Feminist Professor Thinks "Rigor" is Evil

[EEVblog]

I know we have covered Purdue & Donna Riley before:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/prof-social-justice-warriors-destroying-engineering/250/

but this new video popped up and because it's very much on-topic it should get an airing:

I expect this thread to get out of control and eventually locked like the previous one, so please try and surprise me...

[Towger]

It is all too much...  You need to watch some old episodes of Fred Dibnah.  Back when a man was a man, a lad were a lad and a woman's place was in the home rearing the children and making a big plate of steak and chips for her man's dinner.  When he turns up after a few pints down the pub. :-)

https://youtu.be/YnH7cw0ql1I?t=9m21s

[ataradov]

Well, I read it as "Rigol" at first, and I tried to imagine what kind of crazy logic would lead from feminism to thinking that scopes are evil. The actual thing is much more boring.

She does not seem to be to bright. That's ok, happens sometimes.

[raptor1956]

Oh Dave, better lock this now -- I smell nothing good will come from this. 

That was a painful watch!


Brian

[ataradov]

have an independent thought, right?

She is free to have any thought she likes. But she is also misrepresenting the process of engineering in her speech, and using that misrepresentation to prove her point.

* Based on the part seen in this video, I have no clue who she is and what else she did/does.

When somebody says that the purpose of the word rigor is asserting white male heterosexuality, that's  how you know they are a feminist.

[ajb]

Yet another shrill, clickbaity misrepresentation of a person's pretty reasonable ideas by a triggered, immature, cocky white male engineer who can't possibly comprehend that he isn't a saint - or take an ounce of criticism without making a 45-minute crybaby video - and who just wants to be famous on YouTube. No better than Thunderf**t

All of this.* 

* Yes, the point where I ended the quote was deliberate.  Whole other kettle of fish there.

[VEGETA]

> feminism
> logic
error 404, cannot find a match

[ataradov]

who never paid attention in their humanities courses.

Neither did I. You know what bothered me about humanities? The lack of scientific rigor. Anyone can say anything they like, and it all counts, since none of those disciplines defined ways to move themselves forward in a meaningful way. I don't get how any of those people stay employed.

[Mr. Scram]

The only reason these subjects are as much discussed as they are is because we discuss them. "Don't feed the troll" is one common saying, and "stop making stupid people famous" another. Both could arguably be applied to the situation.

[Ampera]

wew laddies, we got some triggered people in here.

Opinions are a hilarious business that can be immensely fun to deal with. What amuses me is the assumption that people take when someone attempts to put a discrediting opinion on the internet. It's always seen as somehow rejecting someone's right to a personal opinion, and how they are a "triggered, immature, cocky white male engineer" or part of the "reddit neckbeard army".

Let's get this straight for one second here. If someone posts an opinion on the internet (or even publicizes it anywhere) it is absolutely not only guaranteed, but completely and totally alright for someone else to give a personal opinion back. It's how the world works, and if you are personally surprised and/or upset that there tend to be factions of people with like-minds putting up opinions against another faction of people with like minds, you have proven to me that you have never engaged in politics.

I also try to keep my mind open, and if I want to, I can almost always see past a person's opinion to like them. I'm not shallow enough to hate someone purely because of an idea they wish to express. My criteria to dislike someone has to be with who they are as a person, not a single idea they had.

I'm actually a bit surprised coming in here, as the forum here is normally filled with people who are more on the side of anti-SJW. I always laugh when I see someone use the fact that someone is white as an excuse as to why their opinion for whatever reason is harmful, or shouldn't count. Getting into the minute aspects of racism, however, is something I do not with to disrespect this forum with.

I consider myself an egalitarian. I look at the whole concept and picture of human interactions, and when I feel like I want to put in my two cents on a topic considering equality, I try to consider both sides of the argument and pick which one I believe in. If there is one constant in the universe, it's that anybody can treat anyone like shit.

Engineering IS rigorous work. It's something that takes a LOT of time, effort, and mental skill. Just because someone doesn't like that fact, doesn't mean that it can change the school of thought. I don't believe anybody is ever innately unable to perform any task. The line of who can and who can't is split more on who you are, how your brain is made, and how you were brought up. I am ecstatic to see more women in the same field I wish to go in, but I also want to enter it with the same love and understanding that I am not only willing, but wanting to bestow to every single person in the field regardless of who they are.

I do, however, love it when the EEVBlog gets controversial or political. It highlights the essence of this community's personality, and (hopefully) the ability for everybody to accept an opinion and still remain friends. I have conservative friends that I may even agree with sometimes, and I have people on both sides of the spectrum that I absolutely not only disagree with, but come close to even despising for what they wish to do, but I will always try to give them the benefit of the doubt through conversation and debate, because often time I miss something and my opinion can be completely changed.

Ranting over, I get a bit carried away with this stuff. Twitter doesn't let you puke out this much, so it's nice to do it once in a while.

[ataradov]

Well, we also expressed OUR opinion, yet we've been called "triggered" and other presumably offensive words.

It is OK to have an opinion and express it. It is not OK to be in a position where people have to listen to your unsubstantiated opinion (like in case of mandatory university courses).

Those lectures appeared to be not mandatory, and it is fine. But unfortunately aforementioned humanities get proliferated with such ideas, and everybody wanting a degree has to sit though that stuff, and take exams.

[Ampera]

Well, we also expressed OUR opinion, yet we've been called "triggered" and other presumably offensive words.

It is OK to have an opinion and express it. It is not OK to be in a position where people have to listen to your unsubstantiated opinion (like in case of mandatory university courses).

Those lectures appeared to be not mandatory, and it is fine. But unfortunately aforementioned humanities get proliferated with such ideas, and everybody wanting a degree has to sit though that stuff, and take exams.

I have no problem being called anything offensive, in fact I take great pleasure in knowing my arguments are so good and so noteworthy, it brings others to insult me. It is a question of if you dislike an opinion, making it bigger than it would be otherwise may defeat the purpose, but there's also the fact that without opposition, there may never be anything to stop someone putting it into play.

I am a bit scared to go to college, personally, as I don't know what I will have to endure or be forced to partake in. I'm going there to learn, that that is all I want to go there for. I don't want to have to sit through hours of a presentation being pawned off as being on the right side of history then have to be forced to agree to that.

I love opinions. Everybody has one, and they are all hilariously amazing.

[Ice-Tea]

If I was anything but a white male pig, I'd be highly offended by her. So, only 'we' can be rigourous (sp?) and this puts everyone else at a disadvantage?

Please.

[DimitriP]

She is free to have any thought she likes

...and if the thoughts were original that would be a good thing
...however here is where she probably got her "thoughts"
 (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/27/eight-words-sexism-heart-english-language )
All she had to do is find the ninth word and keep talking for an hour about it 

Is Donna Riley a plagiarizing wench? I dunno. Maybe just a good news clipping spinster

[Ampera]

lolguardian

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

What a waste of time... She is wrong, he is an imbecile (but with a title), not sure yet who of them I dislike more. D'oh, the world isn't perfect. Move on.

[EEVblog]

I am a bit scared to go to college, personally, as I don't know what I will have to endure or be forced to partake in. I'm going there to learn, that that is all I want to go there for. I don't want to have to sit through hours of a presentation being pawned off as being on the right side of history then have to be forced to agree to that.

This website might help you:
https://heterodoxacademy.org/
It ranks US universities based on their free speech policies etc
https://heterodoxacademy.org/guide-to-colleges/

[Ampera]

Welp, every major college around my area (that's on the list anyways) scores a red or close to it on FIRE, so I'm boned. 

That's about right, I live in a very blue state, and a lot of people get aggressive when you present ideas they disagree with.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

That's about right, I live in a very blue state, and a lot of people get aggressive when you present ideas they disagree with.

Oregon isn't exactly blue and Oregon/Eugene is redder than red in the scores.

[Ampera]

Oregon is as blue, if not bluer than New York. I'm more joking when I say that, though, it is frustrating either way.

[donotdespisethesnake]

The "academic with nutty views" is a typical academic meme, to be honest a lot of academics are quite detached from reality. There is no reason to treat female versions different to male ones : just ignore them.

I guess that in today's climate, academics succeed just as well by "getting clicks" as they do getting citations, she got her name in the media, job done.
Now, the views of [male] scientist who created the anti-vaxxing campaign were dangerous and led to real harm. He is the sort of problem scientist we should be worried about.

However, I did wonder, even though what she said is 100% BS, there might be something interesting in the data. Sscience is by definition an objectivist activity. The purpose is to find the "right" answer. Are men generally more objectivist than women? Probably not, but there are subset of people in the autistic spectrum who tend to be like that, and maybe those people are more likely to men. I suspect it is not males that bias science towards "male views", but that science tends to self-select people who have more objectivist traits.

To be controversial, I posit that a species that develops intelligence bu has few objectivist members, and predominantly relativist views, would never develop advanced science, and therefore not become space-faring. Humans may be a peculiar species in that regard. Until we can study other intelligent species we will not know for sure.

[amyk]

Well, I read it as "Rigol" at first, and I tried to imagine what kind of crazy logic would lead from feminism to thinking that scopes are evil.

Me too. It's capitalised, in quotes, and on an electronics forum. I thought it would be about someone who couldn't even get the name right.

[Ampera]

The even funnier part is when I first read his post, I actually thought this entire thing was ABOUT scopes and how scopes were somehow misogynistic. That would be hilarious, but I would not be surprised if someone came out and actually claimed that.

[coppice]

have an independent thought, right?

She is free to have any thought she likes. But she is also misrepresenting the process of engineering in her speech, and using that misrepresentation to prove her point.

* Based on the part seen in this video, I have no clue who she is and what else she did/does.

When somebody says that the purpose of the word rigor is asserting white male heterosexuality, that's  how you know they are a feminist.

Its also how you know she knows little about engineering in the US. I haven't walked into an engineering department in the US in the last 20 years where the majority of the people were white. There is usually a large contingent of Asians - mostly Indians and Chinese - outnumbering the white people. When I first started visiting the US in the early 90s, most of the senior engineers where white. As those young Asian engineers have matured they have spread right through the ranks. Engineering is still overwhelmingly male in the US, but it sure isn't overwhelmingly white any more.

Have you noticed who the most rigour oriented people are in an engineering group? The Indians and Chinese. Education in Asia teaches people to always strive for rigourous mathematical support for their ideas. Donna Riley conflates rigour with complexity, which is ridiculous. The rigour in much of engineering requires nothing more complex than high school maths, like Pythagoras' Theorem and basic statistics.

[Fungus]

Does she really not even know how to read a dictionary?

She should get together with Meredith Perry. They'd make a great cringe-comedy duo.

[Delta]

WTF is this shit? I don't care what colour or creed the person designing my xxxxxx is, but I certainly want them to be rigourous about it.

[Howardlong]

I am not really sure what value Donna Riley adds, like her or not, it can't be denied that she is definitely divisive. I'll add that the "rigor" definition argument she was making in the video was rather childlike, and I use the term "childlike" deliberately as a genuine critique, not as an ad hominem: you can just imagine her as a child looking up rude words in the dictionary.

I don't really have a view one way or the other on the maker of the video, but I wasn't tempted to subscribe.

Riley's very presence at Purdue will, I am pretty darned sure, have a net negative effect on influencing those considering Purdue for engineering.

Gender imbalance in engineering and STEM in general isn't something that can be solved (assuming it needs to be solved) at tertiary education: any negative career perception has already been done way back in earlier school years.

While many of us talk about the the gender imbalance in STEM, nobody is complaining about the diametrically opposite gender imbalance in those university course with names ending in "Studies"? There is a correlation in reducing numbers of women in some areas of STEM, particularly Maths and Computing, with the increase in the number of women studying "Studies", some would argue that is more than just correlation.

One thing is for certain, if you're a woman in technology, per capita you are at a distinct advantage nowadays when it comes to landing a job IME. Everyone is falling over themselves to address gender imbalance. I just don't see the resumes/CVs, but given a man or a woman with the same experience, qualifications and soft skills, the woman will tend to get the job.

[klaff]

As a straight white male engineer with 3 decades of experience, I have reached some conclusions.

While early in my career I focused entirely on technical rigor, and while I still take pride in being thorough and complete in my work, the problems in the world that distress me the most are not technical but social. It is quite clear, and there is an overwhelming amount of rigorous evidence, that sexism, misogyny, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, ageism, and other sorts of bigotries are not only common but embedded in the structures of our society, in everything from education to hiring to law enforcement to banking to health care to housing to employment and so on.

It is also quite clear that a simple declaration that one is not sexist or racist or otherwise intends to be fair to everyone is at best naive and often a sign of wilful ignorance. Implicit bias is real; we process words spoken by a woman differently from those spoken by a man immediately, on the first word. It is impossible to work with others and not tend to treat them differently in the presence of salient differences in gender, race, orientation, etc. What you can do is learn about how our minds work and structure your work and your environment to make the world a better place.

Working in ignorance of all of this does not make you rigorous or virtuous or right. Pretending you want everything to be fair but then arguing that any effort to make the world more fair should happen somewhere else or be done by someone else is lazy and a sign that you enjoy your privilege.

I believe Professor Riley is working to make the world a better place. That's something we should all be doing.

[Ampera]

I believe you may be confusing the concepts of equal and fair treatment.

I can agree with you to the concept that there are innate biases that people hold against certain types of people. I try not to hold any, and I definitely try not to act on them if I do have any. My point is that we can't do anything about those. We can't change people's innate biases the same way you can't tell someone what to believe.

People like Riley don't tend to like to take this sitting down. They try their darnedest to forcibly introduce strict, often unfair policies to restrict opposing opinions. They may try to make the world a better place, but there is such a thing as trying too hard to win a battle that can't be won.

Also, isn't misogyny just a subset of sexism?

The world isn't perfect, and it's far from being so. I understand your argument that people going against some of these people may seem like they are just trying to keep their privileged position. I can't speak for anybody but myself, and I personally dislike this person's arguments because they absolutely do not make a change. I can give you advice on how to get people interested in STEM fields. I can give a list of disadvantaged people that should get grant money to help them achieve their goals, and so long as the balancing act of fair treatment is respected, I will never have a problem with it.

What I have a problem with is people like Riley who try to take really stupid, mundane shit that has no bearing on the issue at hand, suggesting a solution that would be very damaging to people who don't deserve it, and try to make illegal the concept of wrongthink. The thing that really upsets me, however, is that they try to pawn it off as being on the pure and right side of history, and try to convince people to would dare try to object to what is so obviously a debateless matter of equality.

[rstofer]

But I like slide rules...

I don't think dumbing down engineering is a winning proposition.  We need to smarten up people and we sure aren't going to do it at Purdue.

The good news is that Stanford, Cal Tech, Berkeley and MIT still have standards.

She is right about the lack of diversity in engineering.  It starts around 3rd grade and just keeps getting more pronounced as grade level increases.  If women and minorities are underrepresented on admission to college, they will be more underrepresented on exit.  We've been working on that issue for 40 years that I know of and we don't seem to have gotten anywhere.

Not a popular idea and certainly not 'correct' but engineering is a competitive endeavor and males like to compete.  Females would rather smooth things over.  There is a possibility that, ignoring outliers, it is simply never going to be 'equal' - by whatever metric somebody wants to choose.  Genetics may play an important role but that's out of my pay grade.

The Google engineer that was fired for daring to discuss the situation comes to mind:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/lawsuit-goes-after-alleged-anti-conservative-bias-at-google/

Worse yet, the labor board upheld the firing...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/google-firing-of-damore-was-legal-u-s-labor-panel-lawyer-said

What we shouldn't be doing is assuring equal outcome without equal effort though that seems to be a popular theme these days.  The high school drop-out should be paid the same as somebody with an MS or PhD.  Just because it is 'only fair'.

I am so glad I am retired!

[jonovid]

difference between men and women is an important difference! so be true to yourself.  are you in the wrong job?
trying to fit a square peg in a round hole is not to make the hole more inclusive by making it larger! 
snowflake generation needs to learn the lesson. men and women are not equal in all things. that is life! 
so standards matter  dumbing down is bad.  health care standards for nurses,  standards for engineering. that's my opinion.

[Ampera]

The idea of being fair is not forcing people to shoehorn people into a specific role just because it's out of balance. People will be happy any try to make a living either way, and I will be glad to take anybody into whatever profession I partake in with the same respect as any other.

[Quarlo Klobrigney]

I'm an Engineer, and a white man. SJW BS

edit: "Everyone's holding me back." Um maybe you just suck at what you do.
To quote, "Well, the world needs ditch diggers too"

[retrolefty]

I love the smell of "Rigor" in the morning.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

[..] What I have a problem with is people like Riley who try to take really stupid, mundane shit that has no bearing on the issue at hand, suggesting a solution that would be very damaging to people who don't deserve it, and try to make illegal the concept of wrongthink. [..]

Welcome To Progressive Utopia:

[Ampera]

That is the best video I've seen all year. It matches my points exactly.

[coppice]

I believe Professor Riley is working to make the world a better place. That's something we should all be doing.

Can you tell us what she said or did which led you to that conclusion?

[chipss]

What ever, now go make me a samich! And get me a beer while your at it.

[Cerebus]

When somebody says that the purpose of the word rigor is asserting white male heterosexuality, that's  how you know they are a feminist.

No, if somebody says "rigor is asserting white male heterosexuality" then you know they are an idiot. It has nothing to do with feminism whatsoever.

[Mr. Scram]

What ever, now go make me a samich! And get me a beer while your at it.

That's not helpful, even if just a joke. We can polarize ourselves to the hilt, but that's guaranteed to tear a society to shreds. There are unfortunate examples of that in the news every day.

It's fine to think what you think. Just don't be a dick about it, on whatever side you end up.

[Cerebus]

[klaff]

I believe you may be confusing the concepts of equal and fair treatment.

I don't believe so.

My point is that we can't do anything about those. We can't change people's innate biases the same way you can't tell someone what to believe.

I disagree. These biases come from our culture, and we can change our culture, but only if we want to.

People like Riley don't tend to like to take this sitting down. They try their darnedest to forcibly introduce strict, often unfair policies to restrict opposing opinions. They may try to make the world a better place, but there is such a thing as trying too hard to win a battle that can't be won.

Why should anyone take inequality and injustice sitting down? And please tell me what "strict, often unfair policies" she is introducing? Be specific. What is she doing to restrict your opinion or your expression of it?

Also, isn't misogyny just a subset of sexism?

Yes, but making the distinction is sometimes useful.

... so long as the balancing act of fair treatment is respected, I will never have a problem with it.

What do you mean by that, specifically "the balancing act of fair treatment"?

What I have a problem with is people like Riley who try to take really stupid, mundane shit that has no bearing on the issue at hand, suggesting a solution that would be very damaging to people who don't deserve it, and try to make illegal the concept of wrongthink.

What solution would be damaging to whom?
Where is Professor Riley trying to make anything illegal? Is she campaigning to repeal the 1st Amendment? I must have missed that part. And what the hell is wrongthink? Why would you want to be wrong?

The thing that really upsets me, however, is that they try to pawn it off as being on the pure and right side of history, and try to convince people to would dare try to object to what is so obviously a debateless matter of equality.

Who is they? I thought you were criticizing Professor Riley?
I didn't hear Riley talk about the pure and right side of history. Who or what are you talking about?

[klaff]

I believe Professor Riley is working to make the world a better place. That's something we should all be doing.

Can you tell us what she said or did which led you to that conclusion?

I'm basing it on what she appears to care about in her statements and the body of her work, which includes the book Engineering and Social Justice (the preface of which anticipates the responses in this thread).

[klaff]

That is the best video I've seen all year. It matches my points exactly.

Some questions on that video:

What wholesome values were quietly reclassified as ugly prejudices? Be specific.

What speech has made you a criminal? Again, be specific. Include the relevant statutes, regulations, etc.

Who's going to exclude you for using the wrong pronoun? I know I"m being repetitive, but be specific.

Your presence is no longer required? Who is planning to remove anyone from society? (Yes, be specific.)

Who's telling you you can't speak? I'm arguing with you, sure. I'm exercising MY RIGHT to free speech. But I'm not saying you can't speak.

Who believes that hurting someone's feelings is on par with cracking a skull? (BE SPECIFIC! WHERE DID ANYONE SAY THIS?)

What petititions are circulating to shut you up or down? Or anybody?

What law protects feelings?

Were you banned from social media? And is someone actually purging dangerous fascist throwbacks from society? (BE SPECIFIC!)

[Cerebus]

That is the best video I've seen all year. It matches my points exactly.

Some questions on that video:

What wholesome values were quietly reclassified as ugly prejudices? Be specific.

What speech has made you a criminal? Again, be specific. Include the relevant statutes, regulations, etc.

Who's going to exclude you for using the wrong pronoun? I know I"m being repetitive, but be specific.

Your presence is no longer required? Who is planning to remove anyone from society? (Yes, be specific.)

Who's telling you you can't speak? I'm arguing with you, sure. I'm exercising MY RIGHT to free speech. But I'm not saying you can't speak.

Who believes that hurting someone's feelings is on par with cracking a skull? (BE SPECIFIC! WHERE DID ANYONE SAY THIS?)

What petititions are circulating to shut you up or down? Or anybody?

What law protects feelings?

Were you banned from social media? And is someone actually purging dangerous fascist throwbacks from society? (BE SPECIFIC!)

Careful mate, using up that much straw you're going to make some poor horse go hungry. 

Rather than set up twenty strawmen for someone else to knock over, why don't you actually advance a reasoned argument for your point of view?

[klaff]

I didn't set up any strawmen. Those are all straight from the video. I'm just asking for that rigor that people seem so fond of.

[gnavigator1007]

The guy in the video seems a bit overly sensitive about the professor's comments. He might have produced something a tad more sensible by approaching the discussion as an opportunity to discuss rather than lashing out with a bunch of clips lacking context and quick digs. Video came across as a guy trying to be offended by everything for the sake of views from others looking to have something to be mad about.

She might be a bad educator and/or engineer.  I do know I wasted enough of my life watching all of his video.   

[Cerebus]

I didn't set up any strawmen. Those are all straight from the video. I'm just asking for that rigor that people seem so fond of.

So you don't actually have an actual argument to put forward then? You're just going to adopt a passive aggressive contrarian stance?

[wraper]

I believe Professor Riley is working to make the world a better place. That's something we should all be doing.

No, she is working to make a world of offended crybabies. Not educated people who are ready for difficult work and overtimes.

[gnavigator1007]

I believe Professor Riley is working to make the world a better place. That's something we should all be doing.

No, she is working to make a world of offended crybabies. Not educated people who are ready for difficult work and overtimes.

Well apparently her evil scheme is working. I just watched a whole video of some guy wetting his pants on YouTube because of her

[MT]

I will here declare my attempt to try wreck this thread! I dink milk, sleep in white sheets and skii on white snow
i also use white sugar in my cup of Lipton tee, and may i also mention i have white teeth's.(well some have black holes).

It’s not a new relationship. Instead, it dates back approximately 100 years. In the 1920s, a pamphlet from the U.S. National Dairy Council explained: “The people who have used liberal amounts of milk and its products … ” — meaning white people — “… are progressive in science and every activity of the human intellect.”

http://theconversation.com/milk-a-symbol-of-neo-nazi-hate-83292

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/06/milk.html

https://www.dailywire.com/news/14492/college-student-explains-why-milk-racist-elliott-hamilton

http://www.daily49er.com/opinion/2017/03/13/milk-new-symbol-of-hate/

[klaff]

I didn't set up any strawmen. Those are all straight from the video. I'm just asking for that rigor that people seem so fond of.

So you don't actually have an actual argument to put forward then? You're just going to adopt a passive aggressive contrarian stance?

Ah, you got me. I have no arguments to put forward. I resign in shame.

[Ampera]

Man, and I have to go in 25 minutes...

I disagree. These biases come from our culture, and we can change our culture, but only if we want to.

These biases are opinions, held by individuals. Nobody can force someone else to change their opinion. My culture is something specific to me, something that someone will have to socially torture and abuse me to take away.

Why should anyone take inequality and injustice sitting down? And please tell me what "strict, often unfair policies" she is introducing? Be specific. What is she doing to restrict your opinion or your expression of it?

At the core, the states she dislikes the concept of rigorous Engineering, and maybe even the word Rigor. She is stating that an art and skill that I love and wish to master should be irreversibly changed because it requires a large amount of effort to perfect. Nobody should take inequality and injustice sitting down, but my point is that this isn't inequality or injustice on a reparable level. It's innate, and in our modern day, minor opinions held by individuals.

What do you mean by that, specifically "the balancing act of fair treatment"?

I am stating that so long as whatever is done, if it's what I specifically want to be done or not, I am alright with it so long as it doesn't switch the problem around on me. I never discriminated against anyone, and I don't think it's fair that I might have to be punished for the crimes of people that just happened to be the same colour or gender as I. It would be becoming the monster I seek to defeat, and is the core of my egalitarian beliefs.

What solution would be damaging to whom?
Where is Professor Riley trying to make anything illegal? Is she campaigning to repeal the 1st Amendment? I must have missed that part. And what the hell is wrongthink? Why would you want to be wrong?

Wrongthink is a reference to George Orwell's 1984. It's the concept of an opinion that is innately wrong regardless of debate, solely because it opposes a specific narrative. Keep in mind, I am trying to speak more in general to situations like this, but in this case, she is trying to put drastic action (possibly completely rewriting the field of engineering) into a non-issue (the fact that engineering is a rigorous and time consuming study).

Who is they? I thought you were criticizing Professor Riley?
I didn't hear Riley talk about the pure and right side of history. Who or what are you talking about?

I am criticizing Riley, as well as every other SJW out there. They campaign about how they are fighting inequality in our civilization, and how their opinions are the sole opinions to a brighter tomorrow. They act as if someone who disagrees with them must be a monster, because no good person would try to argue against what is so obviously freedom.

What wholesome values were quietly reclassified as ugly prejudices? Be specific.

The idea that anybody with any idea may just very well have a valid opinion?

What speech has made you a criminal? Again, be specific. Include the relevant statutes, regulations, etc.

There are more than one types of criminal. I think what he is referring to is thought crime (same thing as wrongthink). Anything that goes against someone else's narrative.

Who's going to exclude you for using the wrong pronoun? I know I"m being repetitive, but be specific.

I know many places where if I were to walk in, and intentionally call a few specific peoples by an assumed or wrong pronoun, I would be immediately kicked out of the building, if not banned from the group or organization. It's happened before.

Your presence is no longer required? Who is planning to remove anyone from society? (Yes, be specific.)

This was somewhat of a metaphor on his part. He was stating that a lot of arguments made, a lot of ideas presented, in fact exactly like the one Riley has made, seeks to kick out people who hold traditional values on Engineering, like the idea of putting effort into your work.

Who's telling you you can't speak? I'm arguing with you, sure. I'm exercising MY RIGHT to free speech. But I'm not saying you can't speak.

Again, there are people who have blocked me, reported me, tried to get me banned off websites because my opinions didn't match theirs, and they couldn't handle the fact that I presented rational arguments and they didn't.

Who believes that hurting someone's feelings is on par with cracking a skull? (BE SPECIFIC! WHERE DID ANYONE SAY THIS?)

Besides the classic "Misgendering someone is violence", find it yourself, I have to go in like 7 minutes, I have known people who have taken mundane things as personal insults  that requires instant removal of my personal life from this world.

What petititions are circulating to shut you up or down? Or anybody?

Have you been to change.org recently?

What law protects feelings?

Social law. Break it and it may be even worse than going to prison.

Were you banned from social media? And is someone actually purging dangerous fascist throwbacks from society? (BE SPECIFIC!)

I've had minor suspensions for saying something, but I know people who have been banned off the platform simply for taking a somewhat unpopular opinion.

Now I've got to go, feel free to make a v2 and I will ping it right back.

[klaff]

These biases are opinions, held by individuals.

Biases aren't necessarily opinions, especially implicit biases. You may be completely unaware of them.

She is stating that an art and skill that I love and wish to master should be irreversibly changed because it requires a large amount of effort to perfect.

That is not what she said.  Her interview is here:

I never discriminated against anyone, and I don't think it's fair that I might have to be punished for the crimes of people that just happened to be the same colour.

Who is advocating punishing you? How do they want to punish you?

... she is trying to put drastic action (possibly completely rewriting the field of engineering)

Again, that's not what she said.

I am criticizing Riley, as well as every other SJW out there. They campaign about how they are fighting inequality in our civilization, and how their opinions are the sole opinions to a brighter tomorrow. They act as if someone who disagrees with them must be a monster, because no good person would try to argue against what is so obviously freedom.

Show me one saying their opinion is the sole opinion.
Show me one saying anyone who disagrees is a monster.

The idea that anybody with any idea may just very well have a valid opinion?

Really? Show me the campaign to turn "anybody with any idea may just very well have a valid opinion" into ugly prejudice.

There are more than one types of criminal. I think what he is referring to is thought crime (same thing as wrongthink). Anything that goes against someone else's narrative.

So the type of criminality you're referring to here is the type that is not actually a crime?

I know many places where if I were to walk in, and intentionally call a few specific peoples by an assumed or wrong pronoun, I would be immediately kicked out of the building, if not banned from the group or organization. It's happened before.

Name the place or organization.

This was somewhat of a metaphor on his part. He was stating that a lot of arguments made, a lot of ideas presented, in fact exactly like the one Riley has made, seeks to kick out people who hold traditional values on Engineering, like the idea of putting effort into your work.

BUT SHE'S NOT KICKING ANYONE OUT!

Again, there are people who have blocked me, reported me, tried to get me banned off websites because my opinions didn't match theirs, and they couldn't handle the fact that I presented rational arguments and they didn't.

