/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5116259
Because who doesn't love to study female biology.

Cause Physics is harder and there are less intelligent women than itelligent men.

>dat huge difference in physics

>tfw they would probably dumb down physics to make it more female-friendly

>>5116259
Physics is a but to 'maths-ey' and is often seen as complicated and boring.
Biology is easier to understand, and applies more directly to life in general, whereas physics in in a whole other world of its own, so to speak.

maths/physics type subjects just happen to appeal more to men than to women, whereas things where you can be a bit more creative appeal to women more.

>>5116275
You do not need to 'dumb it down' to make it female friendly.
We are just as intelligent as men, and if we choose to do physics then we have equal aptitude, it is just that we do not choose it as often, not that we are incapable of understanding it.

>>5116284
>We are just as intelligent as men

I doubt it has anything to with content. You'll see a similar amount of women taking chemistry after all. It's more likely related to job prospects and their hopes for employment after graduation.

The world is truly a sexist place

>>5116298
You laugh at that?
Then it is just you being sexist and ignorant.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/01/22/he-s-not-as-smart-as-he-thinks.html

"Are men smarter than women? No. But they sure think they are. An analysis of some 30 studies by British researcher Adrian Furnham, a professor of psychology at University College London, shows that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ. But women, it seems, underestimate their own candlepower (and that of women in general), while men overestimate theirs. "

>>5116304

It's just fucking A-Levels, dude. When it comes to University, expect the amount of women to drop.

>>5116306

>implying having no confidence is better than being confident

>>5116310
It is not a matter of confidence, it is a matter of arrogance.
You think you are so smart.
Women, in general, are more humble.

>>5116316

>implying humble people are more likely to get ahead in life

No matter what tags you attach, the masculine aggressiveness, arrogance, overconfidence, whatever you call it, gets them ahead of women.

it's more simple

>>5116259
Since it's A-level entry:
Because people told them you had to do a lot of maths in physics, and they assume they won't have to in Chemistry and Biology.
Then a lot drop out of chemistry because they realize it's more math intensive than they thought.
In biology, they can do less math-intensive stuff.

>>5116284

No you aren't

>>5116332
Wow, can we get a source on that. It's interesting, but the curves seem a little too perfect.

>>5116324
Not in the real world.
Being arrogant or aggressive will get you fired.
Reasonable polite people who are humble and respectful, do far far better in the long run.

>>5116332
More like

>>5116342
other study

>>5116332
That shows that we are equal to men.
We are more in the middle of the IQ scale in general; there are lots of women with an average IQ, and less women geniuses than male geniuses, but there are also far fewer women who are incredibly stupid, whereas there are a lot more men who are.
Just look at the left part of your image to see that.

>>5116342
>>5116345
We can see that there is a MASSIVE amount of men higher than 130, even if the average is not so different.

>>5116337
It is not a perfect mapping, it just shows the vague trend.

>>5116349
But average people don't matter when it comes to science.
Only people with higher than average intelligence do. And there are more men.

>>5116324

Depends on the social paradigm of the day.

Different situations call for different approaches.

Everyone is capable of developing the self awareness required to develop systems to choose the most appropriate approach.

>>5116345
You do realise that raven matrices do not indicate general intelligence in life, right?
Being good at things like that does not mean that one is intelligent in a social way, which is what is far more important to humans than doing silly little puzzles like that.

>>5116332
Anyway, IQ is only equal for males and females because of deliberate effort to make it so. IQ tests are tried and tweaked until they produce the desired bell curve distribution and equal averages for male and female. This despite it being completely uncontroversial among those who study human intelligence that men have dramatically superior spacial reasoning.

This is probably a major source of the unreliability of IQ testing. Imagine a physical fitness test that had to be designed to give the same test to everyone, yet produce equal average scores for male and female participants. They'd have to put a strong bias toward things like flexibility, holding one's breath, and being able to squeeze one's hand into small holes.

>>5116354
No.
You can be bad at IQ tests, and still work hard and make a great contribution to science.
Not every great scientists has had a high IQ.

