I dont know why people get so upset at statements like "intellectual equallity between sexes is nonsense" when it has been known that men excel in serialized, monotasks, and women excel at multitasking. Think of it as a cpu vs gpu thing (latency vs throughput)
The problem is when you modinterpret the quote at hand, not everything circles around IQ and analytic prowess. People just got to accept men and women arent the same, but are equals (funny how the english language doesnt have a proper vocable for "being the same" and thus equal or equallity is misused instead). Women develop less muscle than men, but have more muscle density than men, women have more pain tolerance than men, etc. I for one wont ever treat men and women the same when such small differences come in to play, that is why i have better experience in my line of work hiring women which excel at multitasking and have around a couple of men for those special cases where isolated problems that involve speed at single tasks are needed.The problem is when generalizations affect individuals.
The psychological differences between men and women are not even nearly elucidated enough to be making any workplace distinctions. There are way too many factors involved to have a clear picture.The problem is when you modinterpret the quote at hand, not everything circles around IQ and analytic prowess. People just got to accept men and women arent the same, but are equals (funny how the english language doesnt have a proper vocable for "being the same" and thus equal or equallity is misused instead). Women develop less muscle than men, but have more muscle density than men, women have more pain tolerance than men, etc. I for one wont ever treat men and women the same when such small differences come in to play, that is why i have better experience in my line of work hiring women which excel at multitasking and have around a couple of men for those special cases where isolated problems that involve speed at single tasks are needed.
Just for the sake of curiosity: in what way does what I'm saying go against productivity?
People who have the time to crusade on the internet about intentionally poorly defined "social justice" issues do not typically have better things to do, like productive work. Of course by engaging in this conversation I've reduced myself to the same level of mudslinging so this shall be my last post on the topic.
This topic has nothing to do with CPUs, by the way
It's a scientific fact that male and female brains are hardwired different -- and these differences can be seen in a CAT scan. Further, it is also a scientific fact that the inferior parietal lobule (IPL) in males is significantly larger than it is in females. These brain differences are very correlated to a person's visual-spatial abilities, or the ability to rotate three-dimensional objects in ones head, and ones mathematical and creative abilities. No amount of stimulation or socialization is going to change these basic brain structure differences in male and female brains.Valantar said:Cognitive abilities, such as "dealing with abstract information," develop at least until the late teens (although recent research suggests that the brain doesn't stop developing until the late twenties). How does it develop? Through stimulation. In other words, practice.
These differences mean that both males and females have their strengths, with the differences pointing to men being better problems solvers (information processing and understanding of conceptual relationships), and having more singular focus, whereas women having better memories, multitasking, and verbal on average. There are multiple additional differences between male and female brains than the few just noted here. It's amusing to see people like you who are willing to accept that males and females differ in their outward physical appearance (obvious), but somehow it's simply "unacceptable" that they may differ psychologically despite that fact that their brains are hardwired differently and affected by the different hormones that affect body development. Why are you so anti-science and against reality?infoq … Male brains have 6.5X more gray matter. Gray matter serves as information processing centers. This localization drives focus, focus, focus. Females have 10x the amount of white matter, contributing to connectivity between the information centers, permitting more multi-tasking, more language facility, and faster emotional “processing”.
Women may have not had the "same" access to higher education in the past as men, but they certainly had access to education including higher education, and in many cases women had more access to education than men. It goes without saying that very few people (including men) had access to higher education over 100 years ago, but previous to the year 1900, many male inventors had no college education and were simply self-taught.Discounting the fact that women have - until very recently - not had even remotely the same access to higher education as men shows that you have no interest in actually finding any sort of truth in these matters.
No it's right on point. It has nothing to do with a social construct -- it's about what interests men and women are naturally pursuing which is related to their differing psychological and intellectual makeup. This in turn, is related to that demonstrated interest in various fields having an impact on their education and performance in these fields. Not all education is performed in an academic environment at universities. The simple fact is that women are not showing any large degree of interest in educating themselves by participating in the discussions on these forums.Valantar said:Your example of the car subculture is just silly. If you're not able to see how this is a social construct, then you truly lack the means to understand how society works.
