Dammit, I just ran out of mod points. Thank you for providing the answer -- the objective answer -- to this problem (not that there aren't tons of other factors). Protip: women new to tech culture DON'T have a problem with nerds because they're weird; the problem IS that aforementioned nerds are often misogynistic, condescending, constantly making "hilarious" and "ironic" sexist jokes (actually kind of hurtful! please stop doing this!) and leering/ making lewd remarks like it's their job to do so. Often even the teacher or group leader ignores contributions from women. Ask any woman in a tech field -- ANY woman -- if they've had this experience or something like it. We have. WE ALL HAVE, GODDAMMIT.
The word "minority" nowadays usually just means a group that isn't a "majority", or is somehow disenfranchised by society. It's a distinct definiton from the mathetical one, which I realize is annoying as heck. (But I'm used to it; people be stealing us mathematicians' terms all the time.)
The Just World fallacy is, sadly, slashdot's favorite thing. I'm hard pressed to find a single post -- regardless of topic -- where the comments are not full of how poor people are lazy and stupid, minorities are entitled, and if THEY were in those situations, they'd be fine, because all obstacles can be overcome with enough "character".
Considering slashdotters tend to identify as liberal, this is some messed up delusional-rich-Republican thinking.
Re:Don't forget privilege, even if not financial..
on
What Makes a Genius?
·
· Score: 1
The article agrees with me. The other commenters clearly do not.
Intelligence is a crippling concept (warning:long)
on
What Makes a Genius?
·
· Score: 1
My generation is full of people who were praised for their innate intelligence -- something a child understands is beyond her control -- and subsequently developed the worldview that natural gifts are what matters, that failure is the worst thing, and that if you're not good at something naturally, you won't get good, so, no point trying (these aren't conscious beliefs; more like beliefs we find ourselves slipping into). Research shows that what children need is not high self-esteem, but "self efficacy", which is your faith in yourself to rescue situations, overcome even unexpected obstacles, and develop skill at things via practice and force of will. All telling a kid he's smart will do is make him very, very afraid of anything that might disprove his intelligence. And the fear that, if the intelligence was gone, he would be worth less as a person.
To develop this in others, praise them for their effort and the things they achieved (especially stuff that was harder for them, because the harder it was, the more they've accomplished, really). To develop it in yourself, try focusing on your efforts and strategies, and learn to identify in any situation what is under your control and how those things might be used to achieve your goals, even if it's going to be depressingly hard -- even if it's going to be EMBARRASSINGLY hard. We have to stop being ashamed of needing extra effort, or extra help, and start being proud that we MADE the extra effort, and that we FOUND the extra help. Those things are much, much more useful qualities than innate intelligence... which, by the way, INCREASES when you learn something that is difficult for you to grasp -- like literally, more nerve connections are forged so that later cell firing is infinitesimally faster, each time.
And this is the heart of the matter -- what the hell is intelligence? There are hundreds of qualities we associate with it, and one intelligent person may be completely unable to do something another intelligent person can. Maybe we need to face that fact that "intelligence", like "cancer", does not exist -- it's simply a shorthand for a variety of skills and talents, which for the most part we all have some of but none of us have all of. Stop thinking of the person who doesn't understand math but dances incredibly well as unintelligent. And stop thinking of unintelligent people as inferior. I bet you know some unintelligent people who are among the best people you know. I certainly do.
Re:Output of things that get notoriety, awards etc
on
What Makes a Genius?
·
· Score: 1
It's not just your intuition, actually. There is a lot of research coming out that praising children for things beyond their control -- intelligence particularly -- will just make them feel helpless and afraid to disappoint, and will make them less likely to try new things and explore because of this paralyzing fear. (For the curious, the new research says, praise your children mostly for effort, and maybe also for particular accomplishments. Knowing you're effective even without natural advantages is a much, much more effective mindset than believing you're naturally good at everything -- because sooner or later, you'll find out that you aren't).
