/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7248335
>Drillers of earth
That's an epic job title tbh

There aren't nearly enough women in Drilling of Earth, IMO.

The job where men and women are most equally represented is computer and peripheral equipment operators. Makes sense. Literally everyone uses computers nowadays

>>7248350
Does that basically just mean typing?

If so that's a very roundaboud way of saying 'typist'..

It's not like women are held back from pursuing them. Women are the ones who choose to not go for these type of majors because they prefer doing something else, or they drop out when they realize that the major is too hard for them. This isn't the 50s or 60s where they weren't hired because of their gender and race. We live in the year 2015 where being a bigot is publicly shamed and such.

>>7248335
Why DONT we have more women in STEM though?

For example, for something like coding, you can either do it or you can't, and I can't really imagine any staffer I know saying "well she can do the job, but she's a woman, so I'll pick this guy instead". I'm not convinced it's some institutional sexism, it could be that women just don't like coding

>>7248416
Why don't they like coding then?
Could it be that we impose arbitrary norms and ideas on people based on their gender and this in turns affects career choices later in life?

>>7248430

No.

>>7248416
the female brain has difficulties focusing and streamlining processes. the female brain is like a highly diversified multicore processor where the male brain is pipelined.

imagine you are trying to code, and instead of coding one module at a time, you try to code 5 different parts at the same time. CS is math heavy and women are turned off by math and logic

>>7248430
Maybe men and women have genetically different brains, and hence the majority of women don't prefer the same activities the majority of men do.

>>7248441
Well I'm a woman going into engineering and I love math and logic. It's not an absolute

>>7248451
Muh anecdote.

>>7248438
Doesn't take away from the fact that women NOT going for STEM is on women alone

>>7248445
Doesn't hurt to recognize that there might be structural reasons and not just biological though no?
Perhaps attempting to dismantle these hypothesized structures through awareness and discussion ends up being beneficial to everybody. I mean, either it works and we end up helping women overcome "social barriers" and everybody wins because we'll be able to reap the would-be elite STEM people from the pool of women too, or the structures don't exist and the differences in preference is entirely biological and nothing changes

Researching it would be beneficial either way

>>7248430
so many things influence career choices later in life
we need to stop looking at this like it is ideal and disconnected from real world boundaries

>I mean, either it works and we end up helping women overcome "social barriers"
isn't that already a goal rather than a question?

>everybody wins
either unattractive tasks are no longer completed or, people will now have to do the unattractive tasks that otherwise wouldn't

>>7248477

>>7248466

>>7248452
Muh generalized statistics.

>>7248451
more girls love math and logic than many believe

it's more about being "mathy" so to say

>>7248479
Is there any other kind of statistics?

>>7248477
>so many things influence career choices later in life
Of course, the result is obvious though, women don't go for stem and that's an interesting pattern that we don't entirely understand
It's easy to say "oh but it's because <x> (and <x> just happens to coincide with my opinions about that particular group of people)" but we don't actually know. Saying "because women don't want to" is just identifying the pattern, it offers no explanation at all

>isn't that already a goal rather than a question?
It's a proposed outcome from dealing with a proposed reason to the pattern, nothing else

>either unattractive tasks are no longer completed or, people will now have to do the unattractive tasks that otherwise wouldn't
Not sure what you're talking about, what unattractive tasks?
I'll just state that I'm not at all for pushing women (or anyone) into stem (or anywhere) against their will, I'm just interested in researching where the will comes from

>>7248477
>boundaries
boundaries exists for a reason. losers call them boundaries, winner call them trials. no one is tearing boundaries down and making things easier because its important for an individual to overcome them.

if women wants to play, they can play, but these are the rules.

>>7248451
He doesn't mean literally every single one without exception. He means on average. If the split is 60:40 there's still a very substantial difference.

There's objectively nothing stopping a woman from getting into anything computer related exclusively for being a woman, mainly because the computer doesn't care. Math doesn't really care either. You press buttons or play with numbers and things happen. So you either do it or you don't.

If you really think about it, women are kind of more likely to get into jobs where social structures and social issues matter, and men are kind of more likely to end up taking jobs with little to no interaction where things like race/sex mean almost nothing. There's nothing really wrong with that. It's just what people prefer. There's nothing stopping someone from going to the other side, but it's still ironic that the argument is made in probably the worst possible fields. Your race/sex matter more when you're dealing with tech stuff than they do when you're interacting directly with dozens of customers a day? Really...? I think if we swapped the situation around people would be saying women don't get into social fields because they're afraid of being judged by their employers or customers as not good enough for their race/sex, even if they just aren't interested. At least that would have some basis in reality, as some people are actually legitimately cunts every once in a while and will be that petty.

Granted, I'm not saying no group of dorks has ever talked shit about a girl, but I'm saying even if people are occasionally rude for one reason or another, which happens everywhere in every field all of the time, it isn't enough to actually stop people from becoming what they want to become in a field where it is almost irrelevant.

>>7248499
>no one is tearing boundaries down
you would be mistaken friend
http://nypost.com/2014/12/11/fdny-drops-physical-test-requirement-amid-low-female-hiring-rate/

>>7248499
well if someone is less suited then it doesn't make much sense if he struggles all his life without much success when he could've done something productive that he is fit in that time.

>>7248497
>It's a proposed outcome from dealing with a proposed reason to the pattern, nothing else
sounds reasonable. often it is expected that the women do overcome the "barriers" though, even if they do not benefit from it and don't really want to. in that case it's not really about research but modeling society.

>>7248507
>well if someone is less suited then it doesn't make much sense if he struggles all his life without much success when he could've done something productive that he is fit in that time.

if someone is happy to struggle then thats their choice. and its a sad fact of life that just because you try your hardest doesnt mean you will succeed

>>7248515
sure one should definitely have the freedom to do so. but it may not be beneficial to society so when it's not encouraged that's just the lack of passion others have for your goals

>>7248519
>but it may not be beneficial to society

our economy grows every year just fine without few extra women. i'm sure if you do the math, educating more women will eventually pay off in 100 years, but no one footing the bill is gonna wait 100 years.

