EGI Notes

Monday, January 19, 2015

Men and Women in Science, 1/19/15

More System lies.

Therefore, we see that this “study” does not contain any hardcore psychometric data but merely is a “survey” of opinions and attitudes.  Is it any wonder that the “politically correct” conclusion is reached?  Also interesting is how the authors casually dismiss more likely hypotheses. For example, from their paper, emphasis added:
Is natural brilliance truly more important to success in some fields than others? The data presented here are silent on this question. However, even if a field’s beliefs about the importance of brilliance were to some extent true, they may still discourage participation among members of groups that are currently stereotyped as not having this sort of brilliance. As a result, fields that wished to increase their diversity may nonetheless need to adjust their achievement messages.
Are women and African Americans less likely to have the natural brilliance that some fields believe is required for top-level success? Although some have argued that this is so, our assessment of the literature is that the case has not been made that either group is less likely to possess innate intellectual talent (as opposed to facing stereotype threat, discrimination, and other such obstacles)…
Note: “our assessment of the literature…”  That’s an unbiased, objective analysis?  This “study” is laughable, and its inclusion in an ostensibly prestigious publication like Science is indicative of the sorry state of politicized “science” in what used to be the “West.” 
For such people, no counter-arguments would be unbiased.  For example, psychometric data (IQ, etc.) would be dismissed as “biased and inaccurate” – a charge unfortunately helped by the all-too-real pseudoscience and incompetence of certain well known researchers in that field (I do not mean that IQ studies are invalid, merely that the field has been tainted by politically-motivated and inept HBDers). Data that show that women/minorities are less successful at grant applications has also been considered as “proof of bias” rather than evidence of relative scientific incompetence (anecdotal data about affirmative action in grant awards notwithstanding).
Since all is “bias,” then my own “biased” personal anecdotal observations are equally relevant to this question. My observations have been that the large majority (not all, of course) of Negro STEMers are shockingly incompetent by White/Jewish/Asian standards, and the “accomplishments” of Negro STEMers is to a large extent a product of racial preferences in their favor.
As regards non-Negro female STEMers, it is more complex.  On average, I observe that they are less brilliant, creative, insightful, and productive than their male counterparts. While some of this is due to “raw intelligence,” I believe other factors are more important, and that these differences would still exist when men and women are matched via IQ. 
Both male and female STEMers are more “masculine” in thought than their sex-counterparts in the general population – by that I mean more analytical, less emotional, more toward the apolitical “autistic” scale, etc.  However, the relative male-female gap remains within STEM.  Thus, female STEMers are less analytical, less disciplined, more emotional, less focused, etc. than their male counterparts. They lack male “force” and creativity.  Female STEMers do particularly poor jobs in leadership positions – again based on personal anecdotal observation.  They lack gravitas, they don’t accept criticism or even suggestions well (particularly from men), they lack vision and any sort of forward-looking strategy, they are reactive rather than proactive.
Crude stereotypes unfortunately turn out to be all-too-true.  It is not unheard of to see high-ranking female STEMers burst into tears at meetings if they are even mildly questioned or if they “feel unappreciated.”  Some women piggyback their careers on that of their husbands.  Some women “charm” men into doing their work for them, or to give them resources/promotions that are undeserved.  That minority of female STEMers who are reasonably attractive – or are at least perceived to be so by beta/omega male STEMers – ruthlessly use their “sex appeal” (or what passes for it) to gain favors from male colleagues and higher-ups.  One can see more of their fair share of unbuttoned blouses as female STEMers attempt to influence men in their favor.  Women of course benefit from affirmative action gender preferences in their favor.  With all these advantages, they of course still whine about “discrimination” and excuse their incompetent performances by invoking “misogynistic bias” (while these women are openly androgynist).

It would seem that my ‘biased” views are as valid as any other.

Labels: , , ,