/sci/ - Science & Math

Depends on the company and more importantly the HR department.

>>6294324

I'm not a misogynist or anything like that but I will tell you this; In the engineering course i'm doing last year we all had to find a year-long work placement. There was about 150 of us, 35 girls or so. The interviewers came to college to interview and I'm deadly serious when I say about 30 of the girls had been snapped up in the time 5 fellas got a job. The good looking girls were hired almost immediately.

Make of that what you will.

>>6294383
cos it's just temp jobs where they didn't even want from you anything real

Every woman ushered in because of her gender is a more qualified man left out.
Any woman that is actually good enough to compete doesn't need affirmative action.

They're discriminating for equality, which is pretty hypocritical. We should strive for equal rights, but forcing equality for the sake of equality is retarded.

well actually a lot of companies in my country don't like to hire women for a simple reason - they can get pregnant. but on the other hand they can pay them lower salary

Probably not.

Even in "science", women stick to women majors.

The "science" they study are things like Psychology, Sociology, Biomedical Engineering.

With the exception of foreign students, almost no women study things like electrical engineering.

>>6294383
>35 of 150 students are women

holy shit, what kind of engineering are you studying? home economics engineering?

>>6294396

Only 2 of them are in EE with me, the vast majority are in Biomedical and Chem.

> have an interview for PhD funding in the next couple of weeks
> look at past winners
> 70% women
> funding source state that they aim to increase career progression opportunities for women

Well, I guess that's that. Doesn't help that all of the few men that got this came from Oxbridge.

>>6294388
This. for one year, the firm doesn't really expect to get much out of it. It makes them look good by hiring a woman, and there is no potential down side to them. It would even be good for them to hire a woman over a more qualified man.

>parents from middle east
>live in scotland which is more than 96 % white
>best results in my school
>doing very well at uni in engineering
>start seeing tonnes of initiatives aimed at helping women network / get jobs / get academic help
>figures always quote something like "only 20 % of stem students are women" etc

Oh lawd, if women deserve help for being part of the 20 %, how many knighthoods do I deserve for doing well?

> implying less women are in science because less women choose to be in science

I think it's kind of annoying that in biology 80% of the graduate students are women. Is it just that women like biology more, or is there a bias in choosing female students for graduate programs in biology?

There are less women in stem because less women choose to go into stem.

Fuck social engineering bullshit. You can lead a horse to water and all that.

In Canada, if you're a woman, an aboriginal or a (non-white) immigrant, you get a free ride. My sister is getting paid to become a plumber, just for being female. I'd have to pay out of pocket to do the same thing.

The natives get a bunch of easier classes. They did in high school. as well. For example "Biology from an Aboriginal perspective" and "English from an aboriginal perspective". Which are easier classes only for them that count towards even premed requirements. In High School they took "First Nations 12" And "English: First nations 12" instead of the normal english and social studies. Very strange.

>>6294419

I think women do prefer biology. Less maths, less abstract ideas.

>>6294393
>Biomedical Engineering
>"science"
nigga pls

>>6294324
Women are over-represented in STEM management. In some cases it's because they are better at dealing with relationships than male engineers, in others it's because they are promoted into a position where they can make the company look diverse and can't disrupt day to day operations.

>>6294434
>or a (non-white) immigrant, you get a free ride
This is 100% not true.

>>6294448
Oh, you're probably east asian. That counts as white.

>>6294435
>less abstract ideas.

o rly

>>6294457

Yeah. I'd say chemistry and physics were more abstract than something like ecology or psychology.

>>6294465
biology>chemistry>physics
really they are all the same thing, but physics is just the fundamentals

i guess i don't know what you mean by abstract

biology is certainly the most complex of those three

>>6294324
>Do you think that if a company was presented with two equally qualified candidates - one male, one female - that they would choose to hire the woman? If so, could this affect science as a field in the long-term?

Man, I usually say there are no dumb questions....but holy shit this is a dumb ass question.
The whole point is to get women more into science (not more women into science) word placement does one so much justice.
Also, no, they wouldn't hire the woman as much as they would hire the man. It would just be more of a random judgement call....but good thing there is no such thing as equally qualified candidates.

>>6294324
>With the huge focus that STEM recruiters have on getting more women into science, do you think that it leaves hopeful male scientists at a disadvantage?
Males, contrary to popular belief, have always been the disadvantaged gender in the STEM field, for example most uni programmes attempt to admit 50:50 male:female ratios, leading to a larger dropout rate for females who didn't get into the program on merit wasting the place of males who could've potentially graduated.

