/sci/ - Science & Math

>that shirt
irony has no effect when it’s true

With the power of cock.

>>9897912
Why do women pretend to be disgusted by cocks? They are all secretly addicted to them aren’t they?

>>9897917
No, they're secretly not attracted to them.
What they're really attracted to is money.

>That anti SJW boomer
>want to hear a joke? . . . WOMEN IN STEM!

>>9897897
they already are tho

>>9897897
>women are literally a forced meme
embarrassing

>>9897897
>academic writes 270 Wikipedia pages in a year
literally me

>>9897897
I don't think it's possible. Paradoxically, the more egalitarian a nation is, the more segregated the sexes are into specific jobs. This has been noted by economists for a while now. The countries with some of the worst gender inequality issues such as Pakistan and Iran actually have very high percentages of women in engineering and computer science. Do you know why? Because these are the only professions women can go into if they want to make a decent (not even necessarily good) living.

By contrast, Look at Norway, one of the most feminist if not the most feminist nations in the world. Women there self-segregate themselves into traditionally feminine professions (nursing, primary and secondary teaching, etc.) and/or quit/work part time to take care of kids. Here's a tl;dr article on it if you don't want to get into specific studies:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/
>But when it comes to their relative strengths, in almost all the countries—except Romania and Lebanon—boys’ best subject was science, and girls’ was reading. (That is, if an average girl was as good as an average boy at science, she was still likely to be even better at reading.) Across all countries, 24 percent of girls had science as their best subject, 25 percent of girls’ strength was math, and 51 percent excelled in reading. For boys, the percentages were 38 for science, 42 for math, and 20 for reading. The more gender-equal the country, per the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index, the larger this gap between boys and girls in having science as their best subject.
>What’s more, the countries that minted the most female college graduates in fields like science, engineering, or math were also some of the least gender-equal countries. They posit that this is because the countries that empower women also empower them, indirectly, to pick whatever career they’d enjoy most and be best at.

>>9897897

h-hiyajo s-senpai...?

>>9897999
Additionally, while there has been a rise of women in STEM recently, they have not gone into the STEM fields that actually make money. Those being computer science and engineering. Nor do they go into the liberal arts fields that make a lot of money (economics and... well, that's basically it; maybe government?). They do physical and life sciences that skew towards the middle of the pack, and by """STEM""" standards skew very low, regardless of GPA.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/women-are-majoring-in-the-lower-paying-stem-fields/
>The median salary for a recent graduate with a degree in biology, for example, is just $33,400, putting the major solidly in the bottom half of all fields. (These figures are for graduates 27 or younger with a full-time, year-round job and no graduate degree.)
>There’s another difference between the “S” and “TEM” parts of STEM: gender.
>Women make up almost exactly half of all recent STEM graduates. But they make up less than a quarter of all graduates in the 20 highest-paying STEM fields, and more than two-thirds of graduates in the 20 lowest-paying majors.
>The S-vs.-TEM divide is a big part of the explanation. Engineering majors dominate the list of the highest-paid STEM fields (and of fields more broadly); nearly all of those majors are also heavily male. Lower-paying jobs, meanwhile, tend to be in the health and life sciences fields, which have a much higher proportion of female majors.
>What the data can’t answer is why women are choosing less lucrative majors. In recent years, schools such as Harvey Mudd College and Carnegie Mellon University have taken aggressive steps to increase the number of women studying computer science, which has been falling.

>>9897932
and women

>>9897999

Here's a norwegian documentary about it. It has english subtitles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs&t=32s

>>9897999
>only professions women can go into if they want to make a decent (not even necessarily good) living.
I thought the "go to college or fail at life" was a first world thing.

>>9897999

I am Norwegian. Here we have gender quotas in academia, politics, public sector, art and even some in private sector. They are almost all quotas for women. Still there are many fields where men are underrepresented. For example medicine and psychology.

>>9898011
They should honestly remove the S part of stem, unless you have a grad degree or patentable discovery you're worthless.

>>9897897
This is why there's so many nonsense wikipedia articles. For some reason it's acceptable to make up shit about some dead woman's life and achievements and parade it as historical fact.

>>9898119
Not worthless, but pretty much middle class. And even grad degrees don't help. A PhD in physical chemistry, organic chemistry, or microbiology still makes less than a B.S. in Engineering or a B.A. in Economics, after accounting for the ~5-7 years of lost experience.

>>9898092
No. You're better off working from home, starting your own small business, or getting a trade if you're 'first world'. There's a reason shitholes put strong emphasis on education.

>>9898092
It's a thing everywhere. Amusingly, China is having an atypical economic problem brought on by this perception. They have a major labor shortage when it comes to factory workers and machinists and such because they've been building their society for a post-industrial high-income economy (like the U.S.) while still being an industrial middle-income economy.
http://www.clb.org.hk/en/content/la-times-chinas-new-college-graduates-struggle-put-their-skills-work

A lot of Chinese students get degrees in jobs that barely exist in China, and upon finding out there are no jobs for their degree they'd rather rely on their parents than accept a job with lower prestige. In fact, prestige is more important than pay in the eyes of many Chinese college grads. They'd rather take less money for a white collar job than go work in a factory that has constant labor shortages.

>>9898128
>You're better off working from home, starting your own small business, or getting a trade if you're 'first world'.
Statistically, no you're not. The wage premium for a college degree has never been higher while most decent-paying 'trade' jobs are disappearing due to automation.

>>9898134
Not in my country because trade jobs have stringent standards and overall, more time in education. Automation affects university-goers more.

>>9898134
Bunch of my family were immigrant engineers since they barely understood English they opened up subways and now make more than they would as engineers with less work.

>>9898082
Thanks, I vaguely recall watching this a few years ago but could never dig it up.

>>9898132
I think it has more to do with chinese factories being unregulated and dangerous

Nursing is STEM

>>9897897
It's not worth it m8. All you will do is drag science down.

>>9898254
youre stem

>>9898125

I have a friend at work who has a PhD in Phys Chem...she works as an editor.

>>9898164

LOL, as if you can just wake up one day and say "Hey, let's open up a subway! Get the shovel!"

>>9898258
this is retarded

>>9898278
>females are retarded
ftfy

>inferior

>>9897897
You can't. It will likely never have a large female presence unless it ceases to be challenging, competitive and stressful.

>we NEED women to build bridges, houses and integral structures for us
I'm sure this is going to end well

>>9897897
Why the fuck would you even want that?

>>9898258
/thread

>>9897897

I don't care to view or discuss this thread any further than to make one simple observation: the woman photographed in the OP clearly looks uncomfortable, and unhappy.

>>9898132
> prestige is more important than pay in the eyes of many Chinese college grads
It's the same everywhere.

>>9898678
How can you tell? (I am autistic.)

>>9897897
>What can we do
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>>9898132
How many MScs and PhDs do you know that drive forklifts?

How many do you know that are unemployed? It's the same in the West. If you spend years studying for something you're not gonna settle for a pleb job, partly because of 'prestige' but also because it's career suicide as you probably won't be able to get into the field you've devoted your life to for years.

>>9898678
and very fuckable

>>9898117
This is what I hate the most about this equity hiring shit, it's only going one way. This womens movement is one of conquest not equality.

>>9897897
Why is that desirable?

>>9898258
>Engineering
>Puts a pressure gauge on a crankshaft

>>9899117
>what is a tachometer

>>9899005
Now realize this is the same ideology behind Islam inflation and gay rights, all cultural marxism

>>9897897
their doesn't need to be any thing done, the ones with motivation and talent will filter in and be successful based on their work and merit.

>>9897897
Can we get more men into sucking dick?

>>9897947
>anti SJW
aka the majority of people.

>>9898278
but true.

>>9898258
Are you retarded anon?

>>9898244
Exactly.

