[scythe]

Interesting. I strongly disagree with the author's attempt to connect his experience with the Damore fracas. Damore's "manuscript" comprised a number of weakly-justified claims on a variety of subjects in psychology and sociology, reaching far beyond the GMVH, and was furthermore directly critical both of the hiring policies of his employer (!!) and of inclusiveness initiatives in the technology industry more generally. By contrast, the paper by Hill et al provides a single argument about a specific topic and downplays the political implications (to the extent it mentions them at all).

The paper is not without at least one obvious mistake:

> If gender differences in selectivity have been decreasing and are now less significant in some species than they were in prehistoric times, then this theory could also predict that the gender difference in variability in those species has also been decreasing. One recent meta-analysis found empirical evidence of exactly that trend in humans, reporting “The gender difference in variability has reduced substantially over time within the United States

Gender variability over the 240 years of the existence of the United States is probably not a good proxy for gender variability over the 5000 years from the beginning of literate societies to the present.