That’s a very inappropriate comment and the professor who made it must be reprehended.
However, in order to get a PhD you must face much harder challenges. Whoever left engineering because of that comment is not fit for a PhD.
165 karma · joined December 25, 2020
However, in order to get a PhD you must face much harder challenges. Whoever left engineering because of that comment is not fit for a PhD.
It’s a well established fact that, even in children as young as a few weeks old, males and females have different preferences.
Man and women having different interests had innate, biological roots. It has been observed in children only a few weeks old.
I am not saying this explains the whole imbalance, but for sure it can explain part of it.
If the imbalance is the result of different innate preferences (and there’s a great deal of evidence it is) then working against nature is a waste of time and money!
We can discuss if this is worth more or less than <insert some other activity that contributes to global warming> and also discuss the merit of the new technology, but simple dismissing it as “contributing to global warming” is an inane argument.
Supporting agriculture == supporting global warming
Supporting any kind of traveling and international trade == supporting global warming
Reading the NY Times == supporting global warming
The fact that someone is offended doesn’t make it rude. People get offended for pretty much everything these days, yet not everything is rude!
Are you sure rude is the right term? Usually you would define rude something deliberate.
As annoying as it might be, this is not deliberate.
I suggest you avoid ad hominem attacks and discuss ideas, independently of who is expressing them.
It’s the argument Jordan Peterson was making, and probably one of his most misunderstood points.
He’s fine with people asking to be called in a certain way, and he would most likely oblige. He’s not fine with a state law dictating how pronouns should be used.
I think it makes sense.
Also, I would add that history is not linear, it’s not the progressive challenging of old prejudices.
Sometimes, in our efforts to strive for better morals, we make terrible mistakes. Phrenology come to mind, but there could be many other examples.
I am sure the vast majority of people don’t, while so many people feel completed to check something on the Internet.
Do you feel uncomfortable if you know in advance you won’t be able to use the library or the chess club for a whole day?
This means that you’ll find more males at the tails of the distribution, and guess where the chess champions are.
Speaking of scientific evidence, it is also well documented that men and women have different preferences in activities they like, since the very first few weeks of life. This might also play a role!
It’s pretty much the definition of value system, actually!
On the other hand, the problem of what’s good and what’s bad is of course far from being settled, at least looking at the diversity of opinions people have about the matter.
A great physicist without any doubt, but this quote in my opinion is symptomatic of a very shallow analysis when it comes to religion.
Without religion (or some other set of values, even secular values) it’s very difficult to define good or bad. You can come up with some general idea of treating other like you would like to be treated yourself, but the devil is in the details and there’s a ton of details! Also, many bad people did good deeds because of religion.
Sounds like a rant to me.
You can find nice stuff this way, even fully working bikes or TVs, but I have the feeling that sometimes people are abusing of this system and simply using it to get rid of broken stuff no one would pick up!
Ehm... They are still selling diamonds, just lab-grown. Optically identically to the ugly and boring ones.
It’s essentially the opposite of Aaron Swartz’s famous “Bits are not a bug” writeup.
https://me.me/i/barber-what-do-you-want-heaviside-you-heard-...