"They" sure seem to be out to get you. Maybe it's you?

Besides the classic "Misgendering someone is violence", find it yourself, I have to go in like 7 minutes, I have known people who have taken mundane things as personal insults  that requires instant removal of my personal life from this world.

Someone tried to kill you for a personal insult? Wow.

Have you been to change.org recently?

No, but I'm not doing your research for you.

Social law. Break it and it may be even worse than going to prison.

Social law. Right. So, not a law. And I got to ask, worse than prison how???

I've had minor suspensions for saying something, but I know people who have been banned off the platform simply for taking a somewhat unpopular opinion.

I can only guess what that means.

[wraper]

These biases are opinions, held by individuals.

Biases aren't necessarily opinions, especially implicit biases. You may be completely unaware of them.
...
a lot of words, blah, blah
...
I can only guess what that means.

You should be so butthurt and have so much free time to write all of these posts. I guess you are not of a type who's time is occupied by doing a lot of work or occupied with hobby when you have a free time. Exactly someone from a "better" world this professor wants to create.

[klaff]

You should be so butthurt and have so much free time to write all of these posts. I guess you are not of a type who's time is occupied by doing a lot of work or occupied with hobby when you have a free time. Exactly someone from a "better" world this professor wants to create.

You post about 30 times as often as I do. Good ad hominem example BTW.

[wraper]

You should be so butthurt and have so much free time to write all of these posts. I guess you are not of a type who's time is occupied by doing a lot of work or occupied with hobby when you have a free time. Exactly someone from a "better" world this professor wants to create.

You post about 30 times as often as I do. Good ad hominem example BTW.

My posts are way shorter and mostly about electronics, not SJW whines.

[klaff]

You should be so butthurt and have so much free time to write all of these posts. I guess you are not of a type who's time is occupied by doing a lot of work or occupied with hobby when you have a free time. Exactly someone from a "better" world this professor wants to create.

You post about 30 times as often as I do. Good ad hominem example BTW.

My posts are way shorter and mostly about electronics, not SJW whines.

If electronics issues are more important than issues of social justice, why did you post in this thread three times?

[vodka]

If anybody thinks that all these kind the people are going to improve the society.  Forget you. All kind the activists(anti-systems, feminist and anti-facist) their main goal is destroy the actual system by any method. Their leaders(90%) don't come from marginal neighbourhood or guettos else the well-off families where they went to private schools.
Evidences: I only know the situation from Spain where determined activists and politicians anti-systems have hidden millionaries properties, business and prestiges private schools from Europe.
The last case is a  anti-capitalist,feminist and anti-system exparlamentary  ran away to Ginebra(Switzerland)and she hasn't plan return.

[wraper]

If electronics issues are more important than issues of social justice, why did you post in this thread three times?

Why in the last 220 days, every of your post except two which are very short is super long pro SJW post?

[klaff]

If electronics issues are more important than issues of social justice, why did you post in this thread three times?

Why in the last 220 days, every of your post except two which are very short is super long pro SJW post?

Funny but your data is wrong. You are showing a marked lack of rigor in your post.
Where's all the rigor? Why can't people who whine about rigor get any specifics right?

[wraper]

Funny but your data is wrong. You are showing a marked lack of rigor in your post.
Where's all the rigor? Why can't people who whine about rigor get any specifics right?

Really? Look on your posts in your profile. You made 2 very short posts since July 18, and then today a bunch of posts in this tread which are long as never before. Seems this tread is attractive like shit for flies.

[KL27x]

Oh, the irony. This white guy is exactly the kind of engineer who does well in his job despite admittedly poor grades in a technical discipline because of good communication skills and "deomonstration of creativity" and his certification in Sigma 6, a soft science of production and proofing concepts based pretty much on real world hindsight, which require no mastery of higher science or math. If he were an ethnic female, he would be this professor's poster child.

There is a real need for managers to coordinate more technical workers. Managers who do not necessarily need to be proficient in the more technical aspects of engineering, but who need just some basic overall understanding and be good at communication. It would be nice if some women or ethnic minorities could have some of these jobs, too. These are the jobs that this professor is probably talking about. The hard technical stuff... if you can do it, you get the job. But these other positions? Does he not realize that being a white male was, perhaps, one of the factors which led him to have 4 job offers despite poor grades? His only validation and place of self worth is that he actually happened to land a good job. One, which under other cultural environment might be equally performed by other engineers who are also mediocre at engineering.

This certification is not a college degree. It's a piece of paper that he got probably while on the job.... the job that he got because he is a white male who can talk well enough to convince other people he knows what he's understands the words that he is stringing together. He is so full of himself, the shit is leaking through his pores.

[klaff]

Funny but your data is wrong. You are showing a marked lack of rigor in your post.
Where's all the rigor? Why can't people who whine about rigor get any specifics right?

Really? Look on your posts in your profile. You made 2 very short posts since July 18, and then today a bunch of posts in this tread which are long as never before. Seems this tread is attractive like shit for flies.

Yes, really. You're being rather selective. Why since July 18? I've made around 40 posts in the last year, and about 10 of them in this thread today. But what difference does that make? Is there a rule against longer posts? What if my only posts were on this topic? Irrelevant. You lack rigor.

[wraper]

Funny but your data is wrong. You are showing a marked lack of rigor in your post.
Where's all the rigor? Why can't people who whine about rigor get any specifics right?

Really? Look on your posts in your profile. You made 2 very short posts since July 18, and then today a bunch of posts in this tread which are long as never before. Seems this tread is attractive like shit for flies.

Yes, really. You're being rather selective. Why since July 18? I've made around 40 posts in the last year, and about 10 of them in this thread today. But what difference does that make? Is there a rule against longer posts? What if my only posts were on this topic? Irrelevant. You lack rigor.

What I said in the beginning is that you are butthurt. Why otherwise you would write as many words as anything previous combined together, after basically abandoning the forum. Moreover in a tread which is not directly electronics related and on the electronics forum. I would guess you made a ton of posts somewhere else until this rare opportunity came by.

[klaff]

Funny but your data is wrong. You are showing a marked lack of rigor in your post.
Where's all the rigor? Why can't people who whine about rigor get any specifics right?

Really? Look on your posts in your profile. You made 2 very short posts since July 18, and then today a bunch of posts in this tread which are long as never before. Seems this tread is attractive like shit for flies.

Yes, really. You're being rather selective. Why since July 18? I've made around 40 posts in the last year, and about 10 of them in this thread today. But what difference does that make? Is there a rule against longer posts? What if my only posts were on this topic? Irrelevant. You lack rigor.

What I said in the beginning is that you are butthurt. Why otherwise you would write as many words as anything previous combined together, after basically abandoning the forum. Moreover in a tread which is not directly electronics related and on the electronics forum. I would guess you made a ton of posts somewhere else until this rare opportunity came by.

I suppose that means I care about this topic. Why does that bother you so much?

[wraper]

I suppose that means I care about this topic. Why does that bother you so much?

Because you spam it with long unreadable posts.

[Howardlong]

Can anyone explain to me what value Riley’s ideologies add to an engineer’s education?

Can engineers expect a better chance of getting a job, or a better career from it, and if so how?

The only “value add” I see that she offers right now is divisiveness, as evidenced in this very thread.

[wraper]

Oh, the irony. This white guy is exactly the kind of engineer who does well in his job despite admittedly poor grades in a technical discipline because of good communication skills and "deomonstration of creativity" and his certification in Sigma 6, a soft science of production and proofing concepts based pretty much on real world hindsight, which require no mastery of higher science or math. If he were an ethnic female, he would be this professor's poster child.

If you are a white male in US, then your kind is heavily underrepresented on engineering or software jobs compared to percentage of whites in population generally.

which require no mastery of higher science or math

He said that being able solving complex problems helped him a lot. BTW poor grades does not mean lack of knowledge.

[klaff]

Can anyone explain to me what value Riley’s ideologies add to an engineer’s education?

Adding a social justice dimension to the education helps in making one aware of the impact your profession has on the world at large. Are your design choices good for the environment? The patient? Are you creating an addictive product? Does it kill people or save lives? Does it reduce pain? Bring people together? More concretely, think products like VW "Clean Diesel", Monsanto's dicamba, or Facebook and Twitter. It's encouraging one to think beyond the assignment, beyond profit.

Can engineers expect a better chance of getting a job, or a better career from it, and if so how?

I doubt it would help anyone get a better salary. Thinking of others doesn't seem to pay well. It might help one choose a path with which they can sleep better.

[rsjsouza]

Not to enter too much into the newfangled gender biasing and identity politics zeitgeist, I will take the rigorously designed and tested aircraft on my next trip, please. For my road trips I will also take rigorously tested and designed airbags, ABS brake system, engine, door locks, car seats for my kids, lockstep processors among others...

[klaff]

If you are a white male in US, then your kind is heavily underrepresented on engineering or software jobs compared to percentage of whites in population generally.

My kind? My kind is a larger group than white males, but aside from that you are wrong.

68% of computer occupations held by whites. 75% of engineering held by whites. The U.S. as a whole is 74% white. No "heavily underrepresented" there.

Women, though hold 27% and 13% of those fields. If anyone is heavily underrepresented in software and engineering it is women and people of color.

Source: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-24.pdf

[KL27x]

If you are a white male in US, then your kind is heavily underrepresented on engineering or software jobs compared to percentage of whites in population generally.

Remove the "male" part, and you are maybe accurate. The fact that whites may be underrepresented in engineering is not due to culture or discrimination, just average ability in hard science. So, meh.

White males are probably overrepresented in senior engineering and engineering management positions. The positions where you don't need to actually need this proficiency.

The professor might have talked a lot of nonsense. But this dude took it as a contest to show her he's an even bigger idiot.

[Someone]

She is stating that an art and skill that I love and wish to master should be irreversibly changed because it requires a large amount of effort to perfect.

That is not what she said.  Her interview is here:

She is drawing a long bow trying to link the "possibility" of rigour being an impediment to a diverse group of students. Yes the work is time consuming and difficult, it shouldn't be watered down so that people without the time to commit to it can "achieve" the same qualification, if you have less time/ability available there are lesser programs in Engineering for those people who want to achieve less.

Its not a simple matter of removing the difficult maths and solving the problems with less, for instance you can't ignore fatigue in many structures. Yes you could apply a large derating factor as has been found from experimental results (as engineering historically did) or you could apply modern knowledge and skills to deliver a solution which is cheaper and safer. The metric of success is usually well defined and trying to say engineering is simply about applying the most difficult maths is a vast over simplification, so discounting rigour outright on this premise is fundamentally flawed.

[Howardlong]

Can anyone explain to me what value Riley’s ideologies add to an engineer’s education?

Adding a social justice dimension to the education helps in making one aware of the impact your profession has on the world at large. Are your design choices good for the environment? The patient? Are you creating an addictive product? Does it kill people or save lives? Does it reduce pain? Bring people together? More concretely, think products like VW "Clean Diesel", Monsanto's dicamba, or Facebook and Twitter. It's encouraging one to think beyond the assignment, beyond profit.

Thanks for your explanation, but I am pretty darned sure the vast majority of engineers, certainly all I know, don’t need someone such as Riley to know right from wrong. What is missing has nothing to do with Riley’s ideology and everything to do with trustworthy whistleblowing policies.

In addition, I don’t see any evidence that Riley is particularly interested in any of that, she seems to be far more interested in pushing her ideological agenda, and it’s most certainly not “bringing people together”, quite the opposite.

Can engineers expect a better chance of getting a job, or a better career from it, and if so how?

I doubt it would help anyone get a better salary. Thinking of others doesn't seem to pay well. It might help one choose a path with which they can sleep better.

I agree, but I doubt the divisive words of Riley make anyone sleep better at night, quite the opposite in fact.

[KL27x]

Oh, the irony. This white guy is exactly the kind of engineer who does well in his job despite admittedly poor grades . . .

Nice projection you got going there. I'm sure your boss loves you, too.

You don't see the irony, here? The professor is suggesting that proficiency in complex hard sciences is being OVERRATED in engineering. And that creativity should have more prominence. Dude who admittedly had poor grades but who thinks he got 4 job offers because he demonstrated creativity is crying foul.

The way he refers to and demonstrates his ability in Sigma 6 it's like he thinks he invented it. His employer sent him to a 4 day course to get a piece of paper. LOL

As a human being, I do not let this guy speak for me. Let alone as an engineer.

I don't think you understand what projection is, BTW.

[klaff]

That is the best video I've seen all year. It matches my points exactly.

Some questions on that video:

klaff, your response is appreciated, but do be aware; TwoOfFive is still a teenager (16?) and has no concept of most of the things you mentioned. It's entirely no surprise that he loved that video - it played right into his immaturity. Frankly, I'm a little concerned that the other engineers in this thread (who you might expect to be mature adults) share his perspective almost to a T.

edit: Including Dave, apparently 

Thank you, and yes I had seen TwoOfFive mention fear of university and presumed a young age, or at least younger than me. I'm trying (but not always succeeding) to stay polite, give sources, and hopefully make at least a person or two think about what I'm saying. There's a lot that I wish I would have learned decades ago.

[Mr. Scram]

klaff, your response is appreciated, but do be aware; TwoOfFive is still a teenager (16?) and has no concept of most of the things you mentioned. It's entirely no surprise that he loved that video - it played right into his immaturity. Frankly, I'm a little concerned that the other engineers in this thread (who you might expect to be mature adults) share his perspective almost to a T.

edit: Including Dave, apparently 

I'm not sure an argument from authority is helping things. Just saying someone is younger and doesn't understand isn't enough. You'll need to prove the worth of that seniority with arguments that make sense. After all, there's plenty old geezers who've completely lost touch with reality.

[mtdoc]

I suppose that means I care about this topic. Why does that bother you so much?

Because you spam it with long unreadable posts.

His posts are not spam and are quite readable.
You just don't like their content.  It appears you've been "triggered"

While I don't agree with all she says, she is asking reasonable questions.  Like many white males, I feel SJWs often go too far and are overly sensitive - but that is not what her views are about in this interview IMHO.

Can anyone explain to me what value Riley’s ideologies add to an engineer’s education?

She's an academic - asking questions relating to engineering's role in society, diversity, etc.  I don't necessarily agree with her thesis but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the question.

Can engineers expect a better chance of getting a job, or a better career from it, and if so how?

Not everything is about "what's in it for me".

The only “value add” I see that she offers right now is divisiveness, as evidenced in this very thread.

  I didn't see anything divisive in what she said. The guy who made the video in the OP on the other hand...

These threads here always crack me up. Clearly anything to do with gender, race, etc is not going to be explored in a balanced way on a forum that is almost exclusively a bunch of white males. They usually end up with a lynch mob mentality taking hold with ganging up on anyone who disagrees with the few outspoken people triggered by any even remotely feminist viewpoint.

[John B]

One observation on the beliefs of people like Donna Riley, and others who come from a feminist/far left authoritarian position, is the underlying belief structure that if you control words, you control people. If you look at the OPs clip, starting from 8:10, where Riley is giving a "lecture" on the etymology of the word, she list multiple definitions and contexts of the word "rigour", then uses her crude imagination to draw the conclusion that the concept of rigour is fundamentally phallic. That much has already been noted by people in this thread. However the next step is rarely spelt explicitly - namely that once the false idea/representation/concept is solidified as a credible idea, you can erode the actual idea/representation/concept. Essentially strawmanning the concept of rigour. The Persuasive Definition fallacy is also another recurring piece of sophistry that is heavily employed in the same way.

This way of thinking is endemic in the soft sociology departments and _______ studies departments, and is absolutely cancerous to the sciences. The most deep and successful understanding of the natural world comes from strictly and narrowly defining terms and concepts.

So for anyone under the illusion that Riley is just another person giving their opinion in the marketplace of ideas, they need to realise that for some sick reason western culture has embraced these pseudo-scientists and pseudo-intellectuals, and given them an undue weight and position in the public sphere.
 
In that theme, I can't help but notice that Donna Riley can also publicly admit to engaging in repeated acts of sexually harassing behaviour in the forms of suggesting that engineers who value rigour in their work should "whip out" their genitalia. I wonder if a woman and feminist will be held accountable for that behaviour? P(equal treatment)=0 

[coppice]

I believe Professor Riley is working to make the world a better place. That's something we should all be doing.

Can you tell us what she said or did which led you to that conclusion?

I'm basing it on what she appears to care about in her statements and the body of her work, which includes the book Engineering and Social Justice (the preface of which anticipates the responses in this thread).

The preface to that book says nothing very radical. However, the body of the book promotes dictatorship, and more recent videos you can find on YouTube (the book is 10 years old) much more forcefuilly promote dictatorship. Is that what you want?

[klaff]

I believe her intent is being exaggerated. She states in the interview "[R]igor is a concept that's been used really against a lot of engineering education researchers to devalue our work and it's even used within engineering" and then goes on to list some examples. She's not saying that the math shouldn't be taught, just that in the context, primarily of engineering education research, the lack of difficult math shouldn't be used to dismiss some research.

[klaff]

I believe Professor Riley is working to make the world a better place. That's something we should all be doing.

Can you tell us what she said or did which led you to that conclusion?

I'm basing it on what she appears to care about in her statements and the body of her work, which includes the book Engineering and Social Justice (the preface of which anticipates the responses in this thread).

The preface to that book says nothing very radical. However, the body of the book promotes dictatorship, and more recent videos you can find on YouTube (the book is 10 years old) much more forcefuilly promote dictatorship. Is that what you want?

I don't have her book. Where does she promote dictatorship?

[KL27x]

You're missing the point. I don't see anywhere that klaff "admittedly had poor grades," as you keep repeating, and you're the only one who brought up 6 sigma or a worthless 4-day class. These are entirely projections of your own making.

Ok, hold it right there, please. I'm obviously being misunderstood by at least you, if not others.

For some reason, I do not see the video link that is in Dave's OP, but I easily found it by google. And there's a white male who goes off on a female professor talking about the evil inherent in the word "rigor." I don't really care too much about her lecture. She has a job to talk about things, and what the hell. You have a deadline, and you write some stuff. And you say it. And you get paid. The guy in the video is who I'm talking about. He admits he sucked in his engineering classes, but that he got a lot of offers. If this is the wrong video, then my bad. If the poster of that video is, indeed, klaff? My bad for being so blunt right in front of him. I would have self-moderated a bit. But if he posted a public video that opinionated, I'm sure he has thick enough skin to handle it.

By saying that you're projecting, to explain my English, I'm suggesting that you have some pretty deep hate for someone you know who you are now projecting onto klaff in order to hate on him more easily/intuitively. That, or you have the stereotype of "dumb lazy SJW engineer who likes humanities" and want to exercise it, much like the cops who have the stereotype of "young black male drug dealing criminal" and eagerly exercise it by shooting someone. It isn't real, and it isn't doing you or anyone else any good.

I'm not projecting. The guy said this stuff, directly in the vid. Again, if I have the wrong vid, it is just my mistake. From the other posts, it sounds like I have the right video, with the exact same title as in the OP. Perhaps I chose the wrong time to make a post, because it seems like some of the members are in the middle of something.

https://youtu.be/tkJc3bjGQjQ?t=272
"Take me for example. I did not have the best GPA coming out of college. But I received 4 job offers before I even graduated. Because I demonstrated that I was THOUGHTFUL, CREATIVE, AND THAT I WAS A GOOD COMMUNICATOR."

Irony is that he is speaking against the professor, and yet here he is. Getting multiple job offers because he is creative and a good communicator, despite objective evidence that he is not a good engineer. Of course it's just a coincidence that he happens to be a white male.

[klaff]

You're missing the point. I don't see anywhere that klaff "admittedly had poor grades," as you keep repeating, and you're the only one who brought up 6 sigma or a worthless 4-day class. These are entirely projections of your own making.

Ok, hold it right there, please. I'm obviously being misunderstood by at least you, if not others.

For some reason, I do not see the video link that is in Dave's OP, but I easily found it by google. And there's a white male who goes off on a female professor talking about the evil inherent in the word "rigor." I don't really care too much about her lecture. She has a job to talk about things, and what the hell. You have a deadline, and you write some stuff. And you say it. And you get paid. The guy in the video is who I'm talking about. He admits he sucked in his engineering classes, but that he got a lot of offers. If this is the wrong video, then my bad. If the poster of that video is, indeed, klaff? 

Whoa there folks! I am not the guy in the video, nor did I post a video (except somewhere in this thread I posted a link to Professor Riley's interview). For the record I had pretty good grades in my university (magna cum laude) and I'm pretty skeptical about much of the 6-sigma business (although not at all about SPC, tolerancing, or  intelligent use of statistics in general). Now back to the rants.

[Ampera]

That is the best video I've seen all year. It matches my points exactly.

Some questions on that video:

klaff, your response is appreciated, but do be aware; TwoOfFive is still a teenager (16?) and has no concept of most of the things you mentioned. It's entirely no surprise that he loved that video - it played right into his immaturity. Frankly, I'm a little concerned that the other engineers in this thread (who you might expect to be mature adults) share his perspective almost to a T.

edit: Including Dave, apparently 

Don't underestimate me.

That big load of crap I posted was in a rush, I had like 30 minutes until I had to go somewhere.

I have a heavy and full grasp at all concepts at play here, and it is honestly insulting that you dismiss my arguments as childish and invalid strictly due to my age. If anything, the one form of discrimination I know about is ageism. I have been underestimated and pushed aside all my life, and will likely continue to be by people older or younger than me. It's something that I have dealt with, and I know what that sort of bullshit discrimination is like.

This, however, is something that serves to prove my point. You dismiss other people's opinions as being invalid just because they aren't yours. You go out of your way to find some sort of excuse as to why our opinions don't count, and how it is so worrying that we have them.

To insult me, and to even offend me is not an easy task by any means, and when it does happen I normally keep a level head, but your absolute disregard for what me and everybody who shares my opinion has to say is truly offensive.

As for the true and proper topic at hand, I believe that what she has to say is wrong. I think it's stupid, and I think it's possibly even damaging, but my solution to that is to debate the ideas. I admit to not giving enough of a shit to put the proper time into researching this specific topic to the degree I should have, and for that I apologize.

In every debate I have, I always find good points in what people say, and attempt to resolve the background that results in that statement. There are good arguments and points made here by both people, and I completely understand the mindset and opinion on how specific groups for so long have had advantages over others. My personal approach for it's resolution which involves my personal actions is to attempt to right the wrongs of my ancestors by being for policies and programs that give people who to this day don't have the money and resources to do what they want to do. My gripe is against people who try to forcibly change or smolder people's opinions to their own perfect world ideology.

Now I must eat dinner.

[Cerebus]

klaff, your response is appreciated, but do be aware; TwoOfFive is still a teenager (16?) and has no concept of most of the things you mentioned. It's entirely no surprise that he loved that video - it played right into his immaturity. Frankly, I'm a little concerned that the other engineers in this thread (who you might expect to be mature adults) share his perspective almost to a T.

edit: Including Dave, apparently 

I'm not sure an argument from authority is helping things. Just saying someone is younger and doesn't understand isn't enough. You'll need to prove the worth of that seniority with arguments that make sense. After all, there's plenty old geezers who've completely lost touch with reality.

TwoOfFive regularly displays a degree of maturity that ought to make a goodly number of his elders here feel ashamed. In this thread he's been making considered arguments and has demonstrated at least once that he's better and more widely read than his interlocutor. It's ironic that, in a discussion about social politics, someone doesn't recognise a term from the, arguably, most significant novel about social politics of the 20th century when it is used by a young lad.

Also it's significant that some are so hooked to their rather argumentative agenda that they haven't realised that TwoOfFour's position is much closer to their own than is the position of the majority here; probably because they haven't bothered to actually read what he has said, so hurried are they to get back to their next riposte.

[coppice]

I believe Professor Riley is working to make the world a better place. That's something we should all be doing.

Can you tell us what she said or did which led you to that conclusion?

I'm basing it on what she appears to care about in her statements and the body of her work, which includes the book Engineering and Social Justice (the preface of which anticipates the responses in this thread).

The preface to that book says nothing very radical. However, the body of the book promotes dictatorship, and more recent videos you can find on YouTube (the book is 10 years old) much more forcefuilly promote dictatorship. Is that what you want?

I don't have her book. Where does she promote dictatorship?

She keeps slipping between issues of equality of opportunity, which is a fine goal, and equality of outcome, which it something you can only achieve by dictate.

[klaff]

klaff, your response is appreciated, but do be aware; TwoOfFive is still a teenager (16?) and has no concept of most of the things you mentioned. It's entirely no surprise that he loved that video - it played right into his immaturity. Frankly, I'm a little concerned that the other engineers in this thread (who you might expect to be mature adults) share his perspective almost to a T.

edit: Including Dave, apparently 

I'm not sure an argument from authority is helping things. Just saying someone is younger and doesn't understand isn't enough. You'll need to prove the worth of that seniority with arguments that make sense. After all, there's plenty old geezers who've completely lost touch with reality.

TwoOfFive regularly displays a degree of maturity that ought to make a goodly number of his elders here feel ashamed. In this thread he's been making considered arguments and has demonstrated at least once that he's better and more widely read than his interlocutor. It's ironic that, in a discussion about social politics, someone doesn't recognise a term from the, arguably, most significant novel about social politics of the 20th century when it is used by a young lad.

Also it's significant that some are so hooked to their rather argumentative agenda that they haven't realised that TwoOfFour's position is much closer to their own than is the position of the majority here; probably because they haven't bothered to actually read what he has said, so hurried are they to get back to their next riposte.

Have another riposte from an interlocutor.

Wrongthink is not from 1984 (which I've read several times, once again last year). It's a term of the alt-right, and is a clue to TwoOfFive's online diet.

[Cerebus]

I have a heavy and full grasp at all concepts at play here, and it is honestly insulting that you dismiss my arguments as childish and invalid strictly due to my age.

I'm not dismissing them or you, and I hope you didn't really take it as an insult. I felt quite indignant about these issues when I was your age - "isn't the answer obvious? This professor should be fired for holding us back!" I'm simply acknowledging that like you, most students simply haven't had the experiences to develop any nuanced, evidence-based perspectives on these things beyond the extremely warped perspectives offered by YouTubers, who are free to recut and modify video or audio clips to suit whatever point they want while concealing the original intent.

Your postings here, I have seen, are quite mature and coherent; I hope you understand that. Any conversation that goes without any face-to-face contact risks a total misinterpretation of each other, so I pointed out your age in response to a reply to your comment that asked a lot of questions you probably aren't going to be able to answer meaningfully as you simply haven't seen those things IRL.

I suspect it is not your intent, but I can assure you that still sounds rather patronizing toward TwoOfFive.

[Howardlong]

Wrongthink ... It's a term of the alt-right

In your opinion.

[John B]

Lol! Wrongthink is an alt-right term?    

Apparently they got in their time machine and disseminated the word long before the concept of alt right emerged.

[klaff]

Wrongthink ... It's a term of the alt-right

In your opinion.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alt-right-has-a-word-for-its-own-ideology-wrongthink-2msd66frw

[Cerebus]

klaff, your response is appreciated, but do be aware; TwoOfFive is still a teenager (16?) and has no concept of most of the things you mentioned. It's entirely no surprise that he loved that video - it played right into his immaturity. Frankly, I'm a little concerned that the other engineers in this thread (who you might expect to be mature adults) share his perspective almost to a T.

edit: Including Dave, apparently 

I'm not sure an argument from authority is helping things. Just saying someone is younger and doesn't understand isn't enough. You'll need to prove the worth of that seniority with arguments that make sense. After all, there's plenty old geezers who've completely lost touch with reality.

TwoOfFive regularly displays a degree of maturity that ought to make a goodly number of his elders here feel ashamed. In this thread he's been making considered arguments and has demonstrated at least once that he's better and more widely read than his interlocutor. It's ironic that, in a discussion about social politics, someone doesn't recognise a term from the, arguably, most significant novel about social politics of the 20th century when it is used by a young lad.

Also it's significant that some are so hooked to their rather argumentative agenda that they haven't realised that TwoOfFour's position is much closer to their own than is the position of the majority here; probably because they haven't bothered to actually read what he has said, so hurried are they to get back to their next riposte.

Have another riposte from an interlocutor.

Wrongthink is not from 1984 (which I've read several times, once again last year). It's a term of the alt-right, and is a clue to TwoOfFive's online diet.

Does it matter whether it is actually in the text or not? It sounds like it's from 1984, and anybody who had read 1984 ought to immediately recognize that as the source or the inspiration and infer the intended meaning in an eyeblink.

I'll let the fact that you feel the need to pop up and say "Oh, yes I so have read 1984, lots of times, many readings" and "I graduated magna cum laude^*"  speak for itself.

^*I think this translates as "Big with a ladle", some honour associated with spending a lot of time in the refectory or something like that.

[Mr. Scram]

Have another riposte from an interlocutor.

Wrongthink is not from 1984 (which I've read several times, once again last year). It's a term of the alt-right, and is a clue to TwoOfFive's online diet.

It would help if people would actually make an argument, rather than attacking someone for their age, supposed associations and more. Strawman arguments only lead to nasty and pointless discussions.

[Howardlong]

Wrongthink ... It's a term of the alt-right

In your opinion.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alt-right-has-a-word-for-its-own-ideology-wrongthink-2msd66frw

You do realise that’s an opinion piece?

[I am a paying Times subscriber by the way]

[Bud]

This thread is total garbage spamming the forum. Think twice before rushing to post, let it rest.

[Ampera]

I have a heavy and full grasp at all concepts at play here, and it is honestly insulting that you dismiss my arguments as childish and invalid strictly due to my age.

