Well, if we're going to just appeal to authority, I guess I'll do the same: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201708/google-memo-about-

Well, if we're going to just appeal to authority, I guess I'll do the same: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201708/google-memo-about-sex-differences https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/20... The article points out that for most of the biases cited in the memo, the differences are on the order of a few percentage points, which cannot account for the real-world outcomes we see. To quote: Still, I think it's important to keep in mind that most psychological sex differences are only small to moderate in size, and rather than grouping men and women into dichotomous groups, I think sex and sex differences are best thought of scientifically as multidimensional dials, anyway (see here). To be honest, I'm not sure how Ms. Soh can seriously argue the merits of the memo, here. Yes, technically the memo is not itself inaccurate, in that there are gender biases that result in practical population-level effects. But how one can seriously use those facts to conclude that the 70/30 population split in the valley is a product of those differences, I really don't know, unless confirmation bias is at play. It just doesn't make any sense. Heck, just looking historically it doesn't follow... it's not like the biases we see are inevitable. Our industry used to have a different composition. And other STEM fields have seen gender disparities even out. So neither facts nor history support the conclusion.