Friday, June 22, 2012

EU top politicians: Science: It's a girl thing

A reader named Cristian has sent me a link to the following 1-minute video produced by the European Commission, a sort of a federal government of Europe (thanks!):

The original copy of the video was made "private" after a day.

They even created a special domain for this project, Science is all about the lipsticks and expensive shoes, we learn.

After a thousand of views, the video has received over 1,000 unhelpful votes against 35 helpful ones: someone had to work hard to fool the voting system. ;-)

First, I don't have to explain you that the video has nothing to do with the reality. Science is not about lipsticks. The video only mentions one narrow scientific discipline: cosmetics, the science how to extract a maximum amount of money from (typical) irrational women and equally irrational (metrosexual) men who are inclined to pay lots of money for stinky vitriols and other chemical compounds if they're combined with "brands" and other things properly. But much like most of the scientific research, the research in this discipline is mostly done by men, too. The likes of Maria Sharapova usually play a different role in this industry than the scientific one. ;-)

Science isn't a girl thing; it is mostly a boy thing. While the percentage of contributions that were made by women to the science was rather low, all circumstantial evidence suggests that it continues to decrease as science is getting increasingly more technical. So even though our modern society – unlike the Islamic societies – guarantees absolutely the same rights to men and women to pursue science (in fact, it gives women lots of advantages these days just because it's fashionable and this video is just another example of the advantages that female prospective and current scientists enjoy), the resulting composition inevitably deviates from 50:50. It hugely deviates, indeed.

This thing has been said many times but again: The statistical distributions of innate aptitude to do mathematics and physical sciences differs between men and women. The average equivalent IQ is about 3 points higher for men but this is actually not the important part of the differences. Most of the gender asymmetry in maths and sciences in the professional world and especially at the top level boils down to different widths of the distributions. The male IQ distribution is about 10% wider than the female one. It has a huge impact on the number of men vs women whose IQ or math skills are very high or very low. For example, a female Fields medal winner is predicted to emerge once per century. We're still waiting for the first one and it's inevitable for the first one to be accused of having been "helped" even if she will deserve it.

If you look at Google News, you will instantly find something amazing. People passionately protest against the video. But it's not for the reason you would expect – it's not because it's one kitschy minute of lies because science is mostly a male game. Some people protest because the most hardcore feminists in the world today think that while science is a girl thing, lipsticks are not!

Just look at the Huffington Post UK where Lucy Sherriff collects the voices of some these most unhinged feminists. There seems to be a battle within the feminist movement: is the lipstick a girl thing?

The answer is Yes, of course. So the EU social engineers – probably mostly men and some masculinized female bureaucrats – who want to link science to lipsticks at least gave the correct answer to one question: Are lipsticks a girl thing? They correctly answered Yes, unlike the angry feminists. They're right that one of the things that many girls dislike about science is the shortage of lipstick in science. ;-) However, both groups of feminists still gave a wrong answer to the question: Is science a girl thing?

Moreover, the ultimate movie about "science is a girl thing" has already been shot. It's the best Polish comedy ever, Sexmission.

The video above is the full film in the Czech dubbing. It seems that all copies with English subtitles have been removed.

Two males undergo a hibernation experiment that should last a few years. However, because of some political chaos, the society forgets about them and they're woken up in 2044 or so, in a society with no men left. Women who live under the ground (being terrified by – untrue – propaganda about some lethal radiation on the surface, so tightly analogous to the global warming fearmongering) eat pills to transform their sexual desires into career instincts. The totalitarian system in the society has rewritten the history, too.

For example, go to 0:55:00 or so in this 2-hour movie. The trial against the two guys starts; it ends with the naturalization (castration) verdict, if you care, and they manage to escape with the help of one woman, Lamia, who sees the light (and who has sex with one of the guys at the end). The chairwoman of the civilization is fake, of course. It is the only (impotent) man who has naturally survived including his penis because his mother was hiding him. He eventually joined the Women's League and because of his talents and good artificial tits, the ladies elected him the Ms Excellency at some point.

During the trial, we learn that the women are not only taught that the essence of the relationship between men and women was a constant torture of women by the men; Einstein was also a woman. Copernicus was a woman, too. I don't want to describe the movie again – I have done so several times on this blog, anyway.

But no EU bureaucrats can come anywhere close to this description of "science is a girl thing" that is both true, deep, and describing not just feminism but also many other pathological tendencies in the communist Polish society of the early 1980s as well as the present politically correct society of the West.

Although the EU bureaucrats are right that the lipstick and heels is what many girls don't find in science, they're preposterous if they believe that the laws of biology may be fooled when it comes to men's and women's interest in science. You can't change those things, at least not within years. And when it comes to girls who are ready to be attracted to science because they like the lipstick in a promotional EU video, I would say that not only they will be incapable to do anything in science. They should better be prevented from getting a driving license and similar things, too.

The video also shows how easy it is to waste taxpayers' money for ideologically loaded yet futile stupidities.

And that's the memo.


