Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
This article might offer an explanation.
http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/09/are-girls-too-normal-sex-differences-in.html?m=1
But yeah the president of harvard got fired for saying it was because of a lack of aptitude at the upper end, but basically what he said is supported by science.
Fuck political correctness
Bomber_BoBHaha serious? Bio is pretty hard because at the upper level all the kids who take classes want to go to some competitive grad program so literally everyone shoots for an A.Take a look at engineering... So many kids do that shit and get by with Just C's and low B's because they know they can land a job. Sorry to get you off your high horse but engineering really isn't that hard.
Haha Jesus Christ this is so off. I have to take a ton of upper level bio/chem despite bein engineering in order to graduate (biomed), and the engineering courseload is literally 100x harder than any bio or chemistry I've ever taken. The only reason I've ever gotten less than an A in any of them is because I had engineering classes that took 99.9% of my time and I didn't give a shit about the bio/chem classes. But seriously, bio/chem is easy as shit, sorry to burst your bubble
SpssAlso what the op article shows, feilimation, is not that the avg woman intelligence is higher than males. It shows that men are borderline retarded and borderline genius at a higher rate than women. If you disregard the people with below avg intelligence and look at people with iqs of 90 and up, the avg male will have a noticiably higher iq than the avg female. And when you look at genius range iqs, there are significantly more men than women in that range.Not so fond of data massaging anymore, are we, feilination?
Is this coling's alias?...
shocker611Haha Jesus Christ this is so off. I have to take a ton of upper level bio/chem despite bein engineering in order to graduate (biomed), and the engineering courseload is literally 100x harder than any bio or chemistry I've ever taken. The only reason I've ever gotten less than an A in any of them is because I had engineering classes that took 99.9% of my time and I didn't give a shit about the bio/chem classes. But seriously, bio/chem is easy as shit, sorry to burst your bubble
You never took high enough level classes in biology then... Also I don't even think bio classes are "hard", they are a joke with respect to grad level courses. I just think if you think engineering is hardest thing in the world and it pales in comparison to biology then you are just taking the wrong biology classes or you're a shitty engineer.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
DIX~So a class where everyone gets an A is hard but a class where everyone gets C's isn't hard? Nice logic. I bet getting a C+ average in senior year engineering takes the same effort as getting an A- average senior year bio.Engineering is definitely in the top 3 hardest undergraduate programs you can do, Bio is a joke.
Haha clearly reading comprehension isn't a necessity to be an engineer. What I was implying is that biology is a lot more competitive than engineering because only the top of the class can actually do something with their degree, unlike engineering where you can get by with mediocre grades and still get a solid job after you graduate. Difference is because it so competitive at the top and teachers grade on a bell, it makes it very difficult to get an A.
I never denied engineering isn't a hard major either, I just think you have no idea what you're talking about with respect to other majors.
Bomber_BoBYou never took high enough level classes in biology then... Also I don't even think bio classes are "hard", they are a joke with respect to grad level courses. I just think if you think engineering is hardest thing in the world and it pales in comparison to biology then you are just taking the wrong biology classes or you're a shitty engineer.Sorry to burst your bubble.
I have taken multiple graduate level biology courses. Human Evolutionary Genetics and Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience, both being considered the "hardest" from the people I have talked to in the bio department, and both were pretty freakin easy. In addition biochem 1/2 which everyone acts like is some weedout class were a joke.
shocker611I have taken multiple graduate level biology courses. Human Evolutionary Genetics and Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience, both being considered the "hardest" from the people I have talked to in the bio department, and both were pretty freakin easy. In addition biochem 1/2 which everyone acts like is some weedout class were a joke.
Idk what to say to you... I just looked at UC's biomed req's and they aren't required to take anything past 3000 for biology. So if you're telling me you took 6000 level classes, so 6000 genetics, 6000 cellular molecular neuroscience, and 6000 biochem, then more power to you.
But pretty damn sure you didn't and you took the 3000 level classes.
Bomber_BoBHaha serious? Bio is pretty hard because at the upper level all the kids who take classes want to go to some competitive grad program so literally everyone shoots for an A.Take a look at engineering... So many kids do that shit and get by with Just C's and low B's because they know they can land a job. Sorry to get you off your high horse but engineering really isn't that hard.
