>“We’ve crossed that threshold where women feel supported and comfortable,” said Eric Roberts, a Stanford professor emeritus of computer science who first obtained the numbers. “What we need to do is not turn anyone away because they feel unsupported, and a vibrant core community with a critical mass is essential.”
can't wait to grab some asses in the office
for sure. its 100x easier to fuck someone you work with.
>Who is this semen demon?
That's practically exactly what she is.
>Sasha grey is a freak
That's what made her great.
it was obviously a light-hearted joke you autist. he's not saying that it will definitely be exactly 15% after the first semester but yeah from my experience then the class will probably have proportionally more female dropouts than male dropouts. the fourth year students might not have any females left or just a few of them.
The rates won't drop though. They'll lower the standards so the women will pass just like they lowered the standards for women and niggers in U.S. public schools. Or, women will get free, exemplary tutoring while everyone else is left in the cold. After all, it's important to bring more women into the CS workplace to push the wages down as fast as possible.
it is clearly satire of trying to force things onto people
grownups are a lost cause, sparking interest at an early age through school while fighting harmful advertising and consumerist mindsets that media is enforcing is probably where effort should be put
>wanting any girl who is actually smart
>wanting the type of girl who is a geek or a nerd
>not preferring girly, dumb, feminine girls with no idea about anything but how to make their hair all pretty
>not preferring girly, dumb, feminine girls with no idea about anything but how to make their hair all pretty
These are too high maintenance, and most of these are borderline narcissistic sociopaths.
>clueless autist's dumb fantasy
it's much better to have a girl who's actually a competent human being while still being extremely attractive physically.
>zero bullshit drama
>no serious misunderstandings
>has her own interests
>doesn't need to suck attention from you constantly
>doesn't waste money on stupid consumerist crap
>can think for herself
>and most of these are borderline narcissistic sociopaths.
I dunno, maybe we have a different kind of girl in mind. I'm not really talking about the bitchy mean girls hollywood sterotype. I'm talking about sweet middle class white girls that are naturally feminine and girly end embrace it. Ones that have feminine and girly interests. They like kids and small animals. They realise they're not academic and don't really mind. They like looking pretty and have grown good at doing things like making their hair look good over time.
>>can't wait to grab some asses in the office
>implying you'll be employed
future is going to be incompetent women and Indians in IT. You heard it here first. White men are fucked yet again.
>m talking about sweet middle class white girls that are naturally feminine and girly end embrace it. Ones that have feminine and girly interests.
>>not preferring girly, dumb, feminine girls with no idea about anything but how to make their hair all pretty
These are the one's I'm talking about too. They tend to appear unempathic at times due to low intelligence and thus low ability to put themselves in situations that aren't straight forward.
Finding a girl who is somehow extremely attractive while also a being able to talk about Gentoo with you isn't going to happen (and you shouldn't even want it to happen).
Better to have a girl who is not a 6.5/10 but has a lovely, sweet, refreshing feminine personality and can do herself up when she wants to.
>Finding a girl who is somehow extremely attractive while also a being able to talk about Gentoo with you isn't going to happen (and you shouldn't even want it to happen).
That's an interesting theory. I'm struggling to see how that would work though because it's not my experience at all. Fuck, those sorts of girls tend to cry at world vision commercials, certainly not what I'd call lacking in empathy.
Maybe you're right though that they can often be unable to apply their empathy to novel situations. Is that what you're saying? Does that really affect you if you're dating one?
>Finding a girl who is somehow extremely attractive while also a being able to talk about Gentoo with you isn't going to happen
this, they are already married because people like us apparently deserve to be shit on.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I guarantee you you'll end up frustrated with her though. Don't try and make women men. Remember, you have plenty of male friends to talk about Gentoo with. Girls should be girly.
She's pretty for her age, but your average checkout chick is prettier (if only because they're much younger). Plus the dumb cunt ran/is running Yahoo even deeper into the ground than it was before she took over.
Of course, they are not lacking in empathy. But they struggle with any situation that isn't novel. Like, they will see how starving kids and animals in pain are sad, but they will not understand stuff like stress/depression over not accomplishing your work assignments.
That's so much bullshit. Your obviously a Virgin.
That's an interesting point and I think a valid one. I don't think I'd mind too much but I can see how some people wouldn't mesh with that sort of personality.
I still think it's as close as you can get to ideal for a girl though -- at least for me. Nobody is perfect. If you get a girl who can sense that you're stressed out and highly empthize with your complex emotions you've got a unicorn. I think it's an unrealistic expectation.
>Remember, you have plenty of male friends to talk about Gentoo with. Girls should be girly.