Agrred -- they're necessary but not sufficient to be recognized as a person of renown, no matter how much you do by yourself in the garage. Someone pointed out in another comment that there are fewer women and minorities who have contributed in fields like science than whites and men, and I think your comment might be EXTREMELY relevant to that observation.
I sort of buy that STEM fields are less modular than art (although even as a math major, the various specialties and areas to pursue once you're an upperclassman felt more sandboxy than train tracky). But what I really have to agree with you on is the fear and stigma surrounding math. I've taught a lot of the subject, and nearly every students comes in saying "I just don't get math" "I'm not a numbers person" "I don't see what it has to do with the real world" (a valid objection, but usually an expression of learning anxiety) or "fractions are too complicated, I never got them". Even with our miserable school system, I think we'd be further ahead in research and tech than we are without this widespread fear. But don't let's just congratulate ourselves, nerds -- there are things in your own life you're not learning because they're intimidating, too. For me they're mostly physical -- riding a bike, driving a car, getting handy with tools -- because that's the kind of learning I find really difficult, and so it's easier to say "someone else knows how, so they can do it". My perfect example is my parents. My dad used to make fun of my mom for being too scared to learn to operate our remotes (receiver, tv, DVD player and cable box -- my dad's a gadget person). Until one day, I found out that he never learned to work our washing machine, which is like an order of magnitude easier, so I told my mom to respond with that every times he makes fun of her for the remote thing. The idea of something being intimidating to learn is enough to dissuade my dad (a very smart, accomplished guy) from even TRYING to learn to wash his clothes, because if he had tried, he'd have done it, because it's easy as crap. Even with less intimidating stuff I still remind myself of the learning-expectation curve: when we first begin something, we think it will be much easier than it is; once we really get into it, we think it will be much harder and take forever and ugh, and then a little bit later we see that it's not that bad, and revise our estimate to somewhere in between those extremes, which is more accurate anyway. So go forth and learn something scary! I try to.
Re:Don't forget privilege, even if not financial..
on
What Makes a Genius?
·
· Score: 1
Ah, thank you. It's shocking how unable to take the next logical step this argument is. Yes, there weren't famous women scientists during those times when women were allowed zero access to the realms of science, philosophy, or invention -- wonder why that might be??? Ugh.
How are you supposed to know ahead of time whether your invention is for the sake of change, or better? Presumably everybody THINKS their innovation will be an improvement. Just seems like this is the kind of argument used to shut down all of that.
Anything innovative? At all? I mean I know switching standards sucks, but having DVDs instead of VHS tapes sure is nice. This is how improvement works, unfortunately.
No, we're currently treating it dismissively, and the result is that racism isn't going away. If we need change, we need to address the problem for once. Treating unequal voting rights as unimportant didn't make it go away. Also, you'll notice the people treating it as unimportant were mostly dudes. It's a lot easier to tell someone, it's not important, when you don't have to suffer through it. Throughout history, we've never solved social ills until they've been addressed by society at large. Your philosophy is very zen, but it's simply not how reality works.
So we both agree there are things in one's control and things beyond one's control, and using the things you're best at is the best strategy. Well and good. But that leaves plenty of room for the fact that some people face problems that they really shouldn't have to deal with, that are devaluing and dehumanizing, and most importantly, preventable. Why should we shrug our shoulders and say, well some people have disadvantages others don't, when we can help those people or prevent those disadvantages? As someone who has experienced poverty, would you really want some rich person walking by to shrug and say "well, everyone has advantages and disadvantages in life"? Even if what they're saying is ultimately true, it's ignorant of the fact that we can change certain things, that certain things are avoidable, and certain things -- like people harming each other -- should be prevented. Overall, racism harms people. Hence, it should be stopped.
