to precisely measure a spatial construct. We argue that such instruments, of which the MRT is one, cannot validly assess between-group differences, and ideas about biological or evolutionary causes of sex differences in spatial ability lack empirical evidence. Instead, the co-construction of gender and spatial ability better explains observed patterns. We also provide recommendations for spatial researchers moving forward.

SpringerLink
myth-making!!!!! You can't cite one flimsy poor study for an enormous ability and achievement prediction claim!!
@grimalkina this certainly reads like "we have decided girls are worse at computering than men and we will make damn sure we find the data that supports our claim!"

@dequbed @grimalkina can I mansplain here.

And point out the women that “I” know about who created the industry. From initial theory to chip design.

×
myth-making!!!!! You can't cite one flimsy poor study for an enormous ability and achievement prediction claim!!
Something I want to get across at some point, in some way, is that we can have more scientific approaches than constructing an "average" that doesn't really exist, and often isn't truly isn't useful for highly variable, idiographic, and complex outcomes in the world
Like we can dispute whether there ARE meaningful group differences that emerge in the average over time (itself highly disputable for many stereotypes), but we can ALSO think about how this entire APPROACH might not be meaningful for our question(s)

@grimalkina Computer science concerns things people built, not nature. (Abstract math might be computer science for some values of all four nouns, but a compiler or a computer language are made things.)

If the tool chain was built to be congenial to a particular habit of thought, that's not gendered, that's style. (Some people get really mad when you call it style.)

E.g., declarative programming is something many self-identified skilled programmers loathe and are bad at. It remains effective.

@grimalkina YES. While it may be true that there are average differences... why does that even matter? Oh, and did they even really get good samples?
But how does it matter? What are ye doin' with that premise? I fit the stereotype and struggle w/ 3D perceptions, depth, space... and if that meant we spent a little extra time letting me figure that otu, I"m all for it. Far more likely it would turn into "oh, don't do this thing. Look at how it's not coming naturally YOu're a girl."
Except it might "come naturally" in a different context, cultural or educational.

@grimalkina Okay, self-promotion makes my skin crawl, but as it happens myself and a friend have a book coming in Sept trying to re-up the debate on this. Trying to find some way to put it that it won't be ignored for another 70 years...

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003503873/great-psychology-delusion-craig-speelman-marek-mcgann

The Great Psychology Delusion | Missteps, Pitfalls and How to Make a M

The Great Psychology Delusion takes an unflinching look at some of the foundational assumptions of psychological science. Exploring long-standing unanswered

Taylor & Francis
@grimalkina so many knives

So many knives


This is the kind of thing that I stamp out HARD when people start up about it because it's rubbish and useless and serves no purpose whatsoever, except for exclusion

@grimalkina this certainly reads like "we have decided girls are worse at computering than men and we will make damn sure we find the data that supports our claim!"

@dequbed @grimalkina can I mansplain here.

And point out the women that “I” know about who created the industry. From initial theory to chip design.

@grimalkina Well this whole thread has been a fun ride. I particularly love the "we studied the two binary genders" part (unless I missed something). Not really a lot of diversity considered across the board here.