>Do you think that if a company was presented with two equally qualified candidates - one male, one female - that they would choose to hire the woman?
Most good companies are profit minded and hire based on merit above anything else, other than that males above females because they don't lose money due to maternity leave etc. (Personally I consider this fair because I don't believe in private companies being forced to pay for an employee to do nothing; the laws and double standards should be changed before this "discrimination" can be fixed).

> If so, could this affect science as a field in the long-term?
Not significantly more than bureaucracy and nepotism is already affecting the field.

>>6294477

Oh, what I meant by abstract was that in chemistry and physics there are a lot of formulae and terms that represent something that can't be seen. In contrast, in some parts of biology, the deal is with tangible things, like 'how do I help this cow be happy?' etc.

>>6294522
>I don't believe in private companies being forced to pay for an employee to do nothing
At least let them keep their job, no?

>>6294523
that's behaviourism, which is a branch of psychology
not really biology (at least until/if/when neuroscience closes the gap)

speaking of things which can be seen, you might enjoy this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFCvkkDSfIU

>>6294389
>They're discriminating for equality

You mean equity, things sure as shit aren't trying to be equal.

>>6294477
Have you seriously never picked up a dictionary to look up "abstract"...

...are you 12?

>>6294542
your question assumes not only that the person using the word has read the same dictionary as you, but that they are using it in the same context you are

as it turned out, he thinks biology is about making cows happy

>>6294525
Yes, agree 100%, but being forced to pay for people -who often abuse the system- to raise their kids? A private company should not have to bear social responsibilities that aren't directly related to their operational impact on the environment/social sphere. Plus the earth is starting to become overpopulated.

>>6294555
>that aren't directly related to their operational impact

yeah good luck determining that in a universe where literally everything is connected

>>6294550

> implying it isn't

Bet you've never even made a cow smile you heartless fuck.

>>6294550
All right then, let me rephrase my post:

Do you even read?

>>6294557
are you a woman?

>>6294550

What are you even talking about? I don't think biology is about making cows happy. Instead of using 'more abstract' next time I'll just use 'less tangible'. Maybe that'll make things less confusing.

>>6294564

but seriously, how is physics less tangible than biology?

Why does Bio medical engineering get hate here? What makes it less worthy than other engineering work?

>>6294567

depends on what specific fields are being discussed I guess. neuroscience is pretty abstract. i think the guy was talking about stuff like ecology and meteorology, which isn't really biology.

>>6294556
Any direct casual effect resulting from all company operations.

That was easy, you can cite the butterfly effect until you blame Syria on DuPont, but if you try to contain your autism for a second you'll realize it's a lot simpler.

>>6294570
only if you simplify it to fit your agenda

>>6294560

If I was I wouldn't be on here.

I'd be too busy replying to job offers.

>>6294568
>What makes it less worthy than other engineering work?

It not being real engineering. (most programmes aren't accredited yet, it's core theory courses are watered down as well).

I'm tempted to say we have advance to the point where we don't necessarily need the "best" individuals to do most jobs since machines can offload a decent amount of the heavy work in most fields.

I personally see this more as a side effect to automation than equal rights.

>>6294572
Fuck yeah.

>>6294577
You're not a Scientist and you sure as hell aren't an engineer...or you retired 20 years ago.

>>6294324
>do you think that it leaves hopeful male scientists at a disadvantage?
Tons of people somehow think that progressive action flips the scales. "We've only been hiring white people? Better only hire black people from now on!" "Too many men? No more boys allowed!"

In reality its meant to counteract the tendency to hire only white guys by providing a small incentive to hire other people. Even with these incentives there remains a disproportionate amount of white guys in pretty much every position that pays well or has prestige.

If you're having problems finding a job you shouldn't blame it on progressive action unless the company you want to work for is 80% black women.

It's the impossible triangle.

>>6294439
What part is not a science?
Biology, medicine or the engineer part?

>>6294668
>That men and women have different abilities and interest is given by nature
Really? Women just naturally like the colour pink? Women just naturally like make-up and shoes? It's in their genes?

Interests are taught, and abilities (besides slight physical differences) are taught as well. Nobody naturally knows how to change motor oil, so why is it that it's primarily men who do it? Because these things are taught to people at a young age. If less people were taught "girls and boys are naturally different" then people wouldn't hold that inaccurate belief.

>>6294668
You joke about it, but there are people who seriously consider this a good argument against feminism

>>6294648
This

>>6294688
wasn;t there some study the other week that proved that girls innately like pink?

(i dunno why anyone would be surprised by this, they have babies and periods and stuff - not saying that's why but like, they are pretty fucking different to us)

>>6294693
dude, blue is for girls, everyone knows this

>>6294677

They're not being serious. It's like PC elitists looking down on console gamers.

