/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5599551
So much citation needed in that pic.

And gb2 /pol/.

this is really a question of whether you can appreciate philosophy or criticial theory. personally i can't take it, i really hate the philosophy of science in particular

>>5599564
>implying im from /pol/
>>5599565
>implying 95% of philosophy and "critical theory" isn't bullshit non-science

No, feminism and marxism are not science, thankfully.

Did she actually just say that relativity is sexist and the speed of light is a privilege?

Is this bitch for real?

>>5599551
eugh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray#Criticism

dont know why i bother posting this when somebody who posts this image just wants to cherry pick quotes from 40 years ago and say 'this is what feminists actually believe' to the tune of a whole lot of confirmation bias and willful ignorance

there's a bricolage of falsifiable yet un-rejected statements regarding the relationship of women to men, that all point towards systematic suppression of women in modern societies. These statements are apolitical, but could nonetheless provide the foundation of policy or activism in effort to change this systematic suppression via law or informal civic penalty.

feminism today is too purposefully political and driven by agenda to be considered a science. The better question is: does the relevant scientific knowledge justify the existence and actions of feminism?

>>5599598
>this is what tumblr feminists actually believe

>>5599603
Feminism exists with circular logic, deny the patriarchy and you must be a part of it, acknowledge it and your are a part of it. These activists always have victim complexes and circular logic processes. Another thing we see is that a lack of evidence is turned into evidence for a proposition.

Also sage

>>5599595
this anon cannot into satire

I think that picture is a troll

Please let it be a troll

>>5599610
you haven't addressed the question. I didn't ask how do feminists think, I asked would a good scientist, taking an honest look at the relevant body of knowledge, find feminism to be justified?

>>5599598
>actually defending this marxist feminist cunt

>>5599603
>that all point towards systematic suppression of women in modern societies
That doesn't exist.

>>5599617
Most feminism is based off marxism, so by definition is pseudoscience.

I mean they don't even believe evolution applies to humans for fuck sakes.

>>5599620
this picture fails to acknowledge the fact that STEM degrees are in decline across america, and things like 'recreation studies', and bullshit like that, are the most popular degrees among college aged kinds today. Her degree isn't worth as much as a STEM degree, but it is worth as much as any other bullshit degree (nothing).

>>5599628
>Most feminism is based off marxism

Oh shit we just went full /pol/

>>5599617
No of course not.

I answered the question with the circular logic part.

You don't generally say an argument is correct when it suffers from extreme circular logic.

>>5599614
Nope.

In fact most sociology majors in universities today actually believe this shit.

It's a real problem.

>>5599638
Yes, it's true. Most of this feminist and sociology crap came from cultural marxism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

>>5599640
LOL a real problem? as in, these womenz is acting up, and they need to be put back into place?

GTFO

>>5599652
>LOL a real problem? as in, these womenz is acting up, and they need to be put back into place?
Nobody said that, are you fucking retarded?
Everyone should have their human rights, but nobody should have "special" rights which amounts to authority over another person just because their feelings hurt.

>>5599652
Naw, but when a significant portion of the population is getting degrees with absolutely no value, THAT'S a problem.

People saying things like "My gender studies degree is not worthless!" need to be woken up.

>>5599662
ITT: /sci/entists butthurt that they can't get laid, and blame it on feminism

>>5599665
>Naw, but when a significant portion of the population is getting degrees with absolutely no value, THAT'S a problem.

You know what's even MORE of a problem, the fact we as taxpayers are fucking paying for these worthless degrees.

These people are parasites on society in every way imaginable.

>>5599665
>significant portion
please define and cite

>>5599685
>You know what's even MORE of a problem, the fact we as taxpayers are fucking paying for these worthless degrees.

the fuck? do you even understand how the american school system works?

people fork out tens of thousands of dollars and go into severe debt

what taxpayer money are you speaking of?

>>5599683
My girlfriend is sitting in the other room watching TV.

and no, feminism and other forms of cultural marxism are a bad thing.

>>5599693
>the fuck? do you even understand how the american school system works?
Yes.
>people fork out tens of thousands of dollars and go into severe debt
Yes. The government subsidizes education, that's WHY education is so expensive. It is paid by the taypayer through student loans or by the state controlling or owning the universities.
Why do you think prices are dramatically rising for every single industry the government subsidizes but prices drop adjusted for inflation for everything else?o

Universities grew out of catholic monasteries, there are far better ways of obtaining knowledge then sitting in a room while some entitled douchebag "professes" things to you.