The reason that you get by with a Bs and Cs in engineering is that its a professional school. In Canada, anyway, its tightly regulated. As long as you pass, you're good enough to get your iron ring and be an engineer.
shocker611I have taken multiple graduate level biology courses. Human Evolutionary Genetics and Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience, both being considered the "hardest" from the people I have talked to in the bio department, and both were pretty freakin easy. In addition biochem 1/2 which everyone acts like is some weedout class were a joke.
Bomber_BoBIdk what to say to you... I just looked at UC's biomed req's and they aren't required to take anything past 3000 for biology. So if you're telling me you took 6000 level classes, so 6000 genetics, 6000 cellular molecular neuroscience, and 6000 biochem, then more power to you.But pretty damn sure you didn't and you took the 3000 level classes.
Boys, girls. At the higher level all programs are hard. Engineering might be hard for some Bio might be hard for others.
Engineers in general appear to be believe that they are smarter than other programs. But its not true, it does require a skill that is time consuming but it may not involve much critical thinking.
So lets all agree to disagree, we're all basically brilliant.
Download-My-AppsBoys, girls. At the higher level all programs are hard. Engineering might be hard for some Bio might be hard for others.Engineers in general appear to be believe that they are smarter than other programs. But its not true, it does require a skill that is time consuming but it may not involve much critical thinking.
So lets all agree to disagree, we're all basically brilliant.
Your point of engineering lacking "critical thinking" is stupid. That being said, I also dislike the engineering high horse, and I appreciate your attempt at arbitration.
Bomber_BoBIdk what to say to you... I just looked at UC's biomed req's and they aren't required to take anything past 3000 for biology. So if you're telling me you took 6000 level classes, so 6000 genetics, 6000 cellular molecular neuroscience, and 6000 biochem, then more power to you.But pretty damn sure you didn't and you took the 3000 level classes.
We have a requirement to take 10 credits worth of "upper division" classes in biomed (I'm at U of U not UC, don't know where you got that) and I only had 2 classes I wanted to take in the bioengineering upper level course load, so I had to go somewhere else to fulfill those graduate classes, and those two classes seemed interesting (which they were, just not hard). With that said though, I never knew biochem was ever a graduate level course, I thought it was always listed as a 3000 level course, I wasn't trying to claim that as a graduate level course, it's just usually the class that everyone in bio points to as their "look how hard our degree is" classes and they ended up being really easy.
blondie.Your point of engineering lacking "critical thinking" is stupid. That being said, I also dislike the engineering high horse, and I appreciate your attempt at arbitration.
I actually have no idea what engineering courses entail, I was just stating compared to more abstract courses engineering might involve less critical thinking. Obviously they require lots of thought and analysis, I wasn't meaning to shit on anyones degree.
Download-My-AppsI actually have no idea what engineering courses entail, I was just stating compared to more abstract courses engineering might involve less critical thinking. Obviously they require lots of thought and analysis, I wasn't meaning to shit on anyones degree.
If by critical you mean "lacking depth" than its true engineering does not involve critical thing while many other majors do
Bomber_BoBHaha clearly reading comprehension isn't a necessity to be an engineer. What I was implying is that biology is a lot more competitive than engineering because only the top of the class can actually do something with their degree, unlike engineering where you can get by with mediocre grades and still get a solid job after you graduate. Difference is because it so competitive at the top and teachers grade on a bell, it makes it very difficult to get an A.I never denied engineering isn't a hard major either, I just think you have no idea what you're talking about with respect to other majors.
No, you said bio that was hard. "Bio is pretty hard because at the upper level all the kids who take classes want to go to some competitive grad program so literally everyone shoots for an A."
I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore but I'll happily continue. You think bio is the only major that grades on a curve or something? Or that people wanting to get into competitive grad programs don't shoot for A's? And I'm not an engineer, I'm 14 and still in high school :>
DIX~No, you said bio that was hard. "Bio is pretty hard because at the upper level all the kids who take classes want to go to some competitive grad program so literally everyone shoots for an A."I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore but I'll happily continue. You think bio is the only major that grades on a curve or something? Or that people wanting to get into competitive grad programs don't shoot for A's? And I'm not an engineer, I'm 14 and still in high school :>
Imo whether bio or eng is harder depends on the person.
