Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

However there's not much of a different between:

"fewer women wind up having the skills for X in part due to biological causes" and "women are worse at X".



women are better at empathy, due to biological reasons. women ,on average not all women of course, go into fields that need more empathy on average. they endup having less skills in this field on average because more of them went and studied another field due to biological reasons.

source:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476221

from the abstract: "This study contributes information on women's greater empathic disposition in comparison with men by means of a longitudinal design in an adolescent population"


Does this paper actually demonstrate the "due to biological reasons" part?


You are correct I took a conclusion that my data might not support. the paper measured empathy in the same group at age 13 and age 16 they found that girls had higher empathy at both ages but the difference increased with age.

there is also this study: "Testosterone may reduce empathy by reducing brain connectivity" http://www.psypost.org/2016/03/testosterone-may-reduce-empat...

"Half of the women were given an orally administered dose of testosterone sufficient to increase the levels of the hormone in their blood by a factor of ten, while the other half received a placebo. The women who were given testosterone subsequently took significantly longer to identify the emotions depicted images of eyes, and made significantly more errors while doing so."


The latter implies far more about the competence of women who do have the skills for X.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: