/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7292253]

Was he right about women?

[Anonymous No.7292256]

probably

[Anonymous No.7292259]

nah he just needed to get laid tbh fam

[Anonymous No.7292260]

yeah some of them are wonderful

[Anonymous No.7292399]

>>7292253
Some people suck. Some people suck less. Some people are actually so retarded that they think that ALL people who share one trait must share any number of others.

[Anonymous No.7292407]

>>7292399
>Some people are actually so retarded that they think that ALL people who share one trait must share any number of others.

This is not a 'retarded' proposition.

All bachelors are unmarried.

All women are evil.

[Anonymous No.7292419]

>>7292407
ok chief

[Anonymous No.7292426]

>>7292407
Enumerative arguments are fucking retarded very often

[Anonymous No.7292431]

>>7292399
>>7292407
sup reddit

[Anonymous No.7292479]

>>7292253
>listening to survey of philosophy book
>has chapters on many important philosophers and then critiques of them
>professor/author knows his shit and is pretty evenhanded about everyone
>get to the critique of schopenhauer
>"and as for his half-truths about women blah blah"
>"half-truths"
>even this libcuck feminized professor grudgingly admits Schopenhauer was on to something with "on women"

[Anonymous No.7292528]

>>7292431
You realize calling people 'reddit' is the first sign of being reddit, right?

[Anonymous No.7292597]

It's a good read. It says a lot about the role of women in much of Western and global society to this day, albeit from a misogynist's perspective. It's a pessimistic view of the life of a woman. Often, men treat women like children (often not even consciously tbh) and then wonder why the women they interact with act as such, etc, etc.

>Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them

this is where the whole "Be yourself" / "honesty" shit comes in. Like I said, read it with a grain of salt - have you ever met a perfectly truthful anyone? No.

[Anonymous No.7292696]

>>7292253
Yes

[Anonymous No.7292933]

>>7292479
it's like a real life Quentin comic

[Anonymous No.7292947]

The whole thing reads like the sort of angry screed you'd write immediately after being scorned. I mean, we've all been there, but it's an odd thing to internalize it like that.

[Anonymous No.7292956]

he was right in thinking you're all boring fucking losers who don't deserve the gift of life

[Anonymous No.7292964]

>>7292259
he got laid a lot, even had a baby mama on the dl

[Anonymous No.7292965]

>>7292253
I hadn't skimmed the essay before, just did. Shit, I don't know how I feel. If I were to generalize I can get where he comes from, but shit it hurts personally. Seems to be ignoring the social restrictions on women for centuries that makes it way harder to reveal their genius and artistry and whatnot.

[Anonymous No.7292975]

>>7292965
that bad feeling is the veil being removed

[Anonymous No.7292984]

>>7292975
There is no veil, I unfortunately dislike my own gender in a lot of ways. He's just ignoring the cause and effect relationship of social influence on a person's ability to reach their full potential on a large, resounding scale.

[Anonymous No.7292985]

>>7292965
>Seems to be ignoring the social restrictions on women for centuries that makes it way harder to reveal their genius and artistry and whatnot.

"I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man." - Schoppy

[Anonymous No.7292987]

>>7292253
Generally yes.

[Anonymous No.7292989]

ITT: children attempting to psychoanaylze some dead old white guy from the 19th century

[Anonymous No.7293026]

>>7292989
>ITT: children attempting to psychoanaylze some dead old white guy from the 19th century

Is there an unchildish way to psychoanalyze someone?

[Anonymous No.7293027]

>>7292253

He couldn't have been more right, and his analysis of woman is more relevant than ever.

>Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing. This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence.

The above piece is particularly brilliant.

[Anonymous No.7293042]

>>7293027
Hmm... I was going to ask you what you thought of Nina Simone's "Sinnerman" but then saw it was written by Les Baxter and Will Holt originally.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.7293044]

>>7293027
>Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.
That is, initially, how just about everyone acquires taste. They like what they think it is appropriate to like, and then grow to authentically enjoy it.

>This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything
How the hell are you supposed to have a "purely objective interest" in art?

>A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone.
That's not really surprising considering how 19th Century society was structured...think about that for a minute. And for higher positions even today, it works the same for women (as it does with men), we call that "connections".


>Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence.
The same has said about men trying to get women, and it is equally absurd.

[Anonymous No.7293050]

Sylvia Plath first convinced me that poetry had merit. You can say what you want about women, but bad at poetry? 0.o

[Anonymous No.7293080]

>>7293044

>How the hell are you supposed have a "purely objective interest" in art?

He said it is impossible for them to have a purely objective interest in 'anything'. He said nothing at all about an objective interest in art, that is a result of your miscomprehension.'

.
>That's not really surprising considering how 19th Century society was structured...think about that for a minute. "

And yet today in the 21st century this can still be easily observed. A modern example are the gamer girls /v/ loves to cry about.


>The same has said about men trying to get women, and it is equally absurd.

If women had a genuine, direct interest in any field then they would have achievements in those fields to show for it.
They do not, and so it can be said that they lack a general direct interest in anything.
How can the same be said about men, when there is abundant proof of their genuine interest in various things, in the form of famed painters, architects, philosophers etc?

[Anonymous No.7293093]

>>7293050

You haven't read much poetry. Plath is mediocre at best, especially when compared with the likes of Virgil, Shelley, Byron, Yeats, and any number of male poets.

[Anonymous No.7293098]

he's right but he should maybe also speak of the good of women and femininity because it certainly exists

[Anonymous No.7293116]

>>7293098

Of course they exist. But it depends on what you define as a good woman. For a feminist that means a woman who emulates men.

Reasonable people on the other hand judge a things worth by how well it fulfills its function. For example I judge a knife to be good if it cuts well. Similarly, I judge a woman by her capacity to breed, rear children, maintain a home and please her mate. Because that is the function assigned to women by nature.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.7293117]

>>7293080
>He said it is impossible for them to have a purely objective interest in 'anything'. He said nothing at all about an objective interest in art, that is a result of your miscomprehension.'
It's impossible for anyone to have a "purely objective interest" in anything, because objective means "disinterested".

>And yet today in the 21st century this can still be easily observed. A modern example are the gamer girls /v/ loves to cry about.
I don't know or care anything about the video game industry, but if I did I wouldn't get my knowledge and facts from /v/-/pol/ collaborative effort to "red pill" us.

>If women had a genuine, direct interest in any field then they would have achievements in those fields to show for it.
Women are really only just breaking into those fields, and there have been some very decent results, but it will obviously take quite some time before women have an existential situation identical to the male one, and therefore are driven to the same things. It might not even be good for women to have the same existential condition as men, it's probably better to keep them separate conditions, but people like Schopenhauer who demean the female existential condition don't help with that. If it had been appreciated for all its merit, then feminism would probably never have been a thing. But because the market taught us that it's worthless, women wanted to switch the valued condition, the male existential condition. And they're just beginning to get used to it, they still aren't actually there yet because men and women are treated different socially. Not just the way women have it harder, but also the ways they have it easier makes their condition as of yet unsuitable for these mostly male pursuits. I think it was Dostoevsky who said that suffering causes consciousness, and it was Dante who said that the more perfect something it is, the greater its capacity for suffering. Well, women are only just beginning to step out of the suffering that accompanies the female existential condition, and into the suffering that goes with the male existential condition, which is part of higher consciousness.

[Anonymous No.7293125]

>>7293117

>objective means disinterested

I hope you're trolling.

In this context it means an interest purely for the sake of the subject, because you love the subject, as opposed to an interest in a subject for the sake of something else, such as money.

[Anonymous No.7293133]

>>7293093
I can recite Ozymandias from memory, but Plath honestly wipes the floor with most Shelley. Who was incidentally the husband of a woman partially responsible for creating an entire genre of fiction.

[Anonymous No.7293148]

>>7293133

Genre fiction is trash and hardly something to brag about. As for Plath surpassing Shelley; posterity disagrees with you.

[Anonymous No.7293156]

>>7292933
Dumb comic

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.7293157]

>>7293125
That would be a purely subjective interest.

[Anonymous No.7293171]

>>7293156
why?
it's a classic Quentinesque masterpiece without being Quentin himself

[Anonymous No.7293172]

>>7293148
Plath is still relatively contemporary, and one of the most highly-regarded poets to have ever lived, despite it. I can kinda tell you're not really the type to derive opinions for themselves, though, given your list of great poets.