Quick reminder that economic and social freedom in a country correlates with 'traditional' stereotyped careers for genders which is the exact opposite of what you'd expect if you thought these roles were the result of oppression/imposition.

>>7248451
Definitely not, but it could be interesting to explore it as a tendency

>>7248416
>and I can't really imagine any staffer I know saying "well she can do the job, but she's a woman, so I'll pick this guy instead"

Not to mention that the majority of HR people I've met seem to be women as well (and even less likely to discriminate against women).

HR being female-dominated is an interesting situation in itself, actually. I can't really figure out why it's the case

I'm a female studying astrophysics. I might get into weapon making one day.

>>7248587
>HR being female-dominated is an interesting situation in itself, actually. I can't really figure out why it's the case
It's because it involves dealing with people next question.

>>7248592
Most jobs involve dealing with people.

Except freelance basement coding, that is.

>>7248589

You sound like a ginger.

>>7248597
I'm blonde

>>7248589
A guy in my company did astrophysics and now he's a data scientist.

Why do none of you people go into the space sector?

>>7248595
Yes but you're being purposefully whatever that word is where you ignore what someone is saying and respond to merely a dictionary translation of the words they've used; you know what I was saying and you know it's true, you're feigning ignorance and you should stop it right now.

>>7248610
Okay, chief

Startups don't like to hire women because

1) Increased chance of sexual harassment lawsuit
2) Presence of woman changes team dynamic among men from cooperative to competitive -- every guy is trying to show off for the girl
3) The women might "oops" and get pregant within a few years, creating thousands of dollars in turnover costs

>>7248595
First of all, >>7248610

But also, there is a difference. In social jobs, your primary purpose is to listen to and deal with people. In tech jobs, you might speak to a person to get your assignment, but then you spend the majority of your work doing a project with a machine (or other non-human, inanimate things). You may cooperate with people while using that, but that communication is for the purpose of manipulating the machine in a better way rather than communication which helps to better establish the needs or desirability of the people themselves as humans.

It has to do with the point of focus. It's not literally about anything that has to do with saying words. HR is about managing people and tech is about managing tech. Look at the list in the OP. All of the upper positions are focused on people and all of the lower positions are focused on non-human objects. There's no way you can pretend this correlation just totally isn't a thing or it's just a coincidence or whatever. It's so consistent, covers almost everything and stays that way across countries and cultures. It's just a fact that, for one reason or another, women end up in more social jobs given the choice and the opposite for men.

We need more men in Education, it seems.

>>7248662
Why so they can rape the chilluns?

>>7248636
>Presence of woman changes team dynamic among men from cooperative to competitive -- every guy is trying to show off for the girl
[citation needed]

>>7248505
The difference being, the "barrier" for most STEM classes is something like:

Pass Calculus
Pass OrgChem

Or the like, and hey, no one claims the barriers need to be taken down when 60% of men couldn't pass calculus either. And I don't mean men who try to go into stem fields. I mean the boilermakers and Janitors and bus drivers. Take a random sampling of 1000 men and 1000 women off the streets, and try to teach them all calculus, what will the success rate be? 30%ish? 20?

There is literally nothing you can do to change the bell curve of intelligence in humans, excepting future prenatal genetic manipulation. The fact that men have a higher percentage of people able to get past the basic hurdles of "Math is hard" describes almost fully why they have a higher graduation rate with STEM degrees.

>>7248684
that's so sexist

>>7248601
because there's already so much research already done and ready data that needs to be put into perspective. data mining is the new astrophysics.

>>7248712
bad english sorry for not caring

>>7248335
as a girl in engineering i think that variation in perspective should be valued and i've met a lot of women who like math and physics but are discouraged in pursuing it. luckily my dad was really supportive plus all the guys in my department are really nice to me and are genuinely great people, i think more girls would be for the best

>>7248701
>The fact that men have a higher percentage of people able to get past the basic hurdles of "Math is hard" describes almost fully why they have a higher graduation rate with STEM degrees.

But do we know that men are inherently better at math? I'm legitimately curious, because posters in this thread are attributing the lack of women in STEM fields to social pressures, which would mean that women who would excel at math don't actually pursue careers that require math. And if the only reason that there are more male engineers is because more men can pass the benchmark classes, wouldn't we see a 50/50 gender split (or close) in engineering schools among incoming freshman, and then watch as more females drop out? Right now there are always more males then females in freshman engineering classes.

>>7248335
Women are fucking retarded and shouldn’t be in STEM fields. They discover nothing and just leech off men at the workplace.

>>7248711
News flash: reality is sexist. And racist. And ageist.

>>7248701
Those barriers are being taken down too. Have you heard of grade inflation? It's a direct consequence of affirmative action and needing to pass people who shouldn't be passing.

>>7248723
No, men are not better at math, on average. That wasn't the point.

Smart people are better at math. And while females have a higher peak when comparing IQs, males have a wider tales on average IQ, which means a higher percentage of males are in the top IQs, which means a higher percentage are better at Math.

>>7248479
Are you actually saying that statistics are less important than personal anecdotes?

Goddamnit, women are fucking retarded.

>>7248587
>majority of HR people I've met seem to be women as well (and even less likely to discriminate against women).

women are more likely to discriminate against women

>>7248775
>women are more likely to discriminate against women
And this is men's fault how then?

I think anyone's capable of doing any job, it's just more difficult for some people but that boils down to personality more than anything. A lot of women don't want to sit in a room for hours trying to solve one problem or grasp one concept. A lot of guys don't either, and it's easy to get discouraged when that's what a lot of STEM degrees entail. At least initially.

>>7248723
yes men are better at math. women, at least in america, are conditioned starting from a very young age to be "bad" at math.

>>7248775
Can you prove that? I'm not challenging your post but I just find it hard to believe. Particularly, the "discriminate against" part. I could understand if men chose women more than they may be qualified for, but not women actively discriminating against other women more.

I think its cultural, there are plenty of chinese, indian, middle eastern, girls interested and pursuing engineering and other STEM degrees. Privileged white girls really don't need to pursue these degrees to have a good life because there parents don't encourage it.

tl;dr - stop using my tax dollars on "muh programs", showing little girls some lego isn't going to make them want to spend 4 years doing calculus and physics.

