Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone afraid to debate whether a race or gender is better suited for certain jobs.
Because the debate relies on theories and averages and jobs go to individuals. Whether the data suggest that a person of a certain race or gender MIGHT be better suited for a certain job doesn't tell you a lot about whether or not the individual in front of you is suited for it. In fact, what all that data does is give you a bias through which you evaluate the qualifications of the person in front of you. If you think the data are showing that women are less suited to do something, you are likely to discount the credentials of a woman who has the same qualifications as a man. This has ALSO been shown with data. Since jobs are filled by people and not statistics, we need to figure out the best ways to hire people with the right qualifications. Overcoming biases to identify the top candidates from a wide pool benefits organizations more than excluding large groups of potential hires--even if (and I don't necessarily accept this "if") the average capability of the group is lower than that of other groups.
That's not even considering the fact that most jobs require a range of skills -- technical ability, communication skills, interpersonal skills. I don't know of studies showing that any race or gender is superior in all dimensions of intelligence and skill necessary for intellectual work. Finally, there are plenty of studies that show that complex work benefits from diverse perspectives--errors and defects are identified earlier and work attributes are closer to client demands when a team that is gender and racially diverse is involved.