Yes, girls and boys can grow up to become whoever they like, but most girls just don't like technology, just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls. Blame biology but not society.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that there are differences between girls and boys which drive behaviour. Hormones in adolescence are the clearest example to me.
But then, I used to think that "Girls just don't like chess." It turns out that this very much depends on the age of the girls. Why do numbers of male and female chess players start equal, and then drop off as people get older? It's not related to skill either.
The BBC Radio Four 'popular statistics' programme "More or Less" has a short segment. (They also ask "Are CEOs worth it?" and come to the conclusion that payment for CEOs isn't associated with performance of the company).
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01h7cf2#synopsis)
I don't know if this is downloadable outside the UK. I very much hope so.
> just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls.
GI Joe / Action Man?
The issue about CEO compensation has absolutely nothing to do with this argument.
The "just" in that line needs a [citation needed], and a pretty good one at that.
"There are differences between male and female brains, and this is why they prefer different activities."
That might be true, but unless it's shown that these differences lie in the mental faculties that govern the skills for math and engineering, these differences are moot.
"Read up on science before making your absurd statements."
Not to sound too smarmy, but it should be easy for you, all read up on the relevant science, to cough up the relevant citations then eh ?
"just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls."
We just call them 'robots'
"Blame biology but not society." The larger point is not to assign blame, but to improve the situation if possible.
Re.: brain differences: it's called spatio-relational reasoning. Another issue is, and this is a highly non-pc one, that the female IQ distribution doesn't reach the same highs (and lows) as male IQ distribution. This isn't some arcane knowledge I am referring to, so I'll leave it up to you to fire up your search engine of choice and type in a relevant combination of nouns and adjectives to unearth the answers to your concerns yourself.
True but irrelevant. It's the "just" in "most girls just don't like technology" I object to, like it's an innate aversion against technology that can't be overcome.
"Another issue is, and this is a highly non-pc one, that the female IQ distribution doesn't reach the same highs (and lows) as male IQ distribution."
Irrespective of being true or not, engineers, for example, would mostly be placed in the higher ranges. If any difference in the distribution of intelligence could account for the gender imbalance in technical occupations, the difference would be markedly less than would be expected from a potentially deviating IQ distribution.
Regarding "brain differences: it's called spatio-relational reasoning."
Seeing how there are, in absolute numbers, even if not in relative numbers, many women who excel in highly technical occupations and environments, this does not account for any differences, unless it could be shown that this particular subset of women have a different "male spatio-relational reasoning" part of the brain, as opposed to other women.
I do not agree or disagree that biology might have part in a difference in interest in technology in men and women. The point is to identify which part if any. And even if it is ultimately shown that there are biological limits to technology adoption by women in the high ranges of (say) 75%, that still means there are 25% who might be persuaded to become involved in technology by a change in societal behaviour instead of being "sucked into" what at this time is a stereotypical profession for a gender.
You are discussing a positive question, namely why individuals might have certain preferences.
If you think that we should only do or act as biology dictates us, and that trying to change biology doesn't lead us anywhere, you should probably stay away from medical research and sociological studies. Those are two areas where although biology is important, changes in them are also important too.
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/luigi.zingales/papers/resear...