>>7248793
Well a lot of Asian people period are just smarter or have more financial incentive having a family that game from a shit background. If you could move to Switzerland and get a job as a janitor for $500K/year I bet you'd take it with pride and work your ass off.

>>7248803
came*
sorry.

>>7248791
I remember a study about this. I cant find it right now. google is really bad at parsing the sentences, women discriminating against women in the work place. I have never realized how dumb google is until now

>>7248793
>there are plenty of chinese, indian, middle eastern, girls interested and pursuing engineering and other STEM degrees
still fewer than chinese, indian and middle eastern boys.

>>7248768
IQ tests aren't an absolute indicator of intelligence. I think it'd be very hard to argue that this graph proves that men are more likely to be better at math than women. In addition, where was this IQ data taken? Interestingly enough, it seems math ability between genders is different in many countries.

I'd encourage reading this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/science/24women.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
which looks at a number of different factors that might influence a girl or boy's mathematical development.


>>7248783
That's why I asked if men were inherently better at math, because data seems to suggest that we're not.

>>7248335

>we need more women in STEM

Female statistician here. Do you know how I go about showing that women are "just as good as men!"? I go and and SHOW it. I don't bitch and whine about women being under-represented in these fields. The best way to get equality in the workplace is to show that women are just as good as men, not state it.

>>7248793
>>7248803
Is the ratio of men to women in STEM roughly the same for Asian countries compared to Europe/North America?

>>7248430

>could it be

Yeah, maybe. Could be some other things to. But the way we work in science is that we gather data BEFORE we make conclusions.

>>7248815
>IQ tests aren't an absolute indicator of intelligence
But they do correlate well with the g factor, which is accepted by the academic community as a reliable indicator of general intelligence.

> I think it'd be very hard to argue that this graph proves that men are more likely to be better at math than women
Not really.

Higher IQ = better at maths

>In addition, where was this IQ data taken? Interestingly enough, it seems math ability between genders is different in many countries.
That's not surprising. Some races have different gender dynamics. I recall reading somewhere that black women have higher IQs than black men, for example.

>>7248782
>anyone's capable of doing any job
↑ egalitarian claptrap ↑

>>7248821
>statistician
>good
riiiiiiiight.
why not get a real job in a hard science (physics) or engineering (not environmental or similar tier) then?
I do admire your effort though; respect is earned and not demanded. Competence is proven not told of, etc.

>>7248821
*tip fedora*

m'lady

>>7248838

*tips baseball cap*

m'nigguh

>>7248845

let the men do the fighting sweetheart, why dont you go bake a cake

>>7248826
the make 'conclusions' before collecting data all the time. its called postulating.

>>7248827
>Higher IQ = better at maths

Not necessarily. It seems that IQ is a good indicator of early math ability, but not a very good assessment of how a student's skill at maths will grow.

http://www.businessinsider.com/being-good-at-math-is-not-about-natural-ability-2013-11

>>7248868
>its called postulating
it's called "conjecturing"
Lrn2postulate

>>7248451
> I cant into distributions

>>7248873
Show me a fields medalist with a low IQ.

>>7248880
>only field medalists are good at math

>>7248883
If a high IQ is not necessary to be good at maths, then certainly, according to the laws of statistics, the average IQ of fields medalists must be 100, no?

>>7248889
>n = 50

>>7248892
That should be enough to get an idea.

>>7248441

>women are turned off by math and logic
mathematicians on that graph are almost a 50/50 split either way, only 51.1% male. i don't think thats a good explanation. i might be able to believe the multitasking thing if i saw a citation.

>>7248889
Not even him.
Dude, people with higher IQs probably learn practically everything faster. Doesn't mean you need it for everything ever to be good. Just that it provides a smoother, faster ride and a lot of people quit before they get to the end. It's correlation is what I'm saying, not so much an absolute roadblock where one is just better than the other or more talented because they have a higher IQ. People who are really good at things are also often taller and more confident than the rest of the population even if that shouldn't mean anything whatsoever in their position as far as getting work done goes.

>>7248903
>Dude, people with higher IQs probably learn practically everything faster. Doesn't mean you need it for everything ever to be good. Just that it provides a smoother, faster ride and a lot of people quit before they get to the end. It's correlation is what I'm saying, not so much an absolute roadblock where one is just better than the other or more talented because they have a higher IQ.
If that were the case, out of a sample size of 50 fields medalists, there should be at least one with a mediocre IQ.

>. People who are really good at things are also often taller and more confident than the rest of the population even if that shouldn't mean anything whatsoever in their position as far as getting work done goes.
But you can find plenty of productive and confident manlets. Where are the low IQ mathematicians?

>>7248880
That still doesn't prove that men are inherently better at math than women are, because having a high IQ seems to only get you so far in math.

Research indicates that there are social factors that play into a child's development of mathematical ability, and probably what careers they'll choose. It's in our best interest to try and eliminate these social norms so that we can get the smartest people in the STEM field, because in the end that benefits everyone.

>>7248911
>But you can find plenty of productive and confident manlets. Where are the low IQ mathematicians?

I'm not sure, could you show me a study of the average IQ of mathematicians? I'm curious what the results would be.

>>7248911
It depends on how you define mediocre. But sure, probably. Mediocre relative to the rest, at least.

I'm definitely not saying IQ isn't correlated with ability in math and that math isn't really hard. I'm betting the hardest stuff almost always tends to attract people at the peak of intelligence if finance didn't take them away first. So it really depends on what "mediocre" and other terms like that even mean when dealing with serious challenges.

>>7248914
>That still doesn't prove that men are inherently better at math than women are, because having a high IQ seems to only get you so far in math.
I agree. Being a genius requires a certain creativity that's unmeasurable.

Although to be fair, by judging by historical accomplishments, it wouldn't be bold to assume that men posess more of that creative spark than women.

>Research indicates that there are social factors that play into a child's development of mathematical ability, and probably what careers they'll choose
Research also indicate that male and female babies have already different interests a few days after birth, which seems to point towards a biological origin.

An experiment consisted of showing either a face or a mechanical system to newborns, male and female. The result was that male babies observed the mechanical system for a longer time, while the female babies observed the face for a longer time.

>It's in our best interest to try and eliminate these social norms so that we can get the smartest people in the STEM field, because in the end that benefits everyone.
I agree, but what we're attempting - gender parity - is the exact opposite. Because if women are indeed less capable than men to study STEM, striving for gender parity would penalize more deserving men.

>>7248466
There's the damage you do to the professions in trying to experiment with equal representation.

>>7248589
How are your breasts?

>>7248727
What personal experiences are you drawing that conclusion from? Cause you certainly aren't getting it from generalized studies.

>>7248920
I think it's pretty high dude, like >110 at least.
Keep in mind that social workers average out at 105 and professors at 140 or something.

>>7248920
took me a billion hours in google

http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr10001.pdf

It's an article by Lynn, so take his interpretations with a grain of salt, but he cites his data from another article.

He cites that the average IQ for the mathematics faculty at cambridge is 130.

>>7248923
>It depends on how you define mediocre.
I'd define it as low 90s.

>But sure, probably
Really? Based on what?

>Mediocre relative to the rest, at least.
Mediocre relative to the average.

>>7248943
>Really? Based on what?
Relative to the others. I'm basically just saying a bell curve.

>I'd define it as low 90s.
That's pretty low for something challenging. If the cutoff is that small, then yes, I'd say to be at the top of the food chain you probably have to be smarter than that. Probably. Someone might go and prove that wrong but it would certainly be very unlikely. So I'll give you that.

>>7248926
>Although to be fair, by judging by historical accomplishments, it wouldn't be bold to assume that men posess more of that creative spark than women

Women have faced an enormous stigma against them studying math and science (and anything else) throughout history. It's a little unfair to compare genders when one's been historically oppressed.

> An experiment consisted of showing either a face or a mechanical system to newborns, male and female. The result was that male babies observed the mechanical system for a longer time, while the female babies observed the face for a longer time.

That's really cool! I'll have to look that up.

> I agree, but what we're attempting - gender parity - is the exact opposite. Because if women are indeed less capable than men to study STEM, striving for gender parity would penalize more deserving men.

I agree to an extent. I'm not a fan of gender (or race) quotas for employment or education. However, this becomes really tricky, because diversity helps teams in problem-solving situations. A lot of times this turns into companies giving an advantage to women or minorities applying for jobs. It seems unfair, but there could be very real benefits to hiring a diverse team, so it becomes a pretty complex issue.

>>7248943
Not sure about that article, but you gotta watch how they get the IQ data.

One study, perhaps even that one, used entrance exam scores as correlates to IQ, and then use intended major as reference. It was the dumbest shit I had ever seen, as most students I've seen change what they do after year 1 or two.

>>7248943
Very interesting! That seems to be a small sample size. Regardless, the study finds that biologists and those in the medical field have similar IQ's, and neither field requires high mathematical ability.

That doesn't convince me that IQ tests correlate with inherent mathematical ability.

>>7248956
>Relative to the others. I'm basically just saying a bell curve.
So you think that there are accomplished mathematicians on the left side of the IQ bell curve?

>That's pretty low for something challenging
Why would that be important, if a high IQ is not a requirement for mathematical ability (which is what you're claiming, correct?)

>If the cutoff is that small, then yes, I'd say to be at the top of the food chain you probably have to be smarter than that.
All right.

So do you concede that a high IQ is required to be an accomplished mathematician. That's the first step.

Now, put two and two together by refering to this graph : >>7248768

>>7248960
>Women have faced an enormous stigma against them studying math and science (and anything else) throughout history. It's a little unfair to compare genders when one's been historically oppressed.
Ah, the "oppressed" argument.

Even if it's true, it doesn't explain the current disparity in intellectual accomplishements nowadays between the two genders (spare me the "mysogynistic cultural heritage" bullcrap)

And I'd like to add, that if there's one thing that has never prevented great men from achieving greatness, it's social stigma.

>That's really cool! I'll have to look that up.
I saw that in a norwegian documentary called "brainwashed". It's up on youtube.

>However, this becomes really tricky, because diversity helps teams in problem-solving situations
Ha.

So you believe that diversity in gender and race correlates to diversity in problem-solving?

You're inherently admitting that the different genders and races have different problem-solving approaches. And wherever there is difference, there is hierarchy.

>A lot of times this turns into companies giving an advantage to women or minorities applying for jobs. It seems unfair, but there could be very real benefits to hiring a diverse team, so it becomes a pretty complex issue.
I recall a study from a european country where they forced gender quotas in management and the studied showed that this policy had disastrous effects.

I don't think the theoretical benefits of "cultural diversity" which women/minorities would bring into the workplace outweighs the blatant inexperience/lack of skill of affirmative action hires.

Meritocracy works. Minorities who have the necessary skills are already represented accordingly. One only needs to take a look at silicon valley, where the % of asians in company is routintely higher than 30%

>>7248971
Yeah it's a pretty shitty study.

The data is from the 1960s. Perhaps this favors the biologists? I'm under the impression that many biologists today do junk science.

Anyways, there certainly exists better studies out there. But I honestly don't deem it necessary to seek them out, as I'm pretty much convinced that every single one of them would show an average IQ significantly higher than the average.

>>7248973
>So you think that there are accomplished mathematicians on the left side of the IQ bell curve?
Oh, sorry, I was talking about mediocre relative to other fields medalists with the primary point being that people blatantly outside the standard IQ levels of the others (meaning other fields medalists) could make it, but as they got further and further down it would just be harder rather than an absolute block.

The straight up answer to your question is therefore yes, even though there was a misunderstanding.

>So do you concede that a high IQ is required to be an accomplished mathematician.
Not that it is absolutely mandatory, just that a person with a lower IQ will struggle substantially more the lower and lower it is. I don't believe that it's impossible for even a person with an IQ of, say, 90, to get there. I just think it's an awful lot less probable to the point where you could look at 50 people, or 100 people, and not find even one.

The best way I could explain it is that I see it as a spectrum holding a difficulty level that doesn't necessarily make it impossible to enter, just increasingly harder. I don't think we actually disagree with each other that much, I'm just slightly more lenient on it. We both feel there's a high correlation towards very difficult things and IQ. The study you posted earlier ( >>7248943 ) showed there is for other things too, as someone mentioned. The "difficulty level" I spoke about earlier just moves the bell curve to the right.

>>7248995
> Even if it's true, it doesn't explain the current disparity in intellectual accomplishements nowadays between the two genders (spare me the "mysogynistic cultural heritage" bullcrap)

Well, women are still underrepresented in STEM fields. Again, I'm arguing that they're still oppressed.

> You're inherently admitting that the different genders and races have different problem-solving approaches. And wherever there is difference, there is hierarchy.

When I spoke of diversity, I don't just mean diversity of race/gender. I mean different places of birth, different upbringings, different hardships. Minorities and women face totally different upbringings and hardships than I do right now, so yeah I believe they'll approach a situation differently than me.

In a world void of social standards and cultural norms, maybe different races will still approach problems differently, and that'd be cool! If there is an inherent hierarchy in problem-solving, there's no way we could find it right now, because all of the social/cultural norms.

> I don't think the theoretical benefits of "cultural diversity" which women/minorities would bring into the workplace outweighs the blatant inexperience/lack of skill of affirmative action hires.

Here's a study that claims there are some benefits- and some drawbacks.

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/diverse-backgrounds-personalities-can-strengthen-groups

> Meritocracy works. Minorities who have the necessary skills are already represented accordingly. One only needs to take a look at silicon valley, where the % of asians in company is routintely higher than 30%

Again, I don't think we've seen the full potential of women or other minorities in STEM fields because of the social and cultural stigmas surrounding them. Asians face less stigma when going into STEM fields.

>>7249003
> Anyways, there certainly exists better studies out there. But I honestly don't deem it necessary to seek them out, as I'm pretty much convinced that every single one of them would show an average IQ significantly higher than the average.

Yeah, okay. But then you might find that fields that aren't very math heavy also have high IQ's. So what does this say for IQ correlating to mathematical ability?

Greeting, drillers of earth...

>>7249032
>Not that it is absolutely mandatory, just that a person with a lower IQ will struggle substantially more the lower and lower it is. I don't believe that it's impossible for even a person with an IQ of, say, 90, to get there. I just think it's an awful lot less probable to the point where you could look at 50 people, or 100 people, and not find even one.
I see.

But then a functionally retarded person with an IQ of 40 could eventually get there too?

Or is there a cutoff rate?

>The best way I could explain it is that I see it as a spectrum holding a difficulty level that doesn't necessarily make it impossible to enter, just increasingly harder. I don't think we actually disagree with each other that much, I'm just slightly more lenient on it. We both feel there's a high correlation towards very difficult things and IQ. The study you posted earlier ( >>7248943 (You) ) showed there is for other things too, as someone mentioned. The "difficulty level" I spoke about earlier just moves the bell curve to the right.

All right.

I believe the difference between you and me is that I think that a minimal IQ is required to comprehend certain mathematical concepts, and more importantly to develop new mathematical concepts. I believe that a person with an IQ of 80, no matter how hard he tries, will never be able to solve Poincaré's conjecture, the same way as a person born with severe knee joint problems will never win the gold medal at the 100m dash at the olympics, no matter how hard he might train.

I'm still unconvinced by your arguments. I won't be satisfied until you give me an example of a person considered "smart" who has a below average IQ.

>>7249036
>underrepresented
By choice.
>but they're oppressed
why does gender correlate with stereotyped professions in liberated western countries more than chauvinist shitholes like india and china then? why did repressive soviet ruskies have all-women tank crews and aircraft regimens? why are 90% of nurses in sweden of all places female, and 90% of engineers male? In the most sexually equal nation on the planet (or top-5 by any measure).

the numbers don't add up you fucker.

>>7249036
>Well, women are still underrepresented in STEM fields. Again, I'm arguing that they're still oppressed.
How exactly are they being "oppressed"?

Are they underrepresented because they are being "oppressed", or do we claim that they are "oppressed" because they are underrespresented?

>When I spoke of diversity, I don't just mean diversity of race/gender.
Well, pardon me for misunderstanding. The confusion was easy to make, considering it immediately followed a sentence talking about gender/race quotas.

>I mean different places of birth, different upbringings, different hardships
I fail to see how different hardships helps you prove a theorem, at the end of the day.

>Minorities and women face totally different upbringings and hardships than I do right now, so yeah I believe they'll approach a situation differently than me.
I honestly fail to see why.

>In a world void of social standards and cultural norms, maybe different races will still approach problems differently, and that'd be cool! If there is an inherent hierarchy in problem-solving, there's no way we could find it right now, because all of the social/cultural norms.
That's a fair argument. I however think you overestimate the importance of cultural norms.

A telling example is that more women profess an interest in pursuing STEM in Iran, which is notorious for "oppressing" women, than in Norway, which is ranked #1 in gender equality in the world.

>Here's a study that claims there are some benefits- and some drawbacks.
I'm sorry, but that article is more akin to a blog post than a study.

>Again, I don't think we've seen the full potential of women or other minorities in STEM fields because of the social and cultural stigmas surrounding them. Asians face less stigma when going into STEM fields.
Chicken and the egg. Blacks and hispanics don't face any stigma either for going into STEM fields. Why are they so underrepresented?

>>7249040
>Yeah, okay. But then you might find that fields that aren't very math heavy also have high IQ's. So what does this say for IQ correlating to mathematical ability?
It shows that some fields other than mathematics also require a high IQ (which really isn't surprising. All academic fields require a minimum of IQ).

What the hell is a sales engineer?

>>7249056
>But then a functionally retarded person with an IQ of 40 could eventually get there too?
>Or is there a cutoff rate?
It would probably be extremely improbable. I would imagine with the right teaching methods, an unlimited amount of time and so on it would technically be possible even if it wouldn't actually end up happening in the world as we know it. But I mean, that could be said about almost anything. People can be 9 feet tall too but you'll be waiting a while to find one. Almost certainly more than a lifetime. The chance of someone with an IQ of 40 getting almost anywhere is probably even less likely. 90 is certainly an awful lot closer than 40, but if we're getting into technicalities then I guess it shouldn't matter.

