/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4709305]

Why is math and science so sexist? They should make it less hard or give more scholarships to women. We're just as good at math as men are, it's so unfair.

[Anonymous No.4709315]

>make it less hard
>We're just as good at math as men

makes_sense.jpg

[Anonymous No.4709324]

Oh my god...just... wow...

[Anonymous No.4709344]

I thought there would be plenty of female math majors. Back in highschool there was a 50% split in the high level math class (advanced calculus, ODE's), majority boys in mid level class (derivatives, algebra), majority girls in low level (calculating interest, basic probability) and majority boys in remedial (basic numerical operations)

[Anonymous No.4709348]

>>4709344
Walk into an upper level physics class sometime.

Doesn't matter what university, you can be 90% sure it'll be a major sausage fest.

[Anonymous No.4709358]

>>4709348
There are a lot more girls in math than physics, because they actually WANT to become high school math teachers.

[Anonymous No.4709362]

Wow, that photo was taken at my old community college.

[Anonymous No.4709372]

>college calc 1
>wow it's like 60% girls that's unexpected I don't know what everyone's talking about no woman hah
>calc 2
>class lecture of 150 only 6 girls I counted I gave 2 the benefit of the doubt might of been very feminine guys

what happened /sci/...

[Anonymous No.4709375]

>>4709358
Yeah but, at the end of the day they want to be teachers and not mathematicians. And still, a lot of math classes are mainly a boys club.

[Anonymous No.4709378]

>>4709372

Bio majors only have to take calc 1

[Anonymous No.4709382]

>>4709372
You only need a certain amount of math to get into med school. Most of the girls were probably premed/predental/prevet/etc

[Anonymous No.4709385]

>>4709378

And female math majors (who I agree typically want to become teachers) usually go the statistics route after one or two calculus classes

[Anonymous No.4709390]

>>4709362
>higher level math courses
>community college
>mfw shes probably the only chick to pass college algebra at the school

[Anonymous No.4709394]

>>4709385
Is it that bad to go the statistics route? At least it's not just dropping out. Unless you were just explaining why you never see them in the higher calc and linear algebra classes, in which case disregard what I said.

[Anonymous No.4709399]

>>4709394

I don't necessarily see it as bad, as statistics can lead to some lucrative careers.

I just see it as boring as fuck ... and I was just giving my hypothesis as to why you don't see them.

[Anonymous No.4709407]

Best math professor I've ever had is a woman.

She is also a flaming bulldyke if that means anything

[Anonymous No.4709412]

a) Troll.
b) Not female.
c) Girls can't math.

/thread

[None !nateCNUz8. No.4709413]

how the fuck does feminism have anything to do with whether or not women are in high-level maths courses or not...

the only thing stopping them is themselves?

[Anonymous No.4709419]

>>4709407
there is a correlation between brain structure and sexuality
in other words, some female homosexuals have the brain structure of men

therefore, it further solidifies the stance that homosexuality is genetic, and heterosexual women can't into math

[Anonymous No.4709426]

>>4709413
Most women get intimidated due to social pressures making math seem uncool and not a feminine thing. Also they want female role models, and somehow can't be inspired by a good, positive, math based individual unless they have a vagina.

The whole thing is stupid as fuck IMO.

[Anonymous No.4709483]

At my uni it's 60/40 women to men in math. ALthough there is some sexism still present in academia, basically anyone who thinks they can't get into math courses because of sexism is a retards. Here's the real reason (excuse sauce)

[Anonymous No.4709512]

No. Just no. Women are fucking retarded. They think they are smart. Fuck, they are idiots.

[Anonymous No.4709528]

>mfw most scolarships I've run into are for women only and I feel discriminated because I can't receive them

[Anonymous No.4709534]

>>4709528
this, for niggers and jews too.

hell, even spics have their own scholarships now.

[Anonymous No.4709537]

>>4709483
This. Women can get really competitive in the sciences. They want to stand out as the GURL SCIENTIST then upper division classes kick in and their social lives begin to suffer. Men typically put up with it better, and a lot of women end up dropping the major. At least that was my experience.

I had 4 female friends that started the physics curriculum with me. They all got through the "101" series. Intro to Modern Physics (QM) came around and one dropped due to pressure. Another fell behind due to repeated failures. Another got through it and did other courses to complete the physics minor then moved to some other major. The last one completed the major in 3.5 years, coming into college without any knowledge of calculus. Shit surprised me.

[Anonymous No.4709588]

>>4709483
No, that is just another indicator of the genetically programmed superficiality of most females and demonstrates that even at a young age they choose to pretend to be princesses and play with dolls who will unconditionally worship them instead of immediately realizing their creative potential and constantly begin to try to figure out how things actually work so that they can build and create new and exciting things.

[Anonymous No.4709589]

Why is SHE so sexist?
She gets lonely? How about making some MALE friends

[Anonymous No.4709597]

There is absolutely nothing stopping them apart from their own will and intelligence. Any under-representation of women in maths and the sciences is their fault.

[Anonymous No.4709599]

>>4709426

That has nothing to do with feminism, though. That has something to do with your entire gender being biased towards a subject.

[Anonymous No.4709602]

>>4709597
Well, what makes people who they are? How they're raised, and their genetics. If the genetics for men and women are the same when it comes to mathematics, then there's a difference in how they're raised. If they're raised the same, there's a difference in genetics.

[Anonymous No.4709603]

Didn't read the thread but I assume it's filled with uninformed misogyny as per usual.

Anyways you should all google the studies proving that the gap between performance in mathematics between genders is predominantly environmentally induced.

