Rules of attraction by chrisisall

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Just curious, what is everyone's take on the science behind climate change?

There's too much which isn't understood, and the foundation for MAN CAUSED global warming is fictional, at best.

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 5:15 AM

*Face drop into hands*

Why? Didn't we just have a big drawn out debate where people got upset?

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 5:27 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
*Face drop into hands*

Why? Didn't we just have a big drawn out debate where people got upset?

For it is the doom of men ( and posters of RWED ) that they forget.

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 5:36 AM

MAL4PREZ

Yay – internet! Sorry in advance, I can tell already that this post is going to be a long one…

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I ignore much of what Rue posted, because much of what Rue posted was just personal attacks, sexist comments about my ability to think because I'm a man, and a lot of "if I don't agree with it, we can just ignore it". When Rue stops distorting and ignoring what I actually said, I'll consider returning the favour.

I too have seen Rue step over the friendly line now and then, so I understand your reluctance to engage. It is a shame though. She had a very good information based post a ways up the thread.

Quote:
And the hypothetical situation where they don't test Men or come to these conclusions (which is pretty much the opposite to reality, but lets run with it) invalidates the findings when done on Women because...

...it shows bias on the part of the researchers. A basic part of evaluating any scientific research is to look into every assumption made along the way. If someone assumes a=6, then does lots of fancy algebra and comes to the whopping conclusion that a=6, it’s not good research.

To stress: It’s not the fact that the hypothetical study ignores one gender that I have a problem with, it’s that assumptions are made in the basic planning of the research. ie Strength training is "natural" in males so we don't need to investigate it, but "unnatural" in females so we'd best look into it. Men would come out on the short end of this one, actually.

Quote:
In fact the correlation does not mean causation thing works just as well for the idea that Men's higher scores are due to social expectations.

I’m trying, but I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. But this is what I meant: You refer to a study where men scored higher than women. That is only one observation, and is presented by you with no background, nothing about the situation behind the test. I can show you an observation of a metal screw that levitates. Taken alone, this disproves gravity, right? Not at all. There’s a magnet beneath it.

And here is where I see the flaw in your logic. You have a set of observations, and you claim to know the “why” behind those observations. You seem to expect me and everyone else here to accept your explanation though you provide no details. Then you get extremely offended when I don’t share your assumptions, disagree, bring in my own counterexamples, and ask for clarification. You have an outburst rather than explain. That’s just not logical to me.

Or it could be the lack of sleep getting to you. That would do it to me too.

Quote:
Well, yes, do you see? Do you see what I'm talking about when I said you're making the same arguments I've already argued about? By devolving my argument down to one of me simply saying "they score higher, it must be genetic". That's not my argument, that's a strawman of my argument. It's a shame you've only looked at Rue's claims of what my Argument was, not what my argument actually was.

You said: “My general point was that Men and Women are physically and mentally different, and that those differences are by no means irrelevant. They lead to more Women wanting to be nurses, while more Men want to be surgeons.”

That's what I replied to, and not anything Rue said. I’m not lying, I’m not making up a strawman. You said that. You claimed that the career choices of men and women are based in their genetics. If that isn’t what you meant, please clarify.

Also, I did read your entire post of April 24 06:28. You listed a number of differences between men and women, which I agree with in part (and have stated so in my posts). The things I disagreed with I thought Rue argued better than I could. So I didn’t repeat her arguments, and I won’t force it on you now. Your refusal to accept information because you don’t like the source is your choice. I certainly understand.

Quote:
If someone insists on only taking select parts of your argument, and ignoring the other parts that help support your assertions, then tells you you can't think logically, what would you think of that?

I would prove my logical nature by trying to clarify whatever it was about my argument that they missed, rather than assuming they were liars out to get me. Because all a tantrum and name-calling would do was destroy the discussion and make me look rather childish.

OK, I guess I just indirectly called you a name. But your last few posts have been pretty juvenile.

A-hem. Not that I’ve ever had a childish tantrum in my life. On these very boards.

Quote:
Quote:
Do you have evidence of the opposite? Other than vague hand waves at some study you saw once?
Oh, so it's ok to call me stupid and illogical off of data you don't have. Well that's very stupid and illogical.

*sigh* I never called you stupid. But the “illogical” title you’re earning more and more, as well as “childish”.

Anyway, aren’t women the ones who are supposed to go all emotional rather than stick with cold hard facts?

Quote:
Quote:
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?

Think about that hasty generalisation.

Sorry – I don’t understand what you mean. I’ve seen women not go into “manly” fields for reasons that had nothing to with “genetic ability”. I clearly stated that that was based on my experience as I described it, and wasn't proof of any wider conclusion. ("statistically tiny")

Quote:
There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying I'm wrong, (though actually plenty of people are refuting that there are gender differences, maybe you should start reading this thread),

I did read it. I saw that most people agree that there are inherent gender differences. In fact, only Bytemite stated that all the differences are social. I can collect the quotes to prove it – only 1 person refutes what you said entirely.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how you’ve gotten to me being a liar, other than you’re pissed off and would rather make me into a Big Evil, and you the victim of my unfairness, rather than reply to me in substance. ie:

Quote:
I'm sure you really care how a worthless stupid illogical man such as myself slept. Actually I've spent the morning looking for web resources, with little result outside of the normal expensive publications.

You really are working hard to convince yourself that I hate you and think you a “stupid man”. I really don’t.

As for papers: abstracts are generally offered for free. They can be very informative.

OK, I’ll get to substance in a separate post. This one is waaay too long!

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

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 5:52 AM

MAL4PREZ

citizen said: “Your different way of looking at it, seems to be a way of ignoring the evidence. Yes if it's random, you'd expect a full range of abilities spread across the sexes, but since there are clear sexual dimorphic trends in the human species, that clearly indicates it isn't random, wouldn't it?”

Of course. I never denied that there are trends. But does the lack of randomness mean that the only possible explanation for gender differences is genetic?

citizen said: “My general point was that Men and Women are physically and mentally different, and that those differences are by no means irrelevant. They lead to more Women wanting to be nurses, while more Men want to be surgeons. Even that the differences in the way men and Women's minds tend to work means more Men will be suited to Surgery, and more Women suited to nursing. The end result is that, even without societal pressure, training or bias, nursing will be a profession that includes more Women, while Surgery will be one with more Men.”

How can I accept your hypothesis (about the “wanting” to be doctors or nurses) if you won’t allow me to question your underlying assumption, that “Men and Women are physically and mentally different, and that those differences are by no means irrelevant”? BTW - a real scientific discussion is not “They are!” “They aren’t!” I’m trying to avoid that RWED nightmare by asking you for the material you based your assumptions on. Nobody, not Einstein, not the best lawyer in the world, can expect to be believed without presenting the evidence behind their arguments.

citizen said: “That when I tell you I'll get too it as soon as, you call me illogical again because I haven't done it yet.” I called you illogical beside you replied with pure emotion rather than factual information.

Again, I never called you stupid. Illogical… well Would Spock reply as you have this morning?

WWSD?

citizen said: “And you wonder why I question your ability to read what I wrote?”

Not to be repetitive: “My general point was that Men and Women are physically and mentally different, and that those differences are by no means irrelevant. They lead to more Women wanting to be nurses, while more Men want to be surgeons.” You wrote it, I read it.

citizen said: “This can't be the way you discuss science outside of this forum, because if it was you'd never have been allowed into university, let alone gained a degree.”

No this is not the way I discuss science outside this forum. In real science, I ask someone for references and instead of having to talk them down when they flip out and call me a liar, they actually just show me their references and we move on.

Chrisisall – what citizen has done here is no graduate school lecture. A grad school lecture would include references, or the speaker would get the hook but fast. A lecturer would also be open to questions as to the underlying assumptions in their research, able to discuss without getting buried in defensiveness. And finally, a grad school lecturer would respect misunderstandings by patiently clarifying their material, rather than making false assumptions and accusing the questioner of lying.

Lordy - just imagine if I'd acted like citizen when I took my quals and defended my thesis! Out on my ear indeed.

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

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

Chrisisall – what citizen has done here is no graduate school lecture.
A lecturer would also be open to questions as to the underlying assumptions in their research, able to discuss without getting buried in defensiveness.

Well, it seemed like a mighty detailed lecture to ME.

Look, Citizen needs to read something like: "This study here [*] shows that spacial awareness is equal in men & women, what do you say to that?"
He doesn't respond well to "It's a MAN's study & men can't conduct pure science well, and what you're saying isn't TRUE, etc,"
It seems to me that this is a loaded issue for some, and Cit has a very low irritation threshold for repeating himself, hence the tension.

Personally, snark aside, I'm getting a LOT out of this discussion.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:53 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Lordy - just imagine if I'd acted like citizen when I took my quals and defended my thesis! Out on my ear indeed.

Still cutting out and ignoring most of what I based my statements on. Still saying my arguments the simple strawman I see. Good on you, very logical...

Really, since I've had to repeat myself at least three times already, what's a fourth going to do exactly? Someone ignores what you say time and time again, and insists that their simplified shade is your real argument, you get to start talking about lying as far as I'm concerned.

Hell when the first time someone speaks to you, their opening gambit is to start throwing personal insults at you, I think that person is the last to complain about how debates should be carried on. You've got some bottle to complain about insults when you were the first to go there, I'll give you that. You can't even tell the truth about that, you claim that you called me illogical because I replied with emotion. I in fact replied with emotion because you kept insisting on attacking me personally because you have no patience.

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Good on you, very logical...

And YOU, young man, have done you part in this snarkfest.

I HAVE A GOOD MIND TO SPANK EVERYONE HERE...except, I don't think I could so easily defeat your gung fu...

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:18 AM

America loves a winner!

Mmmmmm

Chicken Gung Fu.

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 9:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Mmmmmm

Chicken Gung Fu.

AURaptor, on the other hand, demonstrates brainworkings unlike male OR female, more akin actually to the common toad.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 9:53 AM

America loves a winner!

It ain't easy being green.

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 9:57 AM

LOL, not bad, AU, ya got me with that one.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:50 AM

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

Citizen

"Well to be honest Rue, I've not bothered to read much of what you've posted ..."
Your loss. I had a detailed response to nearly all of your points I was interested in (see below why others were not of interest *), and showed them to be unsupported.

"you happily post about scientific studies that support you ..."
And how many have you posted ?

"You've ignored fully half (at least) of what I said ..."
* There is a difference in terminology between the countries, I think. Here, sex means biological sex, gender means self-identified sex (with implications of social roles), and sexual orientation means which sex to which you are sexually attracted. So for example you could have a biological male (sex) who felt himself to be female (gender) who was attracted to women (lesbian). It seemed unimportant to go though an argument based on different terminologies.

"... because firstly it says ~15% dimorphic ..."
Dimorphism is measured differently. Some use stature, span and cubit; some use the measure of bone dimensions with (different weighting given to each in the) averaging; and so on. Other studies I have read indicate 10% dimorphism for humans. I used those figures. But, the GREATER point is that as large apes, humans are FAR less dimorphic that the other large apes, the gorillas and orangutans. Its' hard to argue dimorphism as a large factor indicating something about human behavior when it is clearly not significant.
http://books.google.com/books?id=esDW3xTKoLIC&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=% 2Bdimorphism+human+gorilla+orangutan+chart+-afarensis&source=bl&ots=N4Mm- vomoP&sig=yfo6akVoo8a4imXyWTrILGIGnLk&hl =en&ei=NI_zSb_4LJiSswOaz4HyCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10
"Among monogamous primates, the average male is about 5% larger than the average female, whereas polygynous primates display bodily dimorphism over 50%. Human dimorphism in body size is also moderate, with men about 10% taller and 20% heavier than women." (Here they are using height and weight measures of dimporphism.)

"I said that the Great Apes show a trend to increasing sexual dimorphism with size ..."
But by ACTUAL MEASUREMENT made in the real world, humans are the exception to the trend. As was pointed out in the link. Your bad.

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

And, I'd be really curious for you to point out where I got personal - and, was that before or after all the undeserved snark you shoveled my way ?

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Its' hard to argue dimorphism as a large factor indicating something about human behavior when it is clearly not significant.

I disagree here. It clearly IS significant IMO.
Look at this from an eminent scientist in the field:

Quote:
Asked how dimorphism impacts human psychological evolution, Dr. Llasisirhc of the Institute of Advanced Biochemical and Neurological Research in Sydney, Australia commented:
"Girls rock, mate, therein lies the difference, eh?"

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:06 PM

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

And said in that lovely Aussie talk too !

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

Silence is consent.

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And said in that lovely Aussie talk too !

He MUST be right, then.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:23 PM

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

Right'o mate !

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

Silence is consent.

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:02 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Well, it seemed like a mighty detailed lecture to ME.

His original post wasn't bad, but the followup stank.

Quote:
Look, Citizen needs to read something like: "This study here [*] shows that spacial awareness is equal in men & women, what do you say to that?"

If the basis of his stance is some study, and he keeps referring to it, that's exactly what he should do.

Quote:
He doesn't respond well to "It's a MAN's study & men can't conduct pure science well, and what you're saying isn't TRUE, etc,"

Yeah, except I never said that. No one did, really.

Quote:
It seems to me that this is a loaded issue for some, and Cit has a very low irritation threshold for repeating himself, hence the tension.

Like much of what I've seen in RWED, the repetition comes from the fact that he never actually answers the question.