>I believe that a person with an IQ of 80, no matter how hard he tries, will never be able to solve Poincaré's conjecture, the same way as a person born with severe knee joint problems will never win the gold medal at the 100m dash at the olympics
In both cases it's a race, pushing the odds down much further. Because you have to get somewhere before someone else does as opposed to just getting there period. That makes an already unfortunate situation significantly worse.

I get what you're saying though and I'll agree that in real world situations there comes a point where it's unreasonably difficult and should be rounded down to 0.

I don't want more women in STEM. There are already too many people in STEM as it is.

>>7248775
Cite study pls bb

>>7248499
Mathematicians call them asymptotes.

>>7248451
> Well I'm one exception

>>7248441
>CS is math heavy and women are turned off by math and logic
At most schools, mathematics majors are about 40% female 60% male. Computer science majors are much more heavily male dominate in general. And CS is definitely not "math heavy" in an undergrad program. From what I've seen, you guys take freshman calculus, intro linear algebra, and a few courses where you attempt babby proofs (with the majority of the class having serious trouble). The average CS major's mathematics background is laughable.

>>7248723
>And if the only reason that there are more male engineers is because more men can pass the benchmark classes, wouldn't we see a 50/50 gender split (or close) in engineering schools among incoming freshman, and then watch as more females drop out?

Its anecdotal, but in my program the intro classes are 55-60% women and by graduation its 15-20% women. I've heard similar statistics from other engineers.

A lot of them switch majors to environmental science, forestry, or biology.

>>7248821
>The best way to get equality in the workplace is to show that women are just as good as men, not state it.

>doesn't provide any evidence
>just states opinion

Affirmative action.

>>7248335
>supervisors of guards
guards guarding guards?

>>7249036
>muh oppression

>>7248335
Astrophysicists

I like grills

>>7248479
>Listen and believe my experience! Statistics don't matter!

holy shit, are you going into some shit tier industry engineering or something? if you're in STEM you're probably bad at it and you sure as hell don't love math and logic

>>7248893
it's not.

>there should really be more women in STEM
>someone should really do something about that
>but not me, all I'm going to do is bitch and complain about it
>because I'm a woman who went into some sort of social science or women's studies or some shit

>>7248600
Most of the smart women I know are blondes. I don't know where the whole "dumb blonde" thing came from, but I really see no correlation.

>>7250573
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Drillers of Earth, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret drills in various soils, and I have over 300 confirmed drills. I am trained in earth drilling and I’m the top driller in the entire US drillers of earth forces. You are nothing to me but just another piece of dirt. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of drilling assistants across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can drill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed drilling, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Drilling Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will drilled earth residue all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>>7248430
I bet women can't keep their hands off you when you take zero pride in your gender.

>>7248466
>wasting money researching subversive left-wing tripe that's been debunked time and time again would be beneficial either way

>>7248416
Not even trying to be sexist but women don't like to do absurdly dedicated work to the same extent men do.

Every other guy I know at my Uni has at least attempted to take a coding class, all the girls I know are just like "I don't get it, I'm going to stick to business classes."

Think it has a lot to do with social norms and an even bigger part of it has to do with the innate differences between men and women. Men seem to be more mathematical(at least in the autistic way), something like Comp Sci would just seem more interesting and come more intuitively.

>>7248335
Hey guys, I edited the graph so that it splits at 50% and shows points of similar statistical likelihood:

Think of the phrase "A _______ is as likely to be a woman as a _______ is to be a man."

>>7251085
Saved

>>7250580
>>7251085
For example:

An atmospheric or space scientist is as likely to be a woman as a dressmaker or seamstress is to be a man.

>>7250580
The white one uses a white telescope, the orange one uses an orange telescope?

>>7251085
I see a trend.

>>7251050
It's about proving the pride to be true anon :^) are you scared they'll succeed and take the only thing you have from you?

>>7248874
>it's called postulating
It's actually called pontificating

>lrn2pontificate

>>7248340
Kek

>>7248934
tender, I'm about to get my period

>>7251839
>jobs that are hard/can kill you
>civil engineer

Most of them have been lied to go into Engineering and physics. In actuality, most of them prefer actual mathematics (because it's there actual liking's and preferences that made them came into STEM). That's one of the reasons why 80% of female graduate engineers quit their fields and remaining 20% of them stay back; also due to the fact that its tedious, redundant, and last importantly not mathsy to their liking's.

If it was a face-off between maths, physics, and engineers. Most women would favor maths out of those respective fields.

>>7252490
That's fucking hot. I'm gonna jack off thinking about you if you know what I mean ;)

>>7248416
>"well she can do the job, but she's a woman, so I'll pick this guy instead"
Well no, nobody has this thought process, however there is unconscious sexism:
For instance if a employer or university reads the same CV with a female name they will rate it lower than if its a male name.

>>7248335
>Personally I'd like to see male spaces ruined

>>7248335

>mfw my career is only 86.0% men

>>7248335

This comes up every time we have these threads, which is approaching a weekly basis at this point, and I'm pretty fucking sick of it.

Look, I don't know how many times I have to explain. Boilermakers, roofers, miners, etc. are low-status, shitty jobs that pay very little and have little prospect for advancement (inb5 muh 60k tradesman salary). Engineers, scientists, doctors, etc. are much better paid, better educated, better positioned for career advancement, and more socially prestigious, which is why it makes sense to push women to be in them. You want to be a female boilermaker, great! But boilermakers don't become CEO's and congressmen and millionaires, which is what the entire point of this is: to get women in leadership positions. You'll note that the highest status jobs on that list (physicians, lawyers, chief executives, physicists, financial services, etc) are all firmly north of 60% male, and often above 75, whereas the woman dominated jobs are things like laundry workers, bartenders, kitchen workers, physical therapists, cashiers, etc, that are all poor and low-status.

There's also the disturbing trend of women being pushed out of careers as the field become more prestigious and being forced into careers as they become less prestigous: the textbook examples in STEM would be CS, which went from near-parity in the 60's to almost entirely male-dominated today as salaries and prestige increased and women were forcibly displaced.

>>7248961
If you're in Cambridge you can't change your major just like that. The only place where you can do that is in the US.

>>7248335
Why does anyone claim we need more women in STEM? We need best qualified people regardless of their sex. Saying we need more women regardless of their intelligence, abilities, education is pure fucking sexism.

>>7253206
>There's also the disturbing trend of women being pushed out of careers as the field become more prestigious and being forced into careers as they become less prestigous: the textbook examples in STEM would be CS, which went from near-parity in the 60's to almost entirely male-dominated today as salaries and prestige increased and women were forcibly displaced.

So you're saying it's bad for one particular gender to be forced to low prestige careers?
Then what are you going to do about all of the men who hold the vast majority of dangerous careers with little or no opportunity for advancement?

>>7253340
>So you're saying it's bad for one particular gender to be forced to low prestige careers?

No, I'm arguing that it's bad for one gender to be systemically excluded from high-prestige careers. That's a very different thing, and saying something like "Oh, well obviously men are the REAL victims here because they're disproportionate likely to die in coal mining accidents" completely misses the point. Nobody gives a shit about coal miners, male or female. The discussion at hand is about the fact that the company that owns the coal mine has a entirely male executive team, an 90% male board of directors, and 80% male shareholder base. That's where the important inequality is, and that's what should be focused on.

>>7253206
Over 60% of MD graduates are female. There's no push to get that down to 50.

>>7253206
No one ever talks about the fact that in the 60s all "computer scientists" studied math and electrical engineering and CS degrees were essentially like IT because of how loosely defined it was. The field only became more male dominated as the degrees become more rigorous and math intense. Today, there are still far more women in IT that men.

>>7253410
>The field only became more male dominated as the degrees become more rigorous and math intense.

Ha, right, dumb womyn can't handle the intense rigorous mathematics behind a CS degree, like Demorgan's Laws and 1+2+3+...+n = n(n+1)/2, despite comprising almost half of math graduates since the 60's.

Try harder.

>>7253391
>one gender to be systemically excluded from high-prestige careers.
Except no one does that and there is no way to prove that it isn't all down to individual incompetence, which it bloody well is.

>Nobody gives a shit about coal miners
Oh wow, so now we can just disregard people? Ok, fuck women then, they can get raped without birth control while being barred from all jobs for all we care.

>>7253425
Why is there no push to get more male IT graduates?

Also nice red herring fucktard, I never said anything about women not being able to math, the degree developed from "programming" to something entirely different long before CS was prestigious or well paid.

>>7253438
>Also nice red herring fucktard, I never said anything about women not being able to math,

You literally stated:

>The field only became more male dominated as the degrees become more rigorous and math intense

This is a direct argument that women left because they couldn't handle the new-found rigor of CS, and not because they were forced out due to cultural factors. But those cultural factors weren't present in math departments, which are way more rigorous than CS (lel), and women did just fine there, so obviously your argument falls flat.

>>7253452

Learn to fucking read and interpret without projecting your own biases.

>This is a direct argument that women left
No, it's a direct argument that the degree changed. There have been countless studies showing that women do not like math intensive fields, which is why engineering has never had many women. Why should they stay in CS when they obviously don't want to (and there was nothing stopping them since the field was already female dominated). It's oppressive to try and shame women into doing degrees they don't want to simply because people don't like the fact that women don't like the degree.

Case and point: Medicine is the highest paid and most prestigious degree, it is female dominated in terms of graduates and happens to be light and math.

Whoops guess the patriarchy you made up forgot to check the highest paid profession off their list?

/argument, you lost, everything below this line will be pointless back peddling, muh feelings bullshit and outright lies.

>>7253483
>here have been countless studies showing that women do not like math intensive fields,

So "math" isn't considered a math intensive field now, despite having been at near-parity for the past fifty years? Good to know. You still have yet to produce a single actual fact to back up your assetions beyond "countless studies" that you refuse to cite and sweeping generalizations like "medicine is the highest paid and most prestigious degree" (because comparing a 7+ year postgraduate degree and training to an undergrand BS is totally valid).

>>7248335
>mathematicians and mathematical scientists
>51.1%

this disagrees with my experience

>>7253503
>medicine is a post grad degree
>the world is America

>>7253519
>Here in Minsk is good doctor, he gets degree in only 2 year! In town, only 5 people die to polio in year of last. Why American doctor need study so long?

>>7248335
If anybody's wondering, here's the Census PDF all those stats came from:
https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0616.pdf

It also has population totals for those professions, as well as the percentage of workers within them who are black, asian, or hispanic

>>7254191
For example;

MOST BLACK JOB: Barbers - 37.2% black
LEAST BLACK JOB: Dentists - 0.3% black

Portion of the working population that's black: 10.8%

>>7254232
heh, that's funny, my dentist was black

>>7254248
One of only ~525 black dentists in the country.

>>7254191
MOST HISPANIC JOB: Drywall and ceiling tile installers and tapers - 58.6% hispanic
LEAST HISPANIC JOB: Writers and authors - 1.5% hispanic

Portion of the working population that's hispanic: 14.3%

>>7248451
Every female I've worked with has been on-par with a high schooler, they're a danger to actual chemical engineers.

>>7252525
>252525
checked

>>7248441
>imagine you are trying to code, and instead of coding one module at a time, you try to code 5 different parts at the same time. CS is math heavy and women are turned off by math and logic

Math is one of the few sciences with a non-fucked sex ratio.

>>7254191
MOST ASIAN JOB: Medical scientists (28.4%)
LEAST ASIAN JOB: Cost estimators (0.6%)

this isn't nearly as funny in the vaguely racist way the other examples have been, but it's more so when the second least asian job is "Farmers and Ranchers" (0.7%)

Arabs have actually figured this out.
The Shah of Iran's Nuclear program was a quarter women.

Iran actually had to ban women from studying science since they saturated the market with degrees.

Basically women major in easy shit and choose easy worklines because they are afforded it because they don't consider the remuneration as much as is the case in a developing nation.

