throaway_07_z

> The skew only means the smartest 1% of men are smarter than the smartest 1% of women.

I don't think you can put it like that. Even if the IQ (or similar "cognitive capacity" score) distribution is broader&shallower for males, it doesn't mean what you had said.

Judith Polgar was #7th in chess rankings, even if overall number of players scored with ELO is counted in millions?

These are good points ("Intelligence testing is a human created concept").

However it wouldn't be surprising to me if higher end SAT scores would be highly correlated with likelihood of being hired at FAANGs of this world later in life.

If the above is true, and given that the SAT score distribution is shallower and wider for males, then it'd probably follow that there would be more males employed at those places than females, even if the hiring would be totally controlled for biases?

Or, is it your point that there's (probably) correlation here, but not causation? As in, there's bias against females (there most likely is), so more males are hired, and it's an independent fact that males have broader SAT scores distribution. Ergo, if we controlled for biases, then faang hiring results would be 50/50 male/female, even if SAT score distribution would stay the same?