As an anecdote i took orgo 1 and 2 a few years ago.
Orgo 1 was taught terribly. The tests questions were grab bag and not conceptually difficult; they rewarded people who read the entire god damn textbook. We also wasted a ton of precept time learning the 2 dimensional method for dealing with stoichiometry so that the girls could deal with it. Most boys are easily able to rotate 3 dimensional objects in their head.
I had to work hard to get an a in this course.
Orgo 2 on the other hand was a piece of cake. The professor simply instructed us to memorize the reactions at the end of each chapter.
The reactions were apparently hard to some people, just like engineering is, but in orgo 2 i got all 150s out of 150s on the tests which were straightforward and absent if the grab bag trick questions that were on orgo 1 tests. But like i said some people found orgo 2 very hard; the class avg on the tests was around 40 percent.
Engineering afaik deals with difficult concepts that the teachers try to help the students understand as easily as possible; the concepts due the weeding out for them. Some people will therefore find engineering easier than bio.
Bio deals with less rigorous concepts but if it is taught the way my orgo 1 was, some people might find it easier than they wouldve found engineering.
In engineering your graded relative to your mates; if you find the concepts easily within grasp then you might have an easier time than you wouldve had in bio.
However, although an engineer would most likely be able to do bio, some bio majors would be flat out incapable of doing engineering.
Tbs bio does get relatively deep depending in the course. I was a bio major
As an engineering student, I really don't think it has anything to do with a difference in intelligence. I have come to the conclusion that people almost always choose to study what they like to do, for example I really like mathematical modelling and messing around on the computer.
I don't think that as many women are interested in doing those things and consequently there are less women in engineering. That simple. The difference comes down to lifestyle and interest.
There are actually lots of girls in my program, probably 60/40 guys to girls in my classes, but I guess thats because most of what we do is actually geological science. Don't let that turn you off engineering. It's important to meet people outside of work for a balanced lifestyle, so it probably won't be that big of a deal that there aren't as many chicks in class as long as you actually do other stuff (you should). Most of my engineering friends have longtime girlfriends so I would argue that being in engineering increases your chances of keeping girlfriends so you don't have to be constantly hitting on chicks in class.
SpssWe also wasted a ton of precept time learning the 2 dimensional method for dealing with stoichiometry so that the girls could deal with it. Most boys are easily able to rotate 3 dimensional objects in their head.
huh? Sorry, but even if you can find a study that statistically significantly can support sexual differences in the capacity for spatial reasoning, i very much doubt there is a difference large enough to make a functional difference. (if you have a peer reviews paper to support it i'd love to see it). so yeah, thats TOTAL bs that classes are catered to leveling the playing field between men and women over concepts that require different sorts of reasoning. never go full retard
DIX~No, you said bio that was hard. "Bio is pretty hard because at the upper level all the kids who take classes want to go to some competitive grad program so literally everyone shoots for an A."I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore but I'll happily continue. You think bio is the only major that grades on a curve or something? Or that people wanting to get into competitive grad programs don't shoot for A's? And I'm not an engineer, I'm 14 and still in high school :>
Are you dense bro? You said something along the lines "So a class where everyone gets an A is hard but a class where everyone gets C's isn't hard? Nice logic.". I am saying you are illiterate because I never said "everyone gets an A", I just said the majority of the class needs an A making the top more competitive than most other majors.
And no I am sure there are some engineers who want to go into graduate programs and they care a lot for their grade and strive to score as high as possible. But I can assure you with respect to some natural sciences this level of competition is not the same simply due to other natural sciences being a useless 4 year degree and you need to continue to get a higher education to receive a promising job.
Bomber_BoBAre you dense bro? You said something along the lines "So a class where everyone gets an A is hard but a class where everyone gets C's isn't hard? Nice logic.". I am saying you are illiterate because I never said "everyone gets an A", I just said the majority of the class needs an A making the top more competitive than most other majors.And no I am sure there are some engineers who want to go into graduate programs and they care a lot for their grade and strive to score as high as possible. But I can assure you with respect to some natural sciences this level of competition is not the same simply due to other natural sciences being a useless 4 year degree and you need to continue to get a higher education to receive a promising job.
