I grew up in a pretty different milieu -- no IBM employees, no friends into computers. My dad knew one woman who worked at Cray and I visited her office once. Very super cool. I never bought a computer until I was in grad school as I was able to dumpster dive them all until then, other than the first, which my mom bought.

But I'll tell you this: being a girl, I never hung out with the boy computer nerds doing computer nerd stuff because they didn't seem to want to hang out with a girl. (I did hang out with the boy math nerds, so I don't think it's all boy/girl junior high awkwardness.) So I'm probably one of those people who didn't exist especially in the grandparent post, a non-existent girl computer nerd motivated by herself, because I too was too socially awkward to come in and somehow magically charm a roomful of junior high boys who scorned me proactively because they figured since I was a girl I probably hated them and computers.

Thank god for college and moving away from hometown.

Curious to hear more about the difference between the boy computer nerds and the boy math nerds, especially the differences in the computer or math based hanging out activities (i.e. extra curricular subject matter activities)

Also, re: "a roomful of junior high boys who scorned me proactively because they figured since I was a girl I probably hated them and computers."...

Did they say things along those lines or was this an assumption you made at the time? You clearly didn't hate computers, so I don't know how they would figure that unless you never demonstrated your interest in computers to them.

If they were actively discriminating against you because you were a girl, I'd expect you to have said something like: "a roomful of junior high boys who scorned me proactively because I was a girl despite the fact that they knew I loved computers."

"If they were actively discriminating against you because you were a girl, I'd expect you to have said something like: "a roomful of junior high boys who scorned me proactively because I was a girl despite the fact that they knew I loved computers.""

Why? This type of sexism or bias is well-known to the point that I'm surprised you asked her to explain it. Here it is: our culture molds men and women into different roles at an early age that shapes the average person's expectations of what's a "man's thing" or a "woman's thing." Although early technicians were women, men eventually took over the field and computers were another thing they played with while women did other things.

Although I'd like the specifics, I could easily see a group of male, computer nerds assuming she was a waste of time because "women don't hack on computers." Just like how [male] mechanics would likely roll their eyes if a woman suggested the answer to a mechanical problem that wasn't obvious to them. Whereas anyone can do math.

    "This type of sexism or bias is well-known to the point 
    that I'm surprised you asked her to explain it."

Completely agree that those bias' exist. What I contest is the assumption that you hold and that I've seen many others hold that this is the only factor or overwhelmingly primary factor and that it's somehow inappropriate to even consider look for other explanations, and the assumption that the magnitude off all other factors (if any) contribute inconsequentially to the problem we're trying to address here. I really don't see why my questions I asked to gain greater understanding of specific circumstances of anecdotal information should warrant surprise or should be seen as inappropriate. The scientific process involves inquiry, hypotheses and observations. You can't start at a conclusion and work your way backwards.

Personally, I find the Occam's Razor, Hanlon's Razor and the null hypothesis to be remarkably useful tools when trying to gain a greater understanding of the World.

The reason I ask for explanation is because I can also see that exact same group of male computer nerds assuming that most of their colleagues, male or female are a waste of time because "few people hack on computers". You can't expect people (especially children in the context of the educational "prison industrial complex") are going to magically overcome this assumption for one subgroup of the general population when they likely hold a belief that applies generally to the entire population.

The reason I ask about the difference between the math and computer nerds is because there is a far greater chance that a child can identify a math nerd over a computer nerd because math is a required course at school every year. I was very much both a math nerd and computer nerd through elementary school to the end of middle school. I knew who the other math nerds were because we were the ones that were most active in math class and were known to have the highest grades on our math tests and we stayed after the bell to talk to the teacher about math. I didn't know who were the other computer nerds were throughout school except for the two semesters in elementary school that we got exposure to programming in Logo. In high school, I only knew about the computer nerds (all ~5 of us) because we all signed up for AP Comp Sci the first time it was offered at our school. Besides that course, there were 2-3 of us that would program TI calculators, but that was the extent of us hanging out. If there were other computer nerds in elementary school, middle school or high school, I didn't know about them because there wasn't a known venue to congregate and discover each other.