  1. Lumo, I would almost bet that this is a hoax. While some European bureaucrats can buy this, I do to think the author was quite serious and I smell Entropa ( I do not know what is David Černý doing right now, but I will start checking for sure.

  2. Dear Honza, I know Entropa rather well - we have it here in Pilsen's Techmania for half a million dollars. ;-) So I've seen it, of course.

    Your suggestion of a hoax sounds interesting, I didn't even think of it - and I think you underestimate the craziness of the EU and not only EU. This kind of stuff is pretty seriously popular in the politically correct societies. I think that in Czechia, people would air it as a hoax only. It's the kind of Tele Tele stuff, isn't it? ;-)

  3. ahahahahahahahahahaha i thought communists were supposed to be good at propaganda. check out this other cultural marxist psa

  4. Dear Lubos, "prevented from getting a driving license", hey steady there !... I see this video as an advertisement to promote Biology or Chemistry (like to become a laboratory assistant for ex.), but not to become a Theoretical Physicist, or any other physicist working for CERN for ex. I do agree that it is an outrageous way to use taxpayers' money, I guess the EU bureaucrats love to justify their wages by producing this kind of useless Comm'. Putting a black lady into this video is somewhat hypocritical too.

  5. Eugenically speakingJun 22, 2012, 8:49:00 PM

    Well, if one looks at the effects of this from a Eugenics perspective, it does look somewhat promising on the long term. Some women do indeed have a talent in sciences. Society could benefit from them being revealed, and sparking their interest in physics and mathematics

    While most fields medallists are not women, many of them had two parents with an education (and a gift) in the hard sciences. While this program will probably not increase the number of top scientists directly my much, it could do so indirectly.

  6. Dear Shannon, congrats to your avatar.

    I think that you're making it up that it's about chemistry and biology only. It's about natural science in general - and about applied science, too. For example, there is an integrated circuit at 0:27.

    But even if it were about chemistry and biology only, my comment still holds. Neither chemistry nor biology is about lipsticks and liking lipsticks doesn't make one likely to enjoy real research in chemistry and biology.

    Sorry for picking the excessively specific comment about the driving licenses but there is a point at which someone's obsession with similar superficial things - makeup - indicates that she or he isn't safe for slightly technological things including driving. This is not necessarily a negative statement: some women who are really attractive, including - partly - lipstick are surely proud that their focus is on how their look and not how Nature works. And men in their environment confirm that this is the right priority. ;-)

  7. Dear Peppermint, I actually had lots of classmates who were wearing high heels. One of them married our instructor and my undergraduate ex-adviser. Our other old instructor of electromagnetism - and the dean of the faculty of maths and physics - praised her legs during the exam. And so on and so on. I could continue with grad school and even professors etc. There's really nothing wrong with high heels.

    Only at Princeton in the 1950s, they somewhat wisely yet controversially realized that high heels and women in general were a distraction so they were banned from entering the math and physics departments. ;-)
    Your video on the colored privileges is a strong cup of coffee. ;-)

  8. I am probably guilty as charged. In my defense I have to state that I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to not to underestimate the craziness of EU.

  9. What does it have to do with eugenics? Eugenics is about interventions into the composition of people who may be born; that's why most of us consider it immoral as a policy. Once they're born, it's not eugenics.

    But even if we ignore that this has nothing to do with eugenics although you claimed it did, I just can't follow your logic. Why do you want to get an effect by focusing on girls and not, for example, blond boys? Or kids from villages who may also be underrepresented? Or kids of artists who may be excessively pushed to arts and not science? Or anyone else?

    You won't get any positive outcomes if you irrationally try to increase the percentage of one randomly selected subgroup of the people. Moreover, even if it were possible and such a group existed, no similar video can achieve any improvement because such videos only show that their creators are idiots. Everyone who is sufficiently interested in science knows that the video is stupid because the heels and lipsticks have nothing to do with science. The video clearly tries to attract people who are more interested in makeup and shoes but they have a very limited potential to do science - and interest in science, too.

  10. Dear Shannon, have you ever been in the chemistry/biology lab? Any basic safety rules will prohibit eating, applying makeup, wearing shorts/short skirts, sandals or open toe shoes... and insist on wearing lab coat, safety glasses...
    So if this video was to promote biology and chemistry, it would be very misleading at best.

  11. I want to see a responding video from Amy Farrah Fowler!

  12. Lumo, you ask: "[H]ow the positive impact of such a video may exactly materialize?]
    Here is the answer. This is about a job security. Bunch of non-scientist is producing materials for other non-scientist, claiming to steer composition of scientists in such a way that it will reflect the composition of general population. And as it cannot be done, they will have something to do forever. ;-) (Please note that none of the two first mentioned above groups actually cares about science and scientists.)
    So the positive impact is that the video makers have steady source of income.

  13. Honza, of course I know there is a strict dressing code in laboratories but aren't all advertisements a lie ? It is made to give "a dream" etc... like a political program.

    Lubos, OK there is an integrated circuit, but any women can work in a factory in information engineering and electricity. They just want to make it attractive to young women to work in these fields (even if it is in a repetitive task and not pure research). They could do the same type of video for women to work in building, farming etc... That'd be cool... although high heels in the mud.... mind you could be even sexier ha ha !

