Rules of attraction by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

Clearly, if there were more pirates, global warming wouldn't be a problem.

How could pirate population possibly...

LOL, okay, how to lie (or be mistaken with) with statistics.

Quote:

But when some schmoe waves his hand at some science study (without including any specifics) and says that that this pseudo-science defines MY desires in life, (I must want to be a nurse, not a surgeon, because I have no penis!) you bet I'm gonna tear him a new one.

I understand your POV here. I have always though of the psychological & medical sciences as works in progress, myself.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:23 PM

Well, yeah, isn't that the whole problem, what I've been saying? Society = unnatural? So isn't it kind of odd to measure the potential of an entire gender when you got such a lot of interference clouding it all, and then declare it natural?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Whereas men can only be aroused by witnessing an encounter from their stated orientation.

Of course, that's also one of the studies that I find suspect...

Jayne's "Bunk" comment says that study is misleading.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:27 PM

Ooh, yup. The study just talks about men and their orientation. There is kind of a prevalence of girl on girl fantasizing among the male population, isn't there? Good catch! I hadn't thought of that.

I mostly found it suspect again because of social norms. A lot of guys are encouraged to be homophobic, because that's a "masculine" trait. Not so much with girls.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Well, yeah, isn't that the whole problem, what I've been saying? Society = unnatural? So isn't it kind of odd to measure the potential of an entire gender when you got such a lot of interference clouding it all?

I believe the thinking is that you can peel away the surface, the artificial societal engrams, and examine the 'natural' mind, then place that analysis back into the larger context later.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:28 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
There actually have been studies to suggest that all women can become aroused by witnessing any sort of sexual encounter, be it heterosexual or same sex... Whereas men can only be aroused by witnessing an encounter from their stated orientation.

I defy you to find a handful of men who don't get set to pop at the mere thought of two women together.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:31 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

So, it's the weirdness of men attracted to men that got you starting this thread.
Not "weirdness," more like the unflavoured-tofu-ness. Just like, why? I feel like the flavour is in the differences.
Quote:
But do you ever wonder how woman can be attracted to men when you aren't?
I just thank God they are, for my sake.
Quote:
Why is it only men attracted to men that is beyond your understanding?

I kinda feel (and don't hold me to this, my beliefs are subject to change here) that since both man and woman are born of woman, that it's more 'natural' for a higher level of same-sex interest to manifest on the part of women, and that women would have a much higher recognized percentage of bisexuality were it not for suppression due to social stigma.

There, totally intuition based, non scientific, and ready to be discarded should conflicting reasonable scientific (or simply logical) data come to my attention.

OK, we're much in agreement. Sort of. I think. Except I see it as more due to social pressure than womb comfort levels or whatever.

I've noted recently (My workplace is extremely interested in diversity and there have been plenty of discussions about this lately) that woman have more freedom than men. Women can be "masculine", can put on muscle (I thank women's soccer and basketball for making this cool) and still be sexy women. We can wear baggie pants and spit and swear and be "guyish" and still be ok. In most places anyway. I won't speak for Texas.

But men can't cross that line. When's the last time you saw a man wearing a skirt? Why is it not OK for a man to wear a skirt?

(Personally, I saw men at a hippie gathering wearing skirts and no shirts and I thought it extremely sexy. But we've already established that I'm outside the norm, right?

)

OK, so I'm a dancer. I go to dance concerts, and I've long been aware that I watch the female dancers. I just like their lines better. I think the female body is absolutely beautiful. But when it comes to sex - whoa! So not into women LOL! I totally share your sense of gratitude that men are into women, because I'm just so... not!

Yep, genetics have got to play into that. But there's no hard rule. Some women like women. Some men like men.

And this does happen in nature. This is the thing about science that makes me crazy: scientists see macaco monkies being homo and write it in their notebooks as "abnormal." Then they come home to write up reports, cross-reference all their observations of "normal", and all they see in their notebooks is hetero. Duh!

Biases are powerful things.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:32 PM

But that's really hard, Chris, when those societal norms and expectations are recorded unconsciously into all our behaviours and assumptions.

How do you separate from those when you're not aware of being under their influence?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:36 PM

I wanna see a study that correlates the instance of breastfeeding & bisexuality of females. My theory is that the closeness of mothering creates a more natural environment for female to female eroticism. And what of the boomers that were TOLD breastfeeding was BAD for babies & switched to formulas- did that generation wind up with the fewest bisexual (or potentially so) females ever?