[Anonymous No.4709606]

>>4709589
I'd feel lonely in an near all-female study or profession.

[Anonymous No.4709607]

>>4709602
I am not talking about how they are raised though, I hear idiots claiming the barrier is at university itself. I have never seen any sexism towards female scientists, there is no reason for there to be yet many feminists acts like its the departments fault and not their own lack of desire or ability to do science. Anybody talking about having to 'adjust' gender ratios on a degree course is probably a sexist.

[Anonymous No.4709608]

>>4709378

LIES.

We have to go up to calc 2.

[Anonymous No.4709609]

>>4709606
Really?
I'd be on top of the world

[Anonymous No.4709611]

>>4709608

[Anonymous No.4709612]

[Anonymous No.4709613]

[Anonymous No.4709615]

[Anonymous No.4709616]

[Anonymous No.4709618]

[Anonymous No.4709619]

[Anonymous No.4709621]

>>4709611

I shit you not. Most UC schools won't have us go past calc 2 and stats. Some might recommend multivariable calc, but not nearly all of them. My evolution and ecology professor once wrote the equation for shannon diversity as ln(p_i)ln and didn't immediately realize that having a natural log operator without an operand is a no-no.

[Anonymous No.4709623]

>>4709621

[Anonymous No.4709626]

[Anonymous No.4709627]

[Anonymous No.4709628]

[Anonymous No.4709631]

[Anonymous No.4709651]

Isn't more of a "women aren't interested in math" thing than a feminism thing?

I don't blame sexism when there aren't that many male art teachers.

[Anonymous No.4709654]

>>4709628
That whole meme was forced by a creationist to discredit evolution on /sci/

[Anonymous No.4709655]

i blame the patriarchy for teaching us women from the cradle that girls can't do math

[Anonymous No.4709662]

>We're just as good at math as men are
not criticizing girls but girls do perform worse than male in mathematics(inb4 hurr durr exception)

[Anonymous No.4709663]

>>4709615
Why so 10x10 Image

[Anonymous No.4709664]

>>4709654
muh dick

[Anonymous No.4709667]

>>4709654

Most of the memes are forced, what's your point

[Anonymous No.4709689]

>>4709654
Nope

[sage No.4709696]

>>4709413
she's trying to encourage women to stop being dumb. it's not aimed at men.

[Anonymous No.4709697]

>>4709413
societies expectations play no part in it?

actually probably tree, because aspergers

[Anonymous No.4709699]

>>4709662
Actually females do perform slightly better in Mathematics then males in HS. They have a higher mean then males.

[Anonymous No.4709703]

>>4709699
they perform better at everything, because they work harder

[Anonymous No.4709706]

>>4709689
Whatever you say, creationist

[ad hoc name No.4709753]

>>4709699
>>4709703
These are true for most things school related. Men are still smarter.

[Anonymous No.4709842]

> We argue for the importance of another factor in women’s underrepresentation: the choice to become a mother. To place the role of this choice in context, we consider its impact on women’s careers relative to the impacts of other variables that may reduce women’s participation in the sciences. Our own findings as well as research by others show that the effect of children on women’s academic careers is so remarkable that it eclipses other factors in contributing to women’s underrepresentation in academic science.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2012/2/when-scientists-choose-motherhood/1

[Anonymous No.4709853]

>>4709842
This is completely true. Most female lecturers I have have children in their late teens and warn females about getting pregnant during our PhD's or Masters.

Personally I am stuck at how I am going work a career and motherhood into my life. I have already decided not to become a surgeon because I do want to be able to be there for my children.

[Anonymous No.4709865]

>>4709853
Don't become a mother? There's enough humans out there that you not becoming a mother won't effect the survival of our species so it's not really required at all.

[Anonymous No.4709876]

>>4709865
I want to be a mother. I realize that the worlds population is already big enough, but the feeling, the need to be a mother is very strong, and it is hard to fight it when it is such a deep thing.

I realize that not every female feels this, but I do.

And I realize it probably sounds stupid to you.

[Anonymous No.4709882]

I'm a little late to this thread so this may have been covered, but isn't all the talk about diversity (sex or race based preferences) in higher education based on the idea that other students will benefit from meeting people from a different background? If this is the case a girl that is all by herself in a math class is getting the most diversity, and hence the best education, of anyone. This would mean that getting more girls into STEM classes would hurt her education and opportunity. I think it's wrong to punish her in this way just because she is a minority.

[Anonymous No.4709891]

>>4709305
Every single one of you dumb cunts fell for this troll
jesus

[Anonymous No.4709895]

>>4709876
plenty of guys want to be stay at home dads now a days, so either it it so that your last trimester starts right before summer break. or adopt.

[Anonymous No.4709903]

Women don't deserve 'help' just because they want to have children, most mathematicians are nerds, socially stunted and choosing this carrer cripples their posibilities of having a happy life. We're not crying for these men wich will not have children.
The price of having a chance of being successful at math is diminishing your chances of, well, sexual partners, children, etc.

Girls that neglect completely the fact that they can easily ave children wouldn't have problem with math.

[Anonymous No.4709904]

>>4709876

>And I realize it probably sounds stupid to you.

Being a male, it does.

[Anonymous No.4709916]

>>4709904
Which is why I said that. I realize males don't have the same biological instincts.
>>4709891
This is true. Planning will be a big thing for me. And adoption can be hard and long process, but it is something to consider and it is while off before I am in a position to have children. I want to do my PhD before I have any.

[Anonymous No.4709962]

>>4709916
Men have the same kind of instincts, the catch is that if you're not a desirable alpha guy you can end up as a rapist.