>>7248717
If someone is truly passionate about something, they're not going to back down and give up just because someone said that they shouldn't do it. We can encourage women to join STEM programs all we want but it's the individuals decision to pursue those careers, not ours. I'm glad you had a supportive background and people who believed you could do it, but I'm skeptical to the notion that if we "Cheer" them on they'll want to do it.

>>7248477
>Father is a geo-physicist
>Mother is an engineer

I have three sisters and one brother, my parents tried desperately to get all of us into physical sciences. My mom is a huge proponent of women in science but couldn't muster enough interest within my sisters to get them to go into STEM.

The interest was simply there in my brother and I, it didn't take any coaxing.

>>7254331
Countries where all the men work and all the women go to university.

>>7248335
Why are there categories for both "physical scientists" and "physicists"?

>>7248395
Except no, because there's a category named "typist", near the top.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1032361,00.html

In more gender equal societies women are the majority in maths. It's men who are genetically inferior in this regard.

>>7253589
No, the bachelors in surgery-bachelors in medicine is a 6 year degree that you can study straight out of high-school. The US is behind on many aspects in medicine, it's closer to third world tier compared to many European countries. Try not to be a stereotypically retarded red neck that can't point out continents on a map.

>>7255289
Why do you think people mean "math degrees" when they talk about math heavy degrees like Physics and Engineering. Are you aware that they aren't even slightly related and math degrees have very little applied math? Even at top schools like Oxbridge they don't start studying applied PDEs in detail until grad-school, it's a completely different degree and skill set.

>>7255304
Stay in denial

>>7255308
Denial about what? Do you actually think biologists can become medical doctors because MDs use some applied biology?

I don't care about the gender politics bullshit, but people like you who think math and other fields applying math are the same thing are retarded.

>>7255289
>gender equal society

Do you know how they compensate for women in here? You get into uni based on the number of 'points' you have, you get these through taking classes, extracurriculars, and the proximity to the school your applying. You also get free points if you are a woman. Yeah. Equal to about one full classes worth.

Total. Fucking. Bullshit. Equality my goddamn ass.

>>7255318
>WAAH why doesn't society belong exclusively to men anymore like in the good old 1960s

>>7255289
>But the story of female achievement in Iceland doesn't necessarily have a happy ending. Educators have found that when girls leave their rural enclaves to attend universities in the nation's cities, their science advantage generally shrinks.

An exact result of the inflated point system that favours girls entering university.

>>7255318
In South Africa med school acceptance for specialist positions and hospital applications work like this:

1 point academics; if you get 100% in your degree (which you won't) you get 1.0, if you get 65% you get 0.65 etc.
1 point if you're black
1 point if you're a women

So if you're black women you are always placed above white males regardless of your merit.

I love how "equal" implies that everything possible was done to ensure white males don't succeed, it's great that people use these in studies to show how shitty and stupid white males are.

>>7255320
>not realizing this system is just condescending to women

If anything it shows that women are incapable of competing with men at an academic level and need a systemic boost to succeed.

And think about what that means at university too, all your male peers will succeed around you as they were forced to be brilliant in a system where they were undervalued. Should do wonders for your self esteem.

>>7255328
You don't have many female friends do you? They really don't care, they think it's fair and will take any advantage they can get.

>>7255358
>They really don't care, they think it's fair and will take any advantage they can get.
as any individual would do.
doesn't mean it's "equality". it is instead "minority sponsorship". women will get it also when they're no longer a minority due to the long, historical under-representation.

>>7248335
>art makers
>sales engineers


>taxicab drivers and chauffeurs
>85.3% male
Why is this not surprising?

>masons, tilers, and carpet installers
>carpet installers
Why the fuck are these grouped together?

>drillers of earth
[Epicness intensifies]

The reason that construction workers, mechanics,
Miners, loggers, craftsmen, plumbers, boilermakers, roofers, etc are all male dominated occupations is because all of them require doing a lot of heavy lifting, as in lifting heavy shit is literally part of the job description. Most employers will not hire a person for these professions if they are unable to regularly lift/carry large or heavy loads (the minimum requirement you will often see thrown around is 50-75lbs).
Biologically speaking, women are generally smaller and far less muscular than men. They are just not as well suited for manual labor as men are, that is just a fact.

>>7248524
>Yfw women entering the workforce pulled the states out of the Great Depression

>>7255414
>as any individual would do.

Why would you say that? I like to think that there is value in fairness and that most people don't try to take advantage whenever they can. Whenever I feel I've been given an unfair advantage I try to correct it. When I was a first year I thought my professor over calculated one of my marks so I came forward to have them reduced.

And guess what? People actually value honour and integrity. People trust another business when they know they won't try to fuck them over. That prof. from my first year? Hardly a surprise that he went out of his way to make sure the graduate school connections he had would give me first pick when the time came.

I'm not saying women value honour less on average, but things like that contribute to your success in life. People who are OK with taking spots away from more deserving applicants tend not to have those qualities, but most of them don't want an unfair advantage, they want to do it right.

>>7255461
I can guarantee everyone takes a job or education spot and is grateful for it instead of turning it down because they got some points from "unfair" sources.

>proceeds to tell a tale of how he got advantage from knowing a professor instead of his merits
I can guarantee that someone on that list was more honest than you and but didn't happen to know the professor.

>>7255289
Icelander here.

1. That town is total shit and really small. Most of the girls there get pregnant before 20 so maybe 5-7 girls go any further each year.
2. Cities.... we only have one.
3. It is true that about one third of the students in STEM fields are girls, in some fields even less.
However I have seen in the last three years in the physics department that usually we start off with only 10% girls in the first year but it is mostly, sometimes only, men that quit and do something else so it goes up to 20-30% at the end of first year.

>>7255461
the women don't see it as getting a point too high just because they were personally lucky. They believe it is just to have a slight advantage to even things out because they're still disadvantaged a lot in the real world. The advantage also applies to all females so they don't feel guilty personally for being selfish.

>>7255485
>they're still disadvantaged a lot in the real world.
But they know they aren't. Most professions are female dominated, what does women not having votes 200 years ago have to do with today's generation?

>>7255491
>But they know they aren't.
in STEM fields, and higher positions.
Many still have that belief they are living in a male dominated world, even if it's subconscious...