I've come to the conclusion that you're just a butthurt bio major that can't get a job.
Keep in mind we're arguing because you disagreed with me saying that bio isn't a hard degree compared to engineering..
cheaaaaaahuh? Sorry, but even if you can find a study that statistically significantly can support sexual differences in the capacity for spatial reasoning, i very much doubt there is a difference large enough to make a functional difference. (if you have a peer reviews paper to support it i'd love to see it). so yeah, thats TOTAL bs that classes are catered to leveling the playing field between men and women over concepts that require different sorts of reasoning. never go full retard
You must think your shit doesnt stink because it comes out of the same place you talk out of.
Dude youre the bitch who complained to the mods about how badly i destroyed you in the discussion of drug addiction, asking them to delete my posts, arent you?
I learned about sex differences in spatial ability my junior year at princeton in one of my req psych classes. our precept was half boys, and we were given a mental rotation identity task. All the boys got it within one minute, while none of the girls got it even by the end of the class. Some of the girls were visibly distraught; just like you they had some laymens viewpoint that boys and girls were equal in every way.
In orgo the preceptor even explained that the stoichiometry 2d conversion was mainly meant for the girls because they, in her experience, had a harder time dealing with 3d rotation.
straight from wiki;
"metastudies show a male advantage in mental rotation and assessing horizontality and verticality,[48][107]"
and heres your fucking peer reviewed studies
Neisser, Ulric; Boodoo, Gwyneth; Bouchard, Thomas J., Jr.; Boykin, A. Wade; Brody, Nathan; Ceci, Stephen J.; Halpern, Diane F.; Loehlin, John C.; Perloff, Robert (1996). "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns". American Psychologist 51 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77.
Chrisler, Joan C; Donald R. McCreary. Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology. Springer, 2010. ISBN 9781441914644.
you really like saying "peer reviewed" dont you?
does it boost your ego? Do you like saying things like that to appear more authoritative and intellectual?
you really need to get rid of your fucking ridiculously conceited attitude.
Instead of asking me for "peer reviewed" sources, just ask for sources,
or better yet, remember all the times in the past that ive embarrassed the fuck out of you, showing that your scholarly attitude doesnt prevent you from being completely fucking wrong in your fat-headed pompous assertions, and just exercise the possibility that i just might, just might, not be full of shit, and look up the studies yourself.
That will save you the embarrassment that has happened countless times before and again here, and it will be harder for people to pin you down as the inferior person you are.
Go cry to the mods again about how i was mean to you, you child
The worst class average for an exam I've ever personally taken was a 45 which was in organic chem. I've never seen a class average for an exam lower than 50 in any of my biology classes. Meanwhile, friends of mine have told me that in their engineering classes, they've seen averages in the 30's.
Edward.The worst class average for an exam I've ever personally taken was a 45 which was in organic chem. I've never seen a class average for an exam lower than 50 in any of my biology classes. Meanwhile, friends of mine have told me that in their engineering classes, they've seen averages in the 30's.
I had a structures exam that was one problem. The problem took the whole 3 hours to solve. The class average for the test was a 33. It happens, but it's usually the teachers fault for such low test averages.
AT-ATI had a structures exam that was one problem. The problem took the whole 3 hours to solve. The class average for the test was a 33. It happens, but it's usually the teachers fault for such low test averages.
In my experience teachers who like to fail their whole class do so because they found the material bery hard themselves when the were in school. The smartest teachers i had always tried to make sure everybody completely understood the material that was put on the tests
Cheaa im sorry i kinda felt like going on a rampage. You didnt really warrant that.
Im pissed about omnidata who posts insulting shit then disappears because hes afraid to actually confront me.
All im saying is;
1 i dont bullshit, ever. I make a point of making sure everything i say is verifiably true.
2 you should know this by now
3 instead of asking me to provide sources, verify the information yourself, because like i said, i dont post lies or mistruths, ever.
Basically that. Im sorry about my above post. For some reason your post really irritated me.
SpssYou must think your shit doesnt stink because it comes out of the same place you talk out of.Dude youre the bitch who complained to the mods about how badly i destroyed you in the discussion of drug addiction, asking them to delete my posts, arent you?