>>9898258
>It's not worth it m8. All you will do is drag science down.
This. Women are proven time and time again to not be on the same level as men in science.

>>9899699
That [math] \Sigma [/math] is the name of a function, not the summation symbol, retard.

>>9899699
>>9899800
You are both retards. It's a common symbol used for matrices (e.g. the covariance matrix of some normally distributed random variables)

>>9899817
So... it's the name of an operator... which is a kind of function.

>>9899824
>Calling variables functions
Hello autism

>>9899843
*snap*

Literally nothing can be done
If women were interested in STEM they would enroll into STEM.
I know literally hundreds of people that do STEM stuff as a hobby, none of them are female
Even under youtube, most female are used as fronts for a bunch of editors, rarely is a female actually involved in what she's talking about and producing her own videos. I can barely remember any, like Megabattie and friends, and that's a very niche part of the tubescape at large.

>>9897897
>attracting girls into science isn't evidence-based
And how!

>>9900193
Go back to >>>/lit/ you retarded socialist.

>>9900272
>everyone I don't like is a socialist
People are becoming actual communists because you keep calling them that

>>9898278
>>9899699
t. roasties

>>9897912
Unironically this. I wouldn't be surprised if a huge number of those yaoi games have all-female dev teams.

>>9900284
People don't become communists, they're born that way. Actual communism will treat you of that problem. Bring on the guillotines.

>>9899699
What, you've never seen the reciprocal function of summation?

We need more COMPETENT people interested in science, not people with certain genitalia.

>>9900288
Based /pol/tard distributing pseudoscience.>>9900334

>>9897912
Engineering tried that and now it's full of homos

>>9900404
Didn't mean to reply to the second post, fucking phone.

>>9897897
>What can we do to get more women interested in science and engineering /sci/?
The easiest solution would be to genetically modify women so they are no longer less intelligent than men are, since that is literally the only thing keeping them out of the sciences.

>>9898266
... as in the fast food place

>>9899699
>>9899699
lmao

>>9898258
>>9899699
On that "Mathematics" pic, the above two related lines and the bottom left are surely quantum electrodyanamics and the integral with the G is probably statistical physics (and related methods). There are some gamma functions, some green functions, etc.
And the bottom right thing is a Ramanujan type expansion sum and the only proper "Mathematics" item.

I remember when this board was actually about science, not about /pol/ shitposts vaguely related to science.

>>9897897
well even making it "trendy" doesn't do the trick, because even with things like coding and gaming, there are surges in female interest, maybe a tv show is made about how a group of women are flipping the games design world on its head, however when it comes to writing code for 12 hours a day and putting the mind-work in, the general masses of women just aren't interested by it. Some things you can't force certain people to do, turns out women on average are less inclined to strive for science and engineering, I really don't see why we should be bending their arm into taking up stuff.

why do we need to get more women into science anyway? I don't care what the proportions m:f is. when i worked in healthcare I didn't give a fuck that it was 95% women, did it change the work dynamic? obviously yes, but I wouldn't expect the majority to have to bend to what is the best for me

>>9900653
fuck off nerd
>IQ is the most important thing ever that's why there is so many happy 170iq virgin autistics who die alone, contributing nothing

>>9898009
best girl

>>9899687
That's not even close to true, or major corporations wouldn't be switching their mission statements and be virtue signaling so much. Most people either don't care and aren't offended by SJW's, or are SJW's.

>>9900693
u mad

>>9897897
once women get out of the rather social environment that is college they are hit with the cold hard truth that STEM is a lot of lonely grinding in front of a computer. Men are way more suited for that work-a-day lifestyle. Women burn the fuck out.

>>9898119

You do realize that things like the slinky, hula hoop, and bouncy ball are patented right? So...wtf are you talking about?

>>9897897
>What can we do to get more women interested in science and engineering /sci/?

Not my job, OP.

>>9897897
Here the thing OP. The data that looks to show women don't feel comfortable in STEM, is really showing that men don't feel comfortable going into anything else.