[Anonymous No.4709997]

>>4709876

I'm a male and it doesn't.
This guy
>>4709904
is probably some kind of beta faggot who doesn't want his inferiour DNA to be passed on or feels too weak to satisfy his protector instincts, most probably both.

Society has programmed me to not want to be a stay at home dad, though. So I feel kinda sorry putting more pressure on your sex (dirty pun not intended).

[Anonymous No.4710001]

>>4709662
>>4709699

>pic related

[Anonymous No.4710004]

>>4709997
>on /sci/
>calling others out on having inferior DNA

You are never going to reproduce you ugly fuck

[Anonymous No.4710015]

>>4710004
Good troll, can't really reply without sounding like an "internet bad-ass". I hope you realize your argument is flawed, though, or maybe you really think scientists and engineers look like "The Big Bang Theory"-protagonists.

In which case, hahaha stupid faggot, you shouldn't even be here.

[Anonymous No.4710036]

This is now a math-woman thread.

[Anonymous No.4710041]

laughinggirls.jpg

[Anonymous No.4710046]

[Anonymous No.4710049]

>>4710046

jewish chicks don't count. no one is impressed when a black chick is good at basketball either.

[Anonymous No.4710052]

[Anonymous No.4710053]

>>4710052
why are there feathers in her ass?

[Anonymous No.4710055]

[Anonymous No.4710057]

>>4710053
she has a cock up her vagina

[Anonymous No.4710058]

[Anonymous No.4710065]

>>4709997
I wouldn't feel too bad. It is what society has become and besides now days, it is not uncommon to have both parents having a career.

And for me, if my future-partner does not want to be a stay at home dad, I most probably would be a stay-at home mum for a few years before going into part time work until they are all at school.

[Anonymous No.4710064]

i shiggity diggity diggly doo

[Anonymous No.4710068]

>>4710052
It is lace. You obviously haven't seen a girl in lingerie.

[Anonymous No.4710069]

>>4710058
Our school did something similar. We had to write some mathy stuff on blackboard and then random paid women with photogenic smiles stood next to with a chalk looking thoughtful and some photos were taken for PR.

Very humiliating for all parties and ultimately useless.

[Anonymous No.4710071]

>>4710058

from what I can see, it looks like she's doing lower level calculus.

[Anonymous No.4710073]

>>4710069
Seriously? Are schools this desperate to fish for new students?

[Anonymous No.4710075]

>>4710058
Why is she wearing two pairs of underwear?

[Anonymous No.4710078]

>>4710036
>math
>numbers greater than 3 writed on the board
nope

[Anonymous No.4710098]

>>4710078
> math
> numbers instead of letters

[Anonymous No.4710105]

>>4710078
>writed

...whatever I'll forgive it.

Still this whole thing is stupid. That girl in underwear "doing math" she probably didn't even write down let alone understand is probably the most pathetic thing ever next to 'microwave cooking for one.'

[Anonymous No.4710110]

>>4710105
jelly?

[Anonymous No.4710121]

This thread is full of high schoolers.

Maths is typically a male role, and girls are seen as being unable to grasp it due to what's between their legs.
Every year my Proff picks 5 of the top students to recommend to the broad, and last week he very openly admitted to the entier theater that he doesn't recommend females (even though the top 3 in both physics and maths where female) because he personally believes they would be unable to get it. :|

I don't doubt that most girls a shit at maths, but fuck. Don't let gender-roles get in the way of science!

[OP No.4710133]

>be engineering major
>class is about %25-30 female
>most are mediocre at the material
>cause problems in group projects
>graduation time
>The majority of guys don't have jobs
>every single girl had at least one job offer or they got accepted to grad school.

Engineering school must have been fun in the 50's and 60's when it was a group of guys working together towards a better understanding of engineering knowledge.

[Anonymous No.4710134]

>>4710110
Someone obviously gets hard on for fake nerds.

[Anonymous No.4710141]

Why would any guy want more female math majors? That's like specifically asking for more ugly chicks.

Just go outside your fucking department to meet women, it's not rocket science.

[Anonymous No.4710143]

>>4710141
Is that hamplanet supposed to be attractive or something?

[Anonymous No.4710146]

>>4710143
not really

[Anonymous No.4710150]

A friend of mine started college this year as a mechanical engineering major. She is Vietnamese. Her advisor put her in a class called "intro to engineering for women and minorities". She told me it was the most patronizing, worthless, and insulting thing she ever had to go through. That SMBC comic someone posted is 50% of the truth. The other 50% is the bleeding hearts in academia that think women and minorities can't make it on their own.

[Anonymous No.4710155]

[Anonymous No.4710158]

>>4710150
>That SMBC comic someone posted is 5% of the truth. Another 5% is the bleeding hearts in academia that think women and minorities can't make it on their own.
...and 90% of the truth is the biological reality underlying the stereotypes.

[Anonymous No.4710163]

>>4710158

[Anonymous No.4710164]

>>4710158
>That SMBC comic someone posted is 5% of the truth. Another 5% is the bleeding hearts in academia that think women and minorities can't make it on their own.
>...and 9% of the truth is the biological reality underlying the stereotypes.
... and 81% of the truth is that I like eating pies.

[Anonymous No.4710177]

I'll give OP a 1/10, that's all I can do

[Anonymous No.4710182]

>women not stupider than men

Then why do women do so shit at the international maths olympiad, the international maths competition for highschool students?

