CharonY

The interesting bit is that even in a trait that arguably shows the highest sexual dimorphism, there is still a huge overlap over the middle range. Thus MigL's point largely stands. However, if the difference in this particular trait is already not hugely categorical already (assuming the data is correct), how much smaller do you think are differences in behaviour that are even more subtle (say, withstanding insults).

In which case you are ignoring the intention, but judging on the intended action.

That is true. However, it also shows that we, as a society do not really know what we want. We cannot just switch over to a gender-bias free behaviour, many aspects are ingrained in all of us. It will take the next couple of generations to figure out how they want to realize equality. I doubt any of us can free ourselves fully of the behaviour we learned since we are kids. Also, those on the receiving end are likely also not free of these preconceptions.

While I do not necessarily disagree, the issue with intention is, of course, that folks generally do not consider their own intentions are bad. There is always some kind of justification in ones mind, otherwise one would not have engaged in the actions in the first place. In other words, behaviour in a society, since the beginning of apes gathering in one spot, actions will be judged internally as well as externally. To take a historic example, folks that were all for segregation were also often folks considering racism a bad thing. Thus, their actions and support for segregation were in their mind not driven by racism. Yet the outcome is clearly one of oppression and denied economic growth (and worse), which we see until now. So while it is well-meant that one should not preconceive someones deeper intentions, we cannot solely judge it by this measure. And just to make it clear, the call not to judge folks by their actions is the new thing. It is not that we only recently started doing so. Rather, many, if not most societies has been traditionally far more harsher in punishing non-conformism. It is really that we are exploring new degrees of freedom (plus the impact of social media) that it appears that the game has changed.

And how does any of this connect with the claims in OP? To give an example, all you are saying that men are more aggressive. You are omitting two important questions. The first is how does it connect to your initial hypothesis. You claimed, for example that men just laugh things off, whereas women get upset. Is it because men are inherently more aggressive? How does that follow. In other words, does this trait actually have any tractable impact on what you experience to be gender differences? The second aspect is even assuming the difference is significant. How is distribution? Are all men more aggressive than all women? Or is there an overlap? How large is it? Note that the second aspect is really less important. Rather, you should figure out whether a perceived difference in behaviour is really linked to biology or is it just that you select a biologicak difference and then try to use it to explain all differences you see (whilst neglecting the arguably larger impact of societal behaviour modulation). Edit: crossposted with MigL who made my second point much clearer.

I do not know him personally but campaigning for a cause does not mean that one is immune from ignorance or bad behaviour in that respect. Asia Argento has been a champion of the metoo movement, yet there are accusations of at least sexual misconduct if not worse. Add that to the fact that he is older and grew up in a time where that was not an uncommon thing to state it may have just slipped out under stress and/or anger. You will note that even if we really want to be fair, each and everyone of us has ingrained prejudices. We may be able to maneuver around them when we are aware of them and use sufficient brainpower to address them, but it may not be the case if we are not fully focused. Regardless of what happened, I do not think that such slip ups are newsworthy or need to be vigorously defended or attacked. The more important bit is whether these occasions lead to more introspection and behavioural correction when a similar situation arises. Really, you think that in the 60s women were fully accepted as equals to men..? Really, don't make drag out data over Christmas... and happy holidays to you, too.

Why should they? You are implying there are important differences, so why not outline them? That way we can take a look at the literature and see whether you are correct. How, for example, do any of your examples correlate with hormones and which ones in particular? The overall point you should be thinking about is whether the differences you perceive are indeed connected to biological mechanisms or not. Just because there is different biology, it does not mean that it has a meaningful difference in the aspects you are looking at. It is not to say that there may not be differences, but the question then is also how large are these differences (especially psychological ones) and how much do cultural aspects magnify or minimize them. What, in other words, is the effect size?

I think it is less about it becoming sexist now, rather that traditionally the addition of "woman" to insults was, as Hyper mentioned, borne from a gendered view where women were viewed as inferior. That is where much of the criticism comes from, whether justified or not. I think accusations of PC are too easily dragged into these kind of issues, where folks are simply unaware (or uncaring) about historic connotations. There is a reason why folks are more upset when someone calls a black person an ape rather than a white person, for instance. That is not PC, that is awareness of history. Of course, there are also folks who are just in for a screaming match in order to make everyone look bad. However, that is another issue entirely.

It sounds a bit vague and I am especially confused about the textbook part. A textbook generally does not provide questions that need solving, if you are not in class anymore or in a PhD program. Rather they will become repositories to check some basic things. If research questions are meant then yes indeed, you will learn to a) identify open questions, b) reformulate these questions into testable hypotheses or at least smaller research questions that can be addressed, c) select or develop an utilize methods and approaches to tackle these smaller chunks of question and hopefully d) arrive to some satisfactory answers to the formulated research hypotheses (usually it ain't that smooth, though). For a) much of it is obtained by gaining familiarity with the subject matter (aka reading papers). Thereby you learn what is known to which degree and you can identify the open questions. b) and c) depends on the technical skill sets that you develop in your discipline and in experimental disciplines much of it is based on lab techniques you learn. Folks from different disciplines are likely to use slightly different approaches even when approaching the same subject. d) requires doing the work, tons of troubleshooting (in experimental sciences) and even more reading to make sense out of it (and usually going back in the lab).

! Moderator Note For individualized diagnostics you really need to consult a specialist, not a random website.

Yes a prerequisite is not being in HS anymore. Which is why it is associated with dropping out.

Found a report: So the number I mentioned includes general discrimination by six.

Wasn't it a total of ~8 medical universities doing that?