I'm not dismissing them or you, and I hope you didn't really take it as an insult. I felt quite indignant about these issues when I was your age - "isn't the answer obvious? This professor should be fired for holding us back!" I'm simply acknowledging that like you, most students simply haven't had the experiences to develop any nuanced, evidence-based perspectives on these things beyond the extremely warped perspectives offered by YouTubers, who are free to recut and modify video or audio clips to suit whatever point they want while concealing the original intent.

Your postings here, I have seen, are quite mature and coherent; I hope you understand that. Any conversation that goes without any face-to-face contact risks a total misinterpretation of each other, so I pointed out your age in response to a reply to your comment that asked a lot of questions you probably aren't going to be able to answer meaningfully as you simply haven't seen those things IRL.

I have been able to comprehend and answer pretty much every single inquiry here. I understand the concepts. I don't think the teacher should be fired, in fact I would be immensely and strongly opposed to her losing her job over this, just like I would be against me losing my job over one of my own opinions. She is wrong in my opinion, and I was debating as to why.

Have another riposte from an interlocutor.

Wrongthink is not from 1984 (which I've read several times, once again last year). It's a term of the alt-right, and is a clue to TwoOfFive's online diet.

Wrongthink may not be from 1984, which is on part my bad. It's a term designed in the style of 1984's Newspeak, and is very similar to the term crimethink which is from 1984. Got my terminology mixed up. As for it being from the alt-right, I'm a person who holds social and economically leftist values, and I use it. The alt-right also use socks and, a most recent example, don't like stinky armpits. I use socks and don't like stinky armpits too. Alt-right has become a word used pretty much completely to yell at people with because they very slightly toe the conservative line. I have conservative friends, just like how I have liberal friends. I agree and disagree with them both, and use words not because I want to join their party and beat the shit out of minorities, but because I like the word, I think it fills a purpose, and because it probably originated from internet subculture anyways, like Pepe the Frog which started as a meme, continued to be a meme, was used by some conservatives, and then exploded into a massive hate symbol fit because someone used it to express an opinion.

This thread is total garbage spamming the forum. Think twice before rushing to post, let it rest.

Isn't this hypocritical?

As for your statement.

Yeah, pretty much. I enjoy shooting the shit about this sort of stuff though. If you don't like it, you don't need to read it.

[Mr. Scram]

This thread is total garbage spamming the forum. Think twice before rushing to post, let it rest.

I've tried arguing that earlier in this thread, but the smell of an unhealthy conversation is apparently too hard to resist.

[klaff]

Wrongthink may not be from 1984, which is on part my bad. It's a term designed in the style of 1984's Newspeak, and is very similar to the term crimethink which is from 1984. Got my terminology mixed up.

Hey TwoOfFive, I apologize for the alt-right labelling. Where I saw the term was on places like InfoWars (talking about Damore from Google) and I assumed you were lifting it from there or somewhere similar. My bad.

[Cerebus]

Have another riposte from an interlocutor.

Wrongthink is not from 1984 (which I've read several times, once again last year). It's a term of the alt-right, and is a clue to TwoOfFive's online diet.

It would help if people would actually make an argument, rather than attacking someone for their age, supposed associations and more. Strawman arguments only lead to nasty and pointless discussions.

I did ask klaff to put forward a cogent argument quite early in the proceedings, but after a while it becomes quite apparent that he's "not here for the hunting" as the joke has it.

It's a shame, as early on this was beginning to look like quite a decent discussion was going to ensue - but then the usual suspects hurled some abuse at people who don't think like them "SJWs, feminists, etc" and, unusually, someone taking almost as unthinking a position from the  opposing view, thusly any prospect of actual debate gets drowned out.

[Ampera]

Wrongthink may not be from 1984, which is on part my bad. It's a term designed in the style of 1984's Newspeak, and is very similar to the term crimethink which is from 1984. Got my terminology mixed up.

Hey TwoOfFive, I apologize for the alt-right labelling. Where I saw the term was on places like InfoWars (talking about Damore from Google) and I assumed you were lifting it from there or somewhere similar. My bad.

Info Wars isn't alt-right, they are just a concentrated form of screaming and stupid. At least they know that we're turning the frogs gay. It's a media company I try to stay far away from.

[klaff]

Have another riposte from an interlocutor.

Wrongthink is not from 1984 (which I've read several times, once again last year). It's a term of the alt-right, and is a clue to TwoOfFive's online diet.

It would help if people would actually make an argument, rather than attacking someone for their age, supposed associations and more. Strawman arguments only lead to nasty and pointless discussions.

I did ask klaff to put forward a cogent argument quite early in the proceedings, but after a while it becomes quite apparent that he's "not here for the hunting" as the joke has it.

It's a shame, as early on this was beginning to look like quite a decent discussion was going to ensue - but then the usual suspects hurled some abuse at people who don't think like them "SJWs, feminists, etc" and, unusually, someone taking almost as unthinking a position from the  opposing view, thusly any prospect of actual debate gets drowned out.

My personal position was stated most clearly in reply 30.

[nctnico]

WTF is this shit? I don't care what colour or creed the person designing my xxxxxx is, but I certainly want them to be rigourous about it.

I agree. Dumbing down education is not the solution. IMHO education needs to be stepped up and be equally available for everyone. From my own experience I know that intelligence has nothing to do with the physical appearance of a person.

[Cerebus]

My personal position was stated most clearly in reply 30.

"Well thar's yer problem". A position is not an argument (and, yes, I did review it before saying this and it is as you describe, a "position"). A position is saying "I think this" - all well and good if you intend to just entrench, or are virtue signalling, but if either is your intent then there is no point in being in a discussion about it. It needs to be followed by "because ..." before it forms the basis for an argument. Just running around and harrying anyone who, as far as you can tell, does not take the same position as you is not engaging in debate.

[Ampera]

WTF is this shit? I don't care what colour or creed the person designing my xxxxxx is, but I certainly want them to be rigourous about it.

I agree. Dumbing down education is not the solution. IMHO education needs to be stepped up and be equally available for everyone. From my own experience I know that intelligence has nothing to do with the physical appearance of a person.

Except one day I will be smart enough to engineer a machine to make me look smarter than all of y'all.

EDIT: I just want to go on the record that I intended to say better than smarter, but I like how this meaningless joke turned out better.

[Cerebus]

From my own experience I know that intelligence has nothing to do with the physical appearance of a person.

Yeah, my mirror keeps doing that to me too. 

[EEVblog]

Can anyone explain to me what value Riley’s ideologies add to an engineer’s education?

Adding a social justice dimension to the education helps in making one aware of the impact your profession has on the world at large. Are your design choices good for the environment? The patient? Are you creating an addictive product? Does it kill people or save lives? Does it reduce pain? Bring people together? More concretely, think products like VW "Clean Diesel", Monsanto's dicamba, or Facebook and Twitter. It's encouraging one to think beyond the assignment, beyond profit.

That stuff can be handled in an engineering ethics class. No need to bring "social justice" issues of gender, race, disability, equality etc into it.
As I previously linked, this seems to be starting to be an issue in general in universities (US primarily, but I'm told by recent graduates Australia too) and is
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/prof-social-justice-warriors-destroying-engineering/250/

And in particular Purdue and Donna Riley's vision (and she is in a position at Purdue to enact this) is very disturbing:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/prof-social-justice-warriors-destroying-engineering/msg1295212/#msg1295212

"The recently appointed dean of Purdue’s school, Dr. Donna Riley, has an ambitious agenda.
In her words (italics mine): “I seek to revise engineering curricula to be relevant to a fuller range of student experiences and career destinations, integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics, and social responsibility; de-centering Western civilization; and uncovering contributions of women and other underrepresented groups…. We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism, and colonialism…. Gender is a key…[theme]…[throughout] the course…. We…[examine]… racist and colonialist projects in science….”

[wraper]

Can anyone explain to me what value Riley’s ideologies add to an engineer’s education?

Adding a social justice dimension to the education helps in making one aware of the impact your profession has on the world at large. Are your design choices good for the environment? The patient? Are you creating an addictive product? Does it kill people or save lives? Does it reduce pain? Bring people together? More concretely, think products like VW "Clean Diesel", Monsanto's dicamba, or Facebook and Twitter. It's encouraging one to think beyond the assignment, beyond profit.

Social justice divides people into the groups, not unites them. Also usually this "justice" is achieved by discriminating one group to "help" another. SJ things like race or gender based quotas at employment or education are outright discriminating and racist despite being presented as exactly opposite. IMO, race or gender should never be used to give advantage or disadvantage to someone, anything should be based solely on one's performance and nothing else. You want more women in engineering? Did you ask them if they are interested in such sort of work to begin with? Why bother, let's make 50/50 men and women into the field and screw all those loads of extra men who left after fitting all the women despite their performance. Ok, let's make this for every "good job", but then how many women will do coal mining to equalize things?

EDIT: This is what social justice does: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5474368/f1-grid-girls-latest-stopped-snowflake-feminists-bernie-ecclestone/
Strange, why women who got "protected" are not happy at all  .

[klaff]

Here's the full text from her page at Smith College (https://www.smith.edu/swg/faculty_riley.php), without the editing.

Donna Riley earned her B.S.E from Princeton University and her M.S. and Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University.

My scholarship currently focuses on applying liberative pedagogies in engineering education, leveraging best practices from women's studies and ethnic studies to engage students in creating a democratic classroom that encourages all voices. In 2005 I received a CAREER award from the National Science Foundation to support this work, which includes developing, implementing, and assessing curricular and pedagogical innovations based on liberative pedagogies and student input at Smith, and understanding how students at Smith conceptualize their identities as engineers. I seek as an engineering educator to be part of a paradigm shift that these pedagogies demand, repositioning concerns about diversity in science and engineering from superficial measures of equity as headcounts, to addressing justice and the genuine engagement of all students as core educational challenges.

I currently teach traditional courses in the areas of chemical and environmental engineering, as well as elective courses on engineering and global development, science, technology, and ethics (cross-listed with SWG) and technological risk assessment and communication. I seek to revise engineering curricula to be relevant to a fuller range of student experiences and career destinations, integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics and social responsibility; de-centering Western civilization; and uncovering contributions of women and other underrepresented groups.

In EGR 330 (Engineering and Global Development), we critically evaluate past and current trends in appropriate and sustainable technology. We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism and colonialism, and the role technology plays in movements that counter these forces. Gender is a key thread running through the course in examining issues of water supply and quality, food production and energy.

In EGR 205 (Science, Technology and Ethics), we consider questions such as who decides how science and engineering are done, who can participate in the scientific enterprise and what problems are legitimately addressed within these disciplines and professions. We take up racist and colonialist projects in science, as well as the role of technology, culture and economic systems in the drive toward bigger, faster, cheaper and more automated production of goods. A course theme around technology and control provides for exploration of military, information, reproductive and environmental applications. Using readings from philosophy, science and technology studies, and feminist and postcolonial science studies, we explore these topics and encounter new models of science and engineering that are responsive to ethical concerns.

[wraper]

Here's the full text from her page at Smith College (https://www.smith.edu/swg/faculty_riley.php), without the editing.

Donna Riley earned her B.S.E from Princeton University and her M.S. and Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University.

What a load of crap publications she made. Not a single work doing real science:

Riley, D., Pawley, A., Tucker, J., and Catalano, G.D. "Feminisms in Engineering Education: Transformative Possibilities." National Women's Studies Association Journal, (August 2009).

Riley, D. Engineering and Social Justice. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool (2008).

Riley, D. and Sciarra, G.L. "'You're all a bunch of fucking feminists': Addressing the Perceived Conflict Between Gender and Professional Identities Using the Montreal Massacre." Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, October 28–31, San Diego, CA (2006).

Riley, D. M., and Claris, L. "Power/Knowledge: Using Foucault to promote critical understandings of content and pedagogy in engineering thermodynamics." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 18 - 21, Chicago, IL (2006).

Riley, D. and Armstrong, E. "Common Ground: How a course collaboration between engineering and women's studies produced fine art." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 12-15, Portland, OR (2005).

Chesler, N. and Riley, D. "The Art of Engineering: Using fine arts to discuss the lives of women faculty in engineering." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 20-23, Salt Lake City, Utah (2004).

Riley, D. "Employing Liberative Pedagogies in Engineering Education." Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9(2): 137-158 (2003).

Riley, D. "Sex, Fear and Condescension on Campus: Cybercensorship at Carnegie Mellon University." Wired_Women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace. L. Cherney and E.R. Weise, eds. Seattle: Seal Press, 1996.

[TerraHertz]

Heh. I'm most amused by Dave exploring where the boundary lies between engineering (allowed on this forum) and politics (not allowed.)

A Feminist SJW talking shit about Engineering. The Mandelbrot set of the Pol-Eng plane.

[EEVblog]

Here's the full text from her page at Smith College (https://www.smith.edu/swg/faculty_riley.php), without the editing.

Donna Riley earned her B.S.E from Princeton University and her M.S. and Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University.

My scholarship currently focuses on applying liberative pedagogies in engineering education

WTF is that?

, leveraging best practices from women's studies and ethnic studies to engage students in creating a democratic classroom that encourages all voices.

WTF has that got to do with teaching engineering?

In 2005 I received a CAREER award from the National Science Foundation to support this work, which includes developing, implementing, and assessing curricular and pedagogical innovations based on liberative pedagogies and student input at Smith, and understanding how students at Smith conceptualize their identities as engineers.

 

I seek as an engineering educator to be part of a paradigm shift that these pedagogies demand, repositioning concerns about diversity in science and engineering from superficial measures of equity as headcounts, to addressing justice and the genuine engagement of all students as core educational challenges.

Translation - "I want equal numbers of women and other "minorities" in the course even if they have no interest in it or aptitude for it, because equal numbers are more important that those things."

I currently teach traditional courses in the areas of chemical and environmental engineering, as well as elective courses on engineering and global development, science, technology, and ethics (cross-listed with SWG) and technological risk assessment and communication. I seek to revise engineering curricula to be relevant to a fuller range of student experiences and career destinations, integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics and social responsibility; de-centering Western civilization; and uncovering contributions of women and other underrepresented groups.

Again, WTF does this have to do with teaching engineering?

In EGR 330 (Engineering and Global Development), we critically evaluate past and current trends in appropriate and sustainable technology. We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism and colonialism, and the role technology plays in movements that counter these forces. Gender is a key thread running through the course in examining issues of water supply and quality, food production and energy.

Is this abortion of a class compulsory to complete your EE at Prudue?
Sounds like she wants it to be if it isn't, screw that.

In EGR 205 (Science, Technology and Ethics), we consider questions such as who decides how science and engineering are done, who can participate in the scientific enterprise and what problems are legitimately addressed within these disciplines and professions. We take up racist and colonialist projects in science, as well as the role of technology, culture and economic systems in the drive toward bigger, faster, cheaper and more automated production of goods. A course theme around technology and control provides for exploration of military, information, reproductive and environmental applications. Using readings from philosophy, science and technology studies, and feminist and postcolonial science studies, we explore these topics and encounter new models of science and engineering that are responsive to ethical concerns.

WHY?
 

I feel sorry for anyone doing EE at Purdue.

[EEVblog]

Here's the full text from her page at Smith College (https://www.smith.edu/swg/faculty_riley.php), without the editing.

Donna Riley earned her B.S.E from Princeton University and her M.S. and Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University.

What a load of crap publications she made. Not a single work doing real science:

Riley, D., Pawley, A., Tucker, J., and Catalano, G.D. "Feminisms in Engineering Education: Transformative Possibilities." National Women's Studies Association Journal, (August 2009).

https://engineering.purdue.edu/Engr/People/NewFaculty/New_Faculty_2017/riley.html

Dr. Riley’s research interests include engineering and social justice; engineering ethics; social inequality in engineering education; the liberal education of engineers; and engineering studies.

Riley, D. Engineering and Social Justice. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool (2008).

Riley, D. and Sciarra, G.L. "'You're all a bunch of fucking feminists': Addressing the Perceived Conflict Between Gender and Professional Identities Using the Montreal Massacre." Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, October 28–31, San Diego, CA (2006).

Riley, D. M., and Claris, L. "Power/Knowledge: Using Foucault to promote critical understandings of content and pedagogy in engineering thermodynamics." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 18 - 21, Chicago, IL (2006).

Riley, D. and Armstrong, E. "Common Ground: How a course collaboration between engineering and women's studies produced fine art." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 12-15, Portland, OR (2005).

Chesler, N. and Riley, D. "The Art of Engineering: Using fine arts to discuss the lives of women faculty in engineering." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 20-23, Salt Lake City, Utah (2004).

Riley, D. "Employing Liberative Pedagogies in Engineering Education." Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9(2): 137-158 (2003).

Riley, D. "Sex, Fear and Condescension on Campus: Cybercensorship at Carnegie Mellon University." Wired_Women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace. L. Cherney and E.R. Weise, eds. Seattle: Seal Press, 1996.

That's laughable in itself, but what I have a problem with is that this person is the Head of the School of Engineering Education at Purdue 

https://engineering.purdue.edu/Engr/People/NewFaculty/New_Faculty_2017/riley.html

Dr. Riley’s research interests include engineering and social justice; engineering ethics; social inequality in engineering education; the liberal education of engineers; and engineering studies.

[Brumby]

If Donna Riley actually has a real point - something about which I am unclear - then she hasn't framed it very well ... and her arguments (from that video, at least) are impossible to follow.  She speaks around the word "rigour" - but I sincerely wonder if she has the right word.

My head is still spinning from that disingenuous dictionary discourse.  That was devoid of logic and any hint of rigour.

[amyk]

de-centering Western civilization;

Ironically, the West is already "de-centering" itself by copiously indulging in this SJW crap, while the East just marches on...

[EEVblog]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/donna-riley-63108326

Professor of Engineering Education
Virginia Tech
August 2014 – June 2017 (2 years 11 months)
Professor in the Department of Engineering Education in the College of Engineering
Affiliate faculty in Science, Technology & Society and Women & Gender Studies

I developed and taught an undergraduate course in "Citizen Engineering" for non-engineers, exploring informal and formal forms of engineering design, the interrelationship of technology and society, and public participation in large engineering projects. I taught the departmental Graduate Seminar, and co-prepared a graduate elective in Proposal Writing.

I conducted research in engineering education that intersects with ethics, gender studies, and STS/engineering studies.

I do like the "I developed and taught an undergraduate course in "Citizen Engineering" for non-engineers" part though,  to that.
Too bad the other crap see researches and want to teach everyone should have nothing to do with engineering education.

[EEVblog]

I don't think I understand half of this, but the taxpayer paid $25M for it:

Program Director
National Science Foundation
March 2013 – August 2015 (2 years 6 months)
Managed $25 million funding portfolio across four programs in engineering education. Led development of new initiative in Professional Formation of Engineers, including creation of new solicitation in Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (RED) as well as re-design of Research in Formation of Engineers (RFE) and Research Initiation in Engineering Formation (RIEF).

Through its funding portfolio the Engineering Education Program focuses on informing the creation of a more agile engineering education ecosystem that offers diverse pathways to engineering careers to all members of society and that dynamically and rapidly adapts to meet the changing needs of society and the nation's economy.

The RED program enables engineering departments to lead the nation by successfully achieving significant sustainable changes necessary to overcome long-standing issues in their undergraduate programs and educate inclusive communities of engineering students prepared to solve 21st century challenges.

The RFE program focuses on achieving systemic improvements by exploring: advancing holistic engineering formation; diversifying pathways to and through engineering; citizen engineering, credentialing and expertise; understanding how change in engineering formation travels, translates, transfers, diffuses, and/or scales; and developing engineering-specific theories of formation.

The RIEF program seeks to enable engineering faculty who are renowned for teaching, mentoring, or leading educational reform efforts on their campus to initiate collaborations with colleagues in the social sciences to address difficult, boundary-spanning problems in the formation of engineers.

The Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) program recognizes exceptional junior faculty in
the area of engineering education research and practice.

[EEVblog]

Found these two articles:

https://www.christopherfountain.com/blog/2017/4/1/whos-going-to-build-our-bridges-and-wholl-dare-cross-them-if-theyre-built

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/queer-engineering-purdue-social-justice-warriors/
Modify message

[EEVblog]

This is written by one of her students in the Thermodynamics class Donna Riley was teaching at Smit College (an all women college)

http://ashish-dss.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/critical-pedagogy-in-engineering.html

[John B]

On the theme of persuasive definition fallacies - the buzz-phrase "women and minorities" has always been an interesting one. If you consider men and women to be binary categories, then "women and minorities" would logically imply everyone as women aren't a minority, hence being a redundant saying. Of course the retort would be that women would be a minority in terms of "power", bringing in another unquantified dimension to the argument. Damn that pesky rigour, perhaps we should do something to erode that a touch.....

[Brumby]

If you consider men and women to be binary categories, then "women and minorities" would logically imply everyone as women aren't a minority, hence being a redundant saying.

Ah ... No.  It is a valid description:

[Cerebus]

I taught the departmental Graduate Seminar, and co-prepared a graduate elective in Proposal Writing.

Oh yeah? Yet she writes like this:

Through its funding portfolio the Engineering Education Program focuses on informing the creation of a more agile engineering education ecosystem that offers diverse pathways to engineering careers to all members of society and that dynamically and rapidly adapts to meet the changing needs of society and the nation's economy.

Anybody who writes paragraph length, buzz-phrase loaded, run-on sentences like that ought, by law, to be prohibited from any involvement in teaching writing.

Back in my writing days, if I'd dropped that on my chief sub-editor's desk she would have strangled me with her keyboard cord and stabbed me through the heart with a blue pencil.

[John B]

If you consider men and women to be binary categories, then "women and minorities" would logically imply everyone as women aren't a minority, hence being a redundant saying.

Ah ... No.  It is a valid description:

The only thing I would modify is that children could be considered outside that classification, but since the phrase is usually used in relation to workplaces and institutions, the set of valid people does not include children. Other than that my comment stands.

[ataradov]

This is written by one of her students in the Thermodynamics class Donna Riley was teaching at Smit College (an all women college)

Breaking the Western hegemony. In order to decenter the male hegemony of the Western civilization, Riley discussed examples of thermodynamic inventions done by non-Western and non-male inventors. Also, some of the assignments required students to make interracial and intercultural connections in thermodynamics.

What kind of BS is that? No wonder you have people that don't understand engineering as the result.

All in all, it looks like a fluffy way of teaching where everyone is a winner. Unsustainable and useless, in other words.

[Cerebus]

This is written by one of her students in the Thermodynamics class Donna Riley was teaching at Smit College (an all women college)

http://ashish-dss.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/critical-pedagogy-in-engineering.html

In this post, I will discuss some of the critical pedagogy practices employed by Dr. Donna Riley (currently a professor at Virginia Tech) while teaching a class called “Engineering Thermodynamics” as Smit College, an all women college, during Spring and Fall semesters of 2002.
...
Democratic classroom practices.
Students were assigned teaching roles to teach parts of the course to the entire class. They were not only asked to develop modules to teach the class but also encouraged to relate them to their own lives. Also, the seating arrangement reflected the democratic classroom practices. Instead of sitting in rows facing the instructor, students were asked to sit in circles with each student facing and talking to the entire class instead of just the instructor.

Translation: She managed to avoid much of her work by getting us to learn it ourselves and then lecture the rest of the class.

Somehow I find giving the label "democracy" to getting your students to do your work for you oddly misplaced. Did they get to vote on accepting this work, or was it dictatorially assigned to them?

Given her woeful understanding of what "rigour" means in terms of science and engineering (she seems to think it means "complex maths"^* and hard labour) do we, perhaps, wonder if she wasn't quite up to teaching a class entitled "Engineering Thermodynamics" and came up with, an admittedly impressively crafty, way of winging it?

Reading further I think I may have answered my own question:

Normalizing mistakes.
By normalizing mistakes in the process of learning, Riley fostered a classroom environment in which students were comfortable attempting problems (sometimes even on the black board) in class and learning from their mistakes. Another strategy used by her for normalizing mistakes was acknowledging when she herself did not know something.

^* I just realized that I ought to qualify this. Riley uses the phrase "complex maths" when she properly means "complicated or difficult maths". She does not mean exclusively the mathematics of complex numbers, which nevertheless I suspect fall into that category for her.

[ataradov]

Yes, it was hard to stump real professors with questions. Really, they've been teaching for ages, they know all the stuff students will ask, and actually just include it in the course. But hey, democracy, I guess.

Two of the best classes I've taken (analytical geometry and calculus) were taught by women, but somehow their gender did not matter at all. And it certainly did not influence curriculum.

[Cerebus]

Two of the best classes I've taken (analytical geometry and calculus) were taught by women, but somehow their gender did not matter at all. And it certainly did not influence curriculum.

My mate Jo(anne) was the only person who seemed to walk out of "Complex Analysis" without a headache and a glazed look in her eyes.

[Mr. Scram]

Yes, it was hard to stump real professors with questions. Really, they've been teaching for ages, they know all the stuff students will ask, and actually just include it in the course. But hey, democracy, I guess.

Two of the best classes I've taken (analytical geometry and calculus) were taught by women, but somehow their gender did not matter at all. And it certainly did not influence curriculum.

Maybe I'm falling off the bandwagon here, but it sounds healthy to admit you don't know everything or not to hide mistakes. That's an attitude I've seen in various sectors where the stakes are high and I don't expect any engineering to be different, though pride is a fickle thing.

[ataradov]

Maybe I'm falling off the bandwagon here, but it sounds healthy to admit you don't know everything or not to hide mistakes.

Yes, if you really don't know. But the fact that you don't know the answer to a question in your area of expertise, when you've been teaching for a while, is surprising. It is not inventing new stuff, it is teaching the same well established things.

And how often that had to happen to actually make a note of it?

[Mr. Scram]

Yes, if you really don't know. But the fact that you don't know the answer to a question in your area of expertise, when you've been teaching for a while, is surprising. It is not inventing new stuff, it is teaching the same well established things.

And how often that had to happen to actually make a note of it?

Of course there will inevitably be a lot of things you don't know, even in your area of expertise. Not to mention all the areas surrounding your expertise you know a lot of, but not quite everything. Look at Dave's videos. He obviously knows his stuff, but regularly runs into something not quite knowing what he's looking at. That's how you learn. The bulk of the stuff will be familiar, but there will be enough that you don't know. Not even the most knowledgeable person on Earth escapes that.

Your attitude worries me a bit, if I'm honest. Doctors look up things on a daily basis. Pilots are pushed to keep learning and developing every day, even after 20 years of flying. Why would teaching or engineering be any different? An important part of being an expert is knowing your limitations. That's why trained doctors, pilots and engineers are safer than laymen. They know what they don't know, and know what they can't do.

We're not even talking about how fields evolve and develop, which means your 20 years of experience isn't going to cut it on its own.

[ataradov]

Of course there will inevitably be a lot of things you don't know, even in your area of expertise.

In normal life or work - yes, in the course of a structured lecture - no, unless it is something really cutting edge. But cutting edge stuff rarely happens in lectures. I'm absolutely not saying that you need to know or will know everything, not at all.

It would really be nice to know the types of questions that stumbled her, of course.

[ataradov]

Also, this:

developing students into socially and politically aware individuals, helping them recognize authoritarian tendencies, empowering them to act against injustice,

has nothing to do with technical engineering. I would be very pissed if my thermodynamics included lectures on social injustice.

So I don't know what sort of qualifications she has to teach thermodynamics in general.

[Cerebus]

Let's not take it too far here. We were talking in the context of a PhD giving an undergraduate course on "Engineering Thermodynamics", whose real interests clearly lie in social politics. In that context, not knowing something that's part of the course sounds suspiciously like flubbing it. It doesn't mean that it's reprehensible to not know everything your students might ask and nobody is, I think, saying that. Just that, on this occasion, it sounds more like the former than the latter.

In professional practice? Of course there will be scad loads you don't know and it's the proper thing to humbly admit ignorance.

[Mr. Scram]

In normal life or work - yes, in the course of a structured lecture - no, unless it is something really cutting edge. But cutting edge stuff rarely happens in lectures. I'm absolutely not saying that you need to know or will know everything, not at all.

It would really be nice to know the types of questions that stumbled her, of course.

Even the most traditional lecture has room for questions and you can bet those bastards will find ways to throw you curve balls, often even without realizing it themselves. Current events in the news that somehow relate to the lecture material are a common source of questions. I'd say that the less the students know the harder the questions can be to answer, in the "a fool can ask more questions than seven wise men can answer" sense.

Obviously, it sounds like these lectures are a little less "I talk and you listen". That leaves more room for funny questions. It doesn't quite mean they're unstructured, mind you.

[ataradov]

Even the most traditional lecture has room for questions and you can bet those bastards will find ways to throw you curve balls, often even without realizing it themselves.

Absolutely. And that happened from time to time, especially if answer requires deeper understanding of the material covered later in the course. Things that are hard to explain, and outright "I don't know" are different things. Ability to recognize an invalid or incorrect question plays important role here, but again, given some knowledge in the area should be helpful here.

I'm not saying that it should not happen, I'm just asking how often that happened that it deserved recognition like that.

In that case it looks more like someone who ostensibly knows how to teach, tries to teach a discipline she is not very familiar with. Hence the result.

[Mr. Scram]

Let's not take it too far here. We were talking in the context of a PhD giving an undergraduate course on "Engineering Thermodynamics", whose real interests clearly lie in social politics. In that context, not knowing something that's part of the course sounds suspiciously like flubbing it. It doesn't mean that it's reprehensible to not know everything your students might ask and nobody is, I think, saying that. Just that, on this occasion, it sounds more like the former than the latter.

