Al Korvus
Al Korvus
Aug 9, 2017 · 1 min read

I generally agree with your open-minded analysis of the original source (which is refreshing), but I do have a couple of points to raise:

  1. You cited the education background of your family members as evidence to suggest that being a scientist is “genetic”. But how do you distinguish between nature vs nurture in your case? Especially since you used the educational qualifications of your brother-in-law (with whom hopefully you share no biological relation) as part of the evidence? Based on the data available in your case, why is it wrong to suggest that you ending up being a scientist is a choice fostered within your family while growing up?
  2. Your explanation of the bell curve is helpful in understanding the potentially misleading result of relying on averages, but what is the rationale for placing the cutoff between “most people” and “some people” (kind of arbitrary terms themselves) at the 34% above and below the mean? Also, I have a feeling that the hiring criteria at Google will not reflect the curve you shared, but will in fact select for candidates that deviate even greater (on the high end) of average, which would change the ratio of available male and female candidates fitting the more stringent criteria from what you presented (e.g. Google would in fact be hiring only people at the top 3–5% of the curve rather than the top 18% “some people” section). Thoughts?
    Al Korvus

    Written by

    Al Korvus