Utopia Talk / Politics / Gender equality paradox

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 05:09:24 TL:DR To get more women in STEM, make your society poor and unstable and treat women like garbage. Also feminism is cancer. http://www...he-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/ http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617741719 Though their numbers are growing, only 27 percent of all students taking the AP Computer Science exam in the United States are female. The gender gap only grows worse from there: Just 18 percent of American computer-science college degrees go to women. This is in the United States, where many college men proudly describe themselves as “male feminists” and girls are taught they can be anything they want to be. Meanwhile, in Algeria [lol], 41 percent of college graduates in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math—or “stem,” as its known—are female. There, employment discrimination against women is rife and women are often pressured to make amends with their abusive husbands. According to a report I covered a few years ago, Jordan, Qatar [ROFL :)], and the United Arab Emirates were the only three countries in which boys are significantly less likely to feel comfortable working on math problems than girls are. In all of the other nations surveyed, girls were more likely to say they feel “helpless while performing a math problem.” So what explains the tendency for nations that have traditionally less gender equality to have more women in science and technology than their gender-progressive counterparts do? GRAPH A scatterplot of countries based on their number of female STEM graduates and their Global Gender Gap Index (y-axis), a measure of opportunities for women (Psychological Science) According to a new paper published in Psychological Science by the psychologists Gijsbert Stoet, at Leeds Beckett University, and David Geary, at the University of Missouri, it could have to do with the fact that women in countries with higher gender inequality are simply seeking the clearest possible path to financial freedom. And often, that path leads through stem professions. The issue doesn’t appear to be girls’ aptitude for stem professions. In looking at test scores across 67 countries and regions, Stoet and Geary found that girls performed about as well or better than boys did on science in most countries, and in almost all countries, girls would have been capable of college-level science and math classes if they had enrolled in them. But when it comes to their relative strengths, in almost all the countries—all except Romania and Lebanon—boys’ best subject was science, and girls’ was reading. (That is, even if an average girl was as good as an average boy at science, she was still likely to be even better at reading.) Across all countries, 24 percent of girls had science as their best subject, 25 percent of girls’ strength was math, and 51 percent excelled in reading. For boys, the percentages were 38 for science, 42 for math, and 20 for reading. And the more gender-equal the country, as measured by the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index, the larger this gap between boys and girls in having science as their best subject. (The most gender-equal countries are the typical snowy utopias you hear about, like Sweden, Finland, and Iceland. Turkey and the United Arab Emirates rank among the least equal, according to the Global Gender Gap Index.) The gap in reading “is related at least in part to girls’ advantages in basic language abilities and a generally greater interest in reading; they read more and thus practice more,” Geary told me. What’s more, the countries that minted the most female college graduates in fields like science, engineering, or math were also some of the least gender-equal countries. They posit that this is because the countries that empower women also empower them, indirectly, to pick whatever career they’d enjoy most and be best at. “Countries with the highest gender equality tend to be welfare states,” they write, “with a high level of social security.” Meanwhile, less gender-equal countries tend to also have less social support for people who, for example, find themselves unemployed. Thus, the authors suggest, girls in those countries might be more inclined to choose stem professions, since they offer a more certain financial future than, say, painting or writing. When the study authors looked at the “overall life satisfaction” rating of each country—a measure of economic opportunity and hardship—they found that gender-equal countries had more life satisfaction. The life-satisfaction ranking explained 35 percent of the variation between gender equality and women’s participation in stem. That correlation echoes past research showing that the genders are actually more segregated by field of study in more economically developed places. The upshot of this research is neither especially feminist nor especially sad: It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested. The findings will likely seem controversial, since the idea that men and women have different inherent abilities is often used as a reason, by some, to argue we should forget trying to recruit more women into the stem fields. But, as the University of Wisconsin gender-studies professor Janet Shibley Hyde, who wasn’t involved with the study, put it to me, that’s not quite what’s happening here. “Some would say that the gender stem gap occurs not because girls can’t do science, but because they have other alternatives, based on their strengths in verbal skills,” she said. “In wealthy nations, they believe that they have the freedom to pursue those alternatives and not worry so much that they pay less.” Instead, this line of research, if it’s replicated, might hold useful takeaways for people who do want to see more Western women entering stem fields. In this study, the percentage of girls who did excel in science or math was still larger than the number of women who were graduating with stem degrees. That means there’s something in even the most liberal societies that’s nudging women away from math and science, even when those are their best subjects. The women-in-stem advocates could, for starters, focus their efforts on those would-be stem stars. Then again, it could just be that, feeling financially secure and on equal footing with men, some women will always choose to follow their passions, rather than whatever labor economists recommend. And those passions don’t always lie within science. ------------------------ You know I used to say and believed, "take your feminism to Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, they need it there". Now I am not so sure. These place need equality and that is something feminism obviously can not provide.