In professional practice? Of course there will be scad loads you don't know and it's the proper thing to humbly admit ignorance.

I don't know. It seems to me there's a dynamic here where people try their hardest to see things in the worst light possible, with the thread getting ever more frenzied.

[ataradov]

The real test here is to give students a real non-democratic exam, but on thermodynamics, not social justice . And if they know stuff - excellent, then it was a good way to teach. If they fail, then it does not matter how inclusive they felt in the process, they don't know the material.

[Cerebus]

Also, this:

developing students into socially and politically aware individuals, helping them recognize authoritarian tendencies, empowering them to act against injustice,

has nothing to do with technical engineering. I would be very pissed if my thermodynamics included lectures on social injustice.

Actually, if you were at Smith I think you might expect it. From a quick look at Smith's web site:

At Smith, the engineering degrees offered are based on rigorous plans of study integrated with the liberal arts and sciences. There are two possible paths for the study of engineering at Smith College. The first is the ABET-accredited bachelor of science (S.B.) in engineering science, and the second is the bachelor of arts (A.B.) in engineering arts.

If you're signed up for a Bachelor^* of Arts (yes, BA) in Engineering Arts I think you might well expect some things in your lectures that would not feature in a BSc or BEng.

^* As it's an all female college shouldn't that be Spinster?

[ataradov]

Actually, if you were at Smith I think you might expect it. From a quick look at Smith's web site:

Good point. But in that case I would ask individuals that look this course to not whine when they can't find jobs. Those jobs are taken by people that picked a bit of rigor in their education.

[Mr. Scram]

Absolutely. And that happened from time to time, especially if answer requires deeper understanding of the material covered later in the course. Things that are hard to explain, and outright "I don't know" are different things. Ability to recognize an invalid or incorrect question plays important role here, but again, given some knowledge in the area should be helpful here.

I'm not saying that it should not happen, I'm just asking how often that happened that it deserved recognition like that.

In that case it looks more like someone who ostensibly knows how to teach, tries to teach a discipline she is not very familiar with. Hence the result.

I really don't know where you get the "she is not very familiar with" from. You've somehow extrapolated that from a quote about how she feels it's important that she too admits not knowing things whenever that's relevant. As we've established, not knowing things is not only part of  being an expert, but probably part of why you're an expert. It's a common practice in rather serious fields all over the world, but when this lady does it it's all horrible.

You somehow seem to insist that an expert always knows everything, but I've personally never met an expert who would agree with that. Quite the contrary, I'd say.

[ataradov]

You somehow seem to insist that an expert always knows everything, but I've personally never met an expert who would agree with that. Quite the contrary, I'd say.

Not at all. I doubt typical student's ability to ask really-really tricky questions that would stumble a professor. Especially I doubt that this happens a lot of times during the course.

I do maintain that in a classroom with "typical students" and "typical professor", the professor should be able to answer on-topic questions on the spot in most cases.

You obviously are not expected to know everything in the course of active research.

Or may be, I'm just projecting my experience. But all my technical professors were knowledgeable enough to answer the questions coming up during the lecture. And that's what I come to expect from them.

[Cerebus]

I don't know. It seems to me there's a dynamic here where people try their hardest to see things in the worst light possible, with the thread getting ever more frenzied.

I keep on trying to be fair to Dr Riley, and in doing so I've tried to look at original material as far as I can. The problem is that every time I get half way through a video, or whatever, I throw my hands up in disgust and walk away. The woman clearly has an agenda, clearly has little understanding of engineering or, worse still, deliberately conflates the scientific/mathematical/engineering concept of rigour with the many other meanings of the word to cast it in a bad light.

What has clearly happened is that people have been critical of her work and conclusions on education and said her work lacks "rigour". Rather than fix any weaknesses in her research she has gone on the offensive against her critics and moved on to an offensive on rigour in science and engineering. Either every scientist, mathematician and engineer is wrong on the merits of rigour (probably blinded by being white, western and having willies), or she is just a political animal pushing a political agenda with scant regard for any underlying facts or the consequences if she is successful.

[Mr. Scram]

Not at all. I doubt typical student's ability to ask really-really tricky questions that would stumble a professor. Especially I doubt that this happens a lot of times during the course.

You agree, only to imply the opposite immediately after. That's enough circles for today

[Mr. Scram]

I keep on trying to be fair to Dr Riley, and in doing so I've tried to look at original material as far as I can. The problem is that every time I get half way through a video, or whatever, I throw my hands up in disgust and walk away. The woman clearly has an agenda, clearly has little understanding of engineering or, worse still, deliberately conflates the scientific/mathematical/engineering concept of rigour with the many other meanings of the word to cast it in a bad light.

What has clearly happened is that people have been critical of her work and conclusions on education and said her work lacks "rigour". Rather than fix any weaknesses in her research she has gone on the offensive against her critics and moved on to an offensive on rigour in science and engineering. Either every scientist, mathematician and engineer is wrong on the merits of rigour (probably blinded by being white, western and having willies), or she is just a political animal pushing a political agenda with scant regard for any underlying facts or the consequences if she is successful.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think she and I would be friends. It just seems that people are so busy looking for fabricated objections that the real ones get neglected. While there seem to be enough actual objections to discuss, which could actually be quite interesting.

Then again, I saw it coming and still stepped on that landmine. I guess this would be a good time to figure out how to remove a thread from the "replies to your post" list.

[daqq]

... I'm honestly interested (in the same way I'd be unable to turn away from a train wreck and just stare in horrified fascination) what kind of society we'd be if people like this nutjob were in charge... We'd probably still be arguing about whether fire is not of an offensive color and trying to come up with a less phallic transportation system than a wheel. Or we'd all be dead, because chemistry and medicine would be considered bad because they do not involve minorities as much...

[Moshly]

She must be a B-Ark Golgafrincham. 



Golgafrincham was a planet, once home to the Great Circling Poets of Arium. The descendants of these poets made up tales of impending doom about the planet. The tales varied; some said it was going to crash into the sun, or the moon was going to crash into the planet. Others said the planet was to be invaded by twelve-foot piranha bees and still others said it was in danger of being eaten by an enormous mutant star-goat.

These tales of impending doom allowed the Golgafrinchans to rid themselves of an entire useless third of their population. The story was that they would build three Ark ships. Into the A ship would go all the leaders, scientists and other high achievers. The C ship would contain all the people who made things and did things, and the B ark would hold everyone else, such as hairdressers and telephone sanitisers. They sent the B ship off first, but of course the other two-thirds of the population stayed on the planet and lived full, rich and happy lives until they were all wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.

[TerraHertz]

It's strange to see people trying to grasp what the dear professor is on about, and whether she's serious. It's as if you have no idea of the context, and what these methods are for. Which is this:

On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional Record. The list was derived from researcher Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.”

 1. U.S. should accept coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

 2. U.S. should be willing to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

 3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U.S. would be a demonstration of "moral strength."

 4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

 5. Extend long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

 6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

 7. Grant recognition of Red China and admission of Red China to the U.N.

 8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

 9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

 10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

 11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

 12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

 13. Do away with loyalty oaths.

 14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

 15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.

 16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

 17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

 18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

 19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations that are under Communist attack.

 20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

 21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.

 22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings," substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.

 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

 24.Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."

 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

 28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"

 29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

 30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

 31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

 32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

 33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

 34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

 35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

 36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

 37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

 38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.

 39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose communist goals.

 40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

 41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

 42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political or social problems.

 43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

 44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

 45. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the U.S. cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.


---------------

Saul Alinsky died about 43 years ago, but his writings influenced those in political control of our nation today.
Recall that Hillary did her college thesis on his writings and Obama writes about him in his books.
Died: June 12, 1972, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
Education: University of Chicago
Spouse: Irene Alinsky
Books: Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals
Anyone out there think that this stuff isn't happening today in the U.S.?
All eight rules are currently in play.

How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:
There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.
1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.
2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control– Remove the ability to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the government and schools.
Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent, and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin's original scheme for world conquest by communism, under Russian rule. Stalin described his converts as "Useful Idiots."
The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control. It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.

Cruel Hoax - Feminism & New World Order
by Henry Makow

Feminism, our official gender ideology, masquerades as a movement for women's rights. In reality, feminism is a cruel hoax, telling women their natural biological instincts are "socially constructed" to oppress them.

Feminism is elite social engineering designed to destroy gender identity by making women masculine and men feminine. Increasingly heterosexuals are conditioned to behave like homosexuals who generally don't marry and have children. Courtship and monogamy are being replaced by sexual promiscuity, prophesied in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

The Rockefellers and Rothschilds created feminism to poison male-female relations (divide and conquer.) Their twin objectives are depopulation and totalitarian world government.

http://everist.org/archives/links/__Feminism.txt

--------------
The professor blathers on. It's just noise, Game Theory obfuscation, pretending there's constructive substance to a movement that is fundamentally about the deliberate destruction of Western society.
Trying to analyze and understand the process, her position and worth, is an utter and futile waste of time. There isn't anything real there at all. It's all just mind poison. Exactly as intended. A very effective tar-baby to entangle those who refuse to consider that deep, long term and very hostile conspiracies exist.

[FrankE]

Rigour and complexity aren't the same and if she was pointing that out she's right.I wasn't really listening.

[coppice]

Rigour and complexity aren't the same and if she was pointing that out she's right.I wasn't really listening.

She says that rigour and complexity go hand in hand. She thinks complexity is exclusionary, so she thinks rigour is bad. She offers nothing to support her argument, probably because its a bogus argument.

[Cerebus]

Rigour and complexity aren't the same and if she was pointing that out she's right.I wasn't really listening.

Erm, what's the point if you're not actually going to listen. She allies scientific rigour with the other disparate uses of the word such as "a rigorous prison regime" or "rigorous exercise". She regards scientific rigour as exclusionary, presumably because rigour requires one to have some evidence to back up ones ideas, teachings and prognostications. Her real problem is with people who say her work is worthless because it had no rigorous underpinnings. Rigour is the big bad wolf to her intellectual straw house.

[MT]

If anybody thinks that all these kind the people are going to improve the society.  Forget you. All kind the activists(anti-systems, feminist and anti-facist) their main goal is destroy the actual system by any method. Their leaders(90%) don't come from marginal neighbourhood or guettos else the well-off families where they went to private schools.
Evidences: I only know the situation from Spain where determined activists and politicians anti-systems have hidden millionaries properties, business and prestiges private schools from Europe. The last case is a  anti-capitalist,feminist and anti-system exparlamentary  ran away to Ginebra(Switzerland)and she hasn't plan return.

Read "elites replacing elites and crowd psychology, etc" by Gusaf le Bon and others and all illusions vanishes. Hilter, Mosselini , Lenun , Thedore RoosWelt did and Donna Riley most likely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Le_Bon

[Cerebus]

Gotta love when TerraHertz shows up with 50 paragraphs of tinfoil hat alarmism. Really have never understood why those outside the USA are so obsessed with what happens there?

Especially when the first 46 are pure McCarthyite drivel. In case some people didn't get the memo, history proved that the McCarthyites were talking rubbish.

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

[MT]

Gotta love when TerraHertz shows up with 50 paragraphs of tinfoil hat alarmism. Really have never understood why those outside the USA are so obsessed with what happens there?

The list was kinda hilarious showing he have no clue whatsoever about the concept of "totalitarianism"
which is a(acknowledged) genetically defect in homo sapiens and as such appears in "all social constructs"
and often turns sapiens into homo stultum.

[Zero999]

It's strange to see people trying to grasp what the dear professor is on about, and whether she's serious. It's as if you have no idea of the context, and what these methods are for. Which is this:

On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional Record. The list was derived from researcher Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.”

 1. U.S. should accept coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

 2. U.S. should be willing to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

 3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U.S. would be a demonstration of "moral strength."

 4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

 5. Extend long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

 6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

 7. Grant recognition of Red China and admission of Red China to the U.N.

 8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

 9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

 10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

 11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

 12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

 13. Do away with loyalty oaths.

 14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

 15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.

 16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

 17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

 18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

 19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations that are under Communist attack.

 20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

 21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.

 22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings," substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.

 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

 24.Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."

 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

 28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"

 29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

 30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

 31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

 32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

 33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

 34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

 35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

 36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

 37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

 38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.

 39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose communist goals.

 40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

 41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

 42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political or social problems.

 43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

 44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

 45. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the U.S. cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.


---------------

Saul Alinsky died about 43 years ago, but his writings influenced those in political control of our nation today.
Recall that Hillary did her college thesis on his writings and Obama writes about him in his books.
Died: June 12, 1972, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
Education: University of Chicago
Spouse: Irene Alinsky
Books: Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals
Anyone out there think that this stuff isn't happening today in the U.S.?
All eight rules are currently in play.

How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:
There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.
1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.
2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control– Remove the ability to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the government and schools.
Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent, and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin's original scheme for world conquest by communism, under Russian rule. Stalin described his converts as "Useful Idiots."
The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control. It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.

Cruel Hoax - Feminism & New World Order
by Henry Makow

Feminism, our official gender ideology, masquerades as a movement for women's rights. In reality, feminism is a cruel hoax, telling women their natural biological instincts are "socially constructed" to oppress them.

Feminism is elite social engineering designed to destroy gender identity by making women masculine and men feminine. Increasingly heterosexuals are conditioned to behave like homosexuals who generally don't marry and have children. Courtship and monogamy are being replaced by sexual promiscuity, prophesied in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

The Rockefellers and Rothschilds created feminism to poison male-female relations (divide and conquer.) Their twin objectives are depopulation and totalitarian world government.

http://everist.org/archives/links/__Feminism.txt

--------------
The professor blathers on. It's just noise, Game Theory obfuscation, pretending there's constructive substance to a movement that is fundamentally about the deliberate destruction of Western society.
Trying to analyze and understand the process, her position and worth, is an utter and futile waste of time. There isn't anything real there at all. It's all just mind poison. Exactly as intended. A very effective tar-baby to entangle those who refuse to consider that deep, long term and very hostile conspiracies exist.

What a load of nonsense. Lots of that crap was written by religious fundamentalists, as a means to keep the existing powers in control of the population. I love the bit supporting homophobia: perhaps should scrap gay marriage because it will lead to population collapse?

Religion has been heavily used in the past to control people, just as much as Marxism.

Nearly all developed countries have publicly funded healthcare and gun control and many of them  have higher living standards, are freer and less communist than the US.

[DimitriP]

Gotta love when TerraHertz shows up with 50 paragraphs of tinfoil hat alarmism. Really have never understood why those outside the USA are so obsessed with what happens there?

Especially when the first 46 are pure McCarthyite drivel. In case some people didn't get the memo, history proved that the McCarthyites were talking rubbish.

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

McCarthy may have been many things, but not completely wrong: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1996/04/14/was-mccarthy-right-about-the-left/a0dc6726-e2fd-4a31-bcdd-5f352acbf5de/?utm_term=.4bae277a2129

[DimitriP]

Gotta love when TerraHertz shows up with 50 paragraphs of tinfoil hat alarmism. Really have never understood why those outside the USA are so obsessed with what happens there?

Probably for the same reason those outside Czechoslovakia are concerned with what happens there

("obsessed" might be too strong of a word, implying focus on any one country. )

[Cerebus]

McCarthy may have been many things, but not completely wrong: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1996/04/14/was-mccarthy-right-about-the-left/a0dc6726-e2fd-4a31-bcdd-5f352acbf5de/?utm_term=.4bae277a2129

I somehow think that as a reliable record of history, a 1996 opinion piece from the Washington Post leaves a bit wanting.

[Cerebus]

Probably for the same reason those outside Czechoslovakia are concerned with what happens there

You do know that Czechoslovakia hasn't existed for a quarter of a century?

[daqq]

Probably for the same reason those outside Czechoslovakia are concerned with what happens there

Seeing as Czechoslovakia has been gone for 25 years, maybe you should check it again ;-) It divided into Slovakia (my country) and the Czech Republic.

Really have never understood why those outside the USA are so obsessed with what happens there?

Obsessed is a strong word, concerned and interested would be better. It's a very important country, and a lot of what happens there can affect the world we live in. Ideas spread (good and bad), crazy can be exported, particularly when the manufacturers teach and get a lot of attention and funding.

Basically, it would be preferable if the US remained sane in the long run (or at least not outright batfuckinsane) - that means say no to rabid SJW and say no to a heavily clergy influenced government... and a lot of other different influences.

[snarkysparky]

Lots of this social angst seems to have one underlying theme to me.  That of inherent intelligence and a growing fear of it in popular culture. 

Vast swaths of the public seem to see the writing on the wall unconsciously that in a world featuring never ending increases in complexity a subset of the population is set up to ride over the rest.

It's going to be very interesting

[LaserSteve]

I work in a Engineering College.  I'm stunned very few of you have analysed the School of Engineering Education, instead of just looking at Dr. Riley

School of Engineering Education is evidently  the first year administrative  "holding area" for incoming freshman at Perdue, Frosh  are there until admitted to the traditional Colleges...

http://catalog.purdue.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=8&poid=9753

Take a look at  the Faculty qualifications, read the faculty descripters,  It's set up more like a College of Education then a College of Engineering...

https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE/People/Faculty

  I think you'll see your looking at something non-traditional that happened at Perdue. . Many of you being are thrown for a loop by seeing the argot of a traditional College of Education instead of the College of Engineering you grew up in.  I'm working on a Masters in Education, so I see and know the  "College of Education Pedagogy and Learning Theory " language and know more or less what I'm looking at.  Some how you have a think tank  there in applying the traditional liberal arts  "Classroom  Teacher" way of doing things and that specific  Pedagogy to teaching engineering.  How that happened, I have not a clue, its certainly unusual.  Ie set up an institute to try and improve a  professor's teaching style by teaching them what classroom skills you would instill in a elementary or high school teacher. For many of you, that "soft science" way of doing things would be very foreign when read. 

What stuns me is the number of people teaching in that college that started at Perdue, its a little strange to hire your own product that much.

Steve

[vodka]

Gotta love when TerraHertz shows up with 50 paragraphs of tinfoil hat alarmism. Really have never understood why those outside the USA are so obsessed with what happens there?

Because , the stupidity leftist of USA is terribly contagious . Here, the spanish leftist are every day crushing with the Spanish Civil War,  with the mass grave from the Spanish Civil War, with the kidnapped kids for Francoism where there are cases during the Socialist Goverment(80s-90s). Now , the spanish leftist are with the machist attacks and the rape herds. Sometimes watch the TV put off.

[Ampera]

Gotta love when TerraHertz shows up with 50 paragraphs of tinfoil hat alarmism. Really have never understood why those outside the USA are so obsessed with what happens there?

Because , the stupidity leftist of USA is terribly contagious . Here, the spanish leftist are every day crushing with the Spanish Civil War,  with the mass grave from the Spanish Civil War, with the kidnapped kids for Francoism where there are cases during the Socialist Goverment(80s-90s). Now , the spanish leftist are with the machist attacks and the rape herds. Sometimes watch the TV put off.

Wew lad, this is comparing apples and oranges. Not only is the political wing system a MASSIVE generalization, every single nation has a different flavour of left/center/right. I consider myself a leftist, but my opinions are not restricted to any specific political party or political wing.

Political discussion on this forum always amuses me as most of the people are actually really nice, give good, genuine opinions, throw in a few jokes for comedic relief, and we, at the end of the day, walk away with new ideas in our minds, a good discussion, and we may even have one or two new friends made.

The reason that these threads always go to pot, though, is one person throws a massive generalization, another person gets pissed off, and we then get this political pissing match that we have now.

To give an ounce of good, I think this thread, for the most part, was really really cool. Sides were shown, and ideas were thrown. I'm happy we came and got some cool discussion in.

[Gyro]

To quote the OP:

...
I expect this thread to get out of control and eventually locked like the previous one, so please try and surprise me...

[Ampera]

This thread has surprised me though. I don't think it's truly out of control yet. Threads only ever really get locked here if they get really cancerous and people start throwing virtual things.

I maintain my opinion that this was a good thread, and hope that when and if a similar topic comes up again here, we can have as good of a discussion as we did here.

Personally, once a thread reaches about 7-10+ pages, I stop following it unless I am REALLY invested in it. I don't like engaging on multi-hundred page topics as I feel I am missing out by not reading them all, and I don't want to read hundreds of pages of topics for something I am likely not that interested in anyways.

[Richard Crowley]

It was inevitable that the "dumbing-down" of education and ignorant "political correctness" would reach the "hard sciences" sooner or later.

It was observed that George Washington's Farewell Address was at the time readable and understandable by most uneducated farmers and children in primary school.   While, today, readibility index of the same text ranges from college/uni to post-graduate reading and comprehension level.  And I have seen 8th grade tests used back in the 1800s that college/uni students couldn't pass today.

Ref: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

[Ampera]

I could read that. I didn't read the whole thing, but I could understand every word.

It does, however, make perfect sense. As language evolves, common words get deprecated and supplanted by new ones. They may still exist in the language, but the mannerisms and common usages of those words do not. This is also during the time of, or likely even before a lot of the American language reforms began (which still technically continue to this day).

Personally, I am about to enter college full time, and all my college experience is strictly in general purpose mathematics (I've done Calc 2 as my highest math course). I don't think this is unreadable by even people with a highschool reading level (I have a harder time reading older English books than this, though hard time doesn't mean I can't). I think your conclusion here is based on unreasonable expectations. I could imagine if you gave a dumb farmer with half an education a document from the 1500's, they would have an even harder time than an educated school student today would have reading this address.

[Richard Crowley]

I used an online readability website: https://readable.io/url/
Try it for yourself.

[Ampera]

I still maintain that your original premise is a bit pessimistic. I could most likely have read that even when I was 11-12. Granted, I've always been a very strong reader, but I think that website is working on a more pessimistic basis.

[Cerebus]

What stuns me is the number of people teaching in that college that started at Perdue, its a little strange to hire your own product that much.

Not if only they are socialized to your very strange little world and everybody from outside that you interview to hire goes "What?!?!".

BTW -  we did look at the fact that it's an engineering education department the last time that Dr Riley's strange world view was examined in these parts, but perhaps people have forgotten.

[lem_ix]

How prevalent are such ideas in US universities? At first you think it's just a few nutjobs, but more and more of these vids are poping up. Scary, as US tends to export trends abroad.

[Cerebus]

This thread has surprised me though. I don't think it's truly out of control yet. Threads only ever really get locked here if they get really cancerous and people start throwing virtual things.

Shouts: Snowball! [FX: throws snowball] (It's quite white and cold here, for London.)

[KL27x]

Dr Riley is not a threat to the scientific process. She has some ideas about the culture of the engineering profession and some weird ways of incorporating etymology and making controversial statements. Even if she is dumb enough to believe herself, literally, she isn't a threat to US education. There's no way anyone in the curriculum department would remove the scientific process from science, to remove the proof and the math and the calculations, and replace it with "creativity" and "social impact." She is making a point, and the reaction is overblown. It's not like she is running the US department of education. She's a relative nobody making her mortgage payment, like the rest of us schleps. This is a nonstory, but one which gets such a big reaction, probably because engineering IS actually full of male chauvenists?

She is a bad example/prepresentative of female engineer. Giving her more attention than she is due (which should be pretty close to none) is going out of our way. And it says something about us for the length of this thread. And about Dave for posting this drivel.  Now, the posts in the video are much worse, I gotta say. This forum isn't all that bad. But I can't believe the idiocy of the guy that made that video. What a hypocrite and fool.

[Richard Crowley]

It's not like she is running the US department of education.

But people exactly like her ARE running the US department of education.  People who believe in "equal outcome" vs. "equal opportunity".  In this area I think the European model is more viable and practical.

[KL27x]

^ What I saw of her lecture (what was basically cherry picked by Youtube Man-gineer) essentially says that there is room in the engineering profession for people to contribute in ways other than complex math and science. And this is true. We need people who do hardcore coding and circuit and IC design (and mechanical engineering of course, lol). And we need people who can get the most out of these hardcore engineers by tying them in to a larger picture.

There's room in engineering for dumb asses with good communication skills, just like Youtube Man-gineer and his super complex Pugh diagrams and Sigma6 hardcore math and science (sarcasm). All she's saying is hey, maybe this Man-gineer with his glowing people skills and 4 day Sigma6 certification should be MORE appreciated compared to the technical gods. (And that maybe Man-gineer's type of job, being the ring leader of brain storming sessions and master of sticking post it notes on white boards and breaking it down in regular English to the top brass, don't all have to go to white men.) In a million years, he couldn't do what I do. And vice versa, in a million years, I could never do what he does: Manage to be so smug and pleased with myself for getting a job I wasn't as qualified for as many other indian and Chinese engineers.

I'm the first in line to believe in a global conspiracy to make the world population dumber. It has been going on for decades if not longer. But this conspiracy doesn't achieve anything by giving dumb people DIFFICULT jobs. Our ultimate masters on earth get the most out of our slave labor and squeeze us for as much as they can. And the dumbed down masses are best taken advantage of in other jobs/roles.   

[Fungus]

As a straight white male engineer with 3 decades of experience, I have reached some conclusions.

While early in my career I focused entirely on technical rigor, and while I still take pride in being thorough and complete in my work, the problems in the world that distress me the most are not technical but social.

True, but we don't train engineers to fix those problems. We train engineers to build bridges that stay up and aircraft that don't fall out of the sky.

If an engineer can use his skill to help society, that's a bonus, but not a priority at the training stage.

[DimitriP]

Probably for the same reason those outside Czechoslovakia are concerned with what happens there

You do know that Czechoslovakia hasn't existed for a quarter of a century?

old habits 

[Ampera]

This thread has surprised me though. I don't think it's truly out of control yet. Threads only ever really get locked here if they get really cancerous and people start throwing virtual things.

Shouts: Snowball! [FX: throws snowball] (It's quite white and cold here, for London.)

About 18-20 inches where I am. fite me

[Neomys Sapiens]

Well, I read it as "Rigol" at first, and I tried to imagine what kind of crazy logic would lead from feminism to thinking that scopes are evil.

Me too. It's capitalised, in quotes, and on an electronics forum. I thought it would be about someone who couldn't even get the name right.

And word from OREGON actually says that RIGOL IS EVIL! (Ask your Tektronix representative for further information)

[EEVblog]

Dr Riley is not a threat to the scientific process.

Yes, she is.
She is in charge of engineering education at a university, and she wants to teach these engineers all sorts of social justice stuff I have linked to before.
Now, that stuff in itself is not really the problem as such (if it's elective), the problem is that there is a finite amount of time in any EE degree course and teaching that social justice stuff must come at the  price of less engineering related subject mater.
She has no place being in charge of engineering education.

[EEVblog]

Although putting himself in the position of starting AND stopping a thread is more than a little puzzling. The thread title definitely seems at odds with a genuine desire to be surprised.

The tread title is exactly the same as the video in question.

[engineerguy]

Yes, it's all a conspiracy against non-white males, this whole notion of 'rigor'. Some of these university administrators/professors have way too much time on their hands that they spend it conjuring up these bizarre notions. This is all actually very insulting and demeaning to those of us with a genuine interest in engineering...whilst I was at university, I was involved with an engineering student group (and being electrical, all of us were males, not that we ever made it a point), but the dean of our school saw it as his mission to sit us down and literally say "You guys have done a lot of great work...but when I see that photo of you all on your website, I can only think of one problem: where are all the female students?! Too many males!" No kidding...then we had another university administrator try to convince us to take some "diversity course" on how to deal with other people from different backgrounds, as if we were actively making it our mission to deter females from joining the student group, nevermind that our classes were something like 90% male. Reminds me of people complaining on Twitter of that live stream video of the SpaceX employees cheering on the Falcon launch, that there were too many "white males" and not enough females...it's amazing that they even managed to get the rocket to launch with so many males involved...

This whole politicisation, or the notion of injecting social issues into science/engineering is so dangerous and detrimental to the disciplines because eventually it will gut them out of any quality, and any semblance of competent engineering students. It's a very dangerous road to take...just look at what's happened to the humanities; it's a total farce and perversion of what it once stood for.

[TerraHertz]

Although putting himself in the position of starting AND stopping a thread is more than a little puzzling. The thread title definitely seems at odds with a genuine desire to be surprised.

Perhaps he's got boreout?

Dave: "I know, I'll start a political (slightly related to tech) thread, let it run a while, then ban myself. Need a holiday."

(Hopefully you'll understand this is my idea of a sense of humor.)

Btw, that communist manifesto post was supposed to be just about the two lines in red. The rest was only for context.
I'm quite surprised to see some people denying that Communism even had manifestos, or plans for taking over the west, or that those plans could still in some sense be in operation.

And I guess the concept that Feminism and Communism are both ideologies crafted by a common class of people, for very similar objectives (deliberate social disruption of target nation states and societies)  is beyond the grasp of some.

[EEVblog]

Btw, that communist manifesto post was supposed to be just about the two lines in red. The rest was only for context.
I'm quite surprised to see some people denying that Communism even had manifestos, or plans for taking over the west, or that those plans could still in some sense be in operation.

And I guess the concept that Feminism and Communism are both ideologies crafted by a common class of people, for very similar objectives (deliberate social disruption of target nation states and societies)  is beyond the grasp of some.

And that's how you'll get this thread locked...

