Baroness's visit

59 תגובות

1. B5,
   Regarding your response 27 - of course we agree on the need for equality between men and women, also in science. But precisely because of this, and for the reasons I detailed in my responses - awarding scholarships to female doctoral students (and not precisely because they have a relative professional advantage as scientists) - is wrong.

2. For those who have not heard of Emi Neter - she is a master figure that should not be missed.
   Here is what is written about her in Wikipedia:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether
   Pay attention to the last sentence in the introduction which describes a phenomenon more or less the opposite of what the doctoral student claimed about it:
   "In addition to her own publications, Noether was generous with her ideas and is credited with several lines of research published by other mathematicians, even in fields far removed from her main work, such as algebraic topology."

3. PhD student:
   My previous response was directed at you, of course.

4. Regarding the exceptions - I remind you of the words of the "scientist" - his words (and your words so far) were sweeping and left no room for exceptions either.
   Regarding Emi Neter - what you "know" is a lie.
   Her sentences about the connection between symmetry and conservation laws are not just a name for a thing - they are also a first-rate intellectual and philosophical breakthrough. Her father did none of this.
   Regarding the "scientist" - in my opinion this is definitely a fatal injury to credibility. He was afraid that I would reveal the fact that he knows nothing about the science in which he "specializes" and therefore stopped the conversation at this very point.
   Regarding the riddle: who are you to judge if you didn't even manage to solve it. From what do you conclude what knowledge it is based on? What pathetic arrogance!!!
   Nothing you say about the riddle is true.

5. PhD student
   The science promotion article??????
   I think you meant your personal promotion which is based on canceling others.
   So what will happen? become an exception???

6. Regarding the puzzle
   You are presenting a question here, the answer to which is based on narrow specific knowledge, and as such it can also be answered by a 12-year-old boy who has experienced a similar challenge.
   The advancement of science is not based on the ability to solve puzzles of this type, but relies on the ability to generalize.
   This reminds me of an acquaintance who was a genius in all that concerns crossword puzzles (logic) but without a scientific inclination.

   Try to think about things from a neutral, natural point of view, devoid of inferior and unrealistic feminist traces
   Good luck and hear from me in the future

7. The fact that progress is built on exceptions does not legitimize the whimsical goal of numerical equality in high degrees between men and women.
   As for Emi Neter, it is known that in total she plastered skeletons built by her mathematician father.
   Regarding the scientist, I do not find a connection between the decision and the failure to continue the discussion on his part and lack of credibility.

8. Clarification regarding the riddle:
   The bodies are made of what I call "topological material" that is - a material that can be stretched and contracted without limit but cannot be torn, punctured or glued.

9. By the way, dear doctoral student, in relation to the anomalies, let's see you face the following puzzle that is all about spatial perception - an area in which, on average, men are much better than women:
   http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgz8mg3w_338gpbx35fr
   Why am I suggesting you do this?
   Because this is a riddle I've been spreading for years. Not many manage to deal with you (although there are some), but the interesting thing is that one of the five that I know who solved it is a girl who worked under my command in a computer unit.
   Her name was (and I hope she still is) Limor Pix and she was one of the best professionals I have ever met.
   Let's see if you have better skills than hers.

10. PhD student:
    First of all - progress in the world is built on exceptions and if you read my words you must have seen that in my opinion these are exceptions and not the average.
    Besides - you probably don't know the work of the good scientists. Emi Neter - for example - was a brilliant theoretician.
    If I were you, I would at least go and check the examples I received before writing an answer that would indicate that I don't know what I'm talking about.
    And in relation to the "scientist" - I think there are several reasons, one of which is that he was afraid to write what his field of expertise is.

11. My field of specialization is neuroanatomy. How did you come to the conclusion that he lied by claiming to be a scientist (my opinion and his is a unanimous opinion among all my acquaintances, PhD students and scientists alike) and why do you insist on finding so much good in the work of an unusual handful of women who demonstrated no more than the technical ability of acting On the basis of an existing logical platform and relying on the husband's knowledge and conclusions...?

12. PhD student:
    So I repeat my initial opinion on your response.
    If you think that Marie Curie, Emmy Netter, Rosalind Franklin and others were not good scientists, then you have no connection with reality (and this refers only to the first words of the scientist and not to the continuation of things where it became clear beyond any doubt that even in his claim to be a scientist he lied).
    By the way - what is your field of specialization in your PhD?

13. The scientist put things in the best way. And I have the same opinion as his, even if there was a partial touch in the previous response. Women naturally do not like science, are not attracted to science and of course are not good at science.
    To come and perform abortions (not only at the expense of a private entity but also at the expense of the taxpayer) in order to encourage and encourage the deviations that wish to put on the male mask in the relevant context is an unimaginable thing whose product is definitely lowering the level and moving science backwards.

14. PhD student:
    I got angry at your words because the "scientist" wrote much more and you wrote that you accept his words overwhelmingly.
    If you had written only what you repeat in the last comments, I would not have responded at all, even though I would not really agree with the things, because I think that it is the right of people to use their money in any legal way they see fit, and giving scholarships to scientists certainly does not hinder science.

15. We are both of the same sane opinion. There is no room for distorted discrimination and bizarre contempt of science. The ambition is to move forward, not to take science in reverse.

16. You, in your overwhelming agreement with the scientist, proved everything that needed to be proven.

17. is nothing

18. Michael R
    What exactly are you trying to prove with your suspicion?

19. PhD student:
    I assume you are a PhD student just as he is a scientist.

20. Totally agree with the scientist's opinion. Distorted activity like the one described in the article should be outlawed.
    As it was said - a disgraceful contempt of science.

21. to me:
    seriously!
    I asked how to conclude fact B from fact A.
    This does not mean that fact A is a fact that is true for every set of numbers in every situation, but that it is a given fact about a particular set of numbers.
    It's simply a matter of reading comprehension and I'm pretty sure you understood the intent, but you thought of a collection of idle claims that would allow you to avoid the challenge.
    It's not a riddle I've heard the solution to and I'm passing it on.
    This is a riddle that I only heard the riddle and even as I heard it I had to prove that the sum is less than 2 and I found a solution to it that shows that the sum is less than 1.5
    I never ask anyone a question that I haven't solved myself (and I can ask a lot of riddles because I don't know anyone who solves riddles better than me. Regarding this riddle, for example - I don't know for sure about anyone who solved it besides me - also to Professor Lev Radziblovsky - the man who trains the Israeli national team for the Olympics In mathematics - I had to show the solution after thinking about the question for several months. Professor Noga Alon apparently solved the problem - at least that's what he told me even though we never discussed the solution).
    You are welcome, therefore, to try to involve everyone you know in a joint solution of the problem.
    Your attempt to dwarf without substantiating the value of other people's words is simply ridiculous.
    This also applies to your hasty conclusion as to why I assumed B5 was female.
    You simply allowed yourself (without justification) to conclude that I drew the conclusion without justification and everything else including your current evasion is built on this freedom you took for yourself.
    I gave you the puzzles simply to allow you to justify your attempt to make a presentation that your understanding of conducting experiments and drawing conclusions exceeds mine. Since it was a misrepresentation you had no choice but to evade an answer and dwarf the question.

    I didn't just say that "there are studies" but I pointed to a specific study that if you bothered to read it you would see that it mentions many other studies.
    A simple search on Google Scholar brings up dozens and hundreds of such studies.
    It doesn't bother you, of course, to argue that you shouldn't be content with making the claim that there are studies and trying to put the false belief in the reader's heart that this is what I did.

    Mathematics is a cornerstone of all sciences and there is no good scientist who is not endowed with a good mathematical understanding (even if he has not acquired a formal education in the subject).
    This is very clear because the only way a theory can predict the results of an experiment is the mathematical way.

    As you know, these types of experiments are not done on humans.
    That is - not consciously.
    In fact, with affirmative action for women, they actually do such an experiment whose victims are men, but basically they don't conduct experiments on humans.
    That's why you need to know how to deduce the maximum possible from the facts that are there anyway and this is the way of science in cases where it is forbidden to do experiments, so please - don't try to reinvent the way of science.
    Of course, it is better if it is possible to conduct experiments (and the experiment with affirmative preference for women is indeed an experiment that does not really succeed. The preference for women is also clear in the admission to the military computer units, to which men can only be admitted if they are fit and unfit, while women are admitted to them without any restrictions. This does not change the fact that the majority The majority of the elites in these units are men) but when it is not possible to conduct experiments, one should try to use the information obtained in other ways.

    As mentioned - the accumulated historical data - even if they do not point with certainty to a male advantage (because it is always possible to evade claims from different charges) clearly point to such an advantage with a high probability.
    When they join the cognitive tests it reaches the level of almost certainty.
    I'll finish with your sentence: if you can't understand all of this on your own (and you don't even bother to check in depth the studies I pointed out to you) then this whole debate is unnecessary in the first place.

    By the way, this was clear in advance because this whole trend of declaring equality at any cost is a religious trend that is driven by ideology and not information.