>>5599686
Have you seen the occupy protests.

That's a significant portion.

>>5599686
I can't, but I'd be willing to bet that more people these days are getting degrees in gender studies/art appreciation/ancient history/cinematography/etc. than 50 years ago.

Again, I have no numbers. It's just a feeling. If you have numbers that prove otherwise, please divulge them.

>>5599693
And lots of tax payer money is used for pell grants, amount other moneys that government pays into the school system.

Indeed, it has been shown that it is all the tax monies provided that have caused the price of tuition to go up, as the product of the school is not sensitive to what the consumers of the school can pay for its services and product.

No, feminists and other leftists think science, evolution and economics is either racist/sexist/bourgeois or some other bullshit.

>>5599720
gee I wonder why that could be. It has nothing to do with the types of opinions and pictures in this thread.

>>5599683
/sci/ have no trouble getting laid, once they get a job. Money makes the ugliest male attractive to females.

>>5599717
>I can't, but I'd be willing to bet that more people these days are getting degrees in gender studies/art appreciation/ancient history/cinematography/etc. than 50 years ago.

That's for damn sure and they wonder why they can't get jobs while their degrees are basically pseudoscience and offer no benefit to society.
So they stupidly blame "capitalism"(which we don't have) and "the patriarchy"(whatever that means) for their own problems.
They're children.

>>5599733
How is anything we posted here racist/sexist/bourgeois?

Racist/sexist/bourgeois are stupid worthless terms

>>5599713
You meant the top 3% that was protesting itself? Yeah, saw that. Thought it was funny as hell.

>>5599751
>You meant the top 3% that was protesting itself?
Explain.

>>5599720
Because it is all patricarcial. The problem with feminism is that it likes to ignore the fact that in the Western world, women raise and teach all of society what to think. They teach the future women what their place SHOULD BE, and they teach the future men what their place SHOULD BE. Women have made this society what it is. American society in particular is matriarcial--- but the women don't like other women "running things" or being the face of things. So they don't support companies run by women, just as they won't vote for women politicians even when the choice is a serious asshat man as the only other choice.

>>5599756
Not who you're talking to, but you're pretty retarded not being able to work out what he means.

>>5599756
99% of the occupy protesters were from the top 3% of American society. Doctors, engineers, lawyers, and thier spouses and children. So they were protesting their own selves, their spouses, and their own families way of life. When they left, they returned to running, owning, and growing the very things they were protesting against. So it was almost all "rich elite white angsting about their own existance." Again.

>>5599764
>Because it is all patricarcial.
Nope.
That's just what retards say because of "muh feelings".
Women are just butthurt men are on average more intelligent and thus get into STEM field and start businesses more.

>>5599776
>99% of the occupy protesters were from the top 3% of American society. Doctors, engineers, lawyers, and thier spouses and children. So they were protesting their own selves, their spouses, and their own families way of life. When they left, they returned to running, owning, and growing the very things they were protesting against. So it was almost all "rich elite white angsting about their own existance." Again.
Lol no it wasn't it was angry kids.
You really think it was those people at occupy oakland in those dirty tents.

>>5599551
If it was, it would drain all the hate and revanchist victimhood out of the Dworkin wing of the movement.

It could be, but they probably eat the more precise theorists among them for a pre-menstrual breakfast.

Women get upset when you explain them basic biology.

Men are on average far better at math and science than females.

It's just how their brains are structured.

They're just mad at biology.

>>5599799
That's who it was at Occupy Wallstreet and most of the other occupies that were surveyed and studied.

The fact is that as far as the world goes, anyone living in America is effectived in the top 1%.

>>5599829
>That's who it was at Occupy Wallstreet and most of the other occupies that were surveyed and studied.
>The fact is that as far as the world goes, anyone living in America is effectived in the top 1%.
True.

I hate occupy because it destroyed any chance of society rebelling against the elites.
The tea party did some good things but it was taken over by redneck conservatives.

>>5599799
Women insist that other women NOT DO THAT. It isn't that women such at math and sciense--- females outscore males in math and all scienses until they hit "peer pressure" age in middle school. Afterwards, fMRI shows their brains are still processing math and the sciences better, even in high school, but they aren't pursuing those areas. They are instead trying NOT to be too good in them, because they don't want their social world to label them geeks and nerds. Their society is pushing them down--- and it is a society of their own creation.

