"But if you look at complex cordate animals closer to humans, for instance other mammals, I think you'll find that aside from the biomechanics of reproduction the behavioral differences between the sexes are slight."
No.
"A female wolf is the same size as a male wolf and just as capable of hunting, for example. "
Not really.
And why are you arguing "just as capable" when the point is "does not prefer" NOT "cannot do the job"?
You do understand that NO ONE is making the claim that women are less caable, don't you?
And you do understand that the point ACTUALLY BEING MADE is that women may have different preferences than men which you haven't even addressed?
And you realize that your main points are all wrong?
The point is, biological differences lead to differences in PREFERENCE, NOT ABILITY.
Stop being offended and read what you're replying to, thanks, you have completely missed a nice discussion.
"What do these behavioral differences have to do with professional work in the field of computer science, or any science for that matter? What is it about behavior in male and female monkeys that effects the differences in their computer programs?"
I'm going to explain something slowly so you get it.
It DOES NOT HAVE TO BE IN ANY WAY ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR WORK PRODUCT.
It could be a preference for indoors vs outdoors. Or reading vs. talking. Or visual vs. auditory stimulus. Or group vs indivudual work.
"But I have yet to see any solid proof, outside of neuroscience and psychology junk studies, that any of the shit they talk has anything to do with people's ability to do a job"
That';s nice, what does that have to do with the process of selecting a major, which is the topic of both the article and THIS thread?
Or right, nothing.
See you might be correct that work prodict is the same, but the point is not that men do better work than women in a particular area. I don't know why you are wasting time arguing a point no one made.
The point, my so-fired-up-to-demonstrate-your-sensitive-to-women friend, is that WOMEN ARE NOT CHOOSING CS AS A MAJOR.
So ANY difference in cognition is important, ESPECIALLY if the differences appear early.
"Therefore, if you ask me why there is a lack of women in computer science at this point in time, I can with some confidence state that it is because of social and cultural reasons. Of course, I could be wrong."
You are.
Last, it's always funny to see someone get so offended by a line of discussion that they completely expose themselves as ignorant in their effort to display their "enlightened" thinking.
"So while there are definite biological differences between men and women, behavior such as men choosing engineering over teaching and vice versa is demonstrably *not* because of biological differences."
So behavior is not in any way rooted in biology?
That's stupid and wrong.
And it IS demonstrably because of bilogical differences.
See, I gave just as much support for my assertion as you did for yours, the difference being mine is not ridiculous and wrong.
"If so, I think you somewhat missed the point that the people he listed were actually authors of statistical studies dealing with MANY people. "
Filtered through the opinion of ONE person with an agenda. Would you like me to find a study that says blacks are less intelligent than whites? They're far more prevalent than studies that support OP's point, but you would summarily dismiss them.
Why?
You missed that part, I suspect because you don't understand what it means, or like the conclusion too much to realize your analysis of the post is crap and your opinion on the overall subject is wrong.
"Funny thing is, they don't get to fire you for no reason."
Funny thing is, you are wrong.
Actually, they can certainly fire you for NO reason.
"There are lots of reasons that they can't fire you"
Which are not "NO reason". Do you understand the difference? YOu don't appear to.
As you say, if they fire you for A reason that is wrong, like race, illness, or something else illegal, then yes, you have action. But you have to prove it.
So when you say, they "don't get to fire you for no reason" you are not only factually wrong, you're wrong in practice. They frequently do fire you for "no" reason, even when they have a reason, so there is no way for you to bring an action that you can win.
"It feels like the only reason half my co-workers talk to me is because I'm the only one with tits in the place... not because I'm smart, not because I can code with the best of them, not because I'm funny, or cheerful or anything else."
Or maybe you're just incredibly oversensitive and see "offenses" where none exist"
I don't normally do that, but his example proves my point better than my post did.
One academic, or even a handful, are inevitably going to claim what GP claims, because the claim that "men have different interests than women" is seen as sexist, but more importantly to a scientist, it's not novel enough to justify research money.
However, if you are trying to prove something that is both observationally and logically against the grain, especially something that "proves" mean are "no different" than women, you're going to get money from the sky because the desire to prove mean are EXACTLY equal to women is a powerful motivation in academia.
I trust GP and his "source" as much as I'd trust anyone in a similar situation, that is, not at all.
