This has absolutely nothing to do with anybody's X or Y chromosomes, genitalia, or gender identity. It's part of growing up and people of all university majors, professions, genders, shapes, colours and sizes experience it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome
They provide a citation for this, but here it is again (definitely worth going straight to the source rather than taking the one-line summary):
http://www.paulineroseclance.com/pdf/-Langford.pdf
"Studies of college students (Harvey, 1981; Bussotti, 1990; Lang- ford, 1990), college professors (Topping, 1983), and successful professionals (Dingman, 1987) have all failed, however, to reveal any sex differ- ences in impostor feelings, suggesting that males in these populations are just as likely as females to have low expectations of success and to make attributions to non-ability related factors."
I would be inclined to think this syndrome is higher among programmers, because we don't have as clearly defined an education system as something like medicine. But thing is, I've known (yes, male) physicians who never felt confident, felt like they were faking it, even though they had gone to top medical schools and residencies in their specialty. So maybe it's best not to assume our own experience are unique and don't happen to other people.
Towards the end of the paper, it says that men with IS are much more likely to take risks, so either women with IS are more affected by it or that view society has on their capabilities - that is mentioned at the beginning of the paper - actually does come into play here.
"When Beard (1990) compared the PRF traits associated with impostor feelings in men and women, he found differing patterns which suggest that, though both male and female impostors are high in defendence and untrusting of others, they may respond differently to this perception of threat from others in achievement situations. For females, impostor, feelings had low correlations with impulsivity and need for change, consistent with the usual description of impostors as cautious and unlikely to engage in risk-taking. For males, on the other hand, impostor feelings were associated with high impulsivity and a strong need for change, as well as a low need for order. Beard (1990) speculated that, instead of dealing with their sense of inadequacy in the withdrawing style typical of females impostors, male impostors may tend to compensate by pushing themselves in a frenetic manner in order to prove their competency."
> Beard speculated that the primacy of relationships in females' value systems might prevent them from putting relationships at risk by taking the kinds of chances that males might take in order to prove themselves through achievements.
[Most] men who feel like imposters try harder, and [most] women who feel like imposters buckle. This correlates strongly with women being less likely to negotiate salary and ask for a raise, due to how it could change their perception.
Anyhow, I found it interesting, relatable and worth noting.
I don't find nearly as much support for this point of view in the paragraph.
The authors used the words "frenetically" rather than "harder" to describe the way the men work. It also suggested that women avoid risk, but not that they buckle. Too much risk aversion can be destructive, but I could also see the identified male pattern here as being very destructive to a career as well. Perhaps losing confidence, working frenetically, and using rapid change (impulsive job hopping) to escape a situation that actually doesn't need to be escaped, abandoning good relationships with people who don't think he's incompetent at all?
Everybody can feel like an impostor when objectively competent; it could have been your parents or your older brother who primed you to think that any success you have comes from faking it, but that's not the same as saying that sex or race has "absolutely nothing" to do with it.
Of course, various "positive discrimination" programs won't help this too, since once one belongs to a group which such a program targets, one has yet another - in this case, externally validated - cause to doubt if one's achievements are of one's own merit or were just bestowed by somebody else due to the fact of belonging to the targeted identity group. In this case, if the identity group is gender- or race-specific, of course this component is very prominent.
Note that there are plenty of things one can do to fight structural sexism besides positive discrimination, so picking that out of the blue to discuss is a bit of red herring.
>>>> Note that there are plenty of things one can do to fight structural sexism besides positive discrimination, so picking that out of the blue to discuss is a bit of red herring.
I did not pick it "out of the blue", I chose it specifically because presence of such thing can support Impostor syndrome. I quite agree that there are better ways to go than discrimination, but I was not suggesting any and I wasn't discussing it, I was discussing possible causes for Impostor syndrome.
From what I read, I might go as far as saying we have some reason to think that impostor syndrome might be equally prevalent in men and women in tech. On the other hand, if research found the opposite, I could come up with a half-dozen reasons why that wouldn't be surprising.
And I didn't see anything related to impact. It could well be that in tech men and women experience it with the same frequency, but it has more impact for women (or other people easily perceived as outsiders).
The Langford study also says that men afflicted with Imposter Syndrome are much more likely to take risks than their female counterparts. I think that says a lot more about how women interpret themselves due to the societal expectations they mention in the beginning of the paper than the final results the study infers.
Do both genders feel this way? Yes. Are you less likely to act on something because of it? If you're a woman, yes.
I don't see how either type of reaction can be consider good, bad, worse or better. Both has potential strong negative consequences. Too high impulsivity can lead to anything from death, bankruptcy, failure, or in rare occasions: success. Too low impulsivity can lead to an downward spiral, inaction, disadvantages, failure, or in rare occasions: success.
