that's great dude but you didn't actually answer the question.
"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.)
>if it's all about human nature, how do you explain a dramatic recent change?
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.
"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.)