Maybe I can get a grant....

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:38 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Oh! I saw a guy in a long black velvet skirt a month or two ago and I thought he looked great!
True it doesn't happen very often, though. it's too bad. People should be allowed to be whatever they wanna be. Well, so long as what they wanna be isn't a murderous cannibal rapist or something.

I myself think there would some higher percentages of bisexuality in general without all the social stigmas. I think it's likely there's a bell curve to it, with most people falling at various spots on the 'attracted to both' part of the curve. It could go from simply recognizing a member of the same sex as attractive without active interest in touching them, to having the same reaction to members of the opposite sex, and everything in between. Could just be because I'm pretty firmly in between, but it makes a certain statistical sense to me.
Just my opinion. I have angered a few people who thought I must be implying that they were repressed bisexuals or even (*gasp!*) homosexuals. In at least one case the girl was bi and came out several years later, but that's probably moot.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:39 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Maybe I can get a grant....

LOL! I've seen grants given for much less...

I was breastfed for a good long time. Still not into women.

ETA: PR, I think you're right. I think there is an attraction at all levels, both ways, but it's so suppressed. More so in men, sadly. I don't think it does them any good. Harms them, even.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:41 PM

My mother fed me formula, not because of the encouragement to switch from formula, but because she had a ginormous brain tumour surgery and a hysterectomy right after I was born. She was given a blood transplant, heard about an AIDS infected batch, and despite assurances that breastmilk couldn't carry AIDS, she decided to take the precaution. Later it did turn out that milk was a vector (though she never got AIDS, thankfully).

...I kind of wonder too, Chris. Maybe that's why I have personal space and touching issues. Genes are a nice explanation, but while I included the nonsexual, they don't really fit anywhere that makes sense in my proposed evolutionary history of gender roles.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

How do you separate from those when you're not aware of being under their influence?

Umm...become aware?

When I was a lad, I used to observe behaviour around me & leave in the gutter that which I believed to be useless or self-defeating (not always so successfully, I totally bought into the man-must-have-muscles thing), and this left me with VERY few friends. As I learned, half of making friends is pretending that most peeps are not mindless sheep under the complete control of the advertising industry.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Oh! I saw a guy in a long black velvet skirt a month or two ago and I thought he looked great!
True it doesn't happen very often, though.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Tiny doesn't mean irrelevant. It means that they are there and noticable, but they do not encompass the entirety of the ability.

No, it suggests it, the same way my statements apparently suggest that Women have no spacial awareness .

I do not mean that you intend to say this, obviously, but words have great power, especially on children who learn about gender roles from the world around them through absorbing details like this unconsciously.

Why do you find it so unlikely that calling traits "male" or "female" has an effect on motivation and and opportunity, unrelated to mere biological aptitude?

Quote:

I don't think the differences are as small as you claim across the board. I'm not dismissing the role societal expectations play, I'm saying that the differences would remain without them.

And where did I imply that it wouldn't?

My only point is that your choice of words - and the social training involved in using them - artificially increases this difference through means of social pressure, essentially.

And I think it's safe to assume that the amount of skill-advantage that men have over women based on biology only would be small when compared to the skill overlap.

And more men may be mathematicians, but how many men ARE mathematicians? Slightly larger natural aptitude or not, saying "maths are a male skill" does diminish the women who use mathematics on the same level of most men every day, in business, in science.

Let's use an illustrative example.

You have two ice skaters. Good ice skaters. Professional ice skaters. One is better than the other. So ice skating is only the skill of the better one??

Maths are a human skill. Not a male skill.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:48 PM

I think infants and children learn social norms like they learn language. I think it's a bit different than embracing fads, no offense. Good that you resisted the crowd. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:56 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Citizen -

"There's clear sexual dimorphism within the human species ..."

But that dimorphism is relatively insignificant in the context of the animal world. http://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9103.full.pdf "Humans today display relatively limited sexual dimorphism (15%) (my calculation works out to 7%), whereas some of the other hominoids (gorillas and orangutans) are highly dimorphic (50%)." The average US male is 5'9", the average female 5'4" (a difference of 5", or diff/ mean = 7.5%) with a standard deviation of 2.5". We are talking of a difference of a mere 5". Furthermore, because of population distribution, roughly 34% of all women will be taller than 34% of men. This is not such a large difference that one would expect much significance.