Fucking this. If I'm at work talking about math and shit all day, I don't wanna come home to a girl that expects me to talk about it even more. Anyone who wants this is an autist.
this. the main reason they support the immigrant invasion in yurop isn't that they want to actually help anyone or make the world a better place, it's because they want more cock. instead of supporting UNHCR they want to spend enormous amounts of tax payer money and ruin their native countries just so they can have more niggers and sandniggers to have sex with.
i'm not even into redheads and i would consider marrying this one. you can be both smart and feminine unlike what some of you neckbeards seem to think.
>not even remotely close to a redhead
>"I don't have a thing for redhead but I'd marry this one"
you have such a deep love of redheads that you project your favorite girls' hair colour upon anyone you remotely like.
She's pretty and sort of my type in terms of looks but hearing her talk about nerd shit turns me off hugely. Just makes me think she's an arrogant overly self important bitch. She comes off as masculine.
She'd be much better if she was talking about hair care products in that video instead of math.
Women who are smart and attractive (or even just attractive) have too many options to waste time with socially incompetent NEETs. Think about it, if you were a woman, what kind of guy would you want? One like you?
wow you have no clue about reality you fucking neckbeard. that's what real redheads look like, not whores that dyed their hair bright red. from the comments:
>Both gingernuts... both 3 pint girls... yet both exceedingly sexy...
>someone with red or 'ginger' hair
You could get a girl who's a 6.5/10 and is able to talk about Gentoo with you.
Not sure if you're 12 or just clueless, but a relationship is about sharing your time with someone you care doing things you both like. Having to spend your time with a girl who doesn't share your interests gets incredibly exhausting real quick.
>Women who are smart and attractive (or even just attractive) have too many options
I don't think a woman's options change depending on how intelligent she is for the most part. If she's pretty she'll have plenty of options.
I'm just saying that I think intelligence in women is overrated and, for the most part actually a pretty bad thing. And that personality is actually underrated. A sweet girly and feminine 6.5/10 is probably a better bet in the long run than an intelligent "driven" feminist 8.5/10.
>You could get a girl who's a 6.5/10 and is able to talk about Gentoo with you.
Yeah, I could...but why would I want such a thing? As a previous anon re-iterated, I don't really want to talk about Gentoo with any girl, particularly my girlfriend. You probably won't understand until you've actually hung out with a truly vibrant, feminine, girly young girl. It's just a totally different experience to anything else out there.
the "sweet girly and feminine 6.5/10" is the one that's more likely to be a feminist and less intelligent. fucking neckbeard autists with your twisted misconceptions of the world around you
Why are you getting so mixed up and continually and purposefully misrepresenting me?
Yes, she's more likely to be less intelligent. I think that's a good thing. I like girls who are a little bit dumb.
No, she's not more likely to be a feminist. Any girl who embraces her femininity and enjoys being girly is not a feminist of any type familiar to me. If they claim to be one despite holding all the aforementioned personality traits -- fine with me.
I'm pretty sure such girl wouldn't want to discuss math and shit at the same levels .
Which one do you prefer?
>Work has been hard pretty lately, we need to decrypt 50MB of data in less than 20 seconds using an embedded device and the optimization phase has been pretty tough so far
>omg ur such a nerd XD let's watch soap operas :)))) (then you have sex)
>That sounds interesting, are you using some existing library or are you using your own hand-rolled implementation? The latter sounds like a challenge. You look tired, let's drink something (then you have sex)
>bringing your work home with you
>turning to your girlfriend/wife for tech support
>work has been pretty tough lately, I've been dealing with a lot of tough problems.
>now I get to go home to my pretty, bubbly, happy clueless girlfriend and just unwind a bit.
>now I get to go home to my smart nerd GF who keeps bugging me about computer shit that I just want to leave behind for the day
I'm sorry it makes you uncomfortable to be around people who are smarter than you. You should find a nice, comfortable, unchallenging environment and just stagnate happily there until your forgettable death
I'm seriously fucking SICK of women who are too dumb to have proper interests like sports or machines and not plastering their face with multiple layers of makeup or parroting celebrity gossip.
It's not physically impossible for a woman to be girly, cute and feminine while having an interesting personality, then why is it so hard to find one?
To the bimbo enablers in this thread: fuck you, it's because of you and your low standards that women are boring as fuck.
she isn't going to bug you just because she's smart you fucking autist. actually since she's smart she'll better understand how to help you (like she cooked food for you and after that she'll give you massage or someshit)´. instead with a stupid chick she'll have been fucking chad all day and was too lazy to cook for you and now she demands that you watch sex and the city with her.
I like being around people smarter than me. I just don't like dating smart women. Not sure why that's a difficult thing to comprehend.
I value traits other than intelligence in women. I think too much intelligence is unambiguously a net negative in women, at least when you're dating them.
