Topic: How do we get the women on board? - page 13. (Read 38449 times)

lol probably true.

Yep, I know substantially more in software development rather than in genetics Let's be straight: there are 2 (two) parties involved in a birth of a new life: spermatozoids and ovum. One is male, another is female. Please tell me who is the third party there

If you want the women on board, all we have to do is tell them that this is an exclusive men's club. Then they'll want to join in droves.

Well that shows how little you know about genetics...

Sure, but it's a question of legal procedures, local and state laws and other bureocracy. Certainly, there could be more ways than just http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system, however from human genetics point of view, it could only be XX or XY (YY is impossible).

So, ok, well for legal point of view "Other" could be used for that 1 out of 1,000,000 whose gender could not have been legally established. I laugh at those trolls who specified "Other" just for fun

Let's ask them to accept bitcoins!!!

http://chicapparel.info/index.php

That would be awesome

No. Even though a lot of 'Other' answerers are probably trolls, gender can truly be a very difficult issue in some cases,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender#Legal_status

Male 195 (88.2%)
Female 13 (5.9%)
Other 13 (5.9%)

Could those 13 "Other" please reply here? I really wonder why author of this topic created that "Other" part. Human on planet Earth may be strictly male or female. Disorders, changed sex, different orientation are just anomalies, which would still end up in male or female sex.

Or prove me wrong.

hah yeah I wish I had a 6990 or two. 

If I was 30 years younger, I would of posted this. But now at 51, I have to read about this GREAT idea on a this board.

Bitoin: For All Your Toys

I think it's her brother, Elvin.

Oh, I thought you had a 6990 based on your shirt. I guess you were just teasing us. 

Wait, is that Ellen Degeneres?

I'm not sure whether I'd be scared or look forward to being Bill Gates haha

This one paragraph wins.  It is so full of stereotypes about people that believe in stereotypes that I imagine you must have been smirking in irony as you typed it.

A old Friend did just sent me this http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=236501879714968&id=192773887421101

she is blank and needs Money

just wait 20 years... this is what you'll look like






 

Then we should definitely play SC2.

People make wrong assumptions based on stupidly small and biased samples.  You are a good example of this.  You don't know all stereotypes, in fact it's likely you only know a small fraction of stereotypes and that fraction is biased by geography and self-selection and generally poor education in statistics and/or logic (i.e. not understanding that even if most avid shoe shoppers are women does not imply that most women are avid shoe shoppers).  From this you have generalized that this says something about all stereotypes.  Not only that but I'd wager you probably don't know many of the true values (i.e. How many Americans really are X). 

So how do we cure someone of this?  That's actually a complicated question.  You seem to imply that as soon as a significant portion of the population exemplifies something contrary to the stereotype then people don't believe that.  For which there is plenty of evidence against.

For example racial intellectual stereotypes persisted even in the light of data to the contrary.  In some cases due to actual fudging of figures but in other cases it really does appear that these people sub-consciously misinterpreted results.  We have records of various experiments done where the results were either clearly ambiguous (favoring no race) or clearly in favor of some other race and their conclusion went actually counter to their own results.  So one reason bias persists is a kind of willful ignorance.

Another reason is that people avoid dissonance.  Especially people who have a lot invested in an idea.  For example, people who believed that the world was going to be destroyed and they were going to be rescued by aliens.  When the prophecy didn't come true their leader prophesied that they had been spared and given another chance to save the world.  Clearly the evidence was either in favor of the idea that the world was never really going to end or at least at parity with it. What did most of the believers do? The chose to believe that they have been given a second chance.

A third reason is that a lot of stereotypes are phrased in a way that is either unfalsifiable or infeasible to falsify. I think one poster below stated that women aren't as logical as men.  If you met one logical woman would that be enough to stop the belief?  No, because it's asserting what "most" people are like not all.  However given that the person in question will never meet "most women" let alone engage the subset of women he/she does meet in some kind of discussion which can readily deduce if they are "logical" or not relative to "men".  The person can, keep their stereotype pretty much forever.


The far, far, far, far more rational approach is to simply believe that one rarely has the information to make certain generalizations.  This isn't political correctness, it's just math.


Again, this is a good point about how you suck at math.  Your assumption is based on the population distribution of software developers.  However that is only useful as long as the sample is random.  i.e. picking someone at random from a population.   A male is more likely to be part of a profession that is predominately male than a female.  However job applicants are self-selected so the distribution no longer applies.  Given it's highly likely that the vast majority of applicants to a software development position are software developers (especially if it's not an entry level job) My sample is less than 1% of application are completely out-of-field.  The likelihood is that all three are software developers of some kind.

So from there it's a question of ability not if they are developers or not


Normally, I'd deconstruct that to show what a bizarre statement it is.

Perfect example of how you can keep your prejudice as long as you like.