[Ampera]

Yes, it's all a conspiracy against non-white males, this whole notion of 'rigor'. Some of these university administrators/professors have way too much time on their hands that they spend it conjuring up these bizarre notions. This is all actually very insulting and demeaning to those of us with a genuine interest in engineering...whilst I was at university, I was involved with an engineering student group (and being electrical, all of us were males, not that we ever made it a point), but the dean of our school saw it as his mission to sit us down and literally say "You guys have done a lot of great work...but when I see that photo of you all on your website, I can only think of one problem: where are all the female students?! Too many males!" No kidding...then we had another university administrator try to convince us to take some "diversity course" on how to deal with other people from different backgrounds, as if we were actively making it our mission to deter females from joining the student group, nevermind that our classes were something like 90% male. Reminds me of people complaining on Twitter of that live stream video of the SpaceX employees cheering on the Falcon launch, that there were too many "white males" and not enough females...it's amazing that they even managed to get the rocket to launch with so many males involved...

This whole politicisation, or the notion of injecting social issues into science/engineering is so dangerous and detrimental to the disciplines because eventually it will gut them out of any quality, and any semblance of competent engineering students. It's a very dangerous road to take...just look at what's happened to the humanities; it's a total farce and perversion of what it once stood for.

This and this exactly.

The one thing that gets my blood to boil is when people, who try to ham fist equality despite it often not being fair treatment, telling someone to force a gender quota.

Almost ALWAYS the reason there aren't women in a STEM field is because the population of women interested in the fields is significantly smaller than that of men.

It's similar, maybe in fact worse with more traditionally female dominated careers like child/elder care or design, liberal arts, etc, where men can be considered as inferior to women because they lake innate motherly, or creative, maybe even to be considered "girly" qualities. Nobody in this modern age would say a woman shouldn't enter a STEM field, and many people would encourage it intensely, but there aren't so many people trying to get men interested in being actors, or stage makeup artists, or nannies, etc. In fact, I know some people who, just because of some statistics alone, would refuse to hire a male babysitter. If someone refused to hire a woman based on a statistic they could not control, they would be labeled sexist, discriminatory, and not willing to give someone a chance because of their gender.

Don't take this to mean I do not want women to participate in STEM fields because other people don't want men to participate in other fields, in fact, quite the opposite. I think if people consider gender equality in industries to be an important goal, (and I can see how it could be for regulatory and power control reasons), that we should try to encourage men to enter more traditionally feminine fields, as much as we are trying to get women to engage STEM fields.

The one thing that really annoys me, is when this "problem" is taken on at the college level, at which point students have had (normally) 18 years of their life to make solid choices about their careers, and most people don't want to change just because someone says that they have to. I HATE it when colleges introduce gender quotas, as it just ends up turning into waiting for the one, rare female interested into the career before you can let in equally capable and interested men in.

Nobody, or at least very few, at least in my nation, tries to get girls interested in STEM fields at the elementary or highschool level. I do think that it would be a really cool idea to advertise the field to women specifically in pre-adult education, and I think if we want to get women in STEM fields, that's the only way to do it.

Now onto this topic. If you're going to come on here and make a massive generalization, and call out an entire group of people based on one asshole, or even a group of assholes that said or did stupid shit under the banner, piss off. Generalizations annoy me to no end, and I hate it when I look at something that blindly calls everybody in my political category something that most of us, or even some of us are not.

[EEVblog]

Well then, has the thread surprised you?

Your input didn't surprise me.

The title being the same is a fact but it doesn't say anything about why it was a good choice. What would you have used as a title if you rolled your own?

I don't care, I used the title of the video under discussion, the end.

You had the choice and you didn't exercise it. Why?

Because it's the title of the video. Not rocket science.

I'm not going to play your game. You have a very long history of antagonising and bating me, to the point of being close to getting banned.

[Howardlong]

Firstly, does anyone have a link to the full video of Riley doing her “rigor” speech so we can get some better context, it is possible she was joking (I live in hope). The only link I can find is broken.

Secondly, I’ve still yet to see anywhere near a compelling case for how Riley’s ideologies have any place in engineering education.

The only pro stance has been around ethics citing cases such as Volkswagen. I haven’t seen any evidence that engineers don’t understand ethics as any other human being would. Ethics are nothing without trustworthy, robust (and rigorous?) whistleblowing policies and processes. If you’ve ever been in the position of being a whistleblower, or even thought about it to any degree, you will know what I mean: the career risks, whether perceived or real, are very high. Challenging and changing that culture would be a much more worthwhile pursuit for Riley.

There was an argument that Riley’s teaching “brought people together”; but this thread demonstrably shows the opposite, it’s revealed (in case we needed to know) that she’s very divisive.

Irrespective, there isn’t much ethically that she teaches, her teachings are much more wrapped up in promoting victimhood based on gender and race, assuming that engineers systematically and routinely go about their work with identitarian hatred embedded into their requirements and priority lists: even by her own admission engineers are broadly altruistic in nature. The only engineer I’m aware of who goes around their daily life with thoughts of identitarian bigotry embedded into their work is Riley.

The core basis for her work is around the gender imbalance in engineering, but I don’t see many complaining about the lack of males taking xxxx Studies courses. Should we be forcing more men to do Gender Studies for example?

With the limited amount of response, so far it seems to be agreed that Riley’s methods don’t make an engineer more employable, or improve their career path.

What is the difference for an engineer between the Riley way, and, say, taking a knitting or patisserie course? (I’d actually argue that those last two teach attention to detail, even rigour perhaps, valuable engineering skills, but they can be achieved with more relevance in other ways).

So, can anyone give any reasons, with justification, how Riley’s pedagogy makes a better engineer?

[Ampera]

I actually found a YouTube comment on a video, talking about Anita Sarkeesian (on an unrelated topic to this), but I think it summarizes my opinion on why SJWs are so dangerous.



I'm not against, in fact I am for people who genuinely try to advance the concept of equal rights, but when people like Riley or Anita get a stage, they push their ideas in a way that appears to someone who doesn't put time into proper research (a lot of people) like a genuine and positive advance into equality, when in reality they are baseless, damaging claims that silence critics, pawning them off as being on the wrong side of history.

Just something I thought I could add.

[vk6zgo]

As a straight white male engineer with 3 decades of experience, I have reached some conclusions.

While early in my career I focused entirely on technical rigor, and while I still take pride in being thorough and complete in my work, the problems in the world that distress me the most are not technical but social. It is quite clear, and there is an overwhelming amount of rigorous evidence, that sexism, misogyny, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, ageism, and other sorts of bigotries are not only common but embedded in the structures of our society, in everything from education to hiring to law enforcement to banking to health care to housing to employment and so on.

It is also quite clear that a simple declaration that one is not sexist or racist or otherwise intends to be fair to everyone is at best naive and often a sign of wilful ignorance. Implicit bias is real; we process words spoken by a woman differently from those spoken by a man immediately, on the first word

Most of us males have Mothers, Sisters,Wives, Daughters, Aunts etc, who we talk to for most of our lives.
In a family discussion, we pay as much attention to them & their views as those of our male relatives.

I can sit & have a discussion with my Sister, processing her words in exactly the same manner as those of my Brother in Law sitting alongside her.
They are all people!

This carries over into outside life, where we will listen just as intently to a man or woman if either is  speaking of something interesting.
If they are talking nonsense, their gender is immaterial.

Some years ago, I listened to  a most enthralling address from  Professor Lyn Beazley, then the Chief Scientist of Western Australia.

In this wide ranging talk, she covered things as diverse as how  animals perceive colour ( most animals don't have a red receptor, but humans & lizards do), to Outer Space, including her meeting & working with Apollo 11 Astronaut Buzz Aldrin when he came to open the Carnarvon Space Museum.

Never once did I think "she's very interesting for a woman!"

[EEVblog]

Irrespective, there isn’t much ethically that she teaches, her teachings are much more wrapped up in promoting victimhood based on gender and race, assuming that engineers systematically and routinely go about their work with identitarian hatred embedded into their requirements and priority lists: even by her own admission engineers are broadly altruistic in nature. The only engineer I’m aware of who goes around their daily life with thoughts of identitarian bigotry embedded into their work is Riley.

That's the inevitable result of the modern social justice stance. Hence all the recent hoopla over companies only hiring females or minorities for no good reason other than a number imbalance that is perceived to the "wrong". Their only solution to this perceived problem is actual discrimination. I find it reprehensible to discriminate against anyone based on gender/race/etc.
Equal opportunity and a meritocracy is the only real solution.

The core basis for her work is around the gender imbalance in engineering, but I don’t see many complaining about the lack of males taking xxxx Studies courses. Should we be forcing more men to do Gender Studies for example?

And that's the thing, you can't play this game one sided. If you fight for 50/50 male/female representation in engineering then you have to do the same for everything, including plumbing, motor mechanics, nursing, etc. But you never ever see the social justice people fighting for jobs in those fields.

[EEVblog]

After 8 years here I am starting to feel like a stuck on barnacle that needs scraping off. Maybe I'm asking these questions because I am ready to let go of my own accord. But I still don't want to be banned.

Wilfred, I was done engaging with you a long time ago, for reasons that I know you are well aware of.
Just letting you know that I will not be baited back into doing so again.

[EEVblog]

Almost ALWAYS the reason there aren't women in a STEM field is because the population of women interested in the fields is significantly smaller than that of men.

Actually I believe that's not universally true of all STEM fields. Life sciences (and perhaps general science degrees and some other more niche fields) for example is now supposedly majority females in many places.

It's the well researched "things" gender difference that has a huge impact in this. Engineering is very much "things" related.
It's almost impossible to change these innate gender differences, and the countries that have tried (some scandinavian countries) have shown that it doesn't work no matter how hard you try and "correct" it.
I'll refrain from posting a Jordan Peterson video explaining this stuff, as it might trigger some people 

Equality of opportunity is essential. As is equality of encouragement.
Anything else to try and "correct" things is a bad idea.

I HATE it when colleges introduce gender quotas

It should be illegal, anyone who meets the criteria should get in.

[coppice]

Firstly, does anyone have a link to the full video of Riley doing her “rigor” speech so we can get some better context, it is possible she was joking (I live in hope). The only link I can find is broken.

I don't know of a clean video of a presentation on this topic by Riley, but these talks seem to stem from the article https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19378629.2017.1408631?journalCode=test20

If you look through the article titles in that journal they seem rather sad. Academic article titles tend to obscure rather than illuminate, so the titles are hard to interpret. There are a few interesting sounding ones, like looking at engineering thinking in pre-kindergarten children, and developing better collaboration skills during engineering education. Most of the articles just sound like political agendas gone wild.

[GK]

[LaserSteve]

You'll be happy to know the College of Engineering I work in, has   such a  sufficient quantity of young women enrolled, that you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between our atrium and the student center. If you went by gender count alone.  It's not at all like my entry class in 1989  that had maybe, four or five  that I can remember.

  Now what is sad is every day I walk thru the college of  nursing  and look at the arrays of class pictures on the wall.  Men are a definite  minority, and around here hospital nursing  is a major industry, that  pays damn good.   Cutting thru that hall is the quick way to the parking lot.

 It's obvious to anyone passing by that nursing students are in a curriculum that demands Rigor and Discipline, plus good grades in advanced chemistry and pharmacology  courses.  Generally if you listen a bit while walking in that hall the students are not discussing the Kardashians. If you look at the curriculum for a BSN at my workplace, its a tough course.     I wonder if those who advocate a "relaxed" teaching of engineering would like their ER nurse to not have discipline and rigor in their training.

Yet I don't see many signs around campus urging men to consider nursing.   I've also never once heard a male student advocate that there should be no female students in the college of Eng.  I used to hear quite the opposite when I was working on my Education degree in the mid 90s.  I hope its changed today, but when I was in Education I thought of it being dominated by the "Good Ole' Girls Club".

I AGREE WITH DAVE,  If you've got the skills, anything professional  should be open to you.

PS, These days, I spend as much time teaching guys to use a screwdriver and wrench  for the first time, as I do for gals. It seems something like say the "internet and gaming" plus the fact that cars are highly computerized has reduced the number of guys with the "knack" who already come with in with general technical skills.  That might also have something to do with the phasing out of "shop" classes by most of our local school districts as too expensive, too risky, and the view that "tactile skills" were not conducive to a college track.   Our local high school is down to just a band saw, no lathe, no metal working etc..

,
Steve

[beenosam]

As a student now, I can see this attitude coming in effect to be honest. People are being more lenient on non-white people and the university had a discussion about whether or not it was fair to grade foreign students as strongly as domestic students. This kind of attitude comes about because they want more "diversity"  in the program.

It is becoming too much about equal outcome and not equal opportunity. It's actually sickening.

[coppice]

As a student now, I can see this attitude coming in effect to be honest. People are being more lenient on non-white people and the university had a discussion about whether or not it was fair to grade foreign students as strongly as domestic students. This kind of attitude comes about because they want more "diversity"  in the program.

It is becoming too much about equal outcome and not equal opportunity. It's actually sickening.

Many foreign students are not first language speakers of the language in which they are being taught. I have Chinese friends who speak English to a standard that would make you think they are a native speaker of English, yet their written English can still be a little weird. For decades many science and engineering courses have held second language speakers to a lower standard for writing skills, as long as the marker is sure of the student's intent. This seems pretty reasonable to me. If foreign students are held to a lower standard in any other regard, its probably just part of the trend of turning academia into an education industry, that's primary goal is to keep up the flow of revenue.

[LaserSteve]

Evil Thought of the Day..  Dr. R and Meredith in the same room... 

Steve

[Cerebus]

I'm quite surprised to see some people denying that Communism even had manifestos, or plans for taking over the west, or that those plans could still in some sense be in operation..

We're quite surprised to see is that you don't realise that what you posted were the rabid imaginings of a US Senator, well known to be an anti-communist zealot. What is contained therein has as much basis in reality in the then US political climate as "crisis actors" and "alternative facts" do in the current US political climate.

Here's the actual Communist Manifesto.

[Cerebus]

Almost ALWAYS the reason there aren't women in a STEM field is because the population of women interested in the fields is significantly smaller than that of men.

I think the problem here is that, truthfully, we do not actually know what dissuades women from STEM subjects. We make many a priori assumptions, usually from our own innate biases - so us hairy blokes say it's because women aren't apparently interested and the hairy feministas say it's because us blokes are so horrible. Truthfully we just don't know, we just have opinions.

Working from the assumption that more women in STEM subjects is a good thing. Until we have some solid facts on why there are so few, it is foolish to propose remedies. It's a bit like a doctor trying to cure a patient before they have arrived at a proper diagnosis. Not only might it not improve things, it might kill the patient.

It's similar, maybe in fact worse with more traditionally female dominated careers like child/elder care or design, liberal arts, etc, where men can be considered as inferior to women because they lake innate motherly, or creative, maybe even to be considered "girly" qualities.

Speak for yourself sweetie. [Fx: Minces off into the distance] 

[doobedoobedo]

We don't know but currently the research points to levels of testosterone exposure in the womb
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15811504/

[amyk]

As a student now, I can see this attitude coming in effect to be honest. People are being more lenient on non-white people and the university had a discussion about whether or not it was fair to grade foreign students as strongly as domestic students. This kind of attitude comes about because they want more "diversity"  in the program.

It is becoming too much about equal outcome and not equal opportunity. It's actually sickening.

I recall reading an article a while ago about some prestigious US institution having different SAT score requirements for admission; even with much higher requirements for Asians and lower ones for Africans and other non-whites (whites were a middle-ground), the Asians were still coming through in droves, and the Africans could barely make a presence...

The good thing about science is the laws of physics absolutely do not discriminate. And it shows that, no, not everyone is actually equal.

[Cerebus]

We don't know but currently the research points to levels of testosterone exposure in the womb
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15811504/

I don't think that single study has much weight, particularly if you look at the sample it uses:

Occupational interests were assessed in 125 individuals: 46 females with CAH, 21 unaffected sisters, 27 males with CAH, and 31 unaffected brothers. Participants aged from 9 to 26 years (M = 16.0, SD = 4.5); groups did not differ in age, F(3, 121) = .65, p > .05. Because not all participants with CAH had a same-sex sibling, siblings of males and females with CAH were combined to form control groups. Participants represented a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds and most were Caucasian.

A study using an indirect measure ("psychological orientation to Things versus People") of 125 individuals, 73 with a life-altering disease which does much more than just alter the level of in-utero exposure to androgens does not make a good basis for coming to conclusions about the population level effects of in-utero exposure to androgens to proportions of males versus females in STEM subjects.

[coppice]

I recall reading an article a while ago about some prestigious US institution having different SAT score requirements for admission; even with much higher requirements for Asians and lower ones for Africans and other non-whites (whites were a middle-ground), the Asians were still coming through in droves, and the Africans could barely make a presence...

"Could barely make a presence" assumes they are motived to try. You can't make sense of these entrance requirements in isolation from people's motivations, which may vary enormously between groups. When I studied electronic engineering the 70s in the UK the commonest reaction I had from people around me was "Why are you studying engineering? You got such good grades in school." . You know, attitudes like that can put a lot of people off applying. 

[Cerebus]

I recall reading an article a while ago about some prestigious US institution having different SAT score requirements for admission; even with much higher requirements for Asians and lower ones for Africans and other non-whites (whites were a middle-ground), the Asians were still coming through in droves, and the Africans could barely make a presence...

The good thing about science is the laws of physics absolutely do not discriminate. And it shows that, no, not everyone is actually equal.

I suspect that it actually shows more about the countries that they come from than about innate ability. Korea has many places where you can cram to pass university entrance exams, Africa has many places where you have to walk 10 or 15 miles to attend a basic junior school. A mediocre Asian student is probably better equipped to game the entrance system than a brilliant African one. This isn't the laws of physics, it's a man made system for selecting students with all the biases and assumptions that implies.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I'll refrain from posting a Jordan Peterson video explaining this stuff, as it might trigger some people 

Please do, before somebody posts one of Justin Trudeau.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Dave needs to invent a way to unsubscribe from threads (on the unread replies page) without deleting all posts in it.

Yep!

[Beamin]

It is all too much...  You need to watch some old episodes of Fred Dibnah.  Back when a man was a man, a lad were a lad and a woman's place was in the home rearing the children and making a big plate of steak and chips for her man's dinner.  When he turns up after a few pints down the pub. :-)

https://youtu.be/YnH7cw0ql1I?t=9m21s

Whats ironic is I HAD white make privilege and I'm giving it up to become a house wife with a dominant husband. My dream is to be a 1950's house ife where I do all the cooking and cleaning to make sure my man is taken care of after he gets home fro work. What is wrong with that? These feminists forget some people like the traditional roles. I still have white privilege but that is not changeable. I was sick of always being the leader and having to make al of the decisions.

Also who goes to the hair dresser sits in the chair and says "can you take a little off the sides and make me look like a total bitch so men won't find me attractive then I can call them sexist?"

These people need to see what real problems are like. I'm sure there are plenty of women in Africa that are struggling with "rigorous engineering stigmas and procedures. That and AIDS from rape.

[Howardlong]

I'll refrain from posting a Jordan Peterson video explaining this stuff, as it might trigger some people 

Please do, before somebody posts one of Justin Trudeau.

Like Riley, I just can’t figure out if he’s being serious or not regarding stuff like “Peoplekind”. Some time later, he claimed that one was a crap joke, somehow I’m not so sure bearing in mind his recent track record. For someone from the outside of Canadian politics, I had high hopes for Trudeau, he may have had the charisma to become PM, but in practice he sure lacks the Midas touch, and I fear there’s more to come. It’s almost a replay of his old man in terms of everyone remembering him for the wrong reasons.

[Cerebus]

Dave needs to invent a way to unsubscribe from threads (on the unread replies page) without deleting all posts in it.

Go to "Show new replies to your posts". At the very right hand end of each topic you'll see a check box. Tick the check boxes for the topics you want to ignore, click the "ignore topics" button. Done.

[Lightages]

I couldn't take the time to read all of this thread, but WTF?

Put up your hand if you want a heart surgeon working on your triple bypass who went to a university where they weren't rigorous with testing his abilities?

Put up your hand if you are happier getting on a plane where the pilot went to "we are not rigorous half assed pilot workshop" or where the pilot went to the most rigorous training and was tested rigorously on his capability to fly your plane?

The objection to "rigor" as a white male concept that is against women, is completely moronic and WTF?

Women should have the same opportunities as men. What they do with that opportunity is their problem, not the word "rigor".

[Circlotron]

The good thing about science is the laws of physics absolutely do not discriminate. And it shows that, no, not everyone is actually equal.

Oh, but they do!
They discriminate against people who do not have the skills and interest and aptitude to solve hard engineering problems for example. Engineering problems that were devised by straight white males to make life hard for snowflakes that think engineering is as simple as dragging and dropping from a glossy manufacturer’s datasheet to an on screen simulation and hey presto, your next Nobel prize.

Engineering is about facts and numbers applied to make stuff that works. That kind of thinking doesn’t appeal to everyone. The fact that it doesn’t appeal doesn’t make it wrong, just that different people have different likes and dislikes. The trouble starts when someone in a position of authority thinks that their opinion matters above everyone else’s. Which is probably how they got to that position in the first place.

[Towger]

time to let rigor mortis to set into this thread. 

[Mr. Scram]

Go to "Show new replies to your posts". At the very right hand end of each topic you'll see a check box. Tick the check boxes for the topics you want to ignore, click the "ignore topics" button. Done.

There are no checkboxes there. A lot of people don't have those, but there's a way to get them:

The syntax to enable this is:

Profile>Modify Profile>Look and Layout>Show quick-moderation as: Checkboxes

Then UPDATE PROFILE

You will then have a Ignore Topic checkbox in your "Show new replies tor your posts" page.


Rather than "Ignore" if you don't have the time use the "Mark replies as read" and save Dave's server load.

Nearly drove Dave crazy getting this right for us.
Good mod Dave. 

[doobedoobedo]

We don't know but currently the research points to levels of testosterone exposure in the womb
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15811504/

I don't think that single study has much weight, particularly if you look at the sample it uses:

Occupational interests were assessed in 125 individuals: 46 females with CAH, 21 unaffected sisters, 27 males with CAH, and 31 unaffected brothers. Participants aged from 9 to 26 years (M = 16.0, SD = 4.5); groups did not differ in age, F(3, 121) = .65, p > .05. Because not all participants with CAH had a same-sex sibling, siblings of males and females with CAH were combined to form control groups. Participants represented a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds and most were Caucasian.

A study using an indirect measure ("psychological orientation to Things versus People") of 125 individuals, 73 with a life-altering disease which does much more than just alter the level of in-utero exposure to androgens does not make a good basis for coming to conclusions about the population level effects of in-utero exposure to androgens to proportions of males versus females in STEM subjects.

You're right that's just one study, there are plenty of others. It was just the first one I came across in a quick google search.

[EEVblog]

As a student now, I can see this attitude coming in effect to be honest. People are being more lenient on non-white people and the university had a discussion about whether or not it was fair to grade foreign students as strongly as domestic students. This kind of attitude comes about because they want more "diversity"  in the program.

That's a long standing decades old issue. But it used to always be because foreign students were "full fee paying" students, nothing at all to do with diversity. At least in Australia anyway.

[EEVblog]

I think the problem here is that, truthfully, we do not actually know what dissuades women from STEM subjects. We make many a priori assumptions, usually from our own innate biases - so us hairy blokes say it's because women aren't apparently interested and the hairy feministas say it's because us blokes are so horrible. Truthfully we just don't know, we just have opinions.

Err, no. There has been much research in this area and the results are quite conclusive. Males are more interested in "things" than females, it's an evolutionary trait and is also found in other animal species. It's actually a really fascinating subject if you want to go down that path of investigation.

[EEVblog]

Dave needs to invent a way to unsubscribe from threads (on the unread replies page) without deleting all posts in it.

There is an Ignore Threads feature.

[coppice]

I think the problem here is that, truthfully, we do not actually know what dissuades women from STEM subjects. We make many a priori assumptions, usually from our own innate biases - so us hairy blokes say it's because women aren't apparently interested and the hairy feministas say it's because us blokes are so horrible. Truthfully we just don't know, we just have opinions.

Err, no. There has been much research in this area and the results are quite conclusive. Males are more interested in "things" than females, it's an evolutionary trait and is also found in other animal species. It's actually a really fascinating subject if you want to go down that path of investigation.

There has been research that has drawn grandiose conclusions based on flimsy evidence. I haven't seen much that looks like solid unbiased research. Too many of these studies look like a conclusion was reached prior to their commencement. In adults there do appear to be certain biases differentiating males and females, but how much of that is nature and how much our current brand of nurture is still highly questionable.

[EEVblog]

Women should have the same opportunities as men.

They do, at least in any western country we are basically talking about.
You could even argue that they maybe have more opportunity with various female only educational and encouragement programs, newfangled gender quota's in companies, and female only starup programs like:
https://www.shestarts.com/

[Lightages]

Put up your hand if you want a heart surgeon working on your triple bypass who went to a university where they weren't rigorous with testing his abilities?

That's the real trick here. Mr. Vainaloid here gets you thinking that's what his opponent is saying, thereby constructing an extremely attractive strawman. Don't fall for it.

You can assume I have no brain and a senseless droid being programmed by a video, or maybe not. How about giving me the credit of being able to think for myself and stop telling me what I think and should think. The woman actually stated in her own words that "rigor" is a white male sexist word. She is wrong and so are you.

[Ampera]

Women should have the same opportunities as men.

They do, at least in any western country we are basically talking about.
You could even argue that they maybe have more opportunity with various female only educational and encouragement programs, newfangled gender quota's in companies, and female only starup programs like:
https://www.shestarts.com/

Can't forget the classic outrage over the male scholarships given to people entering veterinary medicine: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males

Women and men have almost the same rights and opportunities in most modern nations with a high HDI. The weighted wage gap is within 93 cents on the dollar, with that still being an overreaching statistic the by no means applies to anyone. It's also illegal to pay women different for the same skillset on the same job in the US.

Another thing people need to know is me and everybody else who brings up these statistics and facts, and they are, for the most part, objective facts, do so because we don't want people coming in, saying that the situation of egalitarianism in the US is so much worse than it is to get action done to fix a problem that doesn't exist by damaging innocent people that didn't do anything.

Bonus points if you get the joke of this reply, however. 

[Cerebus]

Go to "Show new replies to your posts". At the very right hand end of each topic you'll see a check box. Tick the check boxes for the topics you want to ignore, click the "ignore topics" button. Done.

There are no checkboxes there. A lot of people don't have those, but there's a way to get them:

The syntax to enable this is:

Profile>Modify Profile>Look and Layout>Show quick-moderation as: Checkboxes

Then UPDATE PROFILE

You will then have a Ignore Topic checkbox in your "Show new replies tor your posts" page.


Rather than "Ignore" if you don't have the time use the "Mark replies as read" and save Dave's server load.

Nearly drove Dave crazy getting this right for us.
Good mod Dave. 

Well caught, I'd forgotten the first, and necessary, step.

[Cerebus]

I think the problem here is that, truthfully, we do not actually know what dissuades women from STEM subjects. We make many a priori assumptions, usually from our own innate biases - so us hairy blokes say it's because women aren't apparently interested and the hairy feministas say it's because us blokes are so horrible. Truthfully we just don't know, we just have opinions.

Err, no. There has been much research in this area and the results are quite conclusive. Males are more interested in "things" than females, it's an evolutionary trait and is also found in other animal species. It's actually a really fascinating subject if you want to go down that path of investigation.

As the wikipedians say "[citation required]". I've never seen anything "quite conclusive" that can extract the signal from the noise. There's sex, genes, upbringing and socialisation all working to confound things. Add confirmation bias to that, in both researchers and readers of that research and I think we're quite a long way from "quite conclusive".

That a bunch of monkeys will segregate on sex lines in playing with human children's toys in the same way that humans do (I'm serious, they've really done this research and drawn conclusions from it, which is what I suspect Dave is alluding to in "in other animal species") is not particularly persuasive that there's a deep rooted biological bias in operation here - at best it's suggestive and that suggestion is that more research is required before forming any conclusions.

It's one thing to say, possibly even prove, broadly, that males are more interested in "things" than females, it's another to conclude that is the reason, and the sole reason that there are so few women in STEM subjects.

[wraper]

There has been research that has drawn grandiose conclusions based on flimsy evidence. I haven't seen much that looks like solid unbiased research. Too many of these studies look like a conclusion was reached prior to their commencement. In adults there do appear to be certain biases differentiating males and females, but how much of that is nature and how much our current brand of nurture is still highly questionable.

Dunno about credibility of research or flimsy evidence, but how many women do you know who are nerds? How many women have hobbies which are technology related? When I started studies in university in 2005, we had only 4 girls among 80+ EE students. I don't think there were so few of them because of discrimination. Application was solely school grade / centralized school exam based. Also competition was extremely low because of general disinterest in EE in Latvia at that time. Basically anyone with half decent grades could get free EE education, IIRC less than 5 people among those actually paid to get in.

[coppice]

There has been research that has drawn grandiose conclusions based on flimsy evidence. I haven't seen much that looks like solid unbiased research. Too many of these studies look like a conclusion was reached prior to their commencement. In adults there do appear to be certain biases differentiating males and females, but how much of that is nature and how much our current brand of nurture is still highly questionable.

Dunno about credibility of research or flimsy evidence, but how many women do you know who are nerds? How many women have hobbies which are technology related? When I started studies in university in 2005, we had only 4 girls among 80+ EE students. I don't think there were so few of them because of discrimination. Application was solely school grade / centralized school exam based. Also competition was extremely low because of general disinterest in EE in Latvia at that time. Basically anyone with half decent grades could get free EE education, IIRC less than 5 people among those actually paid to get in.

I don't know many people of either sex who are nerdy. Its an unusual trait in both sexes. However, many women are not averse to a technical education. In most western countries women considerably outnumber men in the life sciences. With most branches of engineering employment in decline, maybe women just aren't dumb enough to enter those fields. The one area of engineering which does keep growing - software - is the area where women have the greatest percentage of jobs. They seem to be making pragmatic choices.