>>9900701
> implying a corporation's opinion Is representative of the population
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpr7K_Wrv4E

>>9898134
Selection bias.

>>9900464
Same rules apply. What makes you think that starting a subway franchise in a profitable area is something that anyone could do?

>>9900653
>posting a picture without definitions for the labels you use to "prove" your point
I´ll bet 1 000 USD on "very liberal" equating to a preference for low taxes, small government, Constitutional conservatism and a "live and let live"-attitude. That, however, is not how a mainstream "very liberal" person would define his/her beliefs.

>>9900653
>posts a chart with absolutely no references or websites to cite sources that could have been whipped up in paint

>>9897897
Just teach math differently. Half of a highschool kid's time should be spent doing math problems over and over and over and over. The difference in math performance is what holds women back.

>>9900653
Your chart uses liberal in the European sense, retard. This kind of duplicitous attitude is very typical with American libruhls.

>>9900693
>>9901299
>>9901303
>>9901365
>/pol/ suddenly takes issue with IQ and/or unsourced infographics

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0190272510361602
>In this paper I will adopt the contemporary American definition of liberalism. I provisionally define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.

>>9901655
>he didn't even read the paper
The paper is entirely speculative after that point, retard. The data that prompted Kanazawa to write the paper is from studies that use "liberalism" in the classical sense (closer to "libertarian" in the US).

When you look at his methodology, he does the same shit: asks respondents to self identify as liberal or conservative, but does not inform them of how he used "liberalism" earlier in the speculative section (in the US sense, as a synonym for social democrat or socialist).

Garbage study, as is typical of psychology.
To get the real data you have to dig in and sift through the bullshit. You're obviously not capable of doing that.

>everyone who disagrees with my leftist obfuscation is from /pol/

>>9901655
Here's a study that doesn't fudge its data nor introduces misleading speculative sections in the middle of the article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000373

>>9901728
Another one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289618300667

>>9897897
You can't. It's not in their mental wiring to be interested. Women have different interests than men and vice versa. The same applies for what work they want to do. Feminists don't understand this basic fact because they've spent their whole life around the mentality of trying to "do it just as good as men" and ironically try to be more manly (butch bull dykes) and unironically not notice they are being anything but feminine which destroys the purpose in the first place. As far as women are concerned if they are and they're efficient at it, great. I've seen plenty of good programmers and mathematicians that were women but if not, don't lower the standards for everyone else so unwarranted people can have their proverbial social gold star. This isn't rocket science, just let nature run its course and stop fucking with it by putting a that way sign up like Wile E Coyote.

>>9901714
I didn't post the chart, I just thought the irony of those responses was too great to pass up.

>asks respondents to self identify as liberal or conservative, but does not inform them of how he used "liberalism" earlier in the speculative section (in the US sense, as a synonym for social democrat or socialist).
The study had US respondents - for whom "liberal" is clearly taken to mean what it does in the US. The overwhelming majority of Americans aren't even aware that 'liberal' has other, different meanings.
I'm not saying that this is useful research or that psychology is a rigorous field (the journal even has an impact factor of 2.34) but /pol/science is at the very most on par with this

>>9901749
>he overwhelming majority of Americans aren't even aware that 'liberal' has other, different meanings.
This is a retarded counterpoint, because the classical liberals (who will self-identify as liberal, just like I would) are aware of the difference, and will answer accordingly. Read this >>9901728 study in particular, since it uses a much better methodology and notes the distinction.

>>9898258
You know, i shit on feminism on daily basis but your pic is pretty retarded.

>>9901768
You must not live in America. The meaning is virtually universal here. American classical liberals are called "libertarians." Virtually nobody used the term "classical liberal" in modern America prior to Dave Rubin and his ilk's efforts to obscure the political landscape and insinuate the left has lost touch with what it means to be left (market fundamentalism and deregulation, of course!)

>>9901774
HAHA yeah feminists owned epic style.

>>9901812
I can practically smell the socialist stench oozing from every pore of your body. You're this >>9900193>>9900284 retard aren't you?