[Anonymous No.7293177]

>>7293157
No, it's objective

[Anonymous No.7293184]

>>7293157

No

A purely subjective interest would be an interest held not for the sake of the subject itself but an interest entirely for another given reason.

For example, a man who studies chemistry only in order to win a cash prize at a competition, and not out of an interest in chemistry, can be said to have a purely subjective interest. Because the interest is subject to an external reason, and not to itself.

[Anonymous No.7293192]

>>7293117
>>7293125
>>7293157
>>7293177
>>7293184

That tripfag is proving Schoppy right, one post at a time

Top kek

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.7293200]

>>7293177
>>7293184
I don't know where you're getting this definition, but it certainly isn't from Kant, whose terminology is probably being employed here.

[Anonymous No.7293232]

>>7293200

You lack a basic understanding of what objective means.

[Anonymous No.7293255]

>woman denies the veracity of Schopenhauer's views
>while she demonstrates that she can't even grasp what he's saying at the most basic level

[Anonymous No.7293259]

>>7292399
>being this reductionistic
you've gone too far.

[Anonymous No.7293271]

>>7293116
it's funny because radical feminists (I mean actual radical feminists, not what /pol/ thinks they are) would probably agree somewhat with Schopenhauer in that they've realised there is an innate difference between men and women and that masculinity is inherently domineering

[Anonymous No.7293287]

>>7292984
L O N D O N

O

N

D

O

N

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.7293295]

>>7293232
>The judgement of taste is distinguished from a logical judgement in this, that the latter subsumes a representation under the concept of the Object, while the former does not subsume it under any concept; because otherwise the necessary universal agreement [in these judgements] would be capable of being enforced by proofs. Nevertheless it is like the latter in this, that it claims universality and necessity, though not according to concepts of the Object, and consequently a merely subjective necessity. Now, because the concepts in a judgement constitute its content (what belongs to the cognition of the Object), but the judgement of taste is not determinable by concepts, it is based only on the subjective formal condition of a judgement in general. The subjective condition of all judgements is the faculty of Judgement itself. This when used with reference to a representation by which an object is given, requires the accordance of two representative powers: viz. Imagination (for the intuition and comprehension of the manifold) and Understanding (for the concept as a representation of the unity of this comprehension). Now because no concept of the Object lies here at the basis of the judgement, it can only consist in the subsumption of the Imagination itself (in the case of a representation by which an object is given) under the conditions that the Understanding requires to pass from intuition to concepts. That is, because the freedom of the Imagination consists in the fact that it schematises without any concept, the judgement of taste must rest on a mere sensation of the reciprocal activity of [162] the Imagination in its freedom and the Understanding with its conformity to law. It must therefore rest on a feeling, which makes us judge the object by the purposiveness of the representation (by which an object is given) in respect of the furtherance of the cognitive faculty in its free play. Taste, then, as subjective Judgement, contains a principle of subsumption, not of intuitions under concepts, but of the faculty of intuitions or presentations (i.e. the Imagination) under the faculty of the concepts (i.e. the Understanding); so far as the former in its freedom harmonises with the latter in its conformity to law.

[Anonymous No.7293322]

>>7292407
Nice, let's apply that to women.

All females are non-male.
>>7292253
Idk what his views are on women tbh

[Anonymous No.7293332]

>>7293295


subjective
[suh b-jek-tiv]
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (as opposed to objective)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective


You should build an understanding of basic concepts like objective and subjective before reading and, even worse, quoting philosophers and writers that are so clearly beyond your level of comprehension.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.7293354]

>>7293332
This is exactly why, as I just quoted Kant saying, all taste is necessarily a subjective judgement.

[Anonymous No.7293364]

>>7293354
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." -David Hume

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.7293372]

>>7293364
>ought

[Anonymous No.7293375]

>>7293332

Please, please tell me you're trolling. Tell me you are purposely misunderstanding everything to bait increasingly detailed and inane responses from me.

Today will be unpleasant if because of you I am reminded that such obtuse people exist.

