|
|
|
|
|
|
by m1el
3336 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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.