You can have all the smart girls. Go nuts.
> instead with a stupid chick she'll have been fucking chad all day
See this is where the fact you're an actual cuck comes out. Enough of this shit.
The smart girl gets home from her important job all stressed out. The dumb girl gets home from her part time job as beauty therapist less stressed out.
The sweet, feminine dumb girl sits on the couch with you and tells you about that cute dog she saw today and the fact that she really likes her new dress. She looks pretty while doing it and you relax and unwind together at the end of the day.
The smart girl sits on the couch with you and starts trying to dump all her pent up bullshit from the day onto you about how she had some annoying client and the fact that she's a stressed out annoying cunt. Then she finishes the day by reading her book alone.
>my smart nerd GF who keeps bugging me about computer shit
First of all, if you feel like "computer shit" gets tiring, you might want to back to Reddit where the casuals like to hang out.
Now, why the fuck do you think a smart girl is going to "bug" you? Any sensible living being, be it nerdy woman, nerdy man, dog, cat or pansexual dragonkin will want to listen to your day at work and then do something else to let your mind rest.
A nerdy woman should be able to provide some useful feedback on your daily stories and know exactly how to deal with exhaustion from doing such things. A dumb woman is very likely to be a narcissistic piece of shit that wants all your attention and energy redirected to her.
I think you should value yourself as a human being and get what you really deserve.
Yeah, but you wouldn't want a physically strong woman, and if you're both the brawn and the brains, there's nothing left to complement is there? The best solution is to have a smart girlfriend that works in a slightly different domain, but if the domain is related, it becomes easier to relate as well as making cooperation possible.
>mfw finally getting cute kouhais
I had this in my engineering program. The admission average for women was 20 points lower for women (73 vs 93) because of quotas. We had about 1/3 females in our program and only 3 women graduated in a graduating class of 87. They dropped like flies after the first semester. The faculty even gave them easier year projects and special TAs too.
I almost feel sorry for them; they wasted so much money after being accepted into a program they had no right to be in.
>implying a software engineer has brawn
There are other things to complement. It's common for software engineers to have poor social skills, and it's common for dumb women to have great social skills for instance.
Look English Rasheed.
She'd date a software engineer because a lot of them make plenty of money, and being a software engineer doesn't preclude looking good or taking care of your body.
>The dumb girl gets home from her part time job as beauty therapist less stressed out
Seems like you've never been with a dumb girl.
>SO WE HAD THIS AWFUL CUSTOMER AND HE WAS LIKE "OH YOU'RE BAD AT THIS" TO ME BUT I WAS LIKE NO? FUCK YOU YOU ENTITLED PIECE OF SHIT THIS IS WHO I AM AND I DON- ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME?
>sure honey, i also had a hard time at wor-
>HAHA HE ACTUALLY THOUGHT I WOULD HIVE HIM A REFUND BUT I TOLD HIM TO FUCK RIGHT OFF BECAUSE WHO THE HELL THEY THINK THEY ARE?
>is that so...
>HEY ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME?
Then date a girl who is into math, physics, engineering or something similar. You're right, you're not supposed to date a clone of you, but that doesn't mean you should date a braindead niggerette either.
Get a Korean code monkey and make her into a plastic bimbo
Why would her personality matter for a fuck and dump?
If you find a relatively pretty girl who also has an great personality (like, she's feminine and embraces it, she's girly, she's sweet and she's caring) then you should LTR that shit stat. Maybe even wife in the longer term.
>being a software engineer doesn't preclude looking good or taking care of your body.
ever seen a software engineer?
>a lot of them make plenty of money
and they're a true gentlemen too
It's not just me, you also seem to think "smart girl" automatically implies "/g/ tier autistic piece of shit", which is not true either. Women are much more likely to be caring and not autistic than a man.
I've dated girls with no actual interests of their own. It's fun for a while but their lack of ambitions and long-term plans is really depressing.
>It's fun for a while but their lack of ambitions and long-term plans is really depressing.
I dated a girl who's long-term goal was to save up some money so she could travel somewhere. I asked here if there was anywhere particular she wanted to go, and she said "no, as long as they have beaches and awesome nightclubs and sunny weather it's fine"...
There were no next date after that.
I never said she should have no interests. I said she should be feminine and girly, with femine and girly interests.
Absolutely, she should have interests of her own.
> It's fun for a while but their lack of ambitions and long-term plans is really depressing.
Depends. I mean if you're going to marry a girl ideally she wants to be a stay at home mum/housewife and doesn't have any plans that would interfere with that. But that's a whole other discussion really.
I've tried to get into smart girls, but I can't. I don't like them at all. I can work with them in a professional sense but I could never bring myself to date one. Femininity is such a beautiful thing and intelligence dilutes it.
