Only for some groups. And other people have shut up for fear of the reaction if they question things or have a different take on things. Some nice little fascist-type GroupThink going on there.
Some people do not have a host of peer-reviewed publications in reputed conferences and journals about this either. Just because some people do not understand Science and try to misuse "Science!" as a propaganda tool (see, e.g., creationists) does not mean actual, well verified scientific results are invalid. As much as you obviously would like them to be.
There are not. There are statistical differences in education that can usually be traced back to differences in wealth and that does influence IQ scores (not intelligence), but personality-wise you get cultural differences, but not race differences (takes some advanced statistics to separate them though).
Psychology and Sociology are not "bunk", that is just an obvious attempt by you to derail the conversation. They have, however, "soft" and "hard" results. The gender-based statistical differences in the "big five" characteristics are in the "hard" class, i.e. there really is no sane reason to assume they are wrong. They are also _statistical_ differences, i.e. do not tell you much about individuals. And ignoring them is a really bad idea, because it makes all actions in that direction far less effective and may even be counter-productive.
I do have a nasty suspicion by now though: All those claims that women are prevented from going into IT by "toxic work environments" and other invalid claims may well have the effect of preventing countless women from going into that field. That would be the ultimate irony: Those claiming to be for equal outcome actually causing a major part of the issue. Would not surprise me one bit. (Of course, "equal outcome" is bunk as well, as you have to assume all people go in in the same state. The actual thing to be for is "equal opportunity" and let people decide what they want, because people _are_ different.)
At the voltage-level you get, very roughly half of the noise is quantum and "true" random (which is just Physic-speech for "we have no idea how it works"). Amplify, digitize, pipe into a randomness-pool and you are done. Can be accomplished for $20 or so in parts.
I do not call them idiots because they do not know how it works. I call them idiots because they draw conclusions about something where they do not know how it works and feel pretty sure they are right. That is a Dunning-Kruger far left side "idiot". Not knowing how a PhD program works is not a valid reason to call anybody an "idiot" IMO, because it is basically impossible to understand it without going though it. And it works a bit differently in every place in addition.
Many PhD programs have strict entry requirements. It may also be a way to show he managed to get in. No idea whether that applies to this course though. In any case, it does not matter to the discussion at hand.
It may not be misleading, but it adds no value except confusion. That's why so many of the people desperate to support his position kept bringing up his PhD (like the original AC here) when he doesn't have one while claiming people who don't share that opinion haven't understood it properly.
That is because unfortunately many people supporting him are idiots as well. It would be an invalid argument from authority in any case. What gives his text validity is the reasoning and the references to existing research.
That said, I think the cries of "Misogynist!" are not supportable given the evidence. He did not say women were incapable. He said women make different choices statistically speaking and that happens to be a fact. He also said that women score differently statistically on the "big five" and that also happens to be a fact. The conclusions that women are somehow "inferior" are in the minds of the readers, they are not the text.
You misinterpret "PhD, Systems Biology". It usually means the process of obtaining one. To actually finish said process is referred to as "received a PhD in" or "was awarded a PhD in". I admit that for the uninitiated it can sound either way.
There is no irony here, just some more reading dysfunctionality. "PhD Systems Biology" means "in the process of obtaining a Systems Biology PhD". For completion of said process, it would have been "has been awarded a PhD..." or "received a PhD in...".
If you do not know the language, don't presume you understand it.
Since he demonstrably does not hold these views, he is in no trouble there. It is just people that cannot read that think he holds these views by grossly misreading what he actually said.
No. It is perfectly valid to list PhD studies without a PhD at the end. There is nothing misleading here. There may be a lot of idiots that do not know how a PhD process works, though.
It is not. "PhD studies" does not in any way imply having a PhD. There is an exam at the end, you know and you can fail that. Or never get there.
You statement is just one more attempt to discredit him on a non-factual basis. Dishonest and repulsive. Because the actual facts pretty much support what he said (which is not very close to what gets reported that he allegedly said).
Quite frankly, that probably means that WoSign was unwilling to issue faked certificates for the NSA or that they failed to hack it. Sure, it _will_ issue faked certificates for the Chinese Government, but the security arguments cited are nonsense. Various saboteurs (a strong contributor the US) have ensured that "official" certificates are worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
A peak is a peak until time progresses and it gets worse ;-)
Only for some groups. And other people have shut up for fear of the reaction if they question things or have a different take on things. Some nice little fascist-type GroupThink going on there.
Some people do not have a host of peer-reviewed publications in reputed conferences and journals about this either. Just because some people do not understand Science and try to misuse "Science!" as a propaganda tool (see, e.g., creationists) does not mean actual, well verified scientific results are invalid. As much as you obviously would like them to be.