Women aren't dumber then men according to the fMRI studies, but they aren't willing to put in the work because they will lose standing in their social circles for it. So it is women pushing women women--- as it is throughout history, if women bothered to go study human interaction and history. Women are the enforcers of society behavior, insisting the men around them be the bruisers to those that don't tow the line in society when they won't respond to normal peer pressure.

>>5599835
redneck conservatives are ok on most matters. Hell, most want to legalize pot and don't give a damn about gay marriage, although they are split on late term abortions (most are for early abortion on demand). Most aren't terrified of gay marriage.

It's the power snots that have worked their way up into the various tea party organizations that have broken that movement. Same thing happens in all movements though. Anywhere you start to get money flowing in politics, you get the people that want to control that to increase their own power.

>>5599713

like i said, actual citations and not just Fox News generalizations like "this guy had a cell phone so the entire movement is rich babies"

>>5599847
>It isn't that women such at math and sciense
Yes, yes they do for the most part. Mostly due to the structure of their brain.

Wait? lol are you denying this?
On a science board?

>are still processing math and the sciences better, even in high school, but they aren't pursuing those areas.
Their motivation to do science and math is a lot less DUE to their genetic makeup.
Also no they mostly due suck at math.
Not all of them but the vast majority.

>Women aren't dumber then men according to the fMRI studies, but they aren't willing to put in the work because they will lose standing in their social circles for it.
It's pretty sad people believe in this social constructionist bullshit.
Do you even science?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

>>5599854
>redneck conservatives are ok on most matters. Hell, most want to legalize pot and don't give a damn about gay marriage, although they are split on late term abortions (most are for early abortion on demand). Most aren't terrified of gay marriage.

True.

Also libertarianism is the fastest growing political ideology in america.

>>5599776
Can you please put a source to that statement besides "pulled fresh from the depths of my incredibly frustrated butthole"

>>5599854
>redneck conservatives
>don't give a damn about gay marriage

Uh, no. The only reason Bush even made being anti gay marriage part of his platform was to pander to the bible belt. I'm also pretty sure the abortion thing is false.

>>5599865
>social conservatism is the fastest dying political ideology in america

FTFY

>>5599863
More than you.

Girls are outscoring boys in sciences and maths and have been since the whole "give girls as much attention in the classroom as boys" movement. This caused some raised eyebrows in the 1980s, so there was some actual science done on brain functionality. Cognitive science really ate up those studies when they started using functional MRIs to examine children working on math and science problems. What they found was that girls were better at it than boys DUE TO THEIR BRAIN STRUCTURE.

So that left the researchers with a problem: why did girls start sucking at math and sciences between middle and high school? Research showed they just go bored with it and they didn't want to be a loser nerd or geek in their social circles. So they turned their mighty brain computational power on how to maintain and improve their social positions and their potentional breeding partners. In other words, most girls dropped it for their own real life problems. It's all old science now, but the mainstream teachings and beliefs don't match the science. Like so much in our society. You can go digging around for it on Google if you want to learn the details.

>>5599872
>Uh, no. The only reason Bush even made being anti gay marriage part of his platform was to pander to the bible belt. I'm also pretty sure the abortion thing is false.
Times are changing?

It's funny because more conservatives(like glenn beck even though he's retarded) want to legalize marijuana.

>>5599878
True, but libertarianism is the fastest growing.

>>5599883
>Girls are outscoring boys in sciences and maths
Please leave /sci/ and never return.

>>5599870
Shut up, faggot. Typical hippie liberal nigger on welfare who wants to question authority because they're butthurt about not being able to get a job because they majored in Queer Studies

>>5599870
Fucking liberal trying to destroy everyone who ever accomplished anything by not majoring in STEM

all thse frustrated little boys.

also libertardianism is for retards who can't think outside of a paper bag, so yea it's probably popular in america.

>>5599872
I'm spent a lot of time travelling through that area. The people against gay marriage isn't redneck conservatives--- it's the black and hispanic communities. You want their vote, you are against gays. It's why Barack Obama swapped to being against gays when he started his political life, and stayed FIRMLY against it for his whole political life until the very last election he'd ever be in. It is one of his few FIRM principles.

Don't confuse REDNECK with REBORN EVANGELICALS. They are not synonymous. Most people in the world are "rednecks". Most of those are "conservatives" for their population. But here in America, most don't care what people do in the privacy of their own lives and don't care who gets married to whom or even what.

>>5599889
>Shut up, faggot. Typical hippie liberal nigger on welfare who wants to question authority because they're butthurt about not being able to get a job because they majored in Queer Studies

>leftists
>EVER questioning authority

HAHAHAHA what kind of opposite world do you live in.
They have a very authoritative view on knowledge and trust whatever the state and "officials" tell them

They're basically the catholic church of today.