She's trashy. Again, the problem is not being dumb, it's being TRASHY.
What if you asked her what her long term goals were and she said "umm, I don't know really...I really like kids though! :)" That'd be far less bad.
> But that's a whole other discussion really.
It seems like we're arguing about different matters.
I don't see anything wrong with having quick dates with simple-minded girls, but I wouldn't ever let it develop into a full-blown long-term relationship.
No, that's the thing. She wasn't particularly trashy at all (it's pretty common for girls in my country to go clubbing and stuff like that).
She was just completely void of ambitions and long-term life goals.
>What if you asked her what her long term goals were and she said "umm, I don't know really...I really like kids though! :)" That'd be far less bad.
That is equally bad in my opinion. Kids is something you're supposed get after having achieved your life goals and having a steady career.
All comes down to taste.
I'm surrounded by intelligent people in my work environment, and my male friends are also very intelligent.
I don't really need to duplicate that experience with my girlfriend.
You might want to, that's fine. I don't feel the need to. I think there's something beuatiful and unique about women and it isn't how smart they are. It's their feminine aura. It's how caring they can be, how sweet they are, how soft they are. I like girls who exude femininity and girlyness because that's what makes them so different to men. Maybe one day you'll understand how great a girl who embraces her femininity can be.
Anyway I'm off.
I'd be so turned on if a girl ever said to me she runs Gentoo on her Thinkpad. I'd pound her so hard until my dick falls off.
>current life expectancy is 82 years for men and 87 for women in my country
>getting children after the age of 40 is no problem anymore due to recent advances in medicine
Why do I even need to consider procreating before I turn 30?
someone who's all those things you mentioned can still be intelligent. all those things will vanish instandly as soon as you've come into a bad enough misunderstanding with a stupid girl
you obviously got rekt and btfo pretty hard, kid
>tfw i had a dream last night that i was in my dorm room when a hot neon-haired tumblrista girl came in, told me she worked for the free software foundation and EFF and started having sex with me
im not even kidding wtf
Did she make you watch as she got plowed by four niggers and then force you to eat the cum out of all her holes while she ranted about white oppression and told you to check your privileges?
Dies it even matter?
Women outperform men in schools, get into better unis and they'll have a better chance of being hired.
All that success and they will still be unhappy, have a kid because mothers know best amirite?, and do yoga/meditation/some retard social club to find 'fulfilment' in their life.
That's actually the opposite of what's happening in real life. In real life, womyn are given better grades for being womyn, and as soon as blind evaluations and legitimate tests such as producing something functional is required, they fail so hard it's almost funny.
>>getting children after the age of 40 is no problem anymore due to recent advances in medicine
don't hate on tbh, fam.
>tfw no attention whore hacker gf
its a mixed bag of feels tbh
>implying >>50758623 isn't ginger
I'm not going to let her bring PROPRIETARY SHIT INTO MY HOUSE
He also doesn't understand statistics, because in a year-by-year basis the numbers imply that if the majority of those women are first-year, then the number of women dropping out of the major will be replenished by the number of women joining the major.
The statistic in particular represents a total number of women throughout the curriculum, and not separated by year. We have no claim over how many of those are first year.
Enzan fags blown the fuck out.
>tfw Starcraft made you go to Korea, get a super sweet and loving kgf, learning Korean and starting coding, going to make lots of money and loving life again
Thank you based /scv/
Reading this whole thread has been depressing. I hope my classmates don't view me like this.
I'm a legbeard, you don't want to see my shit.
Of course, you're right. I'll go back to doing what I do best.
I would not be surprised if they literally paying female students to go into computer science in order to get diversity points with their board.
>majoring in computer science just to become a code monkey
>calling people losers while taking computer science
>Only 27 percent of entrepreneurs are women, said Ross Levine, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley
Why would you expect gender parity among entrepreneurs? They are basically degenerate gamblers that take extreme risks and just happen to serve a useful purpose.
I think there's some kind of balance between everyone being obsessed with gender/identity politics and having a functional working community.
Constantly bowing down to the lowest common denominator is never a good thing to do for very long. Men and women can be into different things, and that's ok.
What I've learned on women when I did my degree in cs .
At the time (4 year ago).
At start, around 15% were females.
25% of them were here to find a fedora boy. They almost all left after the first year as most of us had a girlfriend.
10% were genuine interested women that have interest in cs.
5% (in our case only one) kicked ass and now she's doing her major.
Almost all the dude get a job (60%) or doing a major (30%). The rest left. More than half of the women left. Only one is doing her major.
No, they can do whatever they want to. Feminists love telling women what to do far more than everyday men or women. These aren't the freedom of choice feminists.
