Women in math at BYU

[Mad Jax]

And women shouldn't have to be part of experiments to validate their experiences. Are you implying that the women who stated that they had to prove them selves over and over again were lying? Or were they just too clueless to understand what was really going on? How would you conduct an experiment to tell if these women are really experiencing what they claim to be experiencing?

It wouldn't be easy to set up, but ideally a double blind experiment where researchers in some type of STEM field were put in a situation that mirrored trust in research that had been given them thus far, asked to determine the veracity of the previous information, with names attached that strongly implied the sex of the previous researcher (e.g. nothing ambiguous such as "Jodi Wilson"). Then provide the controls with the same sets of information but with no names attached. If there was a statistically significant difference in the way the subjects responded, it could potentially verify that the perception was based on a real phenomenon.

As for the specifics, I think it would require being set up by a neuroscientist who knew which variables to eliminate, but I've given my best answer based on what knowledge I have. The problem with taking anybody at their word or assuming that anybody's interpretation of the situation is valid is twofold. First, it's well known that people fill in gaps of information they can't possibly have. People can't read minds or absorb necessary information from the ether. Humans are good at extrapolating to a degree, but they aren't perfect, and misconceptions on a large scale abound. Second, performing science very often yields surprising results. It rarely mirrors what we might call "common sense" and findings counter to intuition are more frequent than one might think. Any phenomenon which seems to be apparent needs to be carefully scrutinized and has to be approached with the understanding that what can be verified is more limited than the conclusions most scientists would like to draw.

[alas]

No, that is not what this is talking about. This is a matter of respect, not just normal peer review and making sure that things are replicated. This is a matter of being treated from the beginning like you do not belong. If you walked into a lab to work and found your lab mate was a chimp, you would assume the chimp could not do the work right from the beginning. That is what this is talking about. Disproving the automatic assumption that you cannot do the work. And your male privilege protects you from ever being treated this way. And, yes, I would say that the comparison to a chimp is a good comparison. I got challenged plenty by a good AP English teacher, my papers came back covered in red. But the FEEL of that was totally different than the feel of disrespect and contempt in the all boy but me top in the school math class.

And sure it is anecdotal. But just like the stories of the bishop interviews with kids, how many stories do you need? I was reading yesterday on Sam Young's blog and the arguments by the TBM's who are calling him apostate and pretending that there is no problem sound just like this argument. Basically refusing to believe anything that they have not experienced.

The problem with the article is that it doesn't follow the example of the well conceived and executed research of its first link. In that study, they test to see if there is bias by the actions of the unwitting test subjects and controls. The data is then calculated to reflect what they tested for and the conclusions reflect it.

In their own research intended to bolster their claim, they interview women about their experiences and calculate that data, but they don't then make the claim that women perceive a bias in strong numbers, but rather that the bias is shown to be present, based on the title of the article. This is an extremely poor conclusion and proves that percentages of women think this is happening, but does nothing to prove that it is indeed happening.

The most generous thing I can think of to say concerning the article is that the author's approach to this subject is incomplete. It needs comparison to male counterparts in order to determine if the perception varies significantly across the sexes, and it needs to perform some kind of real double blind to see if there is a disparity in assumption of competency in a similar manner. In addition, it's important to determine if this perception is based on something real, or if it is a result of a phenomenon such as confirmation bias or other logical fallacies. Fallacies which are pretty well understood to be common human responses.

Thank you for your thoughts on this.

This article was a study, not an experiment.

And women shouldn't have to be part of experiments to validate their experiences. Are you implying that the women who stated that they had to prove them selves over and over again were lying? Or were they just too clueless to understand what was really going on? How would you conduct an experiment to tell if these women are really experiencing what they claim to be experiencing?

He is mansplaining and gas lighting. Best to ignore men when they get like this because they are the problem but cannot see it.

[MerrieMiss]

Gender roles aside, it's just plain sad that the Mormon women (member of the BYU Women in Math club) who created the flyer didn't see the irony in it. That's the tragedy in this whole thing.

Most members aren't bothered by the obvious gender inequalities with if the church.

It's not difficult to see!

Not only are women poorly represented, the ones who are there have no power at all (they're even at the bottom of the page); twelve year old deacons have more power than any one of those women can ever hope to have.

Honestly, I was one of those women who never gave it a second thought. It never occurred to me that I wasn't equal and that I was treated as less than until I was in leadership positions and began to experience it first hand.

