/sci/ - Science & Math

I don't think anyone with a zygote bigger than mine should go near science.

Are your data reproduceable? Are your conclusions logically formulated?

Gender/Sex has nothing to do with it, even IF there are statistical differences in mental processing/ability.

>>1981412
how does one science in the kitchen?

>>1981433

And even if it could be shown that one gender or the other was more predisposed to whatever task, that would say absolutely nothing about whether or not we should allow members of the other gender to compete in a merit based system.

The relevant traits are not XX or XY chromosomes, or penis or vagina; the only relevant traits are probably something like, intelligence and conscientiousness. If you have it, you're in. If you don't, you're out. File gender under 'irrelevant'.

>>1981450
See, people say this shit like it's a joke, and when you try and point out how it's harmful they get all huffy and say "it's just a joke". But how many jokes are there making fun of straight people, whites, and males?

How do you do science with your cock in one hand and a gun in the other?

>>1981481
To science with a cock in one hand and a gun in the other, i put the cock in my mouth and stick the gun up the butthole.

>>1981450
vulcanized rubber. not done by a woman, none the less.

femanon here, btw. and if you're asking if women should be in science, it is probably because you are insecure about your own abilities. you're doing the ol' in group out group nonsense.

quit trying to put other people down to make yourself feel better and just try to make yourself a better person than one who anonymously trashes women on the internet.

Science seems to be lacking women. I do not think it is because the female brain is any way inferior I believe its because society teaches girls to be shallow vain whores that do not have to try as hard because some sucker will bail them out.

Or maybe I am just bitter.

P.S as for women and general. BITCHES AND WHORES

>>1981412
Ive never seen that image before. I usually never say epic nor win since im not 12 years old anymore, but I must say that is a fucking epic win. I wish that was a true story

depends, because a woman, especially a sexy nerd girl, is obviously capable of science, but will cause great disruption in the force, as the male neckbeads won't know what the fuck to do with themselves.

Doesn't matter anyway, most chicks stray towards biology, which sci hates, or chem, but only organic chem so they can be doctors or nurses

>>1981497
Moi?
I'm
>>1981450
>>1981488
I have nothing against women in Science. I think its fuckawesome. I just had to OBLIGATORY JOKE, and INDULGE A RAGE'D ANON.

>>1981501
Dude, it's true. I never had many female friends growing up and even now I don't have contact with any of the very few girls I knew in high school. I just don't like how they act, like what they do, or like conversing with them, because the vast majority of them are definitely vain, annoying whores. And if they're not whores, they're normally just annoying and/or insufferably dense. Then again, I don't like very many guys either, but I definitely find more fun talking to and things in common with them than most women.

I also suspect it is something to do with the differences betwixt the male and female brain, why you'll find a lot more females (or gay guys) in areas like fashion or interior design. Sure, stereotypes, but plenty of stereotypes actually have roots in truth (usually not as exaggerated or demeaning, though).

- Coming from a collegiate femanon in the sciences.

>inb4 you're a man!!!!11

Pic unrelated.

O FUK NO GET DEM WIMMEN OUTTA SCIENCE

THEY DUN GET THERE PEREOD AND CANT THINK RATIONALLY AND SHIT. WHO WANTS THAT?

BESITES NAME ONE CONTRIBUTION TO HUMANITY A WOMANS EVER DONE.

>>1981553
but i wonder how much of this is how women really are, and how much of it is behavior that is a product of what is expected of them.

sort of like how guys do the whole 'can't hurt me', 'crying is gay', 'lets beat up this other guy to show how tough we are' bullshit. sure, some guys really are like that, and all guys probably feel like that some of the time, but it seems like a lot of that is an act to conform to the standard society sets for them.

not saying all guys are just dying to watch chick flicks and cry, but they do have more emotions than what they are often given credit for.

tl;dr : stereotypes about gender go both ways.

Years of university teaching have made me decide that women think differently than men do. (Having a long-term girlfriend who is a professional scientist and thinks about this stuff a lot helps too.) It's not bad, just different. Science has been developed mostly by male minds, and so it's harder for women to really connect with how it works. Obviously this is just a generalization, but women need an emotional connection of some sort to really get into things. That's why so many end up in environmental sciences and biology: they can directly see the results of their work there. Guys don't care about that so much. We're content to sit around playing with math/toys/whatever all day, and who fucking cares if it means anything to anyone?

