3 ms·
He didn't just argue that there was a difference in the distribution but that the underlying cause was biological. Companies like google hire people who excell
by gizmo 9y ago
He didn't just argue that there was a difference in the distribution but that the underlying cause was biological. Companies like google hire people who excell at certain skills and are therefore at the tail end of the corresponding distribution where the differences in likelihood occurence are largest. If he believes that for engineering there are 10 men for every woman at both tail ends of the distribution then the "natural" gender ratio in engineering teams must be 10:1 or standards are lowered in the name of diversity.
The implications of that worldview are totally toxic.
- qu4z-2 9y ago> The implications [...] are toxic. And therefore it is false?
- gizmo 9y agoIt is false because the science is bunk. Social conditioning likely explains all (and definitely explains most) of the measured differences, not biology. The author has a popular science level understanding of gender differences. Based on that he concludes women are unsuited to be engineers compared to men.
- qu4z-2 9y ago> It is false because the science is bunk. Well, then make that argument.
- remarkEon 9y agoWhich is, of course, not what he said.
- JSONwebtoken 9y agoWhy did you present it as if this is just something that the guy "believes?" I thought that was the strongest argument of his memo and the perhaps the point with the biggest scientific backing. If you wanted to pick out any argument out of those 10 pages to disassemble, you could have chosen any one of his arguments that haven't been corroborated by hundreds of years of scientific consensus.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gizmo 9y agoThere is no "hundreds of years of scientific consensus" that suggests women are worse than men at math and science. What consensus are you talking about?