/sci/ - Science & Math

Full of people who hate girls.

>>5799740
Ha, not in my experience

>>5799741
I should have specified, hate girls that don't fit to their narrow specifications (API if you wish).

>>5799741
Same with math really, no one gives a shit; that is, the math department neither hates nor worships girls. Maybe the issue is that since these are traditionally "male" interests, they just expected it to be too hard or assume they'll be hated without trying it.

At the same time though there was this chick who I'm pretty sure was in to get a degree in college. She had math, computer science, and one other major by the time she graduated, then came back to the university to study in its law school.

>>5799740
lel
>muh patriarchy

>>5799747
Math has more chicks than comp-sci.

Because computer science is misogynistic. It's true. One at a tech conference two men in private conversation made a joke about penises.

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/03/richards-affair-and-misogyny-in-tech/

>>5799749
>>5799754

Regardless of who you believe to be in the right, would you say that your kind of anti-feminism (or whatever you wish to call it) is more common in computer science than in liberal sciences, business education, biology, medical science, and perhaps even physics and math?

If the answer is yes, then there's your answer. Whether or not disgruntled white male virgins on the internet are the last bastion of sanity is irrelevant; people tend to flock to environments most in their favor, so women avoid comp sci.

>>5799768
Actually no.

People in physical sciences in general are not interested in feminism or political beliefs in general at all. They're interested in empirical evidence, rationality, rigorous logical deductive reasoning and analysis of systems.

As it happens, these things tend to interest men more often than women, while things relating to empathising and socialising tend to interest women more than men.

There's your answer.

>>5799839
>talking about rigor
>implying social sciences

my sides

>meet cute girl
>she's a cs major
>wtf.jpg
>she has kids
>oh

There is still somewhat of a stigma around girls and tech. This is slowly pulling back, but I suspect it will still be a couple decades until it is fully accepted. I compare it to male flight attendants and nurses, or female business execs.

Also the fact that a noticeable amount of teenage girls for whatever reason are easily influenced by their peers and pick university classes based on what their friends are taking (an alarmingly high amount of my female friends do this). I'm all for equal rights and whatnot, but this is just a trend I couldn't help but notice. It seems guys are a lot more likely to end up working with friends though. This is all from my limited local sample group, so take it with a grain of salt.

>>5799862
Simon baron cohen's longitudinal studies into the effects of uteral testosterone are pretty conclusive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g032MPrSjFA

>>5799917
>pretty conclusive
>anything in social science
I bet it's not even sigma 5.

Laughing_statisticians.jpg

>>5799920

>>5799975
>5 standard deviations
> less than one in a million chance
yeah that's a reasonable threshold to consider something significant.

I'm sure you're going to be very efficient at finding out new patterns and truths about the universe like that!

>>5800078
It's called rigor. We have over 7 billion people on the planet and you've got people publishing papers with sample sizes not even worth mentioning.

Any new particle discovery has to be a sigma 5 event.

>>5800077
fuken saved

social stereotypes...
speaking as a cs teacher, i'v seen so many amazingly talented young women wasting their potential...it's sad

>>5799735
Generally men tend to do better at math and exact sciences than women so fields like CS sway tend to sway more towards a predominantly male population

Because girls prefer math and real science.

>>5799735
>Why don't more girls study Computer Science?

Because they are busy making sammiches for the men.

>>5800290
Keep your retard posting on memebase or 9fag.

>>5800108
Do you think all natural science up until this point has been performed to sigma 5 degrees of confidence?

But alright . You can pretend that it's reasonable to expect that level of confidence in all fields of scientific enquiry.
However you're obligated to at least admit that between two non-conclusive hypotheses, that the hypothesis in >>5799839 has more empirical evidence and scientific research supporting it than that in >>5799740

Women tend to select nearly everything on the basis of their ticking biological clocks. They choose studies and careers on the basis of how they will gain them mates. And everyone knows that the computer sciences are filled with geeky masturbators whom few attractive women want to fuck. Beta males are fairly replusive to women in general, so it causes women to avoid beta-male industries.

>first high school gf, brilliant and nice as fuck, goes into computer science and finishes her Bsc in 2.5 years
My envy knows no bounds.

>>5800308
it's simpler than that, dumbass.

They avoid physical sciences and stuff with mathematics in general because they're bad at it and they find it boring compared to learning about people.

