A correlation backed by a significant body of supporting evidence, and for which a diligent search has found no counter examples, sure - but that's not what SDF is demonstrating here.

Let me fix that statement for you: "A correlation backed by a significant body of supporting correlations, and for which a diligent search has found no counter correlations, sure - but that's not what SDF is demonstrating here."

I just want to say that this thread makes Steve's previous one about intelligence even more hilarious in retrospect.

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1330106605' post='4916270']
The problem is that your agenda, way2lazy2care, is to put me in my place and you are blind to evidence I present.

No. The problem is your stubbornness is blinding you to the valid counter arguments of your peers. Rather than rethinking your original premise to fit reality you continue to try to conform reality to your argument.

You posited a square to fit into a hole. When the reality of the hole's roundness was brought up, you argue that the hole is actually square rather than finding a circle to fill it. No matter how hard you try to push the square into the hole, it will never become square. It may be any of these, not necessarily the counter proposed circles; one thing is certain, that your square does not fit the peer reviewed round hole.

This is putting aside the fact that you've been arguing sociology and meteorology for 4 pages in a philosophy thread.
[/quote]

One link to a non-scientific news article is the only counter evidence anyone has provided. I have provided several sources which counter that counter evidence. I have not ignored the counter evidence as you are claiming. You are ignoring my evidence!

One link to a non-scientific news article is the only counter evidence anyone has provided. I have provided several sources which counter that counter evidence. I have not ignored the counter evidence as you are claiming. You are ignoring my evidence!

This was posted on page 3:
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf

Unless you think a publication by the American Psychological Association is a "non-scientific news article".

The problem is that your agenda, way2lazy2care, is to put me in my place and you are blind to evidence I present.

What evidence? You've posted links which indicate at best a loose correlation. The scenario that societal pressure causing less interest and thus less success is just as plausible since you've done nothing to indicate any sort of causality between physiological gender differences and mathematical skill.

That people call you out on your bullshit isn't any sort of conspiracy against your brilliant ideas. It's that you're using flawed logic to come to incorrect conclusions.

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1330108725' post='4916282']
One link to a non-scientific news article is the only counter evidence anyone has provided. I have provided several sources which counter that counter evidence. I have not ignored the counter evidence as you are claiming. You are ignoring my evidence!

This was posted on page 3:
http://www.apa.org/p...l-136-1-103.pdf

Unless you think a publication by the American Psychological Association is a "non-scientific news article".
[/quote]

I'll admit I've not read the paper since it is quite large. From the part swift posted "Stereotypes about female inferiority in mathematics are a distinct contrast to the actual scientific data. These results show that girls will perform at the same level as the boys when they are given the right educational tools and have visible female role models excelling in mathematics." It is in general agreement with my theory. Remember I am not saying they are worse at math because they lack the aptitude but that they lack interest for biological reasons.

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1330103821' post='4916257']
Since it's kinda in the area of this discussion, does anybody have a word that could be used for an idea, thought, or concept but the word doesn't necessarily suggest a dependance on a mind? I'm wondering because such a thing would play a pivotal part in my own interpretation of existence and it'd be nice to have a word that's already in accepted use.

How about "Model"?
[/quote]

Hmm. I suppose I was expecting a more exotic word or something, but that does seem to suit nicely and it is in pretty much everyone's vocabulary. It'd probably work for most conversations but I'm still not sure it's what I'm looking for.

I want to say something like, "The fundamental building block of all existence is <x>." Even if I'm wrong in my statement, I want <x> to be a word which can represent an idea, concept, or model without being tied to anything physical. The word would also be fairly appropriate for describing itself. For example a concept can be described using other concepts and if you were to try to further drill down into the makeup of what a concept actually is you could describe what you discover using concepts. If I say that I'm exploring the model or "existential model" of an apple I might successfully communicate what I'm trying to do. But I might need to use concepts to describe what an existential model is. And I don't think I could use models to describe what a concept is but I could use concepts to describe what a concept is. As such, I don't think I can say a model is as fundamental as a concept. I would say that "The fundamental building blocks of all existence are concepts," but it sort of suggests that you need a mind to generate those concepts. The word "model" worked for me at first because it seems to me that you don't need a person to exist in order for a model to exist. But since I'm thinking that a concept is more fundamental than a model, the word isn't quite appropriate in the statement I want to make.

Or am I going in pointless semantic circles?
Who cares about the existential properties of an apple, I'm hungry.

I'm sure this sort of thinking was probably done by someone else a long time ago. Is there maybe some recommended reading? (Maybe pm me some recommended reading if this thread gets closed first. I'd appreciate it.)

Didn't KanonBaum say this is a thread about philosophy? Why are we arguing about not philosophy?

Sing your music as loud as you can, and listen for the music within the music! and stay away from drugs!

I know a girl who is very good at math and loves it. I asked her to post a picture of her fingers on facebook. I also asked another girl who I know hates math to measure the difference in length of her index finger compared to her ring finger and she said it was less than an 8th of an inch. Probably just random chance that it goes along with that study but still interesting.