>>1981581

see like this guy. ( or if this is a girl, sorry this will all be bullshit)

he can't just say, 'it's okay to have women in the sciences, that shit doesn't bother me',

instead to prove that he isn't an emofag he has to phrase it as a troll joke. that way he won't be ridiculed for being to unmanly, but he also get a chance to help the cause in stopping hate against women in the sciences by showing an exaggerated troll.

women do the whole sluttly, bratty bullshit because they're afraid that by showing intelligence or insight they'll ostracize themselves from other women and potential mates.

18yo here,

I have nothing against women in any shape or form. They are just as involved in science as men are, in both creating new pharmaceuticals to help us live longer lives, or studying the sky and understanding the laws of physics present in our universe.

Now on the subject of socializing with women: I tend to avoid all science/math subjects when socializing with them because most of the time it becomes awkward. And I've also had many experiences when I've brought these topics up, and shit has just hit the fan with awkwardness.

>>1981598
Which is why I love discussing with girls who aren't scared to show their intellectual skills openly.

democritus(and basically every other classical greek philosopher) had the right take on women, they are superstitious, weak-minded, and vain.

This fact persists through modern times

>>1981620

i'm going to say to you what i said to the other guy. you can try to explain it away.

"femanon here, btw. and if you're asking if women should be in science, it is probably because you are insecure about your own abilities. you're doing the ol' in group out group nonsense.

quit trying to put other people down to make yourself feel better and just try to make yourself a better person than one who anonymously trashes women on the internet."

>>1981481
>How do you do science with your cock in one hand and a gun in the other?
compare recoil?

>>1981620
>democritus(and basically every other classical greek philosopher) had the right take on people, they are superstitious, weak-minded, and vain.

fixed that for ya.

>>1981620

>they are superstitious, weak-minded, and vain.
forgot to mention they are repeating the same shit all the time

>>1981643

when someone has to repeat something to you, it is an indication that you were unable to properly understand it the first time.

>>1981650
maybe you understood, but just dont care.

neway is it true that most women (girls) are pretending to be stupid all the fucking time?

>>1981627
manon here, btw. and if you feel obligated to respond to every chauvinist troll it is probably because you are insecure about your own sex. you're doing the one in group all group nonsense.

quit trying to redeem your sex presenting your personal success in a some field and just try to make yourself a more intelligent person than one who anonymously gets offended on the internet.

also tits or GTFO

>>1981657

no

most are retarded, don't give me that "they're just acting because of social pressure" bullshit
person that said this must never have had a relationship with a girl

obviously im generalizing

>>1981650

>they are superstitious, weak-minded, and vain.
forgot to mention they are repeating the same shit all the time

got it now?

>>1981481

Straights, whites, and men are often portrayed as dumb, boring, and without taste for adventure. I don't know where you decided that straight white males are anything but utterly lambasted in present media.

>>1981662
right, it must be my own insecurity that is fueling this.
so glad you were able to clarify that for me.

and clearly your 'tits or GTFO' demonstrates how you're not a chauvinist at all, and my alleged 'all as one' argument is flawed. right.

there are more men than women on this board, if no one speaks up, then the trolls will reinforce each other. i don't feel like i've all crazy ass hulk on anyone, just simply pointed out why i thought they were doing what they were. if this is 'taking offense' then that would mean that you are similarly offended by what i wrote.

i can't understand why you would be offended at me defending my own gender. you clearly see a need to defend yours.

>>1981666

i'm glad to hear that being in a relationship makes you a expert on women. i'm sure that your ability to breathe makes you an expert on the respiratory system as well.

>>1981553 here.

>>1981679
A friend of mine always says, "If women were really equal they wouldn't have to fight for equality."

Kind of funny imo.

tl;dr and I have better things to do than argue on 4chan

Women on average are inferior in the respects I care about.

>>1981694

i can only presume that this makes you racist as well.

Meh, they're women. I'm kinda a non-genderal/non-racial/non-whatever-ist. If you see a person as black/women/man/white/asian/etc. you've already made judgments about them. I judge people as individuals.

>>1981679
>there are more men than women on this board,
>there are more men than women on this science-related board
I rest my case...

>>1981717
I would not judge a dude on how firm his tits are.

>>1981719

i'm sure it has nothing to do with tits or GTFO

>>1981719
We have a larger percentage of women than a lot of boards on 4chan, though.

>>1981725
How the fuck often do you see TITS OR GTFO on /sci/?

>>1981412

Women are not motivated to excel in fields where creation is key. This is actually pretty well evidenced by the lack of female scientists/researchers in basically any hard science field, but also in fields unrelated to science but requiring improvisational skills.

