UK tech: gender and skills gap

[Karl]

There is a fundamental dishonesty in just filling in the gaps of your knowledge with assumptions, an intellectual dishonesty towards yourself and others. The reality is you just don't know, you may think this persons philosophy fits in with models you have in your own mind but in all truth you simply don't know, but you aren't willing to admit or live with not knowing, which is why you fill in the gaps with whatever suits your own agenda the best.

Which, whist accusing me, you have managed to confirm the same is true of yourself. I don't know why you feel it necessary to point out what is obvious. We climb in a ring to discover the truth, we come here with gloves of our own preconceptions and beliefs. Here we slug it out verbally revealing weaknesses in both our ourselves and our opponents. If I feint and parry then this is not cheating, which you refer to as intellectual dishonesty, it is simply part of the art of fighting. I don't come here to make friends, nor to gain prizes or heap praise on others. I come here to do what I do, in my own style, the best way I know. Would you rather a liar ? Or someone who believes nothing-a troll ? Or someone one who comes here to join a clique, to gain prestige ?

[Golden Dragon Shining]

This is a good series

[Brian]

Which, whist accusing me, you have managed to confirm the same is true of yourself. I don't know why you feel it necessary to point out what is obvious. We climb in a ring to discover the truth, we come here with gloves of our own preconceptions and beliefs. Here we slug it out verbally revealing weaknesses in both our ourselves and our opponents. If I feint and parry then this is not cheating, which you refer to as intellectual dishonesty, it is simply part of the art of fighting. I don't come here to make friends, nor to gain prizes or heap praise on others. I come here to do what I do, in my own style, the best way I know. Would you rather a liar ? Or someone who believes nothing-a troll ? Or someone one who comes here to join a clique, to gain prestige ?

You may not have noticed but the overwhelming majority of participants here are not here for the purpose of improving their proficiency in "the art of fighting." Most people come here to share and learn and grow, to discuss with friends topics which many have few if any to discuss with in person.

[Karl]

You may not have noticed but the overwhelming majority of participants here are not here for the purpose of improving their proficiency in "the art of fighting." Most people come here to share and learn and grow, to discuss with friends topics which many have few if any to discuss with in person.

You can put glitter on it if you wish.

[blue eyed snake]

Most people come here to share and learn and grow, to discuss with friends topics which many have few if any to discuss with in person. 

 

 

worthy of repeating

[dawei]

https://www.hiscox.co.uk/business-blog/uk-tech-industry-bigger-problem-gender/

 

In a nutshell: there's a gender gap in the tech industry in the UK, fewer women truly computer literate than men, but more than that there is a general skills gap when compared with other countries (USA, India, etc) and this will be detrimental to the UK in the future.

 

Thoughts?

 

Article showing similar issues in US:

 

Women in computing to decline to 22% by 2025, study warns

 

The share of women in the computing workforce has slipped to 24% today from 37% in 1995. Silicon Valley is a stark illustration of the growing gender gap in high tech. At major companies here, men account for 70% of employees.

"In the last few years, we’ve seen unprecedented momentum and attention behind universal computer science education. You would think that all this attention would translate into progress toward closing the gender gap. But it hasn’t," Saujani said.

According to the American Association of University Women, in recent years only 20% of  Advanced Placement computer science exam takers in high school have been female. Girls graduate high school on par with boys in math and science, but boys are more likely to pursue engineering and computing degrees in college. The proportion of female students majoring in computing in college has fallen dramatically. In 1984, 37% of computer science majors in the U.S. were women. Today, only 18% are. That disparity only grows at the graduate level and in the workforce where women are dramatically underrepresented in engineering and computing. Even those women who pursue technical careers drop out at much higher rates than men.

[liminal_luke]

 We climb in a ring to discover the truth, we come here with gloves of our own preconceptions and beliefs. Here we slug it out verbally revealing weaknesses in both our ourselves and our opponents. If I feint and parry then this is not cheating, which you refer to as intellectual dishonesty, it is simply part of the art of fighting. I don't come here to make friends, nor to gain prizes or heap praise on others. I come here to do what I do, in my own style, the best way I know. 

 

You came to the DaoBums wanting a fight, and you´ve found lots of them.  

