I believe the actual number of men and women in science doesn't matter. What's important is the percentage of men and women who win Nobel prizes. — TheMadFool

Wow! So if there were no female scientists, the fact that none could win Nobel prizes would make men more intelligent?

@ssu By the way the ratio of men to women Nobel laureates is 866 : 53 = 16 : 1 approximately. If gender doesn't affect the chances of winning a Nobel then the population of men has to be 16 times the population of women which we know isn't the case. The sex ratio is at most only 2 men to 1 woman.

Wow! So if there were no female scientists, the fact that none could win Nobel prizes would make men more intelligent? — Kenosha Kid

The percentage probabilities don't make men intelligent as such but only shows which gender has more brains.

The percentage probabilities don't make men intelligent as such but only shows which gender has more brains. — TheMadFool

So you're actually agreeing that if there had never been a female scientist, their lack of Nobel prizes would show they were less intelligent?

So you're actually agreeing that if there had never been a female scientist, their lack of Nobel prizes would show they were less intelligent? — Kenosha Kid

The population to consider is all females and if the fraction of them who won Nobel prizes is less than the fraction of men who bagged a Nobel then, it seems I'm forced to conclude men as more intelligent with the caveat that winning Nobels is a good measure of intelligence.

I don't have a time machine, but I suspect sexual activity hasn't always been the free-for-all it currently seems to be. — Bitter Crank

Oh, for sure. I think it wasn't long ago that some study did, if not outright prove, but at least strongly suggest that in prehistoric times only very few men produced offspring (whereas most women did). Whether that means most men died violently before even having a chance to procreate, or that only men with high enough status got access to women in those societies, or if there was some other factor in play, I don't have a clue.

Still, my understanding is that human civilization has allowed progressively more and more men to actually procreate, although there has always been a small amount of men with large amounts of offspring (Genghis Khan being the most common example).

So, I'm not saying that it's been commonplace that human males have mated with many different females, but rather that typically it would have been a good strategy even if very few have had the chance to actually do it.

The population to consider is all females and if the fraction of them who won Nobel prizes is less than the fraction of men who bagged a Nobel then, it seems I'm forced to conclude men as more intelligent with the caveat that winning Nobels is a good measure of intelligence. — TheMadFool

So being a genius female lawyer would not increase the average IQ of women because there's no Nobel prize for it? Dude, seriously! You've anchored yourself to an extremely silly point and you're going to drown out of sheer stubbornness. Of COURSE the number of female scientists impacts the number of female Nobel laureates.

I believe the actual number of men and women in science doesn't matter. What's important is the percentage of men and women who win Nobel prizes.

If the percentage of men who get Nobels is greater than the percentage of women Nobel winners then gender plays a role in intelligence. — TheMadFool

ssu By the way the ratio of men to women Nobel laureates is 866 : 53 = 16 : 1 approximately. If gender doesn't affect the chances of winning a Nobel then the population of men has to be 16 times the population of women which we know isn't the case. The sex ratio is at most only 2 men to 1 woman. — TheMadFool

Umm.... now it really seems that you are living up to your PF name.

Because how can you say that the actual number of men and women in science doesn't matter?

Really?

If there's 99 men and 1 woman working in "Biogradable physics" before the 1970's or whatever, then it's a bit strange to say that men are better in "Biogradable physics" because more men have gotten Nobel prizes in "Biogradable physics" than women! Even the assumption that more Nobel prizes received by gender (or race/ethnicity/nationality) tells ANYTHING about the intelligence of gender (race/ethnicity/nationality) is quite dubious in to me.

Silliness factor too high. Moving to lounge.

So being a genius female lawyer would not increase the average IQ of women because there's no Nobel prize for it? Dude, seriously! You've anchored yourself to an extremely silly point and you're going to drown out of sheer stubbornness. Of COURSE the number of female scientists impacts the number of female Nobel laureates. — Kenosha Kid

I did mention a caveat...

with the caveat that winning Nobels is a good measure of intelligence. — TheMadFool

Umm.... now it really seems that you are living up to your PF name.

Because how can you say that the actual number of men and women in science doesn't matter?

Really?

