[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 526 KB, 940x753, 1292336038440.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3265148 No.3265148 [Reply] [Original]

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/onwomen.html

From an evolutionary stanpoint, do you think his views were supported?

>> No.3265158

>>3265148
no

and all I had to do was read the first few lines

>> No.3265163

"One only needs to see..."

Stopped right there. Give me data, not the "eye test"

>> No.3265166

>One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day
Since when do men not play with their children?

Also, most, if not all, of his views are concerned with social issues. So pretty much none of them.

>> No.3265168

>>3265163

>implying physical observation isn't data

Confirmed for full butthurt feminist

>> No.3265171

>>3265168
limited personal experience does not qualify as data. Go away and NEVER come back!

>> No.3265175

>>3265171

>data

I don't think you know what that means.

>> No.3265178

>>3265168
ah dude you're so fucking edgy ahahaha holy shit, you're as funny as dane cook.

>> No.3265183

>>3265178

Who's dane cook?

>> No.3265185

>>3265168
Boy, aren't you cool, implying that subjective observation is objective empirical evidence, and then calling anyone who disagrees with you a feminist.

>> No.3265187

isn't it a character in Star Trek?

And yes, I'm fully aware of what it means and how personal bias can warp ones observations if not carefully controlled.

Thus, not data.

>> No.3265191

>>3265175
I am beginning to believe that you do not know what that word means.

Data is the result of measurements, not the observation itself.
Observation is typically the thing that warrants the need for data.

>> No.3265192

>>3265148

All retardedness aside, the facts are pretty hard to ignore. While one could nitpick on things he says on the whole the evidence does support him.

>> No.3265197

>>3265185

Are you 12? Observation is the very basis of science.

>> No.3265202

>>3265191

The term data refers to qualitative or quantitative attributes of a variable or set of variables. Data (plural of "datum") are typically the results of measurements and can be the basis of graphs, images, or observations of a set of variables.

>> No.3265205

>>3265197
>doesn't know what subjective and objective mean

>> No.3265207

From an evolutionary standpoint? No his views are not supported.

>> No.3265210

>>3265183
I love it when people do this so they sound like they are too intellectual for pop culture by pretending they have never heard of somebody, despite the ever so simple to use Google.

>> No.3265212

>>3265207

Cool opinion, bro. Care to supply any supporting facts?

>> No.3265219

>>3265202
Brought to you by Wikipedia.

>> No.3265218

I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone can disagree with this:

"Absence of genius

Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes."

>> No.3265216

>>3265205

What is objective int he scheme of things? You only have to read Hawking's 'The Grand Design' to see that nothing is really objective. A goldfish in a goldfish-bowl could form equations about the movement of light that only work through the lens that is the bowl.
I don't think you know what you're talking about.

>> No.3265220

>>3265207
Because, >>3265166

>> No.3265222

>>3265220

'Men play with their children, therefore your argument is invalid!'

>> No.3265223

>>3265210

Googling him only tells me that he's an American comedian.

I figured your specific usage of him indicated a specific reference which I wouldn't get from a google search.

But if you want to be a pretentious jackass, that's fine by me.

>> No.3265230

>>3265222
Not that you fucking retard,
>Also, most, if not all, of his views are concerned with social issues. So pretty much none of them.

>> No.3265231

>>3265223

If you read the post, you would see that he was being sarcastic. You don't even need to know who 'Dane Cook' is; I don't, and I got it.

You're an idiot.

>> No.3265236

>>3265230

'He's talking about social issues, therefore your argument is invalid!'

I don't see how that's proof of anything, cock-sucker.

>> No.3265237
File: 11 KB, 424x288, 2732.img.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3265237

>>3265231

I know he was being sarcastic...

Like I said, he could've just said in a general sense "Oh man you're such a great comedian", but I figured he specifically chose dane cook for a nuanced reason which I am not aware of. I got the overall "joke"...

Jesus christ are you retarded.

>> No.3265239

>>3265236
>social issues
>evolution

>> No.3265241

>>3265237

I agree with your point of view ing eneral but it was unnecessary to ask who 'Dane Cook' was.

>> No.3265244

>>3265239

Men and women are differently biologically, and have evolved to to different things, so what is your point?

>> No.3265247

>>3265220
I quoted the wrong anon, I meant to criticize: >>3265212

>> No.3265254

>>3265163
>>3265166
>>3265171
>>3265178
>>3265185

I can tell these are women, because their reasoning is demonstrably below average.

Prove me wrong.

>> No.3265259

>>3265254

>Women
>On a Science and Math board

I laughed. Women couldn't do Maths if their life depended on it.

>> No.3265261
File: 86 KB, 400x351, 1287856549118.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3265261

>>3265241

So no one is allowed to be curious...?

>> No.3265263

>>3265261

If you're curious, then use Google, you fucking cretin.

>> No.3265267

>>3265263

I only wanted to know relevant to the conversation.

>> No.3265273

>>3265259
interesting, because I'm know plenty of women who would take your ass to school when it comes to math

>> No.3265282

>>3265273

This is actually scientifically true. Bitches are better calculators. However, they suck dick at 'creative' math.
So basically:
Arithmetic = Women > Men
Mathematics = Men > Women

>> No.3265285

>>3265273

You don't know how good at Maths I am. You never will. There are few girls in my Maths class at University, and the ones that are there are fucking retarded.

