ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, September 04, 2017

Another left-wing backfire

At this point, the Left can almost be defined as the ideology which regularly features policies which, when implemented, are guaranteed to provide results that are the reverse of those predicted.
Adriana Kugler, who teaches economics at Georgetown, recently published her research on the gender-gap in STEM fields. She found that STEM recruitment efforts that stress the gender-gap in STEM actually serves to discourage women.

"With the media, women are getting multiple signals that they don't belong in the STEM field..."

“Society keeps telling us that STEM fields are masculine fields, that we need to increase the participation of women in STEM fields, but that kind of sends a signal that it’s not a field for women, and it kind of works against keeping women in these fields,” Kugler says.

Many of the common explanations for the lack of women in STEM don’t hold up under investigation, Kugler explained to Campus Reform. While previous research suggests women are less “resilient,” or more negatively impacted by “bad grades,” Kugler says there’s “no evidence” to support that.

Likewise, the claim that women do poorly in STEM solely because it’s male dominated isn’t supported by evidence either, Kugler says, noting that an aspiring female computer scientist won’t necessarily be turned away from knowing that the field is male dominated.

The trouble begins when the media and recruitment efforts capitalize on that preponderance of men, since it “sends an additional message to women that they don't fit into those fields, and that they don't belong there."

“With the media, women are getting multiple signals that they don't belong in the STEM field, that they won't fit into the field. That's what we find,” Kugler told Campus Reform. “It’s very well intentioned, but it may be backfiring.”
It's not really that hard. If you write "here there be dragons" on a map, some people are going to believe you. And a disproportionate number of those people are going to be women.

Labels: , ,

102 Comments:

Anonymous VFM #6306 September 04, 2017 12:15 PM  

So...studies show that Math is Hard Barbie got more girls interested in STEM than Neil Tyson Degrasse ever did?

I love science.

Blogger Otto Lamp September 04, 2017 12:17 PM  

I know plenty of women who do well in STEM (in IT in particular, since I work in that area).

But, they ALL have that same quirky personality as the men. IKYKWIM. Geek, nerd, socially-inept, however you describe it, it's a definite personality type.

We've long recognized the quirky, creative artist personality. For whatever reason, there are certain personality traits that aid a person artistically.

Well guess what, there are certain personality traits that aid a person in being an engineer.

I would never be happy as an artist, and I wouldn't expect an artist to be happy crunching numbers all day.


Blogger Mr.MantraMan September 04, 2017 12:29 PM  

Google needs gals and trannies.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 04, 2017 12:35 PM  

Women ARE less resilient to negative feedback, such as bad grades for instance. In addition, if the grades required for a specific discipline are above those that the average person can achieve with a "reasonable" amount of work, a smaller amount of women will be capable of achieving them than men in the first place.

"To be fair, it's not hostile patriarchy keeping women in the kitchen. Oh, it's not that the obvious is true, it's that what we're doing is backfiring, and that's creating the whole problem."

No dear. You're simply not important or effective enough that you people are causing the entirety of the gap.

"Likewise, the claim that women do poorly in STEM solely because it’s male dominated isn’t supported by evidence either, Kugler says, noting that an aspiring female computer scientist won’t necessarily be turned away from knowing that the field is male dominated.

The trouble begins when the media and recruitment efforts capitalize on that preponderance of men, since it “sends an additional message to women that they don't fit into those fields, and that they don't belong there."


These two points contradict each other quite nicely. The only (possible) non-overlap between them is where the gap is caused solely by women perceiving that there are outside social pressures aligned against them. Amusingly, also mostly false in current year, and even if it were true it would be a direct refutation of "women aren't less resilient".

The interesting thing about the admonition "Know your place." Is that it is only inapplicable in a very specific set of circumstances, when the person speaking it is making an incorrect assumption and the person receiving it it not.

Anonymous Julian L September 04, 2017 12:37 PM  

Funny, I had just copied and pasted the below quote by Taleb before I stumbled on this post:

“If there is something in nature you don't understand, odds are it makes sense in a deeper way that is beyond your understanding. So there is a logic to natural things that is much superior to our own. Just as there is a dichotomy in law: 'innocent until proven guilty' as opposed to 'guilty until proven innocent', let me express my rule as follows: what Mother Nature does is rigorous until proven otherwise; what humans and science do is flawed until proven otherwise.”

Blogger szopen September 04, 2017 12:39 PM  

An old adaga by Kisiel, Polish long deceased conservative publisher:

"A socialism is a system which heroically fights problems which do not exist in any other political system"

Blogger szopen September 04, 2017 12:40 PM  

s/adaga/adage

Blogger wrf3 September 04, 2017 12:42 PM  

If you write "here there be dragons" on a map, some people are going to believe you.
I once wrote some technical documentation that included the warning "here be dragons". It also included a drawing of two dragons that my daughter had done when she was younger.

The point wasn't whether or not it would be believed; the point was that the the section was going to be difficult to get through. Sometimes messy problems have messy solutions.

The purpose of "here be dragons" is to discourage the faint of heart. Some people just aren't ready for a difficult voyage.

Anonymous Crew September 04, 2017 12:42 PM  

Heh, so now we have found the one big problem preventing women from moving into STEM fields en-mass we can fix the problem!

Simple Minds is not just the name of a band!

Blogger Lovekraft September 04, 2017 12:42 PM  

gab's under a sh!tstorm right now for Torba banning an Anglin post showing the C'Ville antifa hit by the car.

Going to get worse before it gets better unless Torba clarifies which policy was contravened, instead of just saying 'contravened our guidelines.'

Blogger Unknown September 04, 2017 12:43 PM  

Most of those I know that work in the field want more women in it, if for nothing else to keep it from being the sausage fest it currently is. They will not carry window dressing, though, they do enough of that as it is with management. If women want to work in the field, they have to be able to do the work. Pulling cable and racking heavy servers is part of that work.

Like coal mining and garbage collecting, IT is not a field that women seem to want in significant numbers.