>>9897897
>argues efforts to attract girls into science are not evidence-based
>proceeds to evidence based model of writing Wikipedia pages

>>9901827
>everyone I disagree with is a socialist

>>9897897

lmao

I dated this girl a few years ago at imperial

AMA

>>9901827
No. Stay mad libtard

>>9901812
'liberal' is one of the most meaningless terms at this point.

>>9897917
When they're turned on they are attracted to cock. When they're not turned on they're disgusted by it.

>most of 4chan seem to hate women and want to keep them out of /sci/ence for some reason
>tfw I just want an intelligent gf I can have autistic conversations and connect to

>>9900701
>implying they dont do it for publicity

>>9900409
Can I get a hot bf if I go for engineering?

>>9900653
>complains about politics in /sci/
>posts political picture
Nigga just admit you don't like the politics being posted now. You just want so substitute those with the ones you like.

>doesn't say anything about the content of those articles.
I can write you a thousand articles all on the subtle differences between the different castes of furries and zoophiles as well as all the interests that plague /d/.
Does that mean I can also get international praise and academics' (You)s?

>>9901749
>The overwhelming majority of Americans aren't even aware that 'liberal' has other, different meanings
But the high IQ population would obviously know that. We aren't talking about the "overwhelming majority of the US population" we are talking about the high IQ ones that self identify as liberals.

>>9902800
>he thinks you can connect with a woman beyond the surface level
t. virgin

>>9903222
>But the high IQ population would obviously know that
Well, as it turns out, they don't. You're just assuming at this point. If you use "liberal" in the European sense anywhere in the US, no matter how high-IQ the setting, you will be misunderstood. It literally means something different here, and it's used consistently that way across all forms of American political discourse by everyone except one or two people per hundred thousand who are either too special and edgy to not show off their fedora-tier uniqueness or are deliberately trying to confuse/mislead people for political gain

>>9903242
>as it turns out they don't
Source? Because making the assumption that high IQ individuals would choose to be better informed about terms that are in high prominence is logical, in fact many of the famous "alt-right" people actually consider themselves as liberals. Examples: Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, even Milo Yiannopoulos. And they are VERY outspoken about it, which means that a lot of their listeners also know of the classical term.

You're making a lot of claims but not providing much backing, it's very hard to take you seriously.

>>9903311
>Source?
The sum total of american political discourse.
>making the assumption that high IQ individuals would choose to be better informed about terms that are in high prominence is logical
You'd then expect these people to be able to correctly define socialism, which is not the case.
>in fact many of the famous "alt-right" people actually consider themselves as liberals. Examples: Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, even Milo Yiannopoulos.
See:
>>9903242
>except one or two people per hundred thousand who are either too special and edgy to not show off their fedora-tier uniqueness or are deliberately trying to confuse/mislead people for political gain
>>9901812
>Virtually nobody used the term "classical liberal" in modern America prior to Dave Rubin and his ilk's efforts to obscure the political landscape and insinuate the left has lost touch with what it means to be left (market fundamentalism and deregulation, of course!)

>>9899699
>not [math]\sum^{-1}_n a_n = \frac{1}{\sum_n \frac{1}{a_n}}[/math]

>>9903335
>The sum total of american political discourse
We are not talking about the sum but a specific subset of the population which does not behave in the same way as the majority.
>which is not the case
You still haven't provided source for this claim.
>>except one or two people per hundred thousand who are either too special and edgy to not show off their fedora-tier uniqueness or are deliberately trying to confuse/mislead people for political gain
This is incorrect because they are influencers, each one of them has a following and do teach the audience about the correct use of the terms.
>Dave Rubin and his ilk's efforts to obscure the political landscape and insinuate the left has lost touch with what it means to be left
This is neither here nor there in terms of the argument at hand, but it does shows where you are on the political compass and more importantly your objective here. Stop trying to turn this discussion into purely political one.