Since the IMO began 60 years ago, only 800 female students have been good enough to qualify for the competition
http://www.imo-official.org/hall.aspx?column=awards&order=desc&nameform=western&gender=f
ilter&&block=7

whereas there have been over 10000 students participating in total
http://www.imo-official.org/hall.aspx?column=awards&order=desc&nameform=western&gender=h
ide&&block=102

In any given year, most countries will not be able to find a single girl good enough to get on their team of 6.
http://www.imo-official.org/year_country_r.aspx?year=2011

http://www.imo-official.org/year_individual_r.aspx?year=2011&column=total&order=desc
>only 4 girls in the top 100 contestants

Furthermore, teh fact that the IMO is an international competition with countries competing all over the world invalidates the excuse that female shittiness at maths is due to social attitudes, since we can see that even countries like Sweden and Norway, whose education systems dogmatically hold the belief that males and females are mentally equal in every way, such that they even discourage kindergarten teachers from using gendered pronouns, typically struggle to find to a single girl good enough to get on their team of 6, and rarely find more than one girl good enough, if that.
http://www.imo-official.org/country_team_r.aspx?code=SWE
http://www.imo-official.org/country_team_r.aspx?code=NOR

Females possess a lower mean ability for the logical, rational reasoning required for mathematics, as well as physical sciences and technology (both also fields that women are not as good at so work in less frequently than men).

>>4709385
how can you do statistics with only th knowledge of calculus 1 and 2?

[Anonymous No.4710190]

>>4710150

>mechanical engineering major

Woman or not, teacher probably put her in there because she wanted her to get out of that piece of shit major as quickly as possible. Teacher made her ragequit to see the light.

She was doing her a favor.

[Anonymous No.4710191]

Societal pressure, the kindergarten shits give girls dolls to play with while boys play with cars and other shit.

Although the majority of life sciences and maths here is female so I don't know really.

>>4710182
That thing is Sweden was done in 1 kindergarten once. Don't encourage society pushing some artificial roles on people, I know there are biological differences but just leave people alone and let it rip while society usually does the opposite (corruptive power of authority).

[Anonymous No.4710199]

Mfw Im in biomedical engineering and 60% of students are women.

And most are really pretty. The first day I saw them I thought to myself: "oh god these women are gonna be annoying and just abuse the help of nerds." but that was never the case. Most of them are really nice and are actually smarter than the men.
After becoming friends with a lot of them I realized that characteristics that these beautiful engineering women have that normal beautiful women DON'T have are the following:

-The engineering women usually grew up as the only girl in the family (only have brothers)

-Played a lot of video games in their childhood and teenage years (and no casual stuff lol)

-also played with toys like legos besides dolls (the comic someone posted is correct)

-watched shows like transformers, gundam, Beyblade and movies like the matrix when they were growing up.

[Anonymous No.4710206]

>>4710191
Society simply recognises the mean differences between sexes and divides labor accordingly in the most efficient manner.

Men naturally have more interest in systems over social interaction vs. females, are more prone to taking risks vs. females, are more likely to react to violence, danger and agression with agression vs. females, and are more openly competitive than females and desire to excel and be known to be better than other males intellectually and phsyically.
This makes men more suited to bread-winning and fighting in wars (hence why in most societies draft is compulsory for males but not females).

Women on the other hand are the less so in all of those aforementioned things and have greater interest in nurturing and caring for thigns, this makes them more suited to filling the domestic, maternal role in a family.

It doesn't work for everyone, they are of course only mean differences between genders, but there is a valid reason for gender roels existing, and that's because they reflect and compliment nature.

[Anonymous No.4710212]

>>4710206
You seem to think that gender roles like you know them today or in the past existed throughout all history but that is not true. For example in German barbaric societies the German women could have an equal status to the male , der Herr / die Herrin and you also had women who chose to ride into battle.
Obviously there are biological differences but they are not really as big as society wants us to think, so society pushes a bunch of shitty norms on genders since the early age (mom buys the daughter dolls and shit).
This needs to be abolished, like the above poster said, give them legos and shit as a child.
Also statistically women are better in school but then later they are less and less prominent in academia, don't you think there is a societal injustice at work here also ?

[Anonymous No.4710216]

>>4710199
You forgot one thing

>they are all bitches

There are no "cool" women in engineering. They are the overachiever types who turn everything into a competition and rat you out when you do something wrong.

The bioengineering girls were the worst because they had a massive ego because they were in bioengineering.

[Anonymous No.4710228]

>>4710216
Some of my friends in engineering would always talk about how much better they were than other girls. Actually they weren't much different from other people in engineering who thought that engineering was the hardest, most intellectually challenging thing in the world, even though it really wasn't.

[Anonymous No.4710233]

>>4710228
> implying that scale is well-defined
Typical non-engineer.

[Anonymous No.4710237]

>>4710228
Throw any other major into an low level engineering class and they will be pull out within a week. Throw engineering majors into any other low level class and they will do fine.

I never talked about how my major was superior to other majors, but it was harder than anything else my college offered. Engineering does not have a %50 drop out rate for no reason.

[Anonymous No.4710243]

>>4710212
Show me some evidence that of two candidates applying for the same academic position that are otherwise equal apart from their gendder, that the woman is less likely to get picked.

This
"there are fewer women than men in X, that means there is biase against women in X"
is bunk.
There are differences between genders, particularly in what they're interested in spending their lives doing.
Frankly, given that more women are interested in social interaction vs studying systems than men, I would think that the life of a researcher appeals to fewer women than men.

[Anonymous No.4710240]

>>4710212
>later they are less and less prominent in academia
  
Nope.
 
