I am all for discovering new learning techniques to help woman but as a woman who got my degree in computer science, I can't help but doubt this. I would describe much of the subject matter in my classes to appear "dry" or unenthused at times but I've talked to men who perceived computer science in the same way - and only came to learn it and appreciate it later in their lives.

There were subjects I was required to take such as EE which did not interest me whatsoever. But with CS, I was genuinely enthused and a "lack of collaborative work" was certainly not stopping me personally. (If anything, I really liked solo work) I think what could have helped me was simply a bit more humor and light heartedness in my classes. College moved fast for me and I would have benefited from more opportunities to ask "dumb" questions in a friendly setting. I wonder how else they could address "perfectionism and a fear of failure".

You're probably just not representative of the typical woman. In any discussion of how to improve gender representation in CS there's always some women that chime in to say they were drawn to the field for the same reasons that men were. I think you and people like you are better represented by the 15% of women that do go into CS despite whatever keeps other women out. Unfortunately, programs to make CS appeal to girls will almost certainly ignore people like you.

This is the part I am unconvinced about - that "collaboration" is the issue at all. It seems like an easy go-to based on older assumptions. But plenty of woman I know I think would love tech but know nothing about it - but rather than what I feel are misconceptions that they would not enjoy it or could not meaningfully contribute.

I thought the guy's behaviour after he was fired had put this "he's just interested in science" myth.

When you've just been fired and seemingly the entire world is against you, you're going to be drawn to the only group that provides you support (in his case the alt-right). It's just human nature. It is a serious mistake to deduce the motives for his original memo from this.

Indeed, I thought it quite telling that Damore's subreddit, that he actively moderates, is full of posts and comments hating on women.

And also that he's embraced becoming something of a folk hero for alt-right dullards.

the snide addition of "Hopefully she doesn't get fired for it." makes it hard to be objective about the rest of your comment, but putting that aside, i agree that there is a tinge of implicit buy-in of gender stereotyping in her writing.

it's almost certainly more complicated than just "biology did it". that biology simply _dictates_ the way we learn is naive, rather than being a complicated dance between biological inputs that get filtered through dynamic social perceptions rippling through an ocean of brains ever more intricately tied together by computer networks. i don't pretend to know the truth here, but i fully expect it to be marvelously complex and in possibly fascinatingly counterintuitive ways.

i wanted to like and even agree with the article, but it basically boiled down to "we learn differently", and i just find that woefully inadequate in explaining why women are underrepresented in tech.

> there is a tinge of implicit buy-in of gender stereotyping in her writing

She emphasized that you can't predict an individual from population characteristics many times.

But if you're concerned about overall diversity and not just if a particular individual has access, then you must concern yourself, at least somewhat, with population characteristics.

Sterotyping is a sin if you use it for discrimination, it's humanitarian when you use it -- for example-- to save people from breast and prostate cancer.

> it basically boiled down to "we learn differently", and i just find that woefully inadequate

It may not take much of a difference in averages in the gendered sub-populations to make a big difference in tech's gender balance if you make the assumption that tech is selecting for people several standard deviations away from the norm.

> the snide addition of "Hopefully she doesn't get fired for it." makes it hard to be objective about the rest of your comment

True, although I honestly hope she doesn't, and think there is a decent chance of her getting some backlash/having a risk of getting fired.

thanks for acknowledging, i know that can be hard to do. i think the difference here is that she didn't announce it in her workplace, but rather brought it up for public debate in an open forum.