Crime Particles For Justice: Sexism, Gender & Physics

There's no intellectual superiority that accords to gender. None. Brilliant scientists regardless of gender.

If there's a national push to make the hard sciences attractive to girls in their formative education, there'd be plenty of girly science types with titties.
 
There's no intellectual superiority that accords to gender. None. Brilliant scientists regardless of gender.

If there's a national push to make the hard sciences attractive to girls in their formative education, there'd be plenty of girly science types with titties.

It's not about intellectual superiority. It's about preferences that generally differ by sex, and are strongly informed by biology. Scandinavian countries have gone the furthest to eliminate barriers and bias based on sex and they still have significant sex disparities in occupations and pay. That's not because women are being held back or not being informed of opportunities. It's because women generally have different preferences to men and make different choices.
 
There's no intellectual superiority that accords to gender. None. Brilliant scientists regardless of gender.

If there's a national push to make the hard sciences attractive to girls in their formative education, there'd be plenty of girly science types with titties.
On average there are differences. Depending on how you define "superiority" that could mean yes.

Question: "Are Women More Emotionally Intelligent than Men?"

"Yes, and Yes and No.

Emotional intelligence has four parts: self-awareness, managing our emotions, empathy, and social skill. There are many tests of emotional intelligence, and most seem to show that women tend to have an edge over men when it comes to these basic skills for a happy and successful life. That edge may matter more than ever in the workplace, as more companies are starting to recognize the advantages of high EI when it comes to positions like sales, teams, and leadership.


On the other hand, it's not that simple. For instance, some measures suggest women are on average better than men at some forms of empathy, and men do better than women when it comes to managing distressing emotions. Whenever you talk about such gender differences in behavior, your are referring to two different Bell Curves, one for men and one for women, that largely overlap. What this means is that any given man might be as good or better as any woman at empathy, and a woman as good as or better than a specific man at handling upsets.
"



https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...04/are-women-more-emotionally-intelligent-men

Interesting read.
 
Women are more focused on the social while men tend to be interested in the physical. I think that explains it. Traditional gender roles aren't necessarily enforced but often chosen. I'm pretty sure that makes me some sort of an "ist", but I don't much care.

Here in Calgary women get more financial incentives to enter the trades than men, but they just don't tend to choose those career paths regardless of how well they pay. Just like most men don't choose to go into child care regardless of how much more comfortable the work environment. It turns out hundreds of thousands of years of evolution shaped the sexes differently. Shocking, right?

Is under-performing women a phenomenon relevant to just physics?

In my 12 years working in the government technology sector, specifically programming for Web services, I've worked with some incredibly talented women.

Most of which were and are Indian or Chinese, exactly two were Eastern European.

Exactly zero were and are white or black American women, who instead have and do occupy the roles of support services and HR.

<Fedor23>

nobs.png


I mean, sure. If we pretend a woman wasn't the only person in history to win two of them in separate scientific fields, over a century ago. The 2018 co-recipient in physics is a woman (Canadian Donna Strickland). And maybe if someone like C.V. Raman had been robbed out of a physics prize, in the 1930s...

Or if Abdus Salam hadn't been given equal credit share with Steven Weinberg for their work on electroweak unification. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar? He won. Satyendra Nath Bose definitely deserved more credit during his time though. The Boson class of elementary particles - which follow Bose-Einstein statistics - was named in his honor by Paul Dirac.

Salam had a pretty interesting life and story.

 
An all-time survey conducted by Physics World.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/541840.stm

01. Albert Einstein
02. Isaac Newton
03. James Clerk Maxwell
04. Niels Bohr
05. Werner Heisenberg
06. Galileo Galilei
07. Richard Feynman
08. Paul Dirac (tie)
08. Erwin Schrödinger (tie)
10. Ernest Rutherford


I disagree strongly with it.

Of course, I'm not remotely in any position to criticize but I think it's nonsense and find "guys like Bohr" relatively overrated. His most significant contribution was a theoretical model of how electrons (discovered by JJ Thomson) orbit a positively charged nucleus (discovered by Ernest Rutherford) based on Max Planck's quantum theory of radiation (the origin) and was rendered obsolete within less than a decade. All of the aforementioned remain fundamental.

