The Science of Success

Um. Do you think it might have anything to do with the fact that languages, art, music, hell, architecture talk about love, and math and science don't? These are the things that free us women, too.

Great article! I think I once read a neuroscience article on this website about how when women think about romance it actually changes the way their brains function. But I can't find it so I could be wrong. However, it is interesting to think that maybe this dynamic (women who think about romance are less likely to be interested in math, science, etc.) has a more 'natural' origin than social.

Anyways, on a personal basis, I almost pursued a Bachelor's of Computer Science when I first started college. Since I am a woman, the director of the CS department took special interest in me since I was a minority. That was helpful, however the beginning programming class was hell. No one in the class was very friendly (and I consider myself to be a nice, friendly person) and they seemed more competitive and focused than anything else. Even the professor himself wasn't very helpful or friendly. The only person (a guy) I kind of befriended turned out to have ulterior motives. If the class had been more sociable and fun, I probably would've enjoyed it and learned much better, but I felt too uncomfortable because of how I felt and I changed my major before the end of that class. I pursued a B.A. in English Literature instead and I enjoyed the social atmosphere of almost all of my classes.

In regards to romance, I do find that when I am away from boyfriend I plan more for my career and I do tend to focus more so on science (I really like biology and chemistry). However, when he's around I lose my focus on those things and I only really care about being with him.

I think that guys pursue STEM careers more often is because they are more profitable than a lot of other fields. (That way they can have more resources to attract a partner.) From my personal experience I would like to say that there are less women in stem fields because the stem learning environment is more suited for males (competitive, completely focused, highly analytical) than for females who would prefer a 'more friendly' (and less stressful) learning environment. I think that if we really wanted to make the stem fields more balanced we should focus on making the learning environments for them more female-friendly.

Good article. I oftentimes find myself thinking studying something like math, business, or law, may take away from my femininity and make me less attractive to the type of man I would want. So this article hit on some personal points. I have one complaint though, with regard to the "third study" mentioned, I do not see how "attending class, studying, or doing homework" are math-related at all. So desire for romantic love makes women worse students? That again seems too general. But mad props for the article!

Aren't these differences just human nature? I think it's impossible to eliminate all stigmas completly regaurdless of if they're positive or negative. At what point to you embrace these differences and take advantage of what you we're born with and try and diminish the set backs we're born with?

I don't know if you can read, for example, the intro to that Ceci paper you cited and say the notion that there is a biological basis to the difference is "baseless and false". I would say the evidence is pretty decent that it is true, but concede that reasonable people could disagree. But to say that it's baseless and false is, while, while pro-social/egalitarian etc., baseless and false.

What kind of evidence would you accept?

As a programmer by profession, and the mother of a young girl, this article struck a cord with me. However, I wish to share my own childhood experience in here. I grew up in Asia where during my college years, Medicine and Engineering, followed by Scientific research and Accountancy were perhaps the only career choices guaranteed to provide a decent standard of living.

The noteworthy thing here was that my CS class had about 30% girls -- and due to the prevalent culture, dating and romance were not our priorities -- and we all did great. The pressure to find a mate was very low for us, due to prevalent social attitudes towards dating. The society and culture created a perfect storm where we were considered the cool ones for our achievement.

I must also add that the percentage of women in STEM careers in Asia has only grown. In urban, educated cultures, families take pride in raising girls on par with boys.

As much as we benefitted due to it, I would not justify the social environment we had back then (and the attitudes related to dating etc. are changing in the current generation) -- however, the point I wish to make here is that, it is possible to create an environment for young women where they will feel sexy about themselves for being math-inclined. An important aspect here is to also nurture respect for smart women among boys.

Hmm. This 'study,' and perhaps much of the analysis contained in this very article, seems like it could have been written in the 1950s. From the requirement that female undergraduates write in 'diaries' (not journals or notebooks, heaven forbid!), and to a frankly offensive parenthetical "(Interestingly, women who viewed intelligence images expressed the same level of interest as the men!)" That is not interesting, nor novel of an idea in the year 2011. Nor is this rather archaic line of thought: "In other words, love doesn't just make girls bad at math -- it may also make boys act like selfish jerks, all in the service of conforming to a (largely unconscious) romantic ideal." Not only is the jargon contained in this piece akin to an issue of Cosmo or a Victorian-era book of manners for young women, it's sort of irresponsible for a psychology article posted well into the 21st century. Women, we now know, are oftentimes just as interested in the intellect, and--shocking, I know--sometimes even more so than their male counterparts. Please try to present more interesting and progressive content, Psychology Today.

Hmm. This 'study,' and perhaps much of the analysis contained in this very article, seems like it could have been written in the 1950s. From the requirement that female undergraduates write in 'diaries' (not journals or notebooks, heaven forbid!), and to a frankly offensive parenthetical "(Interestingly, women who viewed intelligence images expressed the same level of interest as the men!)" That is not interesting, nor novel of an idea in the year 2011. Nor is this rather archaic line of thought: "In other words, love doesn't just make girls bad at math -- it may also make boys act like selfish jerks, all in the service of conforming to a (largely unconscious) romantic ideal." Not only is the jargon contained in this piece akin to an issue of Cosmo or a Victorian-era book of manners for young women, it's sort of irresponsible for a psychology article posted well into the 21st century. Women, we now know, are oftentimes just as interested in the intellect, and--shocking, I know--sometimes even more so than their male counterparts. Please try to present more interesting and progressive content, Psychology Today.

I'm a clinical psychologist in private practice and I have the best of both worlds...counseling and being a business owner. This, however, doesn't stop me from fantasizing about being a chemist where things are finite, absolute, and lack feelings. Oh, to work with chemicals that don't scream, cry, antagonize, or otherwise annoy!