I'm not sure how often it happens, but
But with more than 200 replies it's pretty much been played out. Unless you have something to add to the conversation, it should have sufficed to read the thread and then move on.
I think I would feel intimidated by smart/knowledgeable women. There, I said it.
Though I wouldn't know. Never met any.
But then again I have only met a handful of men that I really respect for their knowledge, intelligence and experience. I guess three in total.
No women so far, so I wouldn't know, but I expect some conflicting feelings. I enjoy learning from men, and I think I would enjoy learning from woman as well, but my raging boner would probably distract me from what we were discussing.
I'm all for more women in tech. Currently I work for one of the biggest IT companies in the world and I have seen maybe 3-4 women in the whole office(if you don't count the receptionists/cleaning ladies)? This is fucking bullshit. Seriously.
Yea, I mad.
>Though I wouldn't know. Never met any.
that's unlikely unless you live in a real cesspool of a backwater town or something. If you don't, then it's just more likely that you ignored/overlooked any intelligent woman mostly because of the kind of mindset that leads one to say he's never met a smart woman.
Too bad women will always be too emotionally unstable, due to the rollercoaster ride of hormonal changes that occur every month, to ever contribute to the workforce in the same way that men have done for thousands of years.
I've met plenty of career women in my life, working in marketing/accounting/customer relations, stuff like that.
None of them I would consider someone to look up to if they were men, as in the case of 3 men I've met in my life. Role modes you could say. They were average for the most part. And also not very curious beyond their own field.
Waaaaaaaait. I just remembered. There was one I respected a lot. She was my artifical intelligence teacher when I was in uni. Never had a converssation with her beyond classes so I wouldn't know about other stuff but when it comes to computer science she was pretty damn cool. Now that I think about it I guess I had kind of a crush on her.
So yeah, I retract my statement. I met one woman that I looked up to.
Basically u want a girl who will leech off you because I'm ur waifu give me money fag who will later decide they want to be independent and divorce you and leech your money while being "independent" versus a woman who will have her own income and hobbies and not need your wallet or attention where you are equals monetary wise and can have stimulating
I'm not sure I understand. The threshold for "smart/knowledgeable" is a lot lower than "role model", and you seem to be conflating the two. It would be troubling if you went to university and you claimed never to have met a woman who was smart (or even that you only met 4 people you would call smart).
I don't know that if I had a girlfriend that was very tech savvy I would enjoy talking about tech with her. I figure it would get boring fast.
I am around plenty of men in tech and we mostly talk about our pet projects that are often not tech related, media, drug consumption and sometimes just random stuff.
But I guess that's because we work together and when we leave the office we've had enough of IT bullshit.
I don't know. I wouldn't mind cuddling on a cold saturday with a girl while coding and have her give me pointers on what I could do better.
>"Anon, why are you using multiprocessing module rather than concurrent? Wouldn't it fit this use case better?
>The threshold for "smart/knowledgeable" is a lot lower than "role model"
I guess. It's just that most women people would consider "smart" do bullshit like the stuff I mentioned: marketing/hr/accounting. So in simple terms - bullshit.
I wouldn't consider anyone doing that stuff smart.
Programmers/sysadmins/networking engineers(for example) are smart. They understand, fix, and create complex systems with complex relations and interdependencies and hundreds of functionalities. This is difficult stuff. The only woman who had an appreciation for that kind of STEM stuff was the AI teacher I mentioned.
And yes, I do mean to say that STEM is supperior to humanities in every single possibly way and it requires far more intelligence.
I don't consider "knowledgeable" to equal "smart". And I don't consider dumb/smart to be a black/white choice. Most people are somewhere in between. Frankly I don't think I've ever met anyone who had me go "holy shit that guy/gal is smart".
Love is just a chemical reaction that evolution has built into us.
It can fizzle out in a week or in a year. Sometimes more. But that's sometimes all you need to destroy your life by being bound to a leech that does nothing but take, take, and take from you. Materially and mentally.
Love is one hell of a drug. Not even once.
>STEM is supperior[sic] to humanities in every single possibly way and it requires far more intelligence.
No offense, but this kind of dismissal really only means anything more than arrogant, solipsistic bullshit if you've given the humanities et al. a fair shake.
If the humanities, social sciences, etc... are trivial, prove it; go earn a degree in some program of that broader field (even a bachelor's, I'm not going to be a dick and insist on a Masters or PhD) and then come back and tell me it's not rigorous. Otherwise you're just turning your nose up at something you're judging from 10,000 feet up. Any humanities major could do the same to you, with equal credibility.
I never said there are not intelligent people doing impressive things in humanities. There are, and they are wasting their time.