I learned about sex differences in spatial ability my junior year at princeton in one of my req psych classes. our precept was half boys, and we were given a mental rotation identity task. All the boys got it within one minute, while none of the girls got it even by the end of the class. Some of the girls were visibly distraught; just like you they had some laymens viewpoint that boys and girls were equal in every way.
In orgo the preceptor even explained that the stoichiometry 2d conversion was mainly meant for the girls because they, in her experience, had a harder time dealing with 3d rotation.
straight from wiki;
"metastudies show a male advantage in mental rotation and assessing horizontality and verticality,[48][107]"
and heres your fucking peer reviewed studies
Neisser, Ulric; Boodoo, Gwyneth; Bouchard, Thomas J., Jr.; Boykin, A. Wade; Brody, Nathan; Ceci, Stephen J.; Halpern, Diane F.; Loehlin, John C.; Perloff, Robert (1996). "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns". American Psychologist 51 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77.
Chrisler, Joan C; Donald R. McCreary. Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology. Springer, 2010. ISBN 9781441914644.
you really like saying "peer reviewed" dont you?
does it boost your ego? Do you like saying things like that to appear more authoritative and intellectual?
you really need to get rid of your fucking ridiculously conceited attitude.
Instead of asking me for "peer reviewed" sources, just ask for sources,
or better yet, remember all the times in the past that ive embarrassed the fuck out of you, showing that your scholarly attitude doesnt prevent you from being completely fucking wrong in your fat-headed pompous assertions, and just exercise the possibility that i just might, just might, not be full of shit, and look up the studies yourself.
That will save you the embarrassment that has happened countless times before and again here, and it will be harder for people to pin you down as the inferior person you are.
Go cry to the mods again about how i was mean to you, you child
Jesus it still cracks me up when you call other people conceited, when you make sure to post "IN MY PRINCETON CLASS" in every thread I see on here. Good lord you are a douche.
SpssEverybody makes gramatical mistakes, like you just did. I dont give adequate fucks to correct them. Also ive been on this site for a while, but only recently started dropping my uni sat and iq score on people when i saw others do it. Also ns is war, so why not bring everything to the table?
So by your logic if I saw someone cheat on a test, I should cheat on it as well because then it will be fair?
Jesus. For someone with a supposedly high IQ and SAT scores you have pretty poor logic.
And to be frank the SAT are honestly a crock of horse shit anyway. No employer will care about your SAT score. And before you claim I did not do well on them, I ended up with a 32 on my ACT and a 2150 on the SAT.
yuckyeah, i am quite aware of what engineering is. in my experience it has been (mostly) pure math and science. the real applications of that math and science dont become super apparent until third year really. the first two years of engineering is core math/calc and specific science courses depending on your major. its not much different than pure science at that point. do you think that highschool people picking their uni degree really would know the difference anyways? what difference would it make to a highschool girl? its not like they would say "oh my female brain definitely cant handle the things that make engineering different than regular science, so i will do regular science" if they dont know what those differences actually are.
no, it is probably more along lines of 'engineer is about building stuff, i dont like building stuff, so i will do regular sciences'. Yes, i know there is more to engineering than building stuff, but that is how the majority of society generalizes it and the majority of people think it is about.
matocoThe people on here saying that women don't have the brain power or lack the "wiring" to succeed in engineering are so full of shit it is not even funny. Many of the female engineering students I have worked with are just as smart, if not smarter, than male students.
Cool_name is a human
cool_name drives a miata
All humans drive a miata
see the flaw in that reasoning? just because some people in class can achieve things doesn't mean everyone in a class can achieve the same thing. The article never said women couldn't be engineers, just that fewer women could be engineers than guys could.
Download-My-AppsI don't think this has anything to do with biological gender differences but at a young age we are encouraged to do certain behaviours based on gender. Toys like lego are often marketed to boys (indirectly giving skills that might lead to engineering) where as thing girls are given toy kitchen sets that might encourage a more social environment.
Ever wonder why? Could it be possible that companies market their product to the group which they are most likely to sell in?
On average it seems guys like building things and putting stuff together more than girls. To the average person a degree in engineering means you are going to build stuff, so obliviously the group that is drawn to building stuff is going to be more inclined to enter that field.
feihlinationdamn dude youre pretty intolerant. after pseudo-scientific (or politically justified) racism, you now go to the same sexism. i can show you 10 studies that say men are dumber, there are more intelligent women, or whatnot.
