Is science sexist?

In college (a good one) in one of my psychology classes the preceptor gave the class an exercise. We were shown a block figure then told to pick a b c or d next to the block figure that was the same as the original but rotated in 3 dimensions. All of the boys got the answer and none of the girls got the answer. We were told this was normal. A key difference between the brains of male and female humans is that males have a much more developed spatial reasonong ability.
Why do some people refute this when it is common knowledge?

It is taboo to recognize differences between groups.

>Why do some people refute this when it is common knowledge?

Because of relativism, postmodernism, and muh feels.

i'm a woman and freaking amazing at this sort of thing.
>gets treated like shit by profs in stem programs
>can only get hired as fucking childcare worker for summer job
it's not sex difference which is impt so much as being able to avoid the "oppressive" stereotypes when necessary.

The question you're asking belongs on /pol/.

> Why do some people refute this when it is common knowledge?
because women get butt hurt even without anal

People generally dislike being told they automatically are at a disadvantage. It's silly pride being hurt.

>>gets treated like shit by profs in stem programs

I have never ever EVER seen any woman harassed in any physics, chemistry, math, engineering or cs course. If anything professors go easy on them when they request extensions for assignments.

>>can only get hired as fucking childcare worker for summer job

Bullshit. Companies would trip over themselves to hire any woman or minority if they knew their shit.

>gets treated like shit by profs in stem programs
Elaborate. Maybe you're just a cunt to deal with.

>can only get hired as fucking childcare worker for summer job
You just weren't qualified for the other jobs you applied for. Don't bring being a woman into this when you refuse to accept your shortcomings.

Who refutes this? Did any of the girls complained or what? There are differences. But people usually don't get butthurt because of this statement, but rather because it's normally used to imply that one sex is 'smarter' than the other or that nothing can change these differences and a male will always have the edge on certain tasks and viceversa.

Indeed, for such a clear dicotomy, I have to wonder what's your career, or if your college it's really a 'good one', because girls with science/engineer-related backgrounds tend to do as good as dudes on these tests.

>because girls with science/engineer-related backgrounds

Did you read his post? He was in a psychology class, you can at most expect people there to be average.

What that test concludes is that average men are better than average women, at least statistically,.

Wether this holds up at the extremes of intelligence is left as an exercise for the reader.

This difference becomes damn near insignificant when the females performing the test have a history of playing video games. I don't know if the males were also controlled for that effect though.

>What that test concludes is that average men are better than average women, at least statistically,.

in spatial reasoning.

Yeah, you are right.

It always seems like when the topic of "one sex being better at xyz because abc" is brought up, instead of discussing that, it turns into "well..the other one can do that too!" but it goes nowhere because the original argument is that one is built for xyz. Not about if one can do it, or is better in some given scenario.

because people let their feelings get in the way before actual discussion. It's unfortunate.

It's not sexist, but that won't stop the feminists from saying it is (or talking shit about stuff they flat out just don't understand). They see that there are less women in STEM fields and assume the reason is discrimination (even though that has been found to not be the case). The fact of the matter is that if you are a woman, you are more likely to be accepted to STEM programs and receive scholarships, so it's actually easier, yet there are still less women who want to go in to STEM (potentially due to gaps in spacial reasoning skills, critical thinking skills, logical skills, and problem solving skills between men and women).

This has always been my experience, I have never once seen discrimination against a woman in a STEM class, even by professors who are know as being assholes (will make dickish remarks at you if you're a guy). Also, yes 100%. Diversity programs encourage companies to hire more women, and when there are less women in the applicant pool, they have a significantly higher success rate. I'm thinking this person is actually an asian/white male just bullshitting.

p< .999999
"So youre saying theres a chance!!!!"
Girls are undoubtedly better at language.
female infants start talking a year before boys do... and girls outscore boys on avg on sat verbal just as boys outscore girls on sat math
its not that boys are better, but each sex has different allocation of strengths and weaknesses.
i personally think talk is cheap, and that we owe greater debt to those who save/improve our lives with math/engineering..
but that is subjective.
a cancer victim might prefer to forgo the mri machine that could find his tumor and save his life, in exchange for hearing some bomb ass poetry for the last 6 months of his life..
I just dont know anybody who would place poetry above engineering in that case tho...

ive heard eng profs go easier on grading girls work/exams as well... thats pretty toxic to the whole "women are discriminated against" point of view

no it's because the female brain and the male brain have no physiological differences whatsoever.

believing that a man's brain is different from a woman's brain is just the type of shit a psychologist (or Aristotle) would believe. neuroscientists know better than to fall for lame pseudo-science.

plus it sounds like your professor is a complete moron. that test sounds like it lacks validity.

also
>spatial reasoning
gardener is a fucking moron. modern intelligence tests test a person's G factor

anyways.
maybe next class you should ask him for a test that would assign a color to your personality? could be fun.

>>Why do some people refute this when it is common knowledge?
because only betas like you care about it ??

You can have two identical computers run different programs.

Just because the hardware's the same doesn't mean the software is.

thread should've ended here tb.h familia

>a cancer victim might prefer to forgo the mri machine that could find his tumor and save his life, in exchange for hearing some bomb ass poetry for the last 6 months of his life..
>I just dont know anybody who would place poetry above engineering in that case tho...
this. most people are hedonists and live only because they are scared of death. Scientists just allow for more hedonism and more denial of death

yeah but one is a human brain and one is a computer.

that analogy doesn't make any sense.

