How can you so blatantly deny science /pol/. Its irrefutable

What is your argument? I just see a graph saying women dont code. What is it to ya?

File: 1502322953805.png (418KB, 674x748px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 674x748px

>>136793813

>>136793941
It proves women are just as capable but the article proves that its only because of secost advertisements influencing society

>>136793813
it got harder, girls can't get past calculus
t. grill in ops/cloud

>>136794013
but that's right though
so much of science is bullshit, flawed methodology, the peer review process is in shambles, political agendas pushed. trust in science is naive. saying something is science is not good enough to establish fact. much of science even disagrees or contradicts other science. not all science is fact

it got harder

>>136793813

that was when the PC was introduced. Women were okay at programming large devices where the programming was relatively simple but incredibly monotonous.

Once the PC came along and computer languages were more powerful, it took the creative minds of men to turn that code into things that people actually gave a shit about. Prior to the PC computers were only used by large companies for things like payroll and accounting.

File: DGv1xfHUIAA0WBx.jpg (64KB, 1200x750px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1200x750px

>>136793813
>>136793813
>What happened?

>We spent the past few weeks trying to answer this question, and there's no clear, single answer.

>But here's a good starting place: The share of women in computer science started falling at roughly the same moment when personal computers started showing up in U.S. homes in significant numbers.

So Autists stayed home on their computer. More % of men are Autists so more men went into Computer Science.

>>136794422
Agreed. Just funny to see that the leftists are turning on science now like they claim the right to be doing.

>>136794212
You are stupid. There are flyers literally everywhere encouraging women to go into STEM jobs. They get crazy benefits and basically are guaranteed a job if they apply. They just dont like the jobs. It just so happens that i code and there is only 1 girl with us...and she quit. I talked with her a lot and she just flat out hates it. Its not discrimination.

>>136793813
What is the Gender Equality Paradox

File: 800px-Apple_II.jpg (59KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 800x533px

>>136793813
>computer science in the 70's
>like 6 people doing it
>2 were women
>1 of them quit to have children at around 1985
>more people entered late 90's
>the amount of women normalised to more accurately represent women's average interested in computer science
This graph is stupid, nothing to see here

File: no-discrimination.png (216KB, 1290x906px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1290x906px

>>136793813
You said science?

>>136793813
So far the only arguments have been assuming your own biases are valid. Basically that women are worse. But that doesnt hold up to the data here

>>136793813
Says the data if from nation science foundation, where is the data from on their site? I can only find it back to 1996

>>136794242
You ain't no Muslim, bruv

>>136799381
what did he mean by this?

>>136795465
>125 for male vs female
>110 for white vs black
Cherrypick much?

>>136793813

Look, there is only ONE solution :

We have to FORCE them.

They dont take their responsibility to fill 50% of the jobs, and thus hurt society and men by the subsequent terror this taises.

SO they must simply be FORCED. It's good for them ( for their best ) and good for men, and good for companies and thos all good for society.

women NEED to learn. It's their responsibility.

So women left the moment "computer science" actually started to involve computers.
Really makes you think.

>>136794514
Computers got too hard for women to want to work on them. Seems pretty simple to me.

>>136800441
You are cherrypicking from it.
I had low resolution graphs.

>>136794422
You're correct if you're referring to the majority of papers in the social sciences, which have little to no replicability in lab conditions. Most physical sciences however show vastly better predictive capability and efficacy in real applications. I agree that it is wrong to argue for a scientific hypothesis just because "muh science", and that many papers aren't fact. Though, it is important to point out that many legit papers don't actually treat their conclusion as an absolute truth. The author's certainty in the conclusion is often mitigated throughout the paper as a whole. A significant part of the problem is the failure of the media to accurately report the implications of the source material.

>>136800441
> Cherrypick much?
if you take 125 for both, it is even worst for blacks
I guess it depends on how difficult is the job