Re:Silicon Valley's women have spoken. Now what?
by rayiner on Saturday July 01, 2017 @07:23PM
(#14679687)
Even accepting that argument on its own terms doesn't explain the observed difference. The population above 130 IQ is roughly 2:1 male. Even if programming aptitude is entirely correlated with having an IQ above 130 (and let's face it, most programmers aren't two standard deviations above the median), that doesn't explain the 5:1 to 10:1 ratios you see in the field.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Silicon Valley's women have spoken. Now what?
by programmarchy on Saturday July 01, 2017 @10:25PM
(#14680494)
Not entirely, no. But like I mentioned in my other posts, women are freely choosing to pursue other careers which are more stereotypically female, a phenomenon which is even more pronounced in societies with high levels of gender equality. The evidence for aptitude and interest outweighs the evidence for discrimination.
Re:Silicon Valley's women have spoken. Now what?
by smt88 on Sunday July 02, 2017 @03:54AM
(#14681413)
> women are freely choosing to pursue other careers which are more stereotypically female
Can you call it "freely choosing" when they're treated badly when pursuing male-dominated fields and treated well when pursuing female-dominated fields?
People don't like swimming upstream, for the most part. What they would choose "freely" and what they choose in the real world are often very different.
Re:Silicon Valley's women have spoken. Now what?
by MagnumOpus on Sunday July 02, 2017 @04:42AM
(#14681545)
A. You are begging the question that they are more badly treated in tech than in accounting or health care.
B. They enter even uni or high school CS and physics courses at a fast lesser rate. Is that because of interest or because they make assumptions about being discriminated against 10 years down the line?