> I think it's fair to say that what frogpelt said was more or less in line with what most perceived your implication to be. I think this gets to the core of t

> I think it's fair to say that what frogpelt said was more or less in line with what most perceived your implication to be. I think this gets to the core of the problem of discussing race: Read the comments carefully; nobody blames Gates or even mentions him. I certainly don't; the cause could be a lack of books written by others, or a lack of opportunities to write, to obtain qualifications, to get an education, to get jobs in those industries, etc. etc. (I actually had written a sentence saying Gates wasn't the issue but deleted it as unnecessary.) However, in the more angry responses, people jump to the assumption that Gates is being accused; those comments are the only place blame of Gates is mentioned. I point out that they are the angry comments because it seems that those people are defensive, jumping to conclusions and acting out. (Yes, some people get overheated in the other direction, but I don't see that here.) That a big reason that it's hard to discuss these issues intelligently and move forward. People are defensive, and to be honest, today on places like HN it is far more trendy and 'politically correct' to shout down the mention of discrimination. You can see people angrily repeating the talking points (reverse discrimination, etc.); that kind of behavior (anger, repetition) is not a sign of intelligent analysis and won't likely help us solve these problems.