[Cerebus]

On the subject of equality of opportunity, there are other structural obstructions put in the way, often unthinking, based on assumptions about what's appropriate for certain people.

Let's start with an example from my school days at an all boys grammar school. In the third year we had elective subjects. The timetabling of these elections paired subjects, so that if you wanted to do one you were absolutely excluded from the other. Two of these pairings were (German and Biology) and (Art and Woodwork). I'll point out that at the time the majority of innovative academic publishing in Chemistry was in German, so that first forced choice disadvantages anybody who was to go on and do any Biochemistry that required up to date Chemistry knowledge. The other assumption was "linguists and scientists do not mix". The second elective assumes that Art and practical physical construction do not meet - roll on design engineering and sculpture.

Now, a friend was ranting at me about their daughter's school that had similar electives that forced a choice between "domestic science" (basically cooking including food chemistry) and either Physics or Chemistry (I forget exactly which of the two). Better not be interested in industrial food production, Brewing or any other of a number of subjects which would combine cooking and science.

The latter isn't, I must admit, the most terrible restriction ever, but it and the examples from my past, highlight how we narrow children's choices by assumptions about what's good for a certain 'type' of child - where 'type' might be arty, scientific, practical, male or female, rich or poor, black or white. It's easy for an unthinking action by someone involved in a child's education to put barriers in their way, either by forcing inappropriate choices as I've illustrated above or by their own assumptions about what's right for a certain type of child: "Oh no dear, that's not a subject for girls" or "I doubt that a boy from the local council estate is going to become a Doctor or a Lawyer".

[TerraHertz]

We're quite surprised to see is that you don't realise that what you posted were the rabid imaginings of a US Senator, well known to be an anti-communist zealot. What is contained therein has as much basis in reality in the then US political climate as "crisis actors" and "alternative facts" do in the current US political climate.

Here's the actual Communist Manifesto.

Published 1848. Yet you appear to insist that could be the *only* document that could be called a manifesto from the Communist movement. And that it could be relevant to mid 20th century actions. Also, where would you _expect_the document I posted to originate, other than a known anti-communist? An official communist party press release? Seriously?
The rest of your comment makes your position on the political plane very clear. Others can judge the reality of crisis actors and so on for themselves. Naturally it's a misty topic. Try googling 'crisis actor jobs' for starters.
Another amusing google is 'all i want for Christmas is full communism now'  It's just a small example, if you are trying to say there are no Communists now, and even if there were they certainly would not be actually trying to bring Communism to the USA.

Dave is right, that this thread risks veering off into political cat fights. My amusement is because he hoped to avoid that, despite the great amount of evidence that the entirely reasonable early push for female equal economic and political opportunity, was hijacked at an early stage by the globalist/communist arseholes, and deliberately radicalized into a permanent weeping sore of gender conflict, antagonism and social disintegration. With subversion of education at all levels a part of the script. The good professor and her dysfunctional views being one of the results.

And so, focusing on the details and logic of her views, while ignoring and denying the political context of how someone with her views came to exist in her teaching position, is really very much tunnel-vision.

Anyway, that https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/date/index.htm is a useful resource I don't think I'd seen before. Thanks for the link.

[james_s]

Err, no. There has been much research in this area and the results are quite conclusive. Males are more interested in "things" than females, it's an evolutionary trait and is also found in other animal species. It's actually a really fascinating subject if you want to go down that path of investigation.

The thing I have trouble understanding is why some are so offended by the concept of there being genetic differences between the genders that lead to some things appealing more to members of one gender than the other, when looking at a large statistical sample. Being different does not mean differently valued or differently able. Being a member of a group with a lower statistical probability of being interested in a particular subject does not mean a member of that group cannot be interested in that topic or is any less capable. The complementary differences between people of different genders, races, backgrounds, etc is precisely what makes diversity something that is generally beneficial.

People complain about the lack of women in STEM fields but I've never personally met anyone in my field who had any desire to keep women out. On the contrary I was fascinated with engineering and tech long before it was cool, and any sort of talk about computers or engineering was about the most effective girl repellant one could imagine. I'm not sure people of younger generations understand how much hostility existed toward anyone identified as a geek or nerd, it was *not* cool back then, only dweebs were interested in computers. My social group became a lot more diverse once I learned to shut up about geeky stuff and develop (or at least fake) an interest in "normal" stuff like music, movies and sports.

Something I find unfortunate is that I hesitated to even post anything on this topic, and carefully tip-toed through it to ensure I don't say anything that makes it easy for somebody somewhere to read meaning into it that I didn't intend. There are many interesting topics that are difficult to even discuss objectively without somebody getting offended and/or making assumptions about one's philosophical or political views, level of intelligence, etc and the public aspect and permanence of the internet can result in serious repercussions far down the road.

[coppice]

People complain about the lack of women in STEM fields but I've never personally met anyone in my field who had any desire to keep women out.

Its not people in your field who try to discourage women from entering your field. Its mostly women of lesser ability in dead end jobs, and they can be a powerful force discouraging the capable and motivated.

[Cerebus]

The thing I have trouble understanding is why some are so offended by the concept of there being genetic differences between the genders that lead to some things appealing more to members of one gender than the other, when looking at a large statistical sample.

I don't see any evidence of people here being "offended". Sure, among the sociology  and ____ studies types I'm sure there are plenty who are, but that's a group that likes to find something to take offence at. I am unconvinced that there is anything but a smidgeon of decent evidence suggesting any genetic predisposition to STEM/geeky subject preference along sex lines. Any objections I have to such a conclusion are just based on a desire for any conclusions in the matter to be based on scientific rigour not a priori assumptions or woolly thinking. We can leave the woolly thinking to the sociology department.

What I can see, just on first examination, let alone proper analysis, is that social influences clearly do have a big influence on people's vocational choices. At this point I'm going to invoke William of Occam and say that the influence of social forces is so strong as to largely override, and certainly mask, any genetic determiners. Genetics may make a red car look more desirable (the comparison is with ripe fruit) but it's societal and psychological factors that cause young men to believe that it will be an aid to "picking up chicks" and old men to think that it will compensate for their sagging bellies in the reproductive race. The latter are much more powerful determiners of "buying a red sports car" than a genetic preference for red.

My anecdotal evidence is almost the opposite of yours and I've never found it difficult to find women who take, or will take with a tiny bit of encouragement, an interest in all sorts of things that qualify as geeky. An ex-girlfriend who was studying law, and also an avid and excellent knitter, was fascinated by the parallels between computer programs and knitting patterns once I pointed them out. One of the hottest and Gothiest women I've known would sit in the pub, Gothed up, with a pint in one hand, pencil in the other, working through a printout of DNA base pairs picking out the codons (geeky, blokish behaviour) and would later go home, put on predominantly pink, floral pyjamas and go to bed with her teddy bear (girly behaviour).

Often I find that people who think "X (insert geeky subject of your choice) is boring" don't actually think that once you can draw a parallel with something else that they do understand, regardless of their gender. Often it comes down to dull, unimaginative teaching at school, and not an innate antipathy to technical subjects

[basinstreetdesign]

wew laddies, we got some triggered people in here.

Opinions are a hilarious business ...

Wow! 250 replies in less than 72 hours.  And still no fist fights...

But pretty much everything TwoOfFive said applies to me and I agree with it all.

Looking at that list of US uni's is downright depressing.  At one point I wanted so much to go to MIT.  Now I think I may have dodged a bullet (so to speak...) and am so glad I went to U of Waterloo where NOTHING bad happens that makes the papers.  In fact the most news-worthy thing that happened there was when a few eng grads painted "BEER" on the local water tower in the late 1960's...

The female in the video must obviously not be an engineer, or have had much contact with engineers, or have researched her talk with engineers to find out even what connotation we apply to the word "rigour".  Oxford defines it as "The quality of being extremely thorough and careful."  It blows me away that she did not include that connotation.  Her premise is, of course, wrong and that bothers me.  It bothers me if she is in a position of authority and may use her opinion to change or arrange matters at her institution so that the quality of teaching is lowered.  I hope not.

[6PTsocket]

The only reason these subjects are as much discussed as they are is because we discuss them. "Don't feed the troll" is one common saying, and "stop making stupid people famous" another. Both could arguably be applied to the situation.

Another. Never argue with a fool. A passer by will be unable to tell which of you is the fool.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[james_s]

I don't see any evidence of people here being "offended". Sure, among the sociology  and ____ studies types I'm sure there are plenty who are, but that's a group that likes to find something to take offence at. I am unconvinced that there is anything but a smidgeon of decent evidence suggesting any genetic predisposition to STEM/geeky subject preference along sex lines. Any objections I have to such a conclusion are just based on a desire for any conclusions in the matter to be based on scientific rigour not a priori assumptions or woolly thinking. We can leave the woolly thinking to the sociology department.

It's not people here that I'm referring to, but there are plenty of people out there who do take offense.

I also don't pretend to be an authority on such matters, I'm not asserting that there is absolutely a genetic component, rather I'm only saying that such a thing is certainly a possibility and I don't understand why acknowledging that as a possibility would be offensive to some.

Whatever the case I'm all in favor of more women pursuing STEM careers, provided they are actually interested and not just pursuing it because someone told them they should.

[james_s]

Can't forget the classic outrage over the male scholarships given to people entering veterinary medicine: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males

I wasn't aware there was outrage, my other half works in veterinary medicine though and the field is dominated by women, in her clinic the head dentist is a man as are a couple of the techs, but every one of the doctors and at least 80% of the staff is women. Why? I'm not really sure, is it something we should try to fix? I don't know, frankly there's not much money in it, it's a career you choose because you love the work.

[Brumby]

The only reason these subjects are as much discussed as they are is because we discuss them. "Don't feed the troll" is one common saying, and "stop making stupid people famous" another. Both could arguably be applied to the situation.

Another. Never argue with a fool. A passer by will be unable to tell which of you is the fool.

Then, having dragged you down to their level, they will beat you with experience.

[Ampera]

Can't forget the classic outrage over the male scholarships given to people entering veterinary medicine: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males

I wasn't aware there was outrage, my other half works in veterinary medicine though and the field is dominated by women, in her clinic the head dentist is a man as are a couple of the techs, but every one of the doctors and at least 80% of the staff is women. Why? I'm not really sure, is it something we should try to fix? I don't know, frankly there's not much money in it, it's a career you choose because you love the work.

What amuses me about it, however, is the people complaining are the same people campaigning for grants to women. Now, I have no problem in colleges giving grants to types of people that are a relative minority in a field. The question of if it is necessary is another debate entirely, but I think it can do good in the right circumstances. The reason I posted that is because it's part of the SJW hypocrisy that I meant to address.

Also VetRanch is pretty cool and he's a guy.

[vodka]

Can't forget the classic outrage over the male scholarships given to people entering veterinary medicine: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males

I wasn't aware there was outrage, my other half works in veterinary medicine though and the field is dominated by women, in her clinic the head dentist is a man as are a couple of the techs, but every one of the doctors and at least 80% of the staff is women. Why? I'm not really sure, is it something we should try to fix? I don't know, frankly there's not much money in it, it's a career you choose because you love the work.

What amuses me about it, however, is the people complaining are the same people campaigning for grants to women. Now, I have no problem in colleges giving grants to types of people that are a relative minority in a field. The question of if it is necessary is another debate entirely, but I think it can do good in the right circumstances. The reason I posted that is because it's part of the SJW hypocrisy that I meant to address.

Also VetRanch is pretty cool and he's a guy.

Grants? I am tired of the positive discrimination because in the long run it doesn't resolve the original troubles else it tends to create new problems and complicate the situation.
Now(Spain), the women take better califications than the men; on the  Acces University Exam takes two point more than the men (5-6) and the Access Stem Careers,at generally, its calification are over 5.
But there are not more 5 women by career. So , What do we do ? We grant to women the free STEM career or we give them the University Degrees by their beautiful face

[GK]

Put up your hand if you want a heart surgeon working on your triple bypass who went to a university where they weren't rigorous with testing his abilities?

That's the real trick here. Mr. Vainaloid here gets you thinking that's what his opponent is saying, thereby constructing an extremely attractive strawman. Don't fall for it.

Well, she writes:

Rigor accomplishes dirty deeds, however, serving three primary ends across engineering, engineering education, and engineering education research: disciplining, demarcating boundaries, and demonstrating white male heterosexual privilege. Understanding how rigor reproduces inequality, we cannot reinvent it but rather must relinquish it, looking to alternative conceptualizations for evaluating knowledge, welcoming diverse ways of knowing, doing, and being, and moving from compliance to engagement, from rigor to vigor.

In contrast to perhaps a doe-eyed numpty smitten with her perceived agenda, who, due to his or her or its own intellectual limitations, chooses to read and interpret such words figuratively as a way of allegedly comprehending the truth or actual noble cause of this woman's thesis, what, exactly, is anyone who is actually capable of basic logical deduction supposed to make of those bold statements if read and interpreted literally? Huh?

She doesn't simply assert that traditional methods of pursuing and ensuring rigor (an absolutely essential quality) in engineering and scientific research, for whatever imagined reason, need to be rethought and revamped, but explicitly states that rigor itself is irredeemable and must be relinquished!

What, pray tell, are the alternatives to rigor supposed to be? How does one actually achieve the reliable and necessary outcomes of a rigorous approach without actually being rigorous? Further into her confused, ideologically-driven mess, she conflates rigor with "complex math" and the upper strata of engineering. She declares that this boogeyman "rigor" thus works to exclude from all levels of engineering those lacking the ability to contribute at the highest and these less able potential engineers are taken for granted to be ethnic minorities and women! Isn't this the bigotry of low expectations?

Gay, straight, black, white, yellow or blue, male female or other, one can work competently and productively at any level in engineering, but not without basic method and rigor!

This woman's mission and logically ridiculous argument against "rigor" and attacks on STEM studies as a whole isn't one that can be dismissed as simply an argument over "semantics". She is ardently persisting with this illogical nonsense and has dug herself in far too deep for this to be the case. I'm incredulous that she could be stupid enough not to see the logical flaws in her arguments herself, and that degree of intellectual dishonesty and denial can only be ideologically driven.

Her agenda here as far as I can see it (regardless of whatever threat she may or may not pose to engineering education) is to infuse her ideological claptrap into areas of academia where it simply does not belong. She is no different in that regard from a religious zealot pushing to teach alternatives to evolution in the science class and her stance against "rigor" in engineering and her obtuse writings and presentations to that effect pretty much occupies the same logical plane. If that isn't a potential recipe for the dumbing down of academic standards in engineering, should by some miracle a monumental conspiracy of stupidity give sway to her thesis, suddenly making her ideas mainstream, then I'm not sure what possibly could be.

There are few good causes that aren't championed by idiots and this woman in practice is probably the antithesis of a feminist. I seriously doubt that there are too many women with successful careers in science and engineering who passionately feel that this particular academic happens to speak for them. From the websites of the institutions that publish her work, academic citations of her contributions are reportedly practically nil.
   

[Ampera]

Grants? I am tired of the positive discrimination because in the long run it doesn't resolve the original troubles else it tends to create new problems and complicate the situation.
Now(Spain), the women take better califications than the men; on the  Acces University Exam takes two point more than the men (5-6) and the Access Stem Careers,at generally, its calification are over 5.
But there are not more 5 women by career. So , What do we do ? We grant to women the free STEM career or we give them the University Degrees by their beautiful face

wut?

So you're saying that women require more qualifications to enter a specific field than men? Are you also saying that, in Spain, women get free college if they look pretty?

That's pretty damn bad, but I assume I am missing some sort of point here.

[tautech]

Nailed it GK. 

My daughter at 20 decided she wanted to fly, well it didn't take long for her to realize she was entering a male dominated career, what's more the plonker at the aviation training school actively sought to make it harder for the fairer sex and as he put it, they only stick at it for a bit then f'off to make babies. 
Actually he in some way did he a favor as the 'rigor' she applied to he studies put her on or near the top student of each subject she did on the way to what she is today.....Airline Captain !

Girls don't need an easy road, they just need the balls to go out and get what 'they' want !

[EEVblog]

Well, she writes:

Rigor accomplishes dirty deeds, however, serving three primary ends across engineering, engineering education, and engineering education research: disciplining, demarcating boundaries, and demonstrating white male heterosexual privilege. Understanding how rigor reproduces inequality, we cannot reinvent it but rather must relinquish it, looking to alternative conceptualizations for evaluating knowledge, welcoming diverse ways of knowing, doing, and being, and moving from compliance to engagement, from rigor to vigor.

Batshit crazy stuff.

This woman's mission and logically ridiculous argument against "rigor" and attacks on STEM studies as a whole isn't one that can be dismissed as simply an argument over "semantics". She is ardently persisting with this illogical nonsense and has dug herself in far too deep for this to be the case. I'm incredulous that she could be stupid enough not to see the logical flaws in her arguments herself, and that degree of intellectual dishonesty and denial can only be ideologically driven.

It makes Purdue engineering a laughing stock. Them being ok with this speaks volumes for that institution.

[Beamin]

I'm going to make an assumption but since this is a discussion, and discussions are best when you hear both sides, that is basically about women, has even one post been made by a woman? Or am I the closest thing to one? This forum is sexist and I'm offended. If only we could a get strong independent woman with purple hair to go to the united nations and take time away from getting humanitarian aide from Africa to do something about this HUGE problem! I can already feel PTSD coming on.

While we are at it how can we solve the crisis that arises from my one karat diamond earings from scratching the screen on my $1000 iPhone ten? Maybe have the slaves, I mean well paid voluntary factory workers, that made it, can get one less bowl of rice a day to pay for an extra coating of screen protector? One less bowl of rice isn't that much when you only get two a day. It's not that bad your body can adapt to 800 calories a day.

[LaserSteve]

Hey Hu,

  About those one Carrot carbon thingies. You as a scientist should realize it's all clever marketing perpetuated by a select few taking advantage of some minor quirk in about 50% of those  humans whose  brain is attracted to sparkly things. A gene we probably  share with Bowerbirds... FFS it's just Carbon....

How many people have to senselessly die in open pit mines to get you easily synthesized "authentic" minerals?

  "They" also are taking advantage of you with marketing that causes some to acquire senseless amounts of inferior shoes that are neither watertight, do not have steel toes, and lead to prolonged back pain as you age? Just so you can fight over who has the most of said hazardous shoes?

  A plain little band of gold. Or carbon steel should suffice, as gold can be synthesized with a linear accelerator the size of CERN, thus causing the creation of high paying STEM jobs and possibly huge arrays of wind turbines to power the plant to make said marking device.
Said Gold or Iron material is also non gender specific.

This way those of us traditionally charged with paying for these useless  trinkets can spend the money on useful things like oscilloscopes, FPGA programmers,  and dietary enhancements like beer and wine. Or taking the children to beneficial events such as soccer or WWF wrestling matches.

If you must continue your addiction, consider Sapphire derived screen protectors... As the plants that make them are highly robotic and create more high paying jobs.

   Artificial Sapphire.  One of the few benefits of this horrible fraud known as "precious" gems. A fraud that has been foisted on mostly men for generations by demands from the gullible.

Latest academic derived mess, genderless pronouns for the English language.  Hu as in (hu)man being one of them.   I see it in academic forumns to refer to student behavior, Hu did this, Hu did that...

Take away gender and huge industries collapse overnight.

Sorry Beamin, you know I'm just messing with you. :-)

Steve

[Howardlong]

Let's start with an example from my school days at an all boys grammar school. In the third year we had elective subjects. The timetabling of these elections paired subjects, so that if you wanted to do one you were absolutely excluded from the other. Two of these pairings were (German and Biology) and (Art and Woodwork). I'll point out that at the time the majority of innovative academic publishing in Chemistry was in German, so that first forced choice disadvantages anybody who was to go on and do any Biochemistry that required up to date Chemistry knowledge. The other assumption was "linguists and scientists do not mix". The second elective assumes that Art and practical physical construction do not meet - roll on design engineering and sculpture.

Interesting point, I wanted to do Maths, Physics and French for A levels all those years ago. That combination disappeared due to a last minute timetable alteration, but you can be sure they had no problem in allowing me to do Maths, Physics and Chemistry:unlike my French, which wasn’t at all bad, my magic cauldron skills being less than mediocre! I never saw it as a bias issue, but in today’s terms it ceratianly is.

[Cerebus]

Interesting point, I wanted to do Maths, Physics and French for A levels all those years ago. That combination disappeared due to a last minute timetable alteration, but you can be sure they had no problem in allowing me to do Maths, Physics and Chemistry:unlike my French, which wasn’t at all bad, my magic cauldron skills being less than mediocre! I never saw it as a bias issue, but in today’s terms it ceratianly is.

If you think if 'bias' as 'push/steer toward a preferred or normal position', then it's always been there, not just in today's terms. The bias is a bad thing, not because it is inherently evil, but because it limits what people can become. In my own experience, the most useful people, the ones who make the greatest contributions to society often defy conventional expectations as to the norm. Vis, the homosexual marathon runner Alan Turing, son of a blacksmith and book binder's apprentice Michael Faraday, mulatto daughter of a boarding house owning 'wise woman' Mary Seacole etc. I'm sure there are many examples others could add.

[coppice]

Interesting point, I wanted to do Maths, Physics and French for A levels all those years ago. That combination disappeared due to a last minute timetable alteration, but you can be sure they had no problem in allowing me to do Maths, Physics and Chemistry:unlike my French, which wasn’t at all bad, my magic cauldron skills being less than mediocre! I never saw it as a bias issue, but in today’s terms it ceratianly is.

At O-level time I wanted to do all the sciences, but scheduling wouldn't allow me to do physics, chemistry and biology, The things that interested me at that time were electronics and micro-biology. So, at 14 I needed to make a choice, dropped biology, and did <insert random subject here> for my remaining O-level. I think these things mostly relate to random scheduling, rather than any plan of coercion.

[Cerebus]

Interesting point, I wanted to do Maths, Physics and French for A levels all those years ago. That combination disappeared due to a last minute timetable alteration, but you can be sure they had no problem in allowing me to do Maths, Physics and Chemistry:unlike my French, which wasn’t at all bad, my magic cauldron skills being less than mediocre! I never saw it as a bias issue, but in today’s terms it ceratianly is.

At O-level time I wanted to do all the sciences, but scheduling wouldn't allow me to do physics, chemistry and biology, The things that interested me at that time were electronics and micro-biology. So, at 14 I needed to make a choice, dropped biology, and did <insert random subject here> for my remaining O-level. I think these things mostly relate to random scheduling, rather than any plan of coercion.

Some will be merely stupidity in arranging the timetable - like arranging it so that you can't take all 3 of the major sciences - some are down to the fact that timetabling is an NP hard problem*, some are down to innate biases about what 'goes together' so that no-one thinks that there's a problem with a timetabling clash between English and the sciences, and that is why science and medical journalism is so universally crap.

*Strictly, yet to be proven, but widely believed.

[EEVblog]

Take away gender and huge industries collapse overnight.

An idiot aussie politician just stood up in parliament and declared that we need mix sex elite sports.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-senator-linda-reynolds-calls-for-debate-on-mixed-gender-teams-in-australia-s-elite-sports-20180220-p4z0ys.html

What an idiotic idea. If there are no more male and female leagues and women have to compete for a place in a single mix gender elite sports team the result will be practically not a single female player left in the sport any more. All those currently happy and paid and sponsored elite female sports athletes would no longer be able to compete at the elite level any more
We have female and male olympic sports events for a reason.

[bd139]

I've been avoiding this thread until I had some time to take it in.

Sounds like Donna wants Purdue to degrade their primary engineering departments to squeeze out, like a turd, your average MIT Media Lab startup. Gender and colour equal wearable $100 clothing made of soy with an Arduino in it produced in an SF bay converted warehouse full of stand up desks and a juice bar. That's what happens when you remove rigour. You end up with Maker startups instead of engineering output.

The women, black and disabled people I have known in engineering were just as rigorous as anyone else.

[EEVblog]

I've been avoiding this thread until I had some time to take it in.

Sounds like Donna wants Purdue to degrade their primary engineering departments to squeeze out, like a turd, your average MIT Media Lab startup. Gender and colour equal wearable $100 clothing made of soy with an Arduino in it produced in an SF bay converted warehouse full of stand up desks and a juice bar. That's what happens when you remove rigour. You end up with Maker startups instead of engineering output.

The women, black and disabled people I have known in engineering were just as rigorous as anyone else.

You see gender, colour, and physical ability in engineering?
That's strange, all I've ever seen are engineers.

[bd139]

You see gender, colour, and physical ability in engineering?
That's strange, all I've ever seen are engineers.

You need to look harder. I see more than engineers. I see people. All people are different. Circumstances are different, ideologies are different and people are physically different. Working with people is not about discriminating, neutralising or ignoring those differences which appears to be the bipolar obsession here, but working with people's strengths and helping them with their weaknesses on their terms.

Lack of rigour is a weakness which transcends all of this and is driven mainly by ignorant conceit.

[coppice]

Take away gender and huge industries collapse overnight.

An idiot aussie politician just stood up in parliament and declared that we need mix sex elite sports.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-senator-linda-reynolds-calls-for-debate-on-mixed-gender-teams-in-australia-s-elite-sports-20180220-p4z0ys.html

What an idiotic idea. If there are no more male and female leagues and women have to compete for a place in a single mix gender elite sports team the result will be practically not a single female player left in the sport any more. All those currently happy and paid and sponsored elite female sports athletes would no longer be able to compete at the elite level any more
We have female and male olympic sports events for a reason.

I think you should have pointed out that her example sport was rugby, which makes her ideas bizarre. There are a number of sports, like curling and archery, where women and men compete separately, yet the game is about skill and finesse. There is no advantage accrued from the greater upper body strength of a man, or the greater gymnastic agility of a woman. I have no idea why these were not merged into mixed gender sports long ago.

[Ampera]

You see gender, colour, and physical ability in engineering?
That's strange, all I've ever seen are engineers.

You need to look harder. I see more than engineers. I see people. All people are different. Circumstances are different, ideologies are different and people are physically different. Working with people is not about discriminating, neutralising or ignoring those differences which appears to be the bipolar obsession here, but working with people's strengths and helping them with their weaknesses on their terms.

Lack of rigour is a weakness which transcends all of this and is driven mainly by ignorant conceit.

I don't want to say that I am personally "colour-blind", as I am not. I understand where people come from, and the best ways not to screw up a social interaction with them, but outside of base details, I don't try to gear my general responses towards anyone outside of their core personality, and I struggle to like anybody who does. To me, an SJW that doesn't want to be in the same room as a white person unless he hates himself is a monster of a person, the same way someone who treats women and black people as less than capable is a monster.

People are people, and while all people are different by birth as well as in their core personality, nobody is significantly less capable or more capable by default.

[Cerebus]

Take away gender and huge industries collapse overnight.

An idiot aussie politician just stood up in parliament and declared that we need mix sex elite sports.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-senator-linda-reynolds-calls-for-debate-on-mixed-gender-teams-in-australia-s-elite-sports-20180220-p4z0ys.html

What an idiotic idea. If there are no more male and female leagues and women have to compete for a place in a single mix gender elite sports team the result will be practically not a single female player left in the sport any more. All those currently happy and paid and sponsored elite female sports athletes would no longer be able to compete at the elite level any more
We have female and male olympic sports events for a reason.

It would just mean that you Aussies would have no more male hockey, rugby and probably Aussie no-rules football players left.   

I've played mixed rugby: "Ouch! No! Stop it! Ref! Ref!! REF!!!!!!!!!!!! [Gurgling sound followed by silence.]"

[Fungus]

There are a number of sports, like curling and archery, where women and men compete separately, yet the game is about skill and finesse. There is no advantage accrued from the greater upper body strength of a man, or the greater gymnastic agility of a woman. I have no idea why these were not merged into mixed gender sports long ago.

There's sports like that where the world championships are open to both men and women but the women can barely break into the top 100.

eg. Pool, darts, chess.

[Towger]

I think you should have pointed out that her example sport was rugby, which makes her ideas bizarre.

My French teacher (RIP)  had no problem playing rugby against all male opposition.  She could give as good as she got and more.  De Rugby was one of her topics, 30+ years I can still hear her French accent going on about it. 

[Mechatrommer]

we need more women in coal mining, deep water fishing, soldiers and construction industries where they can experience heavy tools and vibrators. and err... men should bear child in their belly. yeah thanks to all of this overly obsessed intelligent individuals or commmunities that run against nature.

[wraper]

I think you should have pointed out that her example sport was rugby, which makes her ideas bizarre. There are a number of sports, like curling and archery, where women and men compete separately, yet the game is about skill and finesse. There is no advantage accrued from the greater upper body strength of a man, or the greater gymnastic agility of a woman.

Curling stone is 17 - 20 kg heavy, it's just ridiculous to say body strength does not matter. If yopu are short of power, you cannot throw it accurately. Archery requires body strength as well.

I have no idea why these were not merged into mixed gender sports long ago.

Because women will loose miserably. Heck even chess separates men and women. It was tried mixing them but failed miserably.

1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters
Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[52] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager". The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park, after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2. Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun". Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.

[coppice]

I think you should have pointed out that her example sport was rugby, which makes her ideas bizarre. There are a number of sports, like curling and archery, where women and men compete separately, yet the game is about skill and finesse. There is no advantage accrued from the greater upper body strength of a man, or the greater gymnastic agility of a woman.

Curling stone is 17 - 20 kg heavy, it's just ridiculous to say body strength does not matter. If yopu are short of power, you cannot throw it accurately. Archery requires body strength as well.