>>9903428
>this whole post

>>9903442
nice admission of defeat

>>9903447
Serious question, are you autistic?
The issue at hand is the study's methodology. Rather than give any evidence that there was meaningful confusion among respondents, you mention that a few special snowflake Americans purposely use the term "liberal" to mean "classical liberal" instead of the universal American meaning of "social liberal," because it's "more correct," (conceding that this is indeed a conscious choice by someone aware of both meanings and the distinction between them, who would not reply to a survey with any ambiguity.) Cool, whatever. You do not present even a single case of any American only aware of the "classical liberal" meaning who has been misled in some way by the conventional use of the term "liberal," but you hector me for a source that not every member of your vaguely defined group of "high IQ people" is aware of multiple meanings, and totally reject all mainstream political discourse as valid evidence, even when done by smart people, because your group is specially defined to exclude all those cases (they must not REALLY be high IQ if they don't use my snowflake definitions!) You take absolutely for granted (no evidence here either) that the "high IQ population" will necessarily seek out and understand the "correct," nonstandard use of prominent terms, and simply ignore my objection that, if this were actually true, we'd have seen the same thing with the term "socialism." We haven't. Certainly not among a single one of the figures you mentioned, but curiously, quite a lot of socialists are well-informed of the difference between social liberalism and classical liberalism. ref pic in >>9901812

You even concede that there's no problem for the overwhelming majority (the survey's respondents) and "clarify" you were just talking about this special group, which makes me wonder why you're still going.

>>9903428
>the correct use of the terms
No such thing. One meaning of the term isn't "more correct" than the other. It doesn't matter what concept a given term is used to label, as long as there is no ambiguity (or we can easily resolve ambiguity wherever necessary) and as long as we can adequately label all the concepts we like. The use of language naturally evolves over time, and what is "correct" is whatever the current consensus on the use of language is within an environment, because ideas ought to be clearly communicated and stand and fall on their own merits.
What I love is this: you all but come out and say Rubin, Peterson, and Milo are your High-IQ Heroes, smarter than any American political analyst or scholar who hasn't bothered to revive the 19th century meaning of "liberal" for political reasons, and then have the audacity to say this
>it does shows where you are on the political compass and more importantly your objective here. Stop trying to turn this discussion into purely political one.
How about you back up any part of this ridiculous statement?

>>9897897
>that shirt
You'd guess that spending so much time on wikipedia, she would've learned about learned helplessnes by now

>>9897897
>What can we do to get more women interested in science and engineering /sci/?
Short answer - Nothing. If someone wants to get into a scientific field, they will. If it interests them, they'll get more in depth with it. If it's something that doesn't interest them then they won't.

>>9898692
Normal normies can't really tell usually, it just feels© that way
Me, being half way between a normie and an autist, I read a lot about paul ekmans research amd read some bools on bodylanguage
One, she is hunching forward, it's a big tell, even if its just scoliozis, ppl will just assume you have low self-esteem
Two, she has an awkward, fake smile: teeth showing, right mouth shape, but other facial muscles (especialy around the eyes) that should be contracting, aren't

>>9903597
The point, retard, is that people mean different things by the word "liberal" (which is true even in the US, even though you're straining yourself to claim the contrary) so when you ask people to self-identify on a survey without using any sort of control question that would determine what their actual stance is (what they actually mean by 'liberal'), you're using garbage data. Garbage in, garbage out.

You were provided with studies that do use control questions to sift out the data, whence a very different picture of the political landscape in the US w.r.t. cognitive ability/IQ emerges, yet you've consistently ignored it, choosing instead to quibble about whether Americans are or aren't aware of the nuances of liberalism.

tl;dr - fuck off, you stinking socialist.

>>9903597
"Special snowflakes" is your derisive attempt to reduce the importance of the proof that there's absolutely no sure definition of what the correspondents meant when assigning themselves to "liberal". To double on that you are also attempting to make less importance of the most important factor on how likely a person is to not be misinformed.