Again, Women couldn't do a Maths problem if their life depended on it.

>> No.3265299

>>3265285
gabrielle du chatelet

also, women are often disadvantaged in math and science simply because their teachers have a similar, incorrect, bias. Also because plenty of them grow up thinking being beautiful is more important than being smart.

Also, Hypatia was pretty badass as well.

>> No.3265300

>>3265285
>limited personal experience
Its what science is all about

>> No.3265302

>>3265299
>>also also also
said that alot.

>> No.3265308
File: 1.65 MB, 290x260, 1308138776994.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3265308

>>3265299

>gabrielle du chatelet

Voltaire, one of her lovers, declared in a letter to his friend King Frederick II of Prussia that du Châtelet was "a great man whose only fault was being a woman".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

>> No.3265310

>>3265299

>also, women are often disadvantaged in math and science simply because their teachers have a similar, incorrect, bias

Stereotype threat? That's been disproven long ago.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and an exception does nothing to discredit a rule.

Go fuck yourself.

>> No.3265314

>>3265300

Let's compare the number of Men and Women getting Ph.Ds In Maths.

>> No.3265315

>>3265310
you just managed to put a bunch of words together, but do they mean anything?

>>claims disproven long ago, doesn't provide any proof.

>> No.3265324

>>3265315

The burden is actually on you to prove your claim.

Sad little person.

>> No.3265333

>>3265314
that's because maths is boring as fuck and there's very little in the way of job opportunities

>> No.3265336

>>3265333

Why not just admit defeat instead of continually trying to make excuses? First it was stereotype threat, then 'because they care more about being pretty', and now it's because it's boring?

>> No.3265354

if you have any knowledge on gametophytes and reproduction cycles, you will realize there is very little difference between male and female

>> No.3265355

>>3265354

Prove it.

>> No.3265366

>>3265354

There's a less than one percent difference in the DNA between chimps and humans.

Yet look how vast a difference that makes.

>> No.3265368

Consider the chinese as standard levels for human intellect.

women are invalid in everything mathematic.

>> No.3265391

I reject this.

Genes cannot hardwire abstract concepts into the neo-cortex, they can only develop instinctive responses in other parts of the brian such as the amygdala and differences in male and female instinctive responses are caused by hormones in the womb, which explains why someone with an XY sex chromosone can develop attraction to other males. Sex hormones have little influence on the development of the neo-cortex, so it can be concluded their ability to reason is not impaired even if their instincts are different.

>> No.3265396

Woman revolution is fucking up society and is responsible for men all around the world to become either monsters or potential-monsters.

The fact that woman are goddamn sluts is going to cause humanity's extinction.

True story. Ask a anybody to picture a rapist ... what is the person's genre?

>> No.3265397

>>3265391

You could not be more wrong. With your logic, it stands to reason that men and women's personalities should be the same on average. Men aren't more aggressive, women aren't more emotional.

>> No.3265399
File: 16 KB, 309x300, 1276533647086.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3265399

>>3265391

O RLY?!?!?! Care to explain how newborns have an innate sense of 3D space?

Your argument is invalid

>> No.3265405

>>3265148
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256816/gender-discrimination-science-myth-alex-b-berezow?page
=1
relevant.

>> No.3265417

>>3265405

>alex berezow

tell me troll

>> No.3265429

>>3265399
http://psychology.about.com/od/vindex/f/visual-cliff.htm
I am not the poster you are replying to, but I think you will know a little bit more. It is an abridged version of the Visual Cliff test and it's results.
An "innate sense of 3D space" isn't really proveable in infants, but this experiment tries to get as close as they can to understanding infants and children.
I know, utrollmehard lolz

>> No.3265440

>>3265417
the content is more important than who wrote it.

>> No.3265445

>>3265440

>content
>big diatribe by a stupid fuck

>> No.3265448

>>3265429

....?
The article just elaborate further on what I said.

Were you agreeing with me?

>> No.3265500

>>3265448
I guess you could say that.
The study goes as low as 3-month-olds. It would be harder to test younger infants, because they aren't as mobile and haven't learned how to control their bodies yet (or haven't even learned what the floating pieces of flesh that constantly wave around in front of them are, yet)

I just didn't really like the way that you said that a sense of 3D space, which is a broad term itself, is something that newborns (as in humans, right out of the mother) have; because, there is nothing, that I know of, for you to support it.

If you couldn't understand that, I'm sorry; I'm tired and I don't even fully comprehend whit I wrote, myself. haha

>> No.3265511
File: 423 KB, 673x676, 1308715776088.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3265511

>>3265500

>> No.3265525
File: 22 KB, 593x404, 1307087423237.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3265525

>>3265448
>>3265500
Now that I re-read what I wrote, I just wanted to point out that there isn't really a way to prove that the newborns do, or do not, have a "3D sense" because one can't really perform experiments to test those hypotheses.
It would just be more correct to say that "studies have shown that children develop a sense of height, and the risk of injury, at very early ages. This could POSSIBLY mean that they are born with such an 'innate sense', but that is just my prediction"
>>3265511
>mfw

>> No.3265553
File: 1.82 MB, 320x240, 1308681455039.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3265553

>>3265525

>> No.3265763

>>3265755

lol funny you should say such a thing.

http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-2/Do-humans-have-an-innate-capacity-for-mathematics.html

>> No.3265919

>>3265755

it's funny that you think emotions and instincts are completely separate to how you think