"American women today are more likely to earn college degrees than men with women receiving 57 percent of all bachelor's and 60 percent of all master's degrees."
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113708.htm
 
 
 
"...women’s graduation rates surpass men’s by 7 percentage points."
 
http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-economy/women-s-successes-in-school-bleed-away-in-their-paycheck
s-20120309

[Anonymous No.4710248]

>>4710243
there's some data here which is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

[Anonymous No.4710273]

>>4709699
>They have a higher mean then males.

This applies to everything though.

Men tend to be split into dichotomies of ability, with very high performers in the upper atmosphere, and useless genetic material in the mariana trench. Women on the other hand in their faculties tend to be concentrated towards the middle.

[EE Math Double Major !y/NX9vMnL. No.4710276]

>majoring in engineering just cause you know baby calculus/physics

it's always these faggots who have the hardest time keeping a job. My suggestion to you is to go into engineering because you like to build things not because you want to make money off baby math knowledge that is rarely applicable to your job.

[Anonymous No.4710354]

>>4709699
High school mathematics is not challenging (memorize process by rote, follow process obediently) and is often incompetently tested (i.e. getting the right answer is marked wrong, getting the wrong answer that seems like it should be right to dumb people like the teacher is marked right).

Nobody is disputing that girls are more obedient and manageable than boys. Boys need to be challenged. Girls are perfectly content when given easy, simple work.

This is the division of labor the performance differences of the sexes evolved for: in the human species, the male is the performance model and the female is the economy model. A man who does work a woman could do is shamed: the additional investment in nutrition that went into his more powerful body and brain is wasted; he must always struggle to prove that he is worthy of his manhood. A woman who finds anything to do with herself that is approved by the people around her is contented: she cost less and has nothing to prove.

[Anonymous No.4710446]

>>4710354
> the male is the performance model and the female is the economy model. A man who does work a woman could do is shamed: the additional investment in nutrition that went into his more powerful body and brain is wasted;

refer to:
>>4710273


Most men AREN'T the "performance" model, and brain size is loosely correlated with average body size - and it's important to note that intelligence(and overall ability) is a function of brain shape, not size.

[Anonymous No.4710472]

>>4710446
>Most men AREN'T the "performance" model
IQ tests are carefully tuned to make male and female averages the same, despite studies of mental performance sex differences showing major performance advantages for men in important tasks such as spacial reasoning, and few, minor, dubious compensations for women.

The equivalent in a "Physical Ability Quotient" would be to have two thirds of the score based on flexibility and being able to squeeze your hands through small holes, so a seemingly objective test can create a false equality.

IQ testing is terrible, and even low-IQ men can outperform women at challenging mental tasks. This creates all kinds of weirdness in the statistics of IQ distribution.

Boys are also more likely to be rebellious, and simply refuse to take education and testing seriously. Girls are much more likely to do as they're told.

>brain size is loosely correlated with average body size - and it's important to note that intelligence(and overall ability) is a function of brain shape, not size.
Size matters, too. The male brain is not only absolutely larger, but is larger in proportion to body mass, is more heavily myelinated, and consumes more calories per unit mass.

It's bigger AND made of better stuff. With all of the same genes available to men as to women, this additional expenditure would not make any sense unless it provided a performance advantage, which it rather obviously does if you approach the subject with any attitude other than determination to prove that it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.4710481]

>i get lonley in my high level math courses
>shes in calc I
>at a community college
>in Alabama

[Anonymous No.4710500]

>>4710481
fuck I lol'd hard

[Anonymous No.4710666]

>>4710472
>IQ tests are carefully tuned to make male and female averages the same, despite studies of mental performance sex differences showing major performance advantages for men in important tasks such as spacial reasoning, and few, minor, dubious compensations for women.

As alluded to in the post I quoted, averages are the same but the distribution is completely different.

>IQ testing is terrible, and even low-IQ men can outperform women at challenging mental tasks.

Performance on a given activity is not solely due to IQ. Women lack focus and competitive drive, which is a large part of why they don't perform as well on challenging mental tasks. It's not because their raw logic comprehension capacity is drastically different.

>Boys are also more likely to be rebellious, and simply refuse to take education and testing seriously. Girls are much more likely to do as they're told.

exaggerations everywhere.

[Anonymous No.4710670]

>>4710666
>averages are the same
My point was that averages are deliberately forced to be the same regardless of how much this distorts the results or how silly the test has to be to achieve this goal.

[Anonymous No.4710678]

>>4710199

I'm a male who grew up with mostly sisters, enjoyed playing dolls with them when little and isn't very into video games.

Didn't stop me from becoming a math / cs double major.

[Anonymous No.4710681]

>>4710678
protip: you haven't failed out yet, doesn't mean you won't

enjoy graduating from a school of journalism

[Anonymous No.4710689]

I got a degree in English (OH GOD, I'M THE ENEMY!)

I had several classes where I was the only male in the class. What's surprising is, or maybe not so much? As I go into my masters program there's a lot more men. It seems when men get English majors they intend to carry on with it into a career while girls seem to get English degrees because it's easy and they don't know what else to do with their lives.

[Anonymous No.4710715]

>>4710689
Getting "a degree" is what good girls do. So they just get whatever degree sounds easy and pleasant, regardless of whether they develop any marketable skills or develop intellectually.

...and it's still better to hire the girls who have done this than most men or women with no degree, because they've proven that they can show up on time and follow instructions for 4 years in a row.

If you haven't been an employer, you might not have a clear idea what a bunch of bloody useless tits most people are. It's hard to find people who will actually show up, will actually do something relevant to the reason their job exists all day, and won't just quit at the end of a month's paid training.

[Anonymous No.4710718]

>>4710689
> girls seem to get English degrees because it's easy and they don't know what else to do with their lives

But that's what all English majors do.

