About the labor statistics: if you say they're all I need, it seems that you dismiss the argument I made above, that disparity of outcome does not imply discrim

About the labor statistics: if you say they're all I need, it seems that you dismiss the argument I made above, that disparity of outcome does not imply discrimination all by itself. Why? About the paper: it looks much more sloppy to me than the previous one you linked. This quote from p.12 is at the root of my dislike: > Unlike the survey data, where claims to generality can be made via mathematical operations, generalising from ethnographic work is done via interpretation as in the humanities. The humanities haven't been scientifically tested, so we don't know if their method leads to truth. For example, on pp. 16-17 the authors note that many women are computer users but few become IT professionals - and immediately conclude, from that fact alone, that hostile work environment must be the reason. It's fishy that there are no intermediate steps of reasoning and no alternative hypotheses. There are many such examples in the paper. About the books: I'm already a big fan of Kahneman. Why specifically do you mention his book as support? Pink Brain, Blue Brain seems to deal with the development of children rather than with sexism in mostly-adult fields like IT, and if its conclusions are right, then sexism of male IT workers is not required to explain the small number of women in IT because differences in development are already enough. Why are you mentioning it as support? Also, do you disagree with what I said about the previous paper? It's a little frustrating when people abandon lines of argument to start new ones.