Presenting Women
Physicist Jessica Wade has written Wikipedia biographies of women in science by the thousands. She has done it to make up for what she considers to be a lack of attention to the great achievements of female scientists in history, and firmly believes that remedying this dearth of information is essential for inspiring girls and young women to pursue careers in the STEM disciplines. Wade herself deserves recognition for identifying a problem and working to remedy it herself.
Tyler Cowan interviews her in his lively podcast, drawing her out on several elements of her biography project. She is a firm believer in the cause, as you might expect, asserting that the lack of women in fields like chemistry, physics, and math has to do almost entirely with nurture—subtle yet active social dissuasion.
From the podcast:
[U]nproductive ways to encourage women in science, which happen a lot, is constantly telling women in science there aren’t any women in science. Constantly we’re told, “Oh, there’s only 8 percent women engineers, so come and be a woman engineer.” I don’t think that’s a particularly useful way.
I think the way to do it is to make sure everyone has the same educational opportunities. Make sure we have fantastic physics and math teachers in our high schools — and all our high schools, not just the expensive high schools. Make sure they’re getting the same kind of career advice and research opportunity. There’s quite a lot of evidence that shows that particularly people from historically excluded groups feel more like becoming a scientist if they’re introduced to the world of research and see those chances that they could have.
Although this has not necessarily been one of my own pet theories, I would certainly consider the claim to have strong potential validity. To apply some insight from Robert Cialdini’s Influence, we are psychologically predisposed to take cues for our own actions from people who are more like us. Surveys tell us that girls and women are not drawn to math and science to the extent that men are. The reasons for this difference are assumed to be partly innate—although not strictly determinative, at least this explanation is used to account for observed behavior patterns: fewer women and girls entering fields of math, engineering, chemistry, and physics.
While it would be wrong to tell ourselves lies about statistically suggested preferences, it also isn’t necessary to make a big deal about the truth of the matter. Or would it be wrong? If the cause is right, such as inspiring girls to go into science, does the perceived social good justify telling lies or suppressing truth? Or does it suffice instead to present evidence of individuals who have excelled in innovation who also happen to come from the ranks of women and minorities?
The whole podcast conversation cannot be reduced to one about feminism or minority issues. Jessica Wade is an accomplished scientist in her own right, and she discusses her chiral material specialization as well. And while you might suppose that writing a unique Wikipedia biography of a different person every day for several years might keep her busy enough, she has also written a highly regarded book on science for children: Nano: The Spectacular Science of the Very (Very) Small (2021).
The video version of the interview is here.
Afternoon all..it is hot and muggy/humid here...and we have the glaze from Canadian Wildfires to boot...I am one who technically shouldn't go outside in this, but, I am not out there long...there were supposed to be possible thunderstorms, but so far, none...
I didn't go into Stem because I hate higher math....and it didn't interest me, it was boring and tedious( parts of it anyway, I loved Algebra and took parts I and II, and did well, I hated Geometry and got one of my only two C's...( 8th and 10th grade)the other being Chemistry, because I loved biology and hated chemistry ( mostly due to the math) ..and I didn't want to work that hard, almost any other topic was fairly easy for me, and I got used to that...lol...also, I am an intuitive person, my brain just doesn't function that way, and I am a BIG people person and that is where my talents are. I do much better with concepts and meanings than factual data...
As to women in on traditional fields, my take on it is, if you really want to take that, go for it, but, don't assume that all women want to, or need to be coreced,...my big mantra has always been choice for women, whichever way they want to go with careers, SAHM or career girl etc, but requiring I become something more traditionally male or become like men to be considered equal never appealed to me at all, I like being a more "girly" and all it comes with.
And finally, Today is National Stay Out of the Doghouse Day, World Emoji Day, and National Tattoo Day
JohnM. Worth Your Time II: 'The Bear’ and the Need for a Place to Belong'--David French
https://tinyurl.com/3pnktzf5