[jorgemf]

watch this: https://youtu.be/cVaTc15plVs?t=1851 (even better if you see it all)

biology comes before history, history can be a consequence of biology

> If men turn out to be naturally, as a group, less good at math than women, does that mean we should stop training men on math? No. We should train men more at math, because math is a valuable skill

This is what scares me of this society. If someone is bad at something lets force him/her to improve at the things he/she is bad at. Instead of focusing on the things a person is good at and try to put them on the next level and make a difference that way, let's focus on the bad things and get a mediocre individual.

I love maths, but are you saying art is not a valuable skill compare with maths? Should the great artist bad at math study math and give up in art?

You might think that not training someone at something that he/she is bad at is stupid, but some people like me think the stupid thing is to no to focus in what make someone special and good at.

And finally, why do you think there is a bias? Couldn't be the reason that there are not more female CS engineers that they choose freely not to be because they just don't like it? The answer is in the video I put before.

[wpietri]

This is basically a long exercise in missing the point.

That I think one skill is good does not mean all other skills are bad.

Your basic notion seems to be that even though most historical bias has turned out to be totally unjustifiable, maybe the exact amount of bias we have today is perfectly justifiable by facts that we just don't know yet.

I can't say that's impossible, but I can say that a) it's not a smart or useful argument, and b) it totally ignores the actual harm done by today's bias in favor of worrying about what might happen if we're just too good to everybody regardless of gender.

Maybe you're the one guy in the world who spends a lot of time arguing in favor of gender bias not because he benefits from it and has soaked up society's pro-bias conditioning. Maybe you're the one pro-bias dude who comes upon it for purely intellectual reasons. But per Occam's Razor, you can guess which way I'm betting.

[jorgemf]

I am against any bias, I want to asses people by their skills. What I am saying is that some skills are in our genes and we cannot/shouldn't change that (not even with positive discrimination).

And you, instead of taking a look to the video I put in my previous comment, you decided to call me stupid. Great, do you know how I try to cure my stupidness? Reading and watching videos of people who knows more than me.

Food for your brain: how created a prejudice first about the other in our conversation?

[wpietri]

Yes, I will not be watching any videos. I don't like videos. If you have a point, feel free to make it.

I also didn't call you stupid. Sorry if I was unclear. I am suggesting you are a bigot.

[jorgemf]

The video is called Hjernevask [1] and it is a Norwegian documentary. Norwegian is one of the highly gender equal countries [2], for your information. The reporter is interviewing Norwegian social scientists about their theories of gender and social constructionism. The documentary generated much public debate in the country.

I knew you weren't calling me stupid. I called you stupid because you weren't able to spend 1 minute to check a reference and decided to throw up all your speech without even knowing what I was talking about.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask

[2] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....