| >So is the stance that there are fewer women primarily because of social factors. No, it is not speculation. In my previous comment I mentioned a number of converging lines of evidence supporting this position. >The SSC post shared multiple times in this thread is one example and I don't see any attempts to rebut this on your part. Check the comments, and the reddit thread that he links to correcting his mistakes regarding Harvey Mudd. The argument is full of holes. Remember that SSC is just a blog, and it's written by someone who is not very well informed on these issues. >Sure 'women keep telling us about sexism in tech'. I've read some of those anecdotes. It's quite offensively dismissive to refer to multiple independent and credible reports of sexist behavior merely as "anecdotes". But I guess it's clear from this what your position really is, despite your claims to neutrality. >And there are anecdotes such as the one that this thread is on that suggest that sexism in tech can have the opposite effect. This isn't what the article actually says. The title is click-bait. >My intent is to argue that there are potentially other factors at play There are always "potentially" other factors at play. That is so weak a statement as to be meaningless. |