[Anonymous No.7293381]

>>7293117
Outis, since when are you back?

[Anonymous No.7293390]

>>7293372
Normative ethics are about what ought to be.

[Anonymous No.7293743]

>>7293026
benis :DDD

t. freud

[Anonymous No.7293750]

>>7292399
Women aren't really people though tbphwyhf (to be perfectly honest with you here family)

[Anonymous No.7293853]

>>7293156
>/mu/fag can't understand satire that doesn't zealously pick a side

[Anonymous No.7293931]

>>7292253
He was completely right, but it's a Lovecraftian truth that it does you no good to know. It's best to forget the cursed essay exists.

[Anonymous No.7294322]

>>7292933
Literally what is wrong with /mu/
The meme rap is fucking cancerous

[Anonymous No.7295403]

>>7292253

If you hate life then yes.

[Anonymous No.7295451]

>>7292984
LONDON

[Anonymous No.7295461]

>>7295403
non sequitur

[Anonymous No.7295650]

>>7295461

Schopenhauer was thoroughly life denying, and his opinion of women is merely a follow up to that. Where there was beauty and procreation he saw only decay and suffering.

[Anonymous No.7295732]

>>7292965
>Seems to be ignoring the social restrictions on women for centuries that makes it way harder to reveal their genius and artistry and whatnot.
You know his mum was a famous author too?

[Anonymous No.7295765]

It's one of his weaker essays. He clearly doesn't hate women as passionately as life or Hegel. On the Sufferings of the World and On the Vanity of Existence is some of the most powerful and poetic hatred of anything ever written and it is directed at everything. On Women is a half-assed blog post is comparison.

>The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or, at any rate, there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other.
>The best consolation in misfortune or affliction of any kind will be the thought of other people who are in a still worse plight than yourself; and this is a form of consolation open to every one. But what an awful fate this means for mankind as a whole!
>We are like lambs in a field, disporting themselves under the eye of the butcher, who chooses out first one and then another for his prey. So it is that in our good days we are all unconscious of the evil Fate may have presently in store for us — sickness, poverty, mutilation, loss of sight or reason.

>In early youth, as we contemplate our coming life, we are like children in a theatre before the curtain is raised, sitting there in high spirits and eagerly waiting for the play to begin. It is a blessing that we do not know what is really going to happen. Could we foresee it, there are times when children might seem like innocent prisoners, condemned, not to death, but to life, and as yet all unconscious of what their sentence means. Nevertheless, every man desires to reach old age; in other words, a state of life of which it may be said: “It is bad to-day, and it will be worse to-morrow; and so on till the worst of all.”
>If you try to imagine, as nearly as you can, what an amount of misery, pain and suffering of every kind the sun shines upon in its course, you will admit that it would be much better if, on the earth as little as on the moon, the sun were able to call forth the phenomena of life; and if, here as there, the surface were still in a crystalline state.
>Again, you may look upon life as an unprofitable episode, disturbing the blessed calm of non-existence. And, in any case, even though things have gone with you tolerably well, the longer you live the more clearly you will feel that, on the whole, life is a disappointment, nay, a cheat.

[Anonymous No.7296440]

>>7295461

btfo

[Anonymous No.7297014]

>>7292253
>Was he right about women?

Was he wrong about anything?

[Anonymous No.7297315]

>>7294322
Dark times fall upon those lands.

[Anonymous No.7298659]

>>7293172
>one of the most highly-regarded poets
on an Indonesian cooking board

[Anonymous No.7298677]

>>7292253
Can we at least acknowege inehrent biolgoical differences between men and women and how they influence behavior without being associated with bigots like Schopenhauer?

[Anonymous No.7298691]

Women are still being treated like children.
If this is of their own accord is to be debated, but seeing how men respond to females on the workfloor and how they do to other men is telling alone.

Of course you undergrads wouldn't know with all the cool chick you're orbitting. Hope you develop some self-awareness over the years and see how much of a cuck you are.

[Anonymous No.7298698]

>>7298677
sure, if you recognize that those same biological differences aren't proven objectively to affect a woman's rate of achievement in comparison to a man

[Anonymous No.7298703]

>>7298698
You deny that the biological differences between men and women have no impact on their achievements? How do you know this?