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 19 05:21:04 Amazing what you take out of articles. "it could have to do with the fact that women in countries with higher gender inequality are simply seeking the clearest possible path to financial freedom. And often, that path leads through STEM professions." "The issue doesn’t appear to be girls’ aptitude for STEM professions. In looking at test scores across 67 countries and regions, Stoet and Geary found that girls performed about as well or better than boys did on science in most countries, and in almost all countries, girls would have been capable of college-level science and math classes if they had enrolled in them. But when it comes to their relative strengths, in almost all the countries—all except Romania and Lebanon—boys’ best subject was science, and girls’ was reading. (That is, even if an average girl was as good as an average boy at science, she was still likely to be even better at reading.) Across all countries, 24 percent of girls had science as their best subject, 25 percent of girls’ strength was math, and 51 percent excelled in reading. For boys, the percentages were 38 for science, 42 for math, and 20 for reading. And the more gender-equal the country, as measured by the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index, the larger this gap between boys and girls in having science as their best subject." "Some would say that the gender STEM gap occurs not because girls can’t do science, but because they have other alternatives, based on their strengths in verbal skills,” she said. “In wealthy nations, they believe that they have the freedom to pursue those alternatives and not worry so much that they pay less." There. I broke it down for you. Are you able to read it now?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 05:26:15 Is this the alternate universe where I am saying women lack the skills? Do you have anything else? Already had this discussion with seb over a hetrodox article that I posted showing there is no such skill gap on the group level. But relatively big differences in interest, that in free and stable societies has the effects the article is describing. This is quite amazing considering your thread about who here can read and comprehend academic articles. LOL :)
jergul large member	Mon Feb 19 05:34:45 I am pointing to the disconnect between your crazy, and what the article actually said. Breaking it down seemed to help you understand that at some level. Yay. An easy way to correct percieved inbalances is simply by adjusting classification. Modern nursing is highly technical and could easily be placed under the STEM unbrella. Problem solved!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 05:35:43 Relative difference in skills within the groups may for sure have some effect as well, but even without it a persons passion provided social and financial stability is enough.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 05:45:25 "Breaking it down seemed to help you understand that at some level. Yay." Try harder. "Modern nursing is highly technical and could easily be placed under the STEM unbrella." lol no. STEM subject are defined by their emphasis on math and thing focus, nursing school is not. Nurses operate the gadgets, they don't design them or are even allowed to repair them. You have inadvertently strayed into a business area (med-tech) I am fairly familiar with. But sure we can re-categorize things and show "stats" to please idiots like you. I would not mind, considering how retarded the entire debate even is to being with. Finally we can agree on something! The entire medical profession should be included STEMM.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 19 06:04:43 Are you allowed to repair things? Or do you design things? What have I said about you applying your anectdotal evidence, bro? Seriously. Get a degree. You could incidentally just have googled to see that there are solid arguments that favour considering nursing to be a STEM field. If the STEM subjects need to be emphasised a bit more in the degree programmes, then why not. Women will do that as well - or better than men (see your article). And classifications matter (its actually what engineers do most of all).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 06:05:17 Because being a nurse and a doctor isn't good enough until it is a "STEM" subject. Taking care of the sick isn't a noble thing. Even as an engineer I have to raise an eyebrow or two over how vacuous people like you are lulzgul. But let us leave that behind for we have finally broken the Gordian knot of equality! Call everyone engineers!
jergul large member	Mon Feb 19 06:08:22 Or we could take engineering at BSc level out of the STEM field. I know of absolutely no one who with a MSc in Engineering or above who has any respect at all for BSc level engineers. Its a can't cut the mustard view on why they have only completed the low level, non-applied research portion a graduate degree.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 06:12:16 "Are you allowed to repair things? Or do you design things?" Categories like STEM while ultimately unimportant are not arbitrary. That was the point. Which you got. I can usually detect if you get my point from how retarded the response is. "You could incidentally just have googled to see that there are solid arguments that favour considering nursing to be a STEM field." I don't care, wasn't I clear? I am 100% in favor of these types of innocuous "solutions" to solve "problems" inside your head.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 06:15:56 "Or we could take engineering at BSc level out of the STEM field. I know of absolutely no one who with a MSc in Engineering or above who has any respect at all for BSc level engineers." Is not a protect title (unlike licensed nurse/teacher/doctor) in this country, even people with high school diplomas can be "engineers". It is a calling and a passion ultimately not defined by a degree, but by skills and skill sets. You have obviously invested a unhealthy amount of your ego in your degree. Hence this gimped personality and intellect. Some people keep learning after university, not you :)
jergul large member	Mon Feb 19 06:33:58 "Teacher" is not protected either. Which is why I qualified by using BSc and MSc to cover the certification portion of engineering. For passion and applied engineering, see: http://i.d...4C293C000005DC-805_634x467.jpg STEM is curriculum based. If you think nursing lacks a few credits to qualify, then it is not hard to tweak the curriculum. I am probably investing too much in observing other peoples' stupidity. Here defined as the inability to read and understand scientific papers. Its annoying to see abstracts and articles misconstrued and fundamentally not understood on a daily basis.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 06:51:52 It is in Sweden, idiotgul. "If you think nursing lacks a few credits to qualify, then it is not hard to tweak the curriculum." I don't think nurses should read meaningless courses to qualify as engineers. I just told you I think we should just call them engineers. This may be difficult for someone who thinks spending a year extra in school makes him "special". I honestly do not care. I think this a is a perfect solution to the kinds of problems feminists have with society. It is all rhetorical power games without real substance. Let the baby have it's bottle I say. "Here defined as the inability to read and understand scientific papers" Here defined as inability to communicate with other people without getting confused like a kitty about "complex math" LOL :) You know people do not make "strawmen" usually to run interference, some do, however most do this unwittingly because they lack the ability to comprehend what the other person is saying. Which in politically contentious topics happens because of biases rooted in whatever tribe you have "thrown your lot" with. ;) Like when someone posts an article that shows different interest leads women away from STEM provided financial and social stability and the academic punch card reader thinks the salient point is "women are stupid".
jergul large member	Mon Feb 19 07:19:12 I will just ignore the gibberish portion of your last post. You position before my intervention is that the article proves feminism is cancer and does not cater to equality. The article suggests the opposite and it is by no means a paradox Its classic winslow if anything. Now try to transfer this knowledge to our earlier discussions on what happens in a society where it is a stupid choice to have children. Birth-rates fall of course. Freedom of choice infers there is little cost between the alternatives. In egalitarian societies there is little cost. In less egalitarian societies the cost is higher. If you see developments you dislike (for example low birth-rates), then that could be countered by making child-bearing a more competative alternative. But the answer is always more egalitarian viewpoints, lower GINI scores, better distribution of wealth and income between genders, and a feminist outlook on the direction society should be heading. Or you could just force women to outcompete men in STEM fields. They have the biology to do that if they have to.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 10:30:00 "I will just ignore the gibberish portion of your last post." The fact that "teacher" is a protected title in Sweden or that I don't think we should fill nursing education with for their occupation meaningless subjects? "You position before my intervention is that the article proves feminism is cancer and does not cater to equality." Yes I believe this article is mathematical proof that feminism is cancer. And also that women should be treated like garbage and that we should destabilize Sweden and make people poor. I have not turned back from this. It is the only way to be 'equal'. I am going to ignore the gibberish portions of your post.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 19 10:39:21 Nimi Goes to anectdotal. Who gives a fuck if irregularities in the Swedish system have "lärare" as a protected title (if that is even true). I can argue far better for advanced maths, physics, biology, and, programming, and technology in nursing than you can do for entry level engineering degrees. After all, how much maths do you need to make a power-point representation of a copy-pasted flow-chart? And there you are back fundamentally misunderstanding the article again. Just micro-dose, bro?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 10:43:50 "Who gives a fuck if irregularities in the Swedish system have "lärare" as a protected title" probably the person who deemed it necessary to write ""Teacher" is not protected either". It is a trivial thing I agree, but you were wrong nonetheless and now that you were wrong you don't give a fuck, of course for the same reason I do give a fuck :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 10:53:33 "And there you are back fundamentally misunderstanding the article again." I am not interested in the gap in the fossil record. Human punch card reader. I can present half a dozen articles and you are not going to change your mind. You will always find flaws and play empirical nihilist, because you already have the answers (god said so). If I give anecdotes, surveys, stats or peer reviewed studies, there will always be flaws (as there always is) that a motivated skeptic will lip lock on like a starving crack whore on a cock. Something I don't really care about.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 11:06:09 I could for instance cite scientist or professors in relevant fields supporting a specific view and that would be argument from authority or some seb like person would tell me the entire field (he does not understand) is bunk. So what we are left with is that a Norwegian fisherman with an MSc gets what noone else does, the same guy who discovered the pie charts. lol :) Known you for 10 years lulzgul, you are without a doubt one of the biggest charlatans here. This is practice for me, like I told you.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 19 16:10:18 Teacher is not a protected title most everywhere. For good reason as it has widespread common usage. I am not convinced it is protected in Sweden either. But national oddities occur. Interesting as anectdotal trivia at best. Your problem is that you are systematically unable to cite researchers correctly. They are invariably saying something different from what you think they are saying. Well, that is one of your problems at least. Nothing a number of years (lets say 3) on a two year masters programme would not solve. If you dropped doing drugs.
TJ Member	Mon Feb 19 16:47:00 There is nothing wrong with antidotes to alter perspective. I could bust anyone in the nose that I choose. Would that be a lack of ability/capability or passion? Life is a practical concern. Science is all about seeking factual truths.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 16:51:43 I cite things that disagree with you, that is the problem. You assert bullshit.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 19 16:57:15 "antidotes to alter perspective." Anecdotes or "antidotes" (huehue), they are both important for altering perspectives ;-)
TJ Member	Mon Feb 19 17:09:00 Solution, compromise, or remedy. Pick your poison. lulz
Nekran Member	Tue Feb 20 01:28:06 Interesting article... shame about the lameness surrounding it.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 01:47:54 Nimi You cite things you do not understand. Discussing with you is the intellectual equivalent of watching "the most dangerous catch". The stupidity is mindboggling.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 02:18:24 ”Lameness” is a good filter to weed out the lame. Which in this place is redundant, so what you have left is self-serving goals or just for the lulz.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 02:29:38 The least lame part is reflections on mobilizing workforce capability. If women are generally strong in STEM subjects and additionally even stronger in interpersonal and verbal skills. Then upgrading curriculum competence in typical female dominated educations can give dramatic productivity gains. The example I used was nursing. Cohort aptitude allows for greater reliance on technology (in anything from coding data to the use of advanced diognostic machinery) and rendering redundant specialized workers (for example technical engineers).
