Until you define what selection pressure is, your arguments are worthless. It's clear that you don't really understand the concept when you assert it acts differently between sexes. Citing Wikipedia outs you as one if those dudes who took bio 101, congrats!

Since ets is a for profit company, and their analysis is not peer reviewed, their data are nearly worthless.

I've done analyses for the 6 universities I've worked at, and had this discussion with many researchers representing literally dozens of universities. No one has found sat scores to be particularly useful in predicting academic performance. What do I know though, it's just my specific area of expertise.

You're a weirdo, man. Selection pressure occurs on traits which influence the number of offspring (and so on down the line) existing as a function of time.

Are you really so daft we need to do this? Most people here now see you as the fraud as you are after this discussion.

I quoted Wikiepdia because you lack even a basic understanding of the field. I'm embarrassed for you, frankly.
Sure, I'll grant you that. But humanities peer review is worthless also given the powerful political pressures in the field, particularly around race and sex. What do we have left?

Even most of the negative literature admits some positive correlation.

Expertise doesn't mean much. I can find polar opposite opinions among experts in contentious issues.

Like I said, it's all a coincidence that Asians outperform on all standardized tests of quantitative reasoning across continents and cultures, outperform in degrees that have heavy quantitative reasoning components, and outperform in jobs that rely on quantitative reasoning. All pure coincidence.

Oh and I'll grant you that standardized testing probably has a fairly low correlation to success in university. University degrees are designed such that someone diligent of average intelligence can score highly, they're not particularly good tests of aptitude. In the humanities, university degrees are a measure of your ability to accept and regurgitate the prevailing political prejudices of your professors, and the groupthink of the sector.

When it comes to things like working at Google, however, this all falls away. You need a minimum fairly high aptitude to understand and implement the algorithms and concepts required, let alone break ground in new areas. People who score lowly on standardized tests of quantitative reasoning are very unlikely to have these qualities. If the reasons why aren't obvious, I'll ask David Sklansky to explain.

That there are less females in STEM is factually true in the USA.

That in the USA, females are less inclined to STEM than males is probably true, but whether or not this is because of a genetic difference or a social difference I dont think we can say for sure.

Toothsayer can absolutely say for sure. You can do that when you know literally everything there is to know.

These are relevant links...

https://twitter.com/mbeisen/status/896174061058834432


This one's just funny. Good read for the laymen itt.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-rise-of-t...ebag-757550990

SAT data for men and women on quantitative reasoning, over a period in which society and male and female workplace participation and job expectations changed a great deal:

Attack the arguments, not the person. This is not the first grade. Thanks.

Almost all Asians do not have the aptitude to come up with new computer algorithms.

Men tend to be hostile crime prone predators compared to women. Based on their population crime statistics it is amazing that anyone hires a male to do anything.

Arrest data from the FBI:

Males constituted 98.9% of those arrested for forcible rape[48]
Males constituted 87.9% of those arrested for robbery[48]
Males constituted 85.0% of those arrested for burglary[48]
Males constituted 83.0% of those arrested for arson.[48]
Males constituted 81.7% of those arrested for vandalism.[48]
Males constituted 81.5% of those arrested for motor-vehicle theft.[48]
Males constituted 79.7% of those arrested for offenses against family and children.[48]
Males constituted 77.8% of those arrested for aggravated assault[48]
Males constituted 58.7% of those arrested for fraud.[48]
Males constituted 57.3% of those arrested for larceny-theft.[48]

This is all stereotype threat (if you tell males they're innately more violent, they become more violent) and sexist institutional bias against men. Males are also 25x more likely to be shot by police than females, and 15x more likely to be stopped by police, which proves institutional sexism in policing, resulting in far more arrests and hence convictions of males.

So zoltan gets to make personal attacks, strong ones, including many with zero content, but you delete my response, which included content? I guess the comment about academics hit a little close to home.

Had you simply deleted his ridiculous, zero content personal attacks to start with, nothing would have progressed. I guess you professors stick together in your narrow mindedness.

Why is a content filled response - to a pure personal attack in which he implies I'm a douchebag - deleted, while the original is left standing?

All offending posts have been deleted. [Edit by Mod]


If you want to delete personal attacks, do, but be consistent. I didn't start this.

"I didn't start this" is a first grade response.

I did not delete any posts; that was done by Mike Haven in response to a report this morning. I was not online.

The other posts (that Mike Haven probably did not see - they were not reported) have been deleted, so all recent personal attacks have been "cleaned up".

What is the role of testosterone in the tendency to engage in aggressive behaviours? Is it negligible in your opinion?

So far, we have as argument: Google presses a lever intending to influence variable x, and not much happens. Therefore all levers don't work (let alone buttons and knobs) because x is just, you know, how things are.

This, for those of you who don't study primate behavior, is called the Jane Goodall effect for her pioneering work in telling groups of primates that males tend towards more aggression.

Not just primates. I saw some documentary on National Geographic where they talked about how male elephants go into their own version of heat where their testosterone spikes and all they want to do is fight and ****.

I was not aware of Jane Goodall working with the elephants to make the males believe they ought be more aggressive.

So you are arguing that there is a fundamental biological difference between men and women, that very well could explain in part the gap in STEM fields, in addition to explaining why females constitute 97% of early childcare. Glad you came around.

There could be. I've never said otherwise.

I'm fairly sure that most men, with sufficient training, could handle the work.

Asian woman are more likely to be attracted to Asian men who are pursuing mathematically related fields than white or black woman are attracted to the mathematically inclined men of their race. Once black woman fully realize the merits to the Asian attitude, black males will on average be better coders than white males. Any slight biological talent difference between the races pales in comparison to my theory.

Is there any good study out there about how different races (or whatever groups you want to consider) perform in amplitude tests compared with the standard average of their group when raised by adoption at birth or within first year by other races? (and then of course this compared with how on avg adopted kids under similar conditions among all "races" do)

I maintain the whole issue of observed gaps in tests is not as much biological due to small but possibly real effects of large scale geographical separation for thousands of years (only minor if any there and obscured by recent migrations and mixing) and that the true difference is possibly in standard deviations difference not the avg and on cultural raising and educational discipline methods differences among groups (plus broader resulting cultural environment). There are for sure some superior ways to raise kids vs others. I am not suggesting here any superior broad sense culture theory here just that some cultural elements in some groups and locations may be detrimental to progress. The gaps observed for many years need to be studied better and considered in cases that all members have been raised under very similar conditions.

How about any study where the parents are both scientists in all groups ie consider the avg of each group under this condition for all. Does the gap disappear or decline seriously there? How about studies to compare the scores of single child families with multiple children families averages?

And of course this just to understand the gap issues better. When selecting a person for any job or other responsibilities the only thing that should matter is personal skills and performance regardless of group origin.

I apologize.

I don't agree with deleting anything, thread probably doesn't make much sense now with bits missing.
I was being ironic, using the (crazy) arguments of the left against them. Of course males are far more aggressive and criminal. Of course they're somewhat evolved that way, and of course hormones play a part.Just like it si for women. Although part of criminality has to do with physical power - if women were more physically powerful on average, with testosterone levels the same, I think the world would be not that different.
Interesting theory. And this is why I'm so vehemently against the "racism" or "sexism" explanation for underperformance. Ultimately it's one or both of two things:

- Internal culture and culture-based desires
- Genetic or hormonal differences

The "racism" of the containing culture is a minor effect it exists at all. Asians certainly disprove it.

Yes.

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study involved tracking a couple of hundred black children raised by (privileged, intelligent) white families.



I agree, but you're not allowed to study these things honestly. The mere mention of the possibility biological hypothesis is racist and sexist and gets people fired. Academia is hard left, and has an allergy to evidence that doesn't fit hard left political prejudices.

Yes, and I contend that his is exactly what we see in the job world. Asians outperforming proves it.

So if men are more aggresive we could infer, for example, that they'd be more likely to want to shoot each other in the face?/join the army? The army is such a special place. Keeping barbarians out of civilised society.