Yes, it answers a scientific question about gender using a group an age bracket and a question that was unrelated to Damore's thesis about
women's supoosed choices about
careers.
One study suggesting that biology is a factor among
children for making choices
about toys does not validate Damore's thesis that the same holds true for adults about an entirely different type of choice. It certainly doesn't discount structural barriers for women in employment in technology which Damore favors minimising.
The question is not "can biology affect human choice at all", rather it's whether Damore's thesis, that biology and it's effect on women's choices is responsible for employment disparities in STEM in general and computer fields in particular
as opposed to sexism. This study on toy preference doesn't do that!
Gonna answer Murdin's points now? There was that fascinating case from one of the "academics" backing Damore using Data from the Early 20th century, from Scotland and also- from kids.
A tiny sample size of kids.
There is a significant overlap, yes. But if we look at the tails, as I’ve been stressing over and over, one can still see massive differences.
The defilement of science is less eye-gouging than in the two previous exhibits, but there's a lot of different wrongs in this single point.
- The linked article was written by an economist. Incidentally, the same economist with no background in natural sciences that pulled the Everest regression out of his ass.
- It is, in fact, a libertarian political tract poorly disguised as a scientific study. Which is admittedly par for the course for an economist.
- The blog author was trying to address the differences in software engineering skill between men and women. The relevant part of the article is about IQ instead.
- Said part is based on a survey from Scotland, made in... 1932. That's right, 85 year old data from a fairly small and culturally homogeneous population.
- On 11 year old kids.
- The "massive differences" touted by the blog author... simply aren't that massive. Even at the very tail end of the chart, we have 277 boys for 203 girls, which is a bit over four boys for every three girls.
- Inflated claims and abusive use of IQ as a measure for skill notwithstanding, this number does not even come close to explaining the truly massive gender disparities in software engineering.
From a more personal perspective, as a software engineer myself, I'm highly skeptical of the underlying claim that doing my job competently actually requires such extraordinary mental prowess.
Looking forward to your answer to Murdin's post! Maybe you'll have some grounds to demand answers from Askold and not look like a complete hypocrite!
But I doubt it.