>>that analogy doesn't make any sense.


but brains are computers, the model that I learnt at my university tells me so !!!1

do you know what an analogy is?

That really wouldn't surprise me. Basically, female professors having a bias towards helping women because they can relate and male professors consciously eliminating the bias they would have towards helping men (often going in the other direction). Yet, somehow women are discriminated against. Nevermind that it is easier for them to get better grades, pay for college, and get hired due to diversity programs.

>that test sounds like it lacks validity

beacuse it's not really a test, it's just an illustrative example. Obviously you can't support a broad conclusion like 'men have better spatial reasoning' with a one-problem exercise done in one college classroom

then lead the discussion to where you want it to go. OP certainly didn't dwell on the reasons behind this disparity, he wonder why people refuted it. So the discussion went this way.

maybe you just fucking suck
STEM programs are literally throwing money at any woman who comes nearby

This 100%. Even if you aren't as good as a male who is also applying you will still get the edge.

danger and play is what women are and want and men want women, but only because women are the ultimate danger and play thing. This is nice, but you can reach a life beyond this.

once you understand that men are not meant to be as good hedonist as women, you first acknowledge the superiority of women at the hedonistic life (which is just called life by men and women) and you see the misery of hedonism, either the direct hedonism of the woman, or the nihilistic fantasy of the delayed hedonism of the man [the one that men advocate for, the one about engaging yourself into challenges after challenges, seeking merit, pursuing your passions, in one word still clinging to entertainment (typically to attract women sooner or later) to better turn away from their impotency at the hedonistic life..] created by men once they get beat by women.
Once you see the game as well as the noneffective masculine life, you lose faith in hedonism. At this point, you either see the solution or not {Nietzsche did not see it, or rather he did not claim explicitly that he saw it]: you strive to do the exact opposite of hedonism (either the masculine one or the feminine one): first you stop being nihilistic, in accepting what you are (it is crucial to be sincere about the starting point], meaning a worm, and in stopping to analyze the past to get a better future (= the strategy of men, which remains inside hedonism (even though they claim that it is not, and in practice is is clearly not), but even more nihilistic than the feminine hedonism, once they are beaten by women] and in stopping to take what you desire, feel and think seriously [=the hedonism of the woman, and the fueling of this hedonism by men].

Women are wrong for having faith in what they desire, in thinking that this is relevant to ones life
they are a bit wrong to let men spend their life trying to serve women

Men are wrong to try to play with women, which is just serving women
men are wrong, after being defeated, to be resentful towards women
men are wrong to think, after being defeated, that the solution is to be even more nihilistic than women

The lack of efficacy of the masculine life leads to a narcissism (contrary to men), but without egotism (contrary to women), a more equanimous and benevolent stance towards what is desired, felt and thought. At this point, you stop looking at hedonism of the body [=the feminine hedonism], turn towards hedonism of the soul [what religious call it], spirit, consciousness [what buddhists call it] [=the hedonism of the mild ascetic, the hedonism that most men fail to see and the one that women love to think that they embody (women love to think that they are not as egotistic as they are, that they embody a humanist stance)] and then you understand that even this is doomed to be disappointing, so you refuse it until you stop caring about this one too.

I heard about this one before, what is actually an extend of this difference?

And can it be avoided through training? For example, if I give my doughter special exercises on spacial awareness from a young age, will she get better at it?

True

She'll get better yes, but there are two factors which you'll need to consider (based on genetic dispositions).

1.) Her starting ability.

2.) Her maximum potential.

>Her maximum potential
Japanese cartoons told me that there is no such thing as limits if you try hard enough and don't give up

Man, it sure is too bad that spatial reasoning is the entire backbone of science and underlies all actions in the field and laboratory. If only it were less important; there would be no gender imbalances in science education or employment.

Why, oh why, are Calabi-Yau manifolds so complex and spatially intensive? If only the average woman could understand manifolds of K3 surfaces, we would certainly have no sexism in the industry at large.

Oh well, guess all these societal effects boil down up to very, very simple biology.

Why is this thread still up?

just make her play videogames

>Complaining

Dare I say, typical?

Seeing as "science" as we know it was predominantly developed by males in fields which are predominantly, and were exclusively, male, I feel like the obvious "YES" is unimportant.

Still, no one likes the truth that hurts the ear.

>math
>industry
rofl

This and only this.

>female infants start talking a year before boys do
[citation needed]
a YEAR earlier?

You skipped the part where childless women under 30 make 8% more than their male counterparts.

Oh god, is this just gonna be a "girls vs boys" thread, like it's a shitty 90s cartoon?
Only thing that matters is effort
Gender and talent are just excuses or cries for appraisal

???

Never mind boy vs girl...
Most infants start talking by 12-18 months.
Claiming a years' difference by any factor seems implausible.

Besides, boys are better at peeing standing up, so we rule!

Real life isn't an RPG.
There's no balance.

I'm not the same user that said the year thing, no idea where they got that
And yeah, that's petty dumb.
Anyway, there was some philosophy guy who said that there is no such thing as talent, person is ether does something and gets better at it or he doesn't, simple as that. Female and male bodied have their own disadvantages, but non of them are something that human mind and will can't handle.
This is what I always thought humans are all about, defeating our natural disadvantages and elevating beyond what we "supposed " to be and becoming what we want to be