Certainly, the author addresses "girls learning how to code" specifically because her intended audience, on a website named "Lady Coders" is women who are interested in coding.
If you mean "also," use "also." I don't know if you're the author, but regardless, composing based on your perception of the way your audience thinks assumes too much about your audience and their perceptions of the issues you're writing around without being clear.
Here is the only gendered sentence in the entire OP:
> So to all the girls learning how to code, and not sure where you stand: screw it, and just call yourself a developer already.
Is it really so insulting that she didn't say, "girls and boys"? There are only two other gendered words, and they're both pronouns referring to a specific individual.
Agree. There's nothing in the article that even suggests that this phenomenon only applies to, or more often applies to women.
The "to all the girls" part is clearly due to the fact that the article is written by a woman and posted on a site mostly directed towards women.
EDIT: It looks like the article's been edited since it was originally posted, and that it used the wording "this experience applies to women (...)." I still don't think this is a major issue since the article was meant to assuage the concerns of someone who's experiencing impostor syndrome, and again, the article is written by a woman and posted on a site mostly directed towards women.
And such a reminder would be completely appropriate. If someone else didn't remind him, then you should step up and do so yourself.
Could a particular essay make men feel less than included, many of whom are disenfranchised by the specifics of their situation? Yes? That's perfectly fine! Not all essays' audiences have to include men, so stop being so selfish and demanding.
Could a particular essay make disenfranchised women feel less than included, many of whom are disenfranchised by the specifics of their situation? Yes? Oh, that's just wrong. Step up, make a difference, and accuse that author of casual misogyny.
Dear Anne Frank, why do you only write about the situation of Jewish folk? Why don't you write about the Germans, many of whom didn't have a posh lifestyle, who had terrible working conditions while building tanks, and were occasionally shot back at by the French? It's really scary being shot at! Sometimes you get hit and bleed and die and everything! You should make sure to be inclusive when you write. Think of all those dead Germans. Don't they deserve to be included in your diary?
People have no obligation to include anyone in their writings. It's not immoral or wrong for someone to use language that does not include 100% of people.
It was you who wrote:
> And such a reminder would be completely appropriate. If someone else didn't remind him, then you should step up and do so yourself.
That said, your comparison is absurd, especially considering young women handily beat young men in college graduation rates and beat them in pay, even taking into account the predominance of young men in tech.
Except this isn't the point I was making.
People in a privileged position are obligated to be more inclusive, because their position is different. This is why, for instance, it is problematic that the POTUS explicitly endorses Christianity as a matter of state. While I concede that it would waste political capital to be inclusive, it remains "immoral and wrong" for him to exclude non-Christians, atheist or Hindu or whatever, simply by weight of tradition.
In this case, males are in a privileged position. Failing to be inclusive, even by omission, is exclusive. We could make this about browser wars and point out how problematic it is that rendering engines are becoming monocultural. We could make this about the predominance of Windows and the implicit assumption that everyone who uses a computer must have a two-button mouse. We could make this about economics and ask why anyone would find it in their self-interest to not increase their disposable income.
It is a responsibility of those with the privilege of dominance to actively seek out ways to be inclusive. It is similarly the right of those who are disadvantaged to protect themselves when excluded, even if it's through exclusion themselves. Both actions are stepping stones towards a stronger egalitarianism.
> People in a privileged position are obligated to be more inclusive, because their position is different.
> immoral and wrong
If you're not with us, you're against us. And you're obligated to be with us.
Postmodern feminism is a remarkably authoritarian ideology, leaving very little room for individual choice and expression.
The world is not as absurdly simple as you make it out to be. The world cannot be easily broken down into neat, calming, convenient divisions of "oppressed" and "privileged", "good" and "ungood". That sort of worldview is great for sewing division, segregation, and hatred, but it's awful for accurately modeling society or for setting policy.
It's absurdly difficult for a non-authoritarian to have a coherent discussion with a postmodern feminist, because PMFs dishonestly redefine words (such as "society", "group", "privilege", and "oppression") in an attempt to impose their ideology on the discussion. Both sides end up talking past each other, but I'm going to do my best.
Anyone could construct a "group" to which they belong that is "oppressed" according to PMF ideology. Gluten-intolerant people are oppressed and excluded by a society that markets wheat products to them at every turn, for example. Instead of living in a free society, we could all construct chains by which to bind everyone else to our particular differences.
As I pointed out, young women have significantly higher college graduation rates and are paid better than young men, even taking into account young men's. Is it the right (your words) of young men to use exclusion (your word) to young women when it comes to college or money?