The question is: Who has tucked in your children? You or your wife? Children know which parent has the same sex and they like to play grown up.
Regarding the shooting and the building, are you sure that you have encouraged your daughter the same way as your sons? Have you looked your daughter into the eyes and smiled when she first tried to fight with you?
And even if you were all supportive in that development, it's still not a fair experiment. As long as your children have friends with traditional values and your children watch TV with advertisements that present pink female princesses and male worriers and builders, children are locked down into their roles.
Well this one is easy to answer, because there have been (over the last 6 years) less than say 50 occasions where we didn't put them to bed together; apart from those 50 occasions, my wife travels a few months out of the year, in which periods I put them to bed. So overall, there is no doubt (no matter how subconsciously biased my 'accounting' might be) that I did the majority of the putting to bed. (to bed putting?)
And well of course there's always the no true scottsman argument - no matter what, one can always put the 'true' equal treatment to question. If you're asking whether I ran a double blind experiment in my home, no I didn't. But we're nit talking about a tiny difference in one observation here. We're talking massive differences in dozens of families (from my observations). And this is for a social context where the ratio if dads and mums and the school gate is roughly 50% (yes I count sometimes), and where the lowest level of education is a bachelor's degree and the median is a PhD. Meaning, we're not talking about representative sample of the population, which you would expect to show the same properties as the population overall; we're talking about a population here that shows high levels of gender equally along many metrics. And despite that, the children show (very) unequal behaviour.
"Equal treatment" is not enough to remove socialization factors.
Kids learn from what their parents do. If a boy's dad is a truck driver, he may prefer playing with trucks, even if given a choice of truck vs. doll. The boy could similarly pick up non-verbal gestures from the dad or mom handling a doll vs. a truck.
Research is often inconclusive or difficult to replicate for these reasons.
Putting forth a theory that gender, on its own, impacts career choices is pretty useless. It probably does, but not in a way that we can adequately quantify. It depends on too many things.
"Putting forth a theory that gender, on its own, impacts career choices is pretty useless. It probably does, but not in a way that we can adequately quantify. It depends on too many things."
head explodes
So you're saying it probably exists, but then conclude it doesn't because it can't be quantified how much? I'm not even saying biological differences explain everything, or even a substantial part; just some part, but you deny that any aspect of difference between preferences in men and women is due to biology? I mean I cannot interpret what you're saying in any other way no matter how hard I try - you're saying that if we can't measure something exactly, it doesn't exist?
> you deny that any aspect of difference between preferences in men and women is due to biology?
head explodes
I don't know how you can read what I wrote and come away with that interpretation. I said it probably does.
I said links between biology and occupation are extremely difficult to measure and there isn't research that does so. This is why a lot of research focuses on babies.
The question has been answered. The dimorphism in gender preferences has been demonstrated (a decade ago) in a very similar fashion in primates who are really not inculcated with "traditional values" or "cultural role models":
I don't think that the study directly answers the question. Choosing role models is different from choosing toys.
If anything, the study suggests that women are equally capable of becoming engineers:
>Unlike male monkeys and like girls, female monkeys did not show any reliable preference for either toy type.
If you follow the pattern of the study, then men would reject 'female' jobs but women are interested in both 'male' and 'female' options. Women not only tuck in toys but also like playing with guns.
However, according to that article, male monkeys like to play more. You could argue that IT is all play and thus it's a better environment for men.
It's the other way round. The people who are living in these houses don't have to look at them. It's the people who don't live in those houses that have to look at them.
It's an insult to society when somebody builds an ugly house and everybody else has to look at it.
Settled neighborhoods are more expensive than new ones because you can avoid living next to an ugly house.
Have you seen the Imzy submission [1]? People have argued that they failed because there was no content on their front page. Why have who chosen to require logins?
>1. No front page (for lurkers): They force users to join to be able to view content. The 90/9/1 rule is real, ESPECIALLY in the "community" space. 90% of users just want to lurk and that's just the nature of the internet. It's probably the same here on HN. 9% will participate in some ways, voting, etc. 1% will submit and comment, etc.
This is a very valid point. We are considering adding an option to view conversations without login, but we feel that this should not be the default behaviour (there is an expectation of privacy) but would only be used were it the default.
I thought this was silly until I read this point [1]:
>No prep. No mess. No clean up.
That's brilliant because people don't like cleaning. Cleaning regular juicers is annoying to the point that only few people use them regularly. There are enough people with money to spare that this can become a success. I haven't seen it mentioned, so let me spell it out: This is Nespresso for fruits.
Exactly, if you want really fresh squeezed juice, there are plenty of options with about the same shelf life as these juice packs. There's zero value-add in this product compared to stocking up on a week's worth of fresh-squeezed juice.
In fact, the nanny-scans of the QR-codes that make the machine occasionally go "NO" is of negative value to the consumer.
Imagine buying a bottle of fresh juice, and on the third day you can't open the bottle any longer because it's past the expiry date. And imagine paying $400 for the "privilege" of this. Complete WTF.
The primarily resource would be datamining. Datacenters need energy and cooling. Both are available in abundance in space. Unlike any other industry, their processing material, data, doesn't have to be transported with rockets.
However, this doesn't create jobs in space, just jobs in space industries, since those datacenters are most likely fully automatized.
That works for the ISS, maybe a DC would just be bigger in scale.
There is also the link problem: if the space DC is geostationary, it will be quite far making for a longer round-trip time (RTT) and latency. If it's closer, it needs a lot of radio stations on earth to keep the space DC connected. And each radio station is roughtly the investment of a real DC on Earth.
Cooling is not easily available in space actually. Its a pretty difficult problem. There's no air to convect away heat so you rely only on radiative cooling which can't move a lot of heat easily.
Regarding the shooting and the building, are you sure that you have encouraged your daughter the same way as your sons? Have you looked your daughter into the eyes and smiled when she first tried to fight with you?
And even if you were all supportive in that development, it's still not a fair experiment. As long as your children have friends with traditional values and your children watch TV with advertisements that present pink female princesses and male worriers and builders, children are locked down into their roles.