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? — Kenosha Kid
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? — Kenosha Kid
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
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
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
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
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
Silliness factor too high. Moving to lounge. — Baden
Are you moving my thread to the lounge? — TheMadFool
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
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
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. — Kenosha Kid
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.