righttoremember

Given that some people are "unbalanced, unhappy" people, isn't it actually a good thing, rather than "depressing" as you say, that they can find companionship in their workplaces.

Is it really better for people with nothing to do at Xmas eve to go home and be alone anyway? Is it the employers responsibility to ensure that the company culture makes zero allowances for these people?

Efficient is a technical term from economics. It refers to whatever maximizes total welfare. Total welfare is also a technical term, and is roughly approximated by GDP.

You don't have to believe efficiency is an important goal (although my post was arguing that it is). But please let us have this word. Arguments should be had on the basis of refuting peoples ideas, not depriving them of the use of any word with a positive connotation.

In econometrics this approach is called "identification thorough functional form" because it relies on assumptions about the exact distribution of some is the variables.

The main problem is that it requires making assumptions that are very hard or impossible to test. Nonetheless it's an interesting idea, but I doubt this method can replace randomized trials or instrumental variables except in a tiny fraction is cases

The problem with this kind of study is the double standard applied to how the evidence is interpreted.

Case 1: women are better at X

Interpretation: we need to have more women in roles requiring X. And no, this isn't sexist because it's based on objective facts.

Case 2: men are better at X.

Explanation: ability in X is deeply contextual and shaped by cultural factors. Therefore we can't naively apply this study to the real world. Using so called objective facts to reinforce gender stereotypes is wrong and ignorant. Instead, we should interpret the results of this study in the context of social studies of gender roles and discrimination. In this light, this study in fact suggests the opposite: women are better at X