> Yes it sounds like we're in agreement. We both think the ratio in tech "should" be closer to 50:50 than it is, in the sense that we think that biological diff

> Yes it sounds like we're in agreement. We both think the ratio in tech "should" be closer to 50:50 than it is, in the sense that we think that biological differences are not sufficiently pronounced to explain the currently observed skew, and we should get rid of the bad pipeline effects and negative discrimination. Exactly how I think about this too. > Is your claim that men also show up more at the bottom of technical subjects for the same reasons? (and is that empirically true?) My claim is that men tend to show up at the extremes of society for biological and societal reasons. The way I usually put it is "the glass ceiling comes with a glass floor". From my limited understanding of biology, one cause could be the higher testosterone in men which makes them more aggressive. This can lead to someone "crushing the competition", or someone living a life of crime and violence. I would imagine that men show up at the bottom of technial subjects too. Women in general succeed more in high school and college, but the top spots are still taken by men. From what I understand, the bottom spots are taken by men too.