[Karl]

You came to the DaoBums wanting a fight, and you´ve found lots of them.

 

Look at the moon and not the finger. I must fight for some-thing. You must fight for some-thing. Do you even know what it is ?

 

All this crap about coming here to 'share' is a sham. Why are you really here ? It's a question I am asked many times by those who are dishonest-either evasively or who are in ignorance-about their purpose. Why do you fight me ? If your purpose is to listen and learn then what are you doing drawing your mental sword ? I present no existential threat to you, so perhaps you should question what your intention is - I know mine.

[Jetsun]

Look at the moon and not the finger. I must fight for some-thing. You must fight for some-thing. Do you even know what it is ?

 

All this crap about coming here to 'share' is a sham. Why are you really here ? It's a question I am asked many times by those who are dishonest-either evasively or who are in ignorance-about their purpose. Why do you fight me ? If your purpose is to listen and learn then what are you doing drawing your mental sword ? I present no existential threat to you, so perhaps you should question what your intention is - I know mine.

 

What are you fighting for? seems like aggressive posturing and an obsessive need to win and be right to me. Just regular warlike mentality and just another person who thinks their own limited world view is the correct one .

 

It can't really shock you that people come here for different reasons than fighting surely? this is a Daoist board where people discuss their individual experiences and practices as well as debating, once in a while people clash heads, whereas you clash heads with over 90% of the people here, so it is clear not everyone has the same mentality as you do.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Jetsun

[Miffymog]

Nooooooooo

 

I'm afraid that if you feel that Karl is being antagonistic, that feeling is purely in you, his words are actually completely passive.

 

I'm currently reading 'I Am That' by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj and his words are having quite an influence on how I am currently framing my thoughts.

 

One of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj analogies is that the world is full of rings and the mind is full of hooks, and it is our job to try to straighten out the hooks of our mind.

 

All of Karl's words are nothing more than passive rings, it is your mind that is actively hooking on to them.

 

What Karl's motive is for presenting them is not for us to answer.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Miffymog

[Karl]

What are you fighting for? seems like aggressive posturing and an obsessive need to win and be right to me. Just regular warlike mentality and just another person who thinks their own limited world view is the correct one .

 

It can't really shock you that people come here for different reasons than fighting surely? this is a Daoist board where people discuss their individual experiences and practices as well as debating, once in a while people clash heads, whereas you clash heads with over 90% of the people here, so it is clear not everyone has the same mentality as you do.

Because of what I represent. To suggest it is aggressive is to misuse the word. I do not represent any kind of existential threat here.

 

That people 'come here' for different reasons is not disputed. I'm talking about those who want to argue with me. It takes two to tango. You would rather I was not here, but you haven't figured out why you wish it. All this you hide from yourselves. You refuse that reason is mans only absolute, yet that refusal to accept it is an absolute.

 

I know you don't have a clue what the dao is, you cannot define it, then you say that it has to be a particular thing that you are unable to define.

 

Some people are here looking for a tribe. Yet what is offered to them but the impossible and the unreachable. The path of no path. Where are you guiding these seekers Jetsun ? - to a place you can neither define, reach, describe or understand. You offer only faith, as if that is the Dao that one must simply believe and and revelation shall be achieved. Not one of you ever had and not one of you ever will.

 

I am fighting for men's minds, you are fighting for their feelings.

 

If people want faith I leave them to it. If they want to trust their emotions over their cognition I do not interfere. This is why I never - except once by mistake-get involved in practice forums. I only ever respond to posts framed as questions, portrayed as facts, or directed towards me. At those times there is a chance for open debate. That 90% argue with me does not make me wrong. I'm a minority of one, not because I try to be, but because I am. You would be better to respect it rather than continually playing the man. Either argue the point, or don't argue at all. I may get banned, but certainly I cannot be cowed by ad hominems. Those who are unable to do much but post ad hominems are simply added to the ignore list, they have lost the argument and therefore have departed the field. If others cannot stomach my arguments I suggest they do that also, or simply ignore my posts. It isn't difficult unless of course the traffic isn't one way ;-) 'don't throw rocks in glass houses'.

[Karl]

Nooooooooo

 

I'm afraid that if you feel that Karl is being antagonistic, that feeling is purely in you, his words are actually completely passive.

