Wow... really makes you think, huh?

wow... really makes you think, huh?

Other urls found in this thread:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=Dr7IllPVGJYC&pg=PT32&lpg=PT32&dq=women tend to have a higher tolerance for ambiguity&source=bl&ots=g1C7Vmi739&sig=rE1PqlpEcXnrC19HymlFAq1a2mI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRtsG6w_rMAhWhOsAKHQpbCj0Q6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=women tend to have a higher tolerance for ambiguity&f=false
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Not having real books

Nigger

No sources , OP is a faggot

Damn...
Pol...are we finished? We can't possibly refute this...

Is this what a business degree is in 2016?

Sage

quads confirm OP is a fag
don't sage your own post paki

books.google.co.uk/books?id=Dr7IllPVGJYC&pg=PT32&lpg=PT32&dq=women tend to have a higher tolerance for ambiguity&source=bl&ots=g1C7Vmi739&sig=rE1PqlpEcXnrC19HymlFAq1a2mI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRtsG6w_rMAhWhOsAKHQpbCj0Q6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=women tend to have a higher tolerance for ambiguity&f=false

Fuck off

Nice samefag

Think about what? What I'm gonna eat in a few hours? I was thinking about maybe an egg.

>Women tend to have a higher tolerance for ambiguity

Because that's all women fucking do, they can't give anything straight, was this supposed to be a fucking revelation

So what shit-tier former poly is this from?

Translation
>"Women will go ahead full of confidence when they have no idea what is going on, don't understand the problem, and have no goals"
Yeah, we fucking know That's why we don't them run anything.

>THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RACES OR SEXES, YOU BIGOT
>Except white males, you're worse than everyone tee hee
t. Liberal Cuck/Kike

>more options are considered
>"We need a new good idea guys"
>Ooga booga watermelons
>"Great idea Jamal!!"
Diversity is bad for society, I don't give a shit about those poor jews who make less shekels

>women are over emotional beings with poor unprecise judgement who refuse to ever get to the point
Sounds about right

>Research indicates....
>Studies show....

Whoever wrote this went full fucking retarded. Even with footnotes, you should always directly refer to who said what, and what the research was. To me, all this indicates is that the "research" and "studies" were done by some hamplanet on their friends in a totally not biased way. Fuck off with these slide threads and kindly kill yourself.

those quads

>cognitive flexibility
Kek!

The references were removed to make it more concise, it was originally written with sources (see google books link)

>excel in ambiguous tasks
YOU CANT DEFINITIVELY EXCEL IN A TASK WHERE SUCCESS IS AMBIGUOUS
I hate these post-modern fucks, just kil me now

>tends
>ambiguity "linked" to cognitive complexity

And this is why a man invented the scientific method; to actually KNOW things. While women to this day dabble with "complex" horoscopes and glitter mags.

I sure wish I had as much cognitive flexibility as Trayvon or some roastie whore, alas I am but a white male

>cognitive complexity
*cognitive dissonance

Without sources it's just opinion regardless of how concise something is. Even with a source, that doesn't make something fact. A source is something you examine and then decide if it is true or not. It's not the word of God. A source can be dog shit which In my opinion every source for OPs pic is.

Indeed.

>cognative gymnastics

This, though after this I refuse to take your bait anymore. Stop contributing to slide bait threads. Really, any thread that begins with "Really makes you think" or "x said this, pol/trump btfo" should be immediately disregarded

>really makes you think

Stopped reading there. Disregarding pic.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, well OP?

Why? It's a catchy title that makes sure everyone gets to see the interesting image and respond with an intelligent post. It really does make you think.

Just admit you read it leaf

The people who read this stuff and take it to heart are going to mentally hobble themselves.

Seriously wtf is up with pol and its numbers today? Did anyone see that sextuplet post earlier?