If there's 99 men and 1 woman working in "Biogradable physics" before the 1970's or whatever, then it's a bit strange to say that men are better in "Biogradable physics" because more men have gotten Nobel prizes in "Biogradable physics" than women! Even the assumption that more Nobel prizes received by gender (or race/ethnicity/nationality) tells ANYTHING about the intelligence of gender (race/ethnicity/nationality) is quite dubious in to me. — ssu

Well, the actual numbers can be misleading that's what makes proportion important. For instance, a town X of a 1000 people may have a total number of murders = 200 in one year but a city Y with a population of 10,000 may have a total number of murders = 1,000 in the same year. If you look at the actual number of murders in both settlements, city Y is worse (with 1000 murders) than town X (with only 200 murders) but if you look at the murder rate we see that, in fact, town X with a murder rate = 200/1000 = 20% is worse than city Y with a murder rate = 1000/10,000 = 10%. You're safer in city Y than in town X.

Silliness factor too high. Moving to lounge. — Baden

Are you moving my thread to the lounge?

Yes. And?

Your example really doesn't even question the argument that I gave.

If now for 119 years Nobel prizes have been given out and roughly for 70 years of those 119 years women weren't participating in the workforce as men were and even still women don't go to work as much on the STEM-fields as men do, why on Earth you would draw any conclusions from the fact that more men have gotten Nobel prizes as women?

It is genuinely as stupid as to notice that EUROPEANS and NORTH AMERICANS have gotten more Nobel prizes than Asians without noticing that there was this thing called colonization etc until the 1960's or so. Or how about drawing the line with those who came from rich or middle class backgrounds or poor backgrounds. Again I would dare to say that there are less Nobel prize winners from dirt poor backgrounds than from middle class ones. OMG! What does that say!

But no, let's go directly to saying something about the intelligence of various people or gender or whatever. :shade:

Are you moving my thread to the lounge? — TheMadFool

Yes, stuff like this:

The population to consider is all females and if the fraction of them who won Nobel prizes is less than the fraction of men who bagged a Nobel then, it seems I'm forced to conclude men as more intelligent — TheMadFool

is mind-bogglingly bad reasoning bordering on parody.

Your example really doesn't even question the argument that I gave.

If now for 119 years Nobel prizes have been given out and roughly for 70 years of those 119 years women weren't participating in the workforce as men were and even still women don't go to work as much on the STEM-fields as men do, why on Earth you would draw any conclusions from the fact that more men have gotten Nobel prizes as women?

It is genuinely as stupid as to notice that EUROPEANS and NORTH AMERICANS have gotten more Nobel prizes than Asians without noticing that there was this thing called colonization etc until the 1960's or so. Or how about drawing the line with those who came from rich or middle class backgrounds or poor backgrounds. Again I would dare to say that there are less Nobel prize winners from dirt poor backgrounds than from middle class ones. OMG! What does that say!

But no, let's go directly to saying something about the intelligence of various people or gender or whatever. :shade: — ssu

Sorry if it seemed as though I didn't consider other relevant factors in the equation. I fully agree with you that winning a Nobel doesn't cut it as a good metric to judge gender differences in intelligence. Indeed, women were MIA insofar as STEM is concerned and that explains why only a handful of them won Nobels.

My last post was in response to your claim that actual numbers should be considered in evaluating gender differences vis-a-vis winning Nobel prizes.

is mind-bogglingly bad reasoning bordering on parody. — Baden

Numbers don't lie.

Silliness factor too high. Moving to lounge. — Baden

Numbers don't lie. — TheMadFool

No, but people who find information in them that isn't there in order to back up a desired conclusion do. This thread is so far from being reasonable and yet so clearly ends-oriented that it's difficult to buy that it's just the rational incompetence of a sexist old fool rather than bona fide and barely disguised misogyny.

No, but people who find information in them that isn't there in order to back up a desired conclusion do. This thread is so far from being reasonable and yet so clearly ends-oriented that it's difficult to buy that it's just the rational incompetence of a sexist old fool rather than bona fide and barely disguised misogyny. — Kenosha Kid

I'm not claiming women are actually less intelligent than men and I made it a point to qualify the conclusion with a statement that a lot rides on whether Nobel Prizes are a good metric for intelligence.

This thread is too stupid to continue existence.