They don't have to lift those things. They slide really easily.

I have no idea why these were not merged into mixed gender sports long ago.

Because women will loose miserably. Heck even chess separates men and women. It was tried mixing them but failed miserably.

Chess is easily explained by the flatter distribution of the male IQ curve. That greatly increases the male outliers at both ends, even though the averages are similar.

1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters
Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[52] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager". The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park, after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2. Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun". Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.

I wonder how much the extra reach of the average male player helps in tennis. Playing badmington with my wife, she seems to be moving around a lot more than me, because I can just stretch to reach more shots.

[MT]

I want to get pregnant! But im denied by a god! Evil him!.............Them...............if im a Hindu.............or Viking.....

[Ampera]

As for the chess example, I would wager it has to do with relative pools of willing and available players.

Honestly, I take the personal policy of who the hell cares about who has the greater mental ability. I don't see any critical reason why men and women shouldn't be allowed into certain fields, and only minor physical reasons, for example Russia's AK factories use women due to their smaller hands, to prefer women over men in any position.

I think it all just has to do with how many people are trying with mental oriented games and activities. If you have more men in the pool of competitors, you have a higher chance of getting more male winners. I would imagine it would be the same situation in the obverse.

[Ampera]

Dave, I suggest closing this thread. It's degraded into meaningless Men Vs. Women arguments, and nobody's contributing anything worthwhile (myself included).

Otherwise, I'll just have to keep posting this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)

Again, this is a tad hypocritical. If you don't like the discussion at hand, you are free to ignore it and not click on the topic. The orange "new" tag isn't going to step out of the screen and smack you over the head until you look at the thread.

[gildasd]

Just my 5 cents,

The very best engineer I have had the chance to work with these lasts years - is a woman.

In the soft world of offshore heavy lift and salvage.

And yeah, she was rigorous as hell.


As an aside, I really don’t get theover pushing of the point of the person in the original post, don’t engineers use maths that is more or less rigorous depending on circumstances?
It’s not like you get to choose the laws of physics, the wacky ideas of the client and the clenched fist of accounting...
I understand and agree with her concept, making education as inclusive as possible, but I think she takes her language analysis way too far into a world where shear and tensile strength does not care.

[Howardlong]

Forgetting chess, it is indeed a generally accepted phenomenon that multiple studies have shown women and men have the same average IQ, but there are more outliers for men than there are for women.

Is this being disputed?

[doobedoobedo]

The very best engineer I have had the chance to work with these lasts years - is a woman.

I don't think anyone has said that women don't make good engineers, one of my daughters is an engineering student and is consistently in the top group in her class.

It's just that given the choice fewer women than men actually want to be engineers.

Some want to force the equality of numbers of women in prestigious positions by various means, usually nefarious. Others just want people to be left to make their own choices.

Personally I won't believe that there is true equality until the number of deaths in the workplace is gender neutral. I currently don't see anyone trying to force equality there 

[Mechatrommer]

I want to get pregnant! But im denied by a god! Evil him!.............Them...............if im a Hindu.............or Viking.....

your parents didnt let you do anything stupid while you were very young lad, your parents are evil..

[james_s]

The woman engineers I've known have been *really* good, there just aren't very many of them. I'd love to see more women get into STEM, I just get annoyed when people blame companies for not hiring women or blame engineers for trying to keep women out. When I was interviewing people well over 90% of the resumes we got were from men, yet much more than 10% of the team was women.

[gildasd]

The very best engineer I have had the chance to work with these lasts years - is a woman.

I don't think anyone has said that women don't make good engineers, one of my daughters is an engineering student and is consistently in the top group in her class.

It's just that given the choice fewer women than men actually want to be engineers.

Some want to force the equality of numbers of women in prestigious positions by various means, usually nefarious. Others just want people to be left to make their own choices.

Personally I won't believe that there is true equality until the number of deaths in the workplace is gender neutral. I currently don't see anyone trying to force equality there 

Not to point the bloody obvious out, but most of my physics teachers in uni were women too...
Doctors, dentists, lab techs etc too, all good in STEM too.
In my humble opinion, it is how we “sell” fields to kids...
... becoming a doc is feasible when engineer seems borderline impossible especially to girls.

Erm,

I blame TV?

[vk6zgo]

There are a number of sports, like curling and archery, where women and men compete separately, yet the game is about skill and finesse. There is no advantage accrued from the greater upper body strength of a man, or the greater gymnastic agility of a woman. I have no idea why these were not merged into mixed gender sports long ago.

There's sports like that where the world championships are open to both men and women but the women can barely break into the top 100.

eg. Pool, darts, chess.

As can many thousands of men.

[coppice]

Forgetting chess, it is indeed a generally accepted phenomenon that multiple studies have shown women and men have the same average IQ, but there are more outliers for men than there are for women.

Is this being disputed?

I think people kinda know about that, but don't really grasp the impact. After all, the difference is small, and the curves look fairly similar. The curves mean the percentage of woman who are capable of being really really good at an intellectual task is very close to the percentage of men, yet the number of women who have that little extra sharpness to be a major champion is small enough that there will usually be a man around who can beat them. This is only the case with things like chess, or a breakthrough idea in physics, which are the result of an individual working alone, and nothing but intellectual skill is very relevant to the outcome. The vast majority of activities requires a mix of qualities, like good group cooperation. You'll never see the effects of that tiny upper tail of the Gaussian curve when its blended in a mix of other key qualities.

Nobody seems to have a clue why the curve for females is less broad, and whether nature or nurture is the key issue.

[Cerebus]

Nobody seems to have a clue why the curve for females is less broad, and whether nature or nurture is the key issue.

One also has to ask the question is that curve real, or is an artefact of the tests and testing process? Despite the long history of intelligence tests, the ability of IQ tests to accurately measure 'G' (general intelligence) in an unbiased fashion is still an open research problem. It's easy to see that the tests themselves are as open to socialised gender biases as they are to cultural or educational biases. The latter is a well known problem with IQ tests and is one of the reasons it is very hard to create a good IQ test, as opposed to a good test of educational level in a particular culture.

Cultural biases in IQ testing can be very subtle. Consider a timed test of mental arithmetic. One would think that didn't have any cultural bias. However, different cultures count in different ways. To most of us here 4 * 20 = "?" has the obvious answer "eighty", but to a Frenchman it has the obvious answer "Quatre-vingts" or "four twenties". The francophone doesn't have to do any arithmetic, and so answers fractionally faster.

Extend that tiny cultural bias, that assumption that "all numbers are the same" to everything that one might use as a test of reasoning or thinking ability and it all adds up. I see no reason why social (or socialised) biases are any less likely to have an impact on test design than cultural ones.

Here's another example of a culturally biased question from a putative IQ test:

"An Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman walk into bar". This sentence is:

• The start of a short story
• The start of a joke
• The start of an essay on subcultural differences in the United Kingdom
• All of the above

[coppice]

Nobody seems to have a clue why the curve for females is less broad, and whether nature or nurture is the key issue.

One also has to ask the question is that curve real, or is an artefact of the tests and testing process? Despite the long history of intelligence tests, the ability of IQ tests to accurately measure 'G' (general intelligence) in an unbiased fashion is still an open research problem. It's easy to see that the tests themselves are as open to socialised gender biases as they are to cultural or educational biases. The latter is a well known problem with IQ tests and is one of the reasons it is very hard to create a good IQ test, as opposed to a good test of educational level in a particular culture.

Cultural biases in IQ testing can be very subtle. Consider a timed test of mental arithmetic. One would think that didn't have any cultural bias. However, different cultures count in different ways. To most of us here 4 * 20 = "?" has the obvious answer "eighty", but to a Frenchman it has the obvious answer "Quatre-vingts" or "four twenties". The francophone doesn't have to do any arithmetic, and so answers fractionally faster.

Extend that tiny cultural bias, that assumption that "all numbers are the same" to everything that one might use as a test of reasoning or thinking ability and it all adds up. I see no reason why social (or socialised) biases are any less likely to have an impact on test design than cultural ones.

Biases generally shift the peak to the left or the right. The male and female curves seem to peak at the same point for any group tested. If its a bias its a strange one, as it results in both a pool of super high results from men, and a similar sized pool of super low results from the same overall pool of men.

[james_s]

Something I found interesting is that the percentage of men to women diagnosed with various forms of autism/Aspbergers is remarkably close to the ratio of men to women in engineering. I've long suspected that a majority of engineers have some autistic traits, certainly I do. The symptoms of Aspbergers pretty well describe the stereotypical intelligent but socially awkward/eccentric engineer.

[Cerebus]

Biases generally shift the peak to the left or the right. The male and female curves seem to peak at the same point for any group tested. If its a bias its a strange one, as it results in both a pool of super high results from men, and a similar sized pool of super low results from the same overall pool of men.

Ah, we can get caught up in terminology here, as this discussion naturally uses 'bias' in two ways. One has a specific statistical meaning which indeed would 'bias the mean'. Let's instead of 'bias' say 'testing artefact' that alters the distribution. There are all sorts of statistical effects that alter variance as well as mean in distributions. I don't find it impossible that one could introduce a testing bias that would alter the variance for one sample set tested but not the other.

Consider this. We're discussing the testing apparatus right? So, we have two production lines, producing nominally identical parts. On examining the results of statistical tests of the finished products we find an identical mean, but a difference in spread. How did this happen? It turns out that Fred, on production line A, used Fred's calipers to record finished measurements. On production line B, Burt used whichever calipers came to hand first - his or Fred's or Charlie's. The testing regime introduced a hidden testing artefact that we didn't know about until we examined it because we saw a variance difference in the results.

I'm not saying there is such an artefact in the IQ test differences between men and women, just that it should be questioned because it's a possibility, and considering the complexity and subtlety of all the issues surrounding IQ testing it is not unlikely that socialised male/female differences have crept into the testing process in the same way that cultural biases do and have proved near impossible to completely eradicate from tests. I don't know if they have, but I'd want to be very cautious about drawing such broad conclusions from IQ tests when IQ tests have, over the years, demonstrated so many flaws.

I'm instinctively suspicious because I've known quite a lot of very, very bright men and women over the years, and they have given me no reason to believe that there's any qualitative difference in the intelligence of the women versus the men. Thus a claim that there is a quantitative difference fails to pass the smell test.

Conversely, the claim that the dumbest men are dumber than the dumbest women fits my own experiential prejudices exactly. 

[james_s]

Conversely, the claim that the dumbest men are dumber than the dumbest women fits my own experiential prejudices exactly. 

I could believe it, I've seen even some relatively smart men do some stunningly stupid things.

[Ampera]

Conversely, the claim that the dumbest men are dumber than the dumbest women fits my own experiential prejudices exactly. 

I could believe it, I've seen even some relatively smart men do some stunningly stupid things.

I've seen the same happen conversely. I've seen some women with the critical thinking skills and logical deduction skills of a frozen baked potato. I've also seen men with the common sense and ability to not kill themselves of a burnt eggplant.

[coppice]

I'm instinctively suspicious because I've known quite a lot of very, very bright men and women over the years, and they have given me no reason to believe that there's any qualitative difference in the intelligence of the women versus the men. Thus a claim that there is a quantitative difference fails to pass the smell test.

Why would you expect to see a difference? The statistics only say something about the purely intellectual ability of a handful of outliers at the super dumb and super smart positions along the scale. You wouldn't observe that difference in daily life, when its blended with other qualities. You need to look at a task which completes isolates the merit of purely intellectual qualities. Something like chess might do that at the high end of the scale, but I can't think of any day top day activity which might highlight the lower end of the scale. You only see the broadening of the curve in well controlled studies. Your analysis stinks. 

[Cerebus]

Conversely, the claim that the dumbest men are dumber than the dumbest women fits my own experiential prejudices exactly. 

I could believe it, I've seen even some relatively smart men do some stunningly stupid things.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise that you'd met me. 

[Cerebus]

I'm instinctively suspicious because I've known quite a lot of very, very bright men and women over the years, and they have given me no reason to believe that there's any qualitative difference in the intelligence of the women versus the men. Thus a claim that there is a quantitative difference fails to pass the smell test.

Why would you expect to see a difference? The statistics only say something about the purely intellectual ability of a handful of outliers at the super dumb and super smart positions along the scale. You wouldn't observe that difference in daily life, when its blended with other qualities. You need to look at a task which completes isolates the merit of purely intellectual qualities. Something like chess might do that at the high end of the scale, but I can't think of any day top day activity which might highlight the lower end of the scale. You only see the broadening of the curve in well controlled studies. Your analysis stinks. 

Nothing wrong with the analysis, it just doesn't suit your prejudices. As to my subjective 'smell test' - well, I've known a lot of children/"Young Adults" associated with the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), a lot of Mensa* members and quite a few people too smart to fall for the Mensa membership pitch. Really stupid people are comparatively easy to find but that's not the same as people whose intellectual capacity is severely reduced, and at that end of the spectrum my experience is comparatively limited, and my ability to discriminate relatively blunt.

It's as well to remember that we are talking about effects that are out beyond 4 standard deviations in IQ tests. Believing that something as tricky to construct as IQ tests have meaningful testing power out at the 4 sigma level is more of an act of faith than anything else.

* For those not familiar with the organization, it has to ostensible mission "to identify and to foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity; to encourage research into the nature, characteristics, and uses of intelligence; and to provide a stimulating intellectual and social environment for its members" - in practice it is largely a self-congratulatory membership organization for people who score highly on IQ tests.

[coppice]

Nothing wrong with the analysis, it just doesn't suit your prejudices.

I go with the data. You're the one using gut feel.

* For those not familiar with the organization, it has to ostensible mission "to identify and to foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity; to encourage research into the nature, characteristics, and uses of intelligence; and to provide a stimulating intellectual and social environment for its members" - in practice it is largely a self-congratulatory membership organization for people who score highly on IQ tests.

Mensa is an organisation for people so smart they put up signs in the foyer at college saying "Mensa meeting. Room 401. 4th floor.". That used to floor us.

[Cerebus]

I go with the data. You're the one using gut feel.

Who is to say that rapid intuitional analysis of information isn't a sign of higher superior intelligence? 

[coppice]

I go with the data. You're the one using gut feel.

Who is to say that rapid intuitional analysis of information isn't a sign of higher superior intelligence? 

It usually just shows an indifference to confirmation bias.

[BillB]

Mensa is an organisation for people so smart they put up signs in the foyer at college saying "Mensa meeting. Room 401. 4th floor.". That used to floor us.

Discussions like this always remind me of true genius, with full credit to Gary Larson and The Far Side...

[james_s]

Mensa is an organisation for people so smart they put up signs in the foyer at college saying "Mensa meeting. Room 401. 4th floor.". That used to floor us.

Funny, although it's certainly possible to be extremely smart and still lack anything resembling common sense. The thing about intelligence is it's very difficult to quantify. Say somebody can calculate pi to 300 digits in their head but they can't figure out which end of a soldering iron to hold or they get lost trying to get to the other side of their home town, are they smart or dumb?

[Bud]

I had a friend who was a computer guru and had all imaginable certifications from Microsoft, Cisco and such, but did not know how to boil a potato.

[Circlotron]

I like to think of smarts as an area-under-the-curve thing. It may be very narrow and tall (and consequently lacking in other places) or it may be low and very broad. Or maybe concentrated in several areas.

[Circlotron]

This guy has a pretty good take on universities. 

https://youtu.be/LjN8xP0i6Ak

[Ampera]

Yeah I actually kinda like that guy. He seems to have some pretty good ideas.

[TerraHertz]

Ah ha. Just had an insight into the origins of Prof. Riley's position on the concept of 'rigor.'

But first... apparently trying to tell a forum of engineers that there's always a political background and lineage to current social developments (eg Prof Riley), seems like trying to roll a large stone uphill. (While also risking getting struck by lightning.) In this case the problem is you are so used to using logic as a problem solving tool, you think you can work out her 'why' by examining the details of her teaching.
Sorry, not going to work. Because there's a whole world of unspoken political theory behind what she's doing, and you can't deduce it from her papers and talks. You have to know your history.

What she's doing, is applying the Marxist Frankfurt School's concept of Critical Theory, to the engineering concept of Rigor.

Now, 'critical theory' in their meaning is a code phrase. It doesn't mean at all what the English words would suggest.
What it does mean is a bit complicated, and I don't want to write a wall of text explaining. For one thing, you'd almost all just skip it. Not to mention the insults.
Instead, some educational videos.

Warning. These are all 100% political. And kinda boring. Bonus: if you have never been exposed to this stuff before, your head will explode. I'm pretty sure only a few here will bother to watch. That's OK. Just wanted to mention it, for those who are interested.

POLITICAL YOUTUBE VIDEO REMOVED

There is no point in debating any of this here, and it isn't allowed anyway. I'm happy enough with that.
If you need more viewpoints, youtube brings up numerous other related videos.

Anyway, once you understand critical theory, you'll also know why Prof Riley is doing it.

[Seekonk]

Even the computers are becoming this way. I tried to give feedback the other day on ebay. Tried to shake up giving the same response each time and entered .......Great Vendor.  It came back...... Profanity Not Allowed.

[bd139]

Easy to workaround that stuff. "seller is a cucking fockwomble".

[EEVblog]

Warning. These are all 100% political.

And politics is not welcome on this forum, so I'm removing your videos.

[EEVblog]

There is no point in debating any of this here, and it isn't allowed anyway. I'm happy enough with that.

Then why did you post it?
You have a history of continuing to post political stuff on this forum, please stop it. Moderator tolerance will only extend so far.

[Cerebus]

Warning. These are all 100% political.

And politics is not welcome on this forum, so I'm removing your videos.

To be fair to TerraHertz, the very subject of Dr Riley's insane ramblings is innately political. Riley's thesis is all about sexual politics and you're the one who started the discussion of it with the first post.

So we find ourselves in the position where you go (implicitly) 'here's a political topic to discuss' and explicitly "politics is not welcome". You can see how that might make it a bit difficult to discern where the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable political discussion lies.

As you've removed the links I can't tell if the videos linked are "left wing nutjob explains Marxist critical theory", or "right wing nutjob explains Marxist critical theory", or "respected historian explains Marxist critical theory". If the latter, and if as Terrahertz claims, they cast genuine light on Riley's formulation of her ideas then that would have been useful. Obviously if it was either of the first two, then that would just produce heat, not light.

Edited to add:
OK, TerraHertz has indirectly restored the links. Fine, if he wants to ask Dave for a kicking, that's down to him.

I don't think they added anything to the debate, they are all from anything but a neutral view. Let's put it like this, the first one has minutes of slow zooms into caricatures of some "German intelligentsia" at the beginning. I'm pretty sure that "German intelligentsia" is meant to be read with a secondary meaning. Another is by Bill Whittle, a quick search reveals him to be a "Conservative" from the USA. Another is by Michael Hoskinson, another American "Conservative". You get the drift, you're not in for a set of lectures on the history of political thought from a college professor.

[TerraHertz]

Then why did you post it?

Them: tinyurl com/y7ozslun
Because they are precisely on point. You seemed quite interested in figuring out what Dr Riley was about, and so I thought you and others might like to know. Those videos relate real history and events. It's not arguable at all whether it happened. It did. The actual theories those guys promulgated are quite evil, but their lack of worth is not relevant to an understanding of what happened. And that is how we have people like Dr Riley. I don't see why you're being hostile about it. Do you really wish to remain ignorant of the history? Or dispute it's relevant? You raised the topic, that is effectively a question, then don't want to hear an answer or let anyone else see it. Did anyone else even try to explain how her views could arise?

This whole long thread (which is really ALL politics regardless that you created it and pretend it isn't) and now you delete information that puts it in a sensible context and makes Dr Riley understandable. I was actually hoping to do you a favor, by putting an end to it. Having made it clear even I thought further discussion was pointless. FFS, it's drifted off into gender differences. 

Given pointers to the original causes of Dr Riley and her batshit theories (for anyone who cared) hopefully it could be enough closure. Seriously, I figured you must be getting uncomfortable with the thread, but didn't want to lock one you started.

I really, really am tired of people like her.  Who by the way, are succeeding because of people who refuse to see them for what they are, or acknowledge that to fail to actively oppose evil, is to aid it. Note that I do agree this forum is best with almost no politics. But there's a line somewhere between avoiding politics, and aiding evil by inaction or silence.

Do you like her philosophy? You don't seem to. Then why try to stop others learning what poisonous roots it grew from?

Are you sure you're not just being shitty because it didn't occur to you her ideas and ability to force them on students, are the result of a chain of events that go way back? Sigh. Youtube videos linked don't even cost you any bandwidth. Also these are quite boring, so I really didn't expect anyone would hotly want to discuss them.

Or do you maintain she's just some rather dumb academic with questionable ideas, there's no harm in her spreading such views to students, and there's no historical political background at all?

Btw, this is my 6th post in a 13 page long thread. I'm not exactly being noisy.

[EEVblog]

Do you like her philosophy? You don't seem to. Then why try to stop others learning what poisonous roots it grew from?

Because it gets into deep politics and we don't do that here. Don't post that stuff.

Are you sure you're not just being shitty

I'm being "shitty" because you are probably the #1 political poster on the forum, and here you go again, you just can't help yourself. Stop it, ok? Don't try and push the argument back onto me, I'm not going to take the bait.

Btw, this is my 6th post in a 13 page long thread. I'm not exactly being noisy.

You have a very deep history of posting all sort of borderline stuff on this forum, to point several times that I have considered banning you because you don't seem to want to listen that we don't need nor want your political/conspiracy/government stuff here.

[EEVblog]

To be fair to TerraHertz, the very subject of Dr Riley's insane ramblings is innately political. Riley's thesis is all about sexual politics and you're the one who started the discussion of it with the first post.

So we find ourselves in the position where you go (implicitly) 'here's a political topic to discuss' and explicitly "politics is not welcome". You can see how that might make it a bit difficult to discern where the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable political discussion lies.

I posted it because he have discussed Dr Riley before on here, so it's updating people who might have followed that.
And well, gee, I don't know, maybe I thought people want to discuss the issue of this related to engineering education perhaps?
It doesn't have to be that political and lead to posting videos of broad political theories and whatnot which will of course head the discussion in only one direction. Especially is someone like Terraherz is enagaged on this stuff, he has a deep history here of not stopping about this stuff.

[tautech]

Then why did you post it?

Them: tinyurl com/y7ozslun

I wanted to watch those vids but Dave pulled them.
Have you a link or maybe PM them please ?
TIA

[mtdoc]

While I find her thesis fairly silly, she is after all an academic and that is what academics do:  They push the boundries of their chosen field.  Yes, I find it odd that an engineering professor chooses to try and push the boundry of engineering discourse in this direction - but there it is. 

The problem with this thread (and previous ones like it) is that there will never be any sort of balanced, reasonable discussion of any "feminist" perspective on a forum that is almost exclusively composed of male engineers.

Professor Riley is, like most SJWs,  an easy target.  Making her the EEVblog punching bag does, as another poster commented earlier, reflect poorly on this forum IMHO.

[TerraHertz]

And well, gee, I don't know, maybe I thought people want to discuss the issue of this related to engineering education perhaps?

We do. You do, we all want to discuss the contamination of engineering education with vacuous SJW-PC stuff like pretending 'rigor' is some kind of gender repressive man-splaining. This is the equivalent of teaching above-unity pseudo-science bullshit, as if it were true.

However I think I'm not the only one who is scratching their head at the moment, wondering how this can possibly be discussed in a non-political context. Maybe I'm just the only one abrasive enough to go ahead and point out political origins? I'm not trying to 'push the argument back on you', I'm asking you to clarify. Exactly where do you want this thread to go? I'd guessed you wanted it to die, and I'd help. Some videos that though informative, are extremely boring, amateurish and difficult to watch. Send everyone to sleep.
But no?

Maybe, you could comment on what you think about what she's doing, the likely effects on competence of engineering students who go through her courses, and what they should do about it. I'm eager to see that done in an a-political manner.

Some of those students may also wonder what the heck rubbish they are being taught and why, and google it. So this thread doesn't exist in a real-world consequences vacuum. What are you doing for them? What are the rest of us allowed to do?

[Howardlong]

Engineering is a vocational subject, and engineers choose engineering faculties to learn engineering. If I were paying for an engineering degree and spent the first year doing indoctrination classes and not engineering, I’d be demanding my money back and transferring. Hopefully you’d have done your homework up front and be already be aware of the course layout.

I remember having to do a mandatory year of examined business studies lectures during my EE degree, accounting for about 10% of the year’s marks. It was a complete waste of time, it taught me nothing of value, and little did I know then I’d be running my own company for almost my entire career. There was nothing in the business studies course that made me more employable or helped me otherwise in my career.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Already universities in the US with high profile SJW activities are seeing their enrolement dwindle significantly, I can only surmise that Purdue’s engineering faculty will also suffer once Riley’s pedagogy becomes embedded, if it isn’t already.

[tautech]

And well, gee, I don't know, maybe I thought people want to discuss the issue of this related to engineering education perhaps?

With a clickbait title like you used.......yeah right !

I read only your OP,  and didn't look back here for days.
Like where are any surprises on where this was heading but deeper understanding of WHY has been censored out. 



Thanks THz for links.

[GK]

You get the drift, you're not in for a set of lectures on the history of political thought from a college professor.

Did you really think that might not have been the case?

[engineerguy]

Whatever differing views people have, I think it's important to discuss these topics since they're directly related to the very discipline of engineering, and the more exposure they have, the more people can debate the ideas, and come to a conclusion where the strongest argument wins. Too many people these days are willing to self-silence, or worse, silence others, where they're too afraid to debate about something controversial for various reasons (political correctness being the main motivation), and this stifles the debate which leads to a lot of resentment. I think us engineers should be just as actively involved in such debates when it concerns our profession, otherwise someone else will be doing it for us and we may not like what they have to say.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Hate speech vidjeos deleted

[Cerebus]

You get the drift, you're not in for a set of lectures on the history of political thought from a college professor.

Did you really think that might not have been the case?

I had a probable outcome in mind but it would have been unfair to just assume without examination - people have surprised me in the past.

[Beamin]

we need more women in coal mining, deep water fishing, soldiers and construction industries where they can experience heavy tools and vibrators. and err... men should bear child in their belly. yeah thanks to all of this overly obsessed intelligent individuals or commmunities that run against nature.

I would suck at those jobs. People need to realize men are good at one thing and women are not. But women are good at one thing that men aren't.

My place is in the home cooking and cleaning for my man who is hard at work all day and should be able to relax when he gets home or have sex when ever he wants it. Although I'm not afraid to fix the car as long as it doesn't mess up my nails. I don't see why women would want to go out and do those jobs when you are not as strong. I think its just 1% who sound like 50% because the internet gives them a voice.

[Circlotron]

I think its just 1% who sound like 50% because the internet gives them a voice.

And they claim to speak for 90%.

[james_s]

I don't think it's fair to generalize that men are good at one thing and women are good at other things, rather statistically men tend to prefer one set of things and women tend to prefer another set of things and that preference leads one to get good at whatever activity it is that they're interested in. Many people seem to interpret this as saying that ALL men like one set of things and ALL women like a different set of things, but in reality it's what you get when you examine a large random sample, not all individuals fit the statistics.

In my household I do all the cooking, dishes, maintenance and repair on the house and cars, and my partner does the laundry (I got banished from that after ruining a few of her shirts), the gardening/landscaping and decorating. We split the cleaning, shopping and other chores and we each have our separate hobbies. I have no real interest in quilting and she has no interest in building electronic widgets but that doesn't indicate lack of ability. I'm sure I could sew a quilt if I were interested in learning and I'm quite certain she could design a PCB layout or build a circuit if she wanted. In fact I suspect she'd be better at it than I am since she kicks my butt at practically every game and puzzle we own but it's not something that interests her. It works out well though because both of our hobbies involve the same general type of sitting around focusing on something so we tend to hang out together and work on our respective projects.

[Ampera]

The issue, I believe, is that some people aren't happy with that.

Some people try to define equality as exact equal treatment instead of balanced and fair treatment. It would be a problem if women were actively denied entry into STEM fields because of their gender, but this doesn't happen. What isn't sexist is women saying that they don't want to enter a STEM field, and then entering something else. As I said, this just seems to not be enough for all the SJWs with liberal arts degrees complaining about how there aren't more women in STEM fields, likely because most women in STEM fields realize that they had to put the pedal to the metal in terms of studying just like everybody else in academia.

I totally do not believe, and ontop, even if true, do not believe it helpful to believe that women and men are better or worse at academia (there are reasons for physical fields, however). It's all a matter of pools of able people and what they do with their lives. I know there are many female EE's that probably get paid way more and have way more experience and skill at their craft than a lot of male EE's under them, and it's the exact same situation the other way around. I believe the only thing that is upsetting here is the fact that this isn't good enough for people who can't eat their fruitloops without ensuring that there are equal amounts of each colour in the bowl.

[Howardlong]

we need more women in coal mining, deep water fishing, soldiers and construction industries where they can experience heavy tools and vibrators. and err... men should bear child in their belly. yeah thanks to all of this overly obsessed intelligent individuals or commmunities that run against nature.

I would suck at those jobs. People need to realize men are good at one thing and women are not. But women are good at one thing that men aren't.

My place is in the home cooking and cleaning for my man who is hard at work all day and should be able to relax when he gets home or have sex when ever he wants it. Although I'm not afraid to fix the car as long as it doesn't mess up my nails. I don't see why women would want to go out and do those jobs when you are not as strong. I think its just 1% who sound like 50% because the internet gives them a voice.

Be careful, some self-righteous soul will be around any moment and make patronising accusations of internal oppression, most likely that someone will be full of prescriptive answers for everything, but solutions for nothing.

