[ 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: 10 KB, 200x250, 200px-Alan_Turing_photo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5298241 No.5298241 [Reply] [Original]

Influential gay scientists/mathematicians.
It's lacking, isn't it? And quite interesting so.

Any ideas as to why?

>> No.5298244

Gay gene goes hand and hand with higher neuroticism, I've always been saying this

>> No.5298254

>>5298244
interesting. why neurotic, and not psychotic?

>> No.5298256

>>5298241
For the majority of history, being an open homosexual was impermissible. For all we know, Euler could have sucked 5 dicks every weekend at a local underground orgy. If it helps, I have around 5 non-traditional gender students in one of my math courses this semester. I don't really find it a problem and I do not believe one can assume any correlation between mathematical/scientific ability and gender.

>> No.5298265

>>5298256
wouldn't sucking 5 dicks in an orgy go hand in hand with a lower IQ?

>> No.5298266

approximately 10% of the population is gay

being gay has, as far as we know, no bearing on your ability to perform science

therefore it's reasonable to assume that 10% of all scientists who ever lived were gay

>> No.5298271 [DELETED] 

>>5298266
>statistically inaccurate

how do you know sexuality has no bearing on intellect? to stray from the natural of sexuality to the kind of your own gender suggests that something in their psychology has gone amiss.

is it not fair to assume that since they are psychologically deviant in sexual matters, that their entire psychology is deviant?

is it also fair to assume that you are gay defending who you are?

>> No.5298274

>>5298266
>statistically inaccurate

how do you know sexuality has no bearing on intellect? to stray from the natural order of sexuality to the kind of your own gender suggests that something in their psychology has gone amiss.

is it not fair to assume that since they are psychologically deviant in sexual matters, that their entire psychology is deviant?

is it also fair to assume that you are gay defending who you are?

>> No.5298275

>>5298265
explain

>> No.5298283

fags = females trapped in a mans body

Females = stupid

Stupid = not smart

not smart = not coming up with scientific ideas.

>> No.5298279

>>5298274
>implying "natural orders" exist
2/10, you got me to respond but you need to try harder

>> No.5298281

well 2 percent of the world's population has Down syndrome... why dont 2 precent of scientist. OH WAIT...
people with down syndrome dont give a fuck. as i'd imagine men who are worried about relationships with other men, probably aren not interested in science.

>> No.5298290

>>5298275
they are pursuing a baseless desire, desire of feelings rather than reason.

>> No.5298295

I have a guess on this. Do not get me wrong, I have no basis to support this theory, rather it is an attempt at reasoning using empirical observation.

One of the greatest issues I see in this culture we live is the fact that men and women are culturally isolated. If you look throughout history, men have teamed up to carry out tasks and work together, while women form cliques of their own "kind".

Why is it that men and women are so physically different, wheres zebras look remarkably similar?

Perhaps we have been isolating the genders and their duties for far too long.
This has created a physical difference among a species (almost into a different species in itself), triggering an attraction of some men who may exhibit feminine features.

>> No.5298299

>>5298274
shrug there are plenty of cases where psychology gone amiss have been in the good way. Child prodigies, people who have had strokes or surgery or whatever and had part of their brain damaged, etc. Possibly you could throw in being left handed as having a deviant psychology from the norm if youd like. Differ isnt always bad. Of course youre assuming sexual orientation is based on nature and not at all on nurture. Plenty of arguments both ways.

>> No.5298303

>>5298299
Also, to OP, Perhaps many scientists/mathmaticians simply have not publicly admitted to being gay?

>> No.5298305

>>5298295
>mindfuck

>> No.5298308

>>5298283
>females trapped in a mans body

No such thing, there are only boys who want to be girls.

>> No.5298311

This thread is a good representation of why I fear for the future. You think that with training in science, people would be more intelligent than this. It is funny that these engineer monkeys have advanced analytic skills yet lack all critical thinking. This is why we will stagnate as a society and why these mindless hordes of efficient workers will warp humanity. You can see it already.

>> No.5298315 [DELETED] 

>>5298311
The intention was for a man and a woman to reproduce. Why is it that in our species it is so apparently centred on their own gender? We are taught how to be "a man".

I daresay what this thread actually is, is the very opposite of what you say.

>> No.5298318

>>5298311
The intention was for a man and a woman to reproduce. Why is it that our species is so centred on its own gender? We are taught how to be "a man" or how to be "a woman". WHen you are taught how to behave as opposed to pursuing desire, you know things are.. astray.

I daresay what this thread actually is, is the very opposite of what you say.

>> No.5298322

>>5298266
It's not 10%, it's around 3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

>> No.5298325

>>5298295
Is there any truth to this?

>> No.5298327

>>5298325
You must have missed the part where he said he has no basis for it.

>> No.5298338

Maybe homosexuality regulates the increasingly differing differences among genders in our species? Like the Gaia hypothesis, maybe our own species is a regulating system as well. Everything has its own reason.

>> No.5298356 [DELETED] 

What pisses me off is the canaille senselessly enforcing acceptance and rejecting all critical reasoning for it.

No parent wants to hear that they are responsible for their child's sexuality, but what if that is really the fucking case? What the hell do we do: let feelings and emotion run the mindset, or have reasoning and trial-and-error analysis do it?

I whole-heartedly consent to have my child under analytical inspection of many of my children each raised under different psychological circumstances, not for my child, but for the future's child.

>> No.5298362 [DELETED] 

What pisses me off is the canaille senselessly enforcing acceptance and rejecting all critical reasoning for it.

No parent wants to hear that they are responsible for their child's sexuality, but what if that is really the fucking case? What the hell do we do: let feelings and emotion dictate blind and enforced acceptance, or have reasoning and trial-and-error analysis fix our error?

I whole-heartedly consent to have my child under analytical inspection of many of my children each raised under different psychological circumstances, not for my child, but for the future's child.

>> No.5298369

What pisses me off is the canaille senselessly enforcing acceptance and rejecting all critical reasoning for it.

No parent wants to hear that they are responsible for their child's sexuality, but what if that is really the fucking case? What the hell do we do: let feelings and emotion dictate blind and enforced acceptance, or have reasoning and trial-and-error analysis fix our error?

I whole-heartedly consent to have my children under analytical inspection, each raised under different psychological circumstances, not for my child, but for the future's child.

>> No.5298381

>>5298290
what does whatever 'baseless desire' they are pursuing have anything to do with how well a 5-dick-sucking-orgy-patron might perform on an iq test?

>> No.5298384

>>5298369
yeesh, what a godawful parent you are.

if you haven't noticed. heterosexual men in pop-culture are adapting to females. i haven't got the photo saved, but have you seen the photo in /b/ saying "this is what men used to look like", with a picture of classy, masculine, tux and bow tie men exchanging "macho" social pleasantries, and in juxtaposition, another saying "this is what men look like now" with a Bieber-like group of "men" sharing a photo?

are men and women regrouping?

>> No.5298386

>>5298241
MAYBE IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT GUY

>> No.5298393

>>5298256

I think your answer seems like the most reasonable. Homosexuality has been a death sentence for all those who were open about it (it still is this way). Smart individuals would follow a path which yields little discomfort in their lives. This could also be said of past scientists and mathematicians being religious. It was more advantageous for reputation, to be an active member in a religion of your peers.

Newton was a closet case.
Da Vinci liked his male students.

Those two cases, as well as Turing, are probably the easiest to identity, without looking at someone's mannerisms.

>> No.5298397

>>5298384
i actually think the demasculinizing of men today is womens fault

>> No.5298399

>>5298393
>Newton was a closet case.

explain with facts or get out

>> No.5298406

>>5298397
but women are becoming stubborn like men now, seeking acceptance and a sense of authority.

it's a mutual regrouping it seems

>> No.5298408

>>5298318
>The intention was for a man and a woman to reproduce.
Whose intention?
>you know things are.. astray.
Astray from what?

>> No.5298421

>>5298338
>Gaia hypothesis
0/10

>> No.5298424

>>5298421
>>5298421
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1sr9x263LM

>> No.5298427

>not getting pussy
>not gay

Pick one.

>> No.5298430

>>5298399

The biography "A Portrait of Isaac Newton" has a section regarding the public suspecting him of homosexuality during the later parts of his life. Accounts of flirting with male contemporaries and odd, intimate gifts.

>> No.5298432

>>5298430
proof

>> No.5298434

>Briliant scientists, geniuses
>Lifetime of contributions to bring mankind out of the dark
>Yeahhhh, but did he suck DICKS?

>> No.5298440

>>5298430
aside from that, is it true that Newton had mommy issues?

>> No.5298441

>>5298430
when was this "biography" (and not autobiography) published, by whom was it written?

>> No.5298443

>>5298338
Better reason:
Homosexual individuals are adults who do not actively engage in reproduction. Having a gay aunt or uncle who can assist in child rearing / do work while others rear children / learn to be a wiseperson or whatever provides a selective advantage to the entire group. Thus, gay people.

Instead you're postulating some unscientific mechanic and making noise about diversity. What needs regulating here?

>> No.5298445 [DELETED] 

What I want to know if this thread is attracted homosexual /sci/entists, or if there are heterosexual contributors, if the former is true, this is a thread of bias, and is therefore rendered false in every way.

>> No.5298448

What I want to know if this thread has attracted homosexual /sci/entists, or if there are heterosexual contributors, if the former is true, this is a thread of bias, and is therefore rendered false in every way.

>> No.5298454

>>5298441

>(and not autobiography)

Is this supposed to be a point? Do you think Newton was going to have a "btw, I like the cock" in the mid 1600's?

Frank Edward Manuel : 1968

>> No.5298465

>>5298454
no, but it should come to you intuitively that someone cannot write about someone 300 years laters. the facts have been skewed. if it was written around the same time newton was alive, and by someone who had associated personally with newton, then I may change my mind.

but i do not believe a biography written 300 years after the subject's death bears facts.

>> No.5298470

>>5298443
>Having a gay aunt or uncle who can assist in child rearing / do work while others rear children / learn to be a wiseperson or whatever provides a selective advantage to the entire group.
i read this as a bundle of words and slashes. can you please rephrase?

>> No.5298475

>>5298465

You are basically nullifying any biography of any person after they had been deceased. Where do you think is inside your history books? You think we have first-hand accounts of everything? I honestly don't care if you don't agree if the guy was a closet case faggit. You can deal with that on your own.

>> No.5298477

>>5298475
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071006151502AAomOSj

yes, yahoo answers, but even in this there lies a reasonable counter-argument to your belief.

>> No.5298480

>>5298424
Gaia is definitely interesting.

>> No.5298481

>>5298470
There are many functions that adults can perform to sustain their community.
If a man and a woman in a community has a child, the society they live in will determine whether they live or die as much as their genes.
Having adults that do NOT take part in the reproductive process leads to a net positive in the group's fitness, as they aren't making new babies (drains on resources).

In other words, you're more likely to have your kids survive if your gay uncle is out doing things and sucking cock than if he's also having kids.

>> No.5298484

>>5298477

Oh gotcha. Yeah, I can understand how a middle-aged libertarian would have more credibility than a biographer. Next time this topic comes up in my Physics class (never, because it's not an issue) I'll be sure to cite my sources as "Randy" from yahoo answers.

Thanks bro, you've really shown me how to get to the heart of evidence.

>> No.5298490

>>5298448

If a gay scientist comments on homosexuality, his contributions are biased and therefore can't be considered AT ALL?

That's like saying women's input shouldn't be considered on birth control and abortion, or, farther back, that african-american's input wasn't valid on things like slavery and segregation.

Just because a group has a vested interest doesn't mean you can immediately disregard ALL of their evidence without consideration.

I probably just totally fed a troll.

>> No.5298494

>>5298448
>homosexuals are biased when discussing homosexuality but heterosexuals aren't
lol

>> No.5298495

>>5298484
Explain the process biographers use to rip out limited facts from events that occurred 400 years ago?

>> No.5298496

>>5298484
>my sides

>> No.5298500

>>5298265
no, just hand in hand

>> No.5298512

>>5298266
Holy crap --
only gays and people that know nothing at all about how common it is will use this stupid, made-up number.

Yes, it was made up.
It was never intended as a value, it was in an example, during a discussion, and fuckin' gay people jumped on it like it was a fact without ANY support.
People in a science discussion should know not to cite values that have no support.

>> No.5298516

>>5298281
What is it with these stupid values?

2% of the world does not have Down's!

>> No.5298518

>>5298495

So we're really going to start arguing about the authenticity of biographers in after-the-fact settings?

Let me go on the offensive for a moment, because you're expecting me to understand data analysis for a profession I've never been a part of. You, within 3-4 posts have negated every biographer outside of a time period, to their subject. Disregarding the fact that a biography gets a shitty reputation if the book is considered incorrect, not to mention the authors reputation is on the line (neither of which is the case for Mr. Manuel). ...and yet you reply to me with a statement from a no-name yahoo answers' contributer who has probably never been scrutinized apart from an upvote / downvote system from the general public for the esoteric questions he decides to answer. Not to mention, your very baseless attack of "how could they have known" can be attributed to "Frank of Yahoo Answers" just the same, except he has no accolades to his name.

Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

>> No.5298521

>>5298518
the behaviour of a culture of an era tells more than the supposition of convoluted facts of newton's personal life.

>> No.5298522

>>5298322
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States
According to a Williams Institute survey conducted in April 2011, approximately 3.5% of American adults identify themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual, while 0.3% are transgender—approximately 11.7 million Americans.[1] However, a significantly higher percentage acknowledge having same-sex attraction without identifying as LGB. This makes it difficult to accurately record the demographics of LGBT people in the U.S.

There are a lot of other points to make, but identifying as gay does not always equal being gay. Unless we got some perfectly open society by which to measure or some perfect metric, I'm skeptical of pretty much any statistic claiming x% of the population is gay.

For instance: In Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stated that there were NO gay people in Iran. This is patently false. But he's correct in saying that close to 0% of the population identified as such.

This is all to say, I'm not sure I would trust any metric that says X% of the population identifies as this thing, therefore we know that's all there is to it. Especially when there are still debates about what makes a person homosexual in the first place.

Wow why do i care about this so much suddenly

>> No.5298523

Newton but he was not so interesting short of his work.

>> No.5298524

>>5298521

Right.... we're done, goodnight.

>> No.5298530

>>5298241
Couldn't be bothered to read the thread, but here's my take on it.

One, due to the lack of knowledge of who was or was not homosexual. Two, gay people are thought of as creative, open, out-going type generally. These are not the type that you would expect to do science/math. Whether there is an actual relationship there, a stereotype, or a if it's a self-fulfilling prophecy I have no idea. If you go to /mu/ they believe gay people make better musicians.

>> No.5298531

>omg guise he was gay xD gay pride

Succesful gays in science would probably fucking loathe you for making this thread. Adults judge people on and individual basis and couldn't care less if there weren't as many gay men as straight in a certain area. The very idea that you think there needs to be more makes you a coward.

>> No.5298536

>>5298477
"http://www.maths-rometus.org/images/histoireDesMathematiques/isaac_newton_hd.jpg

Now how gay does that look
sherly temple had nothing on that hair"

Holy smokes, my sides have started to spasmodically contract now.

>> No.5298537

Why would anyone respond seriously to a such a shallow individual as OP?

This is hardly science, anyway.

>> No.5298540

>>5298537
Because homosexuality is a question I think should be given some thought.
There is a reason for it, we just have to find it.

>> No.5298543

>>5298516
I had to look it up, and the highest value I found was almost 0.1%.

I was surprised Down's incidence was that high.

>> No.5298545

>>5298522
>Wow why do i care about this so much suddenly

Maybe the same reason I did;
promulgation of bad data is much more harmful than simply not knowing the fact.

>> No.5298552

>>5298540
He's asking why there aren't as many gays and science as straight men, and the answer should be obvious.

By the use of the word lacking, he implies there should be more but give no reason why.

This type of thinking is so prominent and encouraged in today's society that I'm surprised we don't have affirmative action for gays, and I'm sure most of the mindless egalitarian fucks on this board would support it too.

>> No.5298558

>>5298552
Perhaps he meant it is statistically lacking

>> No.5298562

>>5298558
fucking idiot, name me 50 influential scientists/mathematicians.

statistically, 3% of the population is gay.

that means 1.5 of every 50 are gay.

let's round to 1 to be safe.

>> No.5298569

>>5298552
>mindless egalitarian fucks
Whenever you're finished being a desperate conservatard neckbeard trying to enforce your views of what is relevant to people interested in science, I'd be happy to explain why affirmative action for gay people would be a great idea.

>> No.5298581

>>5298562

You are working with a very flawed and unreliable statistic. Granted, it's presumably all we have, but throwing it around like it's a reliable measure is just a bad idea.

Also, "let's round down to be safe"? If I didn't know better...

>> No.5298582

>>5298581
You round down because I AM SRS BSNS SCIENCE MAN

>> No.5298585

>>5298569
Please, tell me.

>> No.5298587

>>5298581
let's assume the statistics is still too high.

1 to be safe.

>> No.5298591

>>5298562

wtf rounding down from 1.5 to 1? there's like no reason to do that. how bad do you think you're going to fuck up a basic multiplication problem that you need to effectively cut away a third of the number so it's an even single? fucking sci

Capcha Traditional BalGen

>> No.5298595

>>5298587

Again, that doesn't make a lot of sense? Why we assuming the statistic is too high? Rounding down doesn't make the statistic less unreliable.

>> No.5298598

>>5298585
I think it would be a great idea to have scientists openly identify as gay and to take positions in academia that are reserved for them.
Being gay and being a scientist is rare, but whether it's below or above the population average of gay isn't really the point. It is true, however, that gay people are dissuaded from scientific disciplines for tons of stupid reasons, and making them compete in an "equal opportunity" environment isn't fair.
Alan Turing was a fucking hero, and he killed himself about 60 years ago once his sexuality came to light. So before you start in with "they should just get in on their merits" and "what about the straight people", acknowledge that there is a problem that hasn't been fixed.

>> No.5298603

>>5298598
>once his sexuality came to light.
once his sexuality came to light and the government forced him onto hormone therapy until he grew tits and couldn't get his dick hard. oh and they fired him and treated him as a disgrace.

>> No.5298604

>>5298295
>muh empirical observations

Living in the modern world, you are probably unaware of a time when machines did not do all the heavy work.
Before industrial revolution, women did not have very many jobs outside the house, that would suit the peculiarities of their physique. Inferior body strength is an example of this.


Thus gender roles were created, where the member of a gender was assigned to a role that suited his/her gender the most. When survival was in question, nobody cared about personal preference and individualism.

This is still valid today. Women have been proven to be better at things like air traffic control and working in the clean rooms of processor production.

Gender roles provide better efficiency to society.

>> No.5298605

Turing was a genius. He was also gay and got busted and prosecuted for it.
It wasn't everyone's business so if 10% of the thinkers were gay they kept their mouths shut about it to avoid being killed by religious fanatics who had a lot of power until recently. Also I believe that thinkers have others things on their minds than sex, so they aren't "as gay" as normal people even when they are gay.

>> No.5298606
File: 75 KB, 499x420, Jonathan-Crane-batman-begins-11593883-499-420.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5298606

ITT: Idiots voicing their OPINIONS because they don't have any expertise or data regarding the topic.

Are you really all so full of yourselves?

>> No.5298610

Bullshit, so many scientists were either closet fags or asexual.
Nicola Tesla was likely to be gay. You just couldn't ever admit it or it would hinder your career.

>> No.5298607

>>5298598
>appeal to emotion.

nice

>> No.5298609

>>5298241
Because there are not very many influential scientists to begin with.

And the small percentage that is gay, will probably be remembered by their scientific achievements and not where they stick their dick.

Also, being intelligent people, they would not go around screaming "LOOK AT ME I AM GAY LOOK AT ME I AM GAY, SOCIETY OWES ME FOR BEING SO DIFFERENT"

>> No.5298611

>>5298606
most people are not asserting anything as fact.

it's just something that can be readily acknowledged. there aren;t that many gay scientists/mathematicians

>> No.5298623

>>5298610
or maybe Tesla and Newton were just awkward nerd virgins that didn't even give much of a fuck about sex. doesn't that sound kind of reasonable too?

but since there's the whole gay fad going on right now let's rewrite history and just baselessly assume everyone that didn't have much sex was probably a repressed gay.

real scientific guys.

>> No.5298624
File: 22 KB, 320x400, The-Best-Bat-Villains-Scarecrow_imagelarge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5298624

>>5298611

It may be that there aren't many when compared to heterosexual scientists, but that doesn't have to have any meaning at all, as long as the "gay quote" isn't significantly different from what you find in the general population.
For or against which there is no data/evidence.

>> No.5298625

>>5298610

Tesla wasn't gay. He was a freak of nature. Most likely autistic, in the real non fourchan definition.

>> No.5298629

there aren't many black scientists or especially many black mathematicians. Seriously I don't think there's a single famous black mathematician out there.

math is obviously racist, right guys?

>> No.5298635

>>5298624
>s long as the "gay quote" isn't significantly different from what you find in the general population
What would constitute "good evidence" in either direction here?
Do you think social science is an invalid discipline? If not, what are its good results?

>> No.5298642

>>5298629
The practice of a thing and the thing itself are not even close to the same thing

>> No.5298644

>>5298629
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU6rHi6Qzcs

>> No.5298653
File: 24 KB, 852x480, Dr-Jonathan-Crane-dr-jonathan-crane-scarecrow-26905952-852-480.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5298653

>>5298635

You quoted it yourself:
>as long as the "gay quote" isn't significantly different from what you find in the general population

I used the word "significantly" for a reason.
Take samples, estimate statistics, decide on rejecting or accepting your initial hypothesis.

I for one do not discredit social science. I'm a psychologist myself though. Also, inb4 shitstorm.

>> No.5298662

>>5298653
>Take samples, estimate statistics, decide on rejecting or accepting your initial hypothesis.
For the moment let me grant that this is the proper way to reach a conclusion.
What happens when you're trying to learn about something where
>Take samples
is a lot more difficult than it sounds? At some point the line is crossed between "collection of anecdotes" and "sample", but I'm not sure how you decide where it is (I suspect it is by fiat)

>> No.5298669
File: 1.37 MB, 1763x2689, Dr__Jonathan_Crane_by_KumoNoAlchemist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5298669

>>5298662

What happens is, that you won't get data. At least not the easy way.
I'm very aware of the difficulties of screening populations for socially undesirable characteristics.

The difference between "collection of anecdotes" and "collection of samples" is that samples are less prone to display biases. Also you get numbers, which means you can actually quantify things and estimate probabilities.

also pic somehow related.

>> No.5298670

>>5298653
Found this:
>But [in November 1991], Overlooked Opinions, a Chicago research firm, released a study of 8,031 gay men and lesbians, with study subjects chosen to be demographically representative of the homosexual population nationwide. From the survey results, the firm predicts that in a group of 1,000 U.S. gays and lesbians, 2 would be chemists, 35 would be computer scientists, 9 would identify themselves as "scientists" or "researchers," 6 would be research assistants, and 9 would be lab technicians.
I'd say that is a significant deviation; those fields comprise more than 6% of the workforce. It is dated, though.

>> No.5298674
File: 22 KB, 279x400, 35771_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5298674

>>5298670

Interesting indeed. I would really like to see a more recent one. (Not demanding that you search for it though.)
Needless to say, it would be much more representative.

>> No.5298675

>>5298669
Do you think it would be a good idea to spend time and effort on a study in this area? Why?

>> No.5298678
File: 24 KB, 852x480, Dr-Jonathan-Crane-dr-jonathan-crane-scarecrow-26905942-852-480.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5298678

>>5298675

Well, I personally think it would be interesting, simply because it is a "blank spot" in the body of knowledge.
However, it would pretty likely generate a political/social/ethical shitstorm. (Not however that I do NOT state that science should bother with what is "politically correct".)

Furthermore, you would be surprised on which much more trivial questions money is "wasted" in social science.

>> No.5298680

>>5298678

*(NOTE* however that I do NOT state that science should bother with what is "politically correct".)

>> No.5298681

>>5298674
I did try searching for some, but that's the best I've found so far.
Which helps strengthen my OPINION that this is a problem that needs to receive more (scientific) attention

>> No.5298685
File: 35 KB, 852x480, Dr-Jonathan-Crane-dr-jonathan-crane-scarecrow-26905928-852-480.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5298685

>>5298681

That's an opinion you are very welcome to hold. What bothered me and ultimately triggered my first post was that people in this thread (or board in general) spout "X is Y because Z" without even knowing what they are talking about.

>> No.5298695

>>5298685
*nods*
I'm sick of: "gays are like this because science" - no they're not and your science is bad.
Alan Turing's story should shame these people into silence. If it doesn't, the least they could do is not try and rationalise it using pseudoscience.
Good talk.

>> No.5298697

>100 replies

what the fuck guys

>> No.5298698

>>5298697
I've been purposely bumping the threads you sage for days. Do you have nothing better to do?
Fuck off.

>> No.5298701

>>5298698

>implying I dont sage for good measure

the thread was on the first page dumbass

>> No.5298733

>>5298290

Just like all mathematicians and scientists being celibate, amirite?

>> No.5298763

So... who would let Turing pork them in the arse?

>> No.5298778

Because they were all closeted until very recently.

>> No.5299015

>Implying Newton didn't chain-smoke cocks

>> No.5299057

too bad so much troll in thread.

homosexual men tend to have superior skills at design, and the creative arts in general, and not so much skill at mechanical and spatial problems.

>> No.5299071

>>5299057
>homosexual men tend to have superior skills at design, and the creative arts in general, and not so much skill at mechanical and spatial problems.

[citation needed]

>> No.5299077

>>5299071

I can't say it's Aliens, but ...

>> No.5299087

See what happened to Turing?

See how gay people were treated up to only a few years ago?

I'm pretty sure many scientists were secretly gay.

>> No.5299090

>>5299087

sounds like you're pretty gay

>> No.5299095

>>5298241
leonardo da vinci, engineer, cocksucker
aristoteles, plato, pythagoras

most greeks were gay.

>> No.5299127

>>5299090
I'm not.
Is that supposed to be insulting?

>> No.5299200

>>5299127

if gays are such great scientists, it can only be the contrary, my friend.

It's a compliment!

>> No.5299218

>>5298598

i'm gay and I don't want affirmative action

if I got into a high position in academia I'd want it due to actually contributing in some way to my chosen field, not because of where i like to put my dick

>> No.5299269

>>5299218
>doesn't take any advantage presented to him
what are you? gay?

>> No.5299287

>>5299269

I wouldn't want people around me thinking that I don't deserve to be there, that the only reason I got to where I am was due to something that had nothing to do with science. Because they'd be right - if I couldn't survive on my merits alone then what business do I have being there?

>> No.5299319

If you define gay as a man who wants to have sex with another man then it should have no effect on wether the person strives to be intellectual;
If you define them as a man in a woman's body and we say fucking most of them are annoying shits who only care about there self image like straight males and women also do...
You know what just define people by there interests in knowing how things work; or be ready to analyze everything including what the media pumps out to make people insecure about themselves so they can't even worry about thinking
I don't know the statistics

>> No.5299322

>>5299269

in the ass?

>> No.5299323

Wasn't Newton gay?

>> No.5299328

>>5298283

Congratulations. You are doing a wonderful impression of a complete idiot.

>> No.5299341

>>5298283
If you're eager to say inane things like "gays are females trapped in a mans body" and "all women are stupid", I would suggest you try out >>>/r9k/. I think you'll feel more in place there.