22. Your fact is not a fact at all.
    Maybe you meant "in a collection of N natural numbers less than a thousand" that "the least common multiple of any two of them is greater than a thousand", then that is simply the given. not a fact
    but leave I can't find the connection between all kinds of riddles that you heard, got excited about and are passing on, and everything else.
    You might as well look up a weird word in the dictionary and prove your wisdom by knowing it and I don't.
    In my childhood I knew someone who did this, and even then it didn't add anything to him.
    I am not familiar with B5, and therefore the assumption I thought was probably justified.
    In any case, the method of slandering others is bad, even if "she started", again brings me back to my childhood...
    Saying "there are studies" does not mean that there really are. I find it hard to believe that such a study would have disappeared from the public eye in light of the somewhat peppery information it is supposed to offer. And if so, you are welcome to reveal them and the method in which they were made. Mainly the way in which they isolated the gender component.
    On spatial vision and reading maps for example, there is research, quite old, quite well known, that men are good at it. It still does not affect the ability as scientists.
    In fact neither do mathematical abilities. There are quite a few scientists for whom mathematics is not their strong suit, which does not prevent them from being excellent scientists.
    The statement "I cannot change history and the data that is available is the data that should be satisfied in this respect." Is funny. When there is not enough data, no conclusions are reached. They simply say: "There is not enough data to know". This is the way of science. Leave shortcuts for trips.
    And from random statistics like winner lists, if you can't figure out on your own why it's not a reliable scientific giver, then this whole debate is redundant from the start.

23. And here is a challenge of building an experiment and drawing a conclusion that can be suitable even if you have an aversion to numbers:
    On one island there are three people: a complete liar, a complete truth teller and capricious.
    The absolute liar always lies in his answers to questions, the absolute truth teller always answers correctly and the capricious sometimes lies and sometimes tells the truth - however he feels like it at that moment.
    You meet all three but you don't know who is what.
    You can set up an experiment to help you determine this.
    The experiment must be composed of three yes/no questions.
    Each question can be addressed to a single person out of the trio. You are allowed to ask one person more than one question, but only three questions can be asked in total.
    Do you know how to define the experiment and draw the conclusions from it?

    And in the same matter - from the data above - can you deduce the answer to the question of whether it is possible to identify who is what in less than three questions?

24. By the way, for me, I must point out that "ignoring" that goes on for an entire paragraph and reaches more than a quarter of the response is a novelty for me.
    And about building an experiment and drawing conclusions - I'm funny.
    Do you want to have a contest about it?
    To warm up the barrel - show us how to conclude from the fact that in a collection of N natural numbers smaller than a thousand the least common multiple of any two of them is greater than a thousand the conclusion that the sum of their inverses (the inverse of a number is one of the parts of the number) is less than 1.5

25. to me:
    The slandering of others started much earlier.
    It started even before response 12 which is nothing but mudslinging from start to finish - as all B5 things throughout history are.
    By the way - it is from this history that I learned that B5 is a woman and not from the content of her response - (the unfounded accusation you leveled at us in the first place).
    That's why your words about mudslinging are nothing but mudslinging.

    I cannot change history and the available data is the data that should be satisfied in this respect.
    There is indeed a reason why the number of scientists is infinitely greater than the number of women scientists and the reason for this is not physical strength.

    It is true that in the distant past women were excluded from universities, but this has not been the case for many years.
    For a long time now, women have been studying at universities, and perhaps more women than men, but a tiny minority of them choose science subjects.

    I pointed to tests (and there are a lot of them) that show the **innate** advantage of men in everything related to spatial perception and mathematical thinking.
    You choose to ignore them.

    People need to slowly start to understand the difference between "politically correct" and correct!

26. Michael, the problem is not in defining a test, but in the inability to perform it (as I claimed by the way already somewhere above)
    Your problem (and I decided to ignore the sentence "There are people whose prejudices blind them and you (you?) are probably one of them." which shows a problem in your style (a kind of "throwing slime" at the opponent to weaken his position - known and malicious)).
    is that you probably cannot understand how to build an experiment, what defines facts and the whole section of drawing conclusions.
    It is a fact that men are more physical than women. A man and a woman both train from a young age in some sport, the coaches are excellent, the conditions are good, when we take a lot of such couples, in the end the men's achievements far surpass those of the women.
    If we took 8000 such athletes and compared the achievements of 20 female athletes, it would not prove anything.

    When the amount of scientists infinitely exceeds the amount of female scientists, we will probably observe such ratios in all the tables. When the glass ceiling exists (how many deans of faculties or universities do you know in Israel compared to how many men - and you really don't have to be a great scientist to be one, the great ones stay away from it), and the starting conditions are worse (this was in my previous response), this indicates that all your data They are gibberish from which you can infer nothing about the direction you are trying.
    Unfortunately, my terminology in everything related to the sociological sciences and those who are supposed to investigate it is a bit flawed, so I won't give it to you in overly professional terms, but in an attempt to prove something like this you have to neutralize all the other influential factors, and show that gender is the cause of your tables, and that there is no connection caused A thousand and one other reasons have already been given here.
    By the way, despite my name, I make it "you".