  14. Amy in her high heels is soooo sexy and funny :-D

  15. Dear Shannon, I think that one can't make scientific and technological jobs attractive for people who like makeup and high heels by shooting a dishonest video that links science and technology to lipsticks and high heels - because the actual science and technology simply doesn't have anything to do with high heels and lipsticks.

    What such a video may look more attractive isn't science but a brutally stupid and unusually unrealistic and untrue caricature of science. And it only makes the caricature attractive in the eyes of those who don't realize that the video is stupid. For those who realize it is stupid, and these people are arguably vastly more important for science and technology, the video is likely to have exactly the opposite effect.

  16. Eugenically SpeakingJun 22, 2012, 10:47:00 PM

    I propose focusing on girls simply because you typically need a male and a female for reproduction, as much as some feminist would like to alter this.

    As a general rule, you want people of roughly equal intellect reproducing with each other, to preserve the variance in intelligence. Any other process is suboptimal, as people with very unequal intelligence reproducing over several generations will eventually lead the the variance in intelligence being reduced, even if the mean may be preserved.

    Getting genetically gifted females to pursue careers in demanding subjects makes it more likely for them to marry other people in the same demanding field. Since males outnumber females in such fields, females are the bottleneck in this specific form of selection process.

    Then of course you have the nurturing process, where increasing the ammount of scientifically educated mothers will make it more likely for their eventually gifted children to pursue their gift. This is not really Eugenics, as the child is already born, but it is also a fairly important factor.

    The above is however. Eugenics certainly does not need to be drastic to give results, instead one can work by simply promoting developents that are indirectly correlated with a given goal.

  17. Adam Carolla has gotten into some trouble for saying that women aren't funny, so he would rather hire male writers.

  18. Advertisements can lie as long as they sell you something and there is no (easy) return policy. But it does not work for lifetime career. It can mislead you to get in, but soon you will run for your life. Did you ever noticed much higher attrition of girls form chemistry schools. In "my time" the prevalent reason seemed to be that they found out chemistry is much different from what they imagined it to be, possibly based on similar advertising as the one above. ;-)

  19. The video is marked "private" for me. I can't see it. :(

  20. That's funny, but we need a "sexy" video with three science girls. Amy and Leonard's Mom are obvious. Maybe Bernadette but she's kinda girlie, so we need someone else.

    Any thoughts?

  21. I got it! Lumo in drag! Now that would be funny!

  22. Haha. I gotta say, as a female, I've had this kind of crap rubbed in my face my whole life.

    There are exceptions of course, there are some brilliant women out there, but for the most part in my experience girls are not as good at science fields or mechanics as males, especially those involving lots of math, because they're simply uninterested in it. I am absolutely convinced that the scarcity of females in so many fields has nothing to do with intelligence/capacity to learn and everything to do with personal interests.

    I wonder how many miserable women are out there stuck in careers they hate because their high school counselor convinced them they had to get into a scientific field lest womankind be officially declared a failure or something.

    I do find it odd there's not more female 'climate scientists' though. That sort of manipulative, touchy-feely psuedo-science comes naturally.

  23. Dear Jason, right. I've replaced it by a functioning copy. Obviously, they can't return it to a taboo status in the modern world after tons of people saw it and created copies.

  24. Haha, wasn't it enough how Sheldon had to dress in order to meet Hawking?

    Amy's actor is kind of attractive in the real life but in my opinion, they managed to make her look unattractive in TBBT. Penny is hot in both worlds, of course, and cute as Penny. However, I have the impression that Kaley Cuoco is (even) much less sophisticated when it comes to things like science than Penny. It may sound cruel but much like Jim Parsons, she is acting as someone with a higher science-related IQ than her real life herself.

  25. AJ, they could use Leslie Winkle and bring in Linda Randall :-)

  26. Not a bad idea. And if I recommend Lisa Randall to change her name to Linda, she could star as Linda Randall, too. ;-)

  27. the video probably helps more getting more guys to science.

  28. reading the comments on the web, people take this too seriously. from my knowledge of people in science their comments do not come from their true opinion about the ad but simply from the fact that most males and females in science are anything but the models in the ad. their comments come from jealousy. it is also related to the reason why so many people doing physics in universities are not married, do not have children etc. it is mainly not because of them being "busy". this video is far from the negative comments it gets from scientists. it reminds me of people getting upset and sending complaints to the head of school when i would send emails to the department.

  29. in this video it says that most people upset over it are surprise...scientists
    why am i not surprised seeing an astronomer talking about it!

  30. You definitely should see this video response. It is great.

  31. There was a study - junk science if you ask me - by Mr. Flynn - the same one that coined the Flynn Effect, that said that women were smarter than men. In this study (I don't have a link - sorry) young prepubescent girls were shown to have more developed brains than boys, which we know. No IQ differences were measured, just brain development. Feminists and the like touted this as a new revolution for women.
    And yet, men still prevail.