2 ms·
The issue isn't that current outcomes aren't exactly equal. The inequality is larger than typical sex differences can explain. If current outcomes reflect an in
by pseudalopex 8y ago
The issue isn't that current outcomes aren't exactly equal. The inequality is larger than typical sex differences can explain. If current outcomes reflect an innate difference, the separation between the median woman and the median man has to be exceptionally large, the trait has to be exceptionally more variable in men, organizations have to be far more selective than other evidence suggests, and/or the trait must not be normally distributed.
- _dps 8y agoI don't know what standard you have for "exceptionally more variable" but in a normal population you only need a 33% difference in standard deviation to get a ratio of 2x at +2stdev or almost 4x at +3stdev (here stdev is of the less-variable population). I think relative to the population at large it's reasonable to think a programming career is a +2stdev event in inclination and skill toward abstract systems (programmers are ballpark 5% of the working population). I don't mean to suggest that the male variability hypothesis is all or even most of the story, but to me a 33% difference in variability, while substantial, doesn't sound impossibly large — and it suggests male:female ratios that are in line with what we see in the industry.