7 ms·

You seem to be saying: since coding is a valuable activity, any group not coding is a waste. Is that correct?

• hyperpape 13y ago
  Any group underrepresented in [valuable activity x]relative to its distribution of talent. You can theoretically have a distribution in which natural aptitude is equal, the distribution is skewed (more men than women) and it's not horribly inefficient, but I think if you spell out the assumptions of such a distribution, it's not especially realistic.
  • newnewnew 13y ago
    There is good reason to believe that natural aptitude is not equal[1][2] [1] https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DMQCP3v6SZQUw1MnNWbXBUV3M/edit?pli=1 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DMQCP3v6SZQUw1MnNWbXBUV3M/... [2] http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-huge-gender-math-gap-persists-with-a-33-point-advantage-for-high-school-boys/ http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-hug...
  • tszyn 13y ago
    What if women are equal to men in coding aptitude, but simply don't want to code? Is that still a waste that we should do something about?
    • hyperpape 13y ago
      Depends on why. If it really is because regardless of what social expectations there are, women are just less interested, that's harmless. But I think it's obvious that with a look at history and present attitudes, we can't assume an observed difference in interest is neutral that way.