The article wasn't trying to say that all men are smarter. It was just saying that men deviate more than women do in there iq scores, meaning that yes there will be more guys with super high iqs than girls, but also that there will be more guys who are complete idiots than there are girls
feihlinationand op, you say you need an IQ of over 110 to study engineering?"This shows that girls predominate over boys at the centre of the intelligence range" direct quote from the article. Please reply with 'yes, but this was only a small part of the article' because then I can explain to that 'yes that is true, because the article was about the extremes, more specifically the high extreme, rather than the middle'.and just to reiterate, you acknowledge that the vast majority of people is made up of people with IQs of 90-110, where women are more intelligent according to your article? let me correct my statement: roughly 60%, not 90% of people fall into that group.
dumb people are more likely men, so up until an IQ of roughly 115, or 85% of the population, women are more intelligent. this is kind of neglected in the article to make a provocative, non-scientific point.
good "positivist" science is value-free. but you only post biased and bad science on here, produced by scientific outlaws who just say something to promote their racism/sexism under the label of "scientific freedom".
horseshit. absolute horseshit.
yuckyeah, i am quite aware of what engineering is. in my experience it has been (mostly) pure math and science. the real applications of that math and science dont become super apparent until third year really. the first two years of engineering is core math/calc and specific science courses depending on your major. its not much different than pure science at that point. do you think that highschool people picking their uni degree really would know the difference anyways? what difference would it make to a highschool girl? its not like they would say "oh my female brain definitely cant handle the things that make engineering different than regular science, so i will do regular science" if they dont know what those differences actually are.
no, it is probably more along lines of 'engineer is about building stuff, i dont like building stuff, so i will do regular sciences'. Yes, i know there is more to engineering than building stuff, but that is how the majority of society generalizes it and the majority of people think it is about.
matocoThe people on here saying that women don't have the brain power or lack the "wiring" to succeed in engineering are so full of shit it is not even funny. Many of the female engineering students I have worked with are just as smart, if not smarter, than male students.
Cool_name is a human
cool_name drives a miata
All humans drive a miata
see the flaw in that reasoning? just because some people in class can achieve things doesn't mean everyone in a class can achieve the same thing. The article never said women couldn't be engineers, just that fewer women could be engineers than guys could.
Download-My-AppsI don't think this has anything to do with biological gender differences but at a young age we are encouraged to do certain behaviours based on gender. Toys like lego are often marketed to boys (indirectly giving skills that might lead to engineering) where as thing girls are given toy kitchen sets that might encourage a more social environment.
Ever wonder why? Could it be possible that companies market their product to the group which they are most likely to sell in?
On average it seems guys like building things and putting stuff together more than girls. To the average person a degree in engineering means you are going to build stuff, so obliviously the group that is drawn to building stuff is going to be more inclined to enter that field.
feihlinationdamn dude youre pretty intolerant. after pseudo-scientific (or politically justified) racism, you now go to the same sexism. i can show you 10 studies that say men are dumber, there are more intelligent women, or whatnot.
The article wasn't trying to say that all men are smarter. It was just saying that men deviate more than women do in there iq scores, meaning that yes there will be more guys with super high iqs than girls, but also that there will be more guys who are complete idiots than there are girls
feihlinationand op, you say you need an IQ of over 110 to study engineering?"This shows that girls predominate over boys at the centre of the intelligence range" direct quote from the article. Please reply with 'yes, but this was only a small part of the article' because then I can explain to that 'yes that is true, because the article was about the extremes, more specifically the high extreme, rather than the middle'.and just to reiterate, you acknowledge that the vast majority of people is made up of people with IQs of 90-110, where women are more intelligent according to your article? let me correct my statement: roughly 60%, not 90% of people fall into that group.
dumb people are more likely men, so up until an IQ of roughly 115, or 85% of the population, women are more intelligent. this is kind of neglected in the article to make a provocative, non-scientific point.
good "positivist" science is value-free. but you only post biased and bad science on here, produced by scientific outlaws who just say something to promote their racism/sexism under the label of "scientific freedom".
horseshit. absolute horseshit.