Why do some people think women suck at science and math?

  • Thread starter Thread starter VikFloyd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science Women
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the perception that women are less capable in science and math compared to men. Participants express differing views, with some arguing that societal conditioning, rather than innate ability, affects women's performance in these fields. Others contend that biological differences contribute to disparities in achievement, although many assert that women can excel in science and math when given equal opportunities. The conversation highlights the importance of addressing cultural biases and encouraging female participation in STEM. Overall, the thread emphasizes that both genders possess the potential for success in these disciplines.
  • #121


I think women are better at language than men. In my Chinese class, the girls are all seemingly naturals. The guys seem to struggle.

Though, I struggle at math and physics too.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122


This is an asinine discussion.

"Why do some people think"?

What people? Whenever a person uses "some people" as a testament to asking such questions I immediately think, hidden motive. I exit left because that is where I usually think the door is located.
 
  • #123


Quite a lot of argument went on with a loaded question from the OP. Let me tell you what I think (scientifically).

Men better than women at science and math - WRONG (scientifically)
Women better than men at science and math - WRONG (scientifically)
Men and Women equal at science and math - WRONG (scientifically)

Huh? You might think the last one might not be wrong. Well, it is wrong scientifically along with the first and second one, cause there exists no conclusive way by which you can measure scientific competency in a human being quantitatively. Scientifically, you simply cannot count how much scientific a person is. There is no metric to experimentally measure. (Like you take a person and do an experiment and you obtain a real number, telling you about scientificity.) There is just no conclusive evidence which shows one is better, worse or equal to the other.

Examination is just another statistical measurement. Because, we do not do any experiment on the scholar's brain, separating neurons, proteins, molecules, wavefunctions ..., trying to determine what caused what (the conclusive way) and link the scholar's scientific capability with some basic constituents of his brain. There's no scientific theory/definition of science itself relating it to the physical world. The examination process assesses the competency in science depending on various variables (question choice, time limit, student background, preparation for examination, date and time of the exam, student selection, future/past generation … etc). The examination score does not guarantee anything, but indicate the possibility. A high-scorer still has chance to perform poorer or vice-versa at a future time if any of these variables changes.

All we currently have is social "science" (statistics), trying to figure out who is "better" and who is "worse" from statistics, or far worse, propagating the argument of "equality". We are neither better, worse nor equal to the other. If asked, the simplest answer is: we do not know. A lot more harm is done in the name of gender equality when some special program discriminately favors one gender over another gender. As I say, create the option, but stop promotion. If there’s less female in science and math field currently, it is fine. All we have to ensure is that there is nothing stopping them from entering the field. But this does not mean that we should just give away the opportunity to them to be politically correct. Unequal gender ratio in these fields will not cause any harm to the society, but gender discrimination will.
 
  • #124


Kholdstare said:
(Like you take a person and do an experiment and you obtain a real number, telling you about scientificity.)

What about a complex number? Can't leave all the i's out in the cold, now can we?
 
  • #125


FalseVaccum89 said:
What about a complex number? Can't leave all the i's out in the cold, now can we?

all observables are real because they must be Hermitian operators.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
7K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
16K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
9K