Biology is a shit tier science. Women love it because it's not rigorous as maths or physics.

The less the logic, the more the women. It's the same as humanities and social.

Argument for philosophy being hard: women positively hate it.
Women flee away from topics where you have to think with rigor.

>>5116339

Then why aren't we in a matriarchy?

>>5116372
because of male privilege.

>>5116363

No you can't.
It's like saying you can have bad sprinter genetics, but still work hard and be a top level sprinter. However, that is simply not possible.

But you can try to prove your point. Please, name me any scientist with an IQ of 100.

>>5116372
We are not in a patriarchy either.
And most men are not arrogant and aggressive. The ones who are are jerks, and I would not willingly work with them.

>>5116377
Isaac Newton.

He was a bright lad, but things kept falling on his head. By the time he developed his laws of motion, he was severely brain damaged, and there is a consensus of historians that his scientific successes were achieved by pure coincidence.

>>5116362

>>5116377
I do not know the IQ's of specific scientists.

But a scientists is anybody who is studying science, and there are lots of people doing that.
100 is the average IQ, so I am sure that if I had the data of a list of well known scientists, and their IQ's, I could certainly pick a few of them out who have an IQ of less than 100.
I think that scientists are probably above the average of the population in general, when it comes to IQ, but not by so much that not a single one of them is less than 100.

>>5116381
>I would not willingly work with them.

Well shit son, that'll sure fuck their prospects up!

>implying the wealthiest aren't men
>implying most of the top CEOs aren't men
>implying the most reputable experts in ANY given field aren't men
>implying you value logic and evidence above your emotional beliefs

>>5116362

Our ability to do silly little puzzels is the only reason why mankind rules the world and we don't have to fight for our daily survival any more.

>>5116393
I am not trolled, and I am not upset or angry.
I am actually quite good at the raven matrices.

Women being perhaps a little less successful at these in general, is not an important issue.
They do not particularly matter.

>>5116397
Perhaps they are for now, but there are still many many successful female CEO's.
As time progresses, the balance of wealth between the genders gets closer and closer.

Keep in mind that still within living memory females were expected to only be homemakers and childcarers.
Only very recently in human history have we been commonly expected to work towards our own careers.
Those old male CEO's still skew the stats.
For young men and women, the stats are more balanced, and the trend shall continue.

>>5116396
>I think that scientists are probably above the average of the population in general, when it comes to IQ, but not by so much that not a single one of them is less than 100.


When we are talking about actual scientists (math, physicst etc) I am pretty sure that every single scientist who made an important contribution had an IQ vastly over 100.

Richard Feynman had a pretty low IQ for a nobel price winner in physics, and it was still 125.

>>5116371
Or maybe living on welfare for the rest of your life doesn't appeal to them.

>>5116396
So you FUCKING point is "I could pick out some random scientists and find a mediocre one with a low IQ".
I have NEVER crossed anyone in my studies with a 100 IQ.
I'm sorry, but you just have to be capable of abstract thinking to do good theoretical physics.

>>5116400
>Our ability to do silly little puzzels is the only reason why mankind rules the world and we don't have to fight for our daily survival any more.
QFT

>>5116411

>she never heared of gender equality paradox

There are much more female scientist in Iran than there are in sweden.
More equality doesn't make the sexes more equal. Quiet in the contrary, it increases the differences between them.

>>5116411

>implying there are no biological differences between men and women which lead to them doing things in life very differently

>>5116349 That shows that we are equal to men.

>penis envy detected

Also, you don't understand the term "equal".

>>5116425
In terms of employment/careers, there is very little that the biological difference actually makes.
Very few jobs/careers are exclusive to only one of the genders.

>>5116435
Of course.
And notice how the 2 bell curves both centre around the exact same point.
The averages are equal.
We are equal to men.

Just because the male bell curve is wider, does not make a difference.
You have more geniuses, but also more very stupid people.
It is still balanced.

>>5116459
>Women logic

>>5116459
See: >>5116364

Male and female average IQs are equal by design of IQ tests, and this requirement probably makes IQ tests a lot less useful.