[Mad Jax]

He is mansplaining and gas lighting. Best to ignore men when they get like this because they are the problem but cannot see it.

I had to look up mansplaining to see what that might have meant but I still don't know. I might suggest my assessment on the article is being dismissed because of my gender, but that isn't possible since my male privilege prevents that from ever happening.

[2bizE]

Gender roles aside, it's just plain sad that the Mormon women (member of the BYU Women in Math club) who created the flyer didn't see the irony in it. That's the tragedy in this whole thing.

Most members aren't bothered by the obvious gender inequalities with if the church.

It's not difficult to see!

Not only are women poorly represented, the ones who are there have no power at all (they're even at the bottom of the page); twelve year old deacons have more power than any one of those women can ever hope to have.

Honestly, I was one of those women who never gave it a second thought. It never occurred to me that I wasn't equal and that I was treated as less than until I was in leadership positions and began to experience it first hand.

Wow. I didnt realize there were 9 women. Always thought there were just 6. Doesn't the extra three equal it out somewhat?

[Reuben]

Gender roles aside, it's just plain sad that the Mormon women (member of the BYU Women in Math club) who created the flyer didn't see the irony in it. That's the tragedy in this whole thing.

Most members aren't bothered by the obvious gender inequalities with if the church.

It's not difficult to see!

Not only are women poorly represented, the ones who are there have no power at all (they're even at the bottom of the page); twelve year old deacons have more power than any one of those women can ever hope to have.

Honestly, I was one of those women who never gave it a second thought. It never occurred to me that I wasn't equal and that I was treated as less than until I was in leadership positions and began to experience it first hand.

Wow. I didnt realize there were 9 women. Always thought there were just 6. Doesn't the extra three equal it out somewhat?

Look, you're just doing the same thing the church's critics always do: forgetting about the brethren's invisible wives. Unless it's Wendy, and then you conveniently remember because you don't like the effect she might or might not have on President Nelson.</troll>

[Corsair]

On my first look at this picture I accidentally read the caption as:

Racial Equality. Not that complicated

[alas]

He is mansplaining and gas lighting. Best to ignore men when they get like this because they are the problem but cannot see it.

I had to look up mansplaining to see what that might have meant but I still don't know. I might suggest my assessment on the article is being dismissed because of my gender, but that isn't possible since my male privilege prevents that from ever happening.

Mansplaining is when you go to great length to explain to women what they probably know better than you in the first place. Now, having three degrees in the social sciences, did it ever cross your mind that I have had graduate level classes on why that STUDY was not an EXPERIMENT. Perhaps my graduate level classes in the social sciences qualify me to know the weaknesses of that study perhaps better than you do? But you think your qualifications to see the weaknesses in the study make it so that we should dismiss what the STUDY does say, because it may not be the final word on the subject. Just quit trying to tell us that you know more, when you don't, and quit trying to tell us that our experience is not real because it has not been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be true.

You sound exactly like the men trying to say that the #metoo movement is nothing. When a whole bunch of women say the same thing, maybe there is something there to care about.

[Jeffret]

alas did a nice job of explaining it.

A large part of it just involves listening to women. When lots of them describe their experiences pretty similarly there is probably something there.

And as started off this thread, when the math faculty has 2 women out of nearly forty that might suggest a problem. And when the Women's math club has to have a panel of all men to talk about women in math there's clearly a problem.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

[Mad Jax]

Mansplaining is when you go to great length to explain to women what they probably know better than you in the first place. Now, having three degrees in the social sciences, did it ever cross your mind that I have had graduate level classes on why that STUDY was not an EXPERIMENT. Perhaps my graduate level classes in the social sciences qualify me to know the weaknesses of that study perhaps better than you do? But you think your qualifications to see the weaknesses in the study make it so that we should dismiss what the STUDY does say, because it may not be the final word on the subject. Just quit trying to tell us that you know more, when you don't, and quit trying to tell us that our experience is not real because it has not been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be true.

Explain to me exactly when I made any claim that the phenomenon was not happening. Explain to me when I made any comment on your qualifications, what positive conclusions were made from the limits of the study, what knowledge I claimed to have that others didn't, an instance of me claiming an experience was not real, a claim that I was the only one capable of seeing the flaw in the presentation, or how others in the discussion required me to point it out.

I haven't made a single ad hominem attack against you or anybody else here in this thread, nor have I attempted to act superior or claim to be able to dismiss another's attempt to look further into the matter. That ugly behavior is only coming from one side of this exchange.

