Peter Schaeffer
Aug 22, 2017 · 2 min read

Sumant Manne,

There are actually several quite reasonable summaries of the available literature online. Check out “The Google Memo: What Does the Research Say About Gender Differences?” (https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/) for a good summary.

You might also want to read ‘Cool Not Cute’ online (http://coolnotcute.blogspot.com/). The author is not a scientist at all. He is a book writer who targets boys. The author reviews a wealth or technical (scientific) literature and suggests that inappropriate reading material (for boys) may be contributing to weak male reading skills.

Ryan Baldini,

All good statistics. If you add a profound (d = 1.18) female preference for ‘people vs. things’ you get a deeply skewed labor force with pure meritocracy. Of course, you can also add a greater male standard deviation (very well established in the literature) for a quite wide range of talents.

Sceptical Meerkat,

“The reason you should trust me is that I intend to cite evidence for my assertions with links to either primary or secondary peer reviewed literature”

But of course, if anyone else references the primary or secondary peer literature, they get deleted.

Michael Schaefer,

How rare, someone who actually knows the history of the Damore memo.

Gerardo García,

The ‘paradox’ of greater sex differentiation in societies with greater sexual equality is easy to understand… That is, once you can think outside of the box of radical feminism. Radical feminism hold that nature either doesn’t exist or is a minor factor and sexism is profound. Reality is closer to, nature is profound, and sexism may or may not be strong. In more sexually liberated societies (Canada, Norway, Sweden, etc.) women are more free to do what they want and tend to pursue careers that reflect their preferences (veterinary medicine, pediatrics, psychology, law) all of which emphasize ‘people vs. things’. In less liberated societies, engineering may be one of the few careers open to women at all.

For a good article on this point, see “Why It’s Time To Stop Worrying About First World ‘Gender Gaps’” (http://quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-world-gender-gaps/). Quotes

“With improved national wealth and equality of the sexes, it seems differences between men and women in personality traits do not diminish. On the contrary, the differences become conspicuously larger.”

“Using equal representation to measure equality between the sexes leads to false conclusions. For example, a 2015 World Economic Forum (WEF) report ranked Rwanda as being the 6th most progressive country in the world with respect to gender. Canada ranked an abysmal 30th place, and the United States ranked 28th place.”

Rwanda as a paradise of sexual liberation? Who knew?

These ‘facts’ (a four-letter word with a s) easily explain the rise and fall of women in Tech. In the 1950s, Tech was one of the less discriminatory professions (towards women) and women flocked to it. Later more naturally female professions opened up (veterinary medicine, pediatrics, psychology, law) and women moved into higher status (and better paying) fields that they liked better.

)

    Peter Schaeffer

    Written by