>>5116470
They have to balance creative thinking and logical thinking to make it fair.
If they made the test to have only things that men are good at, it would be quite unfair.
There is a reason we need balance in this.

>Women are just as smart as men
>Providing they take tests rigged to make them equal

>>5116475

They have to balance it to be politica correct.
Nature and science do not care about fairness.

>>5116459
>And notice how the 2 bell curves both centre around the exact same point.
>The averages are equal.
Look at the proper curves, they were poster just below.

>Very few jobs/careers are exclusive to only one of the genders.
A lot are EXTREMELY weighted toward one sex. There was not ONE woman in the last electronics summer school I attended.

>>5116482
You have cause and effect the wrong way round.
They do not have to try to balance it to make it fair, it is just that they decide what the test is on, and because men and women do think differently and have different strengths and weaknesses, any test could be made which one gender is better at, but then it would be completely useless for comparison between all peoples.

The test should try to balance, and take into account the different ways in which all people think, so that the test is fair, and comparisons can be used.

>>5116459
So you can seek refuge in the fact that for every brilliant physicist, there's a dumb hick who will never reach GED level education. Great. And a larger proportion of women than men will be neither.
That's equal in a mathematical sense, but it means that most people who invent and innovate will be men. The losers get left behind and are irrelevant in the grand scheme.

>>5116479
The test is 'rigged' whichever way you make it
We could rigg it to make women better, or men better, or we could make them equal.

IQ tests still do not indicate true intelligence, but they should still be fair for both sexes rather than 'rigged' one way or the other.
And they are.

>>5116482
It wasn't originally meant to be politically correct. It was meant to be conveniently applicable to children of both sexes to save costs.

The "quotient" part is the mental age, divided by the actual age, times 100. It was originally meant as a means of detecting mental retardation in children and gauging its severity.

This thread is about science graduates.
How do people under 100 IQ even matter in this topic?

>>5116500

The goal of the test should be not making men and women have the same average result but to measure intelligence as precisely as possible.

>>5116504
>but it means that most people who invent and innovate will be men.
And the people who gave birth to them, raised and cared for them, and encouraged them to be intelligent and to work hard were women.
You still need us.

And women can invent and innovate as well, even if it turns out that we do so slightly less than men do.

>>5116505

Do women get distracted by the somewhat phallic imagery that has a tendency to appear in various patterns?

>>5116511
Intelligence is difficult to quantify.
Being a good speaker, quick witted and humorous, counts as being intelligent.
But the tests do not account for things like this.

>>5116513
>And the people who gave birth to them, raised and cared for them, and encouraged them to be intelligent and to work hard were women.
>You still need us.
Relation to this topic?

>>5116505
Special snowflake doublethink. By your own reasoning, no two people can ever be compared because of individual differences. The line cannot be drawn clearly. Also, please name a few examples of gender bias in tests?

>>5116515
I have not noticed any, and no, most of us are not sex obsessed.
We just focus on trying to choose the right answer.

>>5116520
None of that is going to help you doing research if you can't do abstract thinking in the first place.
Try to stay on topic please.

>>5116522
I just mean that if you are talking about being equal, you should take things like that into account as well.

>>5116513

>You still need us.

Yes we do. Until we have artificial wombs and sexbots.

>>5116523
As long as it is fair between the genders, then it is comparable, and if someone does better than someone else, then it shows that they are better at this type of pattern recognition intelligence.

>>5116530
Read the thread, it was about the aptitude to do physics.
Giving birth to a child doesn't make you better at physics, and being mother to a Nobel prize doesn't get you a PhD.

>>5116529
They can be good at research as well.

>>5116513
I don't doubt that and was merely pointing out what the data said. Nobody denies the possibilty of brilliant women here (I hope), but we were talking statistics. I get the feeling you're somewhat personal about this.

>>5116536
That is not all that we are useful for, you sexist pig!

>>5116539
Fine. maybe the statistics skew slightly towards males, only in this regard, and so what?
Life is far broader than just that.

>>5116542

That's true. But in everything else, men are better than you.