There are not. There are statistical differences in education that can usually be traced back to differences in wealth and that does influence IQ scores (not intelligence), but personality-wise you get cultural differences, but not race differences (takes some advanced statistics to separate them though).
Indeed. It is like people try with all of their might to misunderstand what was written in the memo. And many succeed wildly.
Then this would be bunk as there is no scientific data to support that claim. For gender, there is and it is very solid.
Psychology and Sociology are not "bunk", that is just an obvious attempt by you to derail the conversation. They have, however, "soft" and "hard" results. The gender-based statistical differences in the "big five" characteristics are in the "hard" class, i.e. there really is no sane reason to assume they are wrong. They are also _statistical_ differences, i.e. do not tell you much about individuals. And ignoring them is a really bad idea, because it makes all actions in that direction far less effective and may even be counter-productive.
I do have a nasty suspicion by now though: All those claims that women are prevented from going into IT by "toxic work environments" and other invalid claims may well have the effect of preventing countless women from going into that field. That would be the ultimate irony: Those claiming to be for equal outcome actually causing a major part of the issue. Would not surprise me one bit. (Of course, "equal outcome" is bunk as well, as you have to assume all people go in in the same state. The actual thing to be for is "equal opportunity" and let people decide what they want, because people _are_ different.)
My take also. Reading things and understanding them seems to be a lot art these days.
At the voltage-level you get, very roughly half of the noise is quantum and "true" random (which is just Physic-speech for "we have no idea how it works"). Amplify, digitize, pipe into a randomness-pool and you are done. Can be accomplished for $20 or so in parts.
Or you can use a Zener Diode, and some RF amplifiers: https://www.maximintegrated.co...
Spectrum here goes well over 100MHz.
I do not call them idiots because they do not know how it works. I call them idiots because they draw conclusions about something where they do not know how it works and feel pretty sure they are right. That is a Dunning-Kruger far left side "idiot". Not knowing how a PhD program works is not a valid reason to call anybody an "idiot" IMO, because it is basically impossible to understand it without going though it. And it works a bit differently in every place in addition.
I apologize if that was unclear.
Many PhD programs have strict entry requirements. It may also be a way to show he managed to get in. No idea whether that applies to this course though. In any case, it does not matter to the discussion at hand.
It may not be misleading, but it adds no value except confusion. That's why so many of the people desperate to support his position kept bringing up his PhD (like the original AC here) when he doesn't have one while claiming people who don't share that opinion haven't understood it properly.
That is because unfortunately many people supporting him are idiots as well. It would be an invalid argument from authority in any case. What gives his text validity is the reasoning and the references to existing research.
That said, I think the cries of "Misogynist!" are not supportable given the evidence. He did not say women were incapable. He said women make different choices statistically speaking and that happens to be a fact. He also said that women score differently statistically on the "big five" and that also happens to be a fact. The conclusions that women are somehow "inferior" are in the minds of the readers, they are not the text.
You misinterpret "PhD, Systems Biology". It usually means the process of obtaining one. To actually finish said process is referred to as "received a PhD in" or "was awarded a PhD in". I admit that for the uninitiated it can sound either way.
The mudslingers are usually more covered in mud than their target. Can be very nicely seen in the case at hand.
Good analogy.
There is no irony here, just some more reading dysfunctionality. "PhD Systems Biology" means "in the process of obtaining a Systems Biology PhD". For completion of said process, it would have been "has been awarded a PhD ..." or "received a PhD in ...".
If you do not know the language, don't presume you understand it.
I think this is a pretty good analogy.
Your logic is broken. Not that you are special in that.
Claiming that does not make it true. It just makes you a liar.
Since he demonstrably does not hold these views, he is in no trouble there. It is just people that cannot read that think he holds these views by grossly misreading what he actually said.
No. It is perfectly valid to list PhD studies without a PhD at the end. There is nothing misleading here. There may be a lot of idiots that do not know how a PhD process works, though.
He does not claim to have a PhD. Please stay on the facts, however much you are frothing at the mouth.
It is not. "PhD studies" does not in any way imply having a PhD. There is an exam at the end, you know and you can fail that. Or never get there.
You statement is just one more attempt to discredit him on a non-factual basis. Dishonest and repulsive. Because the actual facts pretty much support what he said (which is not very close to what gets reported that he allegedly said).
Indeed. Takes people that know how to read though, and t hey seem to be in short supply in this mess.
Quite frankly, that probably means that WoSign was unwilling to issue faked certificates for the NSA or that they failed to hack it. Sure, it _will_ issue faked certificates for the Chinese Government, but the security arguments cited are nonsense. Various saboteurs (a strong contributor the US) have ensured that "official" certificates are worthless.