> The study is biased from the outset because it's designed to 'prove' that women aren't interested in IT. No, the study was designed to investigate a potentia

> The study is biased from the outset because it's designed to 'prove' that women aren't interested in IT. No, the study was designed to investigate a potential link between prenatal androgen exposure and a preference for Things vs People work, which it did find. > let's classify [IT/CS] as 'people-oriented'. Whoops! Suddenly women are very interested. But precisely, observation shows they're not, as a group ! That's the very thing we're here discussing, trying to find out why. And yeah, let's just arbitrarily switch jobs classifications like that without any grounding in reality, just because that's the only way your hypothesis will not fall apart. Can you see the extraordinary amount of unlikely premises it takes for your logic to stand, compared to the alternative, simpler explanation ? That is exactly the kind of situation Occam's razor is here for : "among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." This is starting to feel like a flat-earth debate, honestly. I'm pretty sure many people here would engage with the available evidence much more candidly, if this were a less politically charged topic (and I'm a liberal. But science before ideology, always.)