[Anonymous No.7298709]

I'd like to believe that women can be virtuous. I'm constantly looking for a counterexample to Schopie's claims.
Haven't found her yet. Every woman I've ever dated has been a self-absorbed maniac. Do I think that all women are this way? No. I'm just waiting for my counterexample.

[Anonymous No.7298711]

>“Schopenhauer, one of the most lucid and sharpest stylists of all time, inaccurately portrayed as a drooling bigot by white knights and feminists

The childish inadequacy of feminist response to Schopenhauer proves him correct more completely than any further textual argument could.”

[Anonymous No.7298714]

>>7298703
You say that biological differences between men and women have an impact on their achievements? How do you know this?

[Anonymous No.7298717]

>>7298709
To be fair, fam, most people are self-absorbed maniacs.

[Anonymous No.7298721]

>>7298711
why do you quote yourself?

>>7298709
most people today are self-absorbed maniacs

faggot here

[Anonymous No.7298730]

>>7298714
Because it's observable in countless tests of spatial and analytic abilities, and many human achievements depend on these skills

[Anonymous No.7298733]

At least Weininger, Freud, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and a whole set of others offer a view of women.
A view in today's context always triggers some faggot in going on a barrage that his anecdotes prove to the contrary and we should just abandon statements altogether ( which is what today's generation really is all about, silencing and behaviour policing as soon as it involves this/that group ).

All the 21st century does is saying "there's exceptions". As if that tells us anything at all.
It is a hollow statement, one after the other. And this is not only for women, but about everything in human existence.

[Anonymous No.7298736]

>>7298730
Would like a source on those analytic abilities tests.

And spatial abilities are hardly important for intellectual achievement.

[Anonymous No.7298743]

>>7298733
>boo hoo, I can't make blanket statements about the world without evidence anymore

Cry some more faggot.

[Anonymous No.7298749]

>>7298743

>the aforementioned made blanket statements

Sure they did. All white men, right?

Anecdotes aren't evidence.

Your cool college experience tells us nothing.
Stop being a self-absorbed cunt and try putting aside your happy little safe space life aside for a second and confront brutal reality, if you can.

[Anonymous No.7298750]

>>7292253
He was right about women of his time.

[Anonymous No.7298752]

>>7298750

The ones of today are all angels.

[Anonymous No.7298757]

I believe the man [Schopenhauer] was not seeking to insult women at all, but only hoping to qualify their intelligence. Only in America could this be considered an insult, with its foolish assertion that woman is also another man.

[Anonymous No.7298759]

>>7298749
>Anecdotes aren't evidence.

yeah, as long as they contradict your point apparently, your side seems all the more happy to cite "yeah, but my ex/sister/mother is such a vapid cunt, that proves all women are stoopid!"

>Stop being a self-absorbed cunt and try putting aside your happy little safe space life aside for a second and confront brutal reality

that there are violent people, terrorists, extremists, and morons like you out there? wow, what a shocking reality, i am shocked, you have opened my eyes with your little poorly drawn comic you poached off someone

keep crying faggot, maybe then the ess-jay-double u menace will go away

[Anonymous No.7298762]

>>7298749
Are you an idiot out of choice or because of mental retardation?

[Anonymous No.7298775]

>>7293093
>Plath is mediocre at best
Looks like you haven't read much poetry either.
Plath developed fine craft - almost absurdly good for someone of her age.
There are many poets better than Plath, but most of them had a life very much larger than her, thus writing more and better.
Only people who are halfway through with poetry - therefore being in the hipster phase and with no understanding on poetry writing- think that Plath was a bad poet.

[Anonymous No.7298777]

>>7298759

>yeah, as long as they contradict your point apparently

No, they aren't evidence. My anecdotes aren't evidence, so aren't yours.
Show me where I found any other anecdote to be okay enough? Right. Now fuck off.

>that there are violent people, terrorists, extremists, and morons like you out there?

Quite a stretch there. Got anything to back up the claim I belong in the category as terrorists and extremists?
Straw manning the fuck out of everything here brah. Did you even get an education?

[Anonymous No.7298782]

>>7298762

>u dont agree with deh doxa so ur dumb

It's 2015 rite?

