twistor wrote:Way to be extremely sexist. I especially love you how frame your lowly opinions as if they were elegant truths.
Referring to your first point, I do not think women are naturally predisposed to non-physics interests. The whole idea is absurd. In fact, most men I know are pre-disposed to non-physics interests.
About your second point, IQ is irrelevant. The person with the highest IQ in the world is a woman and she has produced really nothing of interest outside of a few books on being the person with the highest IQ. That's not to say you can teach a person with an IQ of 80 to be the next great investigator but rather that the correlation between success and IQ, after a certain point, isn't as strong as you might think.
It is unfortunate that you view my observations as sexist, because I would view myself as being completely warm to the idea of women taking over engineering, math and physics and why not science in general. However, observing that men commit all violent crimes does not make me sexist towards men either. Observing that men are behind most frauds and tax evasions does not make me negative toward men either. Even the fact that most people with psychological aberrations are also men does not change that fact. So why do you make the presumption that my observations
(that research shows that there are differences in standard deviations in IQ between men and women) are sexist?
In fact, you could even take this further - as this is fundamental and has nothing to do with magnitudes - as will now be shown. For example, a man is probably 20 times more likely to commit a violent crime. What if
a woman were twenty times more likely to suck at math/physics/engineering. Do either of these observations lead to thinking that all men and women are terrible or incompetent people
? No. The first is definitely true, and like I said, for all non-offending men I am completely unbiased and unsexist. In the same way, I have never said a women who is good at math, is not good at math, based on the silly and unrelated factor that she may have a different gender.
The important point of all this, the underlying theme, is that it is possible to not discriminate or generalize or stereotype an individual without this having anything to do with the statistics and biological statistics of large groups
. It is totally possible for there to be differences in standard deviations in IQ between men and women, without this meaning that any one who takes part of this information is transformed instantaneously into a bigotted sexist, or implying that the person in question was already bigotted and in fact actively sought after motivations for their views. Neither is true in my case, I can assure you.
And yes, the worlds highest IQ back in the Stanford-Binet days, was and might still be a woman. On the new scale, it might be different. Most contenders for this unofficial post are men these days though, and should come as no surprise. However, this is missing the point in a subtle way. If the tallest and strongest person in the world was a woman, does that change the fact that most firemen and boxers are men? No. The reason for this is that although there may exist genes or environmental factors that in extreme situations only activate or matter at all in women, this obviously (as shown by multiple studies) has had no effect on the larger groups.
The way in which this enters our debate is the following: I originally inserted myself at the point when the debate over whether 50% of the physics and engineering classes will be female in the foreseeable future, not
into any question of whether the very, very best potential physicist in the world is male or female. We were discussing large groups (gender distributions of large classes in many universities), not individuals.
IQ may be irrelevant. But differing in that position, by saying for example that IQ might be very important for physics, does in no way constitute sufficiently the property of being sexist
, not by a long shot.
I think it is obvious that IQ is important, irrespective of gender issues. In fact, for all the shortcomings of IQ (which are discussed much, much more than the pro's of IQ) math and physics and engineering are probably the areas in which it carries the strongest predictive power. In fact I believe that one of the stated goals over the last 50 years has been to increase the correlation of the test result with mathematical prowess.
twistor wrote:And finally, if girls are getting more attention to their problems it is probably because most physicists are males who like to give girls attention. Also, if I had to venture a guess, I'd say that girls are more willing to ask for help because society decrees that it is emasculating for a man to ask for help.
All points made here are true, and I agree with them without exception. It still, however, does not succeed in glueing 'sexist values' to my persona.
twistor wrote:Is it really that they like different toys or that we give them certain toys we expect them to like?
This is not really relevant to the debated but I decided to comment anyway. Hate to break it to you, but this simple thought is in no way original. It has been tested at least once, and possibly more times. Don't have the link, I remember a famous blogger in my country posting it and discussing it. Boys and girls, when presented at the very first age with all sorts of toys, still went for the 'culturally indented' ones. The test is done and the results are in and nothing unusual was reported. Sorry.
lmfao @ book. Seriously? You're *** joking, right? That's very blatant misogyny -- the idea that women gaining rights somehow harms men -- *** get real.
I bet you're really pissed that grae is a moderator of this board.
And up until now I thought I was the biggest asshole on this forum...
I do not share any of the particular views of the author. I was only hoping to post something american because I remembered that this was an observed phenomenon in the USA too. It is discussed heavily in my country but I guess it is useless to post material in my mother tongue, right? The trend identified by the book is correct, the reasons for it might be incorrect as I have not read the book.
And of course, more rights and freedoms for everybody is great
I am new to the forum and I have no idea who 'grae' is, besides that you now imply she is female.
grae313 wrote:Perhaps it's just me succumbing to the popular prejudices, but I believe that on average women are inherently slightly less capable at math and science than men. The key is the on average part, and that means there are still plenty of women left who are extraordinarily capable at math and science. And I don't think that means that women are inferior to men in general. There's a lot more to life and being intelligent than being able to do math. However I'm willing to admit that the data that supports this idea could very well be a result of only cultural conditioning.
Aha, the aforementioned grae.
Finally an answer which is not wishy-washy bachelor-of-arts crap. This is the way you do analytical writing. Agree completely, in fact I think I rehashed the boldtyped points in this post.