/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9280691
That's your evidence to show preferences are not related to sex?

>Pink gives girls permission: Exploring the roles of explicit gender labels and gender-typed colors on preschool children's toy preferences
>We studied the role of toy type and color in children's interests and stereotypes.
>We also studied the effects of toy labels and color using novel toys.
>Among boys, masculine toy type and labels affected interests.
>Among girls, feminine toy type and labels affected interests.
>Among girls, masculine toys and those that were pink in color were also of interest.

Welp, there are a few instances in which that is patently false. What's it like living life with such a strong case of mental retardation? Is this why you have never achieved an intimate understanding of the opposite sex?

>>9178400

That's the saltiest justification for being a useless unemployed hippie I've ever heard...

>>>/x/

>>9172647
No, I don't claim to know better than he, but I think we can all see that this is an instance in which the researcher backpeddled due to media and public pressure. Now, he must include the possibility that "da raycis whites" were just keepin' the black man down, instead of keeping his original angle.

>>9150123

>arguing with a Russki about chess

>>8695268

The inevitable result of a Mathfag autist attempting a late-career shift into social sciences.

>>8145796
>There is no duality you buttsickle. They are particles that emit waves, simple as that.

>mfw failed at the first hurdle
>mfw a photograph "emits" a human being when a camera detects them

Through the work of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Niels Bohr, and many others, current scientific theory holds that all particles also have a wave nature (and vice versa).[2] This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

>>6259275
>>6259292
Please be real

>>5637619
>I can calculate a gauss integral in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands

>>5637598
I may be wrong, but isn't maths high studies about numbers patterns? and isn't the universe filled with these patterns? how can it be irrelevant to the progress?

>>5608912

>Pube Goldberg