Comments by "SepherStar" (@SepherStar) on "VICE Life"
channel.
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Sage Thinker Do you know what a perfect example of the importance of social intelligence is? The Tesla vs. Edison affair. We can both agree that Tesla was a rare genius with abilities in engineering that far surpassed anyone that I know of. However, though he was also noted to be charming and a good showman, he was lacking in social intelligence, and got royally screwed by the more socially endowed Edison. Edison was able to use his social prowess to drive Tesla, despite his genius in engineering, into the ground, and Tesla faded into obscurity and died destitute because of it. Do you know what the electric company in my area used to be called? "Edison". Edison was socially intelligent enough to get the backers, and the money, and become a brand name, and sway the minds of people in his favor, despite the technological short comings of the ideas he marketed.
3
-
3
-
Mark Rudy That was the ideal 60 years ago but ideals and reality are often very different. I don't know that the women were actually happier. Maybe they were, or maybe they just said they were, because part of the ideal was that a woman was not just any home maker, but a happy home maker, and people were big on keeping up appearances. You are not any more wrong for wanting a chaste, pretty, young, submissive, pure, yet secular wife who worships you, any more than any woman would be wrong for wanting a rich, young, handsome husband who shares her values and only has eyes for her, and they live happily ever after like in a fairy tale. But we must remember that potential spouses are not objects we can customize, or that exist merely to please us. They are other human beings like ourselves. They have minds and desires, like ourselves, and imperfections like ourselves, and often hope we will be forgiving of those imperfections as we hope they are forgiving of ours. Anyway, may you find someone you are happy with and may she also be happy with you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sage Thinker Some people like Stephen King. Some people like Judy Blume. As far as I can tell, the board of the most prestigious literary prize in the west...the Pulitzer Prize, did not have a female member until the 1980's, and women are still a minority. I wouldn't expect subjects and genres that appeal to women to equally appeal to men so it would make sense that a male board or predominantly male board would be biased towards male authors who write about subjects and genres that would more appeal to men. Gender biased is a hot topic in the literary and entertainment industries, and there have been many papers citing it's existence. Anyway, you have still yet to answer any of my questions to you, and I will not discuss further subjects you bring up until you address them.
I will re-iterate one of them. How are beliefs in things such as Allah, jinn, and shaytan more logical than witchcraft (which the quran also discusses). How do you conclude that a woman who believes in witchcraft, by virtue of that, is more illogical and more superstitions than a man who believes in Allah, or jinn, or shaytan?
Also, show me how you come up with the numbers and percentages you did in your last post.
And why should a woman not study STEM, merely because she is a woman, if she has the aptitude for it?
2
-
Sage Thinker Maybe you can clarify. I don't really follow your reasoning.
For simplicity, If you had 100 coders, and 87 were men, and 13 were women, and 74% of men had their code accepted, that's 64 men who had their code accepted. If 78% of women had their code accepted, that's 10 women.
Now before we go any further, understand when you have two substantially different sample sizes of two groups you are comparing, that introduces a sample bias.
the larger group will almost always give a better representation of the general population from which it was sampled, than the smaller group.
Now here is the statement of yours I don't understand. "So if you do the math and it was reversed and women were 87% of coders less than 50% of women coders would be accepted"
If you said women were 87% of the coders, and we had 100 coders total, then there would be 87 female coders.
If the percentage of women who have their code accepted remains the same, that is...74%, then 64 women have their code accepted.
Of 87 women, 64 women is not less than 50%. It's 74%.
So I don't understand where you come up with "less than 50%". Please clarify.
2
-
2
-
Mark Rudy I don't know any 35 year old woman who considers herself infertile unless she actually is. We have a large number of older couples in my city starting families past 35. I'm in STEM and the reason women tend to become discontent with their careers as they get into their mid 30's is because they tire of lack of promotions and the culture. I can't speak for women in other fields. But I can tell you, my grandmother, who married when she was 19 and had 5 kids was so miserable that she wasn't smiling in any of the family photos when she was a housewife. If I had married and had a family when I was young, I know I would have been miserable. What if you, as a young man, were expected to marry and settle down in your early 20's before you even had a chance to explore the world and understand who you are a little better? I think most men would go insane.
