/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6200495

Why the mods erased the last thread? The discussion was polite and informative: they are exagerating.

>>6200495
that aint a new study, it's been known for years that men and women think differently. this just expands on that.

>So now that science has confirmed women are behind all the "social construct" and "due to environment" madness that is enveloping every scientific field....
wow. so you draw that conclusion from this??

fuck off and take your fedora with you, cunt.

Yeah, this is such cutting edge research, if we were still back in the 1920's.

>>6200504
>pretending fedoras have to do with critiquing females instead of being atheist
why is srs on /sci/?

>>6200513
it applies to mysogynist twats as well as militant atheist shitheads.

meme more, faggot

>>6200520
sure thing "male feminist," go back to where you came from.

>>6200495
It's just general tendency, not absolute rule.

Individuals still shouldn't bend their nature to fit statistic.

The best policy should be to allow each individual to perform on their own merit and quality. Obviously, it will result in certain activity being more occupied by men rather than women and vice-versa but society shouldn't flip an eyelid when someone doesn't fit the main tendency.

>>6200523
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminist
>a person who advocates equal rights for women

so are you not a feminist then? you think men should have more rights?

anyone who isnt a sexist douchebag would call themselves a feminist if they ACTUALLY KNEW THE PROPER FUCKING DEFINITION!

>>6200538
>It's just general tendency, not absolute rule.
this is common sense, the people that this study upsets are people who do not use common sense
>Individuals still shouldn't bend their nature to fit statistic.
groups should not bend society to their religion (egalitarianism)
>The best policy should be to allow each individual to perform on their own merit and quality. Obviously, it will result in certain activity being more occupied by men rather than women and vice-versa but society shouldn't flip an eyelid when someone doesn't fit the main tendency.
agreed, this is what everyone who is happy about this study feels. this is why we must push it in the face of those who disagree.

>>6200538
That's the problem, though. The dogm goes
>all races are equal
>both genders are equal
and it is viewed as a problem when genetics and the physiology of the human body has an effect on society

>>6200540
>groups should not bend society to their religion (egalitarianism)
Egalitarianism is about giving equal opportunity to everyone, so that they can succeed on their own merit. there is nothing wrong with that ideology.

>>6200544
>Egalitarianism is about giving equal opportunity to everyone, so that they can succeed on their own merit. there is nothing wrong with that ideology.
no it isnt, egalitarianism is the idea that everyone is equal and that inequality stems from social injustices and thus they should be corrected through public programs masquerading as "equal opportunity"

if my neighbor is successful and passes his earnings off to his offspring, that doesnt make me less opportune.

>>6200543
>The dogm goes
This is not the dogm.
the dogm is, on an individual level, Race and gender doesn't matter.

There is objectively a to widespread set of characteristics in a race or gender to obtain pertinent information to evaluate a single individual.

You'd get as pertinent result if you were attempting to categorize people by their height.

Geographical stats (place of birth, place of living, place were one were risen) provide much more pertinent stats with much less deviations. and they can actually be usable to take some specific measures.

>>6200543

My concern has nothing to do directly with genetics, but it is rather that people will be systematically defined and judged by their race and gender, because most laypeople have have an abysmal understanding of genetics.

The issue isn't so much the truth of the matter but how the truth so so very easily incorrectly understood, unintentionally and otherwise.

We as a society have to come to terms with the fact that there are some truths that affect all of us, yet we as a species are unfortunately generally not intelligent and sociable enough to understand and apply properly.

>>6200551

>no it isnt, egalitarianism is the idea that everyone is equal and that inequality stems from social injustices and thus they should be corrected through public programs masquerading as "equal opportunity"

In practice that may be the case. Humans are not perfectly rational computers. Wwe assume perfect equality because we often find ourselves abusing knowledge of potential inequality otherwise.

It is illusioning ourselves for the purpose of ensuring a level playing field and therefore a more meritocratic society.

