I find this a bit pointless- Scott Aaronson has his views that are not the
views of a sizeable majority of women in STEM, who find that their career
progression is hindered by institutionalised sexism. At some point Aaronson
finds or receives a dissenting opinion from a woman in STEM. He publishes it,
with a preface suggesting that _this_ is the _real_ view of a majority of
women in STEM (the opinion "dovetails with what I’ve heard from many other
women in STEM fields, including my wife Dana").
Fair enough- but how often has Aaronson published, or publicised, an opinion
from a woman who disagrees with his view? Er. Not often. Probably because he
disagrees with them and so will tend to find that they do not marshal "data,
logic, and [their] own experience in support of an insight that strikes me as true
and important and underappreciated".
So what have we learned from the fact that Scott Aaronson has published this
opinion on his blog? Absolutely nothing. We knew his opinion, he still has the
same opinion. We know there are other people, including women in STEM, that
have the same opinion as Scott Aaronson. Here is one of them and her opinion.
We have learned nothing new.
Your judgement of the article was nearly entirely informed by who wrote it rather than its contents. That's a good way to continue a culture war, not a good way to discover the truth.
I implore you to consider the well-founded facts on both sides, not to claim this piece has absolutely nothing worth saying.
The piece by the young scientist has a lot to say, but the preface by Scott Aaronson only has to say "See, I told you so!". And that's what I'm commenting on, of course.
The original essay linked combats the institutional sexism claim with data that suggests the number of women who claim to have experiences sexism is on par with non-STEM career choices, but the exit from STEM vastly exceeds that of other fields.
I agree, to the point where I wish that we'd just talk about the original article instead of this repost, instead. Maybe the URL could be changed to [0]?
Fair enough- but how often has Aaronson published, or publicised, an opinion from a woman who disagrees with his view? Er. Not often. Probably because he disagrees with them and so will tend to find that they do not marshal "data, logic, and [their] own experience in support of an insight that strikes me as true and important and underappreciated".
So what have we learned from the fact that Scott Aaronson has published this opinion on his blog? Absolutely nothing. We knew his opinion, he still has the same opinion. We know there are other people, including women in STEM, that have the same opinion as Scott Aaronson. Here is one of them and her opinion. We have learned nothing new.
This is just preaching to the converted.