Sexism and gender inequality

When did Psychology decided that politics trumps Reality?

We saw a study on this very site showing both women and men preferred male bosses. A big clue that perhaps they are!

individuals sexism leads to gender inequality in the society as a wholenot surprising, but it is the largest study to find this relationship

It's example of emergent effect. When all people in the crowd will do just a tiny step in the same direction against the wall, some people near the wall will get crushed. The same applies to misunderstanding of aether model, cold fusion and another findings, the judgment of which just requires the unbiased stance.

@Callippo - http://xkcd.com/808/

You cannot know, whether some findings is working, until it isn't even attempted to replicate. The simple "is it working?" criterion may be missleading, when we lack the peer-reviewed attempts for phenomena replication.

The same economical criterions, which motivate the companies into seeking of new solutions will force these companies, which invested into some technology, in ignorance of alternative solutions. In economy this reluctant behavior is what the "protection of investments" is called. After all, we all could see soon, whether the cold fusion is working or not, despite it's being ignored with "big science".

arguing that these things work means arguing that modern capitalism isn't that ruthlessly profit-focused

XKCD is formal math loving individual, which tends to schematic thinking and solutions. The hyperdimensional duality based, internally paradoxial aether model is nothing, what these people could adopt easily.

The problem of capitalism is, it's driven with people of limited timespan and these people don't care about profit, until it exceeds the horizon of their own life. Such people will not care about the profit of the human civilization as a whole from any long term perspective.

After all, what the owner of oil fields could get from implementation of cold fusion by now? The price of his property would just fall dramatically. What the current government could get from implementation of cold fusion by now? The access of individuals to unlimited source of energy would just undermine all mechanisms, in which the contemporary governments maintain their power.

individuals sexism leads to gender inequality in the society as a wholenot surprising, but it is the largest study to find this relationship

It's example of emergent effect. When all people in the crowd will do just a tiny step in the same direction against the wall, some people near the wall will get crushed. The same applies to misunderstanding of aether model, cold fusion and another findings, the judgment of which just requires the unbiased stance.

Callipo, it brought a smile to my face to see you bringing cold fusion into a discussion about gender inequality.

Callipo, it brought a smile to my face to see you bringing cold fusion into a discussion about gender inequality.

Unfortunately, the way in which physicists are denying the cold fusion has much to do with the way, in which people are introducing sexism, racism, antisemitism or whatever else xenophobia into society. These stances are related to selfinforcing emergent mechanism, which is propagating in avalanche way through the whole society in similar way, like the photon wave in lasing environment.

We saw a study on this very site showing both women and men preferred male bosses. A big clue that perhaps they are!

No, it's not a big clue. There are so many holes in your proposed statement, I'm having a difficult time deciding which one to start with...

I think I don't even want to go into it, and I imagine I'd use too much of my own time on explaining errors in logic to you.

-For instance: Define "better". (that's just a start. you made a large leap in logic there)

We saw a study on this very site showing both women and men preferred male bosses. A big clue that perhaps they are!

No, it's not a big clue. There are so many holes in your proposed statement, I'm having a difficult time deciding which one to start with...

I think I don't even want to go into it, and I imagine I'd use too much of my own time on explaining errors in logic to you.

-For instance: Define "better". (that's just a start. you made a large leap in logic there)

I reread his comments carefully. The word "better" is not included in them. Plus, the reference was actually to a study that reported its results here.

I know the word "better" wasn't included in his post. I'm aware.
I made an implication.

Here's what he said:
"We saw a study on this very site showing both women and men preferred male bosses. A big clue that perhaps they are!"

Perhaps they are what?
He could either mean perhaps they are preferred.
Or he might mean something else.

If he mean't, "We saw a study on this very site showing both women and men preferred male bosses. A big clue that perhaps male bosses are preferred by women and men!" -then what does that have to do with anything in this particular article?

I imagine he meant, "We saw a study on this very site showing both women and men preferred male bosses. A big clue that perhaps male executives and political leaders are better than female!"

Like I said, if he meant the first one -then what relevance did any of his comment have to the article on this page?