Anonymous VFM #6306 September 04, 2017 12:43 PM  

Trannies and women and blacks, times pi!
Trannies and women and blacks, times pi!

Anonymous Crew September 04, 2017 12:45 PM  

The poor thing thinks that Economics is a STEM field:

Kugler says that when she was studying for her PhD in economics, STEM recruitment efforts targeted towards women did not exist. The media never told her that STEM was a hostile place for women, and she wasn’t exposed to the type of media coverage we see today on the lack of women in STEM.

Blogger szopen September 04, 2017 12:49 PM  

And BTW Kugler is definetely not the first using this argument. I've read that years ago ... in an article written by a male, I think

Blogger Unknown September 04, 2017 12:52 PM  

A white guy I hired had AA degree in auto mechanics but was worthless. A black that majored in ART wound up being a reliable and competent HVAC mechanic for me. Some women get enginering degrees and earn patents, some end up answering the phones. There's plenty of both types everywhere in all demographics.
People that can do will do what they want without prompting. Coddling will not help those who can't do, or more importantly, don't want to do.

Duh-ave

Blogger James Dixon September 04, 2017 12:56 PM  

> The poor thing thinks that Economics is a STEM field:

That's somewhat understandable, as it is called "the dismal science". When you lie to people about the nature of a subject, some people are going to believe you.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey September 04, 2017 12:58 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous kfg September 04, 2017 1:00 PM  

"Most of those I know that work in the field want more women in it, if for nothing else to keep it from being the sausage fest it currently is."

It's great to be on a ship with men and wander out to sea-o
We don't know where we'll land or when but it's great to be with men.
'Cause men can drink and men can sweat and no one seems to care-o
Throw the dishes in the sink and clog the drain with hair-o.

--Martin Mull

Question: Where did the idea that a workplace shouldn't be a sausage fest come from?

Hint: Not men.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey September 04, 2017 1:01 PM  

“sends an additional message to women that they don't fit into those fields, and that they don't belong there."

Or perhaps it sends a message that these are masculine fields? Which means that choosing to go into one of these fields makes you... manly? Sounds like a less-than-promising way to market something to women. No leftist will ever look at it that way, though.

Would they understand that "Nursing is a very feminine field. Dominated by women, in fact. Men don't seem to like it much" is unlikely to form the basis of a successful campaign to recruit men into nursing? Compared to, say "You can make decent money as a nurse, with only a couple of years of training."

The main problem here seems to be that they have two conflicting goals:

1. Increase the number of women in STEM fields, while
2. Simultaneously affirming their absolute support for the hypothesis that men and women are exactly the same, except for their sexual organs, or perhaps what sexual organs they feel they should have. Something like that, anyway-- subject to yearly updates, of course.

Blogger DeploraBard September 04, 2017 1:04 PM  

My wife has a PHD in STEM and has excelled over the years:
Serving others
Teaching children
Entertaining guests
Meal cooking

Anonymous Crew September 04, 2017 1:05 PM  

She wants more transparent statistics and yet she uses such sloppy stats herself:

“We need to correct the record that STEM is male dominated,” she says, noting that there are many STEM fields that are female dominated, such as neurobiology and evolutionary biology. Likewise, many STEM fields, such as chemistry and mathematics are usually “neutral or half-and-half.”

Hint. Most of those women in mathematics and chemistry become teachers not high-level STEM workers.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey September 04, 2017 1:07 PM  

"The poor thing thinks that Economics is a STEM field"

Graduate-level economics/ econometrics can be pretty heavy on math, though. The problem with economics seems to lie more with the underlying assumptions of their models, and their real world applicability, than the type of training and aptitude necessary to generate them. So in that (limited) sense, it's more "sciency" than something like sociology. But yeah, it's not a science.

Anonymous Looking Glass September 04, 2017 1:07 PM  

@10 Lovekraft

A proper response would have been "I think you took this wrong, it's not a threat", and @a would probably agree. Now, because the Alt-Reichtards are acting like their retarded selves, they're trying to turn it into a mess.

Though I don't know if it counts as a dox of the person that posted it on Twitter, as I have no idea of what the "report" on the post was. Because that's what professionals do.

Blogger Tank September 04, 2017 1:10 PM  

As long as they were well intentioned ...

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey September 04, 2017 1:12 PM  

https://infogalactic.com/info/Gabbai

Anonymous Stickwick September 04, 2017 1:12 PM  

Likewise, the claim that women do poorly in STEM solely because it’s male dominated isn’t supported by evidence either, Kugler says, noting that an aspiring female computer scientist won’t necessarily be turned away from knowing that the field is male dominated.

Not only did it not turn me away, it was a significant factor in my choice to go into physics.

Look, it's not that hard. Women just aren't that interested in STEM compared with men. Why is that a problem? I thought we were supposed to let women make their own choices.

Blogger Timmy3 September 04, 2017 1:19 PM  

Why not introduce women to fields that have less education and training requirements like electricians and plumbing. You seldom see a women sent to your house unless she's a maid or baby sitter.

Oddly, women broke into medicine and law without worrying about men in the field. Is STEM a real exception? They have to feminize the way the field is run to make sure higher participation and they will.

Anonymous Looking Glass September 04, 2017 1:21 PM  

@26 Stickwick

Before even the technical skill sets come into play, going past 1st year Science in a field requires a specific type of *personality*. The harder the science, the much more isolating it is. Most *Men* can't handle it, even the ones with the mental capabilities. The few Women that can are the outliers. The ones that are good? Well, it normally comes at the cost of most social graces.

There's a reason you used to go find a wife studying the humanities.

As to "why?", Rollo Tomassi has that one covered. It drives Feminists batty that Women don't control a field, not whether they should. So they push & push. They're utterly unreasonable people. It's a societal-scale Fitness Test.

Anonymous Philalethes September 04, 2017 1:35 PM  

Feminists don't want women to go into STEM. That would defeat their purpose. What they want is something to complain about, to make women the perpetual victims of anything and everything men do. If STEM were 50% women, what would they do? Find something else to complain about. Certainly they're not going to find something useful to contribute to society.

