[Pilfer]

I am sorry, but you are still making the same mistake I pointed out earlier, conflating statistical concepts with colloquial ones. You don’t seem to understand the point I am making at all. To understand a statistical argument like the paper submitted, or respond to the statistical argument in the ‘diversity’ memo, you require a basic understanding of statistics. 5%, 15%, those exact numbers I was throwing out, are meaningless here. From a statistical standpoint, what matters is the distribution. The distribution of traits for individuals at the 50th percentile (using whatever metric), is not the same as the distribution of individuals at the 85th percentile, nor the 95th percentile. What you need to understand is that for the general population, the distributions of traits are not identical at every percentile. That is the key misunderstanding you demonstrate in your original comment. Further, your claim that “somewhere at 15-20% its really not a big deal” is not easily disprovable, but statistical nonsense (that’s a colloquial statement).

I do encourage you to re-read my comments and understand where 15% and 5% come from. They are from different populations, something which you do not appear to notice.

Sadly there’s a litany of basic mistakes in your comment. It’s not worth my teaching people high school statistics, so I won’t be replying.

[ggm]

I got schooled. I guess I deserved it.