4 ms·

The problem is that science agrees with it. Surely setting policies that accommodate nature will be more effective than pretending nature fits whatever the popu

The problem is that science agrees with it. Surely setting policies that accommodate nature will be more effective than pretending nature fits whatever the popular ideology says. About abilities, it's well known that men have a higher standard deviation of IQ, which, as Damore explained, means there are more men of high IQ than there are women. Google preferentially hires high IQ people so it will be skewed towards men, all else being equal.

joshuamorton 8y ago
> The problem is that science agrees with it. Not really. Science certainly agrees that there are differences between males and females. But if you can find me a peer reviewed article showing a causal relationship between sex and performance in a software engineering career, controlling for environmental and social factors, you'd be the first. > Google preferentially hires high IQ people so it will be skewed towards men, all else being equal. Note here you aren't arguing about performance, but about culture. But to throw a wrench in your argument, Google hires mostly college graduates, which as we all know, skew female. Sprinklinga wrong "ceteris paribus" into your line of thinking isn't conducive to interesting discussion.
- lopmotr 8y ago
  If I can find a paper showing the sex-IQ relationship and another showing a IQ-software engineering performance relationship, will that satisfy you? Though, so save myself time, do you really doubt the 2nd one? Yes, I think they probably do get more females by preferring graduates than they would if they didn't have that bias towards graduates. What do you mean by a wrong ceteris paribus? Of course it's wrong in the sense that all else isn't equal in reality, but you can still consider what would happen if it was. Or do you mean it's not even possible for all the other factors to be constant because they're correlated with the one we're changing so we still have to make a choice about which ones to really hold constant?

joshuamorton 8y ago

> The problem is that science agrees with it. Not really. Science certainly agrees that there are differences between males and females. But if you can find me a peer reviewed article showing a causal relationship between sex and performance in a software engineering career, controlling for environmental and social factors, you'd be the first. > Google preferentially hires high IQ people so it will be skewed towards men, all else being equal. Note here you aren't arguing about performance, but about culture. But to throw a wrench in your argument, Google hires mostly college graduates, which as we all know, skew female. Sprinklinga wrong "ceteris paribus" into your line of thinking isn't conducive to interesting discussion.

lopmotr 8y ago
If I can find a paper showing the sex-IQ relationship and another showing a IQ-software engineering performance relationship, will that satisfy you? Though, so save myself time, do you really doubt the 2nd one? Yes, I think they probably do get more females by preferring graduates than they would if they didn't have that bias towards graduates. What do you mean by a wrong ceteris paribus? Of course it's wrong in the sense that all else isn't equal in reality, but you can still consider what would happen if it was. Or do you mean it's not even possible for all the other factors to be constant because they're correlated with the one we're changing so we still have to make a choice about which ones to really hold constant?