27. B5:
    And another addition.
    Of course your prediction is correct because you have already proven that nothing will change your mind.
    You proved this both by ignoring the existing evidence for my claim and by your refusal to define another test for this claim (a refusal that stems either from the fact that you cannot think of any other test or from the fact that it is clear to you that this test will also prove the correctness of my words).
    I will not change my opinion following this debate for the simple reason that apart from arguments about a person's body you say nothing about it.

28. B5:
    I must reiterate.
    My responses are not venomous and ranting.
    You say this only because you have no answer to the many objective claims they contain.

29. B5:

    As expected and usual - your response is venomous and angry and does not answer any of the claims I made against your words.

30. Dear Michael,

    Despite your venomous and vehement responses - it is clear to any reasonable person (as you like to express yourself) - that you do not have even a shred of support from a legitimate study done on the matter that you can quote, otherwise you would have brought it a long time ago.

    All you have are your personal opinions and conjectures, that's perfectly fine as long as you don't try to present them as scientific "fact", (knowing your scientist persona, this is something you seem to be guilty of often).

    And since we are dealing with opinions, I don't think there is any point in continuing the debate because each of us will continue to hold his opinion.

31. B5:
    You do testify that you read and write well, but your words testify against this claim.
    I explained what in my view constitutes a very strong confirmation (there are no proofs in science - you should internalize that as well).
    In light of the existence of everything that seems to me necessary to confirm the matter (as mentioned - both the astronomical difference between men's achievements in science and the innate qualities that explain it - how many times do I have to explain the matter to you?!) I come to the conclusion that it is almost inevitable.
    You, on the other hand, are digging into a position that you have not provided a single argument in favor of!
    You just don't understand what science is.
    In science there are theories and experiments are set up to test their validity.
    Regarding the validity of the theory of male superiority in science, experiments can be defined that test the achievements of men in science against the achievements of women over the years.
    The experiments were successful and confirmed the theory.
    It is possible to set up an experiment that tests whether traits that are essential to science (such as mathematical thinking) are stronger in men by birth.
    The experiment was successful and it even confirmed the theory.
    You do not accept the conclusion and since I feel (and you repeatedly prove) that you have no intention of accepting the conclusion and whatever the facts presented to you will be - I suggested that you propose your own test for the theory.
    My theory about this was that because of your prejudices you would not offer such a test and you helped me confirm this theory.
    Note that there is a counter theory that claims that men and women were endowed with the same scientific ability.
    Experiments can also be set up to test this theory.
    In fact these are the exact same experiments.
    These experiments disprove this alternative theory, but you - not only without proof but despite the refutation - continue to cling to it.

32. Eddie,

    I think we largely agree. I am admittedly more radical in the correction I want to make.

    In any case, the reality is (unfortunately...) that there is no sweeping discrimination against women in the fields of science and other fields, I think that the affirmative discrimination against women as it is presented in this article, is a drop in the ocean and can be considered an experiment whose success can be tested by integrating women into fields of science that are more difficult for them to reach.

33. Correction: instead of 'therefore' - כל איפר'.

34. B5,

    You present an ideology of sweeping pursuit of equal opportunities. This ideology - in principle - is not inappropriate, but in my opinion, in any issue where ideology is involved, the question is therefore to draw the line, since ideology is just ideology, and full exploitation of the ideological meaning always leads to distorted results.
    In my opinion, the limit is at that point where the damage resulting from the application of the ideology - in this case of equality by way of discrimination - equals or exceeds the benefit.
    If we properly consider the two issues we talked about, it seems to me that the line has been crossed:
    In the case of granting scholarships on the basis of sexual affiliation - the damage caused to science - exists with a high probability, in light of all the data that actually exists (what advantage men have in the field), which we agree on. The damage to the downtrodden male scientists - sure. On the other hand, the benefit to science - again in light of the existing data that we all agree on - is not clear and in any case likely does not exceed the damage and does not even compare to it. The only real benefit is the personal benefit of the scientists, by virtue of being women. And this is not a proper measure.
    In the case of combining female fighters in operational field units - the same as above, approximately.
    As for myself, I would prefer to conduct a policy of equal opportunities that begins with basic and broader socioeconomic layers, as well as in areas that are justified on their face, and invest the effort there, assuming that the action will naturally bear fruit in other areas as well, without arbitrary intervention. The field of equality in employment as a whole as well as the field of wages as a whole appear to be such fields. When things are sorted out in these areas, I think there will be no social conditioning to the issue, which will prevent women from using their full skills and abilities in the field of science and in the military, and this will happen without resorting to any kind of affirmative action discrimination, and without unnecessary damage and distortions being created during the process.