>>5116536
Semen is easier to artificially grow and use. Meaning having sex with a man for reproduction could be outdated pretty fast.

>>5116543
"So what"? "So what"?!
It was the whole point of that argument.

>"tfw they would probably dumb down physics to make it more female-friendly"
>"We are just as intelligent as men, and if we choose to do physics then we have equal aptitude"

>>5116511
If the original researcher had started from that goal, he probably would have been laughed at and been forgotten.

He made the test to reliably distinguish children who are developing normally from retarded children. Because it may be presumed that an intelligent, educated adult may meaningfully distinguish normal children from dull children. The logic extends somewhat for intelligent adults, acting from a presumption of above average intelligence, to meaningfully and reliably recognize distinctions between adults of significantly lower intelligence.

For anyone to presume to meaningfully distinguish intelligent adults from geniuses, and sort geniuses into various levels of extraordinarily superior intelligence reliably, is obvious hubris, setting yourself above them all, in a position to fully grasp what their conclusions should be so you can judge the merits of what conclusions they did reach.

>>5116543
Well, it's what we were discussing. Although such subjects need a lot more data than the two plots we've seen here to allow valid conclusions.

But other than that? Live and let live. I hope no one is dumb enough to use these studies as the basis for individual judgment. It's for science.

>>5116549
That is false.
Prove it.

>>5116551
Most women would still choose natural conception, I think.

>>5116513
>> pulled the gave birth card

As all women do when they start getting defeated.

Unless you are willing to prove yourself in some manner that all men were encouraged by their mothers to do great things; according to logic please, i don't understand emotional whimsical too well.

Hell, I will go easy on you. Prove most men (51%) were encouraged by their mothers to do great things and to innovate.

I am waiting.

>>5116562

Everybody who is the best at anything is a man. Even when talking about traditional female areas, like cooking or fashion, the best there are also men.

Men earn more money than women.

Almost all scientific inventions are made by man and successful company founder are also nearly entierly men.

>>5116415
So its not that women are stupid, its just that they value material wealth above all else, including advancing human knowledge.

I can see the merit in your argument.

>>5116569
Any good mother will encourage her children to be the best that they can be.

hypothesis: men achieve more than women because men are raised that way and are pressured to do so. women are pressured to look nice and act nice, so most aren't really that intellectually enaged.

>>5116349

Saying those charts are equal is like saying 4 = 9

So your denial is pretty obvious
not representing youre gender very well right now
nor are you proving your point

But dont worry you'll tell us we just cant get laid and are jelious

Because physics is a man subject

>>5116595
>But dont worry you'll tell us we just cant get laid and are jealous
Of course I will not say that.
I do not know you, and that would just be a stupid ad hominem that would not advance the argument at all.

However, on the picture we are both discussing, the averages do align; they are in the middle.
The fact that their are more male geniuses balances with the fact that men also have a larger proportion that are very stupid. (On the far left of the bell curve)
This balances out.

The fact is, you are just simply wrong if you think that men are objectively more intelligent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_psychology#IQ

"The mean IQ scores between men and women vary little.[1][40][41][42][43]"

Notice that there are 5 citations proving that point.
Check them for yourself if you desire more information.

>>5116590
you are implying there are many "good mothers" out there.
The general statement also implies that most men aren't there to do the same. Aside from the birth part which is something we cannot physically do, thus making it completely invalid in this discussion.

I am waiting on any evidence on this matter.
Most of what I have seen has been emotional response. I am not interested in this nor is it relevant.

>>5116590

Any morally sound human being is going to encourage the youth to achieve all they can

You genuinely believe only one gender supports the youth? Did you know the big brother organization (a group that has people mentor and teach kids without fathers) was started by a man?

Go easy on us, youre not on /v/ any more

>>5116608
>compares good music to beyonce

get the fuck out.

>people in this thread implying that IQ matters
>2012

>>5116609
>You genuinely believe only one gender supports the youth?
Of course not
I did not say that, and I did not imply that.

