Another post that actually loaded for me: http://homotopytypetheory.org/2013/06/20/the-hott-book/
[incidentally, it's the official post announcing the book]
[incidentally, it's the official post announcing the book]
"But more importantly, the spirit of collaboration that pervaded our group at the Institute for Advanced Study was truly amazing. We did not fragment. We talked, shared ideas, explained things to each other, and completely forgot who did what (so much in fact that we had to put some effort into reconstruction of history lest it be forgotten forever). The result was a substantial increase in productivity. There is a lesson to be learned here (...), namely that mathematicians benefit from being a little less possessive about their ideas and results. I know, I know, academic careers depend on proper credit being given and so on, but really those are just the idiosyncrasies of our time. If we can get mathematicians to share half-baked ideas, not to worry who contributed what to a paper, or even who the authors are, then we will reach a new and unimagined level of productivity. Progress is not made by those who break rules."
"Truly open research habitats cannot be obstructed by copyright, profit-grabbing publishers, patents, commercial secrets, and funding schemes that are based on faulty achievement metrics. Unfortunately we are all caught up in a system which suffers from all of these evils. But we made a small step in the right direction by making the book source code freely available under a permissive Creative Commons license. Anyone can take the book and modify it, send us improvements and corrections, translate it, or even sell it without giving us any money. (If you twitched a little bit when you read that sentence then the system has gotten to you.)"
(borrowing the google cache link from below: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?strip=1&q=cach...)
to the parent - by now, man, you probably know that a lot of people with downvoting karma here do lack a sense of humor and/or have very low tolerance for sarcasm. The main impact of XML innovation on human civilization is the ability to use <sarcasm> in an environment like this to at least minimize the wrath of the former group. Nothing though can help with the latter.
Until you do, don't assume the set of things women are inherently suitable for/interested in/able to do is not the same as for men.
Every time someone mentions that they think there's a difference between males and females, someone pushes up their glasses and asks "source?", as if the 6th layer of comments on a news aggregater is the place to rehash decades of complicated studies and biology.
Accept that the position that there are some differences is a reasonable one and move on, even if you disagree. We don't know how much of it is mental, but we don't know much about "mental" at all right now. We're guessing based on what we do know.
Just as long as we all don't let our guesses about the unknowns of science cloud our judgment in specific, concrete situations, we'll be perfectly fine. And merely believing that some differences do exist won't itself cause that.
Accepting that there are some differences does not lift the burden of persuasion off those who assert the existence of a particular difference, in the same way that accepting the idea that there are some murderers in the world doesn't lift the burden of persuasion off those who insist that a particular person is a murderer.
There are also a lot of difference in socialization and social treatment that are not innate differences.
> It is valid to conjecture that perhaps the observed difference is due to one of the innate differences.
It is also valid to conjecture that perhaps the observed difference is due to cultural/environmental forces and not due to one of the innate differences.
There's a big gap between conjecturing that something may perhaps be true (which is a very weak position that doesn't require much support) and asserting that something it true, or probably true, or the best explanation given the available evidence.
It is. But we originally started with someone conjecturing that it wasn't, and getting told off for it. Don't change it from "believing X is reasonable" to "believing not X is also reasonable".
Do you have proof for this assertion?
We know there are differences. We've chipped away at it for decades, and no one in science disagrees. The problem is that the obvious differences that are manifested are all macro physical, we don't know how the differences extend to the mental area. But then, in these kinds of arguments we don't really even know what we mean by "mental" because, technically, it's all physical. (At least, the part science cares about.)
Some people think that it doesn't extend to "mental". Some do. Considering the basic fact that our mental states are very obviously modified chemically, and that males and females get different chemical influences throughout life, I can't think anything but we have to leave that possibility open that there are consistent developmental differences. This is not one of those situations where it's probably most accurate to assume there is no difference until one is proven.
Also, stonemetal posted a link elsewhere in this comment thread. No one wanted to reply to that, they just wanted to post "are you sure?" in this thread.
And I can't help but wonder if this is supposed to be satire, considering above I posted:
> Every time someone mentions that they think there's a difference between males and females, someone pushes up their glasses and asks "source?", as if the 6th layer of comments on a news aggregater is the place to rehash decades of complicated studies and biology.
Male and female brains have been known to be physically different for quite a while. How much of an impact this has on thought process I don't know.