Quote:
Personally, snark aside, I'm getting a LOT out of this discussion.

And I think I'm done with my semi-annual visit to RWED. I guess I need the occasional reminder that these discussions don't actually go anywhere, but just end in temper tantrums and name calling. SO let me end this properly...

To citizen: I see through you pal. You can't find a even a ittle bitty bit of this research you've been going on about, so you weasle out by playing victim and blaming me. Boo-hoo! She called me illogical, I'm taking my toys and going home!

Pathetic.

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

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:12 PM

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

Anyway, I was curious ro see what a 'back of the envelope' calculation would show up in terms of weight dimorphism ammong the larger primates. For the primate data I went to the primate fact sheet at UWisconsin. Oddly enough, they didn't have information on humans (HEY ! Aren't WE primates ????!), so I went to the first website I found that claimed to have that information on people. M is male, F is female, A is average, and % is the percent difference between the two/ averge. Weight is in kg.

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets
http://www.articleworld.org/index.php/Human_weight

Pan paniscus (bonobo chimp)
39 M
31 F
35 A
23 %

Pan troglodytes (regular chimp)
50 M
39 F
45 A
25 %

homo sapiens (humans)
80 M
59 F
70 A
30 %

Pongo (orangutan)
87 M
37 F
62 A
81 %

Gorilla (gorilla)
181 M
85 F
133 A
72 %

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

Silence is consent.

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Yeah, except I never said that. No one did, really.

"I find a lot of those irrefutable studies on the mental differences between men and women suspect, because they are worked on BY men, in a field dominated BY men because society tells women they shouldn't be interested in math and science, but celebrities, dating, and GOD FORBID, shopping." comes real close.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

homo sapiens (humans)
80 M
59 F
70 A
30 %

30% seems like a significant difference to me.
Rue, look, if women were on average 30% larger than men, that one thing would have changed the face of this planet. Things like "date rape", "spousal abuse" & "war" would have entirely different meanings.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:42 PM

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

That's for weight, and that's based on my calculations. To get a number closer to what they would have gotten with their calculations, I probably should have divided by two. But I didn't want to complicate the calculation b/c it might not be obvious where the number was coming from. (But I created another problem, eh ?)

The estimates I've seen for chimpanzees' 'dimorphism' range from 5% to 20%, for humans from 10% to 20%. So my numbers are not within range.

They were just for looking at overall increase in body mass v difference between sexes. There seems to be a clear break between the two kinds of chimps and humans in the one group, and the gorillas and orangutans in the other - though humans are closer to the body weight of orangutans and gorillas than chimps.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

They were just for looking at overall increase in body mass v difference between sexes.

Basically, men are bigger because they need a greater physical presence to make up for their general stupidity to survive.
Is that what you're saying?

The faux huff Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:51 PM

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

OOOHHHHhhhh - I'm not sure if I want to get into a real answer on this. It involves relative penis size and scrotal sack size and sperm competition and ... stuff.

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

Ya' know what I mean ?

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:56 PM

So that IS what yer sayin' (just so we're clear).

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:59 PM

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

Select to view spoiler:

Waiting for ChrisIsAll to come back and tell me he NEEDS me to explain it. Maybe if I don't give him the idea and sneak away very, very quietly he won't get to it before I ...

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

Silence is consent.

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:59 PM

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

OH DRAT !

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

And that's all I'm going to say.

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 2:01 PM

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 2:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Yeah, except I never said that. No one did, really.

"I find a lot of those irrefutable studies on the mental differences between men and women suspect, because they are worked on BY men, in a field dominated BY men because society tells women they shouldn't be interested in math and science, but celebrities, dating, and GOD FORBID, shopping." comes real close.

The laughing Chrisisall

That was me.

I did explain how I misspoke? That the significance of the "man" part of it is that in the context of these studies they'd be susceptible to their social expectations? And that I admitted that women working on the same studies could be similarly influenced?

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

That was me.

I did explain how I misspoke?

Yes, but manbrains stay on the first track, we cannot be derailed!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:09 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Its' hard to argue dimorphism as a large factor indicating something about human behavior when it is clearly not significant.

This statement baffles me, why is it 'clearly not significant'? I missed where you made that argument. Isn't 10-20% significant?

You don't think there are natural masculine/feminine trends for behaviour like there are masculine/feminine physical trends?

Citizen I thought offered some quite compelling logic and scientific evidence to back the idea of a 'natural' difference in gender roles.

Heads should roll

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:44 PM

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

"Citizen I thought offered some quite compelling logic and scientific evidence to back the idea of a 'natural' difference in gender roles."