"... muscle mass ... nerve endings in the skin ... clotting factors in their blood ... more red blood cells aiding physical endurance ... more white blood cells and b lymphocytes... There's numerous physical differences between men and Women that are a matter of scientific fact, not just societal expectation."

To clear a few items off the list - if women did not menstruate, their 'normal' level of red blood cells would be identical to men's. Young girls have the same number as boys (assuming they are given the same diet. There are societies that deprive girl children in preference to boys). Menopausal women have the same number as men their age. And when menstruating women are supplemented with adequate iron, they have as many as men. So, red blood cell numbers are not the significant inborn biological marker with the biological meaning you think they are. The same is true for white blood cells - by carrying children women are exposed to more foreign antigens (the fetus), leading to an increased expression of white blood cells (and, it is theorized, responsible for the far higher levels of autoimmune disease in women). And some differences, where they exist, are of minor significance. For example, the difference in pain perception between men and women is, on the average, 0.5 to 1 C. While some consider this of moderate significance (at most), for all practical purposes it results in very little actual differences. Would you argue that the increased sensitivity to pain would make women unequipped for childbirth ? I'm guessing the answer is no.

So, while "There's numerous physical differences between men and women that are a matter of scientific fact, not just societal expectation", it turns out that there is a very large overlap between men and women, and these differences are at most small.

"Men have more Grey matter, where as Women have more White. Grey matter is thought to be 'thinking' material, and White matter is thought to be connecting material."

The significance of this, though isn't known. One outcome appears to be that women recover better from a stroke than men as they can tap into other areas of the brain to perform the compromised functions - better connect across brain halves. Other than that, I know of no significance to the observation.

But you don't let that stop you, you carry on to further unsupported territory even farther afield ...

"Men excel at spatial acuity (seeing objects in 3D, and being able to mentally rotate them to 'see' them from other sides)." And yet, given training, men and women perform equally well at tasks requiring those visualization skills, arguing that the differences are due to learning, not genetics.

"Men have a more 'systematizing' intelligence ... which means Men tend to make better mathematicians, scientists and Engineers ..." Except, where women have the same opportunities than men. And suddenly that supposed inborn difference goes away. And despite the fact that I provided evidence that when women were not expected to be able to be doctors, there were no female doctors, or when they were not expected to be able to be engineers there were no female engineers, and when poor people were not expected to be able to be scientists, there were no commoner scientists, you dismiss these examples as not being relevant (except for engineers) Exsqueeze me ? How are they not ? I showed you multiple times - if people are kept out of certain areas they will not be found there ! And you can't use that absence as proof that they CAN'T be there. Heelllooooo. Anyone home ?

And then, you go on to REALLY wade into the muck
"Women tend to have a more Socializing intelligence." Maybe, maybe not. "... scholarly research on this topic suggest that with the apparent exception of males' greater propensity to commit physically aggressive and violent acts, there are few clear-cut areas of gender differentiated social behavior ..."

And "This does explain some societal expectations in regards to "male jobs" and "female jobs". Nursing requires getting to know and caring for patients needs, more than surgery that views the body as a system that needs fixing." Could you BE any more off-track ? Could you not say that being a DOCTOR is more suited to women as they would be more interested in getting their patients better by any means ? Aren't you arguing an assumption - with yet another assumption ?

"Women also are better at multi-tasking ..." Not true ... http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/520.php "There was no difference in the ability of either males or females to complete tasks simultaneously." And I don't care HOW many comediennes you cite for this nugget of scientific fact.

"At any rate the differences in our Genders does indicate where social expectations have come from." And "Sexual Dimorphism in Humans isn't so much a societal expectation, as societal expectations arise from the Sexual Dimorphism that is actually there." Except where they are totally opposite to what you are thinking -where men are the flighty, emotional sex and women are the rational, thinking one. And how do you take this into account ? You ignore it.

Now here you bolster your theory on old, tired assumptions - "But also we can see why our sexual dimorphism probably came about due to ... Men (as) the hunters and fighters ... need(ing) more physical strength and better endurance to pain and injuries ... (needing) to plan attack strategies against both rival tribes and large game, and ..(devoting) devote their full concentration to those plans and actions." In fact, solid evidence is that humans evolved in shallow water and developed our species characteristics there, not on the African plain. On the coast, where the gathering of small slow things like clams and mussels and eggs and slugs blurs the line between herbivore and omnivore - between grazing and hunting. Even among modern primitive people, 80% of the diet is due to gathering and primitve agriculture, NOT hunting. Does human survival depend on hunting ? DID human survival depend and hunting ? Probably not. And your point - ffffft ! - goes away.

