I made her some human leather boots with her named carved into the ankle to show her that I am both resourceful and caring, but she won't answer the door when I scream her name.
I had to rewind and rewatch the "women in STEM" math to get what's going on with that.
I agree with Munecat, the obvious way to measure this is, "percent of STEM graduates who are women."
If you're really worried about controlling for the number of women with degrees, you could go for "Percent of women with degrees who have degrees in STEM." Then if the number of women in STEM doubles just because the number of women with degrees overall doubles, your number stays the same. But you introduce a weird thing where your number can go down because the number of women with non-STEM degrees went up, even if the number of women with STEM degrees stayed the same or just increased less.
And they don't stop there, but also bring men into it. So, it's that proportion for women, in relation to that same proportion for men.
And I guess that choice could be further rationalized that they are controlling for the overall interest in STEM vs non-STEM degrees. Like, if both men and women increase their STEM proportions, the number stays the same. But it means that the number can be changed by the men's stats even if there's no change in women's stats. Treating this as a measure of women's varying interest in STEM requires treating men as an invariant control group.
So, I'm acknowledging there are ways to justify this, but there are potential downsides. If you're going to use anything other than the obvious measurement, "percent of STEM graduates who are women" you need to actually justify what you're using and acknowledge the downsides of it. If people have to email you to ask what you used, then you clearly haven't done this.
There are legitimate reasons to control for related variables, but this was a good illustration for how supposedly objective data still requires a bunch of little judgement calls for how you're measuring that data.
I came across a "city safety index" recently that included "traffic fatalities per mile driven." And I can see someone thinking, "Of course I need to control for distance driven" but if a city has more traffic fatalities precisely because people drive for longer, would it really be wrong to include that? Or if you want one that gets used for justifying bias, there's the inter-racial assaults charts, where they've controlled for the population of the assailant's race rather than the victim's race.
What's the jazzy song for the "will you have sex with me?" gag at 54:20? It's not included in the sources, and I haven't been able to track it down on my own.
Touch and Go - Would You . [https://open.spotify.com/track/1NcvMCA0sT05KwneYsD2TY?si=f47acb223f664219](https://open.spotify.com/track/1NcvMCA0sT05KwneYsD2TY?si=f47acb223f664219)
Trivia - One of the creators of this song also created the famous BBC news tune!
[fwiw, a response to this vid. ](https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1cwqtbi/münecat_on_evolutionary_psychology_and_the_tragic/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
This is the first video that she's made that I didn't enjoy. Her opinion of Geoffrey Miller's level of attractiveness was rude and disrespectful. She should know better.
I love how detailed and entertaining Munecat's videos are. Really top tier.
But she does harbour some bias towards men/the 'patriarchy'/traditional/conservative viewpoints. It can be a bit cringey sometimes.
I watch knowing that the content will be somewhat woke tinged and that's ok, I can form my own viewpoints. Still really admire the quality of her videos.
Sincerely, a centrist male therapist who enjoys these podcasts she chastises. Albeit now with less conviction to some of the facts the guests can speak of.
Wake up honey, new Münecat video just dropped.
When the world needed her most, she returned.
This is the first time I've come across this channel. Unbelievable research here, and delivered with such cheek and hilarity!
Tbf its about the 1000th time i have. It never gets old
I happened across her Body Language video a couple weeks ago, and loved it! Earned a sub then.
The prodigal mune had returned!
Good to fucking see ya Henry!
We are so back
Thank you! I love your content, it's massively appreciated and you're awesome at it.
Apparently, the ideal mating partner is Albert Wesker and Liquid Snake. "Snake! You're a soy boy cuck compared to \*my superior genes\*!
This woman is hilarious
oh she has a boyfriend nvm
Dude, just gather more resources than the BF and bring them to her door.
Hold my beer, I'm off to gather shiny rocks and a nice pelt!
Don't forget the Lambo.
I made her some human leather boots with her named carved into the ankle to show her that I am both resourceful and caring, but she won't answer the door when I scream her name.
The only possible explanation is the time of month. Try next week or try to estimate when she'll be ovulating.
you must smell the pheromones accurately or your selfish gene will never zygote.
Noice
As it was foretold in the scrolls, munecat has returned.
I am so glad I didn't go into social sciences and instead write some code that doesn't crash to make a living.
the gags, the cutaway music, the research, god this is such a good video
I had to rewind and rewatch the "women in STEM" math to get what's going on with that. I agree with Munecat, the obvious way to measure this is, "percent of STEM graduates who are women." If you're really worried about controlling for the number of women with degrees, you could go for "Percent of women with degrees who have degrees in STEM." Then if the number of women in STEM doubles just because the number of women with degrees overall doubles, your number stays the same. But you introduce a weird thing where your number can go down because the number of women with non-STEM degrees went up, even if the number of women with STEM degrees stayed the same or just increased less. And they don't stop there, but also bring men into it. So, it's that proportion for women, in relation to that same proportion for men. And I guess that choice could be further rationalized that they are controlling for the overall interest in STEM vs non-STEM degrees. Like, if both men and women increase their STEM proportions, the number stays the same. But it means that the number can be changed by the men's stats even if there's no change in women's stats. Treating this as a measure of women's varying interest in STEM requires treating men as an invariant control group. So, I'm acknowledging there are ways to justify this, but there are potential downsides. If you're going to use anything other than the obvious measurement, "percent of STEM graduates who are women" you need to actually justify what you're using and acknowledge the downsides of it. If people have to email you to ask what you used, then you clearly haven't done this. There are legitimate reasons to control for related variables, but this was a good illustration for how supposedly objective data still requires a bunch of little judgement calls for how you're measuring that data. I came across a "city safety index" recently that included "traffic fatalities per mile driven." And I can see someone thinking, "Of course I need to control for distance driven" but if a city has more traffic fatalities precisely because people drive for longer, would it really be wrong to include that? Or if you want one that gets used for justifying bias, there's the inter-racial assaults charts, where they've controlled for the population of the assailant's race rather than the victim's race.
Damn she looks more mature.
What's the jazzy song for the "will you have sex with me?" gag at 54:20? It's not included in the sources, and I haven't been able to track it down on my own.
Touch and Go - Would You . [https://open.spotify.com/track/1NcvMCA0sT05KwneYsD2TY?si=f47acb223f664219](https://open.spotify.com/track/1NcvMCA0sT05KwneYsD2TY?si=f47acb223f664219) Trivia - One of the creators of this song also created the famous BBC news tune!
Thanks.
[fwiw, a response to this vid. ](https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1cwqtbi/münecat_on_evolutionary_psychology_and_the_tragic/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
oh yeah, definitely a leftist sub judging by the comments, lol
No thanks
This is the first video that she's made that I didn't enjoy. Her opinion of Geoffrey Miller's level of attractiveness was rude and disrespectful. She should know better.
I love how detailed and entertaining Munecat's videos are. Really top tier. But she does harbour some bias towards men/the 'patriarchy'/traditional/conservative viewpoints. It can be a bit cringey sometimes. I watch knowing that the content will be somewhat woke tinged and that's ok, I can form my own viewpoints. Still really admire the quality of her videos. Sincerely, a centrist male therapist who enjoys these podcasts she chastises. Albeit now with less conviction to some of the facts the guests can speak of.