>Men compartmentalize everything into psychological boxes>Women are thought spaghettiIf we educate the smartest Women, we can harvest their eggs and have their babies in surrogatesStudies show that pregnancy reduces brain mass and dulls Women. So, we educate the smartest generation of Women that's ever existed, treat them like gold, make sure the freshman don't abuse them in the early years of college. Then, they get to have a bright career, safe emotions, children, and Humanity gets the future it needs. >Please consider this
>>17000975they need all all nonwhite female/trans crew and plant a rainbow flag on the moon
>>17001132this but unironically
Why do we want women and minorities to be involved in science? Because they bring perspectives the majority doesn't have. Assuming that a single race, sex or gender has all the best answers is absurd. Even if there are no problems a woman or minority will approach a situation with different ideas. Why is that a bad thing? Why are you people trying to fight against diversity? Diversity simply makes sense. Are you stupid?
>>17001242>why is that a bad thingThe angry man in the computer told them so
>>17001354What do you believe being disingenuous gains you?
>>17001451Elaborate
>>17001242Diversity probably reduces innovation.https://archive.fo/yzYXw
>>17001589This genuinely retarded.
>>17000975>have their babies in surrogatesWhich will give -5IQ, negating the effects
>>17001595>This genuinely retarded.What?"Fair enough, so I just multiplied the patents per 1k whites by the white population. For the UK, that meant multiplying 0.275 by 0.848 (the percent of the UK that is white), and so if non-whites in the UK filed proportionately as many patents as whites in the UK (which is probably pretty close to true based on the IQ data), we would expect the UK whites to be filing 0.233 patents per 1k of the white population.""Richard et. al. in 2007 took a measure of productivity of various firms over a period of 6 years, and contrasted their performance to their racial diversity. The study was done in the United States, and so isn’t likely to be muddled by the faux “ethnic diversity” in Europe where a Dane and a Swede working together is considered diverse. Richard found a strong negative relationship between firm diversity and productivity:""Parrotta et. al. found a similar, though less pronounced, negative relation between firm diversity and productivity:""Based on their number of academic competition winners and SAT scores, whites should be 72% of the student body at elite universities. Based on their population of 18-year olds, they should be 55% (just based on simple numbers).In practice, whites are about 44.35% of the students admitted to these universities. Similarly, Asians, who should be 24.06% of the students at the top 20 Universities, are only 18.09%.Moreover, for any given SAT score, whites actually do slightly better – so it’s not like blacks and hispanics catch up and overcome whatever environmental disadvantage you imagine them to have had.""And so on net, blacks and hispanics cost the US $682.81 billion if you assign all military spending to whites, or $801.66 billion if you evenly distribute military spending. This is a direct hammer blow to the US economy that blacks and hispanics deliver every year."
>>17001654>basing your worldview on unsourced schizo posts by knuckle dragging retards>White populations are inferred from looking at each country’s demographics page in wikipedia.lmao.I'm sorry, but if you don't understand why this is retarded, then you are probably beyond redemption and should be purged from the gene pool. Did you graduate high school?
>>17001695>unsourcedLiterally everything was sourced. Read the article that has already been linked here: >>17001589>schizo posts Obvious adhom by someone who obviously doesn't have a single argument.>White populations are inferred from looking at each country’s demographics page in wikipedia.Are you suggesting that the sources that Wikipedia uses are wrong in some way? How are they wrong? Be specific.Are you saying that diversity increases innovation? Where did you get that idea? Can you show how it increases innovation?
>>17001749>Are you suggesting that the sources that Wikipedia uses are wrong in some way? How are they wrong? Be specific.We do not know what sources wikipedia used, because they just cited "wikipedia", not even a specific page, let alone a specific version of a page, i.e. it is unsourced. This is so embarrassing.>Are you saying that diversity increases innovation? Where did you get that idea? Can you show how it increases innovation?You made the claim you fucking retard.
>>17001762>We do not know what sources wikipedia usedAre you suggesting that he lied about data that can be seen on Wikipedia by just searching for it?For example, the article claims that the White population of the UK was 54.293 million. If you look at the number on Wikipedia (21st of December, 2016) for the White population in 2011 (patent data is for 2013, so this is the closest date, and demographics don't usually change much in 2 years unless there's been a major war), that's 87.1% of 63,181,775, which is 55,031,326.025 (about the same).https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&oldid=756038685If you have such an issue with that data, you could ignore all of it if you wanted and still come to the same conclusion since other sources were cited.>You made the claim you fucking retard.I was asking whether you believe that diversity increases innovation. If you don't, then that's good.
This is just a fun fact I recently learned.According to the OKCupid data that the CEO published. Men messaged Asian Women the most. And women messaged White Men the most. While men messaged Black Women the least. And women messaged Indian Men the least. But it gets even crazier, Indian women actually disliked indian men the most out of all women. Indian women were the most common to date outside their own race, while black women were the most common to date inside their own race, preferring only black men. And the funniest statistic of all is that personality score and looks score had a 1:1 ratio meaning that if somebody was hot they were viewed as having a good personality and if someone was ugly they are viewed as having a bad personality. This could imply two things. Depending how you look at it. You could say hot people are just better people, or you could say that our brains subconsciously like to assume ugly people are bad people without getting to know them as a way of coping with the fact that we are biased for looks. Even funnier than that, men rated women an average attractiveness of 5/10 while women rated men an average attractiveness of 2/10 which means, most men perceive ugly women as ugly, normal women as normal, and hot women as hot, while women perceive ugly men as ugly, normal men as ugly, and hot men as normal. Lol.
>>17000975not just womenblack, body positive, from impoverished backgrounds womenput them in the positions of highest importance in the unitedstatesian corporation/government institutions and let it run wild
There is literally nothing wrong with women and/or minority astronauts. You just can't stand that they don't look like you.
>>17002426so true sister but lets do this for evropa, rvssia, china and africa in addition to merica as well
>>17002430Don't browns literally cry about characters "not looking like them" and demand raceswaps of good characters?
>>17002430this, put minorities in the centre of command too, not just in the rocket