I'm not going to spend any more time on your post. But I think I've shown your points are poorly supported.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think infants and children learn social norms like they learn language.

But it's a more hard-to-fully-grasp thing than language, a more life-intensive thing, more fluid, IMO.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:07 PM

But no less essential for them to start to learn, and learn early, for them to be functional within society and their families.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

"Women also are better at multi-tasking ..." Not true ... http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/520.php

But you girls suck at this:

Quote:
From this test Stumpf concluded that males perform better at mental rotations.

*Does the Snoopy Dance*

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
for them to be functional within society and their families.

You know anybody that really is that? LOL, I sure don't.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:14 PM

I dunno, I'm actually pretty decent at sculpture. I love working with clay, and I've made what I think are some nice statues of animals, mythological creatures, and people. I mean, they impressed my professor in college, so that's good, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"But you girls suck at this: 'From this test Stumpf concluded that males perform better at mental rotations.'"

But is that due to inborn differences, or differences in upbringing / expectations ?

HHhhmmmm ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:16 PM

I don't know anyone who doesn't try. At least when they're younger. Teenage years are kind of iffy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I dunno, I'm actually pretty decent at sculpture. I love working with clay, and I've made what I think are some nice statues of animals, mythological creatures, and people. I mean, they impressed my professor in college, so that's good, right?

I guess it is, but some pictures of your work would help me give a more precise answer.

The non sequitur acknowledging Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I've only responded to what you've said to me. You're having multiple arguments here: I'm only one part of them. I have not brought up the parts where you've said men do something better or women do something better except in regards to what you have said to me.

I'm aware of that, but what you initially responded to was far more even handed, and far more about the idea that Men and Women are equal but different, than you give credit too. By focusing solely on the one thing I said Men performed better at, and ignoring the rest of my argument, you have put a far more biased slant on it than there ever actually was in my statements.

I take exception to your statements indicating I'm belittling Women when I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm pointing out differences, and talking about how those differences may manifest. That also expecting every profession to be a 50-50 representative split, and seeing that as equality, is just as bad as thinking some professions are just for Women, and some are just for Men.

Quote:
...A little bit, yeah, but it depends on the context. Stating the fact isn't belittling, but the mocking nature in how you said that is.

Yeah, I was being belittling, of the idea that pointing out differences between Men and Women is belittling. Though I was actually going for more humorous, but never mind, there seems to be a gap in humour between us all, YinYang thought posting something that claimed I was a sad sexist undergraduate that can't get laid was silly and funny, so perhaps we can take it as read that the various attempts at humour are falling flat all round at the moment.

I was belittling the idea, not you, and certainly not Women in general, so I really don't get what your problem is with what I said in that regard. In fact the idea that Women are so fragile and so in need of help that we can't point out they're different to Men would seem to be what is belittling.

Homosexuality seems pretty solidly genetic from the evidence. But I've heard some people claim that since it's genetic we can see it as a genetic disease. I don't get that logic at all, but then I don't get the logic that sees saying there's differences between Men and Women is belittling to Women. Should the fact that some people are going to take the science in support of their twisted agenda mean we should ban it from being studied or discussed because it might be dangerous? Erm nope, I don't think so, because then we'd have to ban everything. Eugenics, which in it's most vicious and twisted form became the holocaust, took evolution as it's legitimacy. If we're worried what some crazed twisted fanatic will do with science, we can't study anything.

Quote:
Studies promoting opposite views to the studies you speak of haven't been performed. How can we refute you with counter-examples then? I'm working with what I have. Specific examples, I don't have. I have logic, which may be flawed, and I have common sense, which may also be flawed. You'll have to forgive the crudeness of my arguments.

Doesn't it speak of a problem that these studies don't exist? Does that lack say anything about the people performing these studies?

Well, that's a strange argument. Scientific studies aren't supposed to set out to support certain views you know. That's not actually how it works, so the fact that someone hasn't produced a study that tells you what you want to hear, doesn't tell us anything about the people doing the studies, actually. As I see it the only way you could come to the conclusion you have done, that the studies must have been done by biased people looking to push their biases, is if you already thought that, and use any evidence to support what you already 'know'. Or, to put it another way, it seems you're doing exactly what you accuse them of doing.