>>5116612
It is done on purpose.
It is contrasting a good song with varied and interesting lyrics, to a bad song with repetitive lyrics.
The good song only has 1 writer and 1 producer.
The bad song had 6 writers and 4 producers.

>>5116606

Im arguing those charts in equal.

Please maintain the topic of my post instead of ignoring like you just did.

Thank You.

the chart is inequal. the fact that they are the same length doesnt mean the IQ proportion is equal.

I dont get how you can see 2 DIFFERENT bell curves and say theyre the same

>>5116606
While you may be particularly correct in what you are stating, and I have no prior research into that particular subject, you are trying to say "Because there just as many men less intelligent than the average female as there are more intelligent" Doesn't aid you in the topic that men tend to lead industries as well as being on top of any given field.
I suppose it may help you sleep at night tho.

>>5116616
Then show us that successful scientist with under 100 IQ, go on.
It shouldn't be hard if IQ doesn't matter, I mean we are talking HALF of the fucking population here.

>>5116617
>Of course not
>I did not say that, and I did not imply that

Lol than what was your point
What was the point of

>>5116415
>majoring in English litterature
>not living on welfare
bwahahaahahahahah

>>5116621
>Doesn't aid you in the topic that men tend to lead industries as well as being on top of any given field.
Because they are more ambitious, and are bigger risk takers.
It does not have anything to do with intelligence, just differences in attitude and personality.

>>5116624
Give me a database with the results of scientists.

>>5116606
>on the picture we are both discussing
That picture is WRONG, it's not data, it's meant to represent a profile. Below are proper curves, made after data.

>>5116637
Fuck off, do your homework.

Because biology is fucking easy in comparison

>>5116649
That's a good argument, I don't even know what to say.

Men and Women are inequal in certain aspects of the world and life.

/thread

>>5116658
What argument is there to make?
Nobel prizes have an average IQ of 150, Feynman had 125 and that's considered exceptionally low for a Nobel prize.

I'm not even asking you for proper evidence, just an anecdotal one, and you can't even find one. Fuck off with your "IQ doesn't matter" bullshit.
If you can't do enough abstract reasoning to be at least around 130 IQ, you won't be able to do good research, that's it.

>>5116638

>>Men are more ambitious and bigger risk takers
Which leads to them advancing knowledge in general, as well as becoming more well know and more opportunity to study further.
Nothing to do with intelligence? That sounds more intelligent on paper.

>>5116672
Are Americans really that dumb? How do you even know an IQ of those scientists?

>>5116689
... I don't know, how do you know the IQ of anyone? With an IQ test maybe?

>>5116672
Francis Crick who had an I.Q. score of 119.
Nobel Prize Winner in physiology or medicine.
119 is not around 130.

>>5116689
Don't assume they are american, stupid people belong to all parts of the world.

>>5116702
It's still not under 100, which is what I asked.

>>5116699
Yes, did you test them? Some big people here on 4chan.

>>5116708
So your big theory is that they all lied about their IQ?

>>5116707
I am not talking about what you asked, I am saying what you stated is wrong.
I will research some into it myself on what you asked though.

>>5116712
Did they ever tell their IQ? I doubt it.

>>5116721
>"I am not talking about what you asked, I am saying what you stated is wrong."
>Not having a point and nitpicking everything you can.
Would you feel better if I added the word "generally"?

>I will research some into it myself on what you asked though.
Yeah do that. Don't forget to ignore everything in your search that goes again your opinion.

>>5116725
You're wrong then.

I doubt that exact figure about Nobel Prize averages, but not because I doubt they enormously outclass everyone. But just because at that level IQ tests don't really accurately measure.

>>5116736
I'm wrong because I doubt it? Yeah, I have to be pretty sure.

I'm not saying that genetically women are worse at logical endeavours, but in my experience they are worse at these. And they're less interested in puzzles and such.

This is quite different from a measure of intelligence though, as in my experience women tend to be better at endeavours such as languages and humanities, but are every bit as intelligent.