>>6294688
>slight physical differences
That's when you lost the argument.

>If less people were taught "girls and boys are naturally different"
Girls and boys aren't naturally different. Just look at them: they're completely indistinguishable from one another.

>>6294700
Biology is not a science.

>>6294688

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/why-do-boys-and-girls-prefer-different-toys

Sorry to burst your bubble, but current research shows that interests are inherent to your sex.

>>6294690
I'm not joking.

>>6294711
Then go back to SRS, they don't like evolution there either.

oh my fucking god i do NOT want to watch a bunch of assholes play pubmed citation war

>>6294688
HURRR DURRR NOTHING IS GENETIC WE ALL BORN EXACTLY EQUAL

>abilities (besides slight physical differences) are taught as well.
Try teaching a clinical retard parabolic calculus and then say this bullshit again.

>>6294704

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Biology
http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/biology
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/biology
http://www.ntnu.edu/biology/what_is_biology
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/biology
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/defining-the-science-of-biology.html

lol ur turn

>>6294702
>That's when you lost the argument.
If you look at Olympic athletes, the men perform slightly better than women. This just means the maximal physical performance of men is capped off slightly higher than women, but there's no reason a woman can't be expected to perform basic physical tasks men can. Also, that's only for physical tasks.

>they're completely indistinguishable from one another
That would mean they look the same.

>>6294708
>psychologytoday.com/blog
Seriously?

>>6294700
>They're not being serious.

Oh, you have not been on /sci/ that long have you m8?

>>6294722
>Try teaching a clinical retard parabolic calculus
What does that even mean? Are you trying to say all women are clinically retarded?

>>6294711
loled

>>6294730

No...

>>6294324
>hopeful male scientists

hopeful in/at what

>>6294742

getting careers

>>6294731
No, in case you haven't noticed (probably haven't because you're a beta male/female who's never had sex), genders have significant physiological differences, more the point -in case you forgot your high-school biology class- different hormonal patterns, which lead to different behaviours.

People like you who think everything physiological can be changed by willpower and 'thinking' are the reason people with depression don't take pills and cancer patients try to wish their disease away.

fuck you, fuck your shit, your a fucking murderer you cunt


That is not to say women can't become brilliant engineers and mathematicians, most of them can.

>>6294748
Suppressing urges is not the same as curing cancer

>>6294723
http://www.sciepub.com/journal/jbms
>Journal of Business and Management Sciences

Your move

>>6294324
Yup, women are the single most privileged group of people in America. It's ridiculous just how much special treatment they get in every level of society and law.

>>6294738
t t-they're being s serious...

>>6294748
>fuck you, fuck your shit, your a fucking murderer you cunt
Were you the head of your debate club?

>>6294726
>If you look at Olympic athletes, the men perform slightly better than women.
Do you even watch sports? Do you realize why the genders are segregated in the first place? At one point in time retarded egalitarians like you believed women would actually catch up to men. And if you simply looked at the available data that wouldn't have been an ignorant belief at all. If you had extrapolated some of the world record progression rates you might have even concluded that women had the advantage in some disciplines. Then the communist bloc collapsed. Suddenly, progress halted. Many female track and field records haven't been broken since. Can you figure this one out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_100_metres_world_record_progression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres_hurdles

>That would mean they look the same.
If two people look different they are genetically different. It's not very controversial to think that they are in some function different as well, especially when it comes to practical physical differences such as height, weight or even the shapes of ears and noses. It's not all that complicated to figure out.

>>6294746

what about getting gifs

>>6294752

Could also be a science, I guess. Depends how you define science. See what you mean, though. I think if you asked anyone what subjects are science they'd all say biology, chemistry and physics.

>>6294713
>ignoring some guy linking satoshi fucking kanazawa's blog is unscientific
yeah that's pretty much the opposite of what's true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa

>>6294324

Women dominate all the less math subjects (biology, biochem, etc) and there are a fair amount on the more math subjects too (exclude electrical/mechanical engineering), so there undergrad representation isn't actually that bad now (almost all of these women are foreigner or not white americans). White American women dread these fields. However, they are much less represented at the graduate level in these fields.

Having a bunch of woman in your engineering firm is pretty much necessary to not look like some autistic shit hole who only hires white and asian guys.

>>6294766
"indistinguishable": (adjective) not able to be identified as different or distinct.

The wrong word was used. That's what I was pointing out.

>If two people look different they are genetically different
Everyone looks different and everyone is genetically unique (except identical twins). How does that argument suggest men would perform better than women in STEM fields?

