Science needs more... Women!

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
21

I disagree. I see that it is you who do not understand the thesis and also the one “brainwashed” by radio, merely not the “talk radio” where they challenge the social engineering of the masses - You.

I originally stated that focus away from the job getting done merely distracts from the job getting done. This “thesis” is one of those distractions. It proses that people should be hired in accord to the gender until there is a statistical balance of gender (at which time the rules change to maintain an imbalance of former minorities). That is a distraction from the job.

The people hiring others look at resumes, which never tell the whole story. Perhaps they need to do a better job. But is that what is being proposed? Of course not. What is being proposed is that they ignore whether they are properly seeing who is best qualified and instead hire the females, unless there is an obvious reason not to do so.

So what do you get?

I have 10 men hired and working. I have 5 jobs open for new hires. Out of all who applied, “Human Resources” tells me that are 30 technically qualified, 5 women and 25 men. So rather look for tighter, more accurate and discerning specifications, I am to hire the 5 women and forget the 25 men.

Why were there only 5 women to 25 men?

Well, in schools, they have to play this same game. There are 30 potential students to graduate. They all have similar grades, but we can only graduate 5 of them (national standards and all). So who do they graduate? Well the 5 girls of course because there are fewer girls in the field than boys.

Do they actually try to find out which of their students can truly get their job done better than the others? Of course not. They don’t usually even know what their jobs are going to be.

So what you get is 5 women who were “qualified” because their teachers GAVE them high grades. Are they more qualified to do the work they are going to be asked to do? Who knows. What we do know is that they were not given high grades because they are more capable of doing the later job. They are the result of “affirmative action” plans openly cheating in favor of minorities.

So if I had a business and seriously needed a job done, I know NOT TO HIRE THE WOMEN, especially when there are only 5 out of 30.

I much prefer testing them individually myself and then male vs female doesn’t come into the picture. But since I know that the females were given their technical qualifications and my human resources person is an affirmative action agent. I know that the least probability of getting the job done is by hiring the females.

Now again, when it comes to children playing a game, such isn’t really an issue. And I have to admit, Science is becoming more and more merely a game (due to all of this socio-political non-sense). But real Science, if it even exists any more, certainly has no NEED for having more declared socio-minorities.

22

James. You know that certain professions, like engineering, try to get more girls interested in their profession, right? Did the OP say anything about quotas?

23

No. The OP merely lied.

24

About what?

25

Holy fuck James.

“Presented with identical summaries of the accomplishments of two imaginary applicants, professors at six major research institutions were significantly more willing to offer the man a job. If they did hire the woman, they set her salary, on average, nearly $4,000 lower than the man’s. Surprisingly, female scientists were as biased as their male counterparts.”

So their qualifications really were identical.

26

“EXACTLY THE SAME” qualifications.

No. They were NOT even examined to see the finer distinctions. One of the distinctions commonly over looked, is the probability of an employee being able to reliably accomplish specified tasks. It takes someone like me to even know how to test for that. Thus the common “professional” merely goes on intuitive guesses. He is told by your social-engineering group to go by his instincts and intuition more. And when he does, he senses that he can trust the males to get the job done better than he can the females. So he goes by his intuition, and gets chastised for not hiring by social-engineering design.

Why is he to go by his intuition unless it is contrary to social-engineering design? Did Science have some kind of research that stated better results for him if he did? I seriously doubt that one, but of course, they can always make up another statistic.

And why does he pay less to some than others? Well, the laws have become so restricting in the effort to engineer society into what someone else far, far away wants it to be, that the business man has little choice but to barter for the best deal. He has no choice but to be a capitalist on his level of society. Major corporations do that same thing and for all of the same reasons. In effect, they are forced into complying with foreign control over domestic life.

But more importantly, look at what you just said. Did you go into what it is that “Science needs”? NO!

I can tell you what Science needs in order to accomplish better results and more of them, but it has nothing at all to do with gender or race. What are you distracted into? Where is your focus? “There are some men and women who are choosing based in intuition rather than socio-statistical design”.

Your focus and that of the OP and fake “Research” is merely socio-engineering propaganda, having nothing at all to do with what Science “needs”.

What Science and all of society needs, is the absence of people like you and your social-engineers interfering with its progress.

27

I don’t need to listen to talk radio. I have a lot of personal experience with this.

Women are a minority in the sciences because men and women have different characteristics… women desire more social interactions than men.
Science is seen as leading to working in isolation on abstract technical problems. It is seen as being nerdy. That’s why women avoid it.

28

Sexist! Sexisssttttttt!!!

Hey, everybody look, we’ve got a sexist over here!!! SEXISM!!!

Next he’ll claim that white and black people have “different” characteristics, STRING HIM UP!!!

SEXIST!!! SEXIST!!! HELP, SEXISM!!!

29

What an ignorant post. Don’t you realize that the OP agrees that men and women are different?

30

Ok, so the OP thinks that aspect of science is problematic, and holding back the scientific enterprise. Why is this so hard for otherwise intelligent people to understand?

31

James, it was a scientific experiment. Identical resumes, no interview. That’s how it reads, anyway.

32

I enthusiastically agree with the opening post, not just in regards to science, but the leadership of our society in general.

I propose that generally speaking, on average, women are smarter than men.

  1. Women have had to be smarter than men since the beginning of time, due to the fact that they were physically weaker than men.

  2. If we look at the society we’ve created we can see it is designed for baby raising, historically the woman’s agenda. Women have long been the power behind the throne, and they have largely succeeded in getting men to build the world they want.

The question I have is, what will happen to women as they inherit the reigns of power? Will women change power, or will power change women? It’s not a given that women will remain the same as their historic social roles are dramatically changed. If women should become ever more like men as they take on the leadership of this planet, not much will have been accomplished.

I agree also that viewing reality as a mechanism has likely been significantly influenced by a male mindset. Whether reality is anything more than a mechanism remains unknown, but I sense that a gender bias for our modern mechanical view of reality is worth investigating.

33

Oh really?
And how do you know this?
A New York Times Magazine publishes a 1927 picture of a bunch of old men in an article that says, “a Yale research study says…” And THAT is your evidence of an actual science experiment? They don’t even say who, and certainly avoid anything about the details of such a study. And not a single word about the needs of Science.

…talk about one being born every minute. :icon-rolleyes:

34

If men and women were different, which we all know is a blatant sexist lie, and men were better or more interested in science than women, then why would we force women into science against their will, when they suck at it to begin with???

???

Now of course this question is nonsense, since men and women are NOT different, but are in fact the same. And the only reason a specific set of men excel in science, is because they were privileged, privileged to do math.

35

It is educational to see men arguing over why women do or don’t do something. The reasons on both sides miss the actual.
A. Shut down women’s ovaries and you would get more women in positions that require more education and time.
B. Get rid of gender memes that stigmatize interests.
C. Educate men to not feel threatened by a woman who is more capable.
Do these things and women will be present.

36

Slightly more than that… IF you WANT more women “present”.
But why do you actually want for that? Science certainly doesn’t need it.
Why are you wanting to derange nature and the woman’s body so as to accomplish that task?
What do you think that you are actually accomplishing?

And they found it much easier just to make men more stupid.
But again, what is actually being accomplished?

37

I think that was, in a way, Kriswest’s point (could be wrong) – that there’s a biological reason why women are less frequently in positions of expertise in various fields.

My opinion:
Remove Women’s Studies courses from universities and you’ll see more women in science/computers/business.
Remove Black Studies courses from universities and you’ll see more black people in science/computers/business.

And I don’t mean that in like a snarky, I-hate-women’s/black-studies way. I mean it completely literally. Think of how many great female/black minds are lost to the world because they got enticed away from science/computers/business and into a field that only produces professors. There are a lot of brilliant minds with Women’s Studies and Black Studies phds, and each one of those people could have contributed to the numbers of women/minorities in the higher reaches of science/computers/business, but instead they’ve decided to make it their career to think about why women/minorities are under-represented in science/computers/business. I find it remarkably ironic. It seems pretty plausible to me that if you get less women/minorities studying why women/minorities are under-represented in those fields, you’ll get more women/minorities in those fields.

38

That is the paradigm of being “self-conscious”. By being self-conscious, one becomes unconscious of the world.

But the reason they arranged it that way wasn’t to “study why”, but rather the indoctrinate students. They teach young susceptible people that chosen groups are being mistreated and thus should be given favor. That allows them to control what everyone loves and hates, a very ancient formula for control over a group, creating a “us vs them”, “good vs evil” mindset. Military generals do the same thing for sake of military warring. You can’t spread propaganda effectively if you don’t control education (communication and entertainment).

It has nothing at all to do with what Science or anything else “needs”. It is pure social-engineering politics (and boils down to race wars and domination schemes, “blood is thicker than water”).

39

It’s not hard to understand. He references a Yale study about hiring bias… suggesting the reason women are a minority in the sciences is sexism. It can’t be due to women’s preferences.

More women in the sciences - good or bad? I’m not sure. Make some arguments as to why it would be better to have more women in the sciences. The OP does not say much about it and neither do you. All we got was ‘spiritual and holistic view’ and ‘different angle’…what does that actually mean and how is it an improvement?

40

Let’s nip this pointless diversion in the bud. This is the study:
pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full