Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you even understand what you're saying here? What do you mean by wires, specifically? Are you speaking of neurotransmitters, hormones, genetics?
Are you also saying that black people, Spanish are not wired either? If you are I'd like to know if this is just sexism or if it's racism as well.
Yes, that's precisely what I am saying.
And it's not only "Black people and Spanish," but OTHER minority groups as well - be that Kazakhs or Uzbeks.
As I've said I hail from a different part of the world, with different economic/ideological background, where everyone was getting the same access to math/science education, yet the minorities didn't fair in these subjects very well. It were mostly ethnic Russians and Jews ( mostly males) that were finishing schools on top of their class in math and physics/chemistry, and proceeding to top Universities, as much as the government was encouraging EVERYONE to succeed in these areas. ( It wanted specialists, no matter of WHAT background/ gender/ethnicity.)
And my observation in the US is the same; Blacks can be very intelligent ( both men and women); BUT their natural kind of abilities lay in different areas, not in STEM ( math/engineering/mechanics.) These are the areas where White males are naturally more capable.
What I am saying here might not be politically correct ( and therefore regarded as "racism,") but hey, if I was refusing to be "politically correct" back in the Soviet Union, why should I change my habits in good ole US?
Quote:
You are confusing domination with innate aptitude and it isn't what it is.
You are the one who is confused. Domination comes as the result of the "innate aptitude" ( look up the definition of it.) Which means that the one who is born with better "innate aptitude" ( i.e. to put it bluntly in Russian "to whom god gives more abilities" ) will get on "top of things" much faster, and will be given the upper hand to dominate.
Quote:
All that is ignorance. And holy grail my but. It's a holy grail black box if you are outside of it and that's a part of the problem. It's not the answer.
It's the answer you might not like, but that's the answer never the less.
The difference between me and you is that this answer doesn't bother me, while it clearly irritates you.
The question is - why?
Give it a thought.
I did not say "[b]It's unattainable by most because most innately lack the aptitude."
Oh I see, you still ascribe it to " other variables" - my bad.
But I witnessed the situation when "other variables" were removed.
The result was still the same.
Quote:
Sorry, but I don't buy into the bull idea that Hispanics are inherently less intelligent, that black people are inherently less intelligent, that women are less intelligent. Given the opportunity people are quite capable. What you are doing now is attempting to take that opportunity by driving a rather thoughtless, destructive narrative without any evidence or critical thinking.
You need to understand that "being intelligent" is based on the ability of abstract thinking, which the minorities (at least people I know) don't lack at all.
But the ability of abstract thinking does not make you automatically capable in math/physics studies.
I did not say "It's unattainable by most because most innately lack the aptitude."
Sorry, but I don't buy into the bull idea that Hispanics are inherently less intelligent, that black people are inherently less intelligent, that women are less intelligent. Given the opportunity people are quite capable. What you are doing now is attempting to take that opportunity by driving a rather thoughtless, destructive narrative without any evidence or critical thinking.
Brain is a biological, physical part of the body. Why are you accepting the fact that races and ethnic groups are different in some biological characteristics (for example, Nederland men usually are taller than vietnamese men) and not in other?
Good idea or should people stop worrying about how many of a certain race or gender is in a certain field?
Both. There is nothing wrong with encouraging women to get into the STEM field. However, if they aren't interested in the field, then they aren't interested in the field. If women really wanted to work in the STEM field, then they will put the effort. Some women like to complain about "it's too difficult and want to dumb down the criteria instead of taking the time to learn the materials. You want equal opportunity, there you go. If women aren't going to put in the time and effort to be just as good as men, that's their problem.
By the way, going out of your way to bring women is discrimination. You can't have it both ways. To the women, there aren't enough women in the STEM field? become one of them instead of waiting for another woman who is more courageous to take the next step. You be the role model.
Brain is a biological, physical part of the body. Why are you accepting the fact that races and ethnic groups are different in some biological characteristics (for example, Nederland men usually are taller than vietnamese men) and not in other?
Because the latter is a non-complex measurable. The brain, our neurochemistry, is exponentially more complex based on what we know let alone what we don't know. Subsequently applying that to behavior, which is another exponential black box, takes it even further into never-land. I'm not a neurologist or a psychologist, but when considering physchem in the space of pharmacokinetics, which is light years more complicated than averaging the height of people and light years less complicated than neurochemistry genetics applied to human behavior, I know without a doubt that these simpleton assertions are riddled with problems. The complexity of human physiology doesn't allow for these blanket statements to be applied to behavior. They really can't be applied to just physiology. There are always balls in the air that are leveraged. We can make a statement about A, under conditions B, for a time period C. That is why we don't find scientific consensus on these matters.
I also suspect Dunning-Kruger effect. The less we know about something the easier it is to understand (so we erroneously think) and this leaves inappropriate confidence.
Yes, that's precisely what I am saying.
And it's not only "Black people and Spanish," but OTHER minority groups as well - be that Kazakhs or Uzbeks.
As I've said I hail from a different part of the world, with different economic/ideological background, where everyone was getting the same access to math/science education, yet the minorities didn't fair in these subjects very well. It were mostly ethnic Russians and Jews ( mostly males) that were finishing schools on top of their class in math and physics/chemistry, and proceeding to top Universities, as much as the government was encouraging EVERYONE to succeed in these areas. ( It wanted specialists, no matter of WHAT background/ gender/ethnicity.)
And my observation in the US is the same; Blacks can be very intelligent ( both men and women); BUT their natural kind of abilities lay in different areas, not in STEM ( math/engineering/mechanics.) These are the areas where White males are naturally more capable.
What I am saying here might not be politically correct ( and therefore regarded as "racism,") but hey, if I was refusing to be "politically correct" back in the Soviet Union, why should I change my habits in good ole US?
What you are saying here is racist and it harms people. Others should not be held liable to your personal experiences and that is exactly what you are doing. That's really the heart of racism independent of topic.
Quote:
You are the one who is confused. Domination comes as the result of the "innate aptitude" ( look up the definition of it.) Which means that the one who is born with better "innate aptitude" ( i.e. to put it bluntly in Russian "to whom god gives more abilities" ) will get on "top of things" much faster, and will be given the upper hand to dominate.
No, domination does not result from innate aptitude. Take Trump as an example. He's powerful. He dominates. Men like him always have and likely always will. That is about power, not intellectual aptitude in any math or science. It's about a callousness, being ruthless, not a sophisticated intellect.
Quote:
It's the answer you might not like, but that's the answer never the less.
The difference between me and you is that this answer doesn't bother me, while it clearly irritates you.
The question is - why?
Give it a thought.
Because I know it's not true. I'm very lucky to be a working scientist with enjoyable work. My colleagues are the creme of the crop as far as scientists go and I reject this ooohhhh and ahhhh premise about the maths and sciences because we live it. I think this holy grail stuff is bad for the population, bad for scientists, and bad for science. I was recently having a discussion with a few friends about the march coming up and people are wondering what we can do to reach out the "community" in order to change the image. My recommendation is to make an effort to remove that OZ curtain. Too many people really believe they are simply too dim to get it, so they never try. Too many are intimidated and that's the message you are trying to send here. I don't understand why.
I don't have a difficult time grasping averages. I don't see what any of this has to do with the conversation. Not one person in this thread has provided any kind of thoughtful argument with evidence that women innately lack aptitude. All that is presented are loose, nonsense analogies.
And really, a girl is going to follow a male role model who tells her she lacks aptitude? I will be my daughter's role model, but look at all the (k)no(w)-nothings who want to tell her that she lacks aptitude because she's a woman. Even if these people themselves do not meet the bar they set for her.
