5 ms·

> Perhaps it's a scientific fact that women are superior to men in science The only valid broad generalization is that there are no valid broad generalizations

> Perhaps it's a scientific fact that women are superior to men in science The only valid broad generalization is that there are no valid broad generalizations. My take? I think we men are used to having things handed to us, and women in our society are used to having to try hard, and with more or less equal opportunity, they're kicking ass.

DangitBobby 4y ago
When women are behind, it's because systematic inequality holds them back. When men are behind, it's because women actually kick ass and are better than men at whatever it is they're behind in.
Calavar 4y ago
> Female researchers in mathematics, psychology and economics are 3–15 times more likely to be elected as members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or the American Academy of Arts and Sciences than are male counterparts who have similar publication and citation records That line doesn't really match with men being asked to try equally hard. It seems to me that academic and professional societies are desparate to hit a 50/50 balance in new inductees, but they are finding that there is a paucity of qualified candidates due to upstream issues. (Remember that the current crop of peak career researchers started their training in the 80s and 90s, when the gender split among new trainees in the sciences skewed heavily male and when DEI programs for early career researchers did not exist nearly to the extent that they do now.) But if you admit a class of inductees that's 80% men and 20% women in this day and age, it's very difficult to explain in a way that doesn't put you in a hot seat. It's much easier to apply asymmetric standards until you get a neat 50/50 split (or at least something close) because this is less likely to raise questions. So that's what the societies do.
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  That’s not what’s happening though. It’s a highly imbalanced class, just “the right way”. You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started, they’re just actually called that now. Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college. Edit: hard to keep up with the ninja edits, the point in the last paragraph is significantly changed.
  - Calavar 4y ago
    Sorry, I have a habit of refining my thinking a bit and editing my posts to match. I didn't realize that there was already a reply. I didn't really change much of substance though - mainly just added the point about historical gender disparity in PhDs and added the last paragraph. > Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college. Outnumbered in undergrad, when you account for all fields. But that’s not what's relevant here. What's relevant is PhDs, specifically in the sciences, because that's the pool from which scientific researchers are drawn. And the gender ratios there have changed dramatically since the 80s [1]. > You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started I never said that these programs hadn't yet started. I said that they didn't exist to the same extent that they do now. There is plenty of data showing a uptrend in the number of university positions dedicated to DEI over the past few decades. And it's not just an issue of naming. [1] https://www.aip.org/statistics/data-graphics/percent-phds-earned-women-selected-fields-classes-1981-through-2016 https://www.aip.org/statistics/data-graphics/percent-phds-ea...
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      > I didn't really change much of substance That’s an interesting perspective.
kilgnad 4y ago
So women are superior to men because of hardship. But that would imply anyone who goes through hardship becomes superior. So for example war. Men historically have been exclusively sent to war and suffer through hardships unimaginable to most people who aren't sent to war. Women are generally not sent to war so it's arguable in terms of raw stress and pressure they have suffered less than men. Yet one still cannot say in this day an age just because men experience raw violence and combat in the arena of war that men are smarter. No in fact women are still better than men in every possible way even though they don't go to war. So hardship isn't part of the equation. The only thing left is biological. Sexual morphology gives women biological advantages in terms of intellectual capacity and performance. This is utterly clear. That is why these women are getting elected far more than men. It is the only logical explanation.

DangitBobby 4y ago

When women are behind, it's because systematic inequality holds them back. When men are behind, it's because women actually kick ass and are better than men at whatever it is they're behind in.

Calavar 4y ago

> Female researchers in mathematics, psychology and economics are 3–15 times more likely to be elected as members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or the American Academy of Arts and Sciences than are male counterparts who have similar publication and citation records That line doesn't really match with men being asked to try equally hard. It seems to me that academic and professional societies are desparate to hit a 50/50 balance in new inductees, but they are finding that there is a paucity of qualified candidates due to upstream issues. (Remember that the current crop of peak career researchers started their training in the 80s and 90s, when the gender split among new trainees in the sciences skewed heavily male and when DEI programs for early career researchers did not exist nearly to the extent that they do now.) But if you admit a class of inductees that's 80% men and 20% women in this day and age, it's very difficult to explain in a way that doesn't put you in a hot seat. It's much easier to apply asymmetric standards until you get a neat 50/50 split (or at least something close) because this is less likely to raise questions. So that's what the societies do.

Godel_unicode 4y ago
That’s not what’s happening though. It’s a highly imbalanced class, just “the right way”. You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started, they’re just actually called that now. Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college. Edit: hard to keep up with the ninja edits, the point in the last paragraph is significantly changed.
- Calavar 4y ago
  Sorry, I have a habit of refining my thinking a bit and editing my posts to match. I didn't realize that there was already a reply. I didn't really change much of substance though - mainly just added the point about historical gender disparity in PhDs and added the last paragraph. > Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college. Outnumbered in undergrad, when you account for all fields. But that’s not what's relevant here. What's relevant is PhDs, specifically in the sciences, because that's the pool from which scientific researchers are drawn. And the gender ratios there have changed dramatically since the 80s [1]. > You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started I never said that these programs hadn't yet started. I said that they didn't exist to the same extent that they do now. There is plenty of data showing a uptrend in the number of university positions dedicated to DEI over the past few decades. And it's not just an issue of naming. [1] https://www.aip.org/statistics/data-graphics/percent-phds-earned-women-selected-fields-classes-1981-through-2016 https://www.aip.org/statistics/data-graphics/percent-phds-ea...
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    > I didn't really change much of substance That’s an interesting perspective.

kilgnad 4y ago

So women are superior to men because of hardship. But that would imply anyone who goes through hardship becomes superior. So for example war. Men historically have been exclusively sent to war and suffer through hardships unimaginable to most people who aren't sent to war. Women are generally not sent to war so it's arguable in terms of raw stress and pressure they have suffered less than men. Yet one still cannot say in this day an age just because men experience raw violence and combat in the arena of war that men are smarter. No in fact women are still better than men in every possible way even though they don't go to war. So hardship isn't part of the equation. The only thing left is biological. Sexual morphology gives women biological advantages in terms of intellectual capacity and performance. This is utterly clear. That is why these women are getting elected far more than men. It is the only logical explanation.