[ 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: 884 KB, 500x277, tumblr_ml2hy0s0Dy1qdpbx3o1_500.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6831490 No.6831490[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I thought Bill Nye was supposed to be smart.

>> No.6831495

>>6831490
Don't you understand?
He's shit talking women.

>> No.6831498

Perfect picture. Dawkins, though an atheist, is aware of the stupidity of modern feminism and how fucking stupid that kind of reasoning is. Just look at his face.

>> No.6831506

>>6831495
Good. Women are fucking retards. I was scrolling through top news today and one of the headline was "Women kicker makes 42 yard field goal." Stupid fucking bitches talk about equality but they want to be praised for things a 15 year old boy can do. If women want something then work harder because the only people holding them back are themselves not the fucking patriacrchy

>> No.6831511

>muh misogyny
fuck off you virgins

>> No.6831524

>>6831490
I've lost my virginity, had a girlfriend, etc.

This only makes me certain that all women are mentally ill, rather than suspicious.

>> No.6831540

>>6831498
/sci/ SHOULD be free of shitposting, yet we have this thread.

>> No.6831549

Though equality of opportunity is reasonable and fair, that does not entail that equality of outcome is necessary.

>> No.6831674

>>6831549
How do you tell whether there is equal opportunity?

>> No.6831677

>>6831674
when there are no restrictions

>> No.6831686

>>6831490
>tfw one half of the mathematicians are women
Why are sciencefags so pleb?

>> No.6831728

>>6831490
Bill Nye confirmed for a retard.

>> No.6831732

>>6831490
Bill you dumbass motherfucker. You'll have SJWs deciding what science is and isn't, and then advancement fucking stops.

Jesus fucking christ on a yacht I am fucking raging mad. I had (read: HAD) a lot of respect for bill. But he fucked himself on this one.

>> No.6831740

>>6831732
>You'll have SJWs deciding what science is and isn't

the DoD and the corporate world dictate what is, and isn't science. two entities that give zero fucks what women think.

>> No.6831757

>>6831740
Funding lots of research and determining what sorts of things are studied != defining what science is

>> No.6831761

>>6831757
tell that to the guy without funding.

>> No.6831787

>>6831757
tell that to the guy that just got told "this isn't science, funding instantly pulled".

>> No.6831842

>>6831490
>one half of the humans are female, so one half of the professional rugby players should be female

>> No.6831847

>>6831490
You're so funny OP, truly.

>> No.6831871

>>6831490
He said they SHOULD be female.

But they're not.

>> No.6831877

>>6831490
that's assuming that the male and female brain are wired exactly the same, which is obviously not true.

>> No.6831890

One half of the population has an IQ under 100, therefore one half of scientists should have an IQ under 100

>> No.6831920

if one half of humans are female, one half of shitposters must be female too

>> No.6831922

>>6831890
Are you saying females have lower intelligence, on average? You just triggered me, anon.

>> No.6831926

>>6831890
Are you saying women are too stupid for science?

>> No.6831929

on my last midterm half of the students scored below average

>> No.6831935

>>6831842
One half of mothers should be male.

>> No.6831973

>>6831732
Dude Bill is BASHING females though. He's saying if they were really equal, half of scientist would be men, half female.
>hurpa derpa lerpa!

>> No.6832000

The obvious solution is to have strict hiring quotas so that half of our scientists are female. Of course, this might mean that we deny men careers in science.

>> No.6832023

>>6832000
I concur

>> No.6832026

>bill nye
>smart

>> No.6832038

I hate the idea that because x percent of some group make up a population, that group needs to be represented with the same percentage in every field of everything.

I have nothing against women and don't believe they're any less scientifically intelligent than men, but it's not a huge tragedy if not exactly 52% of scientists, or ceos, or whatever are women.

>> No.6832046

>>6831490
he's right though, women are totally capable of being good scientists, but they don't give a shit, and they should.

>> No.6832076

2nd year cheme/chemistry major here, over my 3 semesters at school I've seen 4 girls in my chemE classes (total class sizes average about 10-12, so it's not a total sausage fest). After the first 2 semesters, one had transferred to CC (this was due to her just being kinda dumb, nothing against women as 50% of male students were in a similar position), but another chick just missed classes and spent all the time partying and shit. Transferred to psych before losing scholarships and dropping out.

This year, there's 2 more young women in my MEB classes. One of them never shows up to class and is failing ochem, another is brighter than anyone in class and works harder, too (thing is she is 26 and holds a full time job, she's actually an adult).

From this, would it be fair of me to say that women's absence in STE? no, it wouldn't. However, would it be fair to show female students special attention and standards in these fields? No, it wouldn't. When womyn fall short in this field it's not genetic incompetence and it's not the man illuminati. It's the woman's fault and unless you want to reduce women to the status of children, they have to face equal consequences.

Also >>6832026

>> No.6832092

>>6831490
I strongly recommend you watch thunderf00t's videos on feminazism in the postmodern atheist movement. The guy's brilliant.

>> No.6833468

>>6831490
Could anyone give a link to the full thing?

Because, based on this tiny fragment, it seems as if you´re making more of this than it actually is. Couldn´t he just be talking about a simple expectation based on statistics?

A) Half of the humans are female.
B) All scientists are human.
So one would expect
C) half the scientists are female.

If this isn´t the case, than that´s an interesting phenomenon to look into. You can explain it in a lot of different ways. And approve or disapprove as much as you like.

But what is he actually talking about?
Please give a reference so we can all check if this isn´t interpreted in the wrong context.

>> No.6833472

>>6831787
Maybe it isn´t. What were you planning to do?

>> No.6833476
File: 68 KB, 650x500, yall-motherfuckers-need-science.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6833476

>>6833468
P.S. Why? Why? For the love of science! Why didn´t you people ask for any evidence for this claim? Do you even science?

>> No.6833480

>>6831677

There are restrictions currently, on top of certain cultural pressures, on top of how we raise the different genders.

Personally if I had to choose between a white male and a woman or minority, all with identical qualifications, I would choose the woman or minority because they most likely had to work harder for it because of their circumstances. Or at least I've learned this from being a manager for 8 years now.

>> No.6833487

>>6833480
There are differences in upbringing though there area also differences in biology that effect natural ability. You also need to take into account all the affirmative action programs when judging whether or not a woman worked harder for her position.

>> No.6833495

Half of the worlds hookers should be male.

>> No.6833500

>>6831490
Thanks for not giving source/context.
Without it I'll just guess that he just means that it would be preferable to see more female scientists, which I think wouldn't be bad. There is a difference there and there is a large untapped source, it's not like we couldn't use more scientists generally, so why not focus on an untapped source?

>> No.6833506

>>6831677
How do you quantify the amount of restriction, or prove that there is none?

>> No.6833509

>>6833506
when no one is denied an opportunity (toward education in the sciences for this thread) based on sex, race, sexuality, religion, etc.

discrimination laws basically.

we can't account for inequality out of the legal realm and inequality will always exist.

>> No.6833510

>>6833500
In terms of encouraging women into getting into the sciences sure. Of course you still want to be developing the best possible candidates so it doesn't really help to give women much of an unfair advantage.

>> No.6833523

>>6833510
Of course, totally agreed, no affirmative action needed.
Generally if people like Bill Nye talk about "scientists" they mean STEM overall and in a lot of STEM fields there is no shortage work, so it's not like pushing for more women would need to mean less men. Currently I'm studying EE and I've got exactly 0 women in the same year, while we have ~60-70 students total, we started with something like 5 women and 150 men, so it's not like a lot started but dropped out. While in my country EE graduates are in the top 5 for employment rate, so there is easily room for more people studying it.
Meanwhile I've seen most female high school class mates that were actually good at math choose all kinds of art-like studies with no chance for employment at the end. This in total upsets me, a lot of potential is being wasted because they don't even think about the possibility of going into STEM when choosing what to major in.

>> No.6833525

>>6833509
>we can't account for inequality outside of the legal realm
If by "account", you mean "quantify", then I disagree. We could in principle quantify sources of inequality apart from the law. Suppose such sources could be separated into two categories: one "biological", the other "social", for lack of better words. The "biological" category would contain those things that would exist in all possible social circumstances, besides genetic engineering and so forth. The "social" category would be dependent on variable, social factors. Now if it were determined that the social sources of inequality are far more significant than the biological ones, do you suggest that there is simply nothing we can do? Surely we can use laws to adjust our society, correct?