One reason people should "just accept" that "they don't think the same and have different interests" is that it is for the most part irrefutably true. For evidence, please see..."
REALITY.
It's nice you found an academic to cherrypick statistics to make a point, but it doesn't make your assertion true.
Meanwhile, ALL of us see obvious, easily identifiable differences in men and women.
In case you care, gender psychology is for the most part, a mine field of people who choose a position then try to justify it.
I asked for sources instead of your opinion, yo gave nothing.
Because you have nothing and know it.
"Bop is an excellent indicator of manufacturing capacity"
How fucking stupid are you.
BOP measures the imbalance between imports and exports. You're using a metric that doesn't even measure manufacturing yet you keep lying about it's applicability?
So moron, if the US manufactures 100 trillion of goods, sells 80 trillion in the US and exports 20 trillion, while importing another 60 trillion, then it has a negative trade balance.
BUT THE 80 TRILLION IN MANUFACTURING SOLD LOCALLY IS NOT PART OF THE BOP NUMBERS.
So, either you're so ignorant that third grade math baffles you, or you're so pathetic that you use irrelevant numbers to defend a point that was destryoed three posts ago.
I asked for numbers showing China had more manufacturing capacity, you gave nothing.
I asked for proof of your lie regarding Taiwan rating US debt "junk" and you gave nothing.
You have nothing. Every single time you post, you lie more while giving no evidence that anything you've said is more than the wishful thinking of a loser who is so jealous of Americans that he'll make an ass of himself publicly in a sad attempt to to drag us down to your level.
NUMBERS.
I stopped giving a fuck about your trolling two posts ago, I just want to keep reinforcing that you're a liar who'll say anything to avoid admitting you're wrong.
The balance of payment figures don't have ANYTHING TO DO with the manufacturing capability of the US, which was the point of contention.
I do believe that you use them for that purpose though, as you've demonstrated you're extremely ignorant of economic theory, and not particularly bright either.
Second, if you don't like my numbers, PROVIDE YOUR OWN TO PROVE YOUR POINT. If they're too old, provide newer ones that show you're not wrong.
Meanwhile, your defense is that in the 3 1/2 years the US went from #1 to "no manufacturing"?
Support the claim then, with links please, your word is worthless, and so are the balance of payment numbers.
Because, as tacokill has also demonstrated, you will move the goalposts and lie when proven wrong.
And as you have proven, when I say people like you lie then won't admit they're wrong, I'm usually speaking gospel.
That said, it's kind of sad watching you make a fool of yourself, if you had any credibility, you destroyed it with your pathetic attempts to defend your points in the face of irrefutable evidence.
You're a fucking idiot. The balnce doesn't represent US trade capability, especially when you consider the fact that we export to China BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER.
Then we use our manufacturing capabilty to make stuff that we can sell for MORE THAN THE STUFF WE OUTSOURCE TO CHINA.
You seem to be economically retarded.
"Taiwan does"
PROVE IT. You've already shown you'll lie, so prove it. Your word is worth fuck all.
Meanwhile, I posted irrefutable proof you're full of shit, which will come to nothing because you won't admit you were wrong.
Your kind never does, not even when you have undeniable proof in front of you like you do now.
First, the US HAS MORE MANUFACTURING CAPABILITY THAN CHINA.
so why make such a ridiculous factually inaccurate claim.
Second, which countries consider "US Treasuries" (which I'm assuming you are using in place of some form of currency) junk?
It's funnyy to me that people like you are so invested in your distorted world view that you'd openly lie to protect it, rather than actually educate yourself.
No you petulant douchebag, you provided him with A FUCKING WHITE PAPER, you disingenuous fuckwit.
It is incredibly funny that when arguing against years of established historical fact, the best your loser ass can come up with is a theoretical analysis, which is based entirely upon assumptions.
And he was right, your idiot ass does need the last word, deny it all you like you fucking faggot, YOUR POSTING HISTORY PROVES IT.
"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem."
"It's not an ad hominem, what I did is more properly it is referred to as poisoning the well"
You just can't stand being wrong can you?
Well, as I said, I will allow you the last word, it clearly is important to you that you have it.
I asked you to provide numbers to refute the facts you were presented with, and you did not. I did not expect you to, so we are through.
In parting, however,
"It's not an ad hominem"
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
You are wrong, what you did was the defintion of an ad hominem, you replied to the arguement by appealing to a belief (libertarianism) of the organization making the claim.
