> "the other demonstrably false"
Go on... Demonstrate.
Go on... Demonstrate.
You go check the statistics so you don't accuse me of cherry picking or anything:
Go right ahead and look at all scientific studies you can find. See if men and women score exactly the same or if there are sometimes huge differences.
Assume for a minute we all agree that there are observable iq differences and observable differences in likelyhood one ventures into computer science.
Then what? You've claimed that this is due to biolgical factors not social ones. Prove it.
We're talking about biological differences in either cognitive ability or interest in engineering/CS.
The well understood answer to your question is that there was a split in gender roles at about the time agriculture was adopted, with men working outside and women doing indoor tasks. This led to a breadwinner/homemaker split across gender lines which impacted the way genders were conventionally taught.
This extended to higher education opportunities, which in the US for example only really began to be open to women in the mid to late 1800s.
Note how none of this has anything to do with any cognitive ability that women might have had. It extends from the fact that men were superior agricultural fieldworkers thousands of years ago.
A) You start out with "either cognitive ability or interest in engineering/CS", but by your last paragraph you're down to "cognitive ability" alone. Damore's thesis was, AFAICR, mainly about the "interest" bit. Does this divergence in what you are talking about vs what he was mean anything, and if so what?
B) > The well understood answer to your question is that there was a split in gender roles at about the time agriculture was adopted, with men working outside and women doing indoor tasks.
And this split... Just happened? Or was it maybe due to differences in, well, how interested people of different sexes on average were/are in different kinds of tasks? Or why else were men "superior agricultural fieldworkers thousands of years ago"?