[Lawtonfogle]

Even if the averages are the same, differences in deviations could still result in differences in outcomes.

Say that men and women were, on average, completely identical at programming computers (average of 50). But say that men had greater deviation. So you had more men with a 10 and more men with a 90. But there were more women with a 40 and a 60. 75 and 25 are the break even points.

But, software development companies don't want average programmers, they want good programmers. So they only hire those who are a 80 or better. End result: more men hired as programmers even though men and women are equal on average.

[norea-armozel]

Nothing personal, but I'm calling bs on that statement of companies hiring the "best" in any position. The reality is that companies hire what they can afford and are willing to take a hit on productivity in the short term if it means getting a service or product out of the door. You can always make something better later but you can't make something if you have no one you can hire to get it done. As for women in programming, I would argue that I know more women programmers that are far better than me at the job despite my knack for teasing out oddities in bugs. My own talent doesn't always make up for solid performance. So that Cowboy Programmer schtick doesn't work when you're trying to get hired at any company that most of the Valley would consider boring.

[Lawtonfogle]

First consider that I was initially talking about all people. The average person probably can't even get hello world to run (also depend if we mean mean, median, or more).

>The reality is that companies hire what they can afford and are willing to take a hit on productivity in the short term if it means getting a service or product out of the door.

Redefine best to be a more complex variable that depends upon what the individual is willing to work for, how good they are, and set limits on the max they can pay.

For example, perhaps best is defined as highest skill for those willing to work for no more than 50k. Anyone who isn't willing to work for it is eliminated. You still have a remaining group, that when divided by gender, has both male half and female half each with an average and a standard deviation, and which the company is wanting to hire from the top.

>You can always make something better later but you can't make something if you have no one you can hire to get it done.

Perhaps best is defined not by who can make the most perfect program given infinite time, but who can make the program that best fits the business needs for a minimally viable product in the least amount of time. Once again, best can be redefined as you want. My argument doesn't depend upon any given implementation of best.

>So that Cowboy Programmer schtick doesn't work when you're trying to get hired at any company that most of the Valley would consider boring.

Once again (again), I never defined best. Best may mean a cowboy to some group who only needs one or two individuals, and it may mean a great team player to a far larger organization.