I don't know, there were quite a bit of girls in my College Algebra class. I didn't talk to them, so I don't know if they were computer sciencetist.

Because it's trivial and we can learn it on our own while studying more patrician subjects like physics and math.

>>5802152
>not so subtle bump
Wish you faggots would cut this out on meaningless threads.

>>5802168

I'm not that guy, but I often times post to threads that have had inactivity for some hours. The reason is because /sci/ moves fairly slow so you can often times wake up/come home to new posts in threads you were taking part in before. I'm actually fairly oblivious to it and haven't really thought about it.

It may be worthwhile to try and work out some sort of "best practices" of long term thread posting.

polite sage

>>5802168
>meaningless threads.

Why is this a meaningless thread? Looks like a relevant science related question to me.

>>5800309
>and finishes her Bsc in 2.5 years

Isn't that supposed to be normal in a subject as easy as CS?

Call me crazy but I do believe there is some sort of discrimination against girls in the Fatlands.

Here collectively in all the STEM faculties the distribution is around 50/50 male female.
Chemistry, biology, biotech, life sciences in general are female dominated.
Pure mathematics, chemical engineering and medicine are 50/50
[x] engineering, physics, computer science is male dominated.

>>5805010
Yea, I get this too. I'm glad I went with pure math instead of neckbeard physics.

I'd like a girl to study computer science with, if you guys know what I mean.

>>5805565
>Why girls are not into computer science

>>5805565
That's nice. :)

What do you want to study?

>>5805565
pls respond

>>5805565
>I'd like to teach her how to C 'plus plus', if you know what i mean

>>5807954
I'd like to transform her fouriers if you know what I mean.

But I am, OP.

>>5800319

That's essentially the same thing. When you select your interests on the basis of a biological clock, you're really only a biological form of an Easy Bake Oven. You make babies. You don't have to be very smart to do that, and as anyone who watches women knows, women aren't very smart.

Many men aren't very smart either. Anyone who "thinks" biologically is automatically diminshed in their higher brain functions.

And if you call me a 'dumbass' again, you'll cause me to UNLEASH THE FUCKING FURY.

>>5799900
It's funny that as we stride away from the traditional system, birth rates plummet and families collapse or get in such a bad shape - even supporters of the causes are concerned.

There is no free lunch.

Self perpetuating cycle.

>historically, women kept out of technical fields except in menial positions
>as a result, fields were filled with men
>women find the environment hostile because oversaturated with men
>few women enter workforce in field
>repeat

cool

>>5808267
>Apologist Bullshit

but OP, I am

One girl I know dropped out because she didn't want to be a code monkey.

>>5808172
stfu you pedanitc dumbass. go take your squabling bicker elsewhere
>back to /b/ faggot

>>5799735
The female brain is smaller than the male brain and is wired predominantly for social skills.

>>5809871
wrong

>>5809881
Err, nope:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#Modern_humans

>>5809870
> it hurts because it's true

there's no point in making incentives to get women to study a dying field of derivative pop science

>>5799754
I hope one of those assholes got fired for that

>>5800262
based

>>5800316
>algebra
>in college
what shit uni do you attend

This is why
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY_CidIS8YM

>>5809967
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_theory_(mathematics)

They give out PhD's for work in "algebra". Granted, most people call it abstract or modern algebra to differentiate it from elementary algebra.

Just like how topology is a part of geometry, but is far removed from anything your typical school child does.

>>5809972
"College algebra" generally means elementary algebra, though.

>>5809972
Recently I watched a TED talk with Adam Savage (from mythbusters). He referred to the "topology" of a figurine.. or was that a skeleton? Made me consider what was the difference between topology and geometry: It's just a matter of complexity isn't it? When we talk of geometry it's usually simple, regular and highly abstract shapes scarcely removed from circles and platonic solids.

>>5809845
same.

>>5799839
>scientist don't have political beliefs
>implying most scientist aren't liberals/socialist/commies in hiding
They want research funding...guess who gives it to them and "shares" public wealth??
Not the conservatives...and certainly not the lolbertarians
>Science
>not paying for the greater good collectively

>lemme integrate the area under your natural curves

>>5809967
anyone that was on a regular track(no ap classes) takes college algebra their first year, its required for all degrees now.