 

I'm currently reading 'I Am That' by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj and his words are having quite an influence on how I am currently framing my thoughts.

 

One of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj analogies is that the world is full of rings and the mind is full of hooks, and it is our job to try to straighten out the hooks of our mind.

 

All of Karl's words are nothing more than passive rings, it is your mind that is actively hooking on to them.

 

What Karl's motive is for presenting them is not for us to answer.

:-) it's just a matter of separating the emotion from the thought and it's as easy as that, but the problem is that there are many who believe emotions are cognition and so have become slaves to feelings. My precioussssuss.

[dawei]

Either argue the point, or don't argue at all. I may get banned, but certainly I cannot be cowed by ad hominems. 

 

We may end up with a thread split called 'the art of the fight' but I will admit that I've come to appreciate Karl's posts by staying away from them... not arguing seemed the best choice for me.  It allowed me to watch the 'argumentative' aspect instead of being a part of the argument.  I think there is a Trump factor in this and why likely you understand him so well

[blackstar212]

Nooooooooo

 

I'm afraid that if you feel that Karl is being antagonistic, that feeling is purely in you, his words are actually completely passive.

 

I'm currently reading 'I Am That' by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj and his words are having quite an influence on how I am currently framing my thoughts.

 

One of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj analogies is that the world is full of rings and the mind is full of hooks, and it is our job to try to straighten out the hooks of our mind.

 

All of Karl's words are nothing more than passive rings, it is your mind that is actively hooking on to them.

 

What Karl's motive is for presenting them is not for us to answer.

I agree. I have never thought of my discussions with Karl as fighting. He has opinions and I have opinions and he shares with me and I with him. It is that simple IMO.

[Karl]

We may end up with a thread split called 'the art of the fight' but I will admit that I've come to appreciate Karl's posts by staying away from them... not arguing seemed the best choice for me.  It allowed me to watch the 'argumentative' aspect instead of being a part of the argument.  I think there is a Trump factor in this and why likely you understand him so well

:-) that made me smile.

[Karl]

Article showing similar issues in US:

 

Women in computing to decline to 22% by 2025, study warns

 

 

The share of women in the computing workforce has slipped to 24% today from 37% in 1995. Silicon Valley is a stark illustration of the growing gender gap in high tech. At major companies here, men account for 70% of employees.

"In the last few years, we’ve seen unprecedented momentum and attention behind universal computer science education. You would think that all this attention would translate into progress toward closing the gender gap. But it hasn’t," Saujani said.

According to the American Association of University Women, in recent years only 20% of  Advanced Placement computer science exam takers in high school have been female. Girls graduate high school on par with boys in math and science, but boys are more likely to pursue engineering and computing degrees in college. The proportion of female students majoring in computing in college has fallen dramatically. In 1984, 37% of computer science majors in the U.S. were women. Today, only 18% are. That disparity only grows at the graduate level and in the workforce where women are dramatically underrepresented in engineering and computing. Even those women who pursue technical careers drop out at much higher rates than men.

Back to the discussion. I wondered if anyone would mention the research done on male/female preferences ? I watched a programme about it and researchers were surprised to find that boys will prefer cars/balls and girls prefer dolls regardless of how they were brought up. This piece shows that this is not unique to humans, but also to monkeys. There is clear evidence building up to show that males and females prefer different activities - no suprise to me, for women to be women, men need to be men.

 

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

[Karl]

https://www.aaup.org/article/why-are-we-still-worried-about-women-science#.WAoUm-t4WrU

 

 

Another interesting article showing that women are not lagging in the sciences generally, that in certain science field they are over represented. Women choose life sciences such as biology over mechanical sciences. This fits well with the previous post which shows women are generally more interested in living organisms than in more abstract physics.

[dawei]

Back to the discussion. I wondered if anyone would mention the research done on male/female preferences ? I watched a programme about it and researchers were surprised to find that boys will prefer cars/balls and girls prefer dolls regardless of how they were brought up. This piece shows that this is not unique to humans, but also to monkeys. There is clear evidence building up to show that males and females prefer different activities - no suprise to me, for women to be women, men need to be men.