>>5599883
Everyone knows men are smarter than women because they're stronger and have bigger brains. Science, idiot.

>>5599895
>also libertardianism is for retards who can't think outside of a paper bag
>BAWWWWWW THEY INSULTED MY CULT LEADER AND DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A STATIST SHITHOLE

Wow it must suck to have an ideology which has failed every time in real life. No wonder libertarians are the most intelligent political ideology out there in every study done.

>>5599899
>>5599889
Disinfo agent pls go.

>>5599899
Everyone knows blue whales are smarter than men because they're stronger and have bigger brains. Science, idiot.

>>5599865
Actually, libertarianism is the default majority opinion in America and has been since its founding. Most Americans just don't realize that they are closest in agreement with libertarism because all they see of it is "Legalize Hemp!" activists so they think it is all pot heads lighting up.

>>5599898

So lets turn this into an actual science thread. What would you say the probable percentage of decrease in shitposting would be if /pol/ and /sci/ were separated on the board selector

Im going with 85%

>>5599906
Prove me wrong, nigger

>>5599902
that's what your cult leader would like you to believe. americans are quite pragmatic and humane for the most part, this striving for purity in a limited system (hierarchy of rights) is a distinctly continental sentiment. it is imported goods

>>5599898
lol

>>5599883
>What they found was that girls were better at it than boys DUE TO THEIR BRAIN STRUCTURE.
LOL WHAT?

Do you ignore the fact there are barely any women in the hard science in real life?
You actually deny this?

Or you think it's just peer pressure? Just a social construction?

Lol this is too funny, enjoy your wishful thinking and manipulated data when your findings deny everything found in the real world.

>>5599914
>not realizing a LOT of americans identify as libertarian but either don't vote or vote for one of the two parties because they vote for the lesser of two evils
>not realizing the libertarian party got 1.6% of the vote

>>5599907
true dat.

>>5599915
95.9%

100% if we also nuke /x/

>>5599918
>that's what your cult leader would like you to believe.
Except libertarians don't have cult leaders like sychophants like yourself do.
inb4 RON PAUL, MISES!!1111

>>5599921
Gosh, I wonder why young girls wouldn't want to go into a field of study that contained such stunning and charismatic specimens such as yourself

>>5599928
>IT'S ALL PEER PRESSURE FROM OTHER WOMEN, THAT'S WHY, WOMEN SECRETLY LIKE SCIENCE
Top lel.

>>5599915
0%, because Randroids would continually find an excuse to brag about how much better they are than everyone else because their teachers told them they were smart, even if they have no real life skills

Women and men are inherently different, men like science and engineering more, women like art and more emotional stuff more.

It's just the way we evolved.

>>5599939
>hurr durr evopsych
Get the fuck out with your bro science

>>5599932
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Why the fuck is this at the top of the page on /sci/?

I've lost fucking hope in this board, implying I had any to begin with.

Have some math and may god have mercy on your soul(s)

>>5599930
there is this southern/midwestern resentment against the federal government, but they are pretty ok with whatever local tyranny.

that's the extent of the american sentiment on 'government.' the systematic and totalizing ideology is due to eastern europeans, particularly austrians and russians. the kind of axiomatic theorizing is characteristicly continental

>>5599937
>0%, because Randroids would continually find an excuse to brag about how much better they are than everyone else because their teachers told them they were smart

HAHAHA So much fucking projection when the exact opposite is true.

Leftists basically OWN universities. It's a massive circlejerk where no independent thought it allowed.

Leftists have an authoritative view of knowledge and like all low IQ people don't know how to seek out information themselves.

>>5599921
LOL. You are funny. You think because the first circuit designers weren't women that women suck at circuit design? That's the argument you are making. This is also the same logic as all africans are idiots because they don't dominate the hard sciences you care about.

People get into the fields they do for many reasons. Rarely does "sucks at math" stop people from getting into math dominated areas.

Being successful in a career generally depends on NOT DESERTING IT FOR YEARS (which most women do due to having a few children along their life) and NOT HALF-TIMING THEIR WORK (another thing most have to do because they have to also invest so much time looking after their children).

If you want to argue "womenfolk suck at anything that requires thought", you will want to stay away from the cognitive sciences because they long ago proved the opposite--- they have shown that females are better at math and sciences then males. But let's not let old tested and studied science stand in your way of thinking testicals makes your brain superior to oviaries.