>>6294776
I know who Kanazawa is faggot. He's eccentric and seems to try to be controversial to gather notoriety, but plenty of the supposedly controversial claims he's made in the past were actually perfectly valid. It's perfectly possible that black women are found less attractive because of testosterone. Personally I believe most of their shortcomings are due to lower intelligence and higher rates of time-preference, but that's just me.

>>6294766
It's like you're implying Western athletes aren't ALL on gear, the only differences is the West has much more advanced PEDs that are mostly undetectable, you just need to look at the UKs recent miracles to know they've got something new recently that's very good. Not to mention every athlete out there has roided at least once during their training, as a recent study shows the advantages last a lifetime, and it's theoretically impossible to detect that.

Anyway performance and body composition isn't purely hormonal, a women can go on HRT from very young and surpass most normal males, but she still would never catch up with the genetically elite males.

It's simply ridiculous how underestimated our genetic limits are nowadays, especially with regards to how many X chromosomes you carry.

>>6294771
>Depends how you define science.

Not anything taught in a biology undergrad course which is the point.

>I think if you asked anyone what subjects are science they'd all say biology, chemistry and physics.

People are stupid, this is /sci/, we are better than those people.

>>6294786
look i really don't believe for a second that you're qualified to assess the validity of controversial claims especially in an ex post facto field like evolutionary history where any one paper is practically guaranteed to be hypothesis fishing. that's why you can say goofy shit like "personally i believe"

>>6294788
>It's like you're implying Western athletes aren't ALL on gear
I'd say those from communist countries were on more gear more often. Additionally, this meant Western nations had significantly more incentive to put their athletes on gear as well. If you look through the records (more so for track and field events that primarily require some form of strength) plenty of 70s and 80s records are from American athletes as well.

>>6294802
i mean "personally i believe" you're shit since you're predisposed to accept racism and sexism-supporting hypotheses without a consensus

>>6294693
Not proven so far, but chinese women in china also prefer red hued colors.

Hurlbert AC, Ling Y. Biological components of sex differences in color preference. Current Biology 2007, 17(16), R623-R625.

He, Wei, et al. "Could sex difference in color preference and its personality correlates fit into social theories? Let Chinese university students tell you." Personality and Individual Differences 51.2 (2011): 154-159.

>>6294802
I honestly don't know what you're point is. Are you in the field? Why are you trying to contest Kanazawa? Even if he were wrong on all accounts, inequalities between people of different races, ages, and genders would not disappear.

>>6294782
1000 years ago we didn't need genetic science and advanced medicine to see that healthy (in the sense of average genetics plus average quality of environment) men are stronger than healthy women.

It's obvious today that men are more suited to mathematical and abstract fields than women, it's not proven and we do not have a perfect mechanism that is derived from fundamental science, but we know it's true.

A lack of progress in neuroscience does not mean that we can force the assumption that healthy humans of both genders has the exact same genetic potentials for every field, maybe we will be surprised to learn this is true, I personally doubt it.

We as a society, that supposedly attempts to propagate the freedom of individuals, should stop trying to force ill-considered social engineering concocted by a vitriolic minority on everyone.

A women should be allowed to try and become a powerlifter if she wants. She should not be bombarded with propaganda telling her to do so to become "empowered" or be forced to take a males spot in uni-gender lifting competitions so the minority can pat themselves on their back for this magnificent feat of "equity".

Fucking hell /sci/ is full of hypocrisy
>eugenics is completely fine
>What do you mean help women

>>6294817
my point is that dudes linking random citations back and forth and rattling off their feelings about the conclusions section in two hundred words or less doesn't corroborate anything and that no one should mistakenly believe to have learned something about evolutionary history or psychology from this thread

>>6294820
>artificially elevating women to undeserved positions
>creating and fostering an environment which is hostile to childbirth
If anything such a policy is dysgenic.

>>6294803
>I'd say those from communist countries were on more gear more often.

Yeah, the commies would juice their athletes with tons of the cheap and basic stuff that's really easy to test for today, it worked incredibly well although it's too easy to detect noways and there's much more long term sides. With the moderns stuff you can get away with using PEDs that are undetectable, safer and still give a huge performance boost. It's a tech race and the West is lightyears ahead.

Modern doping has become so much more complicated, it's almost sad to me how women (women benefit much more from certain PEDs than their male counterparts) berate themselves when they look at athletes on the screen and think they can achieve that naturally. Most of professional sports is bullshit, we are not genetically capable of doing any of that without PEDs.

Also cycling has been the cleanest sport since 2000s; that's how much other athletes dope, and they get away with it because their regulations are still in the 20th century, but that's what happens when there's money on the table.