I realise this has no scientific basis and is taken from an insufficient sample size; it it merely my experience. Further, I know not whether this is a genetic trait, or if it is a socially acquired one. (Note that guys get marketed mechanical/science-y, style toys such as lego, computer games and other gadgets and gizmos, whereas young girls tend to get marketed dolls and cosmetics. I suspect this may have an influence on both later-life interests and skills)

>>5116745
Hudson, 1966, p. 104
I don't suppose that's going to prevent you from spouting your a priori though, I suppose.

>>5116702
>Francis Crick

He was probably refering to nobel prize winners in physics. In other disciplines, lesser IQ is enough. I am sure there are nobel peace prize winners below 100.

>>5116732
>> nitpicking about nitpicking
I had a clear point; you're statement is wrong.
Is that hard to understand?
Usually in the scientific community correct and incorrect information is highly valued... in fact I would say that is the one of the main points of science.

If it makes you feel better I can say "you are not completely correct", or "you were half right"
maybe even "aw that's okay, who cares if you are right, we love you anyway" I will even through in a pat on the head and a icecream treat.

>>5116764
Maybe he was, but he previously stated
>>Then show us that successful scientist with under 100 IQ, go on.
And with how this guy is acting, I am not extremely willing to give him much room.

>>5116771
Zzzzz
"If you can't do enough abstract reasoning to be at least around 120 IQ, you probably won't be able to do good research, that's it."
Is it better now? Is it more compatible with the assertion that "IQ doesn't matter", that you have done
NOTHING
to prove so far?

Yeah that's right, give lessons about scientific standard and don't have any yourself, that will serve your argument nicely.

>>5116780
How am I acting? You're not giving any element as to why you're right.

I'm still waiting for all those under 100 scientists. I mean come on, under 100 is half of the population, you should find A LOT of them, since IQ doesn't matter.

>>5116780
Are you still mad I told you to make your research yourself rather rather than sit on your ass and dismiss any argument as "not good enough"?

>>5116784
Actually I am not the person saying that I.Q. doesn't matter.
My first response to you was >>5116702
Nice to see how emotional you are getting over this tho.

>>5116811
>IQ doesn't matter
>your best example is at 120 IQ and not a hard scientist
Yeah right.

Because biology isn't a hard science.

>>5116811
>Getting into a debate on one side.
>"I wasn't actually defending that side's views"
>Your best example is at 120 IQ and not even a hard scientist.
What a trainwreck.

>>5116818
What is a "Hard" scientist?
Did you previously mention this?

Oh and good boy on taking 2 words from an entire sentence out of context, that must have been challenging.

Here let me copy paste the entire thing "Actually I am not the person saying that I.Q. doesn't matter. "

I.Q. Does matter to some degree.

>>5116833
The whole argument was about physics. How many time does it have to be repeated.
It is very impolite to jump into a debate while having read only the last posts.

>I.Q. Does matter to some degree.
Well thank you for your opinion, you're out now.

>>5116826
Actually now that I have read into it some, people debate his I.Q. was 115.
that is a 15 point difference from your incorrect statement.

I wasn't defending the entire argument, simply stating you are incorrect in an over-exaggerated and now, seemingly emotion response.

You don't debate much do you?

>>5116833
>"Actually I am not the person saying that I.Q. doesn't matter. "

>Getting into a debate on one side.
>"I wasn't actually defending that side's views"
What don't you understand about that? You shouldn't do that, it doesn't help clarity at all.

>>5116826
>not even a hard scientist
Biochemistry is most certainly hard science.

>>5116849
Well I did an incorrect statement, I should have added the word "generally", but I thought it was obvious since the whole thread was about statistics, not absolute universal truths.
I'm sorry I overstimated your understanding.

>>5116854
Yeah ok, you win, congratulations, I wrote a wrong sentence, back to the issue now.

>>5116852
So you are saying that people should be able to say incorrect statements, and no one, on a public discussion, should be able to correct them without being tied to one side of the argument automatically from one statement?

I would like a reliable source on Crick's claimed IQ.

All I'm finding are unsourced claimed on the internet, which at best, reference each other.