35. Michael,

    I read and write very well and even understand despite my innate/cognitive differences from men.

    Why are you asking me what I consider proof? You are the one who established the "fact".
    What would satisfy you yourself as proof of establishing such a fact? Wouldn't you require a citation from a well-known study in the field proving that women are less good scientists than men?
    Please follow the standards you require others to follow.

36. B5:
    You simply do not read what is written to you and I am tired of repeating my words.
    I wrote that I would like you to define what you would consider proof of the average superiority of men in science.
    Although the facts I mentioned are proof in the eyes of any reasonable person, I saw that you would try to avoid them, and that's why I asked you this question.
    Unsurprisingly - you didn't answer at all.

37. Eddie,

    "And this has something to do with differences in basic/cognitive/innate abilities" - even if I agree with this sentence, I do not agree with its use to justify the gap that exists "in the level of achievements and their frequency - in a very specific field of the exact sciences" as you wrote. I still think that these are marginal factors and there are other factors here related to education from a young age as well as the lack of openness of the male control centers to accept women into their ranks.

    Because men are discriminated against on an ongoing basis - one example is common in Israel - managers in companies will bring members from the army to various positions in the company because they have a common history, etc., etc. - or the claim that is quietly whispered that women will immediately stop and want to start a family and then their productivity decreases - a claim that I have personally heard Quite a few... and other vegetables of this type. Also a claim of the type asserted here - that women simply do not have the cognitive/innate ability to deal with men on various issues - falls in my opinion exactly in the same category. The fact that there are women who are successful in a male world even in the field of exact sciences only strengthens in my opinion the fact that women can definitely compete successfully in these fields as well. The only reason why there are not enough female achievements in these fields is because there is no real equality of opportunity.
    After all, not all the men who reach these fields are equally successful, but since many arrive, the screening still leaves many behind, as far as the women are concerned, few have the courage to deal with such a masculine environment, so the starting figure is against them.
    In conclusion - yes, I am in favor of affirmative action for women - in every field. At least until we see a substantial change in numbers in these and other male-dominated fields.

    Regarding the integration of women into field combat units - my personal opinion - I would not go there (and I was not a clerk in the military services). And this is only with the benefit of that woman in mind, not necessarily with the benefit of the system in mind, which in my opinion should find a way to extract benefits from everyone who is willing to invest the time and effort.
    Systems (especially military) have many excuses for not integrating women, something that takes revenge on women even later in their careers. If we don't start changing the picture now, and maybe if there is a visionary commander who will educate for sharing - and smooth out the wrinkles - it will become a natural thing (if the religious don't take over the power centers in the army of course because then we will definitely go back...).

    Michael - I'm still waiting for support for the "fact" that women are less good scientists. And no, this list is not proven - how far will you go back? Newton? Or maybe to Galileo? If there is a scientific study that supports the "fact" bring it. If not, please stop defining your personal opinion as fact.

38. B5:
    I agree with you that there are unjustified disparities between men and women in wages, etc. It turns out that the social process has not reached the stage where these gaps have been bridged to a satisfactory extent, which is a shame.

    I think we all (perhaps except for a "scientist") agree that each of the species has its strengths in terms of relative cognitive/genetic abilities, and there is no superiority or inferiority for any of them at the overall level.

    I also think that no one disputes the obvious and obvious facts that there is a distinct difference in the level of achievements, and in their prevalence - in the very particular field of the exact sciences, between the two sexes, and this has to do with differences in basic/cognitive/innate abilities (KA will choose the definition accepted by him) .

    It seems that from the beginning or in retrospect - this is not what the debate is about - but about a much narrower and focused issue - is it justified to grant scholarships to female doctoral students in the field of exact sciences - because of their gender, while discriminating against male scientists.

    I ask you: what is your opinion on this issue per se?

    Another issue that came up for discussion, by the way, was the issue of integrating female soldiers into operational combat units, as combatants, as opposed to the overall issue of integrating female soldiers into the army in general in appropriate roles.
    It seems according to all the studies, that there is a distinct difference between the average abilities in the field of field combat between the two sexes. Some argue that the integration of soldiers in the 'crowded' conditions of combat service creates various tensions on the background of the sexual difference, including some who claim - also sexual tensions, which are not beneficial to the cohesion, harmony and professional functioning of a field combatant unit. It is likely that these claims are not devoid of truth.

    I ask you: what is your opinion on this specific issue - should female fighters be integrated into field combat units, from a systemic point of view?