>> No.6833526

>>6833525
well first you'd have to show that (in)equality can be quantified.

>> No.6833528

>>6831490
>I thought
that's where you went wrong

>> No.6833532

>>6833506
When the rules/laws only mention "persons" and no race or sex.

Currently, we have law that mentions race and sex in order to give special treatment to non-whites and women.

>> No.6833537

>>6833532
Can dogs be persons?

>> No.6833539

15% of the humans are black. Therefore 15% of scientists should be black.

>> No.6833542

>>6833537
Last I checked, "person" meant a human.

>> No.6833544

>>6833542
check again, cuh, it dont

>> No.6833547

>>6833526
If it can't be quantified, then we could never possibly prove that there is such a thing as "equal opportunity".

And if we can't ever tell that equal opportunity has been achieved, then it's a meaningless concept, just like "tulpas" or "quantum spirits".

At least equality of outcome is well-defined, observable, and quantifiable. Equality of opportunity is pseudoscientific bullshit, as far as I'm concerned.

>> No.6833553

>>6832000
Also, it means lot of people will die from malfunctioning equipment.

>> No.6833555

>>6833525
i don't see what laws you can pass that would increase equality of outcome without also destroying equality of opportunity. It's also impossible to socially condition men and women exactly the same as sexual interaction is instinctively hard wired to a degree.

>> No.6833560

>>6833547
> then we could never possibly prove that there is such a thing as "equal opportunity".

how do you show that?

>At least equality of outcome is well-defined, observable, and quantifiable.
so equality can be quantifiable? and from that we can see whether equality of outcome works or doesn't work compared to equality of opportunity?

>> No.6833563

>>6833532
>When the rules/laws only mention "persons" and no race or sex.
>Currently, we have law that mentions race and sex in order to give special treatment to non-whites and women.

>I believe that only discrimination that is written down is real discrimination
>And I don't believe that we should use laws to adjust other kinds of discrimination, because they don't exist, again: Only the discrimination I see written down exists.

When it comes to power politics, you're so newfog I cannot see the walls in here.

>> No.6833575

>>6833563
>>I believe that only discrimination that is written down is real discrimination
>>And I don't believe that we should use laws to adjust other kinds of discrimination, because they don't exist, again: Only the discrimination I see written down exists.

Who are you quoting?

>> No.6833691

>>6833555
nice dubtrips

but dafuq? I was talking about laws that increase equality of opportunity, not outcome. Are we on the same page?

>> No.6833699

>>6831935
Genius.

>> No.6833700
File: 18 KB, 353x269, 1405899426568.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6833700

I never got the idea of shoehorning diversity into everything.

If a female wants to be a scientist, that's great. What's not great is lowering the standard, which is what comes with the diversity.

>> No.6833966

>>6831920
lel

>> No.6833983

>>6833700
The idea is that people who come from different backgrounds offer usefully different viewpoints and perspectives.

>> No.6833984

>>6833983
Just kidding. White people hate niggers fucking up their shit, so we keep forcing them to put more in.

God, you really think they'd be tired of it by now, but that Stockholm Syndrome sets in fast.

>> No.6833985

>>6833983
...and also that people tend to self-select peers that are like them due to subconscious biases, which is why the problem doesn't simply fix itself

>> No.6833988 [DELETED] 

>>6833985
Yeah let's assume things will be forever broken and implement auxiliary shit like affirmative action which only works where things are very wrong, so we reinforce things being wrong and we don't actually have to fix anything

>> No.6833997

One half of all humans are male, therefore one half of all people who give birth should be male.

Half of all humans are below average height, therefore half of all basketball players should be below average height.

Half of all humans are below average intelligence, therefore half of all scientists should be below average intelligence.

Half of all humans are male, therefore half of all runway models should be male.

X% of all humans are bald, therefore X% of all scientists should be bald (sorry i dont have the statistics on that).

Ooh how about this one to set off the affirmative action proponents: 62% of Americans are non-hispanic whites. Therefore the NBA (currently 78% African American) should be 62% non-hispanic white. Oooh how does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot?

Half of all humans are male, therefore half of all nurses should be male. Therefore, women should be restricted entry into nursing until the ratio meets 50%. How does it feel?

>> No.6834018

half of all nurses should be male

and half of all social workers

and fashion designers

>> No.6834020

>>6831490

he's an actor from new york

he just got lucky and managed to be apart of everyone's childhood, despite never graduating college

>> No.6834035

>>6834020
generally people will take your arguments more seriously when you don't include claims that can be falsified in 1 second of googling

>> No.6834126

>>6831506
This. Holy fucking Christ.

>> No.6834134

>>6833983

Certainly a black dude is more qualified to design a jet engine, being black and all. He grew up around different kinds of jet engine designs in the black neighborhood that the white kids never got to see.

The only value that "people who come from different background" provide is marketing value.

>> No.6834158

>>6833985
um ever heard of HBCU

or La Raza?
NAACP?

Minorities are perfectly capable of creating their own institutions.

White scientists don't want to hire black scientists? I agree it's discrimination but why can't the black scientist just work for another black person?

>> No.6834166

>>6831511

Who are you quoting?

>> No.6834179

>>6833468
This reasoning is flawed by point 2. It would be valid of you would have said "all humans are scientists". Now there is no valid logical deduction to point three renedering your conclusion invalid.

>> No.6834186

>>6832076
I agree

>> No.6834193

>>6831506
Women aren't as strong as men, you mongol.
Also, I heard that the average IQ of females is greater than that of males.

>> No.6834205

>>6831506
Bruh it's an accomplishment when women do these kinds of things because females literally have less muscle mass and muscles of lower density than men purely due to hormonal differences, it's not because they're being lazy. Female bodybuilders often use testosterone to bulk up like their male counterparts or there's no way their body would take on that kind of mass naturally. This is why we have men's and women's sports because our body types are so different it wouldn't be a fair contest.

Humans are pretty strongly sexually dimorphic, which occurs in animals where the bigger or more well-armed of the two sexes is the one doing the fighting, i.e. cows vs. bulls. Bulls are huge and square and look like a mountain of muscle compared to cows and are also the ones more likely to be hyper aggressive and fuck your shit up. Wow! Kind of like human males! Female animals use their extra energy that they don't waste being macho and put it towards rearing offspring.

>> No.6834214

In Australia, the high school physics course was changed so girls would score similiar, now half of the course is history of physics, and the parts that were cut are now crammed in the start of uni physics

>> No.6834225

>>6834134
oh my god fucking THIS

>> No.6834231
File: 17 KB, 429x241, male_female_bell_curve_.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6834231

>>6834193
Not only are they dumber by one standard deviation ( that's shitskin level m8 ), but they have less high-IQ individuals, who are essential to technological civilisation.

>ONE STANDARD DEVIATION

>> No.6834237

>>6834231
What's the sauce for this pic?

>> No.6834243

>>6834237
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188690400385X

>> No.6834247
File: 38 KB, 420x559, bikini_girl_perfect.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6834247

>>6834243
Win! Picture of feminist for you as thanks

(actually not a feminist)

>> No.6834250

>>6831890
the difference is that
intelligence-> necessary fo science
penis-> not really

>> No.6834257

>>6834231
No, the means are about equal.

>> No.6834259

>>6834231
This >>6834243 paper says the difference is 3.8 points (about a quarter of an SD).

The author, Helmuth Nyborg, was suspended for academic misconduct after writing it.

>> No.6834263

>>6833537
If a dog was capable of working as a physicist, who would want to stop it?

>> No.6834268
File: 421 KB, 504x672, social-construct.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6834268

>>6834259
>academic misconduct
Trivial trumped up charges, and a kangaroo court consisting of mediocrities and his enemies.

Of course his real sin was to question the blank slate dogma.

>> No.6834270

>>6834257
In spite of every effort to rig the tests so woman get the same scores, they still don't. Same with the SAT (doubled the weighting of the verbal section).