>>5116866
I'm saying you should make it CLEAR what you are arguing, not "correcting" some statement at random because it's confusing.

>>5116869
Please determine "reliable source" beforehand so you won't change your view halfway thru, as you have been. (assuming you are the samefag).

>>5116874
My apologies on that, I can see how that might be confusing. In the future I will try to be more careful in my statements

>>5116866
Okay, listen, there is, you see, a book written in 1966 by Hudson called "Contrary imaginations: A psychological study of the English schoolboy."
In this book, Hudson shows research saying that as long as you are smart enough, you have no more chance of getting a Nobel prize if you have 180 IQ or 130 IQ.
If you are below, however, you have very low chances.

Now.
I know, I'm stupid, I should have known some SHITHEAD would take the sentence literally and couldn't pass over the opportunity of making a useless "contribution". I regret everything.

>>5116878
It's not me discussing Crick's.
I haven't changed views, if IQ doesn't matter, it should be easy to find plenty of counterexamples.

>>5116878
Show me what you've got. I don't know how I could define a reliable source adequately.

Did you post that claim with nothing but, "I heard it from a guy who didn't say where he heard it."?

Are you thinking, "I don't want to go try and dig up a source unless I know what I have to find to guarantee that I win the argument."?

>>5116892
>intelligence doesn't matter for science
>ability to learn, solve problems, reason and think abstractly doesn't matter for fields that rely on the ability to learn, solve problems, reason and think abstractly

>>5116887
If you would have stated what you meant in the first place this could have all been skipped.
I appreciate you putting it in those simple and clear terms.

>> Now. I know, I'm stupid

We finally agree on something 100%

>>5116899
Well yeah that's my point.

>>5116259
That's easy, because Biology is easy while Physics is more difficult to grasp concepts and more higher level mathematics are needed.

I study biology and I'm surrounded by pussy all day

feels good

the real question is...

why are physicists so butthurt?

>>5116982
Answer is in the OP.
I'm a physicist and I'm butthurt.

>tfw bio major
>tfw girls everywhere
>tfw large dating pool

physfags just jelly.

>>5116970
well you wont be getting any if you're that fucking disrespectful towards women, you dickhead!

>>5117006
I'm a relatively recent browser of /sci/

Is EK being sarcastic or genuine in this post?

>>5117010
Lurk more.

>>5117010
genuine
dont refer to women as 'pussy', you cant just fucking reduce us to our genitals like that, its fucking rude!

>>5117006
>implying /sci/ isn't almost entirely homosexual
>>5117012
>implying you're actually a woman

>>5117015
>>implying /sci/ isn't almost entirely homosexual
i'm pretty sure they aint, just the engineers
ZINGGG!!
:D

>implying i'm not

>>5117035
what a shame, if you had a cock i'd suck it
no homo

>>5117035

I would not 'get offended' if girls say that they are surrounded by cocks in physics

>>5117056
im pretty sure sucking a cock is always homo if you're a guy

just saiyan

>>5117063
the term is 'sausage-fest'
and yeh, physics lectures are rolling in the cock, or so i'm told.

makes sense, guys and girls prefer different shit when it comes to majors
loads of chicks in psych apparently
taco-fest, is that even a thing?
w/e

>>5117011
I'm trying, Carl
You don't seem to be that bad of a tripfag
>>5117012
ah, got it. Are you an insufferable cunt in real life or just online?

>>5117063
Same here, in fact I'd kinda like it.

Which is the source of the problems: both genders try to apply the golden rule, treating the other as they would want to be treated. And it turns out each gender wants to be treated differently.

This is always going to be a source of friction, I just wish people would learn that the other side is generally not being mean or unfair.

>>5117075
just when i have to put up with shitheads like you

>>5117070
>taco-fest, is that even a thing?
I've heard it called a tuna fest

>>5117086
hah!
but btw, only smells if you're unhygenic

>>5117086
both count, apparently
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=taco+fest
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tuna+fest

synonyms

>>5117085
>just when I have to deal with people who don't agree with me

FTFY

less thinking
more observation

evolution, read about it

>>5117112
>evolutive psychology
>implying it's not exclusively nonscientific circular logic bullshit

>>5116332
This seems like something made based off Summers' qualitative description rather than actual gathered data, source?