Valantar said:In other words, practice. Thus, the fact that girls from an early age are consistently discouraged from taking an interest in STEM fields, while the opposite is true for boys, clearly lays the groundwork for different cognitive abilities twenty years later. Pinning this on biological differences is ignorant at best, not to mention unscientific.
city-journal
California’s budget crisis has reduced the University of California to near-penury, claim its spokesmen. “Our campuses and the UC Office of the President already have cut to the bone,”
Not only have diversity sinecures been protected from budget cuts, their numbers are actually growing. The University of California at San Diego, for example, is creating a new full-time “vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion.” This position would augment UC San Diego’s already massive diversity apparatus, which includes the Chancellor’s Diversity Office, the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, the faculty equity advisors, the graduate diversity coordinators, the staff diversity liaison, the undergraduate student diversity liaison, the graduate student diversity liaison, the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture and Inclusion, the Diversity Council, and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Women’s Center.
Men are also taught from a very early age to be loud, strong, competitive, to stand up for themselves, to strive to be the best at what they do. Women, on the other hand, are taught to be meek, quiet, to adapt socially, not make a fuss, and to "do their best, but it's okay if you're not as good as the boys." Given this, I would be utterly shocked if competitions in STEM fields weren't dominated by men.
livescience …
Gender politics
Four-year-old boys play superhero or enact mock fights much more frequently than girls, who seem to favor house or family themes for playtime, according to a survey of 98 female teachers who worked with these kids. Meanwhile, games involving chasing, protecting and rescuing are played about as frequently by girls as by boys, according to the teachers.
There is, however, a marked difference in how the teachers respond to these games. Almost half the surveyed teachers reported stopping or redirecting boys' play several times a week or every day. Meanwhile, only 29 percent of teachers reported interfering with girls' more sedate play on a weekly basis, according to the research conducted by Mary Ellin Logue, of the University of Maine, and Hattie Harvey, of the University of Denver, published in the education journal The Constructivist.
The problem is when generalizations affect individuals.
The problem is when generalizations affect individuals.
Welcome to real everyday life? Life sucks, buy a helmet.
Life would be pretty dandy if it weren't for thinking such as this.Welcome to real everyday life? Life sucks, buy a helmet.
Valantar said:IQ is not a perfect measure of intelligence, not by a long shot. This is quite widely accepted.
SAT scores
From the 1983-84 testing period through 1988-89, the ratio of the absolute numbers of girls to boys scoring above 600 on the math section, a fairly high score, is 1.84 boys to girls, almost two to one. The ratio above 700, a quite high score, is 3.13 boys to girls. Above 750, which begins to be high indeed, 4.79 boys to girls. For scores of 800, there are 7.61 boys to girls.
Valantar said:Likewise, discounting the societal bias women encounter through it been taken for granted that any woman, no matter her intellectual capabilities or occupation, should be the main caretaker of her (extended) family, shows the same. No male physicist/mathematician/whatever up until recent decades would have been expected to go home and care full-time for a child/parent that had fallen ill, while this expectation has been prevalent for women in all western cultures. Thus women have had to put their careers on hold for the sake of others, if not end them permanently, while men have never had to do the same.
link… … …
Sherlyn Green, of Cropper Motors in Naicam explained that Ford realised that most Windstars were being driven by women and a growing number of senior citizens and their design team was almost entirely made up of women engineers.
You mean like a man trying to enter into the field of teaching (K1-9) or nursing where women make up 90%+ of the employees? I'm sure men have to put up with "harassment" and ostracization from females when entering these female dominated professions. I've read lots of stories about women harassing men in the workplace too -- usually in employment areas that are majority women.I would sincerely like to see you try to enter a subculture (that you feel passionately for) where you are constantly barraged with harassment, inappropriate comments or physical contact, comments about not belonging, not being qualified/talented/good enough, not being the right gender, being another sexual orientation, and so on - which is (just part of) what women with an interest in cars have to put up with. I'd like to see how long you'd last under similar conditions.
