It has been a fun couple of days. Tuesday was consumed with a dental visitation and chauffeuring FD SCP to and from some medical testing. And yesterday was consumed with another dental visit. But absent a failure of component I can now rest until February. And perhaps even get some real research done. If I survive all the social and familial nonsense in the next couple of weeks.
Speaking of nonsense, I ran across an article [Link] the other day bemoaning the lesser representation in STEM by “women and minorities”. Numerous reasons for this were given but they all seemed to miss some of the core of the situation. Briefly put, the view is that too many STEMS are males of Northern European or Asian descent, and not enough women and males of Southern European and African (recent) descent. The latter qualification motivated by the way our African origin is always ignored.
The prescription for this is to assure that everyone has mandatory schooling from birth, a stereotypically liberal/Democrud/mush head attitude of “I talk but someone else has to do.” that characterizes so much of our society today. And is the root of the discrepancy.
What is being ignored is individuality. Becoming STEM is not, per se, about organizations; funding and managing STEM is, to a fair degree, about organization.Becoming STEM is, to a goodly degree and critically, a matter of individualism. And it is a form of individualism that is more suited to introversion and social isolation. Which is more common among males of Northern European and Asian descent than among women and males of African (recent) and Southern European descent.
So if society really wants to have more female/hispanic/african (recent) STEMs, then they need to foster more female/hispanic/african (recent) introvert, social isolationists.
And quit trying to destroy STEM to have a pretty landscape.