>>5599941
>no argument
>actually denies evolution applies to humans

>>5599942
>Get the fuck out with your bro science
Get off this fucking science board, maybe /lit/ is more suited to you.

>>5599952
>there is this southern/midwestern resentment against the federal government, but they are pretty ok with whatever local tyranny.
No, we're not.
and most of us are not randroids, idiot.

>>5599951
LOL. You are funny. You think because the first circuit designers weren't women that women suck at circuit design? That's the argument you are making.
No, I never said women don't contribute to science.


>This is also the same logic as all africans are idiots because they don't dominate the hard sciences you care about.
Lol this is actually true as well.

>they have shown that females are better at math and sciences then males.
LOL Oh god WHERE?
You're denying logic right in front of you.

>>5599956

Nobody denied evolution applied to humans. It's just that you're a retard who explains everything in society as 'WELL WE EVOLVED TO BE LIKE THIS' without citing any evidence whatsoever.

Oh, my bad, you probably have a subscription to Psychology Today, and read some blogs!

>>5599951
>you will want to stay away from the cognitive sciences because they long ago proved the opposite--- they have shown that females are better at math and sciences then males
It's like you're trying to be incorrect.
http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/research/ANAUT.html

>>5599966
>It's just that you're a retard who explains everything in society as 'WELL WE EVOLVED TO BE LIKE THIS' without citing any evidence whatsoever.
*sigh*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuQHSKLXu2c

Evolution and biology explains almost everything in society.

>>5599612
b8d

>>5599964
randoids are not in the conversation. i'm just talking about libertarianism, something of a small tribal community in the fringe of philosophy. for very good reasons

>some people still deny evolutionary psychology

>>5599974
Have you ever heard of the "naturalistic fallacy"? If you actually majored in "hard sciences", or went to college at all, you'd probably have a philosophy 101 required course, and understand basic logic, but then again this is 4chan so my expectations aren't too high

>>5599978
>randoids are not in the conversation.
Yes they are, you fucking brought them up when you claimed all libertarians were randroids with your little insult up there.

>i'm just talking about libertarianism, something of a small tribal community in the fringe of philosophy.
It's the fastest growing political ideology and will soon take over when this state run economy collapses.

>for very good reasons
Yes and those reasons are the corporations and people in charge don't want people to be free and prosperous.

>>5599979
>hurr durr greentext reaction image lel xD so random

Take this shit back to /b/

>>5599982
read my posts and find 'randoid' before you mentioned it

>>5599980
>Have you ever heard of the "naturalistic fallacy"?
Yes.
But it just turns out, a lot of natural things ARE good. Not all but most.

>If you actually majored in "hard sciences", or went to college at all, you'd probably have a philosophy 101 required course, and understand basic logic, but then again this is 4chan so my expectations aren't too high
You have no real argument, I bet you believe in the blank slate theory too.

>>5599982
>the corporations and people in charge don't want people to be free and prosperous.
Oh, of course. Every problem in the world is caused because people just don't WANT to fix them bad enough!!!! Drop this garbage, Deepak

>>5599983
>>hurr durr greentext reaction image lel xD so random
Now you're just getting desperate.

>>5599985
Oh, well someone did. Thought it was you. My bad.

>>5599988
>Oh, of course. Every problem in the world is caused because people just don't WANT to fix them bad enough!!!!
Um, NO because the people preventing a much much better world are already in charge and destroy economic productivity.

>>5599990
>uses greentext and a reaction image as a response to an argument
>accuses someone of being "desperate"

>>5599986
http://newstechnica.com/2008/10/23/science-reveals-evolutionary-origins-of-gender-stereotypes/

Did you write this?

>>5599992
>use a dumb comic to attempt to debunk actual established science

It's just like those creationist comics, wow.

>>5599939
Actually, men and women are extremely similar. From the cognitive structure of the brain, the main difference is that women have twice as many nerves in their skin versus men. This causes the primary difference in the brain structure between men and women, as a woman's brain has to be capable of supporting all that extra sensory input. This creates a brain that has a broadband connection between all major parts of the female brain, giving it superior memory and task shifting capabilities.

Male brains, on the other hand, do not have this broadband connection in their brain. Instead, they effectively have dial up connection. This means their brains has poor memory compared to women and cannot switch between tasks as easily nor consider the effects of as many variables. However, all that missing "communication material" (white) in males is instead filled with grey neurons. Grey is very effecient at logic processing. So while women have a broadband connection, their brain's "CPU" (grey network) is only a good PC compared to a man's "CPU" which is a super computer in comparison (which gets all its data through a dial up connection).