[Beamin]

we need more women in coal mining, deep water fishing, soldiers and construction industries where they can experience heavy tools and vibrators. and err... men should bear child in their belly. yeah thanks to all of this overly obsessed intelligent individuals or commmunities that run against nature.

I would suck at those jobs. People need to realize men are good at one thing and women are not. But women are good at one thing that men aren't.

My place is in the home cooking and cleaning for my man who is hard at work all day and should be able to relax when he gets home or have sex when ever he wants it. Although I'm not afraid to fix the car as long as it doesn't mess up my nails. I don't see why women would want to go out and do those jobs when you are not as strong. I think its just 1% who sound like 50% because the internet gives them a voice.

Be careful, some self-righteous soul will be around any moment and make patronising accusations of internal oppression, most likely that someone will be full of prescriptive answers for everything, but solutions for nothing.

I used to always be the leader in my former life I didn't seek those roles I was put into them because no one else knew what to do since I was almost always smarter then the group usually much smarter. I hated it. I like much better being submissive to one person who I trust. #2 is where I belong or in the kitchen .I don't see what's wrong with the traditional roles. I like control when it's towards me not at others. If you don't like that then fine, find a sissy guy to go out with that you can control but when he cry's when he can't borrow your make up don't bitch. I can't stand when women "wear the pants" or hyphenate their last names. You want to keep your last name marry a woman or don't get married. "The wife would kill me if I bought that" grow a pair of balls; that's why she married you. Wives should check with their husbands not the other way around: I say that because you should be able to trust your husband 100%: and I know that he would make the same decision as me.

Also the women that want all of these rights also don't want to give up the privileges or accept the responsibility. If he gets the door for me and pays the bill he decides where we go out.

When I lose the control I feel free.

[Ampera]

I used to always be the leader in my former life I didn't seek those roles I was put into them because no one else knew what to do since I was almost always smarter then the group usually much smarter. I hated it. I like much better being submissive to one person who I trust. #2 is where I belong or in the kitchen .I don't see what's wrong with the traditional roles. I like control when it's towards me not at others. If you don't like that then fine, find a sissy guy to go out with that you can control but when he cry's when he can't borrow your make up don't bitch. I can't stand when women "wear the pants" or hyphenate their last names. You want to keep your last name marry a woman or don't get married. "The wife would kill me if I bought that" grow a pair of balls; that's why she married you. Wives should check with their husbands not the other way around: I say that because you should be able to trust your husband 100%: and I know that he would make the same decision as me.

Also the women that want all of these rights also don't want to give up the privileges or accept the responsibility. If he gets the door for me and pays the bill he decides where we go out.

When I lose the control I feel free.

The thing you do need to understand, and I'm not saying you don't, but I wish to be on the same page, is that these are all social constructs to at least a majority degree. As such, they are subject to change upon majority's wishes. I'm not saying that you shouldn't live your life as you state, in fact I know that many many men would not complain about being in your position. The issues with all of this arise with what people what to do. Belief in how yourself should be treated and how other should be treated are two different things. There is never any issue with wanting to be treated a specific way, and if you can find a pool, or even an individual to satisfy that desire, you have lived your life the way you want it.

The issue is  that some people don't want to live as, and I say this objectively and not as an insult, subordinates to men. You do appear to find that there is no middle ground here, and apologizes if I have poorly analyzed your statements, but I know many women, and if I was a women, I would have the same wishes, who don't wish to find a weak man to push around, although they do exist, but instead want to just exist in a relationship with equal action.

There are two YouTubers called Shoe0nHead and ArmouredSkeptic, who are currently engaged, and were dating for I believe a few years, and I've seen their interactions. They treat each other very equally, cracking jokes back and forth, collaborating in their same lines of work (heck, she is more successful than he is), but they also happen to maintain levels of femininity and masculinity among them. June doesn't dress like a guy, and Gregory doesn't dress like a woman. June giggles, and Gregory tends to get a bit more riled up (although they are both pretty rambunctious, they are actually a really nice couple).

My point is that a marriage can exist without a dominant figure. Nobody in this relationship is more controlling over the other. I do feel it is necessary to reiterate, everybody wishes to be treated differently, but the point I am trying to make, and the summary of my example, is that everybody wants to be treated how they want to be treated, and that, I believe, is the core of egalitarianism. Some people may not even find someone to treat them how they are wanted, but just to have this opinion on what they want to do with themselves and how they want to be treated is, I believe, the core of equal treatment.

[JayNi]

Fukin ell! This is absolute horseshit. I'm a Purdue Alumni, and disabled, and I was in the less 'vigorous' engineering program. It's called technology as in Electrical Engineering Technology. Circuit analysis is all done with algebra, no calculus until third year(I have an AS, So I never learned it). Only one problem with an EET degree, 'real' engineers think you're trash. I'm embarrassed you all associate the twat with Purdue now(and not Neil Armstrong). Maybe she's just been most listening to Millennials too much.

[Tomorokoshi]

The professor called out here has approaching zero impact in this industry. Her ideas won't go anywhere to drive the approach to education, engineering, or science. However, making a big deal out of it clearly leads to clicks, views, comments, and controversy; the lifeblood of media in general and modern internet-based forums in particular. It's just that sometimes the mess that spills out is difficult to clean out and control, even with Boraxo.

If rigor is important, then many of you in general, and Dave in particular, are missing the point. The lack of rigor has already permeated engineering so completely that it merits very little attention here, and goes unnoticed until pointed out, at which point it gets ignored anyway because of the near-complete lack of ability to do anything about it.

The key driver for lack of rigor throughout engineering is the control of engineering by management who use non-engineering methods to determine the course of the engineering process.

So what is this lack of "rigor" in this context? A few examples:

1. Scheduling by simplistic guessing.
2. Assumptions that external solutions work perfectly.
3. Assumptions that internal solutions are completely reusable.
4. Jumping to conclusions about the cause of the problem, which leads to...
5. Jumping to solutions for a problem, which only wastes time and money.
6. It can be debugged in the field.

How many more can you add to the list?

This makes its way to the real world where corporations allow mechanical engineers, MBAs, etc. to determine the complexity and scheduling of electrical and software projects. Lowly software and electrical engineers, who always seem to be asking for more money, time, and documentation, are dismissed and ridiculed because somehow they didn't internalize the factors that are actually important such as ROI and time to market.

The results of an engineering organization driven by management who neither understand nor value rigor are products that are incomplete, unsafe, unreliable, have flaws, have bugs, etc. Many problems you can attribute to a product derives from this.

The other side of the argument is that by putting so much into research, development, and testing, the product would never get done, take too much money, etc. This false economy works only because the costs of not running an engineering organization properly are externalized to customers, warranty claims, unknown lost sales, unpaid overtime, and other such things.

So, sure, let's stir the pot and yank the chain by posting some random video. However, if you are going to do that under the guise of defending "rigor", at least drive the discussion to something realistic and productive, and that by the way, is an actual problem.

[JorgeRamos1]

this is what most of the feminist do

[Beamin]

I used to always be the leader in my former life I didn't seek those roles I was put into them because no one else knew what to do since I was almost always smarter then the group usually much smarter. I hated it. I like much better being submissive to one person who I trust. #2 is where I belong or in the kitchen .I don't see what's wrong with the traditional roles. I like control when it's towards me not at others. If you don't like that then fine, find a sissy guy to go out with that you can control but when he cry's when he can't borrow your make up don't bitch. I can't stand when women "wear the pants" or hyphenate their last names. You want to keep your last name marry a woman or don't get married. "The wife would kill me if I bought that" grow a pair of balls; that's why she married you. Wives should check with their husbands not the other way around: I say that because you should be able to trust your husband 100%: and I know that he would make the same decision as me.

Also the women that want all of these rights also don't want to give up the privileges or accept the responsibility. If he gets the door for me and pays the bill he decides where we go out.

When I lose the control I feel free.

The thing you do need to understand, and I'm not saying you don't, but I wish to be on the same page, is that these are all social constructs to at least a majority degree. As such, they are subject to change upon majority's wishes. I'm not saying that you shouldn't live your life as you state, in fact I know that many many men would not complain about being in your position. The issues with all of this arise with what people what to do. Belief in how yourself should be treated and how other should be treated are two different things. There is never any issue with wanting to be treated a specific way, and if you can find a pool, or even an individual to satisfy that desire, you have lived your life the way you want it.

The issue is  that some people don't want to live as, and I say this objectively and not as an insult, subordinates to men. You do appear to find that there is no middle ground here, and apologizes if I have poorly analyzed your statements, but I know many women, and if I was a women, I would have the same wishes, who don't wish to find a weak man to push around, although they do exist, but instead want to just exist in a relationship with equal action.

There are two YouTubers called Shoe0nHead and ArmouredSkeptic, who are currently engaged, and were dating for I believe a few years, and I've seen their interactions. They treat each other very equally, cracking jokes back and forth, collaborating in their same lines of work (heck, she is more successful than he is), but they also happen to maintain levels of femininity and masculinity among them. June doesn't dress like a guy, and Gregory doesn't dress like a woman. June giggles, and Gregory tends to get a bit more riled up (although they are both pretty rambunctious, they are actually a really nice couple).

My point is that a marriage can exist without a dominant figure. Nobody in this relationship is more controlling over the other. I do feel it is necessary to reiterate, everybody wishes to be treated differently, but the point I am trying to make, and the summary of my example, is that everybody wants to be treated how they want to be treated, and that, I believe, is the core of egalitarianism. Some people may not even find someone to treat them how they are wanted, but just to have this opinion on what they want to do with themselves and how they want to be treated is, I believe, the core of equal treatment.

Yes you are right. I think people should have the option of being what ever role they want. I was just saying that for me the roles are very clear and black and white. The reality is roles gender and sexuality is both set by our DNA but also fluid. I was born with XY chromosomes but my body didn't respond to androgens in the womb. Basically labels make things into a big mess but I wouldn't like it at all if I lived in a culture where male and female acted and dressed the same. I don't think I would hate wearing pants so much (figuratively and literally) if I didn't HAVE to as a kid.

Back to this women she makes people like me look bad because people are afraid to talk because of risk of offending or worse getting sued. She can read from the dictionary all she wants but she can't make any difference just seeking her 15 minutes of fame and make a buck while she is at it. In a year we will all forget about her only remembering when thunderfoot makes a video about it. (I like his science videos but I don't understand his obsession with feminists and that sarkasian girl who is not even that pretty).

STEM is a male dominated field and always will be. I always wonder why you don't see the reverse: why don't guys bitch that they can't get job as beauticians or maids? Because those jobs don't pay well I guess.

[EEVblog]

While I find her thesis fairly silly, she is after all an academic and that is what academics do:  They push the boundries of their chosen field.  Yes, I find it odd that an engineering professor chooses to try and push the boundry of engineering discourse in this direction - but there it is. 

The problem with this thread (and previous ones like it) is that there will never be any sort of balanced, reasonable discussion of any "feminist" perspective on a forum that is almost exclusively composed of male engineers.

You don't need to be a certain gender to have the (fairly obvious I would think) opinion that gender should have no place in the engineering curriculum. A subject that is already struggling with trying to teach the countless facets of engineering in the modern world.

Again, I ask people, what would you remove (or spend less time on) from an engineering degree in order to study this stuff?
Because you can't have both.
And why stop at teaching gender and feminist viewpoints in an engineer degree, why not teach politics as well for example?

[EEVblog]

And well, gee, I don't know, maybe I thought people want to discuss the issue of this related to engineering education perhaps?

With a clickbait title like you used.......yeah right !

The title is the exact title of the video in question.

[EEVblog]

Maybe, you could comment on what you think about what she's doing

I think she's pushing her agenda in a place were it doesn't belong. I like my engineering to be about engineering, not gender and feminism.

, the likely effects on competence of engineering students who go through her courses, and what they should do about it.

They (Purdue) should not give her any position of influence.
Spending time learning this stuff must be at the detriment to time spent on learning engineering.

What are you doing for them?

I'm telling them that stuff should have no place in an engineering degree and they should complain about it and/or leave for a university that doesn't want to teach that.

[Ampera]

For your latter statement as to why men aren't as upset that we can't get jobs as beauticians or maids etc. as easily. (Beamin) I believe the reason why most men don't want to is because gender roles are more strictly enforced for men. You can see this quite easily in things like social acceptance with dress. A man would get very very strange looks for wearing a dress walking down the street, possibly even to the point of being harassed or assaulted. A woman, on the other hand, could go anywhere from corset and massive hoop skirt, to full lumberjack and nobody would give it much of an issue.

A woman can be whatever she wants to be, and there are few jobs that are outright against women working in the field, whereas men don't tend to have the same privilege. I know people who would never hire a male babysitter, however they would have no objections to hiring a female engineer if they worked at a specific company. Not to sound like an MRA, because another reason why this is the case, is that men just happen to care about these issues less than women. It's only when some men are presented with complaints about female rights we do not believe are systematic problems do we sometimes bring up the likewise issue.

Another matter needs to be addressed here, however, and that is the difference between social freedoms and social power. Women have, and I do believe this, more social freedoms in the first world than man. They can get away with more, and aren't as often forced into specific positions or jobs, and are allowed to do what they want. Men, however, have more social power. We hold more positions in high paying fields, not because women aren't allowed to engage in them, it's just because the pool of willing women is too small for the group of active women in those fields to be as sizable.

I'm not saying sexism, discrimination, or oppression doesn't happen as described by anybody. The pool of people and situations are so massive, the odds of discrimination not happening are pretty low, but I believe the numbers of what happens on a regular basis is where people tend to get tripped up. This is my personal view, based on my perspective in the world. I give no sources cited because this is just what I think is true. Ultimately, a free world is not an equal world, because nobody is the same, but my criteria for true societal freedoms is to be able, no matter who you are or where you come from, to be able to do whatever you want, so long as you show the innate ability to develop the skills for it, and to not be restricted by other people when trying to do it.

I love you Dave, not in a personal way, but you're the YouTuber I spend the most attention on, and while I've tried to refrain from being political here, this is a hot topic backed by politics. I don't think you should get too mad at people for stepping outside the boundaries. Political discussion on this form, and heated debated in general, have always been something I quite like. People here have a tendency to not be stupid with how they treat other people, which is just a testament to the professional and mature community that you attracts and foster. Just my tuppence.

[EEVblog]

The professor called out here has approaching zero impact in this industry. Her ideas won't go anywhere to drive the approach to education, engineering, or science.

She is the "Head of the School of Engineering Education" at Prudue.
https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE/People/profile?resource_id=171338

Her ideas are stated aims of the school, she seems to call the shots, and given her title has every right to do so at that school.

[Beamin]

I like engineering, science, and data because IT DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK about your gender feelings or beliefs opinions or dogma. It's the antireligion or SJW.

 The 555 blinks regardless of who plugs in the power. Is my 555 timer culturally diverse because it plugs into brown resistors with rainbow stripes? Why aren't there more white components? I think white components are under represented and why do circuit boards always have FEMALE connector's soldered to them and wires go to MALE connectors? Don't even get me started on why all black floppy drives were considered slave drives compared to lightly colored internal hard drives when computers changed color in the 1990's. "DONGLES!" Referencing male genitals is offensive!

[bd139]

Perhaps if you let the turds float to the top they're easier to scoop off 

[EEVblog]

Mention of Engineering and the University of Melbourne at about 3 minutes in:

[james_s]

If the mind were a blind slate, I may well not have gotten into engineering in the first place. I was born obsessed with it, I was taking things apart by the time I was 2 years old, much to the dismay of my parents. Nobody encouraged me to pursue it, I've had that natural curiosity about how things work my whole life.

[DimitriP]

I was born obsessed with it, I was taking things apart by the time I was 2 years old, much to the dismay of my parents.

Warning: knock-knock joke

-Knock knock
-"Who is there?"
-"Orange"
-"Orange who?"
-"Orange you glad you weren't raised by a village?"

[jonovid]

in the light of the gender wars of today. how political correctness has made for so much on going confusion.
in an otherwise non or gender neutral aspects of science.  will the names attributed to plugs and sockets get added to the subject.

[Ampera]

in the light of the gender wars of today. how political correctness has made for so much on going confusion.
in an otherwise non or gender neutral aspects of science.  will the names attributed to plugs and sockets get added to the subject.

Not sure exactly what you're getting at.

Gendering plugs isn't intended to be offensive or discriminatory to anybody. The majority of people are straight, and straight intercourse has a male plug and female receptacle. It's the core and basis of reproduction, and almost everybody (unless you count artificial insemination) is the result of it. If you need to think, what end of a connector this is, female and male are normal terms the apply to a majority of people, and thus are easy to remember and never forget. You don't forget that water is wet, and you don't forget that male is stick and female is hole.

[Beamin]

Mention of Engineering and the University of Melbourne at about 3 minutes in:

rl=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU0N962brMc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU0N962brMc[/url]

That's not sexist.    That makes things so awkward for people like me who identify as female but are not. Can I take the class because I look female? Do I need to show my birth certificate?

If all the EE classes ae full but the female only class has 5 empty seats do those male students lose their spot?

What's the difference are the tests less hard or do they make analogies like resistor color codes are like a pallet of eye shadow? Do they have longer bathroom breaks because sitting down takes more time?

[TerraHertz]

Looks like 'rigor' has gone out the window in civil engineering too. Take a look at the design of this truss bridge. See why it failed at the left hand end in the photo?

The bridge itself plus gravity displayed natural rigor in crushing cars below.

[bd139]

Ouch. Not a civil engineer or physicist but it looks like the brace across on the left is going to be under a lot more stress than the other ones due to the length and angle and that intermediate one underneath it.

[wraper]

Take a look at the design of this truss bridge. See why it failed at the left hand end in the photo?

Ouch. Not a civil engineer or physicist but it looks like the brace across on the left is going to be under a lot more stress than the other ones due to the length and angle and that intermediate one underneath it.

Right side collapsed, not left. Also if you look on the left side, you should notice that brace is much thicker.

[retrolefty]

Looks like 'rigor' has gone out the window in civil engineering too. Take a look at the design of this truss bridge. See why it failed at the left hand end in the photo?

The bridge itself plus gravity displayed natural rigor in crushing cars below.

 The bridge was not compete yet. I heard they were performing a 'stress test' of some kind. Also from conception picture I think they were yet to add a central vertical support and cable supports like in suspension bridges. I suspect this was a construction sequencing assembly error, but I'm sure all the investigations will explain what and why this happened. Why is Florida such a "shit magnet"? Probably because it's so flat.

[Cerebus]

Ouch. Not a civil engineer or physicist but it looks like the brace across on the left is going to be under a lot more stress than the other ones due to the length and angle and that intermediate one underneath it.

There's an old saying in aircraft architecture that "if it looks right it probably is right" with the obvious corollary. Like you, I'm not a structural engineer but that bridge "looks wrong".

[wraper]

There's an old saying in aircraft architecture that "if it looks right it probably is right" with the obvious corollary. Like you, I'm not a structural engineer but that bridge "looks wrong".

And what is the merit of looking right? By such logic, this 85 meter tall monument shall not exist.

[Cerebus]

The phrase is, quite obviously, talking about engineering and hence functional characteristics, not aesthetic ones, but I've never seen a stick that you can't deliberately take the wrong end of.

[Richard Crowley]

...that bridge "looks wrong".

Perhaps because it is only PART of a bridge.  The diagonal struts are clearly aligned to match the (missing) cable supports from the (missing) central pillar.  And add that to the (missing) temporary "false-work" to hold up the piece of a bridge and this seems inevitable.  AvE put up an interesting vijeo...

https://youtu.be/ioC61QW7SHQ

[Towger]

If this was a building site H&S would not allow workers under it until it was finished...

[Gregg]

RE: Bridge collapse
Leonor Flores is an executive for MCM, the company that built the collapsed bridge
From this website: https://news.fiu.edu/2018/03/community-gathers-to-watch-950-ton-bridge-move-across-southwest-8th-street/120395

Twelve-year-old Michelle Flores shared a special moment with her family at FIU this past Saturday: She and her sister Gabriela joined their parents, FIU alumni Leonor and Henry Flores MIS ’01, to watch a 950-ton section of a pedestrian bridge swing into its permanent position across Southwest 8th Street.

Leonor Flores ’98 is a project executive and one of 63 FIU alumni who work for MCM, the construction firm building the FIU-Sweetwater UniversityCity Bridge, which will further connect FIU and its northerly neighbor, the City of Sweetwater. She was excited to share her work with her family, especially Michelle, who is interested in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) in school.

Michelle said she might want to follow in her parents’ footsteps and go to FIU when the time comes, and that it was fascinating to see her mom’s work in action. “I’m interested in the architecture and the design of the bridge, and the math portion of it,” she said.

Said Leonor: “It’s very important for me as a woman and an engineer to be able to promote that to my daughter, because I think women have a different perspective. We’re able to put in an artistic touch and we’re able to build, too.”

The pedestrian bridge, which crosses Southwest 8th Street at the 109th Avenue intersection, will provide a safer crossing of the eight-lane thoroughfare for the 4,200 FIU students living in Sweetwater. Between its walkways and plazas, it will also provide 9,900 square feet of gathering and event space.

[lordvader88]

I thought it was RIGOL, not rigor

[Circlotron]

And what is the merit of looking right? By such logic, this 85 meter tall monument shall not exist.

That's because she is looking left.

[Beamin]

Ouch. Not a civil engineer or physicist but it looks like the brace across on the left is going to be under a lot more stress than the other ones due to the length and angle and that intermediate one underneath it.

There's an old saying in aircraft architecture that "if it looks right it probably is right" with the obvious corollary. Like you, I'm not a structural engineer but that bridge "looks wrong".

The armchair physicist speculation by AVE on youtube was that they tried to move a support while people were on the bridge.

[bd139]

Armchair physicist here says they should have built a tunnel

[coppice]

Armchair physicist here says they should have built a tunnel

That's just ducking the issue. 

[Beamin]

Armchair physicist here says they should have built a tunnel

That's just ducking the issue. 

Or gave the people jet packs to cross. This statement is also supported by the CEO of ubeam because they told her it can't be done just because she was a woman. Like the wright brothers who were also woma... er.. ah...? Why does science hate women?  Why does homer simpson face palm? It seems like he would get the face palm not give it.

[Edison]

Well, I read it as "Rigol" at first, ....

me too .......

[jmelson]

Armchair physicist here says they should have built a tunnel

Tunnels don't work so well in Florida - the water table is about 3' below the surface in a lot of places.  Sometimes, even higher.

Jon

[Ferroto]

Jesus Dave put a trigger warning up before posting feminist rubbish.

[Beamin]

Jesus Dave put a trigger warning up before posting feminist rubbish.

Not bragging or anything but my $70 month internet is 50mbps up 51mbps down. Or are you being sarcastic?

The water table soon in FL will be +1 sea level. Buy flood insurance if you can. I was going to move to florida but the rigors of having to evacuate when there will be monthly hurricanes will be too much for me.

[GreyWoolfe]

Jesus Dave put a trigger warning up before posting feminist rubbish.

Not bragging or anything but my $70 month internet is 50mbps up 51mbps down. Or are you being sarcastic?

The water table soon in FL will be +1 sea level. Buy flood insurance if you can. I was going to move to florida but the rigors of having to evacuate when there will be monthly hurricanes will be too much for me.

Also not bragging or anything but my $66 a month internet is 100Mbs down, 11 up, typically at about 115Mb. AND, my company pays $60 of it.  I don't upload anything so who cares what the upload speed is.  Not bragging or anything.

I'm in Florida and the water table is 32 inches in my back yard, or garden if you prefer. 

[Cerebus]

Armchair physicist here says they should have built a tunnel

Tunnels don't work so well in Florida - the water table is about 3' below the surface in a lot of places.  Sometimes, even higher.

Jon

Also, they would fill up with alligators...

[EEVblog]

More:
https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-identity-politics-harming-sciences-15826.html

[Cerebus]

More:
https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-identity-politics-harming-sciences-15826.html

A piece written by someone from a right wing American think tank, the Manhattan Institute, in the journal of the same. These are the same people behind the now discredited "broken windows" policy of aggressive policing of low level crime. Now why do I think that they might not offer a balanced view?

[Fungus]

Jesus Dave put a trigger warning up before posting feminist rubbish.

Not bragging or anything but my $70 month internet is 50mbps up 51mbps down. Or are you being sarcastic?

The water table soon in FL will be +1 sea level. Buy flood insurance if you can. I was going to move to florida but the rigors of having to evacuate when there will be monthly hurricanes will be too much for me.

Also not bragging or anything but my $66 a month internet is 100Mbs down, 11 up, typically at about 115Mb. AND, my company pays $60 of it.  I don't upload anything so who cares what the upload speed is.  Not bragging or anything.

I'm in Florida and the water table is 32 inches in my back yard, or garden if you prefer.

I am bragging about my $30 a month, 300Mbs symmetrical Internet connection. Fiber all the way to my home router.

(and I live about 3m above sea level   )

[Nominal Animal]

Jesus Dave put a trigger warning up before posting feminist rubbish.

That would be a perfect username for someone. Jesus Dave. What would Jesus Dave do?

[JohnnyMalaria]

The US spelling leads to confusion and also aptly describes my reaction to this video:

rig·or
[ˈriɡər]

NOUN (medicine)

a sudden feeling of cold with shivering accompanied by a rise in temperature, often with copious sweating, especially at the onset or height of a fever.

short for rigor mortis.

[coppice]

I am bragging when I say my $30 a month Internet is 300Mbs symmetrical.

$30 is a lot for something so slow. $25 for a full 1Gbps symmetrical seems more reasonable. 

[Cerebus]

Jesus Dave put a trigger warning up before posting feminist rubbish.

That would be a perfect username for someone. Jesus Dave. What would Jesus Dave do?

Actually called Jesus David, pronounced Hey-zous Daa-vid.

A nice lad, of Spanish-German extraction. Likes long siestas, followed by an evening drinking beer and people watching in a Berlin Dive bar. Not fond of religious discussions as his own name is a Catholic-Lutheran punch-up waiting to happen. Currently getting his snack product, Paella-wurst, ready to take the market by storm and replace the Curry-wurst overnight. Became interested in electronics when he started designing a robotic Paella-wurst vending machine. Has the dubious distinction of having once accidentally deep fried an Arduino during trials of his machine.

[Nominal Animal]

Jesus Dave put a trigger warning up before posting feminist rubbish.

That would be a perfect username for someone. Jesus Dave. What would Jesus Dave do?

Actually called Jesus David, pronounced Hey-zous Daa-vid.

A nice lad, of Spanish-German extraction. Likes long siestas, followed by an evening drinking beer and people watching in a Berlin Dive bar. Not fond of religious discussions as his own name is a Catholic-Lutheran punch-up waiting to happen. Currently getting his snack product, Paella-wurst, ready to take the market by storm and replace the Curry-wurst overnight. Became interested in electronics when he started designing a robotic Paella-wurst vending machine. Has the dubious distinction of having once accidentally deep fried an Arduino during trials of his machine.

Also spends his time on technical forums posting trigger warnings, of course.

[Fungus]

Actually called Jesus David, pronounced Hey-zous Daa-vid.

Yep, Jesus is a very common name in large parts of the world. I know lots of people called Jesus.

Around here you say "Jesucristo" to refer to the Biblical figure.

(...and we're only scratching the surface of names in Catholic-Dictatorship Spain, around here you can easily be called "Joseph-Mary" if you're a bloke or even something like "Immaculate Conception" if you're a girl)

[Nominal Animal]

around here you can easily be called "Joseph-Mary" if you're a bloke or even something like "Immaculate Conception" if you're a girl)

Yeah, I myself am named after an annoying bird and a frigging tree rat. People are weird, and their names funny.

But when they start categorizing terms based on how some sheltered city kids might feel after hearing or thinking about them, I cannot take them seriously, prof or pope or whoever they are.

(I am, however, aware that ridiculous people can become very, very dangerous. Just look at that one failed Austrian painter, or that Georgian son of a cobbler. Their ideas should be exposed for the idiocy they are, before people start believing in their mind-bending drivel.)

[JohnnyMalaria]

Yeah, I myself am named after an annoying bird and a frigging tree rat. People are weird, and their names funny.

Have you just started a new competition to guess your name? Okay, I'll start.

Woodpigeon Squirrel

[Beamin]

Jesus Dave put a trigger warning up before posting feminist rubbish.

Not bragging or anything but my $70 month internet is 50mbps up 51mbps down. Or are you being sarcastic?

The water table soon in FL will be +1 sea level. Buy flood insurance if you can. I was going to move to florida but the rigors of having to evacuate when there will be monthly hurricanes will be too much for me.

Also not bragging or anything but my $66 a month internet is 100Mbs down, 11 up, typically at about 115Mb. AND, my company pays $60 of it.  I don't upload anything so who cares what the upload speed is.  Not bragging or anything.

I'm in Florida and the water table is 32 inches in my back yard, or garden if you prefer.

80$ a month for 55 up and 50 down.  . Our water table in my town is nice and low except for a mile from here they are having 1000 year floods every other year. That's normal right? My family started calling me from out of state seeing the end of my street getting washed away on national news. Less caring family sent a text. Why is tis happening? Because we wanted to drive a 6500lbs ford excursion to buy a 3oz pack of cigarettes and were too lazy to walk.

[Tepe]

Yeah, I myself am named after an annoying bird and a frigging tree rat. People are weird, and their names funny.

Have you just started a new competition to guess your name? Okay, I'll start.

Woodpigeon Squirrel

So the last name is probably Orava.
As for an annoying bird in Finland , hmm