The cream generally rises, sure.
But at what rate? And how long will they stay in the game without recognition before giving up? And do those numbers differ based on your color or where you're from?
But at what rate? And how long will they stay in the game without recognition before giving up? And do those numbers differ based on your color or where you're from?
If you provide that data, we can continue the conversation. However, the truths in my original post stand firm. STEM is an objective field. Sure, there may be issues with equality of opportunity, but that's outside the scope of my argument.
Equality of outcome will always be attainable through personal effort, intelligence, and innovation - But as I said in my original post, you'll need to be really good.
Not everyone will be like Hal Abelson, Margaret Hamilton, Dennis Ritchie, or Richard Stallman. Those people are built different. Those are the people I'm referring to. It is literally impossible for them to have ever not been noticed due to their next level talent and relentlessness.
From my perspective, we have seen a lot of evidence that STEM is far from an objective field, and has culturally excluded a lot of talent. I see little evidence that this sort of talent magically, consistently, will fight through the cultural barriers.
> STEM is far from an objective field
I had every excuse to believe that, but I didn't. I'm definitely biased because I trusted the system and it worked. Most industries can be exclusive, but STEM is not one of them. Raw talent seems to be rare, so any talent is accepted.
> and has culturally excluded a lot of talent
You use 'culture' as a point of argument, which is extremely vague, yet you accuse me of presenting a poor argument due to unfalsifiable statements? I respect your point of view, but you have to be fair.
It's your job to explain how there are no cultural effects that you can find that affect your thesis, and that you've examined the ones that people have previously mentioned. Not the listener's job to be very specific about their suspicions that cultural factors could have an effect on your thesis.
Black man, south side of Chicago, single mother, learned C at 12 (or 13) on my own. Doesn't qualify me to make sweeping cultural statements and not be questioned about them.
I did not mean to get into an argument on particulars of whether it’s possible for talent to break through regardless of obstacles (a high rejection rate as discussed in OP, for example), as I figured you had personal reasons for your stance about the potential for talent to break through. I didn’t feel it was right or justified to say you were wrong. You may very well be right, and a part of me hopes you are. I just felt your argument as posted wasn’t strong.
Ultimately what I’m saying is that we don’t have a reliable model (as used in social science) to determine what makes high achievements possible.
I tend not to be fatalist about social systems always determining the outcomes of individuals, I think individuals can transcend them and break through the average result, and we have examples of this such as yourself.
I am a white cis male but the son of a single mother / school teacher and first generation immigrant, and through a mix of luck, privilege and skill had success beyond what was expected of me.
I think breaking through class barriers is doable but I’m not sure if there’s a way to model how to make it repeatable. Even “talent” is a nebulous term, something that arguably is rare but is also not measurable. Maybe it’s not rare?
Mainly I wonder if some folks with great talent get stopped along the way, and what can be done about it. I liken it to random extrinsic events - just as a a car accident cuts a life short, a person with the wrong PhD advisor or boss can be disillusioned or outcast, or worse. Just as car accident rates can be mitigated, what can we do to help nurture people of all walks of life in STEM?