[Anonymous No.4710720]

>>4709305
It's called "victim complex".

[Anonymous No.4710736]

4/10

It's a good troll, but way to obvious.

[Anonymous No.4710767]

>>4709483

a lot of men who become engineers or scientists didn't have toys growing up or were raised in broken homes. jack parsons didn't even really get to finish high school.

[Anonymous No.4710776]

I'm an engineer and I had to watch my uncle masturbate when I was 11 and a bunch of girls feel sorry for themselves because they "had to play with dolls".

[Anonymous No.4710806]

>>4710718
You are right almost all of the time. If English majors were only those serious about studying for a career in teaching or for going into a related field such as law people would have far more respect for them.

Sadly, as I look around me that is hardly the case. Almost every English major you ask them what they intend to do on graduation and they say ... dur, I dunno.

Either way it's a great place to meet girls, lol. A roommate during my undergraduate work would have engineering classes with no girls at all and several times I was the only male in a sea of women. We would often joke about how the Engineers need to be required to take English courses just so we can preserve their genes.

[Anonymous No.4710868]

>>4709602
>what makes people who they are? How they're raised, and their genetics
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.4711070]

>>4710689

My girlfriend got a bachelors degree in English then went on to get her masters in media. She has no interest in journalism, won't even start a blog and hasn't the slightest clue (or desire??) to progress with the qualifications she has. I don't know what the fuck to say to her.

A girl-friend also started a computer science degree because she liked playing video games. She failed at the first integral. Not because she's stupid but because she's apparently afraid of work or any real effort.

Women don't understand the benefits of competition and appear to lack the ambition for excellence.

[Anonymous No.4711086]

>>4711070
"Ambition for excellence" is a misleading statement and I apologise. It's not about being number one for the sake of being number one but rather not being content with that which is unsolved.

[Anonymous No.4711101]

>>4711086
The easier way to put it is that women are mostly only interested in subjective bullshit and rarely in anything that might further the progress and well-being of humanity. A priori no one should judge whether it's more favorable to be interested in finding out how to make more efficient algorithms for numerical integration instead of trying to get the best clothing combination, but it's objective truth that one will be more beneficial to all whereas the other is just temporary self-indulgence. In that respect, women end on my lazy list: all they ever do is self-indulge, rarely does their behavior benefit others (neither long nor short term).

[Anonymous No.4711114]

8/10, next time you shoudn't use a facebook image

also at my university we have a lot of girls in math, engineering and cs, and guess what? They all suck, stay for some semesters, marry some asshole with money and go "i have studied, i am so independent" while being totally useless in every way imaginable

[Anonymous No.4711230]

>>4710776
God, the amount of misandry in this thread is excruciating.

Men are smarter than women, period.

It has been like this since the beginning of time, it will continue to be like this.

You can either accept this fact or you can try to justify the intelligence and reasoning gap by trying to pull out half-assed hypotheses.

[ad hoc name No.4711302]

>>4710212
No, this is completely wrong. There are no reverse sex role societies. Even finding societies with polyandry is almost impossible and only exist with very specific conditions.

I will bet that the thing about German history is wrong too.

>This needs to be abolished, like the above poster said, give them legos and shit as a child.

Even babies show the preference patterns that we see today. 1 day old babies! It is not a societal thing. It is natural.

This modern denial of human nature really is dumb.

[ad hoc name No.4711317]

>>4710472
Brain size measured with brain scans correlate with measured IQ at ~0.40. 0.44 when adjusted for reliability.

Citation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/

Males have larger brains, also when adjusting for body size. They average about 100 g more brain. It wud be odd if this had no effect on intelligence.

It is somewhat true that IQ tests have traditionally been equalized for the genders, in that subtests that gave a large advantage to one sex was removed as 'biased'. Anyway, what matters is the g-factor. Recent studies confirm that men have a higher average g. The distribution pattern seems to be the same, not different as previously thought.

Citation: Males have greater g: Sex differences in general mental ability from100,000 17- to 18-year-olds on the Scholastic Assessment Test
Douglas N. Jackson, J. Philippe Rushton
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2006%20Intell%20Jackson%20&%20Rushton.pdf

[Anonymous No.4711319]

>AS physics
>30% female
>AS maths
>50% female
>AS chemistry
>60% female

>A2 level
>less than 10% female in all classes

[Anonymous No.4711343]

>>4711317
>implying brain-size = intelligence

[Anonymous No.4711367]

>>4710237
I'm a philosophy major (don't worry, I don't need a well paying job) and I had no problem with Engineering Physics I and Engineering Physics II at my university. Got As in both courses.

It's a little silly to make generalizations like that.

[Anonymous No.4711387]

>>4711302

>Even babies show the preference patterns that we see today. 1 day old babies! It is not a societal thing.

Do you have a source for that?
It seems interesting.

[Anonymous No.4711402]

>>4711230

This.

[ad hoc name No.4711408]

>>4711387
Yes, but better yet: just watch this docu series:

http://genusnytt.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/se-hjernevask-avsloja-genusmyterna/

It's a norwegian series about the denial of human nature in sociology depts etc. Password is "hjernevask".

Many such studies are mentioned in those 7 films. If u want specific sources, google the authors names.

[ad hoc name No.4711412]

>>4711343
I did not imply any such thing. If u think i did, then u don't understand statistics, specifically correlation. Things can correlate at values between -1, 0 and 1. Intelligence and brain size is such a case. Most cases are.

[Anonymous No.4711499]

>>4711408

I'm not fond of videos, sorry.
I also do not speak Norwegian, so I'm unable to tell what the names of the authors are.