Perhaps they did the studies well and objectively, and this happens to be where the evidence leads? I don't get where this assumption that science isn't being done well until two sets of 'scientists' are trying to push opposite agendas comes from.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
so perhaps we can take it as read that the various attempts at humour are falling flat all round at the moment.

Not mine...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:24 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Maybe it's hardwired?
I just remembered- when I was 10, I made pistol phasers out of cardboard by drawing out the entire unfolded schematic on a box, cutting it out, folding it into position & taping it together, never having done it before. My friends were impressed how it managed it, I really didn't consider it much back then.

Your male friends ? Maybe it's just an individual talent !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:25 PM

You said rotations, right?

I do manga/comic book sorts of drawings too. I have to know what characters look like and be able to rotate them so they look like the same character from the back, front, and profile.

I actually posted an example of that on my log just today... On the main page of this site... The characters of Firefly...

Does that count?

The only one who I don't think is perfectly rotated is Inara, but it's just her hair, and I kind of changed the style between drawing her face front-on and drawing her profile. Oh, and River, but I'm working on her hair issue too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:27 PM

When I was in elementary school, I used to cut shapes out of paper and make them into three dimensional dinosaurs, without any patterns or anything.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Why do you find it so unlikely that calling traits "male" or "female" has an effect on motivation and and opportunity, unrelated to mere biological aptitude?
...
My only point is that your choice of words - and the social training involved in using them - artificially increases this difference through means of social pressure, essentially.

Ok, my personal terse use of language is responsible for the social pressure on men and women, despite the fact that what my use of language seemed to imply to you, was certainly not what I meant, can we perhaps move on now please?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
I'm not pissed, Citizen, I'm amused. You think you can just say "my argument is based off science" and that makes you right.

And I'm amused that you think you can know what I think, even when you clearly haven't even bothered to read my posts. So I shoot down your first strawman, so you immediately construct another? That's fast work! My statements about being based off of scientific studies, was refuting your claims that my argument was based off of nothing other than a fairy tale, when clearly it was based off of the findings of scientific studies. I never claimed that it being science makes me right, I just said that I wasn't making the argument you claimed I was. I suggest you refrain from telling me what I think, you clearly aren't very good at it

Quote:

Science can be wrong, scientists can be wrong, and I don't think we have enough evidence or can leave our biases out of the area of sexual dimorphism well enough yet.

Hmm, I don't remember saying it couldn't be. Science does require evidence, and if the evidence goes another way science changes course. That's a strength of science, one religious fanatics often try to portray as a flaw. But arguing from the evidence doesn't automatically make me right, but it doesn't give you the right to make shit up either. I never once claimed that it being science proves I'm right, but it does mean I'm arguing from evidence, and you're arguing from where you wish the evidence went.

Quote:
And any story about humans that predates written records is a fairy story, and therefore not necessarily right - I don't care if an anthropologist tells the story, or if you do.

Uhuh, and since all you've managed to bring to this discussion so far, are lies about what I said and personal insults, forgive me if I don't take your council on what good arguments are, and what constitutes a fairy tale.

Not to mention that Hunter Gather societies still exist today, but hey if some evidence doesn't go the way you want, it's just a fairy tale, right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Why do you find it so unlikely that calling traits "male" or "female" has an effect on motivation and and opportunity, unrelated to mere biological aptitude?
...
My only point is that your choice of words - and the social training involved in using them - artificially increases this difference through means of social pressure, essentially.

Ok, my personal terse use of language is responsible for the social pressure on men and women, despite the fact that what my use of language seemed to imply to you, was certainly not what I meant, can we perhaps move on now please?

So you can sarcastically overstate my point but not give a real response. Thanks.

Do you entirely disagree with the fact that such language has an effect, or do you not? I'm really curious, because your reaction implies that you think it's ridiculous. And I really don't think it is, because that's what shapes childrens minds, whether you like it or not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:33 PM

In psychology, there's contradictions and competing schools of thought EVERYWHERE. I was pointing out that in this one field, it's strange how there isn't.

Ideally, the scientific method slowly making progress and eliminating ideas while promoting more correct ones is how science should be... Psychology is not an ideal school of science, however.

The only time I said you were being belittling is your comment about peeing standing up. Although, the comment about thinking women are fragile just because we don't like having differences pointed out that might suggest we're inferior...?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So you can sarcastically overstate my point but not give a real response. Thanks.