Take America in the 1920s and 30s, for example. Blacks were starting their Great Migration north, most of them with little but the clothes on their back. Black men were disadvantaged in basically every possible category against white women, who typically played piano to entertain houseguests.

How is it that black men with no formal education or training, whom society loathed, managed to outperform and outproduce women of various education levels and degrees of training, and managed to create a whole new genre of music so captivating it changed music forever?

Women aren't incapable; they're unmotivated.

>>1981412
Their place in science is to be hotter. Ideally I want to fuck all the girls in my MS Chem program but only a few would make the cut.

>>1981730

usually anytime a femanon self identifies
but i will say it is better here than on /b/
not that it's saying much

>>1981730
Every time a girl except for EK posts here. No offense, EK.

>>1981719
Don't get culture confused with biology.
If during the slave days of America you compared the IQ's of black people with the IQ's of white people, it would be starkly obvious who was the superior race.
Of course from our perspective now, it's easy to see where that logic fails. Blacks were not given the opportunity of an equal education, and so would be expected to do much worse on a test for this reason, not some inherent inferiority.
Things like this become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The dominant group's vision of the minority effectively becomes forced upon that group.

>>1981700
Yes because I obviously take him seriously, because I'm a woman and I do not believe I have the same rights as men do (?)

I make jokes about women all the time, I make jokes about men too. It's all good for a laugh. A lot of girls just take it way too seriously. If rights are actually being infringed upon, that's one thing. A guy jokingly tells you to go make him a sammich? Make him one, if he's a friend and you're feeling nice. If not, punch him playfully in the arm and say "fuck you" laughingly. It's really not necessary in most situations to be like OH EM GEE MISOGYNISTSSSSSSS!!!!@

>>1981734
>they're unmotivated.
EXACTLY

the problem is, and we all know it, that hard science is actually a substitude for alpha-physicals

men's motivation is agressive intimidation of their "rivals" and potential harems and that's why they struggle their way to the top

a woman comes with the default advantage of tits and is instictually bound to, at least temporary, monogamy; so competition is not motivation for wimmin

>>1981736
Well I either don't see it often enough myself or I am mostly around the times when a femanon does identify but no one says shit
I don't think I see Jennie get that much. ITT: it only got asked once. all the other occurences were just people talking about TITS ORGTFO. *shrugs*

>>1981723
And I would not judge a women on how firm her tits are?
I must admit, though, presentation of self plays a large role in first impressions no matter how hard you fight against it. It's kinda hard-wired into our subconscious. It's sad, but an exceptionally ugly individual WILL face hardship in their life. (Almost) everyone agrees that it shouldn't be that way, but it is anyway.

>>1981749
>inb4: temporarily

IS KITCHEN A SCIENCE NOW?

>>1981756
>(Almost) everyone agrees that it shouldn't be that way, but it is anyway.
>almost everyone
nope... just ugly people

>>1981761
Baking is just applied Chemistry.

>>1981736
Why would you identify yourself then? We are anonymous. You don't see such a thing as man-anons (or whatever) because no guys care enough to announce it and create an image for themself. The only ones who want you to know their sex are the camwhores, and that stereotype has been projected upon anyone here calling themself a "femenon."

>>1981767

Plenty of femanons want their opinion as well as their gender to be known. I imagine femanons think that this gives their opinion credence and in some fields it might be, but it is inherently an attention-whoring act on an anonymous inageboard.

>>1981767
This anon's logic is impeccable.

>>1981771
i don't see it any differently than someone claiming their phd in chemistry in a relevant thread on orbitals

women know more about women.

i don't identify in other threads because there isn't a need.

btw, the engineering thread just got another tits or gtfo

>>1981789
>women know more about women

No, but it does point out that your POV is biased and nothing you say should be taken as objective.

>>1981789
this

>>1981789
>women know more about women.
no

gynaecologist do

>>1981795
this

>>1981795

and this is where it has stopped being a /sci/ thread.
there is no such thing as an objective POV when it comes to a life experience.

really this thread has gone in 10 different directions, when all i was trying to say was this:

i'm a woman, i'm in science. i don't give a shit if you like it or not. but your butthurt attitude about me being in science is really fucking retarded.

peace.

>>1981679
Also, you demonstrate a misunderstanding of "Tits or GTFO." The phrase and practice of spamming threads with "TITS or GTFO!" is a mass shaming tactic devised to control socially manipulative women who would otherwise monopolize the board in circle jerks.

You want to call misogyny? I call misandry. You don't want harrassment? Don't make a big deal of inconsequential details like what your gender is. Let your words and deeds speak for you. You're a scientific, logical, or mathematical bad-ass? Doesn't matter whether you sport XX or XY.

Want to make it about those things? You're a deceptive social manipulator clumsily using nerdy tools as accessories to a shallow, vain, and pretentious outfit targeted at the wrong kind of people.

I'm necessarily a skeptic in all things, but in this case, you have provided adequate evidence to merit my ridicule. I have nothing but contempt for you and your habits of status mongering masquerading as unbiased objective scientific practice.

Die in a Fire.

>>1981795
OP asked the /sci/board, not just guys, about women in general and in relation to science. It is almost necessary when expressing one's opinion on this subject to identify as the female gender, as then their post would make more sense, not that their opinion is "biased" in some way towards themselves. You don't see them saying "women are awesome, fuck men they're all jerks, women are just as good in science as men are". That would be biased. Males do not need to identify themselves because if someone doesn't identify as female, then everyone on 4chan is assumed to be a dude, or a dude pretending to be a chick.

>>1981797
see pic

>>1981813
>I am a woman

>I am in science

>I give a fuck about the opinion of lonely nerds on 4chan

almost more pathetic than the average trolled user

>>1981813
You fail at science forever. Objective POV is provided by strictly following the data and systematically applying the scientific method without personal interpretations or judgments. What you would call fact, I would call opinion. Facts are objective and unbiased or else they are not facts.

>>1981814
/thread

btw going to copypasta it for future need

>>1981815

this.

>>1981829
now in image form

I like chicks. I honestly believe the "men and women's mind think differently" thing is bullshit, emotional responses aside.

I think at a certain point learning math and science is so tedious that the only thing that makes people continue is ego. Also at that point any chick is probably the only girl in her class & doesn't care. If there were more girls in the class they'd probably be all competitive with each other and try harder.

That goes for all of you. Many of you call yourself scientists, but you're little more than glorified technicians giving your rancid opinions as freely as the next redneck, hippy, or politician.

Scientists adhere to standardized methods of measurement, data collection, analysis, and peer review. If you don't grok the scientific method, if you don't use deductive and inductive tools, if you couldn't tell your ass from phenomenological evidence, you are not a scientist.

"Shut up and calculate" doesn't cut it, experimentalist on average couldn't construct a new theory if their lives dependent on it. You don't know what distinguishes theory from experiment or hypothesis? You're not a scientist.

There is no room in science for opinion and ignorance.

three options

1) women can do science : then everyone should shut up about this already and move on

2) women can't do science: then they will fail on their own, and whining about it won't change anything.

3) judging an entire group at once is flawed reasoning since there is no guarantee that every member of the group will posses all of the same relevant qualities

so, judge individuals on options 1 and 2, but ultimately, STFU already.

>>1981876
>OP asks for opinion
>opinions are given
>whatthefuckamireading.jpg

>>1981870
http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/09/women-startups-childre/

http://www.cracked.com/article_18760_6-things-everyone-knows-about-women-that-arent-true.html

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/p/lamb-to-slaughter-hofstra-false-rape.html

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-que
stions/

http://holykaw.alltop.com/neuroscientists-say-love-really-is-like-a-dru?tu2=1

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/3AOXvB/www.livescience.com/culture/adultery-website-infidelity-what-wo
men-men-want-101027.html

At this point, I consider it incontrovertible that there exists a statistically significant difference in the social and psychological motivations of men and women.

While various special interest groups cry foul play about women in the sciences and maths, they ignore the mountains of data that show that women hold little to no biological interest in solitary abstract practices.

Where women excel and congregate in force is in the social world; hence the world of double and triple blind experiments with anonymous peer reveiw remains impenetrable to women. The methods required to ensure resilience against bias and social manipulation also serve to alienate women from participating in the less than glamorous work of the scientist and the logician.

I don't care about you, so I'm posting at you to tell you so.

Nyaaa.

>>1981887
>>1981887
I'm sorry, I don't speak aspergers and I'm not reading all those articles. wat?

>>1981882
Eat data:
at birth: 1.07 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.07 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.02 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.79 male(s)/female
total population: 1.01 male(s)/female (2009 est.)

Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 82%
male: 87%
female: 77%
note: over two-thirds of the world's 785 million illiterate adults are found in only eight countries (Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan); of all the illiterate adults in the world, two-thirds are women; extremely low literacy rates are concentrated in three regions, the Arab states, South and West Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, where around one-third of the men and half of all women are illiterate (2005 est.)

Internet users:
1.604 billion (2008)

Substantial differences between subjects are seen, however, with women accounting for almost three-quarters of those enrolled in psychology in 2001, but only 30% in computer science and 10% in engineering.

Research on women's participation in the "hard" sciences such as physics and computer science speaks of the "leaky pipeline" model, in which the proportion of women "on track" to potentially becoming top scientists falls off at every step of the way, from getting interested in science and math in elementary school, through doctorate, postdoc, and career steps.

All of the above means, statistically, women do not participate in the hard sciences in general by preference. A social preference fits the data very well and would explain the discrepancy handedly. While women's participation in the soft science has gone up and they have contributed interesting insights into the way that people work, their contributions to physics and computer science are lack luster at best.

Notable exceptions being Marie Curie, Lady Ada Lovelace, and Paola Zizzi.

>>1981915
forgot grace murray hopper
plus these:
http://cwp.library.ucla.edu/lists/wipnames.html

>>1981902
Fine. You remain ignorant, and your opinions and anecdotes can safely be ignored.

Scientist read research. They comb through the data. They perform analysis. The seek the eliminate their ignorances where-ever and however they manifest. They engage in anonymous peer review and criticism to formulate, falsify, and refute hypotheses.

If proving a hypothesis wrong means going to the moon, they go to the fucking moon, and they don't fucking complain about it.

>>1981931
Thank you, anon. It's important to note that they are exceptional. More so than people like Albert Einstein or Nikolai Tesla. Women in science typically turn out more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Computers
Which I classify as technicians.

>>1981814
this assumes you know the reason behind *every* TITS or GTFO.
this also assumes you know the reason for every woman who is outing themselves on boards.

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/56144/
http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/09/women-startups-childre/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549624/posts

It's a well established fact at this point that women are neurological, biologically, and evolutionarily equipped to raise people to adulthood. This predisposes them to risk aversion and social-centricity.

If you're going to do math and science, fine. Join us, pull up a lab bench. Otherwise, STFU and GTFO. I'm busy with science!

>>1981958
no, you're on 4chan. don't lie.

>>1981936
I'm merely stating it's origin. The reality of the /b/ board early on was that most the users were socially deprived, bored college educated males. Anonymity was a default because otherwise, women would monopolize the social space. The board turns into a dating service.

Entrepreneurial anons came up with "TITS or GTFO" to discourage camwhoring; thus, suppressing the monopolization with the added benefit that sometimes TITS were presented. However, being presented with TITS does not remove the obligation to continue the hazing ritual. The object is to degrade the image of the camwhore to such a degree that no one would want them as they'd be poisonous goods and gender-free anonymity would reign. The point isn't to get TITS. The point is to get GTFO or STFU as a response from the offending camwhore. The TITS are dual purpose. Dox for crowd control and fap material.

There is of course variance from this, but it's just summerfags and clueless white knights.

>>1981974

By using/condoning its use you're assuming that women on boards that out themselves are doing it for some type of sexual interest/personal reaffirmation.

Are you arguing that you can see NO other reason for a woman to out herself? That ALL these women are really just attention seeking whores?

>>1981936
As for outing themselves on an anonymous image board by revealing their gender? What else could they possibly be pulling other than 'pay attention to me, I'm special. I'm a girl, a gamer, and a scientist. *teeter*' ?"

Another reality to consider. Women are like auctioneers and auctions. Men are like buyers. Women will almost never risk approaching a man directly about a prospective relationship. They rely on an elaborate social system of competition among other women to get men to "bid" on them in competition among other men. This is the modus operandi of the norm of the the female population.

When you hear hoof beats in America, think horses not zebras.

>>1981984
it's not the gender that matters, it's the argument. By stating your gender you are either consciously or unconsciously manipulating other people, whatever the reason may be for outing your gender.

>>1981984
Most certainly not all, but precisely almost all. It's the statistical tendency of women that I've observed time and time again for the past two years almost everyday on all of the major boards I visit.

Watching this culture play itself out in person at College and among my community confirms that this is the norm not the exception.

"What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history'--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!"

>>1981989

If a thread is about gender, how is the gender of the poster not relevant?

We judge opinions based on who we think is providing it. Since the assumption of the internet is that everyone is a guy, this can skew our interpretation of a particular post.

In this case the gender of the poster is relevant to our interpretation of the contents of the post itself.

You would read a post from a self proclaimed Democrat complaining about the latest Obama news story than you would if the assumption was that everyone that was posting was a Republican.

>>1981992
This wouldn't be contreversial except that people pull the same kind of thinking into Science. Many women who go into the science do so with something to prove and an agenda to push.

Is it really that surprising that the feminist agenda left the hard sciences almost completely untouched and only really proliferated out among the soft sciences wherein opinion, intuition, conjecture, and emotional reasoning is given the same weight as data and rigorous analysis?

>>1982017
>Many women who go into the science do so with something to prove and an agenda to push.

What evidence do you have for this?

>>1982004
>You would read a post from a self proclaimed Democrat complaining about the latest Obama news story than you would if the assumption was that everyone that was posting was a Republican.
implying I listen to people on the basis of what they claim to be their affiliation rather than the record of their performance and voting history.

Here's the thing. Gender doesn't matter beyond establishing a bias. If we were collecting statistics here, we wouldn't care about that fact so much as aggregating the responses and sorting according to the basic content of the argument. We'd keep the ones with logical merit and dump the ones which were patently false.

We'd find the bias according to the arguments presented rather than according to who presented them on the principle of who makes the argument shouldn't matter for the argument itself. Assume neutrality of the messenger.

Assume neutrality, prove bias.

>>1982029
>>1981553
I apologize that I felt my gender was pertinent to fully understand the viewpoint from which the information in my post was gleaned.

>>1982029
>Implying that everyone assumes gender doesn't matter to content of post.

If this were true, then the thread would not even have been started. If we were capable of true neutrality and objectivity, then there would simply not be a discussion of the merit of women in science. The women that wanted to be scientists, would simply be scientists.

People are biased, even if you are claiming that you are not, and to ignore the impact of this is to ignore a large source of uncertainty in the discussion.

>>1982020
If you're not aware, it may not be worth your time. Examine the political and social pushes by the feminist movements of the past century.

Even now, we can pick out a piece of feminist research and find that it seeks to prove some point or another that is in keeping with the ideals of the associated feminist movement.

Things like this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/15/girls-boys-think-same-way
A simple red flag is any studying claiming equivalence between men and women, feminine and masculine personalities, and XX and XY chromosomes. Men and women are not equal in the rigorous mathematical, logical, or scientific definition of equal. We know hormones effect the development of people, we know that testosterone motivates physical aggression and arousal. We know that estrogen promotes social aggression.

We know there exist non-trivial genetic, neurological, biological, and physiological differences. For those of us paying attention to the research, it seems clear cut that while socialization plays a part in determining things like roles. Socialization does little towards determining the biological sex of a person or their physiological gender.

Similar in mien to activism among judges. It's subtle, but it shows up in the meta-analysis. For the stuff that's wrong and junk science, it shows up eventually because it does not jive with observable data and repeated statistical sampling and analysis.

Is there even a equal social footing for women in Science to make it even fair to begin talking about genetics?
There isn't an equal social footing for Black people trying to pursue science, which is seen from Neil deGrasse Tyson.

>>1982048
All you have shown is that some people have had an agenda related to women in science.

You have not shown what you claimed, that, "Many women who go into the science do so with something to prove and an agenda to push."

Just because a few individuals behave in a certain way, does not mean they all, or even most, or "many" are also going to behave in that same way.

why not ask what is any individuals place in science, then you will achieve your answer, why because it doesn't matter if its a guy or a girl.

same for race, sexual preference, what colour car they drive etc

>>1982047
Rather implying that those who're engaging in discussion about female participation in the sciences shouldn't be swayed by the gender of the speaker. A women speaking falsehoods about women is no closer to speaking truths because she is a woman.

Now. Let's talk confirmation bias and groupthink. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

If a person steps up and says "I'm a women and I think this about women in the sciences." and some other person steps up and criticizes that statement without revealing their gender, who are you going to be prone to believe? Statistical analysis shows that you would be prone to believing her regardless of any real degree of confidence.

If you think the speaker's gender should matter, you're allowing your personal biases to cloud your assessment of the argument. The argument should be universal. Which means it should, rationally, hold equal weight regardless of who makes the argument.

>>1982059
Please accept this medal of distinction.

You all should familiarize yourself with double and triple blind protocols as well as anonymous peer review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Anonymous_peer_review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_blind

>>1982065

You've missed the point.
Yes. Gender shouldn't matter. So there should not even be a thread about which gender should participate in science at all.

But because there is a thread, it means that there are individuals who are swayed by group think and confirmation bias, and frankly it is unlikely that these people will be swayed by purely logical arguments alone, which you yourself have just stated!

This poster here,>>1981719 shows that by women not identifying, it actually can lead some of these individuals to confirm their own beliefs that women aren't in science.

You've also assumed that by using a certain argument tactic that I am prey to this tactic myself. Since you have used ad hominem attacks, and since I'm assuming you are unlikely to believe them yourself, I can only assume that you too know how to use a tatic without falling for it.

>>1982089
I'm a scientist and a philosopher of science. I have a Ph.D. in trolling. However, I didn't miss the point. Perhaps ignored the point you were making, but the fact is this thread exists. Gender does matter in the practice of science particularly as it is concerned with the probability that a random person will make it through all of the obstacles to become a well-informed, well-educated, capable scientists at the end.

Men have competitive advantage here for a multitude of reasons. Women have a competitive disadvantage. The discrepancy grows between them the more socially dependent either of them is. Women tend towards social dependence, so they tend away from the sciences. They have the same basic mental capabilities, but not the same basic motivations and tendencies.

Important distinction. Gender matters. Gender matters a lot. Like, I won't take a man as a companion for life. Men are incapable of pregnancy and birth. They make poor parents on average.

The distinction here is empirical vs idealistic. Idealistic shoulds and oughts don't matter. They're subjective BS thrown out by pseudo-scientific intellectuals and philosophers. The view of equality of the sexes is itself fundamentally flawed and invalid logically. The reality is men and women are different and that science must be played and practice according exacting rigorous standardized methods and protocols which are hostile to social manipulation, deception, dishonesty, fame-mongering, and personality cults.

Where "science" is practiced that is not hostile to these things, pseudo-science and superstition reign.

>>1982164
> They make poor parents on average.

Ok, now you're just trolling.

I can't believe this thread is so long.
The only thing that's important for being a successful scientist is intelligence... and anyone can possess intelligence if they actually wanted to do so in their heart.

>>1982164
ok sereously, you sound like my friend who doesn't know what a statistic is. (but unlike you she aint trollin)

you do know not every man is better than every woman in science. the way your thinking there should only be one scientist, the top one in the world and thats it (male or female)

>>1982413
you got it, but im not sure if you realise it.
its motivation that counts, although i do agree that the competitive nature of science is more suited to the personality of males (exceptions excluded)

>>1982489
>sereously,
>the way your thinking
GTFO

>>1982489
I know enough about statistics to know I'm a fequentist rather than a Bayesian. I know enough about probability theory to know the difference between probability and a probability amplitude.

I wrote that post at 3:00 so sue me.

Also, it's obvious from you response that you either A) trollin or B) didn't do the research IE read the rest of the thread. It's not a difference of ability. Men and women are equally good at science and math. Men's advantage arises with the fact that they're loosely social and have narrow focus. The attraction exhibited across mammalian species of males to cars and females to dolls speaks volumes to what motivates the typical man and woman.

Helps to be on the autistic spectrum as well. Autistics spend more time looking at geometric patterns than looking at people's faces. They isolate and read huge volumes of text often thickly fact based nonfiction.

Most women shoot themselves in their own brain by faking stupidity in order to appear more hot. If you play at something for long enough you become it. The women who excel in intellectual fields are those who never gave a shit how they appeared to douchebag males who find idiocy erotic. The rest are all variants on camwhores, let them eat romance novels and poop babies, someone needs to keep reproduction rates constant.

I think they're good at limited forms of chemistry and engineering: cooking and sandwich making.

>>1983219
>Men and women are equally good at science and math.

Simply not true. Their brains develop differently. Women are better at perceiving emotion, body language, etc. and men are better at spacial reasoning. Deal with it.

>>1983274
Eh, Negatory red rider. That would be a null result.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=no-gender-gap-in-math-10-01-06

Hypothesis refuted.

>>1981737
I think she's cute.

>>1983286
lol that doesn't prove anything. Let's just divide two big numbers and if they're pretty close we'll say things are equal even though there's huge variability within the sample set.

>>1983274
Once again, it's not a difference in ability. It's a difference in motivation. Women are socially motivated. Men are object motivated.

It comes down to what do you spend ten thousand hours doing? I spent almost my entire life learning virtually every field of hard science I could get my hands on. I've had one romance and she had spent her life trying to fit in with the other women. She was adept at social manipulation and deception. She played cute-but-stupid well. She knew makeup and costume. She could read facial expressions and body language. Little time had been devoted to deductive, mathematical, and inductive reasoning.

