/sci/ - Science & Math

It's true, that's why nearly all of the top chefs, fashion designers and interior decorators are men.

>>5601031
It is true; women are better at multitasking.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7896385/Scientists-prove-that-women-are-better-at-multitasking-than-men.html

It's true. I'm a woman and physics is just trivial to me. I'm smarter than all the men I know.

This thread makes me want to eat my own face.

>>5601042
ill respond only to you specifically to let you know the telegraph is a tabloid.
It's fools American's daily.

>>5601049
I know that it is a tabloid.
The information is still correct. I can find other sources, if you prefer?

>>5601044
Good for you, but you may like to try a little modesty.

no
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHkfS7zCdEE

>>5601054
>tabloid journalism
>that fits my own narrative
>therefore it is correct

I hope someday you realize the amount of stupid you are projecting right now.

>>5601031

yes, a woman's ability to multitask enables her to transcend to a higher plane where logic and the sciences are inconsequential and nothing but the biological cycle and instinctive behavior such as nestmaking matter.

>>5601042
50 men and 50 women students? That's not a very good sample of each population. That's roughly 0.0000025% of all women on the planet.

>>5601047

hi. read my name.

>>5601042
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7896385/Scientists-prove-that-women-are-better-at-multitasking-than-men.html


let's quote some shit:
>Psychologists have proven that
>Psychologists
>proven
>although it does depend on the task
>altough
>proven although

>While women were able to preform well in all four activities at once
>men performed, on average, worse when it came to planning to search for the key

men fail to perform as well on X as women, therefore their net score for XYZ is worse. since XYZ is multitasking they suck at multitasking.

>>5601087
It is not possible to test everybody on Earth; a sample must be taken.
A sample of 100 is more than sufficient.

>>5601090

hello giraffe. trying to salvage your face from the depths of the mariana trench with an ad hominem i see.

Women look down on science because of unattractive male nerds.

Their logic: "I want to stay far away from these disgusting unattractive beta nerd. If I like science, that means I am near these nerds. If I hate science, that means I am far away from these nerds. Therefore I choose to hate science."

It's very easy to read women. They hate math, physics, computer. Since many unattractive nerds are good at math, physics, computer, so their negative attitude towards hard science is an obvious indicator of their inner thoughts, they despise and look down on disgusting unattractive beta nerds, and want to stay away from these nerds as far as possible.

This is what I sense from a female classmate of mine. I lose to her once in a math test. But later she completely give up math and choose arts. Reason? There's an attractive male classmate of mine who love arts. And I am an unattractive nerd who is good at math.

>>5601121
one should be enough

>>5601121
>A sample of 100 is more than sufficient.
No, a sample of 100 is grossly inefficient for any claim attempting to be made for the entire population as there are vastly more than 50 distinct subgroups of both sexes who behave somewhat differently, let alone when the study is done in a situation such as at a university where all subjects likely come from a range of similar backgrounds.

>>5601121
If you claim to have a degree in psychology, why do you have to post garbage newspaper links? Shouldn't you be able to come up with scientific sources in your own field?

>>5601171

Because /sci/ would get tripped up on the lexicon and start retarded arguments over a misunderstanding of the information. Newspaper links contain standard nomenclature and an explanation of some of the jargon just in case its integral to the study.

>>5601031
>arguing with a girl
definition of "exercise in futility"

>>5601171
even a pleb level stat student would know that, when you are generalizing an entire gender, you need a sufficiently large and diverse data. The (f)article you posted looks like one done by some womyn studies idiot.

>>5601171
WP says this hasn't been published yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_multitasking#Popular_commentary_on_practical_multitasking
No link to the publication on the professor's site, either, so it's presumably still not published:
http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/pub/klaws/publications.html

>>5601125

The depths of space?