>>5117099
not agreeing with me = being wrong
your loss, nigger

>>5117091

Oh I know. In reality, every girl's vagina is like a unique, beautiful snowflake. Cocks are like unique, beautiful hotdogs.

>>5117097
Good to know.

>>5117124

It's not

Atoms have been evolving for 14 billion years. DNA has been around for 4 billion years. Gender based reproduction has been going for 1200million years.

This means that women alive today have had a very very long time to perfect the art of being selective. Those that are not selective do not breed offspring fit to survive. Women don't have some omniscient agenda; it's just how they are designed. One cannot be totally biased because we are also highly selective in choosing partners. The reason for the dichotomy is that historically women have to invest far more into any relationship and contraception has not been around long enough to override a lady's inhibitions.

I realise this has little to do with the thread but I just wanted to be misogynystic for a tad bit.

>>5116551
Yea, but women would never do that, because then who would they collect child support from??

>>5117178
oh eat shit! you know most modern families they both take turns working and take turns caring? they both contribute the same!
well i guess you'd know that if you wernt RETARDED!

>>5117184
As if you knew anything about women, you fat neckbeard.

>>5117184
>>both contribute the same!

"You can do all the outside chores, half the inside chores, take care of the kid half of the time, and work full time. I'll do half of the inside chores, take care of the kid half time, and if I end up having to work, I'll resent you for it."

>>5117184
Dear EK,

Are you smart enough to be a trip on /sci/? Why don't you try your luck on another board?

>>5117214
i'm already on other boards, bitch

>>5117219
What boards do you visit?

>>5117219
Nobody likes a liar deary.

>>5117222
eat shit!

>>5117221
/v/'s cool
sometimes /k/ and /diy/

>>5116259
My old A-Level biology class was Exactly 50/50... I could well understand women liking it more, but most used it so they could go into specific fields later (such as a vet or some shit).

Maybe they're just not interested in physics, because they automatically assume it's a hard all boys club... But that statistic will change the longer TBBT is around, because now being a physicist is kewl and nerdy.

>>5117224
>/k/

You don't even have a weapon.

>>5117227
course i fucking dont! illegal!
but i can take a fuckin intrest, rite!

>>5117227
She's Scottish.
Every Scottish person has a weapon.

So I have a 55% chance of Vagina going into Bio, huh?
Hmm.

And yes a 45% chance of dick, but I'm not really concerned about those numbers.

>>5117224
Go back there. Maybe on /v/ your anti-intellectualism is welcome.

>>5117232
im not fucking scottish, pleb!
thats blackmans fucking faggot bullshit all over my board
it's on par with teh 7/7/11 shit and it's all totally bullshit

>>5117224
Yikes. I think I touched a nerve...
Tell me EK, are you happy?

>>5117236
You've got the grammar of a retard, and horrible mannerisms... Judging by this alone, I think you're Scottish.

>>5117234
i aint anti intellectual, i like learning and i like intelligent people
and /v/ is full of smart-fags, their aint nothin intellectual about em.
oh wait, you're that 'vidya is for kidz' faggot arnt ya?
enjoy you're boring shitpleb existence, nigger

>>5117246
>i aint anti intellectual,
>enjoy you're boring shitpleb existence, nigger
Well it doesn't sound like you are at all... Right guys? RIGHT?

>>5117234
i aint anti-intellectual, i like learning and i like intelligent people
and /v/ is full of smart-fags, their aint nothin anti-intellectual about em.
oh wait, you're that 'vidya is for kidz' faggot arnt ya?
enjoy you're boring shitpleb existence, nigger

>>5117248
typo
oh shit, and another
*your

>>5117252
I guess for your standards that sounded like a very intellectual retort. By normal standards it isn't.

>>5117252
Women: Sex, cooking, cleaning, biology
Men: Everything else

Its only a matter of time until men invent a artificial womb an engineer male only babies r female sex slaves.