If women's interest in CS is purely fixed by human nature, how do you account for the precipitous drop over the past decades? Women got 37% of the CS degrees in 1984 but get way fewer now.[1]
[1] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~women/resources/aroundTheWeb/hostedPa...
"If women's interest in CS is purely fixed by human nature, how do you account for the precipitous drop over the past decades?"
a 37% drop over a few decades is a pretty dramatic change.
your argument is based on zero data and a whole bunch of rhetoric. not only that, it completely ignores the question.
if it's all about human nature, how do you explain a dramatic recent change? (and realize that if you really want to take the discussion to the grand, sweeping level of human nature, three decades becomes a tiny, tiny timespan for such a sharp drop.)
It's difficult to tell if you're trolling or if you truly don't get it. At no point did the parent poster claim that 100% of a person's likelihood to found a tech start-up was nurture.
Consider this situation: Nurture (U) and Nature (A) are both factors in a person's likelihood to start-up (L). If L = UxA, then a 37% drop in U would cause a 37% drop in L regardless of differences in natural abilities.
A good starting point if you're interested in the interplay between nurture and nature in human psychology is Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate.