/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7254344]

not a college guy, just a 4channer.

Ok, so this is what I got from the male vs female threads here:

>Males had to hunt, females had to take care of their offspring
>this had evolutionary diferences in brain structure
>males were breed out to become risk takers
>only the top 40% of males had offspring, this means males were selected to take risk and fuck bitches even if there was big chances to die
>most males die as soldiers and expeditionaries
>Genghis khan had more than 1k babies
>He is not the only lineage that had hundreds of babies
>females can't do this, so they had to choose their partners and become more picky
>females were breed to be a part of the alpha harem
>females couldn't leave their tribe, so they were breed to be more risk adverse than males since they have bigger chances of reproducing (80%)
>so females developed a pack mentality to conform to social norms and get along (less violent) in their harem
>females had to compete for the best male by learning social skills and seduction, basically learning to manipulate males for sex
>males had to compete by making science, art, philosophy, war just to become like genghis khan
>females already could get the best male as long as they're cute and waifu material, this explain why they're very shallow and into fashion design.
>females lack the biological and cultural drive to improve since is not their reproductive strategy
>females have bigger emotional inteligence because of raising babies, males lack this.
>males have bigger randomness in all it's stats (strenght, IQ, beauty, height) because society can afford for the worse 60% to not reproduce.
>so males have been breed to be competitive, as it's their only way to reproduce since being beta is just genetic dead end
>so society can't afford to take a heavy loss of their uterus unlike a half loss in their penises, that's why we're hardwire to protect females and society heavily protects more females (rape and violence laws against females).

Will continue

[Anonymous No.7254363]

>Will continue
Why

[Anonymous No.7254368]

>>7254344
>So females lack the drive to take risk in the same proportion as males, because is not their reproductive strategy.
>So culture and history tells them they can't into math and science

This is important:
>because of female pack behaviour they need a social consensus to think about getting into math and science
>because they don't see females into math and getting math degrees they get into humanities because their pack mentality tells them it has more girls

This is other point:
>because math and science is about logic and not about muh feelings, they feel is too cold and dry unlike nursing.
>so, more females feel more inclined to take nursery because it deals with people and feelings.

So feminists will complain, but they didn't study math but social sciences, which is ironic.

So, unless there is hand holding in terms of girls being protected and shown is safe (because they get scared of risks) I don't see teens liking math and science.

I do believe feminists have a point because girls don't see other girls in math and they don't see alpha boys (what they desire) in math, so they don't get a desire.
This is couple with females seeing that math and CS means to be surrounded by nerdy boys with beta genes, so they get scared.

Imagine if you were a girl and all the CS boys are utterly disgusting.

Or you studying some social science and all the girls are ugly and fat as fuck and crazy bitches.

I do think this also influences.

So, seeing like girls lack initiative and the society doesn't hold their hands, they lost their interest.

Feel free to tell me retarded.

[Anonymous No.7254370]

>>7254344

[Anonymous No.7254377]

>>7254370
is mostly a TL:DR I see on /pol/ and /sci/ of all the female vs male threads.

[Anonymous No.7254483]

[Anonymous No.7254489]

>>7254483
>Teachers are said to reward "organisational skills, good behaviour and compliance" rather than objectively marking pupils' work.

[Anonymous No.7254498]

>>7254489
Reminder the standardized public education represents an uncomfortably vulnerable single point of failure for any country.