Terms are NOT static and their definition changes all the time, just like they changed on the american territory, they can change again to their classical terms, which is in fact what is happening. Calling influencers "snowflakes" is disingenuous at heart.
>You do not present even a single case of any American only aware of the "classical liberal" meaning who has been misled
I don't have to, you have to prove that for some reason high IQ individuals would be stupid to not know the proper definition of the terms, and even more importantly, that the research you presented has any validity in the first place which such loosely used terms.
>vaguely defined group of "high IQ people"
There is no such thing as vaguely defined, the very research you provided uses such term because it's one of the most tested and most reliable factors that can be tested about someone's personality, and the most important factor of how well a person will do in life.
>because your group is specially defined to exclude all those cases (they must not REALLY be high IQ if they don't use my snowflake definitions!)
And this is why I told you to take your shit somewhere, this very strawman is the proof that you are not interested in science but throwing verbal shit like a demented monkey. I presented a fault on the research you used, it's up to you to prove that such faults are either
irrelevant or inexistent.

>>9903597
>You take absolutely for granted (no evidence here either) that the "high IQ population" will necessarily seek out and understand the "correct"
As long as a few individuals in the "liberal" category in the research assigned themselves to it because of it's classical definition, the research is invalid because one of it's terms has multiple definitions. And yes, high IQ individuals ARE more likely to use terms correctly.
>if this were actually true, we'd have seen the same thing with the term "socialism."
Not relevant to the discussion at hand, because to begin with, it's not used in your research, and secondly because you are still use ad populum to an issue that's related to properly defining terms in a research and the likelihood that high IQ individuals will use a term correctly, regardless of how the general public perceives it.

>You even concede that there's no problem for the overwhelming majority (the survey's respondents) and "clarify" you were just talking about this special group
Because said group has way more importance than the rest.
>No such thing. One meaning of the term isn't "more correct" than the other. It doesn't matter what concept a given term is used to label, as long as there is no ambiguity
Don't be pedantic, you know what was meant by "correct use of terms", and the very reason why it's important to not change the definition of terms is exactly to prevent the type of confusion that's happening right now, said "ambiguity" can't even be solved in this case, rendering an entire study useless.
>The use of language naturally evolves over time, and what is "correct" is whatever the current consensus on the use of language is within an environment
Ironic you say this, ignoring the very fact that said change can happen multiple times, calling what I presented as new change as "special snowflakes". Your double standards show everywhere in your posts.

>>9903599
>you all but come out and say Rubin, Peterson, and Milo are your High-IQ Heroes, smarter than any American political analyst or scholar who hasn't bothered to revive the 19th century meaning of "liberal" for political reasons
Again a strawman, I never accessed their intelligence, I merely pointed out that they are influencers, and they use the terms in it's classical definition, regardless of their IQ the natural result is that other will follow.

At no point did you bring any type of science into this thread, and when it's done, such as pointing out that any test results with high IQ individuals show that their actions differ from the average population, you brush it aside. Your intentions are clear to derail this thread into a pure political discussion, you are like furry trying to derail a thread on /v/, and the ONLY thing you should do is take your stupid shit to /pol/.

>>9897897
Quality > Quantity
Treat them equally to males so passionate and talented women will get noticed.
Focusing on quality and ignoring competence actually ruin things for literally everyone.
Talented females get overshadowed and don't like to be treated in a special way.
Female brainlets get forced somewhere out of place where they won't fit in
Males have to deal with brainlets they can't even tell off
Employee have to deal with quotas or other bullshit and are forced to hire brainlets.
Everyone loses, feminists existence is justified.

>>9903836
Here is Paul Ryan, a mainstream conservative, demonstrating keen awareness about the subtleties of liberalism, calling himself a "classical liberal" and outright stating that "the conservative movement was that [i.e. classical liberalism, just like in Europe]": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOb2_4zE8WQ&t=4m (timestamped 4 minutes into the video, where he first talks about it).

