> And then one day there was a figure in the book of a spectrum and underneath it said ‘the relative strengths of the Mg+ absorption line at 4,481 angstroms… of Stellar Atmospheres from the work of Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin’.” The caption was a revelation to Joan. Cecilia was a woman’s name, and the hyphenated family name indicated she was married. It was proof that a married woman was capable of doing science.
This is a great example of what people mean when they say "representation matters". Humans benefit greatly from existence proofs that people similar themselves are capable of doing X.
Is that true in general or only when people have been lied to by their mothers in a demonstrably erroneous way?
People often say that others, usually children, require physical similarity (sex, skin colour) to be inspired. This I find very sad and highly contradictory to my own schooling.
I mean all people are broadly similar. Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin has been inspirational to me too, but we have little in common physically or socially.
Of course if a I'm wrong people should be up in arms about primary schools not having teachers representative of the broader population - success can be predicted at that point with a high degree of certainty, I gather.
> Is that true in general or only when people have been lied to by their mothers in a demonstrably erroneous way?
Mothers are only one potential source of erroneous beliefs about one's inability to achieve something based on some personal characteristic. Surely, we should strive to prevent people from spreading these erroneous beliefs. But existence proofs to the contrary are a very effective, scalable counter-measure. We cannot entirely eradicate ignorance, but we can provide innoculations to prevent others from being harmed by it.
> People often say that others, usually children, require physical similarity (sex, skin colour) to be inspired.
Representation is not always about physical similarity. It is equally important (often more) for intangible characteristics like class, sexual orientation, religion, wealth, etc.
> This I find very sad and highly contradictory to my own schooling.
I find it sad too, but reality is that people are different and our experiences are different. These differences are precisely what makes each individual's contributions to society unique and valuable. But those differences are also a source of perceived limitations.
We are primates and learn by mirroring. If you never see a member of your tribe swim across the river, there's probably a good reason (maybe crocodiles) even if you don't see it (they hide under the surface). So we naturally, wisely avoid behaviors that we don't see people like us engaging in.
This is true even when we define our own tribe based on less tangible attributes.
> Of course if a I'm wrong people should be up in arms about primary schools not having teachers representative of the broader population
That only matters to the degree that kids aspire to be teachers. And, fortunately, the average kid gets enough different teachers and there is enough diversity among them that each kid will likely have a teacher at some point that they identify with.
A single existence proof is sufficient to open the door.
It certainly wasn't true for me. I'm a westerner who spent my childhood in undeveloped parts of southeast asia. If I didn't learn to apply the all-asian-cast stories I heard and read to my own life, I'm sure I would have felt very put out. But, that never happened (and never even crossed my mind as a problem to have) because both my parents always emphasized the universality of the human experience.
We don't know for sure so does it hurt to make the world a little more representational? I would doubt it has any harm, unlike the alternative.
Yes, teachers talk a lot about the lack of diversity too. If you spend a little time with some of them you'll find out. The teachers I know around the world genuinely want the best for their kids.
Payne-Gaposchkin was given an extremely raw deal by Otto Struve at Chicago. I would say she got screwed over more than Henrietta Swan-Leavitt or Rosalind Franklin (but not Jocelyn Bell-Burnell)
This is a great example of what people mean when they say "representation matters". Humans benefit greatly from existence proofs that people similar themselves are capable of doing X.