Seb Member	Tue Feb 20 02:55:11 Nim: "Already had this discussion with seb over a hetrodox article that I posted showing there is no such skill gap on the group level." That is not what the article you posted from the heterodox academy website said. You may be confusing your sources.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 03:01:25 "You cite things you do not understand." I understand perfectly that feminism is cancer and I just presented mathematical proof, complex math. Feminism = cancer, it is a human universal constant. This "peer review" game is completely meaningless to me in this setting. Feminism is a political theory with what are ultimately falsehoods and conspiracy theories as basic premise. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence and destroyed by evidence of the contrary. The imbecile thinks scientific rigor is needed to disprove something that was never proven in the first place. ^This is where bias, motivated skepticism and reasoning disqualifies you for being taken seriously. This is where "lameness" plays a critical role. You are of course welcome to explain, why feminism is not cancer. I don't even require peer review just your own thoughts. I for whatever flaw you may think I have, take the time to explain myself, provided discussions take place in good faith, I will put quite some effort to flesh out the details as transparent as possible (even in this shit hole). I regularly write long posts with that aim. You talk in semi-coherent paragraphs.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 20 03:02:55 Is knitting, sewing, dressmaking etc thing focused or relationship focused Nim? The trouble with this "thing focus" studies is normally in defining "thing". Generally, it involves selecting objects that have an association with male or female gender roles, and then showing them to infants and measuring attention. The problem with this approach is that you can do the same thing with objects associated with parents cultures and get the same result. The bias in the experimental set up comes from two faults in the protocol: Object definitions are socialised - what the experimenter considers gendered is a consequence of social norms, not objective reality. Secondly, even infants from about three months to six months start to soak up behavioural norms. Trying to use them as a litmus test for tabula Rasa Vs innate instincts can only work if they are insulated from normal interactions.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 20 03:05:50 Men are interested in systematising! What, like running a household as a system? No! Not that kind of system! Like manufacturing! Like knitting? No, like manly manufacturing!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 03:13:08 seb Since you did not post the thread where I "allegedly" claim that article is saying something it does not. I am not even going to bother responding to that in the future. What you posted was the article itself, which I happily admit I have posted here. It is the first article in a series of 3. I posted the article and summarized the contents regarding the level of differences between the genders. I believe someone had posted the Quillette article from the 4 scientists weigh in on a larger scope of claims. As a matter of rigor and pedagogic principle. First layer would be to establish are there any difference? Then proceed to talk about where those difference arise. Hence why the hetrodox article is the first in a series of three. Guess what the second one is about? You are welcome to dig up the thread, so we can show why you are an idiot with shitty memory.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 03:16:20 Seb Funny you should bring up knitting. A lot of the crafmanship involved in fixing gear on trawlers is exactly that (tying off the cod-end is crocheting). I used to make fun of what we were doing. It did at times resemble a knitting circle including gossip). ======== PLS leaps to mind as something that should be included in a nursing curriculum.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 03:22:12 I will skip the gibberish seb. Like I told lulzgul I have no interest in or anything against this vacuous re-categorization to appeal to the arbitrary sensibilities of feminist morons. I am more than willing to accept that administrating a kitchen is "systematization" if that means more women stay in the kitchen. <- lol :) I appreciate "womanhood" for all it's traditional/typical glory or as my engineering mentor. I have no invested anything in my title or my "manhood" in things that can be diminished by the type of shit you and lulzgul say. You are barking up the wrong tree and as overbred terriers you two like to bark a lot at trees blowing in the wind. lol :)
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 03:30:31 Nimi The thing you are missing is that women are as good as men in most fields and better than men in the rest. Your regrets relate mostly to the invention of the steam engine and the redundancy of manual labour (though arguably women also excel at that as they have far superior work ethic and stamina. See water duties in rural Africa as an example).
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 03:32:41 In sum: You are a Luddite.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 03:37:39 You can come here and have some meaningful exchange. Though these are rarities. Certain report is needed for people who think their superior values means their solutions to social problems are also superior. Or that opposition to or support for specific policy maps 1to1 to values. <- first order thinking of a dupe. I use more than values to get through life, as a wise man wrote is a practical concern, I presume so do you. Until you come to UP to talk about things that would not effect you should they go south.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 03:41:13 Even the "waah, women want to stay at home with the kids" is incedibly archaic. Every decade life expectancy increases by a year and healthy life expectancy with 1.5 years. Women have fewer children later in life. The sum of both factors mean that the amount of an employable lifespan women spend raising children is actually quite small, and is decreasing. To what extent should a gap decade even matter from a career perspective if we discount male self-interest in heavily penalizing such a priority?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 03:41:20 ”The thing you are missing is that women are as good as men in most fields and better than men in the rest” Woof woof woof woof. Wouldn’t be sad if I had not said things to this effect and posted peer reviewed reviews of this, different interest little puppy. This is why your MSc is toilet paper compared to a high school diploma. It isn’t the degree, it’s the idiot.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 03:42:09 Arachaic as in biology. Yes.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 03:48:56 Biology that makes women either equal to men, or better than men in every field? Yes, lets cite biology. Your problem is that you do not see how your agenda undermines your values. Most people believe there should be a balance between private and public sector. But what happens if dual systems evolve. 1 that is actually egalitarian in hiring and promotion practices, then other not so much? If 50% of the population are treated equitably if employed by government, and inequitably in the private sector, then that provides motive to use the democratic system to increase the size of the public sector. In effect creating socialists of women who might otherwise have been inclined to private sector activity. Leaving you to whine "wah feminism is cancer", while in fact all that is happening is that clever people are making clever choices for themselves.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 20 04:13:48 Nim: I posted the link you cited. I posted the substantive points you made, and why they were contradicted by the article. Do you deny that was the article? Do you deny those were the points you made?
