/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5217211]

Why are girls terribad at science?

[Anonymous No.5217214]

Base decisions on feeling rather than thinking.
Place more emphasis on relationships and emotions rather than ______.
More likely to major in humanities or art than STEM.

[Anonymous No.5217226]

They're not. There are just far fewer of them doing it.

[Anonymous No.5217258]

>>5217226
>>5217226

>self contradiction

Sure is PC mental gymnastics in here.

[Anonymous No.5217264]

>>5217211
Raise girls on a strict diet of shallow self interest dependent feminism, Wonder why there aren't more smart critical thinkers.

[Anonymous No.5217273]

>>5217264
>>5217264

wtf is going on in there

[Anonymous No.5217279]

>>5217273
inhalation of chemicals to induce altered neurochemistry for the purpose of recreation.

[Anonymous No.5217282]

This is not true, OP.

[Anonymous No.5217288]

This isn't the case at my school. Besides the typical aspie contingent, the girls are totally organized, and making gains. They show up to labs with skin tight clothing and makeup, with their tits all jacked up, and flirt all day while banging out well-written lab notebooks.

[Anonymous No.5217292]

>>5217258
how is that a contradiction?

[Anonymous No.5217297]

Science is a male dominated field, brain structure.

[Anonymous No.5217303]

>>5217211
Percentage of first year physics students who are female, University of Amsterdam, 2002-2011: 15% (\pm 0.5%)

Percentage of physics bachelor graduates who are female, University of Amsterdam,2002-2011: 30% (\pm 1%)

Why are women so much better at physics than men?

[Anonymous No.5217308]

Women are just as good at science as men.

It's just that science was male-dominated for a VERY long time and still is today in many fields, with a bad tendency to create hostile work environments for women.

Given that science has shit pay to begin with, nobody experiencing hostile attitudes from their coworkers is going to stay in the field for long.

[scriblord No.5217314]

1) Women excel at verbal reasoning while lacking a good deal of the spatial/analytical intelligence men have generally.

2) Women simply have different preferences (innate and learned) than men (many women who do go into math or sciences report family pressure to do so while men just enjoy it).

3) Culturally speaking it's acceptable for a woman to not be too intellectually savvy and rely on a male breadwinner. (Meanwhile women without too much sexual appeal end up in labs and universities).


Of course a lot of times girl do do *better* than men in high-school science classes, but this is more due the infamously bad study habits of teenage males. Those same men will go to surpass their female classmates in critical thinking / math SAT scores and choose far more analytically inclined occupations.

[Anonymous No.5217340]

>>5217292
I don't think he knows what the word means.

Women aren't any worse at science programs than men, society just doesn't push women to go into STEM fields as much as it does with men (which still isn't very much but we're talking relative here).

[Anonymous No.5217346]

>tfw /sci/ is less misogynist than /r9k/

[Anonymous No.5217357]

>>5217211
Women are good at remembering facts, revising and passing tests... But women are amazingly terrible at applying this knowledge, and are mostly incapable of doing any research of an kind.

They can learn all the shit they want, but the hardly ever contribute to their field unless they're special.

[Anonymous No.5217368]

>>5217357
I was about to contradict this but just remembered the woman I was thinking of first gained notoriety by writing an amazing review article, not doing research.

[Anonymous No.5217380]

there tend to be more geniuses that are men than women, plus women often stay home to raise kids.

[Anonymous No.5217383]

>>5217340
>society just doesn't push women to go into STEM fields as much as it does with men

how do you know this is the cause?

[Anonymous No.5217396]

>>5217340
>I don't think he knows what the word means.

you are just an idiot.

>>5217292
>>5217292

>how is that a contradiction?

The premise is that women are bad at science. If a certain population are bad at a particular thing, you would surely see less of the members of that population doing said thing (and passing test to qualify to do said thing). Thus, your statements are stealth contradictory.

[Anonymous No.5217401]

>>5217380
I agre, but in general women are more intelligent than men. More men are mentally deficient.

[Anonymous No.5217405]

>>5217396
>The premise is that women are bad at science. If a certain population are bad at a particular thing, you would surely see less of the members of that population doing said thing (and passing test to qualify to do said thing). Thus, your statements are stealth contradictory
How's pretending to be smart going for you?

[Anonymous No.5217414]

>>5217401
If I recall correctly men only hold a marginal advantage in intelligence over women (by i.q.) but it's so small that it's negligible (I think it was 1 point higher?). The real reason I think women don't go into science as much is because it just doesn't interest them. I've met some very intelligent women and they all seem to be more interested studying people or ideas in general (such as artistic or philosophical) than studying natural phenomena.