[Anonymous No.7298789]

>>7292965
>and whatnot
never do this again. please.

[Anonymous No.7298790]

>>7298777
show me some "evidence" then, friendo

>Got anything to back up the claim I belong in the category as terrorists and extremists?

i dig the pedantry, and the complete imperviousness to tone

[Anonymous No.7298793]

>>7298736
>Would like a source on those analytic abilities tests.
"The variability hypothesis still evokes controversy, but recent data and analyses may bring some closure to the debate […] Data from a number of representative mental test surveys, involving samples drawn from the national population, have become available in the past twenty years in the USA. These have finally provided consistent results. Both Feingold (1992b) and Hedges and Nowell (1995) have reported that, despite average sex differences being small and relatively stable over time, test score variances of males were generally larger than those of females. Feingold found that males were more variable than females on tests of quantitative reasoning, spatial visualisation, spelling, and general knowledge. […] Hedges and Nowell go one step further and demonstrate that, with the exception of performance on tests of reading comprehension, perceptual speed, and associative memory, more males than females were observed among high-scoring individuals."

Archer, John; Lloyd, Barbara (2002). Sex and Gender (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 186–8.

>And spatial abilities are hardly important for intellectual achievement.
Intellectual achievements within fields like math and science are extremely dependent upon spatial abilities

[Anonymous No.7298795]

>>7298698
If spatial memory - the aspect of the brain most associated with STEM fields - is unevenly distributed between the genders, wouldn't that at least partially explain women's underacheivement in that field?

[Anonymous No.7298803]

>>7292933
Why the fuck did they choose Camus for this?

[Anonymous No.7298804]

>>7298793
What were the other categories that weren't reading comprehension, perceptual speed and associative memory?

[Anonymous No.7298825]

>>7293750
I just wanted to say that this is a really exquisite shitpost. A lot of the time people go for grand scenes of spamming or pure retardation, but this is the perfect level of self-aware ironic memeing/baiting and simplicity.

I appreciate that anons like you are on the board; I hope to talk to you in a more serious manner sometime because you seem like an amusing and intelligent person.

[Anonymous No.7298829]

>>7298793
"In recent years, the magnitude, consistency, and stability across time of cognitive sex differences have been questioned. The present study examined these issues in the context of spatial abilities. A meta-analysis of 286 effect sizes from a variety of spatial ability measures was conducted. Effect sizes were partitioned by the specific test used and by a number of variables related to the experimental procedure in order to achieve homogeneity. Results showed that sex differences are significant in several tests but that some intertest differences exist. Partial support was found for the notion that the magnitude of sex differences has decreased in recent years. Finally, it was found that the age of emergence of sex differences depends on the test used. Results are discussed with regard to their implications for the study of sex differences in spatial abilities."

Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P., (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250-270.

"Reviewers have consistently concluded that males perform better on mathematics tests than females do. To make a refined assessment of the magnitude of gender differences in mathematics performance, we performed a meta-analysis of 100 studies. They yielded 254 independent effect sizes, representing the testing of 3,175,188 Ss. Averaged over all effect sizes based on samples of the general population, d was -0.05, indicating that females outperformed males by only a negligible amount. For computation, d was -0.14 (the negative value indicating superior performance by females). For understanding of mathematical concepts, d was -0.03; for complex problem solving, d was 0.08. An examination of age trends indicated that girls showed a slight superiority in computation in elementary school and middle school. There were no gender differences in problem solving in elementary or middle school; differences favoring men emerged in high school (d = 0.29) and in college (d = 0.32). Gender differences were smallest and actually favored females in samples of the general population, grew larger with increasingly selective samples, and were largest for highly selected samples and samples of highly precocious persons. The magnitude of the gender difference has declined over the years; for studies published in 1973 or earlier d was 0.31, whereas it was 0.14 for studies published in 1974 or later. We conclude that gender differences in mathematics performance are small."

Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139-155.

[Anonymous No.7298830]

>>7292399

>Some

Make that most and I'll agree.

[Anonymous No.7298836]

>>7293287
can someone explain this meme to me?