[ad hoc name No.4711503]

>>4711499
There are english subtitles.

If u're really that curious, just google it. The studies are not obscure, they are well known.

[Anonymous No.4711606]

>>4711503
Found it. Baron Cohen.
Not that interesting after all.

>One such idea is that males are naturally attuned to systems and objects, while females are attuned to people and caring. Cambridge University psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen (The Essential Difference) says that males are good at leadership, decision-making, and achievement, while females are suited for "making friends, mothering, gossiping, and 'reading' your partner." (He has been quoted in the New York Times, in a Newsweek cover story, in a PBS documentary, and in many other major media outlets.)

>Baron-Cohen bases his claims on one study (done in his lab in 2000) of day-old infants purporting to show that baby boys looked longer at mobiles, while day-old baby girls looked longer at human faces.

>Elizabeth Spelke, co-director of Harvard's Mind, Brain, and Behavior Interfaculty Initiative, utterly demolished this study. It has never been replicated, nor has it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, she reported. Furthermore, the study lacked critical controls against experimenter bias and was not well designed. Female and male infants were propped up in a parent's lap and shown, side by side, an active person or an inanimate object. Since newborns can't hold their heads up independently, their visual preferences could well have been determined by the way their parents held them.

From:
http://www.nais.org/publications/ismagazinearticle.cfm?ItemNumber=149282

I've looked at the study results and I can't tell if it's bullshit or not.

[ad hoc name No.4711694]

>>4711606
Dubious source u quote from.

>Rosalind Chait Barnett is a senior scientist at the Women's Studies Research Center at Brandeis University. Caryl Rivers is a professor of journalism at Boston University. They are the authors of Same Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children, and Our Jobs (Basic Books, 2004).

I wudn't trust a word such people write. Look up some of their claims. I chose an easy one.

>It has never been replicated, nor has it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, she reported.

It was published in Infant Behavior and Development, 2001, 23, 113-118. This is a peer-reviewed academic journal.
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/infant-behavior-and-development/

They also give the impression that it was his study, but he wasn't the only author nor was he the lead author.

If u read the actual paper (it is on Google), u can see tons of references to other previous, similar research. This is not some one piece of stand-alone, one or nothing paper.

If u look at his Wikipedia page, u can see that he has done lots of other similar research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baron-Cohen

-

I googled around randomly and found more supporting research, tho not quite exact replications.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638302000954
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638302000942
even holds for other monkeys
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513802001071

etc. etc. etc. Read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, to learn more about the modern denial of human nature.

[Anonymous No.4711700]

>>4711694
>Borat's brother
>credible science
pick 1

[Anonymous No.4711709]

>>4711694

>If u read the actual paper (it is on Google), u can see tons of references to other previous, similar research.

I did.
That bit about not being peer-reviewed was fishy indeed.
Also they didn't have references, it would have been interesting for that 10 years old debate with the Harvard woman.

>If u look at his Wikipedia page, u can see that he has done lots of other similar research.

It doesn't mean that it's good research.
He might just be making those to push his points across.
Considering the media attention he seems to get, it's not surprising.
This is barely related to autism, moreover...

The study doesn't say anything about this:
> Since newborns can't hold their heads up independently, their visual preferences could well have been determined by the way their parents held them.

So I don't know what to think about that allegation, again.

>Read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, to learn more about the modern denial of human nature.

The issue I have with single scientists' books is that I never know what to think of them.
They might be quoting dozens of papers but without prior knowledge of them, I can't tell if it's bullshit or not, or even if the guy weights anything in his field at all.

That's why conferences are interesting, you get to see some form of debate, with evidences of recent papers, and if you have some scholars in the audience, some more information on whether the debate is settled on the issue or not.

[ad hoc name No.4711739]

>>4711709
>This is barely related to autism, moreover...

False. Read about his autism theory. It is directly related to that.

>That's why conferences are interesting, you get to see some form of debate, with evidences of recent papers, and if you have some scholars in the audience, some more information on whether the debate is settled on the issue or not.

Verbal discussions are terrible. Stick to reading or watching, if too lazy to read. I presumed that u might be, hence why i suggested a film instead of a book first. /sci/ is full of lazy people.

If u're unsure whether a particular paper is bad or good, then.. read it.. Read follow-up research... Read similar research. Read the critics... It isn't that hard, it just requires some work on ur part.

Pinker's book is an excellent introduction to this. I'm sorry, but the case for human nature is overwhelming and pretty much only academic left people believe there is no such thing. U can try posting on /lit/ to see what such people are like, if u want. There is no room for rational disagreement with the available evidence.

Yes, i spent a lot of time researching this.

[Anonymous No.4711751]

>>4711739

He loosely introduces this one study by saying that boys get way more autism than girls, but still, it seems like the guy is trying to push a point to me, obsessing over sex differences.
That's only my first time impression.

>Verbal discussions are terrible.

Nah. What's good with researchers you can meet in real life is that they will dismiss which issues are debatable and which aren't.
You may have questions over some concepts while being an outsider of the field, and professionals will tell you if it's a sensitive issue or if it's pretty recognized.
And if you know the institution they come from, you'll have more trust in them.
That's how it goes for me at least.

>Stick to reading or watching, if too lazy to read. I presumed that u might be,

Nah, I'm too lazy to watch videos because they usually take too much time to convey the same amount of information as texts.

>Read follow-up research... Read similar research. Read the critics... It isn't that hard, it just requires some work on ur part.

That's a lot of papers to find and read. That's why reviews exist I believe.
I'm not exactly at that point, because I don't really care that much for the actual results.