Blogger Student in Blue September 04, 2017 1:39 PM  

@Stickwick
Look, it's not that hard. Women just aren't that interested in STEM compared with men. Why is that a problem? I thought we were supposed to let women make their own choices.

Because equality of opportunity = equality of outcome. Men and women are interchangeable, except when women are inherently superior.

Yeah yeah, rhetorical question I know.

Anonymous Johnny Mayonnaise September 04, 2017 1:40 PM  

At the bottom of the linked article, we find this gem:

That does not discount the “culture of masculinity, sexism, and sexual harassment” that some women face in STEM, Kugler acknowledges.

Yeah. Right.

From what I've read, everyone is falling all over themselves to recruit women into STEM fields, welcoming them with open arms, and giving them every possible advantage to advance.

I therefore wonder if women working in STEM fields have truly earned their positions.

Along those lines, my wife openly admits that she gets more nervous when she sees a woman at the helm of an Boeing 777.

Blogger pyrrhus September 04, 2017 1:42 PM  

@26 This reminds me of the actress Danica McKellar, who was a math whiz at UCLA. She said that she rejected a life as a mathematician because it was "too lonely."

Blogger James Dixon September 04, 2017 1:43 PM  

> Why is that a problem? I thought we were supposed to let women make their own choices.

You might be surprised how many people find this simple concept objectionable when the choices don't fit their preconceived notions.

Blogger JACIII September 04, 2017 1:44 PM  

Stickwick wrote:

Look, it's not that hard. Women just aren't that interested in STEM compared with men. Why is that a problem? I thought we were supposed to let women make their own choices.


Because we are pretending (current year) that women and men are the same in all aspects. Never mind that women have to be coddled into tackling hard jobs; they're the SAME!!!!!

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 04, 2017 1:45 PM  

"noting that there are many STEM fields that are female dominated, such as neurobiology and evolutionary biology"

Evolutionary biology? Really? I can understand the neurobiology one as an extension of (women in)psych, but evolutionary biology? That's either not true, or it's because Evo-Bio is, umn, inherently like psych in some other way perhaps *coughunscientificcough*?

@26. Stickwick, >noting that an aspiring female computer scientist won’t necessarily be turned away from knowing that the field is male dominated.

"Not only did it not turn me away, it was a significant factor in my choice to go into physics."


Sounds like you were more comfortable with some general characteristic of men than of women.

"It drives Feminists batty that Women don't control a field, not whether they should. So they push & push. They're utterly unreasonable people. It's a societal-scale Fitness Test."

It's a societal scale "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Women often like to try to control men. The (ultimate)results are dictated by God on that subject, go figure. If it happens, the society lives. If not, it dies and the same thing happens anyway. "Laws of Nature", etc.

Blogger pyrrhus September 04, 2017 1:48 PM  

Whereas Tom Lehrer, who had nearly received a Doctorate in math from Harvard during the '60s, retired from a successful performing career to re-enter academia as a teacher, and has two Journal published papers on mathematics.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 04, 2017 1:50 PM  

*If God's dictate happens*. I should have broken that into two paragraphs.

Blogger James September 04, 2017 1:51 PM  

This is along the lines of blacks being descendants of Egyptians, creators of all knowledge on the planet, but somehow the inferior White devil sucked all of their knowledge out of their brains and has oppressed them for thousands of years. And because, apparently, the PTSD associated with being failures for thousands of years prevents them from actually doing anything for themselves. If women are such emotional basket cases that they let excuses stand in the way of something they want to achieve then maybe they don't have the nature required for high level competition. The weaknesses of blacks and women and their natural limitations become truths that need to be ignored, for "diversity's" sake. And we know that "diversity" is our greatest strength.

Blogger Tyler Wollmann September 04, 2017 1:52 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger pyrrhus September 04, 2017 1:52 PM  

Since the gap between men and women in average math ability (a very consistent 40 points on the SAT) is substantial, there are never going to be as many women with the ability to do science. And those who do have the ability will often have more lucrative opportunities in other fields...I can think of examples amongst women I know. Science does not pay well, so I can't blame them.

Blogger Tyler Wollmann September 04, 2017 1:54 PM  

Like Dennis Prager says, the left is at war with reality.

Anonymous Looking Glass September 04, 2017 2:01 PM  

@32 pyrrhus

Having the head for hard sciences is only about 25% of the battle. You need the personality and the work ethic. To be good, in the modern sense, at the fields, also takes specific mental skill sets that diverge fairly wildly. There's a reason each of the branches tend to have similar types of fields.

Physics is always a lot more chummy than the rest, as you will always end up working with others. Chemistry always attracts the ones that like alcohol more, so they're normally the best at parties. (Most chemists will admit they got into it so they could make their own beer.) Mathematics always ends up with the more isolated due to the fact by the time you're at the Graduate-level, there's only a few dozen people that even have a clue what your research is. At the PhD-level, you're lucky if there's 20 ppl on the the planet you can talk to about work.

One might also notice shifts along the empathy spectrum for where people end up. The more empathetic one is, the further from the "abstract" to the "physically real" the hard science the person will favor as a career. You've got brilliant minds all over the place, it's the personalities that matter after that.

Anonymous Stickwick September 04, 2017 2:07 PM  

Azure Amaranthine: Sounds like you were more comfortable with some general characteristic of men than of women.

Heck, yeah. Men tend to be predictable, goal-oriented, focused on what's important, and easy-going. Way easier to work with.

The thing is, many women, consciously or subconsciously, feel the same way. They enjoy working for and with men more than women, but for some reason they still get this bee in their bonnet about "needing more women" in whatever field they're in. I don't get it. I guess they're not thinking it through.

Blogger Lovekraft September 04, 2017 2:17 PM  

I love the 'law of unintended consequences' aspect of working around terrible people/supervisors.