"Here it is important to note that the heritage foundation is extremely biased, and the direction of that bias."
No is isn't. Factual information was presented, you can attempt to refute said information with absolutely no regard for its origin, as the facts are there for you to use. If you can refute the facts, do so, but your opinion of their origin does nothign to devalue their usefulness.
This is in black and white and inarguable.
"You may want to read the Congresional Budget Office's 2005 report, "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates". It takes into account projected differences in growth rates caused by tax decreases, and it proves that the government would lose money by lowering taxes."
Irrelevant. In practice, cutting taxes has produced demonstrable increases in revenue.
Theoretical analysis is no substitute for practical reality, period. If there were no history demonstrating you were wrong, then prhaps it would matter, but since there is, it doesn't.
Now, you have clearly demonstrated that you are not able to admit you are wrong, no matter what you are presented with.
In light of that, I will allow you to have the last word. Rest assured, I won't be reading it.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's news because it's not every day that we get to be party to these discussions."
What, that MS was considering the comparison between Vista and OSX? That's not news.
"We're only finding out because of a law suit"
You're finding out something you already knew because of this lawsuit? What?
"As a linux/mac fanboy..."
You fap to things like this because you're petty.
The dishonesty you people have in contriving reasons to care about this crap is really enjoyable to read.
"Now explain to me how the ratio was 4 in 5, 10 years ago, and and is 0 to 19 today in a larger sample set?"
Statisitical variance.
"Something has changed."
You ASSUME something has changed.
"I have an actual work anecdote. "
Oh sorry didn't see that part, if I had I'd have known you weren't posting any evidence or intelligent points.
My bad.
"But if you look at complex cordate animals closer to humans, for instance other mammals, I think you'll find that aside from the biomechanics of reproduction the behavioral differences between the sexes are slight."
No.
"A female wolf is the same size as a male wolf and just as capable of hunting, for example. "
Not really.
And why are you arguing "just as capable" when the point is "does not prefer" NOT "cannot do the job"?
You do understand that NO ONE is making the claim that women are less caable, don't you?
And you do understand that the point ACTUALLY BEING MADE is that women may have different preferences than men which you haven't even addressed?
And you realize that your main points are all wrong?
The point is, biological differences lead to differences in PREFERENCE, NOT ABILITY.
Stop being offended and read what you're replying to, thanks, you have completely missed a nice discussion.
"What do these behavioral differences have to do with professional work in the field of computer science, or any science for that matter? What is it about behavior in male and female monkeys that effects the differences in their computer programs?"
I'm going to explain something slowly so you get it.
It DOES NOT HAVE TO BE IN ANY WAY ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR WORK PRODUCT.
It could be a preference for indoors vs outdoors.
Or reading vs. talking.
Or visual vs. auditory stimulus.
Or group vs indivudual work.
"But I have yet to see any solid proof, outside of neuroscience and psychology junk studies, that any of the shit they talk has anything to do with people's ability to do a job"
That';s nice, what does that have to do with the process of selecting a major, which is the topic of both the article and THIS thread?
Or right, nothing.
See you might be correct that work prodict is the same, but the point is not that men do better work than women in a particular area. I don't know why you are wasting time arguing a point no one made.
The point, my so-fired-up-to-demonstrate-your-sensitive-to-women friend, is that WOMEN ARE NOT CHOOSING CS AS A MAJOR.
So ANY difference in cognition is important, ESPECIALLY if the differences appear early.
"Therefore, if you ask me why there is a lack of women in computer science at this point in time, I can with some confidence state that it is because of social and cultural reasons.
Of course, I could be wrong."
You are.
Last, it's always funny to see someone get so offended by a line of discussion that they completely expose themselves as ignorant in their effort to display their "enlightened" thinking.
Like you did there.
"So while there are definite biological differences between men and women, behavior such as men choosing engineering over teaching and vice versa is demonstrably *not* because of biological differences."
So behavior is not in any way rooted in biology?
That's stupid and wrong.
And it IS demonstrably because of bilogical differences.
See, I gave just as much support for my assertion as you did for yours, the difference being mine is not ridiculous and wrong.
"As a woman who regularly reads science mags..."
You should know one person is not evidence of anything.
Or, the plural of anecdote is not data.