[Anonymous No.5217420]

>>5217401
>>5217414
Right, men are something like one or two points higher, and and maybe one point higher standard deviation. Not a whole lot.

[Anonymous No.5217424]

>>5217405

>substituting a character accusation in place of an argument

[Anonymous No.5217436]

>>5217424

">I don't think he knows what the word means.

you are just an idiot."

[Anonymous No.5217442]

>>5217436
>>5217436

And I explained the meaning of the statement thus justifying the idiot call.

[Anonymous No.5217447]

>>5217442
Your explanation implied that only what you said could be possible and that there are no other variables, you are the idiot sir.

[Anonymous No.5217459]

>>5217396
> If a certain population are bad at a particular thing, you would surely see less of the members of that population doing said thing (and passing test to qualify to do said thing)
Let me summarize your argument for you:
A, B, and C are all hypothesized to cause effect Z.
I choose effect A.
Effect Z exists.
Therefore the reason for Effect Z is A.

Your argument not only does not disprove other explanations for the low proportion of women in science, it completely ignores other explanations so that the only one left is your pet theory.

It's a dishonest argument and it staggers me that you'd dare come to a science board with reasoning skills this poor.

[Anonymous No.5217464]

>>5217447
>Your explanation implied that only what you said could be possible

No it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.5217465]

>>5217464
see
>>5217459
He went into more detail than I did.

[Anonymous No.5217466]

>>5217459
>>5217459

What alternative theory explains the low number of women in science without implying that they are bad?

[Anonymous No.5217473]

>>5217466
see
>>5217308

[Anonymous No.5217475]

>>5217473
>>5217473

>women aren't in science because women weren't in science

[Anonymous No.5217480]

>>5217475
Do you just not understand human interactions well at all?

[Anonymous No.5217488]

>>5217480
>>5217480

How about you justify your non-explanation first instead of making a side-stepping question (or a thinly veiled aspie accusation).

[Anonymous No.5217495]

ITT: people that live within the idea that statistics are the best and only way to perceive/understand/study/talk about reality

[Anonymous No.5217512]

>>5217488
It wasn't a side-stepping question. The mechanism should be blatantly obvious.

In any male-dominated field, women are seen as unusual, as outliers. Historically, science has been very male-dominated, and it's only relatively recently that it became even acceptable to pursue careers in science, let alone anything approaching normal. This kind of hostile culture is partially self-perpetuating in any context; women stay out of the field because of hostility, and the culture is carried on into the next generation because there isn't any real challenge to that mindset and it's indoctrinated into new workers.

As time goes on, more and more women break into the field, and the culture shifts so that women are no longer seen as unusual participants in the field. This takes a long time, however, because social and economic pressures are also in play.

The idea that science isn't equally welcoming to women as to men isn't a controversial idea; to this day, women to this day are offered fewer jobs and less money than male researchers with identical credentials. Given the choice between working in a field that's hostile to your presence and offers poor pay or working in a field that's more accepting and offers near the same or slightly better pay, it really shouldn't be objectionable to suppose that at least some science-inclined women choose to leave the field rather than pursue a career in research.

[Anonymous No.5217514]

>>5217512
And, like I said, the hostility is a changing circumstance. As more and more women break into the field, the proportions and culture will change. It's just that we haven't hit that point yet. We're still in the middle of the shift, where women are grudgingly accepted in the lab but not entirely welcome.

[Anonymous No.5217550]

>>5217383

why can't anyone answer this?

is it because you're dishonest assholes who default to the PC "we're equal" bullshit?

[Anonymous No.5217553]

>>5217414
>If I recall correctly men only hold a marginal advantage in intelligence over women (by i.q.) but it's so small that it's negligible (I think it was 1 point higher?)

we're not talking about the average man or woman. we're talking about men and women on the right end of the bell curve. do the IQ distributions differ?

[Anonymous No.5217554]

>>5217553
A lot.

[Anonymous No.5217556]

>>5217550
Besides, it's bullshit. There are quite a number of women getting into undergrad, but at each step more of them drop proportionally.

[Anonymous No.5217563]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109#aff-1
>Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. ... These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.

[Anonymous No.5217567]

>>5217563

and that fully explains the whole gap.

[Anonymous No.5217573]

>>5217567
No, it can only demonstrate that it is one of possibly several factors causing the gap. It does not demonstrate the extent of this explanation in the overall effect, and it does not demonstrate that other factors are not in play.

Establishing that one phenomenon is a participant in causing an effect does not prove that other factors are not also participants.

[Anonymous No.5217577]

See comic.