Do you entirely disagree with the fact that such language has an effect, or do you not? I'm really curious, because your reaction implies that you think it's ridiculous. And I really don't think it is, because that's what shapes childrens minds, whether you like it or not.

I think I'm bored of having every single statement I make taken out of context, and having people claim I'm saying things I'm not. Thanks.

I rather doubt, given the context that the statements originally came in, that they foster what you claim. If that language was used continually in a different context then maybe, but in the context it did appear in, yes I think it's ridiculous.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The only time I said you were being belittling is your comment about peeing standing up. Although, the comment about thinking women are fragile just because we don't like having differences pointed out that might suggest we're inferior...?

Yes, I was suggesting that your statements suggest inferiority. I'm not suggesting Women are inferior, I'm suggesting that you are suggesting that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So you can sarcastically overstate my point but not give a real response. Thanks.

Do you entirely disagree with the fact that such language has an effect, or do you not? I'm really curious, because your reaction implies that you think it's ridiculous. And I really don't think it is, because that's what shapes childrens minds, whether you like it or not.

I think I'm bored of having every single statement I make taken out of context, and having people claim I'm saying things I'm not. Thanks.

I rather doubt, given the context that the statements originally came in, that they foster what you claim. If that language was used continually in a different context then maybe, but in the context it did appear in, yes I think it's ridiculous.

I'm confused what you think I'm claiming you said. I wasn't saying anything about your intentions. I can only assume that the thread in general has made you defensive.

I think there is a sense of dismissal inherent in referring to entire skill sets as male or female, like you did, even in the context you used it in. AND I think that such language and the accompanying attitude are more prevalant than you think, and have greater psychological effect than you want to admit. Be that an offending or a discouraging effect.

But since you're feeling so defensive now, I'll leave it alone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:57 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I'm not feeling defensive as I think you're being too anal about all this ( dear lord, please do forgive the pun )

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:01 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Okay, Citizen. I apologize for posting that bingo link, and for the strawmen. I'm sorry for not making myself clearer - it seemed to me that you were saying "it's science, so I'm right," and stories about humans that pre-date writing seem to me to be fairy stories. I shouldn't have gotten involved with your argument because I'm not really interested in going back and forth over this subject. I fully admit that I could be wrong, and that my biases could be misleading me; sexual dimorphism could be as significant as it seems you're saying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Briefly - I think the problem with these studies people are trying to get at is that - you see what you look for. Way back when, when the Germans (and British) were first developing the study of animal behavior, social Darwinism was at it's height. The idea of 'alpha' males went hand-in-glove with the prevailing social constructs. And the scientists went out and by gosh ! they found those alpha males everywhere. There were all sorts of rationales offered up - they were the fittest and the best at cornering females - as the best they were likely to pass on their genes - there were direct lines drawn between an individual's physical prowess and evolution.

Turns out - it wasn't true. While some species do have select males that mate, other species that appear to have alpha males have just as much (or more) mating done by the non-alpha males. (Makes me wonder why the alphas bother.) And other species have no alpha males at all.

Because, not only does 'sterility negate virility', the number of offspring that SURVIVE to reproduce is most important. Physical contests between males are a way of reducing the male load on resources that are more essential to the females and young. Not at selecting the fittest.

You have to be careful what you look for - and especially careful about what you assume.

Anyway - enough for today.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm not feeling defensive as I think you're being too anal about all this ( dear lord, please do forgive the pun )

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I was talking to citizen here...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But since you're feeling so defensive now, I'll leave it alone.

Well please forgive me for that, and if I lashed out at you unjustly, but I do feel like I've been attacked on all sides here. Not that my argument has been, but that I, personally have been. Seems that way to me. Ok so some things may have just been in jest, and I'm taking them too seriously, but from the outset I had one thing to say, and ever since it feels like that one thing has been pushed to the side while people have been taking me to task for completely irrelevant factors, which may be interesting or important topics but weren't what I was talking about.

So I'm sorry, to all, if I've come across as too defensive, but so far I've seen a lot of personal comments directed at me, and a lot of claims of what I've said, that I simply haven't (like for instance bitemite's continued insistence that I'm suggesting Women are inferior because I'm saying they have different skill sets to men). I really have no idea where a lot of that is coming from.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Suppose a woman decides that she wants muscle and spends the same amount of time in the gym as the average male athletic type, doing similar workouts, and eats a similar diet.

