> . it's pretty rational to wonder if there's some social or selection barrier coming up
That's a very modern take
Where I am from 90% of the people were farmers or worked in construction
I liked math and then I discovered computers, nobody in my circle knew about 'em, except one of my youngest uncles
People used to refer to it as "wasting time in front of a screen"
I have become a computer programmer nonetheless
People must understand that bubbles are much older than social networks and they were real bubbles, like people that never moved farther than a 100 kms from where they were born.
If this "theory" was true, we would all still be hunter gatherers.
People evolve despite the odds.
Columbus parents had a small shop that sold wine and cheese in a small city called Savona.
He became an explorer
Science as a profession is still not mainstream, there still an high chance of failing at it, it's pretty obvious that it is more common among people who are less risk adverse: young men.
> Columbus parents had a small shop that sold wine and cheese in a small city called Savona. He became an explorer
Outliers aren't too helpful in analyzing this. The question is: do people get discouraged from seeing few people like them doing something? Yes, in general, they do.
e.g. even if 99.9% of women get discouraged and avoids the profession as a result, every single one that doesn't is an exception one can point to. Individual outliers don't lend any basis for argument.
> If this "theory" was true, we would all still be hunter gatherers.
This isn't a very meaningful point. I'm not talking about things in disequilibrium. I'm saying, if you're a kid looking at a whole bunch of basketball players that are very differently shaped than you: maybe there's something wrong with your shape to go to the NBA. If you're a girl and see everyone working in math is male, you may rationally wonder about whether there's a path for you to succeed working as a mathematician.
(And you might also rationally wonder what life will be like if you're female in a 95% male industry).
> The question is: do people get discouraged from seeing few people like them doing something?
that's a good question and the answer is not definitively yes.
For a number of reasons.
First of all, there's the outlier and there are the pioneers.
Columbus was a pioneer (among others), not just an outlier.
Secondly, we don't have the data.
From my anecdotal experience as a long time tech worker, women are hired in greater numbers compared to the number of applications.
From my anecdotal experience and context (Europe, Italy) it's much harder to find them than men.
But when companies find them, they have no bigger problems than men to get the job.
I would say that if there are ten open positions and 20 men apply, 8 get the job, for the same job 3 women apply and 2 of them get the job.
I've been interviewing for the company I work for and I've adviced them to hire all the women that applied, not so much for men, approximately 1 in 2 is coming to the interview either under prepared or to test how much more they could ask to their actual employer.
> if you're a kid looking at a whole bunch of basketball players that are very differently shaped than you
There's a good chance that you are not fit for basketball.
Listen, I understand your point, I was a volleyball player in my teen years, I was good, not great, but I was shorter than most of the other players.
Turns out that's important to succeed as a professional player because other teams will get the tallest player they can find to win.
You are actively encouraged to persist if you're taller than average and discouraged if you're not and I think it's completely normal (of course there are exceptions, but the Karch Kiraly(s) don't grow on trees)
I did not succeed and that's ok. I wasn't crushed by that discovery, I just understood I wasn't playing in the same league of professionals.
It's nobody's fault.
In the same ballpark there's the fact that I probably succeeded as a programmer because I wasn't fit for volleyball and computers were much more satisfying.
If I was born 2 meters tall, maybe I would have abandoned CS for volleyball, who knows.
Maybe it's the same for other people too, they get more satisfaction from other jobs than science and choose them.
That's a very modern take
Where I am from 90% of the people were farmers or worked in construction
I liked math and then I discovered computers, nobody in my circle knew about 'em, except one of my youngest uncles
People used to refer to it as "wasting time in front of a screen"
I have become a computer programmer nonetheless
People must understand that bubbles are much older than social networks and they were real bubbles, like people that never moved farther than a 100 kms from where they were born.
If this "theory" was true, we would all still be hunter gatherers.
People evolve despite the odds.
Columbus parents had a small shop that sold wine and cheese in a small city called Savona.
He became an explorer
Science as a profession is still not mainstream, there still an high chance of failing at it, it's pretty obvious that it is more common among people who are less risk adverse: young men.