Basically, any time someone's assertions are based on assumptions and not on facts, I think it's reasonable to be suspect of those assertions. There are three sides to every story. In this case, there is her side, the side of the male computer nerds and there are the facts. I want to know the facts. Assumptions are by and large useless.

Related Reading from Meredith Patterson, "The Null Hypothesis Loves You and Wants You to Be Happy":

https://medium.com/life-tips/the-null-hypothesis-loves-you-a...

"The reason I ask for explanation is because I can also see that exact same group of male computer nerds assuming that most of their colleagues, male or female are a waste of time because "few people hack on computers". "

BOOM! You got me there. I overlooked the obvious counter to my own statement for whatever reason. I retract it.

"Related Reading from Meredith Patterson, "The Null Hypothesis Loves You and Wants You to Be Happy":"

I appreciate the article but I'm not sure it applies. The approach is certainly useful when you can do that. There's too many things, especially in social decision-making, that involve multiple factors working together in non-linear or inseparable ways. So, it's more like trying to identify the various factors, look at how they often play out, assess how they apply to a certain situation, and make an educated guess about what's likely to apply. Probabilistic and case-based reasoning dominates most things of any significant complexity and uncertainty.

We get a ton of mileage out of null hypothesis and associated analysis, though. Way more than I'd expect on occasion. The tricks people used to eliminate all variables but race or gender are a good example. Otherwise, we'd be looking at social situations weighing the odds as I described above. So, null hypothesis has limits but still worth attempting to use since we can't be sure of its real limits yet.

That's what's fun about it to me, though. So reliable, relatively simple, and yet so much more potential to find cool new ways to use it. :)

To answer a few of your points,

1) Math nerdery was indeed easily identifiable through classes. In addition, I went to schools with math teams, and was recruited in junior high/high school, because the team leaders wanted to win (and win we did).

2) Computer "talent" wasn't selected for. Using the computer lab in high school if you were not in the programming class was about being friends with a certain social group and being friends with the guy who ran the lab -- it was a social construct. I was quite shy at the time, painfully honest, and sensitive to rejection or dislike rather than oblivious to it. A brusque "Why do you need to use the lab?" would be enough to get me to say, "Well, I don't need to use the lab.....??...." (exit)

3) In the end, it was made clear that I belonged in math, while when it came to computers the guys were showing each other how to find the naked dancing girls in the computer games and glancing guiltily at each other when I saw. It didn't offend me, I want you to understand, but I just didn't really felt like I was part of the group, bonded by common interests. And I wasn't. I think the majority of these guys were there because their friends were in the computer lab, not because they loved hacking. In college I met guys who really did like making frankencomputers and we had fun together, as we really did have a common interest and were a bit more mature.

I'll make one last point: I had a very traumatic (to a junior high girl) summer class in math. The 7 other boys knew each other and wouldn't talk to me and wouldn't eat lunch with me, even though I did demonstrate that I loved math (skipped to 2nd year of program) and was good with computers (configured email system for myself fixing teachers mistakes). Were they discriminating? Were they sexist? They were not nice, or welcoming, and I don't have a single good memory of a conversation with a single one of those boys, but I liked the teacher. But at the same time, your previous comment puts this emphasis on discrimination/sexism/etc. Those are bad habits that come out of unexamined behavior that result from social fallacies we carry around. In particular, seventh graders are just awkward, for so many reasons. I don't find it useful to think that those 7th grade boys were just male chauvinists. They were awkward 7th graders who were afraid to talk to a girl. That unremarkable fear had an unfortunate interaction with a class in which I was outnumbered and "other", in a field with historical baggage. As a mathematician, I know that rules and patterns make outcomes of a certain shape, and intent is largely irrelevant as we filter through time and society.

First I want to thank you for your well considered and detail response. It's a huge breath of fresh air and reason in a debate that often include people who are quick to cry foul, jump to conclusions or condemn without stopping to think if they are succumbing to the fundamental attribution error.

1) Awesome. I'm happy your math experience was great.