It's a matter of practice and concentration. We concentrate on what we're interested in. Women are generally interested in people, so they practice things related to that on average.

By the way, men have a hormonal advantage as well.
http://www.physorg.com/news204546032.html

Unfortunately, the incentive built into the universal practice of science acts as a disincentive for the participation on part by socially-motivated individuals.

>>1983296
And the spatial reasoning applies to masculine brains. It's effect on average is minor and doesn't show up significantly in tests for general aptitude.

>>1983304
In case it's not clear from context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Ericsson
Ericsson, Anders K.; Prietula, Michael J.; Cokely, Edward T. (2007). "The Making of an Expert". Harvard Business Review (July–August 2007).
Ericsson, Anders K.; Roring, Roy W.; Nandagopal, Kiruthiga (2007). "Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance". High Ability Studies.
Ericsson, Anders K.; Charness, Neil; Feltovich, Paul; Hoffman, Robert R. (2006). Cambridge handbook on expertise and expert performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

>>1983311
I don't think any of this will show up much in test scores when girls and boys are taught the same curriculum and held to the same standards. Differences are still there in the way they think, and you can see some of them physically in the brain.

Also, bitches and whores manipulate boys to help them cheat on tests and things, so you can't take tests as entirely academic.

>>1983334
"The Making of an Expert" Read it. It addresses just that issue. The link is on the wikipedia page of K. Anders Ericsson under Publications.

Oh dear, why are we even denying that men do have different quantity of chemicals inside the body that affects both physical and mental development to women, and just lay everything to motivation? That just seem a bit to unscientific (like, er, some chemicals are known to have marked impact on thought processes). Or like autism, etc, is that really a motivation issue (physical prohibition)?. There is no denying culture shaping/motivation though, as we have more than enough data on that.

As for my personal take on science, the more people in science, the better - we have more than enough problems at hand ready to be solved. Their gender doesn;t matter - only their ability and outcome acounts, no one will really knows the exact feeling of someone spending 10-20 yrs in the side hacking away at problem they perceive as interesting and important. Science can be lonely.

>>1984278
Science is lonely that's exactly why women avoid it like the plague.

As for motivation vs chemicals? Motivation is mediated by chemicals and electro-potentials along the neurons of the brain.

The above is precisely why the claim that men and women are equal is false. We have different motives because we have different physiology and neurology. However it is true that the women who participate in the hard sciences are no worse nor no better than the men who participate. Men simply participate with a greater frequency than women due to the structure of scientific practice.

Women are bad at science. I shouldn't even have to state that I'm generalizing because it should be obvious. But you all know it's true. You just can't admit it.

>>1984278
what we don't need is a bunch of cunts doing "emotional sciences"

>>1984327
However it is true that the other Caucasoids who participate in the hard sciences are no worse nor no better than the Jews who participate. Jews simply participate with a greater frequency than Caucasoids due to the structure of scientific practice.

In my experience, women are much better at giving the right answers in tests, having the appearance of knowing science, but I haven't met one. single. female. who actually *understands* science.

Unfortunately, that is the kind of person our education system is generating and praising.

And precisely the kind of person that can make no meaningful progress for us.

>>1984278
Autism, as a condition, is a set of neurological, genetic, and behavioral differences. Characterized by delay in the synthesis of inter-sensory information and a lack of noise in their visual field.

>>1984535
It comes from the fact that standardized testing only tests of recall of rotes. The tests can be confidently passed by AIs that have not been able to pass the Turing Test. They are sub-intellectual measures which fail to account for creativity and originality in problem solving.

Women are fairly good at following rules and maintaining appearances. They can algorithmically repeat the steps they've seen and even generalize that, but it's risk taking which allows unusual solutions. Women statistically don't take as many risks as men. They won't risk being told they're wrong. They won't risk being wrong typically not without social incentive; hence the Harvard Computers aka Pickering's Harem via the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harem_effect_(science)..

I see this thread is full of fags pwned by bitches
who do better on the tests

>>1981997
youre a fucking idiot. you have no way of confirming gender or how many in ratio out themselves. you have no data now fuck off

>>1981984
After thinking it over, I've surmised my position as follows: the females who decide to identify themselves with their position introduce an undesirable quantity of error via bias on both sides. The Females who decide to identify themselves for attention grabbing reasons introduce irrelevancy into the conversation on the pretext of discussing science which confuses the communications. The females who self-identify for reasons other than the other two, do so for reasons which are entirely irrelevant to the domain of discourse. In any case, identifying as female is undesirable at worst and irrelevant at best.