There were two different iterations of quantum mechanics when it was established: matrix mechanics (Werner Heisenberg) and wave mechanics (Erwin Schrödinger). The QM used today predominantly utilizes the wavefunction in the latter's equation to describe fundamental forces and subatomic particles and is considered the F=ma of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg has actually become better known for the contribution of the Uncertainty Principle.

It was Paul Dirac that showed matrix and wave mechanics to be mathematically equivalent although he's much better known for reconciling quantum mechanics with special relativity which predicted the existence of antimatter, was the first step towards the advent of Quantum Field Theory and thus, ultimately the Standard Model.

I'd probably have it something along these lines if you're going to try and "rate" physicists.

01. Sir Isaac Newton
02. Albert Einstein
03. James Clerk Maxwell
04. Michael Faraday
05. Erwin Schrödinger
06. Werner Heisenberg
07. Paul Dirac
08. Ernest Rutherford
09. JJ Thomson
10. Max Planck

8177246310_ebf4e4e05e.jpg
What about Einstein stealing Poincaré’s work. Can’t take that list seriously without Euler, Lagrange, Laplace, Hamilton, etc

f=ma is all nice but you can see its limitations after first freshman physics class. Most of the time you will not work in cartesian coordinates.

3pdjae.jpg

Matrix theory is the backbone of modern physics but neither Cayley or Sylvester are mentioned? Yeah man, that list requires work. Also lol at no mention of Gauss
 
Last edited:
Professor Strumia; truly a genetically superior human specimen <{Heymansnicker}>


IMG_8972-2.jpg
 
It’s nonsense. Women weren’t interested enough in mathematics and physics back then and that’s that. They couldn’t handle the criticism. Hell, Cantor got crucified by his peers and so did many others. He ended up in a nut house. Boltzmann was driven to suicide by his contemporaries. No wonder women wanted none of that. There was Noether though
 
What about Einstein stealing Poincaré’s work. Can’t take that list seriously without Euler, Lagrange, Laplace, Hamilton, etc

f=ma is all nice but you can see its limitations after first freshman physics class. Most of the time you will not work in cartesian coordinates.

3pdjae.jpg

Matrix theory is the backbone of modern physics but neither Cayley or Sylvester are mentioned? Yeah man, that list requires work. Also lol at no mention of Gauss

And no General Relativity sans Bernhard Riemann's differential geometry, etc. That's a murderer's row of mathematicians. I don't think the physicists who answered the survey republished by BBC were denying the language so much as attempting to draw a distinction between themselves. Feynman's rants on that are pretty amusing.
 
And no General Relativity sans Bernhard Riemann's differential geometry, etc. That's a murderer's row of mathematicians. I don't think the physicists who answered the survey republished by BBC were denying the language so much as attempting to draw a distinction between themselves. Feynman's rants on that are pretty amusing.
Do you have a link for said rants? I’m intrigued
 
He was probably the last legit superstar scientist.

Richard Phillips Feynman (/ˈfaɪnmən/; May 11, 1918 – February 15, 1988) was an American theoretical physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics and the theory of quantum electrodynamics. For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman, jointly with Julian Schwinger and Shin'ichirō Tomonaga, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965.

Feynman developed a widely used pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles, which later became known as Feynman diagrams. Along with his work in theoretical physics, Feynman has been credited with pioneering the field of quantum computing and introducing the concept of nanotechnology. He assisted in the development of the atomic bomb during World War II and became known to a wide public in the 1980s as a member of the Rogers Commission, the panel that investigated the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Feynman held the Richard C. Tolman professorship in theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology. He was a keen popularizer of physics through both books and lectures, including a 1959 talk on top-down nanotechnology called There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom, and the three-volume publication of his undergraduate lectures, The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Feynman also became known through his semi-autobiographical books Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and What Do You Care What Other People Think?.


 
Professor Strumia; truly a genetically superior human specimen <{Heymansnicker}>


IMG_8972-2.jpg

Yeah, physicists usually aren't too renowned for their physical sex appeal or known to have vibrant personalites.

Dirac: "Heisenberg, why do you dance?"

Heisenberg: "Well, they're nice girls."

[.....pause.....]

Dirac: "...But how do you know beforehand that the girls are nice?"
 
^^ His Twitter account is suspended now. <45>
 
Back
Top