Would we solve more scientific mysteries if STEM wasn't such a sausage fest...

Would we solve more scientific mysteries if STEM wasn't such a sausage fest? Women could bring a unique perspective men lack.

A more important question is would you bait more replies by making race realism threads or gender threads?

fpbp

Why is this even a question?
Race realism threads are like hydroponic (you) farms.

Which field of science is superior thread

,
Yeah I guess nowadays that's true. Back in the S P E C T R U M days of sci it was a bit different from what I recall.

I think the more smart people we have regardless of gender the more discoveries we should make. Smart people need to be encouraged to fuck and have children.

>Smart people need to be encouraged to fuck and have children.
That's not going to happen. The more intelligent you are the more ability you have to implement long term thinking and consider consequences. Smart people generally know that having kids would have a negative impact on their lifestyle and career and deliberately choose to delay while dumb people think "gon get muh dick wet mufugga, gon get dat pussy" with zero regard to what happens if they create a child. Thus the poor and dumb will always outbreed the rich and smart.

That's why they need to be encouraged.

The best bait threads I've seen are the ones just barely on this side of example and the various recurring Fermi paradox threads.
It seems like climate change threads are pretty good bets but there are others that get culled quickly.
The requirement for bait threads is only that the initial poster isn't serious and that people disagree enough or troll enough to keep the thread rolling. The difference between that and a good discussion is the intent of the original poster and the quality of the discourse on a topic.

A troll could conceivably start a good thread and conversely someone with good intentions could see their thread devolve into a shitty ironic trolling contest.
Really activates my almonds to ask which one are we in right now?

>writes something random on a board and then walks away without explaining it
The worst kind of person

How is raising your kid with an upbringing like Tao a negative impact on your lifestyle unless your a degenerate?

>having kids would have a negative impact on their lifestyle and career
That's a problem with society. Offer more protections to parents and you can help alleviate that. That's a weakness of free market capitalism, valuing immediate availability over long-term societal impacts.

If women went into STEM en masse, would they still be considered women?

What's the original comic? I'm assuming she wrote something brilliant and fixed the equation.

No please.
Women drive wages down with the sheer amount of influx into a field. We're fine now, thanks.

So men and women think differently? Could this possibly be the source of mean being overrepresented in some fields, and women in others?

A more important question is why Veeky Forums bend over and take it?

We will never know, user, we will never know.

I suspect an influx from that other place. Now prepare for reflux.

Having a child means a lot of things. There's the extra mouth to feed, time and attention to give, college fund, the omnipresent worry that something bad will happen to them... Children are expensive, and not just in the way of money.
Moneyed / intelligent people consider these factors and decide accordingly. It has nothing to do with a free market or lack of government protections - it's that most smart people, after careful consideration, decide that they don't want to get woken up at 3 am (again) because their baby is crying (again).

No. Reason: Women are stupid as shit.

Better question, why did the ginger in the pick use her finger to erase the formula instead of the eraser ? She just got spit on the whiteboard.

I'd wager that the #1 concern by far is job/income security.

>Would we solve more scientific mysteries if STEM wasn't such a sausage fest? Women could bring a unique perspective men lack.
No, because men and women don't actually do science any differently. That is entirely a fantasy of people trying to score cheap political points.

I did a PhD and then a few years of post doc. Money is tight and you have to move every 2 or 3 years. You need 2 - 4 post doc positions before having a realistic chance of tenure. In practice you have negative job security: you know you have to trek around.

And what woman will marry someone in this position? Or even go into research? Hint: hardly any.

This. "Rich" people have kids because a lot of the issues listed with having children are negated by the fact that they have a huge amount of resources.