Since science and math, at least in school, is mostly memory with just minor logic required, females naturally do better at it.

It's not a matter of "feelings and shit", it's a matter of biology. Men and women have the same OVERALL intelligence levels. That's what causes the cognitive scientists to cream themselves. Big memory and low processing power equals small memory and high processing power.

If you want to claim science is why women suck at science on a science forum, at least bother to learn about the actual science on thought, cognation, and the biological structures of the brain.

>>5599996
>uses greentext and a reaction image as a response to an argument
>being a massive hypocrite

>>5599997
>estrogen and testosterone are the exact same thing and don't result in wildly different outcomes in people

>>5599997
>actual intelligent argument
NOPE NOPE NOPE SEE WOMEN AND MEN HAVE DIFFERENT BRAINS THAT EVOLVED DIFFERENTLY, AND MEN ARE BETTER

I KNOW THIS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS A MAN

WHAT'S A "CITATION"?

>>5600005
NOPE NOPE NOPE
ALL HUMAN BEINGS EVOLVED THE EXACT SAME WAY AND ALL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US CAN BE EXPLAINED BY SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS, YES IM ACTUALLY SAYING THIS ON A SCIENCE BOARD

>>5600000
Can you link to this "actual established science" that says that men are evolved to be more intelligent than women? Can you link to, like, a peer-reviewed article saying this?
I'm not disputing evolutionary psychology, I'm just saying you're wrong with this specific point, but nice strawman

>>5600012
no he can't, he's just an idiot who says things he can't back up and then uses "BUT SCIENCE IS RIGHT" as a catch-all reply to people who call him out on it

>>5599997
>From the cognitive structure of the brain, the main difference is that women have twice as many nerves in their skin versus men. This causes the primary difference in the brain structure between men and women, as a woman's brain has to be capable of supporting all that extra sensory input. This creates a brain that has a broadband connection between all major parts of the female brain, giving it superior memory and task shifting capabilities.

THAT'S IT?
WHAT THE FUCK? ARE YOU RETARDED?

Do you even fucking know what an instinct is?
Just stop talking right now.

>>5599889
Government pays you very well if you get a job with them and majored in "Queer Studies"

>>5600018
[citation needed]

>>5600018

This really pushes the boundaries of stupid

>>5600012
>>5600014
Can you marxists please go back to your sophist board /lit/?

>Can you link to this "actual established science" that says that men are evolved to be more intelligent than women?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women

I could look some up for you, but I don't have them on hand because this is pretty much common sense.

>I'm not disputing evolutionary psychology, I'm just saying you're wrong with this specific point, but nice strawman
Actually yes you are. If you believe men and women are almost exactly the same you're arguing with evolutionary psychology and basically all of science.

>>5600018
Not only do they pay you, but they prop up these pseudoscience degrees by using taxpayer money to subsidize education which just makes the price go up and give all these shitty professors a lot more money.

They contribute nothing to society and shouldn't get a dime.

>>5600019
Government requires a degree for you to be employed by them. But they don't care if the degree is RELATED to the job you are applying for. Therefore, a degree in "Queer studies" pays well when you work for the government.

My manager at NASA had her first degree in Mideval Literature. She eventually went back to school and a got a bach in MSI but that was many years AFTER SHE WAS HIRED.

Remember that: Any sheepskin is worth more money when you are working for a government related employer regardless of its applicability to the work or your career path.

>>5600032
This guy thinks men and women are separate species that have diverged genetically over thousands of years with no interbreeding.

Hey guys, did you know that science is a racist, sexist tool of the patriarchy?

>>5600032
>common sense
This is not
>a peer-reviewed article saying that men have evolved to be more intelligent than women

Please try again!

>>5600044
>this guy has nothing but strawman arguments

>>5600032
>wikipedia
>actual science

>>5600053
It's true he thinks they're going to split into divergent species any day now!

I actually can't stop laughing.

>>5600052
>This is not
Yes it is.
Thinking men and women are totally different is not only counter intuitive but it's wrong. Men and women have different instincts and estrogen and testosterone reinforces them.
Females evolved to take care of children and help around the home, males were the hunters, the builders, the inventors.

Not saying women don't contribute too or that there are no women that are smarter than men but for the most part yes these are facts.

