4 ms·
sorry for the lazy reading but why does he center both normal distributions at 0? is there no scientific proof for increased 'techiness' in males? and how does
by singularity2001 9y ago
sorry for the lazy reading but why does he center both normal distributions at 0? is there no scientific proof for increased 'techiness' in males? and how does he come to the conclusion that "they don’t seem to be the dominant factor."?
- Smaug123 9y agoNear the end of the post, the author considers what happens when the means of the two distributions are different. "They don't seem to be the dominant factor" because in order to fully generate the observed ratio of male/female employment at Google using only the "general techiness factor", one needs to hypothesise implausibly large differences in the underlying distributions of techiness.
- naasking 9y ago> in order to fully generate the observed ratio of male/female employment at Google using only the "general techiness factor", one needs to hypothesise implausibly large differences in the underlying distributions of techiness. Except it's only implausible if you assume the conclusion. The implausibility is literally summoned from the aether, because it's certainly not based on any empirical facts.
- wmf 9y agoBecause that's what the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis is. There are other articles about other hypotheses.