I'm just saying that you really don't have to be smart or well educated to do something like hr bullshit, marketing, journalism or whatever. Most people doing it are average or below average.
The same is not the case in IT for example. If you want to be a good... say, networking specialist, you need impressive intelligence and a LOT of knowledge. There are not stupid successful networking engineers.
There are stupid and successful HR/marketing people/journalists/whatever. Plenty actually.
One requires intelligence to be effective, the other does not.
If you're saying that it's not sufficiently challenging, feel free to go for an MA, but funding is sparse for masters students, so I was offering that you just pick up a second bachelor's while earning the one you actually went to university for. Again, it sounds like you're saying this is totally trivial, so I look forward to hearing no complaints from you about why this is such an unreasonable request.
>If you want to be a good
this qualification doesn't get applied to any of the humanities jobs you dismissed, but you seem very intent on delineating the good networking specialists from the shit ones. Do you not see that this kind of bias - knowing the qualifying characteristics in your own field, but being largely ignorant of other fields - is screwing up your analysis?
I'm not that guy, my reply is >>50772214
Also, I'm not going to waste time and money on getting a degree in something that is completely and utterly useless.
I can enjoy learning about humanities by self study. By reading some decent books in my free time.
I'd rather invest my time and money in pursuing a specialisation that actually produces output that adds a lot of value to anyone that hires me.
Humanities don't add real value, they add perceived value.
For what purpose?
>Also, I'm not going to waste time and money on getting a degree in something that is completely and utterly useless.
Let me get your the answer from the other guy:
>How do you know that faeces tastes bad, if you do not try it first?
This is a convenient and fundamentally misguided way of evaluating non-STEM fields. The humanities offers ways of thinking about the world critically; trying to assess the value of a worldview like that in the same context of engineering or mathematics is literally nonsensical. It's like asking if your breakfast tasted yellow.
Bad networking engineers don't keep doing networking because their shit aint working. No one hires people who do not produce effects. In STEM if you can't make things work, you are useless and you get left behind. There's no subjective scale of "goodness". If your shit doens't work it doesn't work and that's that.
>Who produce barely enough effect for things to work? There's a whole shitload of them.
Yes, there are people that achieve sub-par effect. But the thing about STEM is, you can EASILY prove that their effects are in fact sub-par. That's the thing about STEM. You can objectively check and verify that their work is inefficient. And fire them and get someone better.
There is no such means of measurement in humanities.
I think like this is the moment when I drop the mic, if I had one.
You can't rigorously use what you learn from self study without applying that insight, in much the same way that you can't claim to understand engineering purely from self study. Again, my point is just that you're turning your nose up at things like philosophy and history without any proof that you understand them sufficiently to assess their rigor.
I'm not asking you to eat shit; I'm asking you to try to think and articulate yourself at a university level in fields STEM students rarely do. If that seems so parallel to eating shit to you, then I don't really know what to say. This is like when non-math people jokingly say they're math-illiterate and then laugh it off like it's no big deal; if you can't understand why this is a bigger deal than you make it out to be, I'm not even sure where to start.
Philosophy and a number of humanities fields are basically feeders into methods, modes of inquiry, and ways of thinking about things in lots of other fields. If you're not seeing rigor in these fields, it's because you're eating the junk food equivalent of these fields.
>you can EASILY prove that their effects are in fact sub-par
I disagree. This takes some knowledge. If you are working in the field, then yes, it's easy to notice one of your coworkers doesn't know jack shit and does a really shitty job. But many managers and/or heads of small companies can't tell the difference. Just appear busy enough and they'll think you're working hard, make things work barely enough and they'll be happy they got such a smart specialist on the team.
>You can't rigorously use what you learn from self study without applying that insight
USE FOR FUCKING WHAT? HOLY SHIT TOP KEK
The only thing the humanities might be useful for is having some talking points when picking up women.
Humanities have no uses.
>I don't really know what to say
>I'm not even sure where to start
Interesting debate technique. "Either you see things my way, or else I will feel a vague emotion."
Feel as you please, friend. No one here will stop you from feeling.
>in Engineer major
>studying with woman 20 years older, from South America
>she's physically affectionate, keeps up with me (ADHD and smart, not a good combination)
>petite as well, complains about being 120-130lbs
>raging hot boner of a thousand suns, probably the only woman I kinda want to throw my life away for
Smart women are just so damn attractive I can't help it. I lost her as a friend because she started ragging on me for being an arcanine, basically.
Engineering sucks because there's the 10:1 men:women and almost every time I hear a woman ever talking about going into physics or engineering, they say they couldn't do math so quit.
No, I have a very specific emotion of lament that you so willfully dismiss an entire field of study with apparent value as nonchalantly as non-STEM people dismiss math. That's the parallel I'm drawing, which is why I referenced it.
I agree with that. If you have no context and your scale is so small that you have no internal competition, sure.
But that's not that frequest. Even if you have just 2 networking guys one will try to be better than the other to get more jewgolds.
Not the conversational partner you're replying to, but I think I get his point. The difference between STEM and Humanities in that regard would be the implementation.
The Humanities look back and trace their steps here. STEM looks around and, after deliberation on which direction is forward, takes a step.
You can have intelligent people in humanities, just like you can have morons in STEM fields, but STEM doesn't entertain that sort for very lone in most cases. It's too competitive, and you can objectively be called out on your performance for being inferior to another. In the humanities, the spread is too horizontal.
The result is a huge crowd of people that can hide in plain sight with mediocrity as long as there's a handful of people getting singled out for being head and shoulders above the rest.
You are confusing me with the other guy you are debating. I only pointed out an obvious error in your logic, that you need to try something before you can judge it. That is, objectively, wrong. Some things can be judged without investing 4 years of your life into them.
>crowd of people that can hide in plain sight with mediocrity
describes some places I've worked. I don't think I'm convinced that STEM is inherently more rigorous. I could probably make an argument that a number of STEM fields largely evaluate you by your ability to follow instructions and add negligibly in any intellectually creative way, whereas humanities researchers seem to have to come up with a whole way of thinking that hasn't been come up with before.
To that end, I think I can agree that there's more horizontal spread, but people still need to evaluate one another, so you find that humanities folks have to be knowledgeable about content spanning tens of thousands of pages of writing. I don't think that's the case in STEM fields. You can say it's because STEM is more concise, but I could also say that humanities have to get subtler points across, so they need to use more words and be more specific about their words to distinguish their ideas from others more simply described in the past.
And we could go on and on.
Math, 1+1=2 by page 362. Note this book has some shake foundations.
Engineering is the easiest one to measure performance. Shit works or it doesn't. Like mechanical engineering could be filled by specialist, but shit goes wrong in electrical engineering if you make the smallest mistakes. Chemical Engineering is probably more difficult if you have trouble with rote over skill.
Well the human ones, Psychology, etc, but I don't count those as science. Chemistry is kind of a meme degree, as is biology.
1) it shouldn't take 4 years if it's not as intellectually rigorous. If it takes less time to master, then you should be able to handle more courses and finish sooner. If it takes 4 years - in the same ballpark as a STEM degree - then you're agreeing that it take similar intellectual work to achieve the same end. But this is such an aside that I don't want to get into this any further. I'll drop this point if you don't care to nitpick over this.
2) There's a very long tradition of people studying subjects in the humanities, and a lot of intellectual work has yielded lots of useful stuff. I wouldn't say that the same is true for eating shit (but that might be different in some place, like wherever you live). To take a more useful example, the durian fruit presumably smells like death, but many people eat it. Dismissing it as tasting like death, having seen many people eating it, without trying it yourself is a perfectly reasonable but totally wrong series of logical steps.
Are you quoting the Bertrand Russell proof? He was a philosopher first; you know that, right?
Much of the propositional logic that you have in mathematical proofs comes principally from philosophy. This is the kind of shit the humanities deals with - emerging fields, ways of thinking, and people trying to wrestle with the notion itself, let alone the quantification, evaluation, and standardization of that study.
I don't understand how you can know the fields philosophy has birthed and dismiss philosophy and its associated fields with such certainty that more future cornerstones of what *you* would respect as intellectually rigorous fields aren't still waiting to be sussed out.
I genuinely feel sorry for you and other people your age.
You can get just about any book for free and the good ones will give you a solid foundation which can last decades (assuming you continue to practice in the subject matter)
Yes, and they literally don't know what they're talking about; they're deciding that they don't like the taste of something informed purely by its smell, which is reasonable in most cases but clearly wrong here, as we all know on an intellectual level that the durian's smell is misleading.
Literally every philosifag comes back to this "argument." Philosophy didn't cause other fields, if it "did", then houses can be considered the birthplaces of science, because science took place in houses at one point in history.
There's we can't have a degree in rhetoric, logic, or argument, because philosophy has squashed any reasonable metrics of being intelligent and articulate. There's a reason Math and Computer Science aren't philosophical degrees, and that's because we all know philosophy is about jerking off with words.
>Chemistry is a meme degree
>Biology is a meme degree.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Without people with those "meme degrees" you'd probably already be dead.
Why? Well some of those people go on to study pathology, and end up making vaccines for diseases. Your family line could have been killed off by one of those diseases long ago.
List of vaccines: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/vaccines-list.htm
>humanities researchers seem to have to come up with a whole way of thinking that hasn't been come up with before.
Now this bit intrigues me. I haven't heard of any of these new methods of thought?
And that's not to be seen as a call out, it's just something I don't get. STEM research gets applied outside of academia, even if only filtered over time and experienced more peripherally. I would think that, if humanities researched resulted in completely original methods of thought, these would catch on to the general public.
It seems like making your own rules, in which case your argument that STEM doesn't evaluate on your intellectual creativity would be incorrect.
STEM has rules. Laws, even. We can't come up with a new way for the universe to work in our research, or a new way for chemical x to react with chemical y under conditions z.
Our creativity has to be expressed in ways that still condone to these rules, and even creativity that causes a paradigm shift does - guess what - introduce more rules! If our current understanding of physics was proven wrong today, we'd be researching and writing up rules tomorrow.
Humanities seems to have the freedom of not needing to abide by the fundamental laws of the universe and instead can skirt by on the far more flexible rules made by people themselves.
Also I'd like to mention that even if your family has never been immunized by anything via vaccine (which is absolutely fucking stupid), you still benefit from herd immunity. That's when everyone around you is vaccinated even though your dumbass hasn't gotten around to it or has been convinced by the batshit insane antivaxers.
People get Chemistry degrees because they can't hack it in Engineering fields or medical. People get biology degrees because they can't hack it in nursing (lol) or a medical field.
If you can afford to be a Doctor in those fields, go ahead, but to say someone getting a BS or even MS in the field won't be doing a job a trained chimp could do in a lab is ridiculous.
>Yes, and they literally don't know what they're talking about
YOU literally do not know what you are talking about: Smell has a MAJOR impact on taste!
everything in ethics and philosophy falls in the humanities. every way of evaluating ethical dilemmas - utilitarianism, kantian ethics, etc... - are all the output of the humanities.
I don't know much about other fields within the humanities, but I would be reluctant to completely write it off just because I'm naive of the literature.
The whole point of this tangent is that durians don't taste nearly as bad as the smell suggests. If you're not debating that, then you're grasping at straws at this point. Yes, smell and taste are closely intertwined in our senses, but the durian is existence proof that your sense of smell can be deceiving.
But not always the result of those specifically disciplined in its study, and there certainly isn't to my knowledge a new way of evaluating ethical dilemmas for every humanities grad there is.
>ethical dilemmas - utilitarianism, kantian ethics, etc... - are all the output of the humanities.
Ethics is an entirely human construct though that doesn't have to obey any overriding fundamental principles or even be based on any real-world observations.
In other words, Philosophy is literally Write Down Whatever You're Thinking Of: The Subject
I can point you to dozens of CS papers that have been published in the last year alone that will either be disproven someday or will (mercifully) have no bearing on the rest of the world, and will descend into obscurity. They'll certainly never be rigorously applied to the real world.
The same is true for most research. This is life for an academic - most research output is - at best - only negligibly impactful.
>ethics is an entirely human construct
I'm not sure I see the issue here. If you have an interest in something more generalizable to the universe, great, but dismissing a field for only being generalizable to the human race is kind of stupid.
As for philosophy being open to anything you want to put on paper, this is unbelievably stupid. Again, a non-mathematician would be equally justified in looking at a college level math proof and saying "this is all nonsense! I could write whatever gibberish I wanted and it'd be just as valid". Just because you don't recognize that people in the field are responding to, critiquing, and building on one another's work doesn't mean it's not happening. It just means you're not aware of it. Which is fine, because you're not a student of philosophy, but becomes a problem when you charge in like a retarded bull pointing at things and saying they're arbitrary and meaningless.
Coding requires ZERO labor to perform. Of course women will eventually flock to it, then dominate it.
Women gravitate to ALL non-labor intensive work, and are especially absent in hazardous work. Which is why men perform 95% of all hazardous jobs and suffer 90% of all job related injuries and deaths.
Welcome to the new world. You guys should just look into another field of work. The gelded lady-boys that are currently in the tech field are doing their best to remove men and replace them with women. Coding and IT jobs will be the new nursing field within 20 years.
The only jobs secure for men are those high in labor or risk of death. Get used to it.
We'll make computers and robots do all the dangerous jobs eventually anyways.
No qualms with women finally helping out with the brainy jobs, though. They kinda were kept out of it but also kinda took their sweet ass time to even get started with doing those.
Actually, over here, comp.sci and so on still has not quite +- the 50/50 ratio yet, and it's not quite that for STEM either (S and M generally slowly start to work, though.)
>No qualms with women finally helping out with the brainy jobs
LMAO. Over 700 programming languages, 99.9% of them written by men.
Women can parrot tech work, though they won't innovate. ALL industries have and will be created by men. My God, did you even look at the article. Stanford had to go out of their way to even get women into the field.