And therefore, your post is useless.
"If so, I think you somewhat missed the point that the people he listed were actually authors of statistical studies dealing with MANY people. "
Filtered through the opinion of ONE person with an agenda. Would you like me to find a study that says blacks are less intelligent than whites? They're far more prevalent than studies that support OP's point, but you would summarily dismiss them.
Why?
You missed that part, I suspect because you don't understand what it means, or like the conclusion too much to realize your analysis of the post is crap and your opinion on the overall subject is wrong.
"Funny thing is, they don't get to fire you for no reason."
Funny thing is, you are wrong.
Actually, they can certainly fire you for NO reason.
"There are lots of reasons that they can't fire you"
Which are not "NO reason". Do you understand the difference? YOu don't appear to.
As you say, if they fire you for A reason that is wrong, like race, illness, or something else illegal, then yes, you have action. But you have to prove it.
So when you say, they "don't get to fire you for no reason" you are not only factually wrong, you're wrong in practice. They frequently do fire you for "no" reason, even when they have a reason, so there is no way for you to bring an action that you can win.
"It feels like the only reason half my co-workers talk to me is because I'm the only one with tits in the place... not because I'm smart, not because I can code with the best of them, not because I'm funny, or cheerful or anything else."
Or maybe you're just incredibly oversensitive and see "offenses" where none exist"
And I take back my maybe.
I don't normally do that, but his example proves my point better than my post did.
One academic, or even a handful, are inevitably going to claim what GP claims, because the claim that "men have different interests than women" is seen as sexist, but more importantly to a scientist, it's not novel enough to justify research money.
However, if you are trying to prove something that is both observationally and logically against the grain, especially something that "proves" mean are "no different" than women, you're going to get money from the sky because the desire to prove mean are EXACTLY equal to women is a powerful motivation in academia.
I trust GP and his "source" as much as I'd trust anyone in a similar situation, that is, not at all.
Nicely done.
I asked for sources instead of your opinion, you STILL gave nothing.
I didn't read your post because you're a liar, and I don't care about your opinion
If you have links that demonstrate you are not a liar in total opposition to all the evidence presented, then do so.
But save the spiel, I won't read that one either.
One reason people should "just accept" that "they don't think the same and have different interests" is that it is for the most part irrefutably true. For evidence, please see..."
REALITY.
It's nice you found an academic to cherrypick statistics to make a point, but it doesn't make your assertion true.
Meanwhile, ALL of us see obvious, easily identifiable differences in men and women.
In case you care, gender psychology is for the most part, a mine field of people who choose a position then try to justify it.
Janet Hyde is no exception.
I asked for sources instead of your opinion, yo gave nothing.
Because you have nothing and know it.
"Bop is an excellent indicator of manufacturing capacity"
How fucking stupid are you.
BOP measures the imbalance between imports and exports. You're using a metric that doesn't even measure manufacturing yet you keep lying about it's applicability?
So moron, if the US manufactures 100 trillion of goods, sells 80 trillion in the US and exports 20 trillion, while importing another 60 trillion, then it has a negative trade balance.
BUT THE 80 TRILLION IN MANUFACTURING SOLD LOCALLY IS NOT PART OF THE BOP NUMBERS.
So, either you're so ignorant that third grade math baffles you, or you're so pathetic that you use irrelevant numbers to defend a point that was destryoed three posts ago.
I asked for numbers showing China had more manufacturing capacity, you gave nothing.
I asked for proof of your lie regarding Taiwan rating US debt "junk" and you gave nothing.
You have nothing. Every single time you post, you lie more while giving no evidence that anything you've said is more than the wishful thinking of a loser who is so jealous of Americans that he'll make an ass of himself publicly in a sad attempt to to drag us down to your level.
NUMBERS.
I stopped giving a fuck about your trolling two posts ago, I just want to keep reinforcing that you're a liar who'll say anything to avoid admitting you're wrong.
You're saying the police shouldn't be able to coerce a suspect into a position where he could be apprehended?
Why not?
He did it, and there was nothing egregious about this.
It seems like your objection is based on the same silly "hacker worship" that occurs here so often.
It certainly isn't based on logic or reason.
The balance of payment figures don't have ANYTHING TO DO with the manufacturing capability of the US, which was the point of contention.
I do believe that you use them for that purpose though, as you've demonstrated you're extremely ignorant of economic theory, and not particularly bright either.