Seb Member	Tue Feb 20 04:15:09 Nim arbitrary categorisation is exactly what I'm accusing this "thing Vs relationship" stuff as being.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 04:22:46 Biology that makes women have different interests and life priorities. Yes it has to do with mating and reproductive realities and strategies. Yes men and women look and think different in some very specific ways that effect choices. When given the choices and opportunity, women as a group have a more balanced approach to work and life. I count myself as atypical male in this regard. I need a balanced life between family, work and working out. Right now though, I just shut up and work "to death" so my wife can stay at home nurturing our son. I take it like a man. "Your problem is that you do not see how your agenda undermines your values." There is a reason I did not include you in the "values" argument. As you know I usually bunch you two together. Think about it. Only a first grade moron thinks policy decisions can ever be about 1 thing. Seb was on to something in the other thread "maybe you are a pragmatist". Ultimatly a swing and a miss. TJ touched on in this thread "Solution, compromise, or remedy. Pick your poison." You can't pick though. It is all of the above. Social problems are too complicated to be handed over to intellectual yet idiots who says stupid and divisive things like "conservatives opinions are scientifically invalid" on the topic of social psychology. People like you will be the death of civilization lulzgul. Intellectual cancer. People like am are the remedy. I don't have to agree with everything conservatives (like TJ) say for me to not invalidate them and their opinions at the table. I may agree with 80% of the policies you do jergul, you are the one with peeing lines in the sand over the remaining 20%. But also you talk far beyond what your hardware software combination really has room for.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 04:27:32 Just as an exercise in how sebbing seb you are, with all the answers from the post I already wrote in response in this thread.. "I posted the link you cited" >>Since you did not post the thread where I "allegedly" claim that article is saying something it does not. "Do you deny that was the article?" >>What you posted was the article itself, which I happily admit I have posted here. "Do you deny those were the points you made?" >>I posted the article and summarized the contents regarding the level of differences between the genders. GG Cathy Newman. Now it is time to deadlift.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 20 04:32:01 Test: http://het...-say-about-gender-differences/
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 05:29:26 Things vs people orientation. Being arbitrary, please elaborate what you mean. Purely a social construct?
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 05:50:13 Life priorities? We just established child care gives a 10 year hiatus out of what realistically is a 60 year employment age. It is the equivalent of a gap year that for some odd reason is heavily penalized. What you call feminist cancer is simply a sledgehammer approach to the pursuit of best interests. #meetoo is the saga of men failing@interpersonal and verbal skills and being penalized for that. Which is one way to resolve irregularities in gender equality issues. Up the threshold until most males are disqualified by new objective standards. But there are easier ways.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 20 06:04:18 Nim: You had ample opportunity at the time to respond then. You didn't. Its getting on for three months ago. I'm not going to pretend it didn't happen just because you don't like it. ">I posted the article and summarized the contents regarding the level of differences between the genders." You posted it as support for Damore's thesis, arguing it supported a biological difference between genders. The article itself is clear it cannot be used that way. It can only shows the existence of sex differences in outcomes, not why they come about. Logically, that cannot demonstrate that unequal outcomes are due to "natural" causes or systemic discrimination.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 20 06:05:23 Nim: Thing / relationship elaborate above. Go read it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 06:06:03 Again lulzgul is assuming that every woman thinks career is important or even has a ”career” and not a ”fucking job”. Tough choice to either go to daycare/elderly home and wipe other childrens ass or hot rods, or stay home and have fun with your own. And a hundred other variations than the atypical example that forms the basis of your forced social engineering program. You are free to do as you please in my version of society. That is the difference in value between us.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 06:28:46 Nimi I am assuming women are generally more clever than men and will use democratic systems to model society in their best interests. Perhaps productivity gains should result shorter work weeks. Perhaps automation will allow for a more meaningful focus in elderly care, and perhaps an increased focus on paedagogical standards in child care will improve that sector. You can do as you please of course in any model. For as long as your interpersonal and verbal skillsets support your being employed at all.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 08:54:04 We don’t need to pretend seb. You need to provide a link to the thread. Quite bad form to make up arbitrary due dates for when I need to answer you. I visit every thread and assess if there is need to respond. You have continously brought up this mystery thread, it is you job to provide reference. When I have brought up our history, I have when you have asked provided reference. You have opted for the bitch move. So be it. I asked for you to elaborate on what _you_ mean by things vs people orientation being arbitrary. Jonatan Haidth the social psychologists certainly is not arguing that. You have once again through your inherent ignorance misunderstood hetrodox academy as well. They operate on the approach that when arguing a position you should present _all_ the evidence even those that contradict your position. <- this is why I posted that article in the first place, not because I couldn’t find relevant experts that said one thing or another. Nor what quality the listed research is or what the consensus is. Unfortunatly such attempts can never be productive with people such as yourself and lulzgul. You are not interested in anything but a display of your superior values and understanding of science. lol :) Another pillar of hetrodox is ”steel maning” your opponents arguments vs straw maning. I think a lot of people have a lot to learn from hetrodox. Nothing in their balanced and fair article series is supportive of frothing at mouth rabid feminist who wanted Damore fired. It shows that the scientist at best have not reached consensus. It is thus reasonable and fair for Damore to present what he has found convincing under the title ”Possible non bias causes..” .
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 09:07:24 Nimi Damore obviously did not find a career important enought to pursue, so he left to follow his own interests. Freedom of choice, bro. Defined by lacking interpersonal and verbal skills.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 09:08:15 You get that right? He was not fired for his opinions. He was fired for sucking at how he communicated his opinions.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 09:31:06 Any good reason why neurotic hysteria should be be given priority over autistic bluntness? Well it is easier to feel bad for the first group, they are usually very communicative in voicing their grievances through various signaling mechanism. But any good reasons?
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 10:32:35 Solid interpersonal and verbal skills on average would generally give that group solid advantages. So very good reasons in fact. Given how important good interpersonal and verbal skills are at the workplace.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 10:33:39 You should write a memo and send it to everyone on at your workplace if you have issues with that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 12:08:47 Membership in a criminal gang also gives solid advantages. The question was not for a description, but to qualify the norm. You seem to have big issues keeping these thing seperate. Let's try again. Any good reason why neurotic hysteria _should_ be be given priority over autistic bluntness?
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 13:16:21 Nimi I will again repeat my suggestion that you write and send out a memo to everyone at your workplace so they can gain some insight into your outlook. Feel free to add an addendum extrapolating the virtures of microdosing controlled substances at work. To answer the question: "Solid interpersonal and verbal skills on average would generally give that group solid advantages. So very good reasons in fact. Given how important good interpersonal and verbal skills are at the workplace." The problem with autistic bluntness is not what is said, but how it is said. Poor interpersonal and verbal skills = a place in the unemployment lineup.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 20 13:24:56 We don't have problems with neurotic hysteria at my place of work. So any group that organizes well enough shall be given primacy over others. Ok. "not what is said, but how it is said." Pretty much sums it up.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 20 14:07:58 Nim: I don't need to provide a link to the thread. We both know it's true.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 20 14:09:17 Arbitrary dates? I addressed it twice at the time, you ignored it. I am not going to keep a running record of everything you say thats monumentally stupid for reference.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 20 14:16:00 "Nothing in their balanced and fair article series is supportive of frothing at mouth rabid feminist who wanted Damore fired" So what? The issue is whether or not the article supported the claims you were making re innate biology. The article actually includes a disclaimer stating it could not be so used. The context of an academic website is different from that of a business. Damore gone done a Jerry Maguire. Only he was also largely wrong given the construction of his argument (it actually points the other way: if population differences exist, and they are based on interest rather than ability, then Google should spend loads on outreach to increase its recruiting pool, drive up quality, and if there are potential female recruits that have systems thinking ability plus relationship ability at a higher rate than men, they are exactly the future middle and senior managers they need to recruit and train).
jergul large member	Tue Feb 20 15:12:53 Seb Or simply note that women will generally be better at fostering relationships and hiring them from candidates when all else is more or less equal.
TJ Member	Tue Feb 20 15:38:51 "TJ touched on in this thread "Solution, compromise, or remedy. Pick your poison." You can't pick though. It is all of the above." Exactly Why I typed lulz at the tail. All are synonymous to antidote. Something that is difficult or seems at times to be an impossible achievement. The importance of decent interpersonal and verbal skills have severely degraded throughout my lifetime. It is the axis of division or polarization as you choose. Let the egos fly.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 20 17:06:37 Nim: You seem to have again confused values, principles etc with some weird invention of your own. At first you thought it was about virtue signalling rather than a difference in what people consider virtuous. Now you are attempting to pretend the difference is in rigid adherence. This again misses the point. The difference between those that value collectivist principles Vs those who are more individualist may be a spectrum, but those that value individualism are not simply collectivists making a pragmatic compromise. It's first about what you value, then the compromises you make to adapt to the reality of the world. Your statements "feminism is a cancer" are highly charged statements about what you value. And your supposed attempt to put your values on some objective footing fail horribly. Your argument spelt out fully comes across as: "Men and women are different in interests and/or* aptitudes. This difference is due to biology**. This difference explains fully the difference in outcomes seen between the sexes. Attempts to address these differences in outcomes are therefore immoral as they must inherently involve artificial privileges to females and/or disadvantages to men." Whether this is accurate to what you think you are saying or not, I do not know. You are piss poor at articulating your point, regular mangle your sources, refute your own logic, and fail to spot gaping leaps of logic. Suffice it to say, the best you've ever come to providing supporting evidence to this is showing that differences in interests in sex exists, and sexual dimorphism exists. The former is not in dispute (rather we are arguing about the cause, nature Vs nurture), and the latter you've not shown a linkage between those or that they explain socioeconomic outcomes better than other factors like systemic discrimination. *You flip and flop on this point **Given everything we do and are is biology, and biology changes based on experience (brain matter changes due to experience, cf cab drivers; epigenetics for heritable effects), this is a piss poor way of saying innate. Unless you are a dualist, and believe in mind/body split, everything is ultimately biology. Your use of biology appears to be applying an incorrect hardware/software model with biology being hardware.
jergul large member	Wed Feb 21 03:18:20 Nimi You are punching above your weight. It is admirable that you want research at the base of your positions, but you are mangling sources to fit your views. The obvious solution would be to change. On one level change your views, on the other - get the skill set you need to understand research. Patience most of all to actually be able to read more than the abstract. Then more patience to take the time to understand what you are reading. This is best done in a structured environment where the whole point is to learn to read, then right academic quality papers. So back to school would be my firmest recommendation. You can change your views as a natural conscequence of getting a clue.
jergul large member	Wed Feb 21 04:22:44 Here is a demographic factor you should be aware of: The baby-boomers are retiring. But also dying. Thing is. Men die a lot faster than women. From your perspective what we are seeing is a perfect storm of politically aware women in large cohorts(1968ers) who will no longer have their votes cancelled out by their male counterparts. Not because the demographic does not vote (old people vote), but because the men cannot vote (dead people can't vote). How do you think this is going to impact on social change?
TJ Member	Wed Feb 21 10:27:55 Edward: You may be giving too much credit to boomer couple vote canceling in the States as well as the widows when their old man bites the dust. From what I've read, but not really researched, last election Millennial's made up the same proportion of the U.S. voting-age population as the Baby Boomers. They lean left and socialist. You think that is why Sanders did so well in the election? It wasn't because they hated Clinton. It is obvious that politics has moved left over the years little by little until recently. There is little more to say on that subject. Only the least interested in politics would not be aware of the slow moving shifts since the 60's and its recent acceleration. Don't blink at the young and inexperienced liberal who has been groomed throughout their education largely made up of left leaning educators. The young are much like the freedom loving activists of the 60's. Near anything goes. The next election will be an interesting event in the States. The boomer widows will not be the ones at the heart of social change in the States. I'll play a Trump and take the heat for what I've said. It all depends on what he does in the remainder of his term to slow the inevitable. Follow the money for shits and grins.
jergul large member	Wed Feb 21 10:51:51 TJ I actually reviewed US data before posting (though technically, we were speaking of Sweden). http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf Dated as decennial data is released every decade :-). We can use this as a case study in how to read statstics (why is "In 2010, there were 96.7 males per 100 females, an increase from 2000 when the sex ratio was 96.3 males per 100 females" a poor descriptor for voting impact?) But it points more to not expecting the elderly to be the same engine of conservatism that they once were.
TJ Member	Wed Feb 21 10:57:49 "But it points more to not expecting the elderly to be the same engine of conservatism that they once were." Yes that was my entire point. :)
TJ Member	Wed Feb 21 11:54:16 I understood you were technically speaking of Sweden, but trends are globalized. Degrees don't add much to the final equation other than quicker or slower. There might be a surprise at the end of the yellow brick road.
jergul large member	Wed Feb 21 15:00:15 TJ I think so. Everything being equal and given a free choice - would you choose to have a child that was biogically prone to living shorter instead of choosing a child that would live longer? That might be were we are heading. Or perhaps advances in genetics will remove some of the flaws currently inherent to the xy chromosone combination.
TJ Member	Wed Feb 21 15:30:36 I'm headed to the oven so it is not necessary for me to delve deeply into your questions. lol I'm only sure of one thing and that is we are headed forward as a species. How long that will be is beyond knowing. Genetic longevity doesn't secure long life as a species. As a parent of four I have always protected them to the best of my ability for a long life. My hope is to be absent from the planet long before them. There is no control on the subject. That being said I've given you my answer.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 22 02:10:30 lulzgul likes to talk about averages. Like on average women do slightly better academically (his fetish), but not delve deeper in the distribution, there are many times more men at the tails. Nor acknowledge that a career involves much more than academic achievment. There is a group of ”loser” men that are genetic losers, but there are also more men born, and men (the group) create more offspring (with more than 1 woman). This has always been the case and nothing new.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 22 02:29:23 *(the group that does procreate)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 22 03:01:59 Flaws inherent are low IQ primarily. Higher IQ generally translated into the better impulse control, valuing future reward over short term pleasure. Then a slew of cognitive disorders that effect each gender very differently. ^you find more men here, like you find more men among noble prize winners, resulting in a flatter distribution curve, but the same group average. There are other interesting things regarding achievements in school, girls get better grades for the same results, something that has been a hot subject in Swedish pedagogy debate in recent years. Lot of hot air in the ”better academic achievement”, turns out that if 90% of the teacher are women, that will create an environment tha favors women. So, when we look at SAT scores, what do we see? Men do better even though more women take them. We couldn’t have that, so changes were made specifically on the quantitative (math where men score better) part to make it more in line with the math in high school (thinking it will raise the girls results because girls high school grade in math is better). This resulted in men doing even better, the gap increased with 50%. The headlines read ”New SAT test favors men”. Another feminist is cancer fail. We are now waiting to see what the next ”solution” will be :)
jergul large member	Thu Feb 22 03:38:51 Nimi Clever people making clever choices tell us all we need to know about what solutions we will see. We know women are choosing to have few if any children. We see medical advances and can ask ourselves that if someone is considering giving birth to an off-spring, then what chromosone combination should they choose? The flawed combination, or the better combination?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 22 04:33:06 Women have always chosen to have relative to men, fewer children. The drop in fertility has little to do with some female awakening. Some very small part of it has to do with it, but in general we know what it is, the physical cost of bearing children vs the better ability to invest more in fewer offspring. 80-90% of women have children while only 50-60% of men have children. These are are things someone who understand human evolution/history and biology would know. Generally very helpful in devising public policy, to no disregard biology and evolutionary history. What traits evolved _for_ is critical for not fucking things up with heavy handed first order logic "solutions". This is why feminist policy fails consistently at producing results. The "flawed" combination happens to hold all the noble prize winners/pioneer and awesome people. Women like to marry awesome people. The choices are already being made, by women (although somewhat flawed), women as a group have so far done a good job as the gate keepers of human procreation. Goes back to the cost and investment, removing the higher investment for women, will of course remove the primary gate keeping mechanisms for women not having children with losers. In theory anyways, because there is little mystery in the lower level of promiscuity among women and generally "conservative" views on sex compared to men. The genetic tools for soft eugenics are essentially there (google CRISPER/CAS9), but the ethical implications are not yet resolved. Caution is advised.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 22 04:49:28 "80-90% of women have children while only 50-60% of men have children." ^Today, and this is more or less, give or take, reflected in our genetic history. 60% of men that ever lived, did not have children. No remarkable changes, slightly more men are able to have children, because of better opportunities to gain minimum level status to attract a mate (after industrial revolution). And slightly fewer women have children in order to seek status, muh feminism. But this is all a very short timespan, to say anything useful, ancestral instincts are hard to escape. Impossible to not fuck up if one does not understand them via: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinbergen%27s_four_questions + http://www.kokkonuts.org/ ^read everything she has written and her youtube video on the evolution of anisogamy and sex roles. She is an authority on the subject. for lulz you can read her take down of gender theorists as well. http://www.kokkonuts.org/p/MAKreply.pdf
jergul large member	Thu Feb 22 05:12:45 Nimi You do not actually need to attract a mate to have off-spring. See sexual assault statistics for details. Choosing to have off-spring is a function of available contraceptives. We have still not seen the full effects of choice availability (the morality of higher resolution choices is relevant only to those that believe that every seed is sacred. The rational choice is clear - choose the least defective option available. Which kind of precludes the xy chromosone combination) I will leave it to seb to deal with selection bias on top level scientists (its no coincidence that Werne von Braun was a man, but not for the reaons you think). But yes, we will continue to award top researchers - realizing that their contributions are inevitable. Laurate are more races on time. If not this individual this year, then someone else the year after. The age of heroic intellectuals has been blugeoned to death by the raw number of billions pouring through our education systems. Males have been dealt a crap hand genetically. Only inertia is currently holding sway. Oh - and want to end terrorism as a global phenonema? What gender does that, anyway?
jergul large member	Thu Feb 22 05:22:23 You are going to meet yourself at the door btw. If the idea is procreate and pass down your genes through the generations and females mate much more successfully than males, then what gender is the correct evolutionary choice? Given that we can choose?
jergul large member	Thu Feb 22 05:29:34 The correct evolutionary ratio over time is 50 males to every 100 females born, as opposed to 105 to 100 today. Someone thinking of genetics should have a boy if and only if there is an expectation that there will be 2 men or less for every 4 women in breeding age. Setting the age of procreation for males at 18-65 and for women at 18-45. Yay evolution!
jergul large member	Thu Feb 22 06:13:20 heh, evolution solves every problem known to man. Swedish birthrates close to ideal. The problem is the composition. 1.0 females and 0.5 males should on average be born to every woman in order to sustain the population and allow for moderate immigration (migration is one of the things we humans do. So its best to allow for it at a positive rate if you have ambitions of a society that is better than average). 10 billion peak population would magically become 7.5 billion to name one huge advantage if implemented globally. Its actually hard to find an ill in society that would not be resolved by the proactive used of contraceptives to bring procreation in line with evolutionary ideals (each person giving birth maximizes the chance of passing on genes within the framework of a stable population).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 22 07:06:25 "What gender does that, anyway?" What gender has the primary responsibility in terror producing countries to raise the children? Besides that obvious answer, would it surprise you that in Islamic countries, religiosity is, heh, more "equal" than in Christian countries where more women are religious than men? I suggest you educate yourself. seb is on the ignore list until he produces the link to thread. googling skills are apparently not a strong suit among over[educated]bred idiots holding MSc and Phd.
jergul large member	Thu Feb 22 10:00:40 What gender runs Madrases and other terrorist incubators? I dunnu, we would have to check. I suggest you stop pulling random bits of information out of your ass when faced with absolutely overwhelming truths. Men do terror bro, not women (the exceptions to this rule again one of those fractions of a single % things). Less men means less terror. All other things being equal. Indeed, the evolutionary argument for men is based on their being capable terrorists. Evolution is kicking your butt, bro.
TJ Member	Thu Feb 22 10:16:25 "evolutionary ideals" Interesting combination of words. Just think of me as being a thorn on the stem. :) Ideals of humanity I can reasonably understand.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 22 12:01:19 Eugenics is his thing.
TJ Member	Thu Feb 22 12:52:34 I understand the concept of self determined liberal exceptionalism. A group tank insistence of self determined enlightened. I won't Nazi-bait by continuing. Once a thorn always a thorn.. I enjoy protecting the integrity of my roses.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 22 13:25:31 It is by no means something exclusive to Nazis and predates them, they just made it "popular". It was very popular in Socialist Sweden, they were among the first to institutionalize it. It enjoyed full support by Jerguls Social democratic party.
TJ Member	Thu Feb 22 13:39:49 1902 California comes to mind at the root of eugenics. Sweden's earliest seems to be 1910. I could easily be mistaken though. I'm going on memory from reading historic material from years past. I'm thorny. ;)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 22 14:01:16 You are a sloppy reader :) I didn't attempt to pin down ground zero. http://en....s_institut_f%C3%B6r_rasbiologi Was founded in 1922. A state institute for eugenics. I have no idea if had one in the USA, but this was among the first state institutes, the first according to some sources.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 22 14:05:56 At any rate, my point is that jerguls "evolutionary ideal" was a state affair very early among social democrats. Obviously some of them have no let go of their utopian dream. Which is the thing with utopias, I think you would agree, they very quickly turn into dystopias. There is a diminishing return on the road from 80% to 100%, it requires one to throw a lot of people into the meat grinder.
TJ Member	Thu Feb 22 14:19:59 Not sloppy, just additional general knowledge. I understood you perfectly. The Blood of a Nation, do as you choose with the info. :)
TJ Member	Thu Feb 22 14:41:26 BTW, I do agree on the surface.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 22 14:45:02 lol considering the wide range of topics including eugenics. May I ask for clarification? :)
TJ Member	Thu Feb 22 15:00:16 My memory has limits. chuckle Stanford president(1902)David Starr Jordan originated the notion of race and blood. He declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood. Utopian dream defined by the latter.
TJ Member	Thu Feb 22 15:05:14 I'm hanging on for the sequel to Stepford Wives. Imagining the title. lulz
	show deleted posts