Hacker News Reader

Comment by jseliger | Hacker News Reader

When I became a teenager, I got wind that it wasn't something "cool" and got spooked. For someone as insecure as I was, having a hobby that I couldn't really "explain" to normal people was embarrassing.

When I was a teenager, coding or being technical in general wasn't cool either, and most of the people who were involved were or at least seemed insecure and embarrassed. Perhaps the climate in middle / high schools has changed since, but if not, we could also ask: what makes many boys persist in their uncool, embarrassing, low-ish status activity?

View on HN

The predominant gender role seems to be: men and boys are more things-focused and women and girls are more people-focused. So girls aren't willing to sacrifice social capital just to play with computers the way boys are.

It's also the predominant gender role in monkeys, and in human girls that get an usual amount of male hormone in the womb:

http://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks...

I was trying to avoid cans of worms, not tip them over :)

When I was a teenager (which was not long ago), coding or being technical in general was entirely uncool, but widely acknowledged as powerful. People would come to me asking if I could "hack" various things ranging from friends Facebook accounts to banks. Teachers would ask you for help if things broke. At one point, the principal called me into his office to ask if I could help him trace a threat posted on the Internet (after notifying proper authorities and presumably trying every other lead to do his job well and protect his students).

I'd say the problem is less that being technologically adept is low-status, and more that the problem is that being technologically adept/geeky/mathematical/mechanical is considered unfeminine.

I think that being technologically adept is low-status, and I don't think that being asked for help is much evidence to the contrary.

I mean sure, being a lawyer is a high-status career and you will likely have people in your personal life constantly asking for your advice or favours, but car mechanics experience the same thing. Being a car mechanic is respected in a way, and people certainly understand how those skills are valuable (and can think of many ways that you might use those skills for their own advantage), but it's not "high-status".

Actually, I think I'd put car mechanic as higher status than programmer. The money is not nearly as good, but on the other hand nobody is going to assume that you are a weirdo, until proven otherwise.

That's a very good point, and it makes me reconsider my earlier statement.

>considered unfeminine

It's interesting to note, though, that it is only considered unfeminine by other women. Guys just think it's badass when they find a girl into the same stuff they're into.

>the same stuff they're into.

This is only relevant for the very small fraction of the population that are "into" those things.

The reproductive system in its uncivilized state is a winner-take-all system; polygyny is much more common than polyandry. As such, it is not enough to be in the middle of the pack as a man; one must excel.

Guys are more tolerant of low social status the way that ML algorithms ignore noise: they're hoping that those currently at the top of the pack are at a local maximum, and they're willing to tolerate being low-status in exchange for the hope of finding a greater maximum at some distance. (http://calculatedbravery.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/what-mascu...)

Two points:

Let's not bring pop-evo-psych into this unless you're going to post a pile of references to white papers backing up the assertions.

A link to a pickup artist's blog does not increase the quality of your statements.

These don't seem like very controversial statements to me. Male risk tolerance and female risk aversion are very well documented, although of course proving causality is impossible.

And that is my blog, and I am certainly not a pickup artist.

Hard to say for sure, when I was in school I felt like I was banking on technology becoming cooler over time which does seem to be the case.

There's also less pressure on men to settle down early. A man can more easily think "fuck it, I won't start dating until I'm 25 by which time I'll be successful, drive a nice car and be an eligible bachelor".

With the whole biological clock issue women are often hoping to be married and starting a family by that age or risk being seen as the archetypal "cat lady".

Is 25 really when most women are hoping to starting a family by?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm

Mean age at first birth: 25.6

Interesting! I suppose hanging around people that spent that period in grad school skews my view of things.

Not just start a family, but, a man can spend 5 years dating, and at age 30 meet a 25 yr old to eventually have kids with. For women, youth is an advantage in dating. For men, the opposite, which both supports and demands career success.

>For women, youth is an advantage in dating. For men, the opposite, which both supports and demands career success.

IMO this is probably the biggest reason for the under-representation of women as CEOs/engineers/etc. You don't have to make a lot of money as a female to attract a mate, but you're sure as hell going to have a hard time with that if you're a male.

> what makes many boys persist in their uncool, embarrassing, low-ish status activity?

I've wondered this myself! Perhaps archetypes of nerdy boys that grow up to be successful and respected adults are/were more readily available? I still think of a stereotypical "nerdy girl" as being really into literature or history, as opposed to building computers.

I like to quote "True Detective" here:

Because we know what we want, and aren't afraid to be alone.

Because is something they like?

what makes many boys persist in their uncool, embarrassing, low-ish status activity?

Perhaps the fact that, social outcast or not, such boys are nowhere near alone? They can be social pariahs together with many other boys that enjoy the same things.

Mild autism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com