[Anonymous No.5217595]

>>5217577

nah, we actually are different. little girls can talk circles around little boys, in general. guys can visualize spacial and 3-d better than girls, in general.

there was a hilarious photo on reddit. the parents had bought their little girl toys of all types, so she could choose. he posted a photo where she had tucked some little cars in bed so they could sleep.

we are wired differently, in general. that doesn't mean it's ok to discriminate, because there are brilliant female scientists, and there are men who can't understand how a nut and bolt work.

[Anonymous No.5217603]

>>5217595
For you to make such a claim, instead of anecdotal evidence of some girl with some random upbringing, you'd need to raise some kinds in a controlled environment.

[Anonymous No.5217609]

>>5217595
>2012
>still believing in genetic influence on the ability to do science

[Anonymous No.5217608]

>>5217567
>>5217563
>>5217512
Argument won

[Anonymous No.5217615]

>>5217603
>>5217609

i wasn't talking about "one" girl.

spend much time around kids, and you will agree that girls develop verbal skills at an earlier age than boys, and have better verbal skills at any age, IN GENERAL.

this has been confirmed by blind scientific tests.

math and science ability variation between genders is off-limits, for the same reason that racial differences are off limits; in both cases, it is cultural and societal pressure, case closed.

[Anonymous No.5217618]

>>5217609
so genetics have nothing to do with intelligence, motivation or skill?

[Anonymous No.5217621]

>>5217615
>this has been confirmed
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.5217656]

>>5217603
There's that Norvegian documentary.

[Anonymous No.5217666]

Their brains are smaller.

It's science.

/thread

[Anonymous No.5217662]

>>5217656
http://vimeo.com/19707588

[Anonymous No.5217674]

I'm a girl physics major and probably know more physics than any of you.

Lol.

[Anonymous No.5217682]

>>5217674

do you agree with my claims above that females in general have better verbal skills than males, and that males in general, for whatever reason, have better visual-spacial skills?

i know that there are females who excel at everthing, and i also believe that cultural pressures discourage some females from enjoying math or science.

i'm just going on a lifetime of experience.

[Anonymous No.5217685]

>>5217674
Says you.
>girls on /sci/

[Anonymous No.5217692]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g032MPrSjFA

[Anonymous No.5217698]

>>5217682

No. I'd say men are generally more eloquent than women. They have to be as a matter of sexual necessity; need to know how to chat up women, etc.

I don't agree that men have better spatial reasoning.

[Anonymous No.5217709]

>>5217698
>need to know how to chat up women
You're joking right? What does being eloquent have to do with this?

[Anonymous No.5217710]

There are fields where women are overrepresented, maybe one should try to get women OUT of these fields first, so that more women are available for other paths.

Uh… I’m kind of amazed that anyone would actually say something like this, but then, this is the internet. If someone’s going to say something that’s nonsensical and completely without logic anywhere, it’s on the internet.

You do not get people into the careers you would rather they be in by forcing them out of the careers they are already in. You get them into those careers by improving their ability to get into those careers. If they lack skills, teach them skills. If there is prejudice, combat the prejudice. If the money is too low but it is a valuable career, improve the money. (This is one of the reasons the ratio of men in nursing, social work and teaching is so low… and I don’t know about nursing and social work, but I do know that the rare male teachers have a much, much higher chance of moving on to supervisory positions such as principal or superintendent than the female teachers do, so the parallel with women in fields with few women is not accurate. Men have *better* chances for advancement than women do in careers that are mostly female.)

[Anonymous No.5217715]

>>5217710
Do you think that if you made it difficult for women to be schoolteachers, that men would jump in to fill the gap and that the women (who have been educated to be educators) would suddenly become bioscience researchers? Men don’t want to be schoolteachers because the money isn’t there and because other men will impugn their masculinity. Women don’t want to be bioscience researchers because there’s only so many times that you can tolerate your ideas being dismissed, your voice being silenced, and your person disrespected before you just get sick of it and quit. You don’t solve the problem that people have a hard time getting into a career by making it harder for them to choose different careers… you find the problem that is blocking them and you solve it.

In other countries, including extremely sexist countries where women have fewer rights than here, there are much higher proportions of women in the sciences, because while they have many prejudices against women, that isn’t one of them. Girls consistently test better than boys at pretty much every ability involving language that there is, and yet men are more likely to be published by the literary establishment, more likely to be book reviewers, more likely to be speechwriters, more likely to be pundits — pretty much any job that involves using language and actually getting respect for it is dominated by men, despite the fact that in the West girls have better test scores for verbal ability than boys do. So the old “women just naturally prefer” or “women are just naturally not good at” saws are obvious bullshit. Women don’t have a natural preference if that preference is absent in women from a different culture, and if women are underrepresented in the fields where boys outtest girls *and* the fields where girls outtest boys, then it’s not about gender-based ability differences.

[Anonymous No.5217730]

It's how you're raised. My sister is really into science and technology because my parents didn't bother with the whole dolls and princessess shit. It also depends on how you respond to societal pressures and the media; if you're taught at an early age that that shit doesn't matter in life, you're more likely to do actually interests you instead of what you're supposed to do.

[OP No.5217738]

>>5217709
>I'm a virgin, how do I talk to girls.

Cute.

[Anonymous No.5217746]

>That feel when my sister has a doctorate in Math and Physics

[Anonymous No.5217744]

>>5217738
Woops, not OP. Saved my name from another thread.

[Anonymous No.5217760]

>>5217738
That's a fantastic way to make a defense claim, isn't it? As I implied before, taking to girls does not require eloquence. You should look up a proper definition of the word.

[Anonymous No.5217763]

>>5217730
>>5217746
your sisters are lesbians.

[AnnoyedByPaper No.5217779]

What do you guys think about social media use in math education. Would it makes things easier or no

[Anonymous No.5217783]

>>5217674
>physics major
>probably know more physics than any of you
Undergrads actually believe this.

[Anonymous No.5217825]

>>5217779
Social media needs to stay the fuck out of education.

[Anonymous No.5217844]

>>5217779
I don't see how it would make things easier. Maybe it'll get the plebeians more interested initially but they'll all just bail out when shit hits the fan.

[Anonymous No.5217853]

>teach middle school science
>have female student who is at low A
>comes to class one day without her glasses
>sits in front row
>I ask about her glasses
>says she looks better without them
>7th grader caring about looks more than learning
She'll be a D student by the end of the year.

[Anonymous No.5217860]

>>5217674
Do you read Landau in your spare time? I'm about done with the three Griffiths intro books.

[Anonymous No.5217868]

>>5217273
She's doing something dangerous and extremely stupid, that might well get her fired on the spot if she were working at an actual lab, rather than a university.

[Anonymous No.5217914]

>>5217715
>there’s only so many times that you can tolerate your ideas being dismissed, your voice being silenced, and your person disrespected before you just get sick of it and quit
Except this could only happen if women actually tried to work in those fields, but women don't, there are less women applicants to those fields than men. How many scientist women have actually quit there job because of sexism? None. Because there isn't that much sexism in those fields. Women that achieve to work in those fields are actually respected.

>In other countries, including extremely sexist countries where women have fewer rights than here, there are much higher proportions of women in the sciences
It's actually BECAUSE those societies are oppressive towards women that they choose those jobs : they want their freedom and independence so they want to get in fields that make more money, and in underdeveloped countries, technical fields are usually the best to achieve financial independence.

>because while they have many prejudices against women, that isn’t one of them
baseless assumption

>Girls consistently test better than boys at pretty much every ability involving language
Actually they do also in science, at least when I was in High School (in France), where we had just as much girls than boys and it was a scientific class. But guess what, when asked about their career choices, most of them were medicine or business. Result : very few girls actually applied for hard sciences in university. No one forced them, they had the grades to do it, but they just chose not to.

>then it’s not about gender-based ability differences
And what if it were in gender-based preference differences?

[Anonymous No.5217982]

Wang Chung. better mathematician than anyone who's ever come to 4chan

[Anonymous No.5217991]

Fan Chung** i'm dumb.

[Anonymous No.5217994]

>>5217279

i hate labs.

[Anonymous No.5217998]

>>5217763
Nope. Works in nuclear research and weapons devolopments. Feel worthless faggot.

[Anonymous No.5218023]

>>5217264
>mouth pipetting
ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING

But for real don't ever do this. I can understand why someone would want to do it for safe materials like sterile bacterial media, but getting into the habit and risking accidentally sucking up something dangerous is just not worth it.

She should be wearing at least shorts but I don't really care about that. Walk around the genetics/molecular bio departments of universities and look for the floors where the plant people work. Everybody wears shorts and t-shirts and it's rare to see someone in a lab coat.

[Anonymous No.5218024]

cause it's a mans world. Men have long dominated the world with their weak digitalization of analog events and forever condemning anyone questioning their way of thinking to the hells of stupidity.

[Anonymous No.5218042]

http://www.absa.org/abj/abj/970202Barkley.pdf

[Anonymous No.5218094]

Girls only know a few inaccurate things regarding science from the hours they sit watching The Big Bang Theory.

[Anonymous No.5218096]

>>5217698
I would tend to agree with you. The majority of the girls that I know have the diction of a moron. Every other word is "like" or "uhmm" or "Ohh my god". Aside from their speech being full of fillers, they act unbearably fake and insecure.