>>6200551
>egalitarianism is the idea that everyone is equal and that inequality stems from social injustices
No, it isn't. This is how people trying to detract the ideology try to represent it, but what it is actually about is giving equal chance, and not let general tendencies dwarf potential.

>>6200554
>the dogm is, on an individual level, Race and gender doesn't matter.
That's not really coherent. Because if you assume that, then it follows that the statistics will follow suit. Hence the current political climate, where gender/ethnic differences in intelligence, salary, crime etc. are assumed to be due to "social injustices", and requiring us to strive for an "equality of outcome" society. Which should be obvious is pretty unrealistic...

>>6200563
yes it is

>>6200574
Missing the point a bit.

The idea, here is "accept what can't be changed and focus on what can be modified".


Societal disparities come from both genetic and social injustice. Ignoring one is just as retarded as the other. But modifying gene isn't possible (yet), social rules and assumptions, on the other hand, can be challenged.

It only make sense to work on what can be worked out. You don't seriously think that the current social disparity is solely due to genetic, do you?

>>6200579
>Being given equal rights and opportunities.
This is exactly what I said.
People must be equal in the sense than each must be given the same chance and opportunity so that their success is based on their own merit.

You just proved me right.

>>6200597
>People must be equal in the sense than each must be given the same chance and opportunity so that their success is based on their own merit.

epic troll m8

Don't you see?

Science has only proved that women are capable of paying attention to many things, and doing well with all of them, while men can barely maintain focus on one simple thing.

It is the frustration of their inferior minds which has led them historically to lash out and conspire to dominate the superior but enlightenedly non-violent women, who have only recently chosen to rise up and put men in their place.

>>6200601
There is no trolling.

Being given equal opportunities is something each society should aim for.

Allow people to become the best they can become in the respect of each other.

>>6200607
>There is no trolling.
yea there is, you acted as if the definition didnt explicitly state that egalitarianism means everyone is equal, and instead pretended it means "everyone must be equal"

go jump off a bridge you disingenuous piece of garbage
>Being given equal opportunities is something each society should aim for.
cool emotional opinion faggot, learn 2 logistics and resources
>Allow people to become the best they can become in the respect of each other.
no ones stopping them, everyone has the same rules.

>>6200495
>"due to environment"
Who said anything about causes here? 'In the brain' isn't the same thing as 'genetic'.

Just pointing that out the difference there.

Anyway, of course there are genetic predispositions to functional differentiation in brain function, we've know that for decades.

>madness that is enveloping every scientific field
Please go away.

>>6200611
>and instead pretended it means "everyone must be equal"
No, I said, everyone must be GIVEN the same opportunity.
>cool emotional opinion faggot, learn 2 logistics and resources
It's not emotional. A society is composed of individual and is made of what they make of it. It's rational that each individual would desire a society that give them the best chance of success and work it out under fair competition.
>no ones stopping them, everyone has the same rules.
Pragmatically no. Tough, personally, I do not consider the greatest divider nowadays is either Race or Gender, but Income. People give in wealthy families will have access to better infrastructures and educations, having a greater chance to fulfil their potentials. Denying this is deluding yourself.

ITT: OP is /pol/ shitposting.

Not that there's anything wrong with the study, gender-related differences in brain structure have been known to exist for a very long time. However, the fact that he misinterprets the results as having any bearings on individual people, or on the causes behind the findings, means he's either fucking retarded (i.e. from /pol/) or purposefully trolling (with /pol/-like stupidity).

Now please go back to where you came from and let the /sci/entists deal with the science. Or stick around lurking, and learn something while you're here.

>>6200513
do you really think the whole fedora thing is about atheism? how new are you

>>6200656
>Now please go back to where you came from and let the /sci/entists deal with the science.
by science you mean pseudo-science and atheism circle jerks while all the threads discussing actual science get deleted because it hurts feelings (such as how you hate this thread because it hurts yours)?

>>6200676
>Vaccines
>Debunked
this isnt /x/

>>6200676
>because it hurts feelings
No one's feelings are hurt, you're just being a retard my misinterpreting scientific findings.