I am highly skeptical of research from an organization whos existence depends on the problem they are attempting to solve remaining in existence.
Or Computer Scientist that do research. Those eggheads can't see the forest because of all the trees. 'Is iT cOMputaBLE?' sure, but if you don't start the computation and are just theorizing it will never be computable. 'QuaDratic TIMe ComPlexiTY oF TRansfomerS?' Just buy more RAM and CPUs. What's the problem?
we should also never trust oncologists, because oncologists only exist if cancer exists.
> we should also never trust oncologists, because oncologists only exist if cancer exists.
Cancer objectively does exist and we will conclude this even if we ignore oncologists.
If cancer were something extremely subjective, widely believed to not be a problem at all and the only people claiming it was a problem were oncologists - then maybe. But it's not the case.
This isn't true. Can you see cancer? How exactly do you know someone (or yourself) has cancer?
If we eliminate oncologists and other medical professionals who are able to identify and diagnose cancer, then cancer won't exist any more. People will simply die from unexplained illnesses.
https://www.cancer.org/treatment/understanding-your-diagnosi...
> How exactly do you know someone (or yourself) has cancer?
By using your eyes or fingers to detect lumps.
> If we eliminate oncologists ... cancer won't exist any more. People will simply die from unexplained illnesses.
This is absurdly, catastrophically wrong.
>This stuff was taught in high school when I was a kid
You were taught in high school how to distinguish, visually, cancerous tumors from benign tumors, and you can take over as an oncologist today because of this ability? I find that hard to believe.
There is weak evidence of tall poppy syndrome being a workplace problem or a workplace problem affecting predominantly women.
If someone gave women a survey that asked “Do you believe that workplace stress on women is causing increased cancer risk?”, and 90% reported yes, that would be horrible evidence to decide that cancer research funding should be diverted to this women’s empowerment org.
I see the different side though. There is a pretty big number of male-dominated industries. And I'm not surprised by the numbers the research found.
My recent conversation with a friend from Google:
- How many women are on your team?
- Not too much
- Oh, but what's the number?
- Zero, there aren't any
Are there no women on his team because of sexism? or because far fewer women choose to graduate with a CS degree? You are assuming sexism when the answer could simply be a lack of qualified candidates. What if women simply don't like CS at the same rate as men? Only ~22% of CS graduates are women. Or is that sexist to acknowledge that those numbers may drive team makeup at software companies?