This paper inherits the usual defects of the ‘stereotype threat’ literature. It takes place in no-stakes situations
Sure. It is extremely difficult to test these situations in high-stakes situations for obvious reasons.
Gee, I’m sure none of these undergrads recruited from psychology classes figured out what the real experiment was!
This is an intrinsic problem in almost all psychology studies. Is there anything specific here that’s worse than in other cases?
The results are also a little bizarre on their face: ”...the objectifying gaze also increased women’s, but not men’s, motivation to engage in subsequent interactions with their partner...the objectifying gaze did not influence body surveillance, body shame, or body dissatisfaction for women or men”. Huh?
I don’t see what your point is. What do you find is bizaare about this and how do you think that undermines the study?
And finally, this is social psychology.
That’s a reason to be skeptical of the results, not a reason to a priori throw them out.
That does not follow. If different disciplines have non-identical needs, then depending on the exact differences in distribution shape, the correlation between IQ, and the cutoff for success (see for example the table of r vs cutoff in “What does it mean to have a low R-squared ? A warning about misleading interpretation”) - not to mention the other variables which also vary between gender (Conscientiousness; degree of winner-take-all dynamics; expected work hours) - may well be sufficient to explain it. You’ll need to do more work than that.
You are correct. The word clearly is doing too much work in my comment. At minimum though, the fact that other similar disciplines don’t have that situation even though they historically did is evidence that IQ variance is not all that is going on here. And that’s especially the case when many of those disciplines are ones like medicine that have taken many active steps to try to encourage women to be interested in them.
And there’s real evidence that in at least some cases, cultural issues are having much more of an impact than IQ- look at how the percentage of women in IT and computer related fields was steadily going up and then started dropping when personal computers appeared. See discussion here.
See discussion here.
Now seen. Having read that discussion, I agree with Kaj there. Do you have any additional point beyond which you said to Kaj there?
It is extremely difficult to test these situations in high-stakes situations for obvious reasons.
It is not so difficult as all that: high-stakes tests are conducted all the time and gender is routinely recorded. I refer you to the WP article for how stereotype threat evaporates the moment it would ever matter.
This is an intrinsic problem in almost all psychology studies. Is there anything specific here that’s worse than in other cases?
It is not that bad a problem in most studies, and stereotype threat studies are particularly bad.
What do you find is bizaare about this and how do you think that undermines the study?
Their results make no sense in almost any causal model of how stereotype threat would work. What sort of stereotype threat has no effect on attitudes and body images and increases interest in co-workers, and how would you expect this to support the argument you made with regard to co-workers in the real world?
That’s a reason to be skeptical of the results, not a reason to a priori throw them out.
Indeed. So why did you cling to a weak reed?
Do you have any additional point beyond which you said to Kaj there?
No. I stand by the sum of my comments: that it is blatant post hoc rationalizations which contradict any theory a feminist would have made before seeing the actual data, which clearly supports an economic rather than pure bias account, and makes false claims about new CS students as well.
It is not so difficult as all that: high-stakes tests are conducted all the time and gender is routinely recorded. I refer you to the WP article for how stereotype threat evaporates the moment it would ever matter.
Which studies there are you referring to as being relevant? Note by the way that the study in question isn’t quite the same as stereotype threat in the classical sense anyways.
What do you find is bizaare about this and how do you think that undermines the study?
Their results make no sense in almost any causal model of how stereotype threat would work. What sort of stereotype threat has no effect on attitudes and body images and increases interest in co-workers, and how would you expect this to support the argument you made with regard to co-workers in the real world?
I’m not completely sure what model would actually do this but it could be something that causes them to think of themselves less as people doing math and more as people who are socially or sexually interested in others. But the fact that it didn’t have an impact on body image is strange, and needs further investigation. In the short version though, that should suggest that this study actually is more reliable: one of the most common criticism of psychology as a discipline is that the studies have way too high a confirmation of hypotheses rate. That’s been discussed on Less Wrong before. In this case, the fact that part of the study went against the intuitve hypothesis and went against what the authors explicitly hypothesized is a reason to pay more attention to it.
That’s a reason to be skeptical of the results, not a reason to a priori throw them out.
Indeed. So why did you cling to a weak reed?
Because this is one of the very few studies that have looked at how sexualization impacts performance. There are a lot of stereotype threat studies (as you noted) but they don’t generally look at this. I’d be happy to rely on something else or change my opinion here if there were that many more studies.
Do you have any additional point beyond which you said to Kaj there?
No. I stand by the sum of my comments: that it is blatant post hoc rationalizations which contradict any theory a feminist would have made before seeing the actual data, which clearly supports an economic rather than pure bias account, and makes false claims about new CS students as well.
So in your view, what precisely is the reason for the fact that the percentage of female CS students was consistently rising and then took a sharp drop-off? Also, why do you think Kaj disagreed with your position?
Which studies there are you referring to as being relevant?
...So in your view, what precisely is the reason for the fact that the percentage of female CS students was consistently rising and then took a sharp drop-off?