This is another stupid move by BK. Loser is trying to pander to the SJW crowd in the hopes he gets some plum pseudo-political post in Washington after he is done milking Intel.
Intel already have a tremendous amount of racial and national diversity. They are THE company people aspire to work for in semiconductor business. Plenty of talented engineers and scientists from China, Taiwan, India, Russia, Italy, Israel....you name it.
Intel do not discriminate either, all they want is to make more and more profit and they will hire just about anyone who can help them in this goal. It would be difficult to find any other company of Intel's size that has a more diverse workforce than Intel. Why, then, this need to force more 'diversity'?
Is merit not good enough, anymore? In the eyes of BK it likely isn't, since he himself is well known within Intel for sliming his way to top not because of merit or performance but because of questionable relationships and personal favors.
Valantar said:He is, after all, spouting a mix of willful ignorance and lack of historical understanding, ignoring all relevant social influences in favour of a completely unsubstantiated biologism, all the while using conspiracy-theorist language like "the modern Marxist-feminist nonsense of gender equality."
tldm …
Women who have been inside the feminist movement have themselves confirmed the Marxist ties to radical feminism. According to Tammy Bruce:
In order to attract as wide a base as possible, the sixties Leftists hid their socialist sympathies and, in some cases, actual Communist Party membership. Betty Friedan is a classic case. In the book that launched the modern feminist movement—The Feminine Mystique, published in 1963—she portrayed herself as a politically inactive housewife who simply had had enough of sexism. Forty years later, Friedan told the real story. In Life So Far, published in 2000, she recounts, “I would come into New York on my days off from the hospital (and) would go to Communist Front meetings and rallies … I looked up the address of the Communist Party headquarters in New York and … went into their dark and dingy building on 13th Street and announced I wanted to become a member.” This was in 1942, a quarter-century before she and a few others founded NOW. Friedan’s revelation that, while she may have been a bored and frustrated housewife, she had also been a member of the Communist Party, shed some much needed light on how left-wing politics have been masquerading as authentic feminism.
socialistworker … INESSA ARMAND, the first leader of the women's department of the 1917 Russian Revolution, made the following observation: "If women's liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women's liberation." That statement is a perfect summary of the relationship between the fight for both socialism and women's liberation--neither is possible without the other.
And the Marxist tradition has from its beginnings, with the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, stood for the liberation of women. As early as the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels argued that the ruling class oppresses women, relegating them to second-class citizenship in society and within the family: "The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production...He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at [by communists] is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production."
The problem is when you modinterpret the quote at hand, not everything circles around IQ and analytic prowess. People just got to accept men and women arent the same, but are equals (funny how the english language doesnt have a proper vocable for "being the same" and thus equal or equallity is misused instead). Women develop less muscle than men, but have more muscle density than men, women have more pain tolerance than men, etc. I for one wont ever treat men and women the same when such small differences come in to play, that is why i have better experience in my line of work hiring women which excel at multitasking and have around a couple of men for those special cases where isolated problems that involve speed at single tasks are needed.
I'm against diversity for the sake of diversity.
I'm for hiring the people that have the best qualifications...if the dude happens to be a Chinese, Mexican or African american , male or female...this all is unimportant.
I would expect a company to only hire the best people they can get, regardless of heritage or gender(identification).
If my company /outpost is stationed in an area that is 90% white people...then the outcome is clear to me.
That said...if there is some dude sitting in Korea or China that brings qualifications that the local people do not bring...then I'll make sure to check if it's profitable to hire that dude...obviously.
I still fail to see how this is news.
That said...this does sound a whole lot like trying to force diversity for the sake of diversity. "We could hire this white dude from next door that brings 100% of the qualifications OR we could hire this biologically female half chinese, half black, ginger that identifies as barrel kin...simply because that would raise our diversity by 10.000%"
But then again...Intel can totally afford hiring a few duds just to raise the quota...let's just hope that they look for diverse people that ALSO bring the same (or better) qualifications.