39. B5:
    There's a joke about amnesia that people with amnesia have a lot of fun because they can enjoy the same joke over and over again.
    I wonder what joke can be told about those who really have fun because they are amazed by everything.
    I do not decide to fight at any cost. It's you who does it.
    I do not find anything in response 16 that should have led you to the conclusion that in my opinion women should not be integrated into work or any other setting according to their skills and even adjust the workplace so that these skills are better utilized. did you find Of course not - instead of finding you content yourself with inventing.
    By the way - despite your going against society as a whole on this issue - this kind of thing actually happens in many places and it is not at all surprising that in a very large part of the workplaces the role of human resources management is assigned to women.

    Studies that support the fact that men are better scientists - are you serious? Do I really have to start embarrassing you and present you with a list of the scientific achievements of men versus those of women?
    So it's true - this list is only one side of the matter and you can rightly make the wrong claim that it's a matter of social indoctrination, but even for that I've already given you an answer and pointed out the innate differences that cause this ability (such as mathematical ability and spatial perception). You yourself said that you accept their existence, so what to do with the fact that these abilities play a central role in science?

    Tell me please what would you accept as "proof" or "confirmation" for the claim that men are on average better scientists?

    I repeat what I always say:
    1. Scientific ability is not everything in life. There are other equally important things and in some of them women excel more than men.
    2. In general - the value of a person is not a function of the abilities that this or that person decided to measure in him.
    3. In any situation where there is no time pressure that requires a decision to be made based on averages (which is necessarily superficial), a person's suitability for the position must be examined according to his personal abilities and not according to the average abilities of the group to which he is assigned.

40. Michael,

    It's amazing how you decide to fight at any cost. Read your comment 16 again and understand where I found the clue.

    Another amazing thing - you go against the words of the "scientist" and then write a sentence like this:
    "The fact that on average women are less good scientists does not in any way harm Mary Curie's value as a scientist."

    Can you cite a study that supports the "fact" that women are less good scientists?

41. B5:
    What is this baseless accusation?
    What clue did you find in my words to the opinions you put in my mouth?
    Nothing, of course.
    More than that - I specifically pointed out areas in which women outperform men on average and it is clear that taking advantage of these advantages in job placement (anywhere, including the army) is important.
    In general - the army is a very special framework in which decisions have to be made based on considerations that sometimes refer to the average and not to the individual.
    This is a characteristic of busy situations and therefore it also happens in a security check where the person's vision has a justified effect.
    In other settings, these averages are only of anecdotal importance because the decisions are not made under pressure and therefore it is possible to refer to the individual.
    For example - the fact that on average women are less good scientists does not in any way harm Mary Curie's value as a scientist.
    This is why I objected so strongly to what the lying "scientist" said.

42. Michael,

    It seems that it is much easier to concentrate on the genetic and cognitive differences (and I agree that there are some) instead of seeing the big picture. These differences do not explain the huge gap between men and women in wages, in the business world, academia and other settings. There is a long and continuous discrimination - if not always directed towards women - that cannot be explained by marginal factors such as genetics and cognition or by social explanations such as the fact that women only want to concentrate on the family and other nonsense.

    The army is an excellent example - women bring with them many and clear advantages, but in the army they are only measured according to parameters dictated by men, there is no openness to utilize their potential by introducing other work methods that will allow their contribution to be exhausted.

    There are differences between women and men, the contribution of both sexes should not be measured with exactly the same parameters because of these differences. This does not mean that women should not be admitted to certain frameworks just because they are women, but - that the frameworks should try to find a way to utilize these special skills. Unfortunately, the centers of control in the mostly male world have not yet learned to accept this.

43. Interestingly, similar differences between males and females were also found in mice.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/v5j2rg1qk0786036/

44. B5 and me:
    There are people whose prejudices blind them and you (you?) are probably one of them.
    There are differences between men and women.
    I assume you are not dismissing this claim.
    There are also clear cognitive differences (and not only in the way of choosing a partner). Those who dismiss this claim are ignoring reality.
    What are the cognitive differences?
    These are tested through research and statistical tests and not through Wishful Thinking.
    Such studies show time and time again that men have an advantage in spatial perception and mathematical skills and women have an advantage in vocabulary size and the ability to find (in the visual sense only) a needle in a haystack.

    These differences were also demonstrated between normal women and women who developed as women due to a "technical glitch" when their external structure was female but their DNA was male.
    They were also demonstrated in toddlers whose social conditioning could not yet have an effect.

    It is clear to me, however, that there are those who will not let the facts affect them.

    And in relation to the IDF - this is real damage.
    Since there is a difference between men and women, women demand the right to integrate into male roles but not the obligation to do so. They don't demand the duty because it's not practical because most women really aren't suitable for these roles, but the fact that they demand the right makes it necessary to build (for example) a special shower for one female soldier.
    They also don't require full-time mandatory service and lovingly accept the nonsense (taken so that they don't "get lost") of being included in the officers' course right after their training - just to allow them to become officers even though they haven't learned anything about the army yet.