2) That sucks. Fortunately access to a computer lab or the internet is sufficiently democratized that the unfortunate scenario you encountered shouldn't occur anymore. Having access to any computer and the internet today provides any child today orders of magnitude more privilege to learn and explore their passions than any kid growing up in the 80s, 90s and even 00s. I think there are still many communities that are still computing and internet poor, but we're getting closer and closer to the point where access to computing and the internet is inching closer to being considered a fundamental human right. At least now, it's only a minor socio-economic barrier and the height of that barrier is dropping rapidly, such that in the developed world, more and more people have access to a computing device and internet and the cost of acquiring a minimum viable general purpose computing device with a screen and keyboard can be had for less than $100.

3) From your description, it doesn't sound like many (or possibly any) of those boys were hackers (or became hackers). I think this is an important distinction to make that few people debating these issues do. If none of these boys were hackers, it sounds like you didn't really lose out socially from not being one of them. Hanging out with boys in the computer lab just to download porn sounds about as valuable as hanging out with a clique whose common bond is smoking weed. Not exactly a huge loss in the grand scheme of things. That said, it does sound like you lost out on access to the physical computing resources that would have allowed you to better partake in computing. Do you think this is a fair assessment in hindsight?

This difference between hackers and bros is actually a point Meredith Patterson astutely pointed out in her "When Nerds Collide" essay. Historically, software engineering culture since the birth of the mini-computer has been "hacker culture". It's only in the past 10 years, perhaps as long as 20 that two distinctly new groups become not only part of the industry, but part of the engineers in the industry: Brogrammers and Geek Feminists. Hacker culture on the other hand was born at a time where many people rarely met IRL (or did so long after forming a common bond), where you had short ungendered handles, where the cost of transferring bytes of an image were sufficiently costly that you didn't have avatars and photos that let people know you weren't a dog. It was only in the late 90s to the mid 2000s that people became involved in the industry as a career and not out of natural nerd proclivities. The big change was money. Once Bill Gates made a ton of money and then Google became huge, did people start looking at tech as a way to become rich and a viable career. That's when the Brogrammers and Geek Feminists showed up. The inability of many in this debate to distinguish between male hackers and bros is a huge frustration of mine and is as exemplary of the fundamental attribution error as anyone making assumptions about computing ability based on gender.

Out of curiosity, when were you in middle school? Middle school for me was 1992-1995. I'm particularly curious about dating when you'd be in school because it would help me get an idea of what you meant with some things you said like "a field with historical baggage", which is very very very different if you were in middle in the 80s, 90s or 00s.

Lastly, one particular type of intersectionality I take interest in is neurological diversity. Not everyone has the same brain chemistry and responds the same way to different stimuli (from social situations to loud noises for example) and when they do respond, the range of ways people respond can be direct and unfiltered to shy and measured. One of the concerns I have with neurological intersectionality, is that there is a fundamental incompatibility between an environment that is accommodating and comfortable for the unfiltered and an environment that is accommodating of the sensitive. An environment that tolerates the unfiltered is uncomfortable for those that are sensitive and and environment that is comfortable for the sensitive somewhat necessitates rules, policing and admonishment for violation of behaviors that cause discomfort for those that are sensitive. As someone who identifies as being sensitive, I'm curious about your thoughts are for this dilemma. On a related note, I'm also curious about your thoughts on this somewhat old essay about tact filters: http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html

Given my interest in neurological diversity and my belief that there is a fundamental incompatibility between environments that are safe, welcoming and comfortable for the unfiltered versus the sensitive, I think it's important that we, as an industry recognize that need for multiple environments that are supportive of the breadth of cognitive diversity of people that can contribute to our field. Awareness of this cognitive diversity and the creation of well labeled spaces at least creates environments (a) where the unfiltered can participate knowing they need to police themselves in that sensitive space and environments where they can participate and not worry about being sensitive or tactful, and (b) where the sensitive can participate knowing they need to be tolerant of unintentional insensitivity and lack of tact and environments, where they can participate with little risk of being offended, hurt or triggered.

Thanks for the nerd collide link, as its something that has been itching at the back of my mind as of late.

Please see my response to RustyNails above. I feel like you're rebutting an argument that the original poster never made.