4 ms·

I assume you were trying to describe how you did well using statistics and demographics, but your wording comes off sexist. It hits my ear as bragging about the

I assume you were trying to describe how you did well using statistics and demographics, but your wording comes off sexist. It hits my ear as bragging about the disparity in the field, and I have to consciously try to change my initial interpretation to allow for something different. I also got an 8/10, but I had at least one woman in my set who was a language developer (one of the Cobol designers) and I got that right too. I went with the intensity in the eyes. By my method, I most certainly would have marked Steve Jobs as a serial killer, so it's not perfect, although in his biography he said he learned his trademark expression from a guy he knew who later started a cult.

Geminidog 6y ago
I said something akin to men are unlikely to be nurses, so I didn't choose men. I think the ideological rhetoric of feminism has infected the viewpoints of normal people so much so that one needs to tiptoe around something that is obviously true. This may be good from a social standpoint as it opens up equality of opportunity but it is bad for science. The movement has silenced people who point out inevitable differences in observation. Women are different then men and giving them equal opportunities will yield unequal outcomes based simply off of actual biological differences in behavior and physical stature. Such censorship is bad for science. I stated an observation between sexes that is completely obvious and avoided even entertaining the reasoning behind why such observations are true because I don't know why they're true. Yet it still hit your ideological nerve, no doubt due in big part to the tenets spread by ideological feminists. I support equality but not equality to the point where it denies reality.
- salamanderman 6y ago
  I'm sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I shouldn't take the bait but, hey, you played a GAME that was structured such that you'd have a 50/50 shot of being right. Rather than assume that the balance of demographics in the photos were waited towards that game's premise, 50/50 split, you used your own biased heuristic and happened to get a good score. You happened to get a set of 10 that included no female language developers. I had a mixed set. 8 coin flips out of 10 of heads is not special. I had a heuristic too and I'm probably equally wrong about it meaning something. I'm being honest with myself, though.
  - Geminidog 6y ago
    >I'm sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt. This is basically your way of saying that my viewpoint is sexist. I have not acted in such a manner, and please cite evidence as to where I am acting that way if you believe otherwise. Basically all I'm saying is that people should stop turning every freaking conversation about real demographic differences into an ideological witch hunt. It's completely off topic and nobody is thinking about such things yet there always has to be some social justice warrior pointing out some "infraction" whoops did I say women are physically weaker than men even though it's generally the truth? My bad for being a heathen sexist. >Rather than assume that the balance of demographics in the photos were waited towards that game's premise, 50/50 split. I assumed the balance was not weighted towards sex. I assumed he picked random set of people where the sex and race were random and only whether or not they were language developers/serial killers was the heuristic. It was a mistaken assumption because if the picks were truly random, it is highly unlikely for women to appear in the question set at all (assuming women are unlikely to be serial killers as stated by some people in this thread). Obviously, because two women appeared in the question set, the heuristic is biased for other attributes as the test maker deliberately made sure the question set included two women. Frankly, the test actually masks reality as we know it. Programmers, Language creators and serial killers are highly, highly unlikely to be women.
    - salamanderman 6y ago
      I'll confess I possibly misread your initial post. Were you saying your score would have been higher if you hadn't picked serial killer for both women?
      - Geminidog 6y ago
        The alternative pick which is marking both women as programmers would have made the score exactly the same.

Geminidog 6y ago

I said something akin to men are unlikely to be nurses, so I didn't choose men. I think the ideological rhetoric of feminism has infected the viewpoints of normal people so much so that one needs to tiptoe around something that is obviously true. This may be good from a social standpoint as it opens up equality of opportunity but it is bad for science. The movement has silenced people who point out inevitable differences in observation. Women are different then men and giving them equal opportunities will yield unequal outcomes based simply off of actual biological differences in behavior and physical stature. Such censorship is bad for science. I stated an observation between sexes that is completely obvious and avoided even entertaining the reasoning behind why such observations are true because I don't know why they're true. Yet it still hit your ideological nerve, no doubt due in big part to the tenets spread by ideological feminists. I support equality but not equality to the point where it denies reality.

salamanderman 6y ago
I'm sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I shouldn't take the bait but, hey, you played a GAME that was structured such that you'd have a 50/50 shot of being right. Rather than assume that the balance of demographics in the photos were waited towards that game's premise, 50/50 split, you used your own biased heuristic and happened to get a good score. You happened to get a set of 10 that included no female language developers. I had a mixed set. 8 coin flips out of 10 of heads is not special. I had a heuristic too and I'm probably equally wrong about it meaning something. I'm being honest with myself, though.
- Geminidog 6y ago
  >I'm sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt. This is basically your way of saying that my viewpoint is sexist. I have not acted in such a manner, and please cite evidence as to where I am acting that way if you believe otherwise. Basically all I'm saying is that people should stop turning every freaking conversation about real demographic differences into an ideological witch hunt. It's completely off topic and nobody is thinking about such things yet there always has to be some social justice warrior pointing out some "infraction" whoops did I say women are physically weaker than men even though it's generally the truth? My bad for being a heathen sexist. >Rather than assume that the balance of demographics in the photos were waited towards that game's premise, 50/50 split. I assumed the balance was not weighted towards sex. I assumed he picked random set of people where the sex and race were random and only whether or not they were language developers/serial killers was the heuristic. It was a mistaken assumption because if the picks were truly random, it is highly unlikely for women to appear in the question set at all (assuming women are unlikely to be serial killers as stated by some people in this thread). Obviously, because two women appeared in the question set, the heuristic is biased for other attributes as the test maker deliberately made sure the question set included two women. Frankly, the test actually masks reality as we know it. Programmers, Language creators and serial killers are highly, highly unlikely to be women.
  - salamanderman 6y ago
    I'll confess I possibly misread your initial post. Were you saying your score would have been higher if you hadn't picked serial killer for both women?
    - Geminidog 6y ago
      The alternative pick which is marking both women as programmers would have made the score exactly the same.