So, I have to actively disagree with this. Not for any reason having anything at all to do with gender or politics or any of that, just on pure decision-making grounds.
At every point, we ought to make decisions based on our best estimates based on the evidence we have. If your best estimate isn’t50⁄50 (which it isn’t: you believe the data justify slightly more resources for Finnish men) then it isn’t, and there’s no reason to use 50⁄50 rather than your actual best estimate.
This has nothing to do with avoiding making quick decisions. You’d be making an equally quick decision to support 50⁄50 as to support 51⁄49 or 52⁄48.
This has nothing to do with gathering more data. By all means, study the question properly, and change your estimates as new evidence comes in. Absolutely. But in the meantime we still have to do something, and specifically we ought to make decisions based on our best estimates based on the evidence we have at that time, which in your case is not 50⁄50.
Of course, we’ve got a cultural (and possibly genetic, I don’t know) bias towards an equal-distribution strategy… that “feels fair.” So it feels like 50⁄50 is some kind of special number that you should support instead of your best estimate.
But I see no reason to endorse that bias (other than the political one of it being easier to sell a solution that “feels fair”).
So, I have to actively disagree with this. Not for any reason having anything at all to do with gender or politics or any of that, just on pure decision-making grounds.
At every point, we ought to make decisions based on our best estimates based on the evidence we have. If your best estimate isn’t 50⁄50 (which it isn’t: you believe the data justify slightly more resources for Finnish men) then it isn’t, and there’s no reason to use 50⁄50 rather than your actual best estimate.
This has nothing to do with avoiding making quick decisions. You’d be making an equally quick decision to support 50⁄50 as to support 51⁄49 or 52⁄48.
This has nothing to do with gathering more data. By all means, study the question properly, and change your estimates as new evidence comes in. Absolutely. But in the meantime we still have to do something, and specifically we ought to make decisions based on our best estimates based on the evidence we have at that time, which in your case is not 50⁄50.
Of course, we’ve got a cultural (and possibly genetic, I don’t know) bias towards an equal-distribution strategy… that “feels fair.” So it feels like 50⁄50 is some kind of special number that you should support instead of your best estimate.
But I see no reason to endorse that bias (other than the political one of it being easier to sell a solution that “feels fair”).