If they get their own way I find solace in the fact that at some point in the future, their children will have to work in the environment their parents encouraged and will turn on them.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 04, 2017 2:17 PM  

. I guess they're not thinking it through.



They're not thinking at all.

Blogger szopen September 04, 2017 2:21 PM  

There was a scientific paper which I read many years ago. The paper investigated available evidence, including hypotheses of higher g[1], higher math ability[1], stereotype threats, sex discrimination and came to a conclustion that none of that can explain the gender gap in STEM. Instead the authors argue (Revolution!) for preference differences.

But the most important thing was their conclusion. I can't remember exactlyy how it went, but it was something like this: math is important in many domains of life. People knowing math are valuable in biology, medicine and so on. Therefore, argued the authors, the thing that women which had equal math ability to men decide to not to pursue STEM but rather decide to choose career in a biology "is not necessarily a problem".

[1] The differences in "g" and math ability are real and exist on right tail of the distribution (i.e. in "1 in 10000" category). However, they are not so conspicuous on the entry level for STEM, i.e. they are not large enough to explain the visible gender gap.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 04, 2017 2:23 PM  

@11

"Most of those I know that work in the field want more women in it, if for nothing else to keep it from being the sausage fest it currently is."

Freaking losers.

I'm in IT. I'm also a soldier.

I spent 22 years in combat arms units PRECISELY because they are off-limits to women. And personally, I find the fewer women in an IT department, the better.

Why? Because when told to do something they don't *want* to do... MEN will moan and complain...but they'll get the job done. Women will pretend to be OK with it... but then harangue/bribe/seduce some man into doing her work for her.... NONE of which is conducive to a healthy workplace atmosphere.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 04, 2017 2:24 PM  

When I want to socialize with women, I go to a SOCIAL gathering with women....

Blogger szopen September 04, 2017 2:28 PM  

Stickwick wrote:
The thing is, many women, consciously or subconsciously, feel the same way. They enjoy working for and with men more than women,

Actually I have observed once a strange thing. In our community I am part of community council ("community" here is a Polish legal term, bunch of people living in legally the same building, sure you have the same). There are, besides me, TWO women. The manager is women too. Now, in one-on-one basis, or when there is a meeting with other communities where men predominate, all of those three women look extremely competent, knowing their stuff and all. Basically they really evoke the trust and the feeling that they are the right (wo)men in right place.

However.

When we meet to discuss our community needs, where I am the only male and they are three, NOTHING can be done. Meeting can last literally HOURS without any conclusion. Sometimes it's comically absurd, when we discuss about the need to reserve some funds for proper pavement maintenance and suddenly I find out that the other women start to discuss how healthy are long walks, whether the neighbourhood is safe enough for the walks and what kind of shops are in the reach of a walk.

And I would never suspect those women to be like that based on our one-to-one interactions, or when we discuss things in majority male groups.

Anonymous VFM #6306 September 04, 2017 2:35 PM  

Ha! I just came in from the yard to an empty house. Someone left the teevee on a baking show, and it had a commercial for a horror movie whose trailer is a woman screaming when she hears Trump election results. There is also a menacing clown.

It is called Cult. Most women can't even get the simplest form of science fiction right, so now they should be pressed en masse into building bridges and researching medicines?

Okay.

Blogger Doom September 04, 2017 2:41 PM  

True? If so, given academia's constant, persistent, intense naval gazing... I suspect they, at least the better informed/brighter of the lot know this effect. *cough* Sumner *cough* Perhaps academia isn't as blindly, queerly, obstinately stupid (or always) as they put on. I wouldn't bet either way though. They can fuck up their own wet dreams and seem to do it with abandon and relish... as well as, perhaps, other condiments.

Blogger Zimri September 04, 2017 2:42 PM  

The populations which get, proportionately, the most women into STEM seem to be Near Eastern: Arab and (especially) Iranian.

Anonymous Monoculture is Best September 04, 2017 3:02 PM  

Fact is: women don't belong in STEM. They perform about at the level of Indian H1B's - which is to say awful. They have to go back, into nursing etc. or better yet as homemakers.

Blogger John Bradley September 04, 2017 3:07 PM  

If you write "here there be dragons" on a map, some people are going to believe you. And a disproportionate number of those people are going to be women.

Way, way back in 1984 I did an interactive campus map thing for Drexel University. Being a sf/f nerd, I added a "here be dragons" on the western periphery of the map, which was doubly 'clever' because the Dragon was the mascot/team-name for all the University's sportsball teams.

My boss, a white liberal woman, made me remove it because to the west of the campus is where the vibrant locals live, and "here be ..." sounded like I was mocking their inherent illiteracy.

A vaguely racist thought that never had, and never would have occurred to me if it hadn't have been pointed out by my Moral Superior.

It was an instructive moment.

Blogger szopen September 04, 2017 3:15 PM  

Doom wrote:True? If so, given academia's constant, persistent, intense naval gazing... I suspect they, at least the better informed/brighter of the lot know this effect. *cough* Sumner *cough* Perhaps academia isn't as blindly, queerly, obstinately stupid (or always) as they put on. .

There is HUGE gap between science (Which you can quickly google and read on your won) and journalist. Most of the leftist bloggers/journalist have only vague idea about newest results and usually have ideas informed by state of research 20 or 40 years ago. Usually journalists are idiots and have no idea on things they report - i.e. I remember a paper on stereotype threat. It showed that minority faced by stereotype threat achieved lower results than they should achieve based on their grades and SAT results, while without stereotype threat they achieved the same. Now, my point here is not whether paper actually find out any thing. The point is that press was full of reports that this paper supposedly shown that the lower SAT results of minorities were because of stereotype threat! And let me tell you, this is not an exception.

Moreover, for time to time, some scientist makes a mistake (like this guy, who in editorial introduction to one journal jokingly referenced long known research on effect of sperm on women's behavior) and is publicly flamed. Though I am of impression taht new generation of scientists seems to be teached the outdated facts and then seem to engage in double think - as in case of race, when they publicly denounce the race concepts which were never held by any scientist in the past, and instead they argue that "ancestry" or "geographical population" is better concept than "race" even when the definitions of "ancestry" or "population" are almost the same as old definitions of race.