You really seem to believe that success comes only from inner qualities and character. What I'm telling you is, you also need the help of other people. Yes, you, because literally everyone does. Some of us get that, or get more of it; others, simply by virtue of their appearance (not their "lifestyle", by the way -- their appearance) do not, or get less. What every study has overwhelmingly shown is that this treatment correlates, very highly, with success in life. This is not something one overcomes; this is about how one is treated by others. Not to mention, even if this system of rewarding the just with employment and shorter prison sentences weren't based on race and other irrelevant factors, how exactly does each employer know who's a good person with a acceptable lifestyle or who's bad with an inappropriate lifestyle? Who judges who gets into heaven, here? You?
One more assertion I take issue with. You're talking about obstacles you've never faced. I can't respect that.
"Studies are coming out that are finding many genetic indicators that make a person more likely to possess personality traits like ambition and persistence. "
This to me is a disturbing sentiment. What we're disagreeing on is basically nature vs. nurture, and my position is that from my pretty extensive knowledge of (/experience with) the subject, it's about 80% nurture, 20% nature. Traits like persistence in particular seem like they would be environmentally based, so I would like to see these studies. Genes don't determine much of our ultimate personalities and abilities, and that sort of thinking seems like a justification of considering some people superior to others.
Most of us are not driven to succeed or driven to mooch -- we're both, sometimes one and sometimes the other. Depends on the situation, our mood, what we feel are our chances of success, and obviously much more. (I also feel that most people would mooch the minority of the time, but that is a separate position and there are a million studies on it and basically you can believe what you want). In my experience, people who are entirely moochers exist mainly in Republican fantasies.
""Privilege" is a term used by those who feel they didn't earn what they have, that really offends those who have earned what they have. "
Not quite. Privilege is a term used to mean that it is easier, right now in this society, for some people to succeed than others. Which, you'll notice, it is.
No, privilege doesn't say that success is unearned. It says it's easier for some people than others. Sort of like four years ago, when Republicans thought Obama was telling them they didn't build their own businesses. He was saying, well, you did, but it was easier for you because of all these advantages provided for you by other people (in this case, the government).
Privilege doesn't mean you didn't earn your success. It means it was easier for you to succeed than for someone else. I think we should at least be able to admit to that much. It's plainly the case.
If you are in the tech sector, you will benefit from being white and male. That's what privilege means. It doesn't mean you didn't earn what you have -- it means you were given THE CHANCE to earn it.
Mostly, nowadays, "privilege" is a word used by conservatives to mock the idea that other people might face problems they haven't faced and don't understand.
And how exactly would you propose to do that? Social phenomena are among the hardest things to measure concretely on the planet. Which is why most social scientists understand that they may have to deal with ideas and behavioral trends that simply cannot be measured. It would be like measuring how good the entire population of New Jersey is at doing a British accent.
My example: say a teacher doesn't like you, and is mean to you. But teachers can't just break the rules or verbally abuse students, so the teacher does it subtley. They still have deniability. You have no proof. But it happened! Most of racism and sexism isn't breaking rules and straight-up abuse. It's little unproveable stuff like this. It's "not what they said, but the way they said it". Only now imagine if ALL your teachers hated you (or rather,. all your teachers assumed you were dumb, and your classmates much smarter) -- now see why working in a tech field as a minority is no fun?
This is why I had to laugh at the comment you're responding to. Remember those three years when the Obama administration was all about compromise? And they just got walked all over by the opposing party, in every single thing, because the theory was if congress didn't cooperate then Obama would look bad and not get reelected? And they've admitted it? Does anyone remember this? =/
"If people are too stupid to select the proper bulb technology, I dont think sweeping laws that ignore intended use are the answer to that stupidity."