[Anonymous No.7298845]

>>7298836
L O N D O N
O N D O N L
N D O N L O
D O N L O N
O N L O N D
N L O N D O

[Anonymous No.7298849]

>>7298836
It started with a guy on /fit/ who would always write 'Please be in London' when girls posted their pictures. This catch phrase evolved into 'LONDON' and finally the stylized LONDON you are asking about.

For the record, literally googling 'London meme' would get you a better answer than anyone here can give.

[Anonymous No.7298853]

>>7298849
I thought it started on /fa/

[Anonymous No.7298860]

>>7298853
Googling it seems to corroborate the /fit/ story, though there are some different details:

>“Please be in London,” sometimes written as “pls be in London,” is an expression often used as a sarcastic response to a post by someone claiming to be a woman. It is rumored to originate in a /fit/ thread in which the user TinyTrip said “please be in London” to a trans woman

[Anonymous No.7298869]

>>7298803

Because he's "African"

[Anonymous No.7298894]

>>7298829
>Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P., (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250-270.
This is not a denial or refutation of the claim

>Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139-155.
This is an openly biased study that is outright using unscientific, value-judgement terms like superior, precocious, and inferior in the abstract you cited. Its primary author is a women's studies professor, and it makes very clear that its purpose is to challenge preexisting assumptions about psychological differences between men and women rather than conduct a proper empirical data-based analysis of studies on gender differences in mathematics performances. I can't read the full study without paying a fee, but I have heavy doubts about its scientific accuracy

[Anonymous No.7298903]

>>7293390
And we can thank Hume for that distinction. It all comes back full circle when you're arguing with namefags.

[Anonymous No.7298953]

>>7298829
>for studies published in 1973 or earlier d was 0.31, whereas it was 0.14 for studies published in 1974 or later.
So in other words women only perform moderately worse in math rather than much worse? Also, there's a huge difference between arithmetic and calculus. The gap in arithmetic being lower would make the overall gap itself lower, even when women are dropping out on college math at a disproportionate degree.

[Anonymous No.7298958]

>>7298860
it was /fa/ you pleb

[Twiggy !zf/ZW7mGp6 No.7298966]

Has one person on this board had sex?

[Anonymous No.7298985]

>>7298958
Oh really?

[Anonymous No.7298993]

>>7292933
>its very eurocentric to think music has to be "good" to listen to it
I laughed out loud 10/10

[Anonymous No.7299059]

>>7298894
Even if her wording leads to value judgements, you can't falsify the pool of studies she's drawing from to chart the evolution of scores.

The other two researchers are a mathematician, and a theorist on education, the latter co-signing another study which tracked a pool of students of both genders through high-school, also finding no consistent gender difference, but finding divergences in the predictors for score in different genders.

So yeah, dismissing that on such simplistic grounds is out of the question.

>This is not a denial or refutation of the claim

It provides an alternate interpretation as to why women underperform men in those tests. It also re-states the observation that women's scores have been steadily rising over the past decades, something that cannot be explained through biology or simplistic interpretations of the theory of evolution.

[Anonymous No.7299083]

>>7292933
lmao at Bill Evans and Dave Brubeck

[Anonymous No.7299949]

>>7298966
Technically, fapping is sex

[Anonymous No.7301268]

>>7298795
The largest differences in spatial performance between men and women disappear when adjusted for stereotypes and self-perception:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2555429/

>>7298894
> and it makes very clear that its purpose is to challenge preexisting assumptions about psychological differences between men and women rather than conduct a proper empirical data-based analysis of studies on gender differences in mathematics performances.

Science is all about falsification and doesn't shun assuming an outcome before an experiment, that's basically what a hypothesis IS, you dipshit.

>This is an openly biased study that is outright using unscientific, value-judgement terms like superior, precocious, and inferior in the abstract you cited.

I checked the abstract. The word "inferior" does not appear at all, and "superior", when used, refers very clearly to a specific quantitative measurement that is higher than another. To dismiss the entire study as being unempirical in methodology due to a trivial choice of words (which are not obfuscatory or qualitative in-context) honestly shows that you yourself have an emotional need to dismiss it off the bat. You're really grasping for straws and I bet you have very little, if any, tertiary education in science.

A refutation that relies purely on word choice. Seriously, what a little pleb you are.