Why is Engineering such a male-dominated field?

[mooeypoo]

You have a specialized idea of the word "research". It is simply the collection of information with the purpose of deriving an educated conclusion. The formality of the collection process is not what you state it to be. Yet I did a very extensive research into this and feel it is worthy of a post on this forum.

Actually, you do.

 

We're going by scientific research. That excludes everything posted so far.

 

Beyond the fact that I insist you stop going in circles and talking irrelevant data without corroboration, I urge you to please read our rules.

You're disobeying them.

[Scotchmana]

What you're describing is not science. It's junk introspection. Period. It doesn't get us worthwhile therapies, or cancer drugs, or to the moon, or valid sociological observations. It doesn't get us anywhere. How should a layperson who might be reading this easily detect this fact? I'll show you:

 

 

Dear anyone who might be reading this: whenever anyone makes a pronouncement that begins with "The mind works by..." and then actually finishes the thought confidently with some short rubric or law... stop listening. Run in the other direction. You cannot, cannot, cannot express how the mind works in any such terms. You don't know how the mind works well enough to usefully sum it up in that manner. Neither do I. Neither does anyone. If anyone tries to, they're making it up. The end.

 

 

These are made up. These are not real psychometric instruments. That is not how psychometric instruments are named. Congratulations. You have made them up.

 

Well, you and I don't get along. You say I make everything I know up, I say your just rude. The mind is not complex at all and your view of it shows your comprehension of it.

 

Simplicity is the base parts that make up something. Complexity is a collection of simplicities. The degree of complexity is determined by the lack of one's ability to see the simplicities something is made of. And you sir are a complex man.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Scotchmana

[PhDwannabe]

You say I make everything I know up, I say your just rude.

You named three alleged IQ tests. Show them to me. Produce them.

[mooeypoo]

Well, you and I don't get along. You say I make everything I know up, I say your just rude. The mind is not complex at all and your view of it shows your comprehension of it.

 

Simplicity is the base parts that make up something. Complexity is a collection of simplicities. The degree of complexity is determined by the lack of one's ability to see the simplicities something is made of. And you sir are a complex man.

 

There's a very easy way to solve this, Scotchmana. All you need to do is post references to your claims, and prove your statement. That's all. Anything less is simply wild accusation.

 

Since you're the one who so far made the claims, it was up to you to provide proof for them, because that's the way things work -- the one who makes the claim has the responsibility to prove the claim. We have no responsibility to "disprove you". In science, we assume your statement is untrue until there's corroboration for it.

 

You insist on posting wild claims and provide zero evidence. Then when someone actually confronts you on consistency, you put another bigger claim with zero validation.

 

All you need to do is give us references. No one can argue with a proper reference.

Of course, you need to make sure the reference is unbiased and scientific. Yeah, we're demanding here in scienceforums. Go figure.

 

~mooey

[Scotchmana]

There's a very easy way to solve this, Scotchmana. All you need to do is post references to your claims, and prove your statement. That's all. Anything less is simply wild accusation.

 

Since you're the one who so far made the claims, it was up to you to provide proof for them, because that's the way things work -- the one who makes the claim has the responsibility to prove the claim. We have no responsibility to "disprove you". In science, we assume your statement is untrue until there's corroboration for it.

 

You insist on posting wild claims and provide zero evidence. Then when someone actually confronts you on consistency, you put another bigger claim with zero validation.

 

All you need to do is give us references. No one can argue with a proper reference.

Of course, you need to make sure the reference is unbiased and scientific. Yeah, we're demanding here in scienceforums. Go figure.

 

~mooey

 

Thank you for your notice. If we assume I am not stupid (no hostility or second meaning intended) then perhaps I did in fact provide you with a means of corroboration. You just didn't see it. I understood the request and formatted it so Phd would not see it, I just provided it in a form you are unfamiliar with. I stated that it was my own discovery so am lacking internet sources to quote from also considering that I am 12 years removed from this branch of research I lack access to the references even if they were what you seek.

 

I know what I said looks like wild claims. It is! I knew that all along as well as the rules these forums have with the intention not to violate them even if I flexed them abit. Please keep in mind the invite in the OP to post your thoughts. "What's the psychological reason for this?" Did you think I would reproduce a study, an authoritative document all backing up my personal thoughts? I gave my thoughts. Phdwannabe was so fixed on his frame of thinking he mist the most obvious thing in front of his face. So I had fun with that! Why not? More outlandish and bigger claims without sound reasoning all because the request for explanation was flawed in the face of the context (the part about the IQ tests was perfectly valid however and I removed it right away).

 

Anyway, point taken, I will tone down my pranks.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Scotchmana

[mooeypoo]

Thank you for your notice. If we assume I am not stupid (no hostility or second meaning intended) then perhaps I did in fact provide you with a means of corroboration. You just didn't see it.

Alright, seriously, really? I'm not supposed to dig through things and verify what you're saying -- it's your responsibility to produce readable facts and corroboration.

You signed up to this forum and by that you agreed to its rules. We'd really love to have an open discussion, but you really need to follow our rules.

I understood the request and formatted it so Phd would not see it, I just provided it in a form you are unfamiliar with. I stated that it was my own discovery so am lacking internet sources to quote from also considering that I am 12 years removed from this branch of research I lack access to the references even if they were what you seek.

Why would you do that? Are you here to discuss science or troll the forum? Check the definition of "Internet Troll", friend, because that trick above fits that definition, and that definition equals a ban.

As you summarized it yourself - "tone down" your tricks. Rather, don't use any. We're not here to throw dirt and mock one another, we're here to discuss the topics scientifically.

No one expects you to have a PhD in the subject matter -- however, you're making the claim, so you need to substantiate it, especially when someone (like PhDwannabe) counters you.

It is up to the person making the claim to support the claim. It's not up to us to disprove it.

I know what I said looks like wild claims. It is! I knew that all along as well as the rules these forums have with the intention not to violate them even if I flexed them abit. Please keep in mind the invite in the OP to post your thoughts. "What's the psychological reason for this?" Did you think I would reproduce a study, an authoritative document all backing up my personal thoughts? I gave my thoughts. Phdwannabe was so fixed on his frame of thinking he mist the most obvious thing in front of his face. So I had fun with that! Why not? More outlandish and bigger claims without sound reasoning all because the request for explanation was flawed in the face of the context (the part about the IQ tests was perfectly valid however and I removed it right away).

 

Anyway, point taken, I will tone down my pranks.

 

Please do.

If you give your thoughts, be ready to have them analyzed, criticized and countered. This isn't a casual mythos forums site, it's a science-oriented forum which means we follow the scientific methodology. First, if these are your opinions, *mark them as such*. Saying "in my opinion, X is true" will produce much less animosity than saying "X is true because I've seen it for myself" which is, essentially, what you said.

It's really simple - mark opinion as opinion (which I hope you agree is fair) and backup factual claims with facts (which I hope you agree is fair).

And read our rules, too, and I suggest you go over this post too, it's very helpful in seeing how to define thoughts versus actual scientific claims, and explain what people expect you to produce when you make claims.

~mooey

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Please review the forum rules.

In science it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to present the evidence, here, Scotchmana that is you.