Just a side note -
“never claimed that women were biologically worse than men at tech jobs”
This is a bit of PC that too many conservatives parrot. As a population, women ARE worse than men at tech jobs. Women’s test scores in math cluster in the middle 80% while the upper (and lower) 10% has more men, percentages increasing as you get to the tails of the bell curve.
This is why white women are the number one recipient of affirmative action. Any STEM field with large numbers of women enrolls most of them on the basis of AA.
They know they’re inferior and I think this leads to the kind of bitterness these Google employees engage in.
It's amazing how poorly the ideas of elementary statistics are understood, in particular, mean and variance.
When time allows, individuals should be evaluated for who they are, and what their capabilities are. But, when you are making population level decisions, you have to take population characteristics into account, or you waste a lot of effort.
>As a population, women ARE worse than men at tech jobs. ... They know they’re inferior and I think this leads to the kind of bitterness these Google employees engage in.
You’ve correctly called out the aggregate, but I don’t hire aggregates, I hire people. If the best person happens to be female, the average (or median) of all the people who didn’t apply or aren’t being considered doesn’t matter.
The converse is, of course, even sillier.
That’s what James wrote; yes, aggregates exist, and they matter, but don’t judge people by the ‘tribe’ (his word) to which they belong. In PC-land, even noticing this fact is taboo.
The women who have the aptitude and ability for software engineering are not "biologically worse" than men in those jobs. There are fewer of them percentage-wise, which was one of his points.