Equality and STEM

[bellisarius]

No surprises to be found in this article.

Gender equality and STEM

The greater the gender equality, the more profound the difference. No one should be surprised by this study.

 

[quietlylooking]

No surprises to be found in this article.

Gender equality and STEM

The greater the gender equality, the more profound the difference. No one should be surprised by this study.

I found this part of the article of particular interest:

"It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested".

 

[SpeareChucker]

Firstly, I cannot believe that a study like that came out of UM surviving the peer-review process...



Secondly. this is the kind of report that will anger SJWs who will produce a plethora of pretty pictures which claim institutional discrimination in cultures of equality is the truth and the proof is the lack of equality of outcome.

It's so hard to overcome discrimination when you are, by far, the most numerous of all of the special minority victim classes.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I found this part of the article of particular interest:

"It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested".

This is because their culture forces stereotypes and memes on them starting with Barbie...

 

[bellisarius]

I found this part of the article of particular interest:

"It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested".

That is probably the most important point in the study.

Firstly, I cannot believe that a study like that came out of UM surviving the peer-review process...



Secondly. this is the kind of report that will anger SJWs who will produce a plethora of pretty pictures which claim institutional discrimination in cultures of equality is the truth and the proof is the lack of equality of outcome.

It's so hard to overcome discrimination when you are, by far, the most numerous of all of the special minority victim classes.

Be sure to check this thread tomorrow.

 

[SpeareChucker]

After the troll patrol has crawled out of bed...

 

[von_Bismarck]

Firstly, I cannot believe that a study like that came out of UM surviving the peer-review process...



Secondly. this is the kind of report that will anger SJWs who will produce a plethora of pretty pictures which claim institutional discrimination in cultures of equality is the truth and the proof is the lack of equality of outcome.

It's so hard to overcome discrimination when you are, by far, the most numerous of all of the special minority victim classes.

That's because you're a mouth-breathing moron.

 

[Que]

They're trying to point out that in countries with equality women who actually do have aptitude in these areas choose not to pursue those abilities. What they glossed right over as if it's not relevant is that on an objective basis even in countries where women are doing well in STEM fields because they need to they still on average have less aptitude. Just because it is possible to incentivize women to excel in those areas through harder work it still makes no sense to not be actively looking for anyone with aptitude including men to go into those fields.

In America where we have given women plenty of options so they don't need to go into the challenging STEM fields even if they have aptitude and we've actively discouraged men from going into college at all we now import large numbers of our STEM field workers.

 

[SpeareChucker]

v_B says: ~~ yawn ~~

 

[Que]

v_B says: ~~ yawn ~~

On my better days, it's fun to see evidence of effort expended and not feel the need at all to incentivize it at all. It's fun at a glance to see the effort expended to be inversely proportional to the rewards acheived.

 

[Busybody18]

That's because you're a mouth-breathing moron.

another GENIUS post by BlackSkidMark


STFU, BlackSkidMark


Oh, you didnt respond to my Doll comment

 

[von_Bismarck]

On my better days, it's fun to see evidence of effort expended and not feel the need at all to incentivize it at all. It's fun at a glance to see the effort expended to be inversely proportional to the rewards acheived.

"Your post is a good source of irony." -Liam

another GENIUS post by BlackSkidMark


STFU, BlackSkidMark


Oh, you didnt respond to my Doll comment

What comment?

 

[SpeareChucker]

On my better days, it's fun to see evidence of effort expended and not feel the need at all to incentivize it at all. It's fun at a glance to see the effort expended to be inversely proportional to the rewards acheived.

How long before a STEM draft is called for?
When will quotas on males be imposed and their admissions limited to 49% of students in the field.

Who here thinks China worries about any of that nonsense?

 

[Busybody18]

"Your post is a good source of irony." -Liam



What comment?

Look

 

[bellisarius]

Firstly, I cannot believe that a study like that came out of UM surviving the peer-review process...



Secondly. this is the kind of report that will anger SJWs who will produce a plethora of pretty pictures which claim institutional discrimination in cultures of equality is the truth and the proof is the lack of equality of outcome.

It's so hard to overcome discrimination when you are, by far, the most numerous of all of the special minority victim classes.

Revisiting that comment. The study came out a year ago (Feb. 2018), not 'a new paper' as the article states. (Although admittedly 'a new paper' is one of those subjective subjective.) Which means that the study had to of started in 2017. Further there are previous studies (some going back to 1983) that show exactly the same results. Most of those previous studies are referenced in the published study.

However the timing is curious and coincident with the rise of Dr. Peterson's notoriety. Was the purpose of the study to support Peterson, debunk Peterson, or just ride a wave of currency?

 

[von_Bismarck]

Or maybe the study authors, like most researchers, don't give a fuck about Peterson. Seriously, in my experience, most folks in academia don't give two shits about him, if they even know who he is.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

No surprises to be found in this article.

Gender equality and STEM

The greater the gender equality, the more profound the difference. No one should be surprised by this study.

Nope, no surprises at all.

This is just one of many studies that come to the same result.

As ever, though, it depends on what the definition of “equality” is.

If it’s “equality” of opportunity, it’s eminently desirable, both from a personal and social perspective. If it’s “equality” of outcome it’s certainly not.

The results are in and the social constructionist-feminist argument is over, in STEM, and to a lesser degree in business and politics; that doesn’t seem to trouble them though.

Woof!

 

[sigh]

They're trying to point out that in countries with equality women who actually do have aptitude in these areas choose not to pursue those abilities. What they glossed right over as if it's not relevant is that on an objective basis even in countries where women are doing well in STEM fields because they need to they still on average have less aptitude. Just because it is possible to incentivize women to excel in those areas through harder work it still makes no sense to not be actively looking for anyone with aptitude including men to go into those fields.

In America where we have given women plenty of options so they don't need to go into the challenging STEM fields even if they have aptitude and we've actively discouraged men from going into college at all we now import large numbers of our STEM field workers.

We have? I hadn't heard that. Are there studies showing that men are actively being discouraged from entering STEM fields?

Good lord, that would be stupid.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Revisiting that comment. The study came out a year ago (Feb. 2018), not 'a new paper' as the article states. (Although admittedly 'a new paper' is one of those subjective subjective.) Which means that the study had to of started in 2017. Further there are previous studies (some going back to 1983) that show exactly the same results. Most of those previous studies are referenced in the published study.

However the timing is curious and coincident with the rise of Dr. Peterson's notoriety. Was the purpose of the study to support Peterson, debunk Peterson, or just ride a wave of currency?

I think it more, the data was there and has been for years, just buried underneath the prevailing social constructionist thought. Peterson has just brought it to the fore.

Woof!

 

[sigh]

I found this part of the article of particular interest:

"It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested".

It is not only of particular interest, if it's true then the goal of any reasonable person has been met. No discouragement and freedom to choose. Let's declare success and be happy.

 

[Que]

We have? I hadn't heard that. Are there studies showing that men are actively being discouraged from entering STEM fields?

Good lord, that would be stupid.

Men, (who, as a group, show a stronger aptitude towards those fields) are actively discouraged from even getting into college. Look at admission rates. Look at admission rates into graduate schools.

As the rate of men being admitted to college vs women inverted, the rate of Americans in STEM fields declined. This was not a coincidence. I am regularly out around Arizona State University in Tempe. When you see men on the sidewalks of that particular University which is now the largest in the country you see very few white male faces. You see white women and men who see likely to be foreign students. I suppose that all of the blonde women there might be Scandinavian exchange students but I tend to doubt it. However large numbers of Chinese and Pakistani students. ASU has a good reputation in the stem fields. It isn't being filled with locals.

Arizona has a public university system that specifically by our constitution is required to have tuition be held to the lowest possible level for residents. They get around that by having massive numbers of students from out of state and out of the country and what few locals they do have are there on Pell Grant so they get to pretend that the exorbitant tuition is reasonable because it goes by the average actually paid tuition. It's pretty unconscionable actually.

Nevermind the culture that actively blames white men for the failure to thrive of everyone else on the planet making it socially irritating to put up with the academic industrial complex.

 

[bellisarius]

It is not only of particular interest, if it's true then the goal of any reasonable person has been met. No discouragement and freedom to choose. Let's declare success and be happy.

*waves* Long time no see o mother of my unborn child.

 

[Que]

It is not only of particular interest, if it's true then the goal of any reasonable person has been met. No discouragement and freedom to choose. Let's declare success and be happy.

If only.

 

[HisArpy]

I found this part of the article of particular interest:

"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 entire article is a variation of this theme and you have to look beyond the surface of the words to actually find what they're saying. This passage...

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.

...speaks about motivation and the need for motivation as one of the driving forces behind women seeking STEM careers. Just as the part you quoted does.

Then there are parts which are even more subtle. This...

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.

If one thinks about that, one might be able to make the argument that women excel more in certain areas because, as the article says, they have more practice. Thus, one can presume the corollary that men are actually discouraged from certain fields such as STEM by the need to "go out and get a job, any job" at the expense of their own aptitudes and abilities. Or personal dreams/desires.

.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I found this part of the article of particular interest:

"It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested".

And THAT is the problem....reality =/= SJW, social constructionist and general left wing narrative.

Freedom of any kind much less choice of profession that results in inequity of some kind = Trumpster Nazi shit.

In America where we have given women plenty of options so they don't need to go into the challenging STEM fields even if they have aptitude and we've actively discouraged men from going into college at all we now import large numbers of our STEM field workers.

That was the goal all along.

It's part of the lefts loathing of white guys.

It is not only of particular interest, if it's true then the goal of any reasonable person has been met. No discouragement and freedom to choose. Let's declare success and be happy.

Sounding like a Trumpistani Nazi type there sister with all that talk about freedom of choice and being ok with inequitable outcomes in life.

Incorrect politics comrade...