Who said that your daughter lacks aptitude? I didn't see anyone in this thread say that. You say that you understand averages but then turn around and make emotional statements like that which show that you don't. You can't have a proper conversation about the subject when you can't wrap your mind around such a basic concept like averages. Saying that men generally do better in the STEM fields than women, doesn't mean that your daughter doesn't the have the aptitude to work in the STEM fields. If you can't understand that then you really should look into going into a new profession.
It makes sense.
There are more women than men in the United States now, and more women than men get college degrees. More women than men go on to get advanced degrees as well.
Women, for lots of social and cultural reasons, don't take up the STEM courses enough, and GE is looking to the future. Girls often have the same math ability as boys when very young, are equally curious about simple science, are as technically adept as boys, and are as good at basic engineering concepts.
But research has shown that by the 4th to 6th grades, girls lose their interest in all because it's not 'girl stuff'. It's boy stuff. So they quit and leave it to the boys.
There have always been girls who ignore those social norms and pursue their interests and abilities, and as women, they do just as well as men in their fields, so there is a strong movement in education now to keep girls who are adept at the STEM subjects interested in them as a career. This is good, if we want to keep more Americans employed in good jobs, and it's good for General Electric's growth as a company, because they want to employ as many qualified Americans as they can get.
The workplace is still hostile to women in the STEM fields, as socially, they are still seen as being men's work only. But this can change rapidly if enough young women are trained, dedicated and ready to go to work.
Until the 20th century, being a secretary was strictly men's work. So was being a bookkeeper. Only very brave women even applied for those jobs. The culture believed back then that women were only fit to operate typewriters, switchboards, and other more menial and less important tasks.
We all know this has changed completely. Today, women have worked side by side with men in industry, factories, and every other kind of work, so once their numbers increase in the STEM fields, our work culture will change pretty fast. It always does.
But change will take time. GE is just looking into the future and paving a path for girls to make their business prospects in the future even better than they are now.
Oh I see, you still ascribe it to " other variables" - my bad.
But I witnessed the situation when "other variables" were removed.
The result was still the same.
You need to understand that "being intelligent" is based on the ability of abstract thinking, which the minorities (at least people I know) don't lack at all.
But the ability of abstract thinking does not make you automatically capable in math/physics studies.
Did you get your degrees (physics?) in Russia or the US? It's difficult to compare such vastly different countries when trying to account for race.
I believe that enough training and education can make most people capable in the sciences, even maths/physics studies. Not saying that we are going to be popping out the next Hawkings, but certainly to a substantial degree where solid contribution would result. Studies show that education increases IQ, as well as experience and development of expertise, so that right there puts your premise on shaky ground. Further, that 20% of physics doctorates awarded each year are obtained by women is too high of a number to account for random outliers, wouldn't you think? I cannot imagine a situation where any of us could use that kind of thinking at work, for example. Could you? You have a hypothesis that you cannot explain mechanistically, but one of the ways you test your hypothesis is doctoral degrees awarded by gender and 20% of the time you have these outliers. I'm no statistician, but would that fly?
Who said that your daughter lacks aptitude? I didn't see anyone in this thread say that. You say that you understand averages but then turn around and make emotional statements like that which show that you don't. You can't have a proper conversation about the subject when you can't wrap your mind around such a basic concept like averages. Saying that men generally do better in the STEM fields than women, doesn't mean that your daughter doesn't the have the aptitude to work in the STEM fields. If you can't understand that then you really should look into going into a new profession.
I don't think you have been following the conversation. I am not saying that men do not do better in STEM. They clearly do. What I'm talking about with a number of posters is why. This conversation is about the fact that some believe women are innately intellectually inferior in maths/sciences. They also believe minorities are innately not "wired" for it as well...all based on anecdotal personal experience. That is the message here. That has been the historical societal message as well.
Given that you have not followed along well enough to actually understand the discussion and then followed that up with telling me A. not to be so emotional and B. find a new profession is not only blanket sexism, but an example of what I'm talking about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