Blogger pyrrhus September 04, 2017 3:20 PM  

Of course, the ultimate fallacy of Ricardo's model is that it ignores realpolitic. If one country, say Ghana, has a big advantage in bananas and cocoa, and another, say Britain, has a big advantage in warships, what do you think is going to happen?

Anonymous Weak September 04, 2017 3:21 PM  

Quinn's First Law in action: liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intention.

Blogger szopen September 04, 2017 3:22 PM  

Monoculture is Best wrote:Fact is: women don't belong in STEM. They perform about at the level of Indian H1B's - which is to say awful. They have to go back, into nursing etc. or better yet as homemakers.

I teach CS as university of technology in Poland. Vast majority of my students are male - but about 10% (by visual inspection, so I could be wrong) are female. Based on my interactions with them, I would say that
(1) None of the women I would call elite
(2) Only one of the women I met should not be allowed to the course
(3) Average women were the same in skill as average men. There were not above average women.
(4) Women, contra what you all write here, were more reliable. I mean by that there was way smaller percentage of women who would miss their deadlines, asked for some feature removal in test program, or would participate in the second-third-fourth term for the exams. They did what they were told to do, nothing less, nothing more, were not complaining (on average), mostly have not tried removing any feature - but they also never, ever wanted to add some feature just it would be cool.

Blogger tuberman September 04, 2017 4:21 PM  

Civilization is created by MEN as a gift to their women, and for their children.

Anonymous Chrome Dynamo September 04, 2017 4:57 PM  

I wonder if there is correlation between the beauty, good looks or lack thereof (perceived, I guess) of women who do become high level STEM workers?

Just my 2 copper coated zinc cents worth.

Blogger tuberman September 04, 2017 5:08 PM  

Men, if left to their own devices, often enjoyed being warriors in earlier times. There is still that call for many of us.

Blogger tuberman September 04, 2017 5:13 PM  

Consciousness, or the reflective awareness of the thinking process itself, is a guy thing. Women, obviously can and do think well consciously, yet conscious thought would have never been created by females. Females follow men into conscious thought only after historical civilizations are in existence.

Blogger Zimri September 04, 2017 5:16 PM  

"Men, if left to their own devices, often enjoyed being warriors in earlier times."

Maybe this helps explain why the Muslimat are more into STEM over there.

In the West, a nerd who isn't good at manly things will go into the nerd courses. In the Near East, the nerd'll be killed as a suspected homosexual or Zionist. Either that or he'll go jihad to salvage his family honour.

The women - pff, whatever keeps them occupied, and not screwing some guy from the wrong tribe.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 04, 2017 5:20 PM  



You'll notice that NONE of the women who ever complain about "not enough women in X" are actually in that field... not even the so-called female "software developers" because most of them aren't programmers, nor do they understand the first thing about actual program development. Drawing graphics on a computer screen doesn't make someone a "software developer". Neither does proposing an avalanche of "game ideas" of which 99% are completely retarded B.S.

So, the solution is simple.

We make a federal draft for women.

ANY and EVERY woman who complains that "there aren't enough women in X" shall IMMEDIATELY be drafted into the appropriate college curriculum, under penalty of imprisonment if she flunks out.

That will shut up all of these 105 IQ women who complain about not enough women in STEM.

Anonymous Causal Lurker September 04, 2017 5:26 PM  

John Bradley,

You should have used the interpretive term "Powelton Village Shooting Gallery" on the map in 1984, for that end of campus. Even a liberal would have understood the white mayor's restraint in not ordering the neighborhood firebombed, unlike the black mayor at the time.

I had a co-worker who was evacuated from his apartment there (along with many other Dragons) in 1977, the day before MOVE was served with eviction papers. They returned afterward to find semiautomatic rifle bullets holes through their walls, originating at the MOVE compound.

Physics - it models a moving body good.

Blogger Kristophr September 04, 2017 5:28 PM  

There ARE dragons in the STEM field.

Dragons like math, grades, and standards.

Blogger Kristophr September 04, 2017 5:32 PM  

James Dixon wrote:> The poor thing thinks that Economics is a STEM field:

That's somewhat understandable, as it is called "the dismal science". When you lie to people about the nature of a subject, some people are going to believe you.


Von Mises economics is STEM. Keynesian economics is Marxist cheerleading.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 04, 2017 5:32 PM  

@52

"The populations which get, proportionately, the most women into STEM seem to be Near Eastern: Arab and (especially) Iranian."

Those are the only fields where a woman can fight back against men who are assholes without it being a matter of opinion and "men are always right, so shut up, woman!" because SHE can trot out: "Look... the numbers don't lie. That asshole is WRONG!"

Blogger tuberman September 04, 2017 5:33 PM  

Kristophr wrote:There ARE dragons in the STEM field.

Dragons like math, grades, and standards.


There WILL BE WOMEN DOMINATING STEM IN THE FUTURE, even if the 4th Wave Feminists have to inject a select group of girls with rage volumes of TEST.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 04, 2017 5:34 PM  

@54

"My boss, a white liberal woman, made me remove it because to the west of the campus is where the vibrant locals live, and "here be ..." sounded like I was mocking their inherent illiteracy."

Wait, wait wait.

A WHITE LIBTARD WOMAN was saying out loud that (she believes) it's a fact that blacks are inherently illiterate??

Blogger Kristophr September 04, 2017 5:42 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:@52

"The populations which get, proportionately, the most women into STEM seem to be Near Eastern: Arab and (especially) Iranian."

Those are the only fields where a woman can fight back against men who are assholes without it being a matter of opinion and "men are always right, so shut up, woman!" because SHE can trot out: "Look... the numbers don't lie. That asshole is WRONG!"


Those fields also require someone who can actually work, instead of pretending to be in charge and getting paid while a foreigner does the work for them.

Women in these countries are expected to actually work, if they are not being a homemaker ( which is also work ).

Anonymous Avalanche September 04, 2017 6:00 PM  

@43 Men tend to be predictable, goal-oriented, focused on what's important, and easy-going. Way easier to work with.

BRAVA! Atta girl! Tellin' the truth!
(just a little social support for yah...)

Anonymous JAG September 04, 2017 6:05 PM  

Weak wrote:Quinn's First Law in action: liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intention.

The true nature of leftist is contrarian. I prefer this wording because it covers more territory. Not only the exact opposite legislative lies such as the Affordable Care Act, but also covers why leftists are pathological liars, and why they always side with the enemies of the United States such as Communists, and Muslims. "Islam is a religions of peace" is a perfect example.

Blogger Xellos September 04, 2017 6:09 PM  

@35
"Evolutionary biology? Really? I can understand the neurobiology one as an extension of (women in)psych, but evolutionary biology? That's either not true, or it's because Evo-Bio is, umn, inherently like psych in some other way perhaps *coughunscientificcough*?"

It's about telling "plausible" stories about what could have happened to force observable stuff. All the looseness of interpretation of gender studies combined with serious air of hard science.

Blogger tuberman September 04, 2017 6:21 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger tuberman September 04, 2017 6:23 PM  

Neurobiology, Eric Kandel literally wrote the book on brain physiology, and was the founder of critical memory research. I have dozens of books on such research by real scientists, and none have female contributions.

Blogger tuberman September 04, 2017 6:27 PM  

Neurobiology must obviously now have other "specialties" that are more art than science, or one could say that they are neuro-tropes or poetry, so they need not be reproduced by later scientists.

Blogger tuberman September 04, 2017 6:39 PM  

Xellos wrote:@35

"Evolutionary biology? Really? I can understand the neurobiology one as an extension of (women in)psych, but evolutionary biology? That's either not true, or it's because Evo-Bio is, umn, inherently like psych in some other way perhaps *coughunscientificcough*?"

It's about telling "plausible" stories about what could have happened to force observable stuff. All the looseness of interpretation of gender studies combined with serious air of hard science.


Before evolutionary biology could be true, there would have to be some standards for evolution first. Pure Darwin evolution does not hold up (accidents, through mutations, leading to survival), Lamarkian Evolution also has problems, perhaps a teleology oriented evolution should be explored....yet no solid ground exists for evolution without multiple holes and problems in the science.

Anonymous tublecane September 04, 2017 7:02 PM  

@29-If women were somehow able to dominate STEM fields without civilization collapsing (there must be sitting on your ass/HR positions we could label "STEM" and be done with it), they'd fund something else to complain about. Believe me. There are infinite opportunities for complaint in human society. Even if you lack imagination, so long as you also lack shame.

Blogger tuberman September 04, 2017 7:04 PM  

Anyway, Feminism is self-destructive, and self-loathing, and is falling apart in many ways. Collapse may take a while but all roads lead there. Their very foundations are built with their destruction. This goes beyond, but is part of women dominating STEM, as the pendulum has started the return swing.

Anonymous tublecane September 04, 2017 7:17 PM  

@32-She's a good example of Feminine Options. You're less likely to find a woman the higher you go in any field, proportionately. Including ones they dominate, like fashion. You're especially less likely to find them the more rigorous the field is intellectually. But you're especially less likely to find them the more options they have.

Danica Mckellar was good-looking and had been a celebrity when she had to make the choice, so she could go be a Textbook Spokes-Gal. More normal girls could go be teachers. Lower on the intelligence and hard work scale, they could go start a family or simply be supported by a man.

Men have similar disincentives, but they make up a great e share of the higher positions everywhere in society. They also have fewer options. At least if they want to maintain self-esteem and access to women.

Blogger John Bradley September 04, 2017 7:18 PM  

A WHITE LIBTARD WOMAN was saying out loud that (she believes) it's a fact that blacks are inherently illiterate??

Naah, that's just the Current Year me saying that. But she did make it clear that 'some' might find the phrase "here be dragons" to be racist when stuck on the part of the map where the blacks live. Because ebonics, not that the word had been coined at that point.

Blogger tuberman September 04, 2017 7:18 PM  

tublecane wrote:@29-If women were somehow able to dominate STEM fields without civilization collapsing (there must be sitting on your ass/HR positions we could label "STEM" and be done with it), they'd fund something else to complain about. Believe me. There are infinite opportunities for complaint in human society. Even if you lack imagination, so long as you also lack shame.

Chaos and entropy is a major product of narratives who falsely deconstruct their opponents, yet never bother to check reality, and creatively deconstruct themselves. So they are already over reacting, desperate, and grasped by fear and doubt.

We do whatever we can to add to their chaos, fear, and confusion.

Anonymous tublecane September 04, 2017 7:32 PM  

@38-"if women are such emotional basket cases..."

This provides the substance for a goodly portion of feminist arguments. Could be over half of them, in different forms, for all I know. Not that they appreciated what it means. Really, they're arguing for patriarchy.

It's supposed to be the "alien powers" or Phantom Menace argument. Same one favored by Marxists, and probably the entire left by now. Something is out there oppressing them, and it must be stopped. But if they're really so oppressed, don't they require a champion? Some one to fight the Phantom Menace for them? Obviously they're incapable.

My favorite is the one used especially in "rape culture" hotspots like college campuses. Women claim to be afraid all the time. You don't get it, menfolk, and never will. You so much as look at them, and it's tantamount to sexual terrorism.

If they're really so afraid, what are they doing outdoors? Go home. Get a man to protect you.

Not that they mean it. It's just a tactic. If you call them on their need for oversight and protection, they'll switch to the Strong, Independent Woman tact.

Anonymous tublecane September 04, 2017 7:47 PM  

@67-Von Mises was all about deduction. Maybe not entirely a priori thinking, because he gives historical examples. But he was reluctant to test against experience.

That would make his economics more philosophical, and philosophy is traditionally considered part of the humanities.

(With the exception of mathematics, which is a branch of logic. Logic is part of philosophy, but we include it with the S,T, and E because: a). it's a fundamental skill required for all three, and b). I don't know, maybe because mathematicians these days aren't interested in the rest of the humanities, or the rest of the humanities aren't interested in them; or maybe just because.)

Anonymous Avalanche September 04, 2017 7:54 PM  

@84 Women claim to be afraid all the time. You don't get it, menfolk, and never will. You so much as look at them, and it's tantamount to sexual terrorism.

Women ARE afraid all the time! (Well, at least the ones with half a brain and/or a working amygdala!) We ARE prey animals, and the most common predator of human women (in the modern world) is MEN. Not even close to all men, but that's the pool from which predators come!

Just like the antelope is ALWAYS afraid when a lion is around (even if she's sleeping!), so women's biology throws a bit of 'be careful juice' into our systems when a male we do not know shows up. (Many women turn that into angry juice... cause you know... barking at a lion is a good idea?!) (Not.) And without a man we know we can rely on, we're rightly frightened. (And the man who protects us COULD get killed and leave us 'protector-less.')

"We" have been taught (brainwashed and blinded) to believe that it's ALL men who are dangerous, AND that either/both we can protect ourselves (Xena Warrior Princess!) and/or we can somehow convince/force/persuade (/neuter) every man around so he ill not WANT to attack us.

For MOST women, neither of these is conscious! We no longer know how to (or are unwilling to) 'color within the lines' to encourage / allow men's natural protective instincts to come to the fore. AND the (((media))) has done a bang-up job misleading women that they can front-kick a man and have him fall down. (Studying "real" martial arts disabuses many women of that foolishness.)

I carry all the time everywhere but at home. (Have a gun in nearly every room here...) I answer the door with one (out of sight behind the door, but in my hand). When my husband was alive, I didn't need to worry when I was out with him (he always wore a .45.) I am always conscious that I am a prey animal, and take a lot of care for my safety: but when I was young and blinded, I did not know or think to be so. (And I thought Xena was pretty cool!)

The hoplophobe women I know think they can 'make' the world safer (thus gun control)... I even had a woman (in a tai chi demo/lesson I did for a karate instructor friend's class) tell me that "me teaching tai chi AS a martial art was offensive" -- !!! -- she insisted "it was only for meditation!" She then claimed she did not ever have to think about her safety because she was a stay-at-home mom. ("Uh, do you ever go shopping? Pick the kids up at school? Take them to the doctor?")

We ARE afraid, and the ones who claim they're not are praying they're right, or denying they're wrong! (My husband's ex hated that he carried a gun; SHE said that "if someone attempted to rape her, GOD Himself would send down angels to protect her!" Oooookay. Right.

Anonymous Avalanche September 04, 2017 7:58 PM  

@84 If you call them on their need for oversight and protection, they'll switch to the Strong, Independent Woman tact.

And my husband called THAT "bravada" -- like a kitten puffing up to try to scare off a threat!

Blogger Cail Corishev September 04, 2017 9:05 PM  

Women and STEM are like oil and water. Telling the oil that the water is just being exclusionary and oil-ist doesn't make the oil any more able or inclined to submerge itself.

Blogger Kristophr September 04, 2017 9:31 PM  

Welp, if marxist women take over STEM, real STEM will move to vocational schools.

Someone needs to do the math, no matter how dumbed down the four year degrees get.

Anonymous Clueless Cuckservative September 04, 2017 10:34 PM  

Someone needs to do the math, no matter how dumbed down the four year degrees get.



We can just outsource that to China and India!

Blogger DonReynolds September 04, 2017 10:54 PM  

Human talent flows much like water, wherever it is permitted to flow.

It took several generations and many decades for Southerners to show up in Federal service except in two areas....military and diplomacy. So whatever talent was available from the prostrate South, if flowed into those areas where it was allowed to flow. The nation benefited from the extraordinarily talented and capable people who served in the capacities.

Likewise, on a much smaller scale, were the rural letter carriers I have known. My Dad was a rather bright fellow and he took the job as rural letter carrier in rural West Arkansas from a retired Naval officer. In the larger cities, it is difficult to get talented individuals to work as letter carriers because there are so many other rewarding jobs in a bigger city, that pay much more than a letter carrier.

I suspect the same thing is true of women in STEM, whether it is true or not that women have inherent or naturally occurring limitations in this field. There will always be unusually bright and intelligent women, just as there are men, but talent flows where it can. I suspect that bright and intelligent women simply do not see STEM as particularly rewarding (because it isn't) and there are other occupations that do not require nearly so much discipline or effort in order to do well or even better than in STEM occupations. It may be obvious that men and women are presented with different choices and any rational decision may not necessarily include a heavy math and science investment.

I remember only one time that I worked with a woman who claimed to be a "mathematician", at the state energy agency. She certain fit the bill for being a woman in a STEM occupation. It turns out her claim to be a "mathematician" was based on her degree work....an Associates of Science in Math from a Community College. (She had never finished the calculus sequence.) I remember another woman I worked with who claimed to have a "masters degree in public health", which turned out later to be a masters degree in health, from the Physical Education department at Western Kentucky University. She had never even taken a course in public health. So we need to be very careful about putting the bar low enough that anyone can jump over it and pass out a trophy for their achievement.

Blogger Salden September 04, 2017 11:37 PM  

It has been repeatedly demonstrated taht women are less intelligent than men:

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/

http://www.randalolson.com/2015/08/16/u-s-college-majors-median-yearly-earnings-vs-gender-ratio/

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/sex-differences-in-intelligence-in-nigeria/

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YruxhWO8QSY&index=7&list=PLOIHJk_0k1U1tgx5H2OQ6nJyM7yUEeF-l

https://www.counter-currents.com/2016/11/why-most-high-achievers-are-men/

http://judgybitch.com/2013/10/02/holy-smarty-pants-people-women-have-earned-10-million-more-college-degrees-than-men-since-1982-oh-yeah-in-what/

Blogger Salden September 04, 2017 11:59 PM  

More:

http://atavisionary.com/women-and-the-unversity/

http://atavisionary.com/how-standardized-testing-undervalues-men/

http://atavisionary.com/smart-and-sexy-links-post/

Blogger Padam raj September 05, 2017 1:10 AM  

Hi Dear,

i Like Your Blog Very Much..I see Daily Your Blog ,is A Very Useful For me.

Looking for Best cheap web hosting UK Webhostingwatch is the right platform for dedicated server web hosting with top 10 affordable companies.

Visit Now - https://www.webhostingwatch.org/

Blogger Salden September 05, 2017 1:37 AM  

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000962

https://www.bustle.com/articles/9966-what-are-the-differences-between-men-and-womens-brains-the-myths-and-facts

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 05, 2017 4:53 AM  

This phenomenon comes down to plausibility. If women wanted to be in the field in the first case, they would have the opposite reaction. It's a post-facto rationalization thing.

Blogger szopen September 05, 2017 5:17 AM  

Salden,
From the link you have posted: "A naive reader may look at this graph and conclude that men are smarter than women, but it is vital to note that, on average, men and women have about the same IQ." If you follow the link, you will find strong support for higher variance in males, higher visuo-spatial skills, but no so much for "g" advantage. In fact, if you would read on intelligence testing instead of just cherry-picking the articles you like, you will find out that the claims of male advantage in IQ over females are far from being conclusively proven (e.g. no "g" advantage was found by Brody, Deary, Colom, Lubinski... Jensen, THE father of the "g" and was well known of not being affraid on not-PC conlusion, found out the advantage of 1.5IQ point).

But even if Lynn et al are right, consider this:

If you put threshold to be 125 (i.e. college major of few STEM from the links you have posted), men with 3.75 (one the the highest reported, per Lynn; Rushton found ~3.6, same as Nyborg) points advantage over women and women with smaller SD of 14, there would ~7.8% men passing the threshold vs ~3.7% women, meaning males would be 2/3 of the group.

All in all, as you can see even with the advantage this high it cannot explain the whole of the gap in STEM.

However, there is a problem with IQ testing which you have to account for: higher attrition levels for males. More males get into troubles, meaning more lower-IQ males fall "under the radar", meaning average for males who appear in tests is higher.

Moreover, the claim of this high male advantage in "g" is hard to reconcile with a known fact that vast majority of retards (ie. below 70) are males, while with assumption of normal distribution, average IQ 3.75 higher and SD=15 vs female SD=14 females would shoulw be a majority of retards (the difference in SDs above probably is a tiny wee bit smaller; Jensen found girls 13.55 vs males 14.54, but I found also reported smaller differences).

On the other hand, if you focus on specific subtests instead than on the general intelligence, the very large differences emerge, showing large advantage for men in visuo-spatial reasoning and mechanical reasoning.

Blogger szopen September 05, 2017 5:21 AM  

@Salden
what's the most frustrating is that you have actually posted a link to one scientific paper, which specifically targeted the attrition problem and pointed out to this problem as the reason of higher "g" advantage. This is from the study you have linked (Dykiert et al), supposedly as proving of higher male average "G":

"the present study, as it is, provided an
unusual opportunity to test a different hypothesis: that sex
differences are, at least partly, created by testing restricted samples of adults. Thanks to its longitudinal design, and by
testing an initially large and representative population sample,
it was possible to create a baseline IQ-type measure to
examine changes in the magnitude of sex differences observed
in the participants of subsequent sweeps. These
changes were not due to any real variation in IQ scores, but
‘appeared’ later, as a function of sample restriction."

Blogger Salden September 05, 2017 6:51 AM  

I'm not talking about literal retards. I'm talking about men who aren't malformed in one way or another. And I'm pointing out evidence that the mean intelligence for men (ignoring abnormalities) is higher by some points than women. With both maturity differences and women being pandered to in Western countries addressing any seeming male disadvantage.

There isn't a single on Earth that isn't some spear chucker mud pit that depends on the work of women. Women have no incentive develop higher intelligence the way men do.

Blogger szopen September 05, 2017 8:10 AM  

Salden, but "average intelligence is higher by one point" (up to maximum 3-4 points) does not mean "women are less inteligent than men" is relevant in the context of discussion of women participation in STEM. Not to mention that "women are less intelligent than men" is true only in statistical sense (i.e. the average intelligence is slightly less), while many would take it to mean "every women is less inteligent than men" which is obviously false, or "randomly chosen women is less inteligent than randomly chosen men" which is false too, though it's more complicated to explain.

For example, if we assume an advantage by 1.5 point, 1 point difference in SD and 125 as minimum IQ requirement for majoring in STEM field, then there would be 5.85 males for 3.7 females; meaning there should be 40% women in those fields, which does not seem to be true in developed western countries. Now, the 125 is an average for majoring in STEM, so minimal threshold most likely is lower. It's reasonable to assume 115IQ as being bright enough to be able to graduate CS and still doing relatively good job: that would make 18.4 men for 14.2 women.

In fact, if we would take Jensen's results for IQ and SD, we could calculate that above 115 IQ there would be roughly 45% female; 38% above IQ125 and so on. I am of impression that gender gap in engineering is higher than that. Meaning the other factors play role, of which three I have enumerated above: (1) higher visuo-spatial abilities in males (2) higher mechanical reasoning skills in males (3) preference things over people. Smaller number of above average intelligent women is one of the factor, but, as you can see, we would expect then the gap to be something like 55:45 or 6:4 depending on your assumption - and not between 9:1 to 3:1 as observed.

Blogger Rez Zircon September 05, 2017 4:06 PM  

All is explained:

https://i.imgur.com/CfDz6ZN.png

Blogger peppermint88 September 06, 2017 2:59 AM  

No economics is STEM. Economics is philosophy, not science. Political science is actually (a weak school of) historical philosophy.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts