You have to remember the context. Laird was talking about programmers who were able to hide their sex. So we were clearly talking about self-employed or unemployed programmers who operate under their own supervision. That is the style of programming that I was thinking of - geeks who take their interests in programming to unusual lengths. Although again, one has to admit that most geeks retain compartmentalised thinking. Yet, there is probably a stronger compulsion to do so consciously rather than out of unconscious socialisation.Dave Toast wrote:There's nothing stopping female programmers being highly logical in applying themselves to the nature of their job but doing so in no way implies that they will apply that logic to any other area of their life.
So, if we take the type of programmer defined above, do you see at least equal numbers of females and males ?You chose a bad example in the first place as there is a particularly high incidence of females in programming, compared to the incidence in many other fields requiring a level of logical rigour.
My experience of programming is small. However, in learning Linux and spending a lot of time on various Linux fora, the usernames are rarely female or feminine. Nothing like "HeavenlyFlower", for instance.
Very true. But the more logical the thinking, the less compartmentalised.But in the end, just like the male scientist who uses logic all day long and yet only applies systematic thinking to life in general on a whimsical basis, so too female programmers can work with high levels of logical abstraction and yet never apply that systematic thinking systematically.
Of course. A rock is genetically disadvantaged in the same way, and with the appropriate causal influences will become capable of high achievement. This isn't saying much, unless you're saying women are genetically disadvantaged for high achievement, compared to men. And, since we are talking about consciously removing compartments to logical thought, then where are the examples that the ease with which women bow unconsciously to socialisation pressures is 'very much surmountable with the appropriate causal influences in life' ? High achievement isn't a group thing, especially in this case, and also especially in this case I'd argue that the more support there is for high achievement, the lower it is.This brings me back to a point I made a while back: What people are caused to go through plays a larger part in their development than what they are caused to be capable of. Sure women in general are genetically disadvantaged in many aspects of the attributes required for high achievement but these genetic disadvantages don't render women completely incapable of high achievement as they are very much surmountable with the appropriate causal influences in life.
See my "female programmers hit-prevention collective" argument. In other words, if there was even one single example, then she would have taken steps to change the socialisation process for future females. But either there was none, or the future females were genetically so unlike their helpers as to resist all their programming attempts.As to whether they'll come across those appropriate causal influences is the larger part of it though, being as females are generally subject to an entirely different socialization process to males, a process less likely to predispose females to develop those high achievement attributes.
I definitely think the C19th female emancipationists had some worthy and noble ideals. But they were incredibly misguided as to its implementation, which leads me to think they actually didn't realise what emancipation meant. So perhaps we might say that if those females had have been a tad more logical, then future generations of women would be much, much more than they. Who knows? I tend to think it'll take many many years of female children not being brought up as women to develop the loner instinct.
Like you know, I don't think it's worth trying to get women to think logically - generally speaking. The odd one, who clearly shows a love of thought, and the loner instinct, is already along the path to being manly, so that's justified.
The problem really is, most of these rare tomboys are just that - they escaped a lot of the feminisation that most females go through, but remain young irresponsible boys. They are probably the typical butch lesbian, who still likes to wear a bit of lipgloss and perhaps a metallic streak of eyeliner.
My hypothesis is that all young girls like dolls and frilly things, and most girls are encouraged in most of their girlish fantasies by their fathers, who represent worldly success and reliable information. These girls' mothers, sisters, aunts, cousins, girlfriends and extended family friends are also burning the girls' heads with heating irons, so to speak. So most girls actually enter into these fantasies, and remain there throughout life. A small percentage of girls are discouraged, and either accept that their fantasies are like abstract tools to be used and abandoned by a neutral self, and so become more masculine and solitary-minded, and also probably take on masculine fantasies.
Thanks for the link. Three interesting points: she picked up her skills early in life because her aunt owned a boat; she has a "schizotypoid personality disorder" - at least, if she weren't a high achiever, that much would be admitted - so she's probably been brought up as a loner; and her team is made of two males.Look no further than the likes of Ellen Macarthur for a female more driven, disciplined and more capable of single-pointed concentration than most males on the face of the planet.
These are virtues often applied to religious fanatics. I think you'll find most of the 'high achieving' women of history are such.History is repleat with examples of women of integrity and constancy, if only because they stand out from the crowd so.
Samuel Butler has a great satire on the economics of religion in Erewhon. He describes their two currencies - a normal commercial one, and another used by females in Musical Banks. Everyone in Erewhon believes the Musical Banks is the greater, better currency, but no one trades in it. If you offer Musical Bank coins as your tithe to a clergy-man (who is called a cashier), he will become greatly offended. As indeed it is on Earth. Females tend to regard this schism as the fault of the males, citing the males' cunning and hubris on learning how to manage stable human institutions.
I think there's a great difference between will and emotional compulsion. What you're talking about would appear to be the latter.And they're certainly not disadvantaged in any way whatsoever when it comes to being callous, crass and uncaring with regard to getting what they want.
I don't think they could, if they lack will. Emotionalism drives a person all over the place, and makes one incapable of sustaining an initial direction.Of course, such women will go on to high achievement
I think they are less likely than men to, in any level of achievement, because of that emotionalism. The same drives religious fanaticism. Religiousness is the same as the feminine desire for social order, which probably comes about from bonding with the women-pack and all its insecurities.and yet most will likely never apply those aquired attributes to the big questions, just like most men of high achievement won't.
The greater struggle requires more time, and more effort, so less capability. Also, early delusions are rooted more deeply, which takes even more time and effort. So the rare female you mention is not as capable of addressing big questions and following through, as the average male.But if they manage to defy the minefield of female socialization and avail themselves of such attributes, they are just as capable (if not more so due to the greater degree of their struggle to get there) of addressing those big questions and following through on their conclusions.
I'm not trying to discourage females, but we must be honest. That is far more positive than hiding the real situation.
"Just as capable" is meaningless - rocks are 'just as capable'.In short, females are just as capable as males of developing many if not all aspects of the much vaunted masculine mindset required for wisdom.
I've never said females are completely incapable of logical thinking. I just think it happens very rarely.It's just that they're far less likely to go through the appropriate causal processes to produce it and then the appropriate causal processes to apply it to spiritual understanding. The point being that it's not a question of their being completely incapable. But I guess you already know this better than most.
Kelly
[edited grammar]
