Discussion about this post

User's avatar
gregvp's avatar

The whole debate somewhat misses Celeste's main argument. It is annoying nit-picking, really, and bespeaks deficiencies in reading comprehension and ability to distinguish the important from the trivial.

Celeste claims that 60-40 is a tipping point.* Changes are gradual and small before that tipping point is reached. She says that 60-40 has now finally been reached, so in the next five or ten years we should see much more dramatic rates of change than we have seen over the last 40 years. That is the thesis of her essay. The other contributions may have been useful if they had shown gross error in her assumptions, but as you explain here, they did not. Not even minor error, really.

We need to revisit this in '29 or '30 to see whether Celeste was right or not in her main claim.

* More precisely, I suppose, she claims that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 F - 40 M there is a tipping point at which male participation collapses. The exact point may vary depending on the nature of the occupation.

Expand full comment
Md Nadim Ahmed's avatar

Can't this be explained by the IQ distributions of men and women? Although men and women have similar mean IQs, the male distribution have fatter tails while female median IQ is higher.

If you need diligent people of average and slightly above average IQs, they would be majority women. This demographic can do most college degrees like teaching, nursing and library sciences.

But the highest IQ college degrees like physicists are still dominated by males.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts