3 ms·

Most tech jobs don't actually require significantly greater than average intelligence. If you crunch the numbers it takes a pretty high bar to skew the gender

by nullc 5y ago

Most tech jobs don't actually require significantly greater than average intelligence. If you crunch the numbers it takes a pretty high bar to skew the gender of the posterior distribution much. It's not inconceivable and shouldn't be discarded out of hand, but there are plenty of other factors (including non-discrimination ones) worth keeping in mind. As an aside-- when you make the variance argument it's useful to point out that men are vastly more over-represented in convictions or some other negative characteristic... otherwise it's just too easy for people to read as a suggestion that men are better rather than simply being a population which as a whole tends to have more diversity in its performance. Communication is a two way street, and there are enough assholes out there who do think that men are inherently superior that it's in everyones interest to put in some more effort to make it clear that it isn't what you're saying.

SamReidHughes 5y ago
I don't think it is useful here (on HN) to point out the low end. That just gets tedious and I think comes across as tedious. The pertinent fact is that m:f ratio increases at the top, and variance is just the most irrefutable factor that breaks apart any presumption that the distributions should be identical. Also, I'm not trying to pretend that's the only difference between men and women. Men sleep 20 minutes less than women. Is that "inherent superiority"? No, but it's an advantage. Or maybe men undersleep and it's a disadvantage.
- nullc 5y ago
  Maybe it comes across as tedious. But -- we write because we hope to communicate, and if you're mistaken as a flaming misogynist then the communication will fail and you won't reach the people who could benefit the most from your perspective. I think it can be worth it to put on a bit of a dance to make it clear that you're not just looking for reasons to be dismissive towards women, even if in some cosmic fairness sense you shouldn't have to prove you're not a witch. In my mind a reasonable way to do that is to point out that variance differences often make men worse. Particularly so since someone one extra sd more intelligent on the top end probably has little benefit to their life, while someone being one extra sd more violent on the bottom end makes them much more likely to live a life thats miserable for them and those around them.

by nullc 5y ago

SamReidHughes 5y ago

I don't think it is useful here (on HN) to point out the low end. That just gets tedious and I think comes across as tedious. The pertinent fact is that m:f ratio increases at the top, and variance is just the most irrefutable factor that breaks apart any presumption that the distributions should be identical. Also, I'm not trying to pretend that's the only difference between men and women. Men sleep 20 minutes less than women. Is that "inherent superiority"? No, but it's an advantage. Or maybe men undersleep and it's a disadvantage.

nullc 5y ago
Maybe it comes across as tedious. But -- we write because we hope to communicate, and if you're mistaken as a flaming misogynist then the communication will fail and you won't reach the people who could benefit the most from your perspective. I think it can be worth it to put on a bit of a dance to make it clear that you're not just looking for reasons to be dismissive towards women, even if in some cosmic fairness sense you shouldn't have to prove you're not a witch. In my mind a reasonable way to do that is to point out that variance differences often make men worse. Particularly so since someone one extra sd more intelligent on the top end probably has little benefit to their life, while someone being one extra sd more violent on the bottom end makes them much more likely to live a life thats miserable for them and those around them.