> edit: downvoters can't handle the truth? No, your logic is flawed. Let's say there is a population of 1,000 male programmers, with a normal distribution of I

> edit: downvoters can't handle the truth? No, your logic is flawed. Let's say there is a population of 1,000 male programmers, with a normal distribution of IQ (mean 100, S.D. 15), and therefore 15.87% are at or above 1 sigma. That's 159 male programmers, more or less, regarded as exceptional. Let's further say that we have a population of 100 female programmers with exactly the same statistical breakdown, with 15.87% above 1 sigma, reflecting the IQ stats for the population as a whole, male and female. This makes 16 female programmers, more or less, regarded as exceptional. This means (a) there are more exceptional male programmers by count than female programmers, but it also means that (b) statistically, a selected male programmer is likely to be equal to a selected female programmer, and the more programmers you compare, the more equal the outcome becomes. Mathematically: emp / tmp = efp / tfp = 15.87% Where: emp = exceptional male programmers tmp = total male programmers efp = exceptional female programmers tfp = total female programmers This means that your claim above: > So the male candidate is probably better a coder most of the time. Is perfect nonsense, and coincidentally calls into question the presumed intellectual superiority of males.