45. Roy and Lee,
    Roy, as you correctly observed, I did not claim that the male brain has an overall or absolute advantage over the female brain, or vice versa. XNUMX of which are relative strengths. Accordingly, I rejected the idea of ​​'inferiority' of the female brain compared to the male brain.
    From the beginning I also did not attach special importance to the weight/volume gap between the brains. On the other hand, the size of an area in the brain is important, since we know that skills, and even gender characteristics are determined by a lot (for example, there are two areas in the brain related to sexual identity. The size of the areas affects sexual identity - when the area is relatively small and approaches the appropriate size in the female brain - there is A tendency in the man to identify himself abnormally for his gender, and he can develop homosexual sexual preferences). The size of the areas has an innate genetic basis, although there may be a certain versatility of the size throughout life, also according to the circumstances of function and activation. In any case, the innate basis cannot be denied, even in the name of various 'enlightened' ideals, which, in my opinion, may be completely regressive as in the case of the Baroness's wrongful discrimination.
    What was most important to me was the relative strengths of relevant areas in the male brain for mathematical and scientific skills, a fact that seems quite distinct in everyday experience, from a very young age - that's all.
    There is no male chauvinism here, and in my eyes female chauvinism as well (and with the baroness it definitely exists) is wrong - and that's what I argued.

46. Roy, I will quote
    "In this case, of such an obvious innate advantage on the male side." Eddie also participated in the "nonsense written here about women".
    "I agree with everything you said." And Michael too. That's why B5 was right (and no, I won't assume it's a girl because of the knowledge)
    In general reference to this discussion.

    Regarding Eddie's very "in-depth" and "serious" discussion,
    Argument 2 is completely unfounded - "Western countries, which are the leaders in science, the equality of opportunities in education as well as in the field of division of family tasks - is a fact that has existed for several decades." This is complete bullshit, the movement demanding equality has existed for decades. This does not mean anything.
    Beyond that, it's not really relevant, even if you came there was equal opportunity in certain institutions, the education (boys for tractors, girls for Barbie, and at a later stage boys - math is really important, girls - dance and literature is great) causes a real, but really impossible to define change Followed by "born advantage", or equality.

    The problem with this is that it is not sure that it can really be checked. Such a psychological and sociological experiment that is supposed to educate girls from the age of zero in the same way as boys and vice versa, is probably not applicable.
    And again I will emphasize, the conclusion to "innate advantage" cannot really be obtained from Eddy's far-fetched arguments.

    And in relation to argument 4. The "fason of science" exists in two directions. One towards the citizens of the country, where it may not be anything, but discrimination is not a factor relevant to anything.
    The second towards the world of global science, where he actually does who knows what. (I don't have an argument against affirmative action here. I don't know).

    Besides, I really don't think that 4 PhD scholarships is "affirmative action" or discrimination at all. scholarship. that's it. An excellent scholarship indeed, but a scholarship.

47. How many exclamation marks in one comment...

    If you read carefully, you will see that the nonsense written here about women came only from the direction of the troll who calls himself a 'scientist', and that even Eddy (who does not represent the opinion of the site or the opinion of the scientific community), emphasized that the male brain has certain advantages, and the female brain has other advantages . as you said

    So please, direct your comments specifically to the 'scientist' or Eddie, and not to everyone who has commented in the current thread. And as with any comment on the Internet, it is recommended to remember the golden rule: ten deep breaths before starting to write.

    Have a nice weekend,

    Roy.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science

48. Hello friend!
    I jumped to measure the water temperature and it is suspiciously warm!

    Say are you crazy? Are women inferior to men?? And you still dare to use pseudo-scientific arguments like brain mass?? Women have more white matter which is responsible for seeing the full picture, far vision and multitasking. This does not mean that women are inferior to men, it means that their abilities are different!
    Haven't you heard that the performance of companies managed by women is immeasurably better than that of men over time?? Haven't you heard of glass ceilings?? Yes, also in scientific institutions as in any other company/institution! Scientific institutions are not meritocratic and free from foreign considerations! They have egos and interests like anywhere else! Wherever there is a male majority, men maintain their centers of power and make it difficult for women to fit in! Even very talented women find it difficult to penetrate these power centers and deal with a disdainful male gang. Equality of opportunity (not to mention equal pay) is completely unrealistic today as long as men who think like you are sitting in the power centers!

    Get out of the box or get off the ivory tower already, your prejudices are shocking.

