Hacker News Reader

Comment by crawfordcomeaux | Hacker News Reader

For anyone whose skepticism was trickered (tricked into triggering) because of the source of the message, let's think about this briefly:

1. Teaching is hard.

2. Teaching abstract concepts (ie. math) is often harder because not everyone thinks the same way. (This is why rote learning in math was the standard for so long.)

3. Teaching abstract concepts in a gender-biased abstract composition of fields (STEM) in a gender-biased country (USA) is harder to teach equally to both genders.

4. Teaching in that context to kids is hardest.

There we go...now you can forget it was an Obama making the claim and come at me instead.

View on HN

> 3. Teaching abstract concepts in a gender-biased abstract composition of fields (STEM) in a gender-biased country (USA) is harder to teach equally to both genders.

How do you figure? They just started college, the absolute most advanced level of mathematics we're talking about is probably Calculus I. I'm just not seeing the gender-biased way to talk about trigonometric functions or quadratic equations that would lead one teacher to do poorly with girls but not boys when they're being taught simultaneously.

Unless you're arguing that there's a "better" way to teach girls math versus boys, which would imply that boys and girls learn math differently. And as we all know, there's absolutely no difference in the intellectual capabilities of males and females so obviously that's not it.

How to bias material: lack confidence in it.

How to bias responses to children expressing problems with grasping material: be human.

How to gender-bias responses to kids having difficulty: be human while teaching both genders.

More specifically, my teachers in the past weren't always able to clearly convey how equations directly related to their graphs. I developed a rote sense of functions, rather than a visual intuition. When I tutor kids, I pass on my intuition that since things real numbers raise to even powers gets you positive real numbers, your graph will be above or touching the x-axis. That's different enough from saying "Consider y=x^n. If n%2=0, then y>=0." to click for someone who isn't catching on to the symbolic reasoning.

Sounds like that affects all children, not just girls specifically.

Gender bias inherently affects all children in various ways to varying degrees. Nothing is as black and white as you're treating it.

Here's some evidence to support the systems-oriented reasoning behind what I'm saying.

http://www.npr.org/2015/09/01/436525758/how-teachers-unconsc...

"a gender-biased abstract composition of fields"

What does that even mean? Do you mean things like not counting medicine as STEM, because more women than men study it?

That's my weird way of saying STEM is gender-biased.

And why would we exclude a science from STEM? That's like...exactly the opposite of science. Is that a thing you've heard is happening?

As I said, medicine doesn't count as STEM afaik.

Ok. So take it up with President STEM or start a movement to include it or something. It's exclusion isn't really relevant to this convo, since I'm not advocating for it.

My question was, is that what you mean by "STEM is gender biased" - it seems as if on purpose only subjects with male majority are counted as STEM, which would make the whole discussion absurd.

It's exclusion is highly relevant whether you "advocate" for it or not, as it is an indicator that the sampling of "sciences" is biased to get a certain result[1].

[1] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bias

Life sciences in general are often excluded.

A cynic might claim that that exclusion is because they do not fit the narrative.

How is STEM gender-biased?

Are you arguing for innate gender differences in abstract thought?

Or is it just that boys tend to intimidate and shut down girls?

Would gender segregation be better? My wife thinks so.

There is data on gender segregated education. So that question should be easy to decide.

It seems controversial.

It's an efficient way to teach girls and boys differently.

But it also facilitates gender bias.

I don't know what the data says, but I think this should be answered with data. If results are better with segregated education, go for it. However, I think it has mostly been abandoned because results weren't actually better. I think I have read about issues with girls only classes, but I don't have the time to google for it now.

Especially with respect to STEM it seems easy to check how many girls from segregated schools go into STEM vs girls from coed schools.

STEM is gender-biased because we live in a world where societies are gender-biased. Systems theory says the bias will be visible in lower levels, so it's safe to assume it's in teaching.

That's how you can logic it out. If you want data, go find it. Failure to do so is work ignorance and that's OK because changing beliefs is scary and hard.

I'm arguing for humans to learn how to observe themselves and be open to seeing the impact they have on others. And for passing special attention where bias is present in order to properly apply whatever the appropriate anti-bias is.

You seem to really like problems with singular problems and solutions. Maybe looking into systems theory will help you recognize complex systems work a bit differently?

Personally, I think the ultimate solution is for humans to learn they can largely abandon judgment. I have some ideas on how to pull it off, so I'm gonna go back to writing about them.

That's a rather judgmental response, for someone who talks about learning to "largely abandon judgment".

> STEM is gender-biased because we live in a world where societies are gender-biased.

Really? STEM in practice is of course gender-biased. Because, as you say, "societies are gender-biased". But what about the subjects themselves? It seems unlikely that science, technology, engineering and mathematics are inherently incomprehensible to women.

What did you hear as judgment?

I don't think the subjects themselves are gender-biased, no. I'm referring to STEM in practice.

OK, thanks.

It was the comment about not getting complex systems that offended me.

I only skimmed my comment, instead of closely examining it & just breezed over that whole line! I'm going to make more of an effort of examining myself now.

That was definitely condescending of me. Sorry about that. It's not how I want to roll.

Hey, thanks :)

> STEM in practice is of course gender-biased

Really? Do you really mean biased[1], or do you mean there are gender differences in STEM fields, particularly as to the representation of genders in those fields (as there are in other fields)?

Or are these two the same for you?

[1] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bias

I mean "biased" in both senses. There are undeniably differences in gender distribution among various STEM and other fields. Those differences may reflect innate gender-based differences in interest, aptitude, etc.

But even if that's the case, it's very likely that gender bias in the culture also drives them. That gender bias affects the behavior of everyone involved in the process (students, parents, teachers, peers, etc).

It may even be that gender bias pervades various STEM fields at a deep structural level. That's another perspective on potential innate gender-based differences in interest, aptitude, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com