Well, I believe such things have and are done. I'm well aware that there are female body builders, in fact. They're are Women that are stronger

Quote:
I believe the same exact thing is behind this myth that men are better at "spatial" thought. Fuck that. It's an absolute myth created by what is and isn't considered "feminine" behavior. I work at a school where academic prowess is the top goal, and these young woman who have always been encouraged to use their heads - for science and engineering if they choose - are every bit as capable as the young men.

Actually it's based on Men and Women taking the same test for spatial awareness. You can find the same sort of things on IQ tests. It's not a "myth" (as in completely made up) at all.

And frankly you're making the same arguments I've already argued against a dozen times. A number of times I've said it's a trend, which means that it's perfectly possible for individual Women to be as good or better than Men at something Men tend to be better at.

Quote:
You are just so very, extremely, beyond belief wrong.

Maybe you need to work on those logic skills, son.

And you have evidence to back up that the same number of Women as Men want to be Surgeons?

Maybe you need to work on those logic and argument skills, because last I checked saying "I don't agree with that, so that makes you completely wrong and also incapable of thinking logically" isn't much of a logical argument.

Honestly I don't know what is so controversial about suggesting Humans are a sexual dimorphic species, or why that could possibly be so offensive. This whole thing feels like Monty Pythons life of Brian when Stan announces he wants to be a Woman because he wants to have babies. Maybe, just maybe there are inherent differences between the sexes, and that's nobodies fault not even the Romans. I mean sexual dimorphism is so prevalent in our closest primate relatives, and becomes greater the larger the species, it seems silly to be shocked that Humans, one of the largest of the Great Apes, are the only Apes that don't exhibit any sexual dimorphism.

Quote:
So, Citizen, how about you actually post that data you're speaking of so those of us who are good at science can tear it up, hmm? Because - duh! - of course there are differences between male and female, but when you take it here:

Let me get to that tomorrow because it's nearly 2am and I need to get to sleep.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 6:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I mean sexual dimorphism is so prevalent in our closest primate relatives, and becomes greater the larger the species, it seems silly to be shocked that Humans, one of the largest of the Great Apes, are the only Apes that don't exhibit any sexual dimorphism."

You apparently missed my post on sexual dimorphism, and its relative insignificance in modern humans (10%) as compared to gorillas (50%) and orangutans.

Here, read this - http://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9103.full.pdf

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 6:24 PM

My concern was that there might be an implication that "different skill sets" means "things women can't do."

But, I'll take you at face value when you say that you did not intend to imply and do not believe women are inferior.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You apparently missed my post on sexual dimorphism, and its relative insignificance in modern humans (10%) as compared to gorillas (50%) and orangutans.

Here, read this - http://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9103.full.pdf

Well to be honest Rue, I've not bothered to read much of what you've posted lately on the thread, and frankly for good reasons. Those being that: you started out being unwarrantedly personal straight away; you happily post about scientific studies that support you, and act, just like here, as if that's an end to the matter, while studies that don't support you "well they're just going out to find what they want to find". You've ignored fully half (at least) of what I said, and claimed that due to this abridged version of my argument, I was fully disproved.

Now here you misrepresent your own source, because firstly it says ~15% dimorphic, not 10% as you claim. Secondly, 15% dimorphism (or 10% for that matter) is far from insignificant, the article claims relatively limited, but presumably that's compared to Gorillas with their >50% sexual dimorphism. Lastly I can only assume you haven't read the whole text, since this source, which you seem to post to refute what I said, actually supports my statements. I said that the Great Apes show a trend to increasing sexual dimorphism with size, and that I would find it a rather striking conincidence if, just as societal pressures were moving toward the idea that it's bad to notice that there might be any differences between Men and Women (an idea I find completely illogical), that Humans turned out to be the only Ape with no Sexual Dimorphism.

As it turns out, my case all along has been that Humans are Sexually Dimorphic, a case I seem to have to defend throughout. Perhaps posting a source that says humans are ~15% sexually dimorphic, isn't the best way to dismiss my claim that Humans are sexually dimorphic, because stop me here, but it seems you rather helped prove my case.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
My concern was that there might be an implication that "different skill sets" means "things women can't do."

But, I'll take you at face value when you say that you did not intend to imply and do not believe women are inferior.