>>6294818
>1000 years ago
Nothing done 1000 years ago can apply today.

>It's obvious today that men are more suited to mathematical and abstract fields than women
[Citation Nee-oh wait nevermind...
>it's not proven

>the assumption that healthy humans of both genders has the exact same genetic potentials for every field
Let's force women to prove that they have the genetic right to be in STEM fields.

>ill-considered social engineering concocted by a vitriolic minority
>>>/pol/

>She should not be bombarded with propaganda telling her to do so to become "empowered"
Definitely not. Women shouldn't be pressured into doing stereotypical things men do in the name of equality. That doesn't mean equality is bad.

>>6294324
Do you realize how shitty and homophobic science is as a career?

Besides the terrible career paths, I don't think I met more than 2 other people in science who were openly gay in the course of 10 years in it.

Fuck science, I'm delighted I left. Especially if you're gay, DON'T GO INTO SCIENCE.

>>6294820
It's a wonderful place isn't it?

>>6294841
im openly homogay in a csphd program

people in cs are way more conservative than they even realize though
>hey let's research drone control software it'll be used for like, rescuing people from burning buildings and shit
>this is what control theorists actually beli--no actually they believe war is like starcraft 2

>>6294324
>women in science
lol

>>6294841
You're complaining because there weren't enough openly gay people in your field, and you believe that makes your field afraid of homosexuals? Is this real life?

>>6294849
what's also funny is the idea that there aren't like, a lot of religiously conservative people in science
>it's all carl sagan atheists and shit
lol

>>6294793

How can you define science without including any aspect of biology? So physical science is the only science, and life science is not real science? Is it because physical sciences deal with using maths to understand and predict things?

>>6294837
>Nothing done 1000 years ago can apply today.

This is honestly one of the most ignorant statement I've ever read on 4chan, 1000 years ago some duke decided to fuck a German peasant girl instead of his wife and the impact can still be found today by those who study history. Anyways not that it's even relevant to the core argument, attacking tangents and analogies boils down to "no YOU'RE stupid" tier arguments.

>Let's force individuals to do something that will make us feel better about ourselves even if it's not what they want
What gives you the right?
>they have the genetic right to be in STEM fields.
Since when have they not had the right?
Also I've never, ever seen a women be discouraged from entering STEM fields, just as well if an intelligent girl tells me she wants to do liberal arts because it's more feminine I'm not going to grab her and scream YOU HAVE TO DO STEM OR YOU ARE GIVING IN TO THE EVIL PATRIARCHY STEM IS MORE SEXY.
In fact I do find women in liberal arts to be more feminine and thus sexy than the girls in my engineering class, I'm not going to apologize for that because I consider it natural and I'm sure as hell not going to lie to a girl and tell her I'm attracted to STRONK, SMART WOMENz when I'm just not regardless if their actually better than me or not.
I'm not going to force anyone to do shit they don't want to, if an individual is to improve it has to be his/her choice.

Stop referencing /pol/ as if the board has one single hivemind sentiment on everything, I don't frequent it but I doubt that can be the case with such a large population.

>That doesn't mean equality is bad.
yeah, and for the most part we already have that, modern liberals try to force stupid easy hotfixes on complicated systems we could never hope to understands and it is creating more problems than it fixes.

More women in STEM is objectively good for society, but the current approach to accomplishing that goal is retarded and borderline unconstitutional.

>>6294841
The world is much more homophobic than the media makes us believe it is. Probably due to the fact that we all have innate homo tendencies. The gayer you are the stronger you'll argue against this statement.

>>6294841
Considering that gays make up less than 3% of the population, that's not too bad.

Get into nursing, it's teeming with gays.

>>6294879
It's about rigour and [I fucking hate this word but here it goes] methodology.

Stop being offended by what /sci/ and a bunch of aspies in the Physics department thinks, Science isn't some holy or legal term that should be protected like medicine or (professional) engineering, unless you're too insecure you an call yourself a scientist if you want an the world won't come to an end. A lot of fields that were arts years ago now consider themselves science even though there was almost no actual change in how research is done in the discipline.

>>6294841
>Hey guys! Let's choose our career paths based on how tolerant it is towards homos!

You're the attention whoring kind of gayfag aren't you?

>>6294904

Oh okay. I wasn't offended, I just didn't understand. Thanks for clearing things up.

>>6294837
>It's obvious today that men are more suited to mathematical and abstract fields than women

Yes it is. The data from SMPY are particular enlightening. Read some of the SMPY studies.

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/publications/david-lubinski/

e.g.
Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11, 474-480.