There's no reason to think women are really any different, particularly because through most of human history, marriage and child bearing had often been somewhat of a forced affair for women and this took away any pressure to evolve an actual preference for marrying and baring children young. So do I regret not marrying young and having kids? Heck no, I would have been absolutely miserable! I would have been sitting there thinking of what I could have done with my life, and to be honest, I think it would have been unfair of me to pretend I was attracted to or loved a man who I didn't. Would I like to marry now? If I find someone I like enough to marry and who likes me enough to marry me, but I do prefer to be alone rather than with someone I don't actually have any interest in or who does not have any interest in me. I might be career oriented but if I marry a man I would like it to be someone I could be a good wife to. Would I want kids? I wouldn't mind them but I would not be devastated if I didn't have them.....I would just think it's a little unfortunate for the world.
As for those 35+ single career women who do lament that they can't find anyone, we both know that that's hogwash. These women, as always, just can't find someone they like and maybe they need to accept the fact that they are the female version of those lonely old guys who can't find someone because they are only receptive to dating women between 18-25.
2
-
2
-
Mark Rudy Well misogyny should be frowned upon, as should misandry, caste discrimination, racial prejudice, etc. Anyway, I'm glad that I don't live in the world you fantasize about where I would only be seen to exist to please a man and would not have much of a say in the matter. As I previously said, should I ever marry, of course I would strive to be a good wife to my husband, but the key concept here is that it would not be forced or coerced in anyway. I would be doing so because I truly loved him. If an older man has some hard requirement that a woman be under 30, that's fine with me, but it seems that a large number of men are not successful in this endeavor when they pass the 35 year mark, and are thus relegating themselves to a life of loneliness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Mark Rudy If a woman does not want a family, if a man does not want a family, they should be aware that they have the option of not having one.
I can talk a lot about women being pushed into STEM fields. Mainly, that it rarely happens. At least not in the sense of a girl or woman not having any interest in STEM, pursuing, qualifying for, and graduating from a STEM program. They are very rigorous and competitive and many people just do not have the love to tolerate them, or cognitive capacity for them. I think this "push", at best, can only serve to remind women who might be interested that a STEM field might be an option for them.
I'm skeptical that many older single career women had put off marriage and a family for their career, until it was too late. One of the best places to find a mate is a college campus, because you have a high density of young people of the same age group, the most of whom will be marriage ready by the time they graduate...if not with an undergraduate degree, then with a graduate degree. I think the truth of the matter is, that many of these women are the women for whom it just didn't happen.
Maybe they were not big on the social scene, or were social misfits. Maybe they had been in a relationship that fell apart. Maybe they just didn't attract many guys or the one guy who was attracted to them never got the nerve to approach her, or maybe he did, and she didn't reciprocate for whatever reason.
And then you graduate and get a job and your chances of meeting someone with mutual attraction and compatibility drop off significantly because the population pool you are in shrinks.
2
-
2
-
Sage Thinker I did read them, and I also downloaded the Excel spreadsheet and had some fun. I would like to make a correction to my previous post. I missed a column on account of small screen size when selecting columns to sum in Excel. The difference between the average male and female scores is about 1.2 points, which is just less than 6% of the average score. The same questions apply. Is that a statistically significant difference?
I also did notice that males scored on the ACT, 0.2 points higher on average. But the sections of this test are "Reading, English, Mathematics, and "Scientific Reasoning". Reading is a relatively gender neutral at this level. While more males are affected by dyslexia, those who are either don't get to the point of taking the ACT, or overcome it by the time they do take the ACT, or they might have a "reader", so we would expect males and females to have similar performance levels on this sub test. Males scored, on average about 0.4 points lower than females on reading. You can calculate the P value to determine if that is statistically significant. If we were to consider reading, for the sake of the ACT a gender neutral subject, that leaves English, Mathematics, and Scientific Reasoning, which is also known as Science Reasoning, and seems to be composed of mathematical word problems.
I don't object to the idea that males are inherently slightly better at math than females. They might very well be, or not, but we can assume they are if you wish. My claims are that 1. Mathematics alone is not a good measure of human cognition. 2. Females, while they may be outperformed by males, even if slightly, in tasks such as visual spatial reasoning, and perhaps mathematics, outperform males in other tasks, such as critical thinking (aka "English) and social reasoning. Thus, I would like to point out, the ACT does not have a "Social Reasoning" subsection. It has a gender neutral subsection...reading, a subsection which may be inherently favorable to males...mathematics, a subsection which may be inherently favorable to females...English, and then another subsection which may be inherently favorable to males...Scientific Reasoning. So the test may very well be biased against women in that manner.
On that note, I will repeat myself. Western females are just not as interested in STEM fields as western males. Even if they do go into STEM fields, many women leave to start families or because they become tired of being a minority in the workplace.
Women generally tend to have different interests and priorities than men. They may not be interested in chess in nearly the same numbers, instead preferring to chat with their friends about social situations, and this may be far more relevant to a woman than chess.
What you are doing is the equivalent of claiming fish are better than birds because fish are generally better at swimming, when birds generally need to swim more than fly, and so generally excel more at flying.
The article you linked to concerning the SATs actually refutes a lot of your claims. It's a 2 part article, and I suggest you read carefully through both the first and second part.
Anyway I have address your comments and you still have not addressed mine. Do you intend to at all?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sage Thinker There is a 0.2 point difference between the total average male score in mathematics and total average female score in mathematics. Males scored 0.2 points higher than females in mathematics. 0.2 points is 0.95% of the combined total average score of males and females. In other words, males did less than 1% better. A statistician would then ask "But is it significant?" To determine that, you would have to calculate the P value. Would you like to calculate that for us?
And if it turns out that your P value indicates there is a statistically significant difference in the performance of males and females in mathematics, would you like to justify how you conclude that females are inherently worse at mathematics, rather than just not interested in the subject?
Also, would you like to justify how you determine that one's performance in mathematics is a better indicator of all around intellectual superiority than say, critical thinking skills and communication skills, because that is what the subject of "English" is in the United States, and females scored, on average, 0.8 points higher than males, and 0.8 points is 3.96% than the combined average score of males and females.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sage Thinker Actually, most disorders are NOT caused by women having babies when they are older than 35 years of age. The odds of having baby with Down's Syndrome increases with the age of the mother, but there is evidence to show that the odds of other disorders and birth defects decrease with an increase in the age of the mother. Additionally, the combined prevalence of disorders that are not dependent on the age of the mother, such as recessive and dominant disorders, exceeds the prevalence of Down's Syndrome.
You are correct that testosterone seems to improve spatial reasoning skills, and this is a factor in the increased IQ scores of men. But that is consistent with my claim that modern IQ tests are less likely to identify gifted women than men, because they are still somewhat biased towards testing for attributes that are more relevant to men. For example, while a man may excel in spatial reasoning, a woman might excel in social reasoning, but while older IQ tests tested spatial reasoning, they did not test for any social abilities. More recent IQ tests have started to include subtests that test social abilities, but they still focus more heavily spatial reasoning.
That being said, I disagree that women put emotion above logic. Women simply tend to more often excel at a different type of logic than men. Men are more likely to excel at visual-spatial, and symbolic logic, while women are more likely to excel at social logic and logic pertaining to executive planning. This relates back to primitive roles among humans.
1
-
Red Walker Interesting article. I can tell you, there is a cultural factor to the low number of women in STEM in the west. While STEM fields seem to be low on the list of interests of western girls and women, they are near the top of the list of interests for girls and women in India, where they are considered highly reputable professions. In the west, while there are few women in STEM who are not also immigrants, those native born western women who are in STEM fields tend to be at the top of their class. The reason for this is thought to be the fact that girls are more adverse to failure, so boy who got A's in math in elementary school and middle school, and B's and C's in math in high school, is generally not deterred in the subject, but girls who do well in math in elementary school but who might get B's and C's in middle school and high school, are more likely to conclude they are not good at math, and decide not to go into STEM if they initially had an interest in it. What's left are the girls who did well in math and science all the way through. The ones who were always at the top of their class and managed to stay there.
1
-
Mark Rudy Youtube was acting up and there was an edit to my comment you might not have read before you replied, if you wish to go back and read it. You should not make assumptions about an older woman's past. Not all older single women ran around with bad boys. There are thousands of reasons an older woman could be single, for example, a woman who actually did have the values you want, who was not religious, may very likely be single because most men do not have those values and expect a woman to have premarital sex with them. So chaste, modest women who are not religious often have a hard time finding someone who will stick with them and marry them. Cancer, particularly breast cancer, is another thing that keeps women from relationships, and can do song long after they are cured as many of these women have scars that they are embarrassed by or that shallow men can't get over. Some of these women lost their fiance to tragic circumstances and some of them may just be socially shy and have never dated at all.
I certainly have never dated a "bad boy", and there really isn't a market among the secular men for women who don't do premarital sex. so women like that will very likely be single.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mark Rudy I think you misread what I wrote. I'll clarify. I think, due to China's sex disparity, more men rose up than women, but as you pointed out, an upper class man can marry a lower class woman in Chinese society because that is marrying down, and in accordance with Chinese custom, and in accordance with Chinese custom, women are still expected to marry up, so yes, if she is a doctor she would be expected to marry a more prestigious doctor or CEO or something like that. Anyway, I think we will eventually women in China start to marry down as the younger generations start to care less about what their parents and grandparents think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1