Good point. Also, if people are too stupid to drive safely, I don't think sweeping traffic laws that ignore intended use are the answers to that stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
Dammit, I just ran out of mod points. Thank you for providing the answer -- the objective answer -- to this problem (not that there aren't tons of other factors). Protip: women new to tech culture DON'T have a problem with nerds because they're weird; the problem IS that aforementioned nerds are often misogynistic, condescending, constantly making "hilarious" and "ironic" sexist jokes (actually kind of hurtful! please stop doing this!) and leering/ making lewd remarks like it's their job to do so. Often even the teacher or group leader ignores contributions from women. Ask any woman in a tech field -- ANY woman -- if they've had this experience or something like it. We have. WE ALL HAVE, GODDAMMIT.
The word "minority" nowadays usually just means a group that isn't a "majority", or is somehow disenfranchised by society. It's a distinct definiton from the mathetical one, which I realize is annoying as heck. (But I'm used to it; people be stealing us mathematicians' terms all the time.)
The Just World fallacy is, sadly, slashdot's favorite thing. I'm hard pressed to find a single post -- regardless of topic -- where the comments are not full of how poor people are lazy and stupid, minorities are entitled, and if THEY were in those situations, they'd be fine, because all obstacles can be overcome with enough "character".
Considering slashdotters tend to identify as liberal, this is some messed up delusional-rich-Republican thinking.
The article agrees with me. The other commenters clearly do not.
My generation is full of people who were praised for their innate intelligence -- something a child understands is beyond her control -- and subsequently developed the worldview that natural gifts are what matters, that failure is the worst thing, and that if you're not good at something naturally, you won't get good, so, no point trying (these aren't conscious beliefs; more like beliefs we find ourselves slipping into). Research shows that what children need is not high self-esteem, but "self efficacy", which is your faith in yourself to rescue situations, overcome even unexpected obstacles, and develop skill at things via practice and force of will. All telling a kid he's smart will do is make him very, very afraid of anything that might disprove his intelligence. And the fear that, if the intelligence was gone, he would be worth less as a person.
To develop this in others, praise them for their effort and the things they achieved (especially stuff that was harder for them, because the harder it was, the more they've accomplished, really). To develop it in yourself, try focusing on your efforts and strategies, and learn to identify in any situation what is under your control and how those things might be used to achieve your goals, even if it's going to be depressingly hard -- even if it's going to be EMBARRASSINGLY hard. We have to stop being ashamed of needing extra effort, or extra help, and start being proud that we MADE the extra effort, and that we FOUND the extra help. Those things are much, much more useful qualities than innate intelligence... which, by the way, INCREASES when you learn something that is difficult for you to grasp -- like literally, more nerve connections are forged so that later cell firing is infinitesimally faster, each time.
And this is the heart of the matter -- what the hell is intelligence? There are hundreds of qualities we associate with it, and one intelligent person may be completely unable to do something another intelligent person can. Maybe we need to face that fact that "intelligence", like "cancer", does not exist -- it's simply a shorthand for a variety of skills and talents, which for the most part we all have some of but none of us have all of. Stop thinking of the person who doesn't understand math but dances incredibly well as unintelligent. And stop thinking of unintelligent people as inferior. I bet you know some unintelligent people who are among the best people you know. I certainly do.
It's not just your intuition, actually. There is a lot of research coming out that praising children for things beyond their control -- intelligence particularly -- will just make them feel helpless and afraid to disappoint, and will make them less likely to try new things and explore because of this paralyzing fear. (For the curious, the new research says, praise your children mostly for effort, and maybe also for particular accomplishments. Knowing you're effective even without natural advantages is a much, much more effective mindset than believing you're naturally good at everything -- because sooner or later, you'll find out that you aren't).
Agrred -- they're necessary but not sufficient to be recognized as a person of renown, no matter how much you do by yourself in the garage. Someone pointed out in another comment that there are fewer women and minorities who have contributed in fields like science than whites and men, and I think your comment might be EXTREMELY relevant to that observation.
I sort of buy that STEM fields are less modular than art (although even as a math major, the various specialties and areas to pursue once you're an upperclassman felt more sandboxy than train tracky). But what I really have to agree with you on is the fear and stigma surrounding math. I've taught a lot of the subject, and nearly every students comes in saying "I just don't get math" "I'm not a numbers person" "I don't see what it has to do with the real world" (a valid objection, but usually an expression of learning anxiety) or "fractions are too complicated, I never got them". Even with our miserable school system, I think we'd be further ahead in research and tech than we are without this widespread fear. But don't let's just congratulate ourselves, nerds -- there are things in your own life you're not learning because they're intimidating, too. For me they're mostly physical -- riding a bike, driving a car, getting handy with tools -- because that's the kind of learning I find really difficult, and so it's easier to say "someone else knows how, so they can do it". My perfect example is my parents. My dad used to make fun of my mom for being too scared to learn to operate our remotes (receiver, tv, DVD player and cable box -- my dad's a gadget person). Until one day, I found out that he never learned to work our washing machine, which is like an order of magnitude easier, so I told my mom to respond with that every times he makes fun of her for the remote thing. The idea of something being intimidating to learn is enough to dissuade my dad (a very smart, accomplished guy) from even TRYING to learn to wash his clothes, because if he had tried, he'd have done it, because it's easy as crap. Even with less intimidating stuff I still remind myself of the learning-expectation curve: when we first begin something, we think it will be much easier than it is; once we really get into it, we think it will be much harder and take forever and ugh, and then a little bit later we see that it's not that bad, and revise our estimate to somewhere in between those extremes, which is more accurate anyway. So go forth and learn something scary! I try to.
Ah, thank you. It's shocking how unable to take the next logical step this argument is. Yes, there weren't famous women scientists during those times when women were allowed zero access to the realms of science, philosophy, or invention -- wonder why that might be??? Ugh.
"Actually I haven't seen ANY evidence of negative results from genetically modified organisms that has withstood scientific scrutiny."
To be fair, that's because there's been very little research yet, at all.
How are you supposed to know ahead of time whether your invention is for the sake of change, or better? Presumably everybody THINKS their innovation will be an improvement. Just seems like this is the kind of argument used to shut down all of that.
Social Darwinism isn't just for Republicans anymore. I see Social Darwinist sentiments expressed with alarming frequency on slashdot.
Anything innovative? At all? I mean I know switching standards sucks, but having DVDs instead of VHS tapes sure is nice. This is how improvement works, unfortunately.
No, we're currently treating it dismissively, and the result is that racism isn't going away. If we need change, we need to address the problem for once. Treating unequal voting rights as unimportant didn't make it go away. Also, you'll notice the people treating it as unimportant were mostly dudes. It's a lot easier to tell someone, it's not important, when you don't have to suffer through it. Throughout history, we've never solved social ills until they've been addressed by society at large. Your philosophy is very zen, but it's simply not how reality works.
So we both agree there are things in one's control and things beyond one's control, and using the things you're best at is the best strategy. Well and good. But that leaves plenty of room for the fact that some people face problems that they really shouldn't have to deal with, that are devaluing and dehumanizing, and most importantly, preventable. Why should we shrug our shoulders and say, well some people have disadvantages others don't, when we can help those people or prevent those disadvantages? As someone who has experienced poverty, would you really want some rich person walking by to shrug and say "well, everyone has advantages and disadvantages in life"? Even if what they're saying is ultimately true, it's ignorant of the fact that we can change certain things, that certain things are avoidable, and certain things -- like people harming each other -- should be prevented. Overall, racism harms people. Hence, it should be stopped.
"What obstacles do you have in mind?"
I guess I was talking about racism. Systemic, societal-level racism, where people fear you walking down the street, and where you're taught every day to hate your own coloring. I was basing my assumptions about you on your blasé attitude toward discrimination.
You really seem to believe that success comes only from inner qualities and character. What I'm telling you is, you also need the help of other people. Yes, you, because literally everyone does. Some of us get that, or get more of it; others, simply by virtue of their appearance (not their "lifestyle", by the way -- their appearance) do not, or get less. What every study has overwhelmingly shown is that this treatment correlates, very highly, with success in life. This is not something one overcomes; this is about how one is treated by others. Not to mention, even if this system of rewarding the just with employment and shorter prison sentences weren't based on race and other irrelevant factors, how exactly does each employer know who's a good person with a acceptable lifestyle or who's bad with an inappropriate lifestyle? Who judges who gets into heaven, here? You?
One more assertion I take issue with. You're talking about obstacles you've never faced. I can't respect that.
"Studies are coming out that are finding many genetic indicators that make a person more likely to possess personality traits like ambition and persistence. "
This to me is a disturbing sentiment. What we're disagreeing on is basically nature vs. nurture, and my position is that from my pretty extensive knowledge of (/experience with) the subject, it's about 80% nurture, 20% nature. Traits like persistence in particular seem like they would be environmentally based, so I would like to see these studies. Genes don't determine much of our ultimate personalities and abilities, and that sort of thinking seems like a justification of considering some people superior to others.
Most of us are not driven to succeed or driven to mooch -- we're both, sometimes one and sometimes the other. Depends on the situation, our mood, what we feel are our chances of success, and obviously much more. (I also feel that most people would mooch the minority of the time, but that is a separate position and there are a million studies on it and basically you can believe what you want). In my experience, people who are entirely moochers exist mainly in Republican fantasies.
I don't think "is bad at organizing data" falls into the same category as "is black". The fact that, right now, it does? Is the problem.
""Privilege" is a term used by those who feel they didn't earn what they have, that really offends those who have earned what they have. "
Not quite. Privilege is a term used to mean that it is easier, right now in this society, for some people to succeed than others. Which, you'll notice, it is.
No, privilege doesn't say that success is unearned. It says it's easier for some people than others. Sort of like four years ago, when Republicans thought Obama was telling them they didn't build their own businesses. He was saying, well, you did, but it was easier for you because of all these advantages provided for you by other people (in this case, the government).
Privilege doesn't mean you didn't earn your success. It means it was easier for you to succeed than for someone else. I think we should at least be able to admit to that much. It's plainly the case.
If you are in the tech sector, you will benefit from being white and male. That's what privilege means. It doesn't mean you didn't earn what you have -- it means you were given THE CHANCE to earn it.
Mostly, nowadays, "privilege" is a word used by conservatives to mock the idea that other people might face problems they haven't faced and don't understand.
And how exactly would you propose to do that? Social phenomena are among the hardest things to measure concretely on the planet. Which is why most social scientists understand that they may have to deal with ideas and behavioral trends that simply cannot be measured. It would be like measuring how good the entire population of New Jersey is at doing a British accent.
My example: say a teacher doesn't like you, and is mean to you. But teachers can't just break the rules or verbally abuse students, so the teacher does it subtley. They still have deniability. You have no proof. But it happened! Most of racism and sexism isn't breaking rules and straight-up abuse. It's little unproveable stuff like this. It's "not what they said, but the way they said it". Only now imagine if ALL your teachers hated you (or rather,. all your teachers assumed you were dumb, and your classmates much smarter) -- now see why working in a tech field as a minority is no fun?
True. It's quite possible racism wasn't the main motivation for the discriminatory pay. Maybe it was just a nice big layer of shit icing on top.
This is why I had to laugh at the comment you're responding to. Remember those three years when the Obama administration was all about compromise? And they just got walked all over by the opposing party, in every single thing, because the theory was if congress didn't cooperate then Obama would look bad and not get reelected? And they've admitted it? Does anyone remember this? =/
"If people are too stupid to select the proper bulb technology, I dont think sweeping laws that ignore intended use are the answer to that stupidity."
Good point. Also, if people are too stupid to drive safely, I don't think sweeping traffic laws that ignore intended use are the answers to that stupidity.