49. Michael,
    I also agree with you on a general level.
    What is done in the boards of government companies because of the affirmative action law in appointing women to boards is often a farce. It is harmful to the affairs of these corporations, and it spoils the interest of women in general, and it also spoils the women who really deserve it.
    The same with regard to affirmative preference of members of minorities in appointments.
    However, I think there is a place, from a matter-of-fact point of view, for affirmative preference in education for the children of the periphery.

50. Eddie:
    I agree with all your words.
    I answered the "scientist" for his words and did not describe the broad picture so as not to obscure the message.
    With regard to "corrective preference" - it is better without - but the "spoiler preference" that arises from perceptions like that of the "scientist" must be prevented in some way

51. I would like to correct in response 8, section 1, second line - Tzal 'Einstein Prize' and not 'Eintain Prize'.

52. scientist,
    Rule in your spirit and avoid wild generalizations and condemnations and personal dirt. It's a shame to answer (female) chauvinism with (male) chauvinism, and it's a shame to humiliate people.

    As a matter of fact, I want to say things that are not politically correct, but are the truth as I know it.

    1. Factually, there is a distinct average advantage in the field of exact science, at all levels, between men and women. The higher the level, the greater the male advantage. And lists of Nobel Prize winners, Einstein Prize, Fields Prize, etc. will prove it. I assume that this is the reality (albeit to a varying degree of validity) also among students, dean emeritus and rector emeritus. This may be a fact that is inconvenient for some of us, but a fact is also a fact.
    2. The distinct difference cannot be explained entirely by social explanations alone, bearing in mind that in Western countries, which are the leaders in science, equality of opportunities in education as well as in the division of family responsibilities - has been a fact for several decades. It seems that the male advantage has genetic foundations (advantage in the mass of the male brain at a rate of 6% (from below) on average - is not the main point of the matter, although it has some importance. The main importance is that areas of the brain that have a connection to mathematical abilities, spatial perception, etc. - areas 'scientific' - more developed in the man, on average) and the results in psychotechnical tests, various professional tests and suitability tests such as a pilot course, etc. - certainly indicate this. This does not mean that the female brain is inferior to the male - the female brain has advantages over the male in other areas.
    3. It is not possible to 'balance' the benefit of science and the value of equality between the sexes through 'affirmative action' in favor of women. The value of equality should be substantial - 'equality between equals for the same matter' and not technical and artificial. In this case, of such a clear innate advantage on the male side, 'affirmative action' is nonsense and a moral distortion, which is also harmful to the good of society as a whole (including women) - because the good of science is the good of all, and 'affirmative action' of women in science - inevitably comes to the fore in a disadvantageous and wrongful discrimination against male forces which are superior on average - with the result being damage to science.) A scientist should be promoted and supported according to his value and level, not according to his gender, and the value of equality should be applied in a matter-of-fact and substantial manner.
    4. In a country where in any case the style of science is not who knows what - a course of affirmative action of this kind is a mistake and causes unnecessary damage, since it may damage the prestige of science as a profession. It is a well-known sociological fact that any profession in which the gender balance has been violated in favor of female representation - its prestige has decreased (so in the profession of teaching, the judiciary, law, psychology, etc.). It is forbidden to artificially encourage the violation of the gender ratio in science.

    By the way, I see an analogy between the declared tendency for combined ('equal') service of women and men in certain fighting units in the IDF - and our issue. All the studies prove the average inferiority of female combatants compared to male combatants, but the IDF still maintains this matter in a puzzling way, for purely ideological reasons. The 'affirmative action' in both areas is a mistake. In both cases it is an ideology, an ideology that has a harmful potential, and its application in the aforementioned areas is wrong.

53. "scientist"
    The fact that you are a talker - that's clear, but I think you're also a liar.
    Come and tell us what your field of scientific specialization is.
    On that occasion, tell us what you know about Mary Currie. About Emmy Netter and Rosalind Franklin, for example.

54. It's a shame you didn't inform me that trolls are being fed here this week. I would come in costume and order a dozen donuts.

55. scientist,

    Could you substantiate your statement about women and science a bit, so that we don't think that you say it for personal reasons and not at all scientific?

56. "Michael R. (formerly Michael)"
    Your inferior worldview will not change history.
    Distorted discrimination can only change the formal values ​​= formal titles.
    Science will be led by men (not your kind, needless to say)
    And any academic entity that takes care to enrich the teaching/researcher faculty with women will pave the way down for itself.

57. "scientist"
    If you wanted to justify the nickname you chose for yourself, you would at least adhere to the most important standard of those who should seek the truth, and that is to avoid lies.
    Your response - if anyone gets confused and takes you seriously - insults both the women and the scientists

58. The aforementioned feminist fart can only try to disparage science
    Triple scholarships will not help either
    Women and science do not go together

59. How much is tuition per year for PhD students?

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.