That is a great point. It would be helpful to talk to contact admission advisors in target colleges. Transfers could be complicated which is why online only institutions are often not a great choice. Even if he has, I do not actually think that the NCA can be tied to the degree itself, as it would be too broad. As Phi noted, it would need to be tied to the work there itself. But if there is no pay back clause, it may end up beneficial.

That is pretty much the same in any unmoderated (and some moderated) environments, isn't it? Some of them driven by the need of recognition/clicks, many others just by ignorance. Trying to get science info from such sources without sufficient expertise in the field of interest is kind of useless.

To echo Phi, be sure about the details and maybe have someone with expertise in labour law look at it. Make sure what it includes (i.e. paying for a full degree, a number of courses/credits, lump sum..?). Typically NCAs cover information and/or expertise gained at your place of employment that could benefit competitors. I am not sure whether a broad ban would be enforceable in the case of a degree. However, some contracts have a clause that you have to pay back tuition if you leave the employer and that is enforceable.

If it has to be online look for established unis with a program, such as Penn State. Not sure whether they offer reduced in-State tuition as with their regular ones. Otherwise, a high GPA can give you a scholarship, some may not be as easy or eligible with a high GED. Also take a look at FAFSA. Does your school have an advisor? Talk to them too for in-state options. To save money you can also consider taking credits in community college and then transfer.

That is where you are kinda wrong. Folks to treat it differently (including admissions) and there is little you can do about it. Some treat it equally, some not. University of Phoenix is... a risky choice. It is one of the pro-profits and it really does not have a good reputation. Also, it does not seem to be much cheaper than in-state tuition at a regular college. They are trying to improve their rep but while they may be a choice, they are not necessarily the best choice you can make.

There are some inherent energetic challenges with anaerobic respiration, which is why aerobic respiration ultimately won out. Most likely, even if oxygen was never introduced, there is a good chance that there is an upper limit in terms of complexity that could have developed under those constraints. Where those limits are, I have no idea.

Typically, you want to a have degree of an established college that also offers online degrees. Their acceptance typically follows the same rules as as their regular degrees. Whether they distinguish between GED or a diploma varies, but from what I understand the GED typically has a different mechanism. The issue here is that GED is associated with dropping out. It is possible that some admissions officers may like it that someone tries to shortcut their time to degree, but I sincerely doubt it. That I do see far less clearly than you do. How safe is the job throughout his degree? Is he clear which college he wants to attend and what their requirements are? What if he does not finish his degree for some unforeseeable reasons?

OP implied that getting a GED would be an equivalent degree, which would come with the added benefit of saved time. Sure, if you have a space in college and have the job as a gig getting through college that would be fine. However, OP proposes not to take the GPA route to get into college, and does not seem to take into calculation that they are not seen as an equivalent by many colleges. Exactly, which is why foregoing the safety of a HS-diploma for maybe a year or so of shorter schooling. The overall balance of the equation simply is risky with no certainty in its payoff. I.e. GED is typically something you do because you have to, not because you chose to. Many employers will see it that way, even if some may consider it to be equal. Essentially, for hiring purposes it is important that there are no weaknesses in the CV and it seems to create an unnecessary one. OP seemed to suggest that getting out earlier may be viewed positively, but I think the consensus is that this is not going to be the case and will not outweigh the lack of a HS-diploma. While it is correct that once a college degree is acquired, it will be moot. However, there are additional issues that OP should think about. This includes admission rules (which can be different with a GED, each school has its own way to deal with it). As an additional point, I am not sure whether OP has thought sufficiently about alternatives to an online degree (or potential disadvantages of online-only degrees). While it degrees by traditional institutions with online components are seeing more acceptance the question is whether OP might not be better off trying to get a conventional degree by utilizing other saving options. However, if no scholarship is available, it may be a good option.

The crux of the matter is that I and others sense misconceptions including the fact that GEDs are not perceived the same as a HS-diploma by employees or colleges. The other aspect is that the envisaged employment path does not seem to be fully fleshed out either (at least based on the description so far) and hinges on a single employer (Klayno's questions are very important for self-evaluation at this point). So the good thing is that he has been asking for input. But unless there are clear written agreements in place, with clear roles and advancement opportunities in the near future, it may be a risky move with little to no payoff (or worse in the long-term). Just as an example, the job could be low-level IT support or code monkey position with few responsibilities that one could highlight on a CV. Together with only an online degree (which could be difficult to attain in a full-time job without any support) it may cripple further advancement. Of course, if the financial situation absolutely demands it (which is a more common reason to drop out and get an GED eventually) it may be the best move. But again, that does not seem to be the case here.

There are various options but one of the things that you should consider is that without something written it is not worth much (or at least difficult to enforce). Also note that there seems to be bit a of a fair bit of uncertainty of employment. Even if someone suggested possible employment, without an offer letter it is again not worth much. And certainly not to take the risk that you are considering. With regard to employer-funded education, there are several somewhat common options. These include a type of scholarship/partnership with universities. These are typically offered by larger companies and/or local companies with ties to the university. Then there are scholarship as part of benefits. Other companies offer a reimbursement plan for education-related costs. Another option is basically the equivalent of a paid leave. I.e. you get paid full hours but are allowed to take a number of courses essentially on company time. There may be more options but these are the ones I heard most often among students.

I sure hope so and I do feel that there is a shift in attitude, largely carried by female faculty that will over time diminish the traditional cavalier attitude to these issues.

Essentially you can phrase it like this: dropping out and getting a GED is a big commitment from you for the company. Are they willing in investing in you, too (as opposed to getting young and cheap workers on the desk).