And with this, I consider the bizarre idea that everyone in the US uses liberal as a synonym for 'social liberal' roundly refuted. The high IQ echelon of the population clearly does not use the term in that way.

>>9897897
women get anxious about performance in math. best way to fix that is to get them to do more math independently n offering help when students get stuck.

>>9897917
yes and no. they are not exactly addicted, it's not like bees and honey. they just like the feel of getting fucked, the ecstasy, the orgasm which is the end result.
but bitches are not choking on dicks because they so like it. it tastes the same to them. this is why guys swim in blowjobs at the start of a relationship, and then it all dies down.

>>9903937
*Bees and flowers. fuck. didn't get much sleep and English is not my first language. you get the idea.

>>9903836
>>9903852
>>9903853
>>9903856

>>9903941
I think I speak for all of us when I say, we accept your concession. The whole discussion should have stopped here: >>9901728 >>9901730

>>9903945
>accept your concession
>all of us
Holy shit

>>9903941
Not an argument, you came to this thread to start political shit, you still haven't posted even a single thing related to science aside from the failed research, and now you think that posting reaction images means anything in a SCIENCE board? Get the fuck out already.

>>9897973
And how many were deleted by roving deletionists?

>>9904158
>you came to this thread to start political shit, you still haven't posted even a single thing related to science aside from the failed research, and now you think that posting reaction images means anything in a SCIENCE board
Holy shit just keep throwing them out and hope one actually sticks hahahahaha

>>9903941
>>9904011
>>9904368

>>9904378
>this is going in my cringe compilation
Source?

>>9904368
Where is the science in your post? Where is the science on your two previous posts? Take your shit to /pol/.

>>9900404
>pseudoscience
>three researchable studies which can both be examined in methodology
what did he mean by this?

>>9904529
Take this remark and apply it to every single thing you've posted ITT

>>9898714
I'm currently doing a Biomedical Physiology PhD, and when I finish I'll make sure I work driving a forklift for a few months and be unemployed for a few months after that. And I'll still be good to be employed anon.

>>9904551
Every single post I've made refers to studies that take into account the behavior of people depending on their IQ, as well as criticizing the bad research you posted, reviewing IS part of science. You have no clue on how the due process for a theory becoming accepted or how to properly discuss things within the framework of of a scientific discussion. Once again, take your stupid shit to /pol/.

>>9904551
*snap*

I think the biggest thing limiting the aspirations of women is how easy they have it.
I'm so paranoid of failure that I'm putting my foot in many doors before I've even left university, and I'm paranoid of failure because I don't want to waste the best years of my life working minimum wage.

As far as I can tell, women never have that paranoia, and they shouldn't.
They have:
>Massive favouritism for pink-collar jobs, as long as they're under 30. Undesirable, but guaranteed employment for young women.
>Significant favouritism for most white-collar jobs, which are the most desirable common jobs.
>Significant opposition for management/executive jobs due to sexism and the mindset required to get into those jobs. The best jobs in existence in terms of pay and influence, but so rare that it hardly matters that women hardly stand a chance since men don't stand much of a chance either.
>Significant opposition for blue-collar jobs. Women don't want these jobs anyway, and if no one will employ you it's still easy to create your own jobs here.
>Options for work/life that are completely unavailable to men; sex workers can be paid very well and often be risk-free, and the older a man is the further below his wealth level he'll seek a wife at

>>9898714
>It's the same in the West.
Nuh-uh, we have a STEM shortage :^)

>>9903940
Its OK I imagine honey is pretty tasty to bees too.

>>9900653
I would like to see plot of libertarianism/minimal state vs authoritarian/interventionism in matter of inteligence.
For me both liberalism and conservatism in American sense is retarded. Just let me do whatever I want to do with my money, my company and myself, and stop funding other people or social programs with my money.

>>9898082
Nice series. Even if I don’t agree with parts, it’s so refreshing to see a show uncowed in the era of pc.

>>9898119
>On science board
>Posting this bullshit
Just remove the life sciences. Physical sciences can stay.

>>9897901
/thread