>>5600063
>I-I-I have nothing to refute him so I'm going to pretend he's wrong

>>5599565
Please don't compare pre-WW2 philosophy to post-modernism and critical theory.

>>5600030
Of course it is stupid! It is the government!

When the government does something well, it will be done half-assed. When it does something poorly, it will be really fucked up. That's just the nature of bureaucracy. The bigger it is, the more stupid it gets.

>>5600065

>Females evolved to take care of children and help around the home, males were the hunters, the builders, the inventors.

Has no understanding of genetics, natural selection, or evolution. He may as well be citing the bible.

>>5600065
>Blah blah blah opinions I can't back up with any actual evidence

This is /sci/, not /pop psych/

>>5600067
>Please don't compare pre-WW2 philosophy to post-modernism and critical theory.
Please don't ever talk about postmodernism or critical theory on a science board.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOrBCkQ6WY

>>5600067
Please don't compare yourself to people who actually understand philosophy

>>5600072
>Has no understanding of genetics, natural selection, or evolution. He may as well be citing the bible.

He's actually denying genetics, natural selection, or evolution because reality hurts his FEEEEELINGS. He may as well be citing the bible or his marxist professors textbook.

>>5600069
It's amazing to see that there are actually people out there who think men and women will become divergent species some day. This actually makes me feel a lot better about myself. Thank you retard. Bless your heart, and keep fighting the good fight!

>>5600073
>actual evidence
It's common fucking sense, I mean they teach this shit in biology class.

>>5600065
ALPHA males evolved to hunt. BETA males evolved to take care of the family. ALPHA males got to pass on their traits by trading meat for sex. BETA males got to pass on their traits by ALWAYS BEING AROUND and thereby having maximum accessibility to the females.

You want to argue "women evolved to be the caretakers of children" then your science is back in the ancient age of the 1920s. You might want to update your science knowledge base with something from this century or at least the last 4 decades.

>>5600077
>Humans evolved from primitive life, therefore wimmin r stoopid

>>5600078
>I-I-I have nothing so I'll keep strawman.
Lel I can see how mad you were.

My point was women and men were not the same exact sex EVER in history. They had a mutual relationship with each other but evolved differently.

>>5600080
If they "teach this shit in biology class" it should be pretty fucking easy for you to link me a citation, right? So why aren't you doing it?

>>5600080
>biology class
/sci/ generally considers anything from biology to be pure bs so it is as bad as quoting wikipedia.

>>5600083
>You want to argue "women evolved to be the caretakers of children" then your science is back in the ancient age of the 1920s.

>actually denying this
lel so what did women do? Just sit around? Are you actually telling me they didn't have their roles.

Oh god, well even if you don't believe this. It still proves you wrong because the male evolved to hunt and build.
Yes this obviously did change their brain structure.

You creationists are so silly.

This is very much related, although I'm sure most of you have seen it. before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2xrnyH2wQ

>>5600092
>It still proves you wrong because the male evolved to hunt and build.
[citation needed]
>Yes this obviously did change their brain structure.
[citation needed]

>>5600086
>thinking different sexes are different species

Let me know when women sprout wings and men sprout gills.

You STUPID evolutionists, men and women are exactly the same and instincts don't exist.
http://www.icr.org/article/378/

ITT OP thinks he's being oppressed and whines about it relentlessly.

Ugh, what is with these stupid feminists demanding that I back up my claims with evidence? Why do you hate science so much?

If everyone had to prove what they said was true, where would science be today?

>>5600100
probably dreams of the days that a man could just beat his wife and daughters because he had a bad day at work. Sounds like he needs to move out of American and to somewhere in the world where this is still acceptable. Like about 70% of the world, now that I think about it for two seconds.

>BAWWWW PROVE ME ME THAT WOMEN AND MEN ARE BIOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY

>>5600106
>still not providing a single peer-reviewed paper
Now this is just fucking depressing

>>5600095
HAHAHA Oh god this guy's so mad he has no real rebuttal to this
>>5600097
>[citation needed]
All anthropological/biological evidence ever? Also their brain and body structure?
>>5600105
>probably dreams of the days that a man could just beat his wife and daughters because he had a bad day at work.

>you support science over wishful thinking so that means you're a women beater
Next thing you're going to call me a rape apologist. Go back to rebbit.

>>5600107
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG_kWNxCWrY

please, eat shit

>>5600110
It seems you don't know what "burden of proof" means.
Hint, it's on your side.
>>5600109
>fringeelements
Mah nigga.

>>5600111
>2012
>Thinking social sciences like anthropology are real science

gb2/lit/

Even darwin believed that men were superior to women.
Just saying.

>>5600111
Ok, so all evidence ever. Link me, literally, one paper. It should be very, very easy! So easy, in fact, that I don't understand why you'd rather claim it's "every paper ever" in post after post after post, instead of just taking five seconds to find one...

unless there wasn't one, lol

>>5600097
There's no evidence that men evolved to build in even your ancient 1920s science. It could be that women did all the building until we got to the point that society leaders started projecting their power through elite sub-societies using rare and hard to get weapons. We presume that based on what we see from the last few thousand years of history and project similar conditions and behaviors until the start of the human species, but that's just a simple untested hypothesis at this time.

>>5600115
Okay then I should have said Archaeology.

>>5600107
You mean trolls, right? There isn't a feminist on this board. This is the internet, and there are no womenz on the internet.

>>5600113
I've just been watching the little shitfest between him and evogen. I tend to ignore his political stuff.

>>5600122
That's still a social science. A valid result would come from something like genomics.

>>5600092
I notice you don't argue that BETA males evolved to take care of the children to maximize their chances at reproducing, and focus on the troll patter instead. So as the great Colbert says: Checkmate.

>>5600117
Apearently you don't know what burden of proof is.

Link me ONE paper that proves instincts don't exist or apply to the human sexes, link me one paper that proves men and women had the same exact roles in human history and thus evolved exactly the same.

ONE.

You can't because they don't exist.

But since you asked:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans#Brain_and_nervous_system

inb4 wikipedia that part of the article is filled with links

If you disagree with me you disagree with evolutionary psychology and thus evolution entirely.

>>5600127
>I've just been watching the little shitfest between him and evogen. I tend to ignore his political stuff.
It's been interesting, evogen and skep are getting destroyed and are now just coming up with insane excuses to protect their egos.

>>5600132
>fossils are a pseudoscience

>>5600133
>he still watches colbert
lel college student, I bet you actually think he's funny, I bet you watch maddow as well

>I notice you don't argue that BETA males evolved to take care of the children
That's one theory and there's some truth to it. But even beta males hunted and built things.
What did women do? Sit around and read cosmo?
No, they were the primary caretakers.

>>5600134

>proves instincts don't exist or apply to the human sexes, link me one paper that proves men and women had the same exact roles in human history and thus evolved exactly the same.

These two arguments don't matter at all unless you first prove that men and women are separate species undergoing natural selection separately without interbreeding (in other words, that they're evolving separately).

>>5600145
>These two arguments don't matter at all unless you first prove that men and women are separate species
Nobody said this or meant this and no I don't have to do this.

>>5600142
They're studied in other fields as well, archeology and anthropology however have no proper controlled experiments and the shit they pass in their research papers is based on not just poor methods but methods that are now actually considered pseudoscience (like craniology). If you're looking at DNA sequencing from fossils in genomics, then it's entirely different than if you're looking at an anthropologist studying them based on craniology. One is science and the other is pseudoscience.

Unbelievable there are actually creationists on /sci/.

>SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE, IM RIGHT, SCIENCE

Dat atheistkult circlejerk.

>>5600151
Your whole argument rests on the basis that they evolve separately. You have said this many times and yes you have to do this.

>>5600133
>Colbert

Great, you listen to trendy preacher who I'm sure you think "pwns" everything. I bet you follow fucks like Maher as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW4dYG9VjgA

>>5600144
Women hunted and built as well so you are at a dead end in your argument. We know they did this as well from the injuries and wear on their bones.

While it is easy to posit that women were the primary care givers of the smallest children (because who else could the smallest nurse from?), it doesn't follow that they were the primary caregivers overall for children. Particulary with the evidence that beta males spent more time "helping out" so they could get some opportunities to pass on their genes.

>>5600156
No, I was saying they evolved together but obviously had different roles within the tribe and were built that way(estrogen/testosterone)

>>5600158
>Women hunted and built as well so you are at a dead end in your argument.
Fucking barely.
and you can see this in this body structure, it's not built for hard laborious task
look faggot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans#Brain_and_nervous_system

Why am I even explaining basic scientific concepts to you?

>it doesn't follow that they were the primary caregivers overall for children.
lol then what the fuck did they do?

>Particulary with the evidence that beta males spent more time "helping out" so they could get some opportunities to pass on their genes.
You're just grasping for straws now.

>>5600160
Lol mahar gave a million dollars for a warmongering psychopaths reelection campaign

Liberals are basically fascists