>Pinker's book is an excellent introduction to this. I'm sorry, but the case for human nature is overwhelming and pretty much only academic left people believe there is no such thing.

You're the one politicizing the issue there.

[Anonymous No.4711767]

Probably a bit late. But for the autistic neckbeards earlier on saying that the females who want to be professors or undertake any kind of post-graduate studies should not bother with kids, you are pants on fucken head retarded.

We want our intelligent females to breed.
We want to discourage our unintelligent females not to breed.

Fucking idiots, telling smart women not to breed, shows that you're pretty stupid.

[Anonymous No.4711775]

How does feminism = HURR I'M LONELY?
How could someone so fucking dumb become a math major?

[ad hoc name No.4711778]

>>4711751
>He loosely introduces this one study by saying that boys get way more autism than girls,

Which fits perfectly with his theory of autism.

>but still, it seems like the guy is trying to push a point to me, obsessing over sex differences.
That's only my first time impression.

Researchers have to keep 'obsessing' about sex differences becus the academic left keeps denying them. Just as researchers have to keep 'obsessing' about racial differences, becus the academic left keeps denying them.

>Nah. What's good with researchers you can meet in real life is that they will dismiss which issues are debatable and which aren't.
>You may have questions over some concepts while being an outsider of the field, and professionals will tell you if it's a sensitive issue or if it's pretty recognized.
>And if you know the institution they come from, you'll have more trust in them.
>That's how it goes for me at least.

It is much easier to 'cheat' in verbal discussions with various rhetorical tricks, and there is pressure to perform immediately etc. These things are not true for written discussions. There is a good reason why religious apologetics (like William Lane Craig) like verbal discussions.

>Nah, I'm too lazy to watch videos because they usually take too much time to convey the same amount of information as texts.

I obviously agree with this, but most people feel the other way.

>That's a lot of papers to find and read. That's why reviews exist I believe.
>I'm not exactly at that point, because I don't really care that much for the actual results.

I gave u a review, then u thought it was a bad idea becus it was written by an individual scientist. I give u the other option, u think it takes too much time. What do u want me to do?

[ad hoc name No.4711789]

>>4711778
cont.

>You're the one politicizing the issue there.

It is necessarily political when u use words like "obsessing". Obviously, i'm not going to let that fly unchallenged. The issue is also in general necessarily political. It is part of modern academic left ideology that there is no human bio diversity. No races, or at least, no differences between them of any importance, or no significant differences. Same for sexes. Same for various subgroups like sexually atypical persons. Etc. etc. Same story always. No differences. Blank slate. (almost) Nothing is genetic.

Don't believe me? Watch the series. They interview alot of these 'gender researchers' (charlatans), and they are always factually wrong. Always. They never get it right.

Yes, i am annoyed, but i live in scandinavia where this ideology is rampant. For instance, due to alleged discrimination against women, universities can hire women professors for free (basically).

[Anonymous No.4711847]

>>4711778

Nah. Verbal discussions with material, powerpoints of studies to illustrate, etc.
And if the audience is any good, they have to pay attention to what they're saying or they'll get ridiculed instantly by the first question.

It's nothing like reading a guy's blog, for example.
Of course you shouldn't go to bullshit conferences...
That's another matter, how to find out which aren't bullshit.


> gave u a review, then u thought it was a bad idea becus it was written by an individual scientist.

No, because it's a goddamn book. A review is a short-article.

>It is necessarily political when u use words like "obsessing".
It seemed that way.
I'm not so sure now that I've read the guy's wiki page.

> It is part of modern academic left ideology that there is no human bio diversity.
I don't know. I've seen that mentioned a lot but I'm not aware of many examples, besides one female neuroscientist claiming that there aren't much differences in brains between the sex, but I can't tell if she was specifically leftist.

Whenever genetics are mentioned, things are usually pretty straight-forward.

[Anonymous No.4713519]

bump

[sage No.4713542]

>>4711847
>I don't know. I've seen that mentioned a lot but I'm not aware of many examples, besides one female neuroscientist claiming that there aren't much differences in brains between the sex, but I can't tell if she was specifically leftist.

Almost anyone that claims such things are leftist or third wave/gender feminist or both.

[sage No.4713549]

>>4711847
>No, because it's a goddamn book. A review is a short-article.

Eh. Not all reviews are short articles. Usually, review articles are rather long. But perhaps u just have a different standard of length of articles. A typical review article is >20 pages, i'd say, from past experience of reading a lot of them from various fields.

A good book that reviews studies is just better IMO. There is also the book (mentioned by Pinker) The Nurture Assumption. I want to read that as well. It reviews tons of studies that show that parents really do not influence their children very much. As long as they don't abuse them, upbringing will have little effect on intelligence and personality. Ofc, upbringing and social milieu will influence choice of religion and things like that.

[Anonymous No.4715372]

sauce plz

[Anonymous No.4715495]

>No, because it's a goddamn book. A review is a short-article.

Not really. A good scientific review can be about as long if not longer than the articles it is reviewing. For instance, a review of various test batteries for people with mental retardation (MR) or one that have been used with those who have MR was ~186 pages. The other articles I used for me report only totaled ~125 pages. Either way, as our Scandinavian friend has more or less alluded to, you're being obtuse and I think it's either on purpose or because of denial.

[Anonymous No.4715506]

Why do guys throw hissy fits about feminism? We're dudes! We're awesome and we know it! Let the lady folk have their double standards.

[Anonymous No.4715539]

>>4715506
>more sausage in my sausage fest
fag? fag.