/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12418719]

>If you can’t see it, you can’t be it
What do you think of the war cry of the women / diversity in stem movement /sci/? Do you think you need to see something to be something? Did you need to see some figure in order to aspire to be an engineer, mathematician or scientist? What of the first engineers, mathematicians and scientists, how did they come across their theories and manage to change paradigms without seeing someone first?

[Anonymous No.12418726]

I don't think much about it if at all. The west as a complex system and super-organism is pretty much dead. I mostly just think about systems, or rather I only think in systems.

[Anonymous No.12419575]

Enforced diversity on/in systems is good in that it expedites the evolution or extinction of those systems.

For all the famous scientists which one learns about from pop culture, there are thousands upon thousands of scientists which remain nameless. Just like tragedy of life and evolution, which requires so much death, women don't seem to be aware that their scientific careers are most likely going to be insignificant. However, they attribute this insignificance (and with it the lack of accolades) to "discrimination", whatever this means.

Basically, women want to be loved. "Look at what I've done, LOVE ME! Recognize me!" This is not a particularly healthy attitude for knowledge acquisition, but it's somewhat useful for careerism.

I mean, "You can't be what you can't see" is transphobic. Just because I can't see a penis between my legs doesn't mean I am a man. Most persons who encourage women/minorities/insert_demo_here think that they are skilled in using natural languages when in reality they are not. It's time to go full nihilist here.

[Anonymous No.12419580]

Enforced diversity on/in systems is good in that it expedites the evolution or extinction of those systems.

For all the famous scientists which one learns about from pop culture, there are thousands upon thousands of scientists which remain nameless. Just like tragedy of life and evolution, which requires so much death, women don't seem to be aware that their scientific careers are most likely going to be insignificant. However, they attribute this insignificance (and with it the lack of accolades) to "discrimination", whatever this means.

Basically, women want to be loved. "Look at what I've done, LOVE ME! Recognize me!" This is not a particularly healthy attitude for knowledge acquisition, but it's somewhat useful for careerism.

I mean, "You can't be what you can't see" is transphobic. Just because I can't see a penis between my legs doesn't mean I am not a man. Most persons who encourage women/minorities/insert_demo_here think that they are skilled in using natural languages when in reality they are not. It's time to go full nihilist here.

[Anonymous No.12419624]

>>12418719
>What do you think of the war cry of the women / diversity in stem movement /sci/?

No one is stopping them, if you want to, you can.

There was black guys in the control room for the Apollo missions back in 1969 working professionally. The west isn't retarded, where it denies people who want to join a particular field because of their skin colour or gender, if you are good at something you will naturally work up the ladder and do well.

Forcing diversity can bring about 'plastic' professionals. I've seen it on the TV with countless programs.

If you are regarding the atmosphere in certain fields, then I can get that. There could be a air of alienation in some fields to certain genders and colours. I agree it could be awkward and some form of facilitation to females or black people should be apparent if they truly do want to expertise in a field of their interest.

As to a war cry to get people into STEM positions, I find that forceful and damaging, both for future skillsets and the current establishments. Why should a field be inundated with diversity quota professionals? It creates its own awkward atmosphere.

Simply facilitation for anyone not so typical to a field with genuine interest should be in place. Forcing diversity creates a different awkwardness to awkwardness of genderism and racism but awkwardness nonetheless.
And TV is rife with this forced diversity placement awkwardness, it also becomes apparent to the audiences at home that they haven't chose the best of talent for what was most likely on offer.

[Anonymous No.12419653]

>>12418719
Depends on what exactly do they want. Affirmative action? No, that's a stupid idea. More visibility of woman and other underrepresented groups? I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I also don't know to what extent would that actually help narrow the gap on stem.

[Anonymous No.12419702]

>>12418719
Just because I see a serial rapist on the news doesn't mean I can just go and be one.
this is retarded.
also go back
>>>/pol/
not math or science.

[Anonymous No.12420300]

>>12418719
>you can't be what you can't see
Well i don't see a XX aged male named XXXX with XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX hair, XXXX eyes, who studied XXXXXXXXXXXX at XXXXXXXXXX university who is into XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX and XX XXXXXX, so i guess i can't fucking be that person either.

>>12418726
I hope you're wrong, because you might only think in systems but you're part of them as well, and if the west falls china takes over and that will be the end of human society as we know it.

[Anonymous No.12420327]

>>12418719
As a kid I was always just into science. Wasn't interested in who invented what. Thought it was stupid to call them Maxwell's equations and not EM equations.

[Anonymous No.12421447]

>>12418719
The targets are wrong. Women don’t burn out in academia, they are quite good at that. They burn out in industry.

[Anonymous No.12421654]

enforced diversity is a weapon of warfare designed to destroy our societies
only china and the bankers benefit from our self destruction, and guess who funds it?