Second, if you don't like my numbers, PROVIDE YOUR OWN TO PROVE YOUR POINT. If they're too old, provide newer ones that show you're not wrong.
Meanwhile, your defense is that in the 3 1/2 years the US went from #1 to "no manufacturing"?
Support the claim then, with links please, your word is worthless, and so are the balance of payment numbers.
Because, as tacokill has also demonstrated, you will move the goalposts and lie when proven wrong.
And as you have proven, when I say people like you lie then won't admit they're wrong, I'm usually speaking gospel.
That said, it's kind of sad watching you make a fool of yourself, if you had any credibility, you destroyed it with your pathetic attempts to defend your points in the face of irrefutable evidence.
Watching you take this guy apart was very entertaining, and educational too.
In fact, I'd buy you a beer if there were some way to work it out, it was that fun.
Anyway, he's cleary ignorant, but don't stop.
Please.
www.nationmaster.com/graph/ind_man_val_add_cur_us-manufacturing-value-added-current-us
Is China #1?
Well?
"compare China's balance of trade"
You're a fucking idiot. The balnce doesn't represent US trade capability, especially when you consider the fact that we export to China BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER.
Then we use our manufacturing capabilty to make stuff that we can sell for MORE THAN THE STUFF WE OUTSOURCE TO CHINA.
You seem to be economically retarded.
"Taiwan does"
PROVE IT. You've already shown you'll lie, so prove it. Your word is worth fuck all.
Meanwhile, I posted irrefutable proof you're full of shit, which will come to nothing because you won't admit you were wrong.
Your kind never does, not even when you have undeniable proof in front of you like you do now.
First, the US HAS MORE MANUFACTURING CAPABILITY THAN CHINA.
so why make such a ridiculous factually inaccurate claim.
Second, which countries consider "US Treasuries" (which I'm assuming you are using in place of some form of currency) junk?
It's funnyy to me that people like you are so invested in your distorted world view that you'd openly lie to protect it, rather than actually educate yourself.
No you petulant douchebag, you provided him with A FUCKING WHITE PAPER, you disingenuous fuckwit.
It is incredibly funny that when arguing against years of established historical fact, the best your loser ass can come up with is a theoretical analysis, which is based entirely upon assumptions.
And he was right, your idiot ass does need the last word, deny it all you like you fucking faggot, YOUR POSTING HISTORY PROVES IT.
I owned you bitch.
Because fighting back gives the Army an excuse to use violence, and justifies their continued presence.
The people like you who excuse violence are completely missing the point.
"Why should the post be modded up when it's incoherent?"
Because we're smarter than you and it's not incoherent to us.
Why should he suffer because you aren't very smart?
"However, presuming that the AC is the Moderator in question, he posted as AC because you can't post in a forum you've already Modded"
Yes, actually you can, you are mistaken. It simply undoes the moderation you've made.
THEM is the rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem."
"It's not an ad hominem, what I did is more properly it is referred to as poisoning the well"
You just can't stand being wrong can you?
Well, as I said, I will allow you the last word, it clearly is important to you that you have it.
I asked you to provide numbers to refute the facts you were presented with, and you did not. I did not expect you to, so we are through.
In parting, however,
"It's not an ad hominem"
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
You are wrong, what you did was the defintion of an ad hominem, you replied to the arguement by appealing to a belief (libertarianism) of the organization making the claim.
"Here it is important to note that the heritage foundation is extremely biased, and the direction of that bias."
No is isn't. Factual information was presented, you can attempt to refute said information with absolutely no regard for its origin, as the facts are there for you to use. If you can refute the facts, do so, but your opinion of their origin does nothign to devalue their usefulness.
This is in black and white and inarguable.
"You may want to read the Congresional Budget Office's 2005 report, "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates". It takes into account projected differences in growth rates caused by tax decreases, and it proves that the government would lose money by lowering taxes."
Irrelevant. In practice, cutting taxes has produced demonstrable increases in revenue.
Theoretical analysis is no substitute for practical reality, period. If there were no history demonstrating you were wrong, then prhaps it would matter, but since there is, it doesn't.
Now, you have clearly demonstrated that you are not able to admit you are wrong, no matter what you are presented with.
In light of that, I will allow you to have the last word. Rest assured, I won't be reading it.