 

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

 

ok.... I had some disagreement earlier as to cultural influence but it may be that culture is subject to local or global pressures and opportunities instead.

 

I think there is a Yin vs Yang action going on... not surprising on some level.   But I also think we should expose both sides to more opportunities. 

[Karl]

ok.... I had some disagreement earlier as to cultural influence but it may be that culture is subject to local or global pressures and opportunities instead.

 

I think there is a Yin vs Yang action going on... not surprising on some level.   But I also think we should expose both sides to more opportunities.

 

I don't see that there are any limits on either gender doing what they want. This is what I said before. Even if it is culturally embedded then so what ? It isn't any advantage to have more women studying in a particular field. That is just central planning of the economy. If men prefer one thing and women another, then that's how it is. I fix the car, my wife sews the curtains. It's not that either of us isn't capable of the alternate task, it's that we prefer one over the other. Hence the car is more efficiently repaired and the curtains don't end up as large handkerchiefs. Let's not make the mistake of trying to quota women, not even by soft manipulation, into doing what they don't really prefer.

[Jetsun]

Because of what I represent. To suggest it is aggressive is to misuse the word. I do not represent any kind of existential threat here.

 

That people 'come here' for different reasons is not disputed. I'm talking about those who want to argue with me. It takes two to tango. You would rather I was not here, but you haven't figured out why you wish it. All this you hide from yourselves. You refuse that reason is mans only absolute, yet that refusal to accept it is an absolute.

 

I know you don't have a clue what the dao is, you cannot define it, then you say that it has to be a particular thing that you are unable to define.

 

Some people are here looking for a tribe. Yet what is offered to them but the impossible and the unreachable. The path of no path. Where are you guiding these seekers Jetsun ? - to a place you can neither define, reach, describe or understand. You offer only faith, as if that is the Dao that one must simply believe and and revelation shall be achieved. Not one of you ever had and not one of you ever will.

 

I am fighting for men's minds, you are fighting for their feelings.

 

If people want faith I leave them to it. If they want to trust their emotions over their cognition I do not interfere. This is why I never - except once by mistake-get involved in practice forums. I only ever respond to posts framed as questions, portrayed as facts, or directed towards me. At those times there is a chance for open debate. That 90% argue with me does not make me wrong. I'm a minority of one, not because I try to be, but because I am. You would be better to respect it rather than continually playing the man. Either argue the point, or don't argue at all. I may get banned, but certainly I cannot be cowed by ad hominems. Those who are unable to do much but post ad hominems are simply added to the ignore list, they have lost the argument and therefore have departed the field. If others cannot stomach my arguments I suggest they do that also, or simply ignore my posts. It isn't difficult unless of course the traffic isn't one way ;-) 'don't throw rocks in glass houses'.

 

Well, to asssert that reason is mans only absolute is to deny all the wisdom traditions which have been discussing these subjects for thousands of years. It is deny the entire spiritual wisdom of India and of the traditions such as Buddhism, Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, as well as the experiences of thousands of Saints and Sages from all traditions through world religious and spiritual history, many of whom had far greater minds than you Karl.

 

I am not here to guide seekers, yet what I often talk about isn't faith it is experience, experience anyone can reproduce. Your issue is that you classify anything which you haven't personally experienced or anything you can't grasp with your own limited mind as faith or imagination. I am not fighting for peoples feelings or for faith, I am saying that there is something.. experience, awareness, wisdom, intelligence beyond reason, which transcends reason, is ultimately far greater and more profound than reason.

 

You mentioned the analogy of the finger pointing at the moon in another post which is a saying originating from Buddhism, do you really think that what the Buddha was pointing at in all the thousands of Sutras and teachings is reason? He had to point towards whatever that is rather than speak of it directly because it cannot be grasped by reason or by the intellect, yet it still exists. Why do you think some religious texts speak in Parables and Zen Koans are contradictory and nonsensical? because they are trying to break you out of your normal mind of reason into what it is that is beyond, into the embodied experience of it rather than a mental understanding of it.

 

If many hundreds of thousands of people throughout history in all different countries and eras have said that there is this transcendent aspect to reality which can be experienced by anyone it is folly in my view to just assume that it doesn't exist, or that is just some kind of emotional imagination, you just limit your own life and potential.

[Karl]

I'm not going to take this discussion further simply because you ARE talking about your faith. That many thousands of people said it, or that 'greater"' minds expounded it, is just an appeal to reverence. You offer not one iota of proof, because you cannot do so. I get that this is what you believe, which is fine, but without proof it is nothing but faith as important as that is to you.

 

From the perspective of faith, reason is redundant, even though the only way to prop up faith is to use reason.

[Jetsun]

I'm not going to take this discussion further simply because you ARE talking about your faith. That many thousands of people said it, or that 'greater"' minds expounded it, is just an appeal to reverence. You offer not one iota of proof, because you cannot do so. I get that this is what you believe, which is fine, but without proof it is nothing but faith as important as that is to you.

 

From the perspective of faith, reason is redundant, even though the only way to prop up faith is to use reason.

 

Its not faith it is experience. I can't prove it to you but you can experience it, just like I can't prove to you what an orange tastes like but you can experience it for yourself, and that experience is going to be far greater than anything my reason can say about it

[Karl]

Its not faith it is experience. I can't prove it to you but you can experience it, just like I can't prove to you what an orange tastes like but you can experience it for yourself, and that experience is going to be far greater than anything my reason can say about it

Except that there IS an orange. We can see and feel the orange and our knowledge is sufficient to know that it contains certain chemicals which interact with our tongues in a particular way.

[dust]

I'm afraid that if you feel that Karl is being antagonistic, that feeling is purely in you, his words are actually completely passive

 

Really? Cuz...well, he's the one claiming to be in it for a fight......

Edited October 21, 2016 by dustybeijing

[dust]

Back to the discussion. I wondered if anyone would mention the research done on male/female preferences ? I watched a programme about it and researchers were surprised to find that boys will prefer cars/balls and girls prefer dolls regardless of how they were brought up. This piece shows that this is not unique to humans, but also to monkeys. There is clear evidence building up to show that males and females prefer different activities - no suprise to me, for women to be women, men need to be men.

 

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

 

https://www.aaup.org/article/why-are-we-still-worried-about-women-science#.WAoUm-t4WrU

 

 

Another interesting article showing that women are not lagging in the sciences generally, that in certain science field they are over represented. Women choose life sciences such as biology over mechanical sciences. This fits well with the previous post which shows women are generally more interested in living organisms than in more abstract physics.

 

 

Aha! Finally some backup!

 

The first article rings true. In general, boys might prefer trucks, etc. (Not true in my case, but there we are.)

 

Forcing children to be neutral in their play, making everyone play with everything, would be as big a mistake as forcing them to choose based on gender stereotype, certainly.

 

"Multiple studies in humans and primates shows there is a substantial male advantage in mental rotation, which is taking an object and rotating it in the mind,"

 

whichsurely relates to the abstract activity of programming. And programming is certainly not social in nature.

 

 

The second article seems to agree with both of us on different points.

 

I skimmed, but might wonder why you claim that women are "over represented" in certain fields -- the article talks of parity, i.e. a roughly even number. It says "Women earned 46.3 percent of the PhDs in the biological sciences", for example, which is great, but not over represented, I think.

 

If we take it that women do indeed prefer not to go into coding, that (as the first article would suggest) certain sciences are of more interest to men, then unequal numbers in some areas are not to be seen as a major problem, and you have some good evidence here (I'm honestly glad to see some, finally). A little more and I'll happily concede that you're right that there might not be a problem with lack of women in programming -- though there's still the question of why women used to be more into coding than they are now.

 

At the same time...

 

"Why do women exit the STEM workforce? The answer is not genetic disposition or lack of interest. If this were the case, then female STEM students would underperform their male counterparts in college and graduate school. The data show the contrary: women outperform men academically, receive more awards, and have higher graduation rates and better attitudes toward education. Interviews, case studies, and statistical research consistently suggest that two primary factors stand out among the multiple forces pushing women to leave the STEM workforce: the need to balance career and family and a lack of professional networks."

 

... the article does still seem to suggest a general disparity in the STEM workforce.

 

And none of this goes any way to solving the main thing I took issue with, which is you refusing to even consider the question in the first place....

Edited October 21, 2016 by dustybeijing