Can you spell out where Eccles' research is being misrepresented? From the part you quoted: The compares to the summary from the piece you linked: Downplaying ability as less of factor sounds like Eccles' statement that the difference isn't aptitude. Stating it's more about motivation sounds like value placed on the occupations. What am I missing?Research by Jacquelynne Eccles has repeatedly concluded that the shortage of females in math and science reflects motivation more than ability.
Our analyses suggest that the main source of gender differences in entry into physical science and engineering occupations is not gender differences in either math aptitude or a sense of personal efficacy to succeed at these occupations, rather it is a gender difference in the value placed on different types of occupations.
If I hit you with a cattle prod every time you ate pickles for 10 years, then gave you a pickle to eat, it's pretty misleading to say "You didn't like it, I guess WanderingEng just doesn't like pickles". Eccles wrote a long paper, context is important. She is talking about high school aged girls choices after they have already been socialized away from STEM. She discusses those methods of socialization, societal expectations for women, and a ton of other factors before that quote you pulled out. The original article says "Maybe women can do math and science perfectly well but they just don’t like to." Her work says women are actively discouraged from entering STEM careers. Very, very different messages.
My read doesn't see them as very different messages but rather complementary. "Maybe women can do math and science perfectly well but they just don’t like to." Maybe they don't like to because of societal expectations. Or as Eccles says "my own opinion is that these differences reflect, at least to some extent, inaccurate stereotypes about physical sciences and engineering." Why do those difference exist? Why do different expectations exist? How did they come to be? When I read the original piece I see discussion that offers answers to those questions. I don't see it ignoring that those expectations exist, and I don't see it arguing those expectations are fair or reasonable or good.
I strongly disagree that "women just don't like something" is logically equivalent to "girls in kindergarten like this thing. 12 years later, most no longer do". And we don't need his guesswork for answers. There's been a huge body of research on why women are underrepresented in STEM, and I'm much more interested in those studies then someone who parallels scientific careers for men to diaper changing for women. Ugh - how do you seriously back a guy who talks that way? Is this the 50s? Girls do like STEM. We change that. Saying they don't is patently false, I don't really understand how you think it's the same. It's too bad. Hubski doesn't have a ton of content lately, it seems like every time I'm on here some popular post involves bickering over sexism. I'm really done reading this crap, I'll hop off for a while and try filtering out even more of the few discussions there are on here.
I simply asked you to defend your assertion that he's misrepresenting Eccles.Ugh - how do you seriously back a guy who talks that way? Is this the 50s?
Sorry, I've never read any of those studies showing that society changes girls towards not liking STEM. Do we really know that for sure? Or could it just happen that girls lose interest naturally? I mean, are there any kind of control groups, that if society would change, that we would have more women in STEM, maybe even more than men? (For sure, if society can turn of girls, it should be able to do it with boys too, right?)
Of course we don't have control groups because you aren't allowed to raise children in a bubble to appease idiots online. Good point, its much more logical to conclude our ovaries cause a natural fear of binary, totally makes sense. 70 days here and this is your only comment? As for the studies try Google, I'm done with this.