Surely, even if I meant it to be interpreted in such absolute terms, it also means "things men can't do."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:10 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Suppose a woman decides that she wants muscle and spends the same amount of time in the gym as the average male athletic type, doing similar workouts, and eats a similar diet.

Well, I believe such things have and are done. I'm well aware that there are female body builders, in fact. They're are Women that are stronger

Yes, I am friends with a body builder. She got on those ESPN top 5 competitions and won her region. She's BIG! Certainly stronger than many men - she bench presses 225. Interestingly, her ex-husband had almost exactly the same build, as far as height and general size, but he benched a whole whole lot more (I forget how much exactly). Genetic difference right there.

But look at the social difference: both of these people have maxed out their muscle building potential, and while that's easily accepted as gender-normal behavior in him, it's often called abnormal in her. I've talked to her about what she has to deal with in daily life (though few people say anything to her face LOL!)

I explain this so I can make an analogy to to those studies of gender behavior in nature that Rue talked about. (It's really a shame you didn't read her posts, citizen) Science types may do studies to show that my friend is not properly being a woman, since she may stop her menstrual cycle when she has no body fat and therefore can't get pregnant. But these scientists would completely ignore changes in her ex-husband's physical processes that may also mess with his ability to procreate. The scientists could be biased by thinking alpha male behavior is simply the norm, so they don't even look into it.

Quote:
Actually it's based on Men and Women taking the same test for spatial awareness. You can find the same sort of things on IQ tests. It's not a "myth" (as in completely made up) at all.

Do you get the point of the pirates versus global warming figure I posted? It was in response to this point exactly. I guess you didn't get the message.

Correlation does not mean causation.

Do you see? Sure, a study may have found that men outscored women. Okay. But then you take the step of drawing a conclusion: women genetically aren't capable, and actually don't *want* to be capable. To that I must cry bullshit.

If some schmoe gave a test to a few white kids at fancy schools and then to a few black kids in the projects, and published a report claiming that whites are genetically more intelligent than blacks, what would you make of that?

Which is why I ask that you post these actual studies, or links to them, rather than just say "There was this study that said..." Frankly, I'd much rather tear into that study than tear into your logic skills, but you're leaving me no choice.

Quote:
And frankly you're making the same arguments I've already argued against a dozen times. A number of times I've said it's a trend, which means that it's perfectly possible for individual Women to be as good or better than Men at something Men tend to be better at.

You're still missing the point. See my argument above. Re-read what you're actually posted - all of it, not just the dimorphism part. Think about those pirates.

Quote:
And you have evidence to back up that the same number of Women as Men want to be Surgeons?

Do you have evidence of the opposite? Other than vague hand waves at some study you saw once?

I have much personal experience: women who were told that they had to be teachers or nurses. One women in particular, when she was old enough to learn that she could make her own damned choices, went back to college in her 40s to major in physics while raising two kids. She wanted to be a specialist - she was into MRI - rather than a nurse.

I've seen women come into a high-ranking engineering school fully funded to do grad work, but no professor in the all-male department would work with them. The male profs choose to work with male students, even if they had to find funding. (This happened less than 10 ten years ago.) I've had friends go into high tech jobs in Silicon Valley and face less pay and slower advancement than men. I myself have worked in a male dominated field where I more then once had to choose between being smart and being feminine. I've overheard men say about me: "I would never date her, she's too smart." (Though I must say, the guy who said that was a total doorknob and had a point. Dating a smart woman would have been disastrous for him.

)

In my experience, women want very much to be the "surgeons" of their fields, and they want it bad enough to fight an uphill battle that men don't face. How many more women would want these careers if the battle wasn't part of it?

Of course, my personal experience doesn't prove anything, since it's statistically tiny. Which is why you need to actually post a connection to this study you keep referring to. You are the one making the claim as to how women WANT to be nurses, not surgeons. The burden of proof is on you.

So, citizen, my blood was certainly up last night, and I did poke at you. But I don't take back the statement that your logic is flawed. Because, for all I can see, it is.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with suggesting that there are gender differences. Obviously there are, no one refutes that. But what you've done is extend that out to make some blatantly offensive statements, without providing hard evidence. "There was this study once..." is not hard evidence - it is hearsay.

That is where the controversy you're seeing lies, not in your claims about dimorphism, but in the way you extend it and lay down rules about what women can do, and what women want.

Hope you slept well. Hope you post those studies.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 25, 2009 2:25 AM