>>5800292
>>5800262
That obvious feminazi samefag.

because womyn dont into science

>>5811585
see
>>5799920
>>5800077

>>5809886
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#Modern_humans
Wow, holy shit. I knew this was true, but I wasn't aware it was that significant...

Male brains are 11.5% larger... that's crazy. Literally, the female brain is only 9/10 the size of the male brain, I'm genuinely shocked right now...

I'll just leave this here

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx

>>5811616
Wait wait wait, don't we generally measure intelligence as a function of brain volume/body volume? Or is total brain volume the important factor?

The really interesting part is the actual distribution within the brain. Women have a higher proportion of grey matter than men, who have a higher proportion of white matter. iirc, the grey matter represents neocortical tissue, and is directly connected to motor control and sensory inputs. White matter on the other hand is more concerned with the internal wiring of the brain.

In other words, females likely experience a more vivid world than men, and possess a greater ability to immediately and efficiently extract subtle patterns from external sensory inputs, whereas men would be better at deep processing and correlating multiple sources of input to extract deeper meanings.

This doesn't make males or females BETTER, but it could explain the lack of women in CompSci.

>>5811634
>iqcomparisonsite.com

>>5811679

>Women have a higher proportion of grey matter than men

It's the other way around actually, men have more grey matter. There are many other gender differences like spatial reasoning and etc.. but i'm not going to go into it. The general idea is that men are smarter all around.

Science, bitches.

>>5811679

>females likely experience a more vivid world than men, and possess a greater ability to immediately and efficiently extract subtle patterns from external sensory inputs, whereas men would be better at deep processing and correlating multiple sources of input to extract deeper meanings.

You've never, ever studied neuroscience, have you? Don't talk about things you don't know about, or leave /sci/ please. We don't need pseudoscience on here.

>>5811686
>When covaried for intracranial volume, height, and weight, the balance of studies indicates women have a higher percentage of gray matter, whereas men have a higher percentage of white matter and cerebrospinal fluid.
Anon, are you trying to say wikipedia might contain some less than factual information? Blasphemy!

And now we shall witness /sci/ try to neuroscience.

>>5811692
>You've never, ever studied neuroscience, have you?
I'm in computational neuroscience, I have no real idea how the squishy stuff works. I'm just trying to work it out with flat logic, so I'm open to corrections if I've said something dumb (as I'm sure I have and constantly do).

IIT: womyn are dumb, men are smart

>>5811679
>Wait wait wait, don't we generally measure intelligence as a function of brain volume/body volume?
How does that make any sense? That's like rating the performance of your CPU based on how big your house is...

>>5811738
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio

>>5811703
Explain this field. Sounds awful fishy to me, studying the brain but not knowing much about the squishy stuff. Are there parts that aren't squishy?

>>5811747
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio
Ok, so some people hypothesize about the connection... cool story bro...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/shitty_arguments

>>5811747
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Crane

Because they arent smart enough
The few women in CS almost all have very mediocre results and they only pass, because they manipulate men into helping them

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8863.pdf

Start reading that shit from page 15 instead of crying, OMG girls have cooties and they are dumb!!!!11!!

>>5809969
why are women so inferior

>>5811789
Biology is far more willing to test on men. So more men get more retards and more geniuses.
In theory the good samples should be the ones to reproduce. In theory.

>>5811751
The field involves abstracting the data processing abilities of the brain in an attempt to discern the underlying algorithm. It works by first assuming secondary characteristics such as physical brain layouts are an artifact of the biology, and are not critical to the fundamental learning algorithms. We are trying to design algorithms capable of performing inference in the same manner as the brain on a theoretical level, not a biological one.

>>5804994
No, because nobody does that.

>>5811835
Average IQ on sci is about 140, we are in the top 0.1%, CS is babby

>>5811784
Interesting concept. The idea makes sense but a lot of assumptions about de moivres doesn't directly apply (many of the assumptions break down, for example only one x-chromosome is expressed)

I'm also in computer science (male) but I definitely enjoy the bioinformatics side of things too...so...I actually wanted to take a quick look at this GWAS study to see if it has any markers on the x-chromosome. Unfortunately, it looks like on this study they the xy-chromosomes were omitted? (see supplementary material figure 1) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/05/29/science.1235488

>>5811864
actually supp figures 5-6

>>5811843
>average IQ on sci is about 140
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahhaha holy shit

>>5809969
This made me so bloody angry.

>>5811923
It seems low only because some of the shitposters drag us down.