If you aren’t going to read the links I provided*, I’m not going to bother continuing. Both of those questions were answered.
* please note I have already gone above and beyond in not just reading your source material while you have not, but jailbreaking & critiquing that study, and also excerpting & linking contrary opinions & surveys
If you aren’t going to read the links I provided*, I’m not going to bother continuing. Both of those questions were answered.
I read the conversation with Kaj and I read the links thank you very much. In that conversation you brought up a variety of different issues, focusing on the “practicality” issue but you give multiple different versions of that claim and I’m not completely sure what your primary hypothesis is. The primary claim there seems to be that the ups and downs on the graph mirror ups and downs in the market, but the primary link justifying that claim is this one you gave which doesn’t make any claim other than the simple claim that the graphs match without even showing that they do. The only bit there is there that is genuinely interesting evidence is the survey showing that women pay more attention to job prospects when considering fields which is not at all sufficient to explain the size of the drop there, nor the fact that law didn’t show a similar drop in the last few years when there’s been a glut of lawyers.
please note I have already gone above and beyond in not just reading your source material while you have not
I don’t know where you are getting the second part of that claim from. But it is true I didn’t read every single link in the Kaj conversation, and I’m not sure why you think reading a single study is on the same scale as reading an additional long conversation and every single link there. So if you want to point to which of those links matter there, I’d be happy to look at them.
Sure. It is extremely difficult to test these situations in high-stakes situations for obvious reasons.
This is an intrinsic problem in almost all psychology studies. Is there anything specific here that’s worse than in other cases?
I don’t see what your point is. What do you find is bizaare about this and how do you think that undermines the study?
That’s a reason to be skeptical of the results, not a reason to a priori throw them out.
You are correct. The word clearly is doing too much work in my comment. At minimum though, the fact that other similar disciplines don’t have that situation even though they historically did is evidence that IQ variance is not all that is going on here. And that’s especially the case when many of those disciplines are ones like medicine that have taken many active steps to try to encourage women to be interested in them.
Now seen. Having read that discussion, I agree with Kaj there. Do you have any additional point beyond which you said to Kaj there?
It is not so difficult as all that: high-stakes tests are conducted all the time and gender is routinely recorded. I refer you to the WP article for how stereotype threat evaporates the moment it would ever matter.
It is not that bad a problem in most studies, and stereotype threat studies are particularly bad.
Their results make no sense in almost any causal model of how stereotype threat would work. What sort of stereotype threat has no effect on attitudes and body images and increases interest in co-workers, and how would you expect this to support the argument you made with regard to co-workers in the real world?
Indeed. So why did you cling to a weak reed?
No. I stand by the sum of my comments: that it is blatant post hoc rationalizations which contradict any theory a feminist would have made before seeing the actual data, which clearly supports an economic rather than pure bias account, and makes false claims about new CS students as well.
Which studies there are you referring to as being relevant? Note by the way that the study in question isn’t quite the same as stereotype threat in the classical sense anyways.
I’m not completely sure what model would actually do this but it could be something that causes them to think of themselves less as people doing math and more as people who are socially or sexually interested in others. But the fact that it didn’t have an impact on body image is strange, and needs further investigation. In the short version though, that should suggest that this study actually is more reliable: one of the most common criticism of psychology as a discipline is that the studies have way too high a confirmation of hypotheses rate. That’s been discussed on Less Wrong before. In this case, the fact that part of the study went against the intuitve hypothesis and went against what the authors explicitly hypothesized is a reason to pay more attention to it.
Because this is one of the very few studies that have looked at how sexualization impacts performance. There are a lot of stereotype threat studies (as you noted) but they don’t generally look at this. I’d be happy to rely on something else or change my opinion here if there were that many more studies.
So in your view, what precisely is the reason for the fact that the percentage of female CS students was consistently rising and then took a sharp drop-off? Also, why do you think Kaj disagreed with your position?
If you aren’t going to read the links I provided*, I’m not going to bother continuing. Both of those questions were answered.
* please note I have already gone above and beyond in not just reading your source material while you have not, but jailbreaking & critiquing that study, and also excerpting & linking contrary opinions & surveys
I read the conversation with Kaj and I read the links thank you very much. In that conversation you brought up a variety of different issues, focusing on the “practicality” issue but you give multiple different versions of that claim and I’m not completely sure what your primary hypothesis is. The primary claim there seems to be that the ups and downs on the graph mirror ups and downs in the market, but the primary link justifying that claim is this one you gave which doesn’t make any claim other than the simple claim that the graphs match without even showing that they do. The only bit there is there that is genuinely interesting evidence is the survey showing that women pay more attention to job prospects when considering fields which is not at all sufficient to explain the size of the drop there, nor the fact that law didn’t show a similar drop in the last few years when there’s been a glut of lawyers.
I don’t know where you are getting the second part of that claim from. But it is true I didn’t read every single link in the Kaj conversation, and I’m not sure why you think reading a single study is on the same scale as reading an additional long conversation and every single link there. So if you want to point to which of those links matter there, I’d be happy to look at them.