* I've always assumed "frogs are bigger than toads" has "on average" implied, and that obviously some toads are bigger than some frogs. * If the real goal is t

* I've always assumed "frogs are bigger than toads" has "on average" implied, and that obviously some toads are bigger than some frogs. * If the real goal is to find overlooked, qualified people, we should expect to see more moneyball type thinking, and less lazy diversity-for-diversity's-sake thinking. * The current trend of hyperfocusing on social causes of behavior and making biological ones taboo seems dangerous. I would argue that a comprehensive, accurate description of how people work makes you better at grounding your compassion in effective results. To that end, overlooking something as big as biology seems an easy way to enact a policy that's well-intentioned but harmful. * Some people may appeal to biology in a sexist way and maybe history has many examples, but some people really just want to know what the truth is. Another way of making this point: https://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/846520296240693248 https://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/846520296240693248