[BugsJustFindMe]

> I argue that there are biological differences between men and women, and these differences are causing different representation in STEM fields.

I argue that you don't actually have any reason to believe that the differences are biological instead of social. Certainly, while extremely interesting (I mean that. Not sarcasm.), none of your links demonstrate it. Your links claim to show a difference, but they do not claim to explain the cause of said difference.

> I would also say that today, we're living in the most equal opportunity society than ever before.

You could say all kinds of things and more. But, and I'm not agreeing here that it is actually true, because I'm not fully convinced that it is, even if it _is_ true, being better-than isn't the same as being good.

> Let the free market sort itself out.

Only a properly regulated market ever sorts itself out. Otherwise you end up with natural monopolies, because barriers to entry are historically compounded. This has always been true of marketplaces.

> So, did they use a flawed methodology? Were these studies sexist?

Well, one flaw is that your conclusions don't follow from the studies.

[m1el]

> I argue that you don't actually have any reason to believe that the differences are biological instead of social.

I could provide studies on how IQ development is set by genetics and very early childhood. So yes, I do have a reason to believe IQ is biological.

> Only a properly regulated market ever sorts itself out.

This is true, but "we must hire women otherwise people think we're sexist" is not a properly regulated market.

> Well, one flaw is that your conclusions don't follow from the studies.

But my conclusions do follow from studies. If you take top 2% of people by IQ from a random population sample, you expect to have more men. The same would be true if you took the bottom 2%, but that doesn't interest anyone.

[BugsJustFindMe]

> I could provide...

Well I could provide a tortoise that speaks seven different languages. Saying what you could provide is fairly bad form.

> and very early childhood.

Wait, how early? Which part of childhood is the genetic part? Heck, what about the potential for non-uniform distribution of teratogens? Has that even been studied?

> but "we must hire women otherwise people think we're sexist" is not a properly regulated market

"We should prefer to choose an equally qualified woman because not only is she presently equally qualified, but she has achieved being equally qualified in an environment that in-many-small-ways-collectively-and-constantly tries to prevent it" is, though. There is no shortage of well-qualified individuals in the world. And if you don't agree, then we must first begin another conversation on what exactly you think qualifies someone to develop software.

> But my conclusions do follow from studies.

They certainly don't follow from the ones you linked, even though you said they would. I know that because I read the studies you linked. So maybe these other ones also don't support your conclusions any better?

> If you take top 2% of people by IQ from a random population sample, you expect to have more men.

Maybe. Now tell me the part of the study that says why. And further tell me the part that indicates a positive correlation with success in computer software production. And then tell me the part that indicates positive correlation with representation in the field. And then tell me the part that indicates...heck, maybe that indicates that g is even a useful measurement to begin with.

Because you said, and I quote, "[biological] differences are causing different representation in STEM fields", which is an unsupported conclusion.