[alas]

Mansplaining is when you go to great length to explain to women what they probably know better than you in the first place. Now, having three degrees in the social sciences, did it ever cross your mind that I have had graduate level classes on why that STUDY was not an EXPERIMENT. Perhaps my graduate level classes in the social sciences qualify me to know the weaknesses of that study perhaps better than you do? But you think your qualifications to see the weaknesses in the study make it so that we should dismiss what the STUDY does say, because it may not be the final word on the subject. Just quit trying to tell us that you know more, when you don't, and quit trying to tell us that our experience is not real because it has not been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be true.

Explain to me exactly when I made any claim that the phenomenon was not happening. Explain to me when I made any comment on your qualifications, what positive conclusions were made from the limits of the study, what knowledge I claimed to have that others didn't, an instance of me claiming an experience was not real, a claim that I was the only one capable of seeing the flaw in the presentation, or how others in the discussion required me to point it out.

I haven't made a single ad hominem attack against you or anybody else here in this thread, nor have I attempted to act superior or claim to be able to dismiss another's attempt to look further into the matter. That ugly behavior is only coming from one side of this exchange.

I never accused you of claiming anything or ad hominem attacks. I just accused you of mansplaining and gas lighting. Those do not require you to announce that you know more, just act like you do. Mansplaining doesn't require you to claim to know more, just act like you do. And gas lighting doesn't either. Gas lighting is telling that what women experience is not what really happened and that was your argument about how every one in STEM has to "prove them selves" because every one has to produce and be peer reviewed. But that isn't the kind of proving oneself that women go through. Men start out with an assumption of competence just by being there. Women are assumed to be there by some kind of accident or sleeping with the boss. So, by going on about how the study proves nothing because everyone is tested, you were saying that what women experiences is not what is REALLY happening=gas lighting. Women are not stupid. They know the kind of testing everyone gets and the kind of proving that is "I don't think you should even be here, prove me wrong." But you don't experience it so it can't be happening to women. Then you explained why the study was meaningless because it was not double blind and all that scientificy stuff that we women are assumed not to understand. It was that you thought pointing out the flaws in the study was important and you needed to explain that was mansplaining. It was the assumption that you know more, not the claim. Subtle difference.

I didn't say anything at first because usually your comments are intelligent and have always seemed fair. But then Mopage was wondering if you thought the other women were lying because you obviously were trying to say that somehow this study has to mean nothing. So if one other woman sees what I am seeing in your argument, I figured it was time to call you on it.

[Mad Jax]

So, by going on about how the study proves nothing because everyone is tested, you were saying that what women experiences is not what is REALLY happening=gas lighting. Women are not stupid. They know the kind of testing everyone gets and the kind of proving that is "I don't think you should even be here, prove me wrong." ... Then you explained why the study was meaningless because it was not double blind and all that scientificy stuff that we women are assumed not to understand. It was that you thought pointing out the flaws in the study was important and you needed to explain that was mansplaining. It was the assumption that you know more, not the claim. Subtle difference.

First off, the article isn't particularly clear what questions were asked, or how they were worded. I think it's important to establish the context of an objection. I also know from previous threads that you have a science background and that you understand the processes of peer review, but you and I and the other STEM educated NOMs aren't the only ones reading the thread. Some people on this board do benefit from a brief explanation of what happens in fields outside their experience. It's not condescending to preface an objection with a careful addition of potentially necessary contextual information. I don't see why this would be seen as an assumption that I'm unique in being able to see a problem with the epistemology of the study. I've got nothing but contempt for the "Emperor has no clothes" type of commenters, so I can't imagine ever making that assumption, especially here. I know I wasn't making it.

Next, I'm not making the argument that women in STEM don't face the exact obstacle that the article claims. I'm making the argument that this portion of the study does nothing to validate it. The only thing it validates is that a large percentage of women in STEM are saying they face it. Yet the article claims this as evidence that it is happening. I have a particular distaste for bad journalism that contains invalid conclusions. Science is sacred to me. If I think research is being used in an attempt to substantiate something it doesn't, I'm going to say something, regardless of whether or not I agree with the hypothesis/assertion in question.

I just don't see how explaining why I personally find an article to be flawed constitutes "mansplaining." Mentioning a set of facts doesn't imply sole knowledge of those facts. It doesn't imply that I'm enlightening anybody. It's to clearly and dialectically isolate my specific set of objections. What is the alternative? To be vague and lackadaisical? To just mention that I don't agree with it and put the burden of knowing my precise reasons on the reader? To make a thousand disclaimers in case it gets misinterpreted? I don't find any of those to be productive or appealing.

[Jeffret]

Mad Jax, could I ask you to clarify what point you're trying to make here?

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

[Mad Jax]

The article that MoPag linked is authored by researchers who conducted a poll and interview session with a series of questions for women in STEM. One result of this investigation showed a large percentage of women reporting what they call Prove-It-Again bias.

Directly from the article is this positive claim about the effects of bias:

Several new studies add to the growing body of evidence that documents the role of gender bias in driving women out of science careers.

Another positive claim comes directly below it:

My own new research, co-authored with Kathrine W. Phillips and Erika V. Hall, also indicates that bias, not pipeline issues or personal choices, pushes women out of science

And finally even more positive claim of evidence in the following paragraph:

We conducted in-depth interviews with 60 female scientists and surveyed 557 female scientists, both with help from the Association for Women in Science. These studies provide an important picture of how gender bias plays out in everyday workplace interactions. My previous research has shown that there are four major patterns of bias women face at work.

None of this is ambiguous. The claim is that this shows the bias to exist.

The problem is, it doesn't. It shows that bias is reported. The author is making a claim that there is genuine quantifiable evidence of bias occurring yet never provides any, and expects the reader to believe that a percentage of people saying something has happened is evidence enough that it happens.

I don't expect journalists to have the same level of precision in language that a scientific journal has, but they can certainly do better than this. Just making the claim that women are reporting this bias is a good starting point and adds value to the subject. I honestly don't know why they reached beyond what their research showed, but if their goal was scientific veracity, they failed.

[Jeffret]

So, Mad Jax, is your primary point that women don't face this bias?

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

[Mad Jax]

Poe's Law being what it is, I suspect you're trolling, but can't be sure.

[Jeffret]

Nope. I'm trying to figure out your primary point. Your thesis statement.

It's clear you have disagreements with a reference one of the women cited but it's unclear why that's important.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

[Mad Jax]

I don't even think of what I'm talking about as a "point" of discussion. I'm just explaining my objection to bad journalism and the misuse of science - intentional or not.

If you're asking me what my position is on the subject, I would say that I'm waiting on a more complete evaluation. I think the hypothesis should very well be studied in real detail. What I believe, or anyone believes, about the subject is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what somebody can show evidence for. I believe the bias is very real, but I can't have a justified belief in it without good evidence.

[Jeffret]

So, your biggest concern is bad journalism?

Given the clear biases in evidence and the stories women have shared you're most concerned and interested in bad journalism?

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

[Reuben]

The link in the HBR article to Williams's research doesn't work for me, but this one does:

http://harvardjlg.com/wp-content/upload ... 2014.5.pdf

I do think that she overgeneralizes the results of her particular study, mostly because she relies on the perceptions of one group about the behavior of another group. Her cohort is really much better suited to comparing the kinds and strength of gender bias experienced by women of differing ethnicity, and appears to have been chosen for that. (Self-reporting isn't much of a weakness in that case, either.) I'd be more convinced of prove-it-again bias against women in general if she and her collaborators had also interviewed men about it.

Here's the thing, though: Even if Williams is overclaiming the applicability of her research, she's not necessarily wrong. Following her citations gives me the impression that, if she had proposed prove-it-again bias as a hypothesis that's very likely to be true and worth better validation in a comparative study that included men, she'd be on very solid ground. For now, I accept prove-it-again bias that way.

Here's another thing: Let's say it's all perception. It kills me inside to think that my second daughter, who has amazing memory, vocabulary, logic, visualization and scientific intuition, could be pushed out of doing something that she loves and could be awesome at because she perceives the surrounding culture to be hostile. More generally, if half of the world's population perceives STEM fields to be hostile, maybe it's worth intentionally changing the fields' cultures.

I think the changes would be more likely to benefit STEM fields than hurt them. For example, I have a hunch that prove-it-again bias can be partly explained by differences in projected self-confidence and self-assessed competence, which my female colleagues have told me is a difference between men and women that they're sensitive to when they conduct user studies and design software. (Guess which demographic tends to project more self-confidence and overestimate their own abilities?) I would heartily approve of cultural changes that make estimation of competence more objective, because I've never met a research area that couldn't stand to be influenced by fewer narcissists and bullshitters.