He made many claims that are either not true or only minimally true. (I had a long post above that went through many of them.)

"This statement baffles me, why is it 'clearly not significant'? I missed where you made that argument. Isn't 10-20% significant?"

In the animal world people try to get at the evolution of animal behavior by looking at physical characteristics.

For example:
There are species where one male mates with many females - I've read it described as the 'harem' mating system. In order to do that there is a lot of male/ male competition with the biggest males generally winning (unless smaller males form coalitions, which sometimes happens). In those species you'll often see vast differences between males and females - 50% or more size difference for example. You'll see it in lions, bears, tigers, cattle, sea lions, elephant seals, gorillas, orangutans, elephants, baboons ... it's quite a long list.

In addition, the males of these species tend to have smaller penises and not quite such big balls, as the top male doesn't have to compete sexually for females, and his sperm don't have to compete with the sperm of other males.

Other species are monogamous, and generally they are fairly close in size, with appx. 5% size dimorphism. (So there is a minimum amount of dimorphism that seems to exist between the males and females in all species. Sometimes though, the female (as the egg-layer) is the larger sex.)

Compared to 50+% dimorphism on the maximum end, and 5% on the minimum end, 10-20% (depending on what you measure) is on the lower end of the scale. In other words - not so much.
(Trying to find a picture of an average male and average female side by side to illustrate, but can't seem to find one.)

(best I can do)

When applied to mating schemes, btw, humans have relatively large penis and scrotal sac sizes, indicating that females mate with many males, and that males live in cooperative groups with other males - and females. (Too long an expl. for me to want to get into it.) Anyway, this is yet another indication that humans don't live in a 'harem' breeding system, and that males and females would not be expected to be very dimorphic (as they are not).

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:46 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

All interesting stuff.

Perhaps we can agree that humans are a 'special' kind of primate with surprisingly low dimorphism (given our size?). 10-20% is still significant though, by all accounts - you point out yourself it's above the minimum 5%. And for all I know the 5% minimum is also significant.

Gender roles within animals are very straight forward and well defined I would say. Human beings are definitely much more complex and adaptable in this regard.

To claim that the human brain is gender neutral, but receives a male/female identity stamped upon it by society, is definitely a stretch. My first question is, why would it evolve to be neutral?

Also, the case Citizen described of an experiment on girls exposed to male hormones developing 'masculine' mental traits was quite compelling on this score I thought.

Heads should roll

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:52 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ehhh...to simplify things. Chicks are hot, men are strong.

End of story.

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 5:43 PM

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

I went looking for the study he alluded to but couldn't find it. And while I'm sure it's correct, I'd like to see the details to understand where it's limited.

There are differences between males and females (duh !) but they're not as extreme as Citizen made them out to be, not as inborn, not as consequential, don't exist for the reasons he thinks they do, and generally are not born out by the examples he cites.

For example:

Why don't women make good scientists ? Citizen could say that it's because females are less suited by evolution to be thinkers, systematizers. OTOH (and forgive me I don't have the reference) when research grants were evaluated 'blinded' (names and other identifiers left off) females outperformed males on quality and quantity of work. But when names were named, (and sex inferred) females had to submit 9X the preliminary data as males to get the grant. So, by looking at the value of grants given are we to say that women are not such good researchers due to evolution ? Or do we more reasonably say that females face stiff discrimination ?

It's the same with surgery, and, by all accounts of the surveys done by the ACS (American Chemical Society) with chemical engineering, chemistry, biochemistry, materials science and other male-dominated fields. Women understand that they are not welcome. That their road will be made harder than a man's. That they will have to sacrifice much more in their lives to get to the same place. And by and large they say - to hell with it. Citizen looks at this data and claims that it's evolutionary. That women are in general 'meant' to be nurses by nature, not surgeons. Or (one presumes) technicians, not scientists. And it's simply not the case.

"To claim that the human brain is gender neutral, but receives a male/female identity stamped upon it by society, is definitely a stretch. My first question is, why would it evolve to be neutral?"

I'd be more inclined to say that abilities are closer to gender neutral than not, as the raw materials of ability - basic biochemistry - are distributed randomly without regard to sex. For example, I don't think that inborn differences account for the fact that only 5% of all surgeons are women. Because otherwise, you'd have to believe that men and women are 95% different. And how does this stand up ? Genetically speaking, humans are 97% the same as chimps. Do you believe you have more in common with a chimp (97%) that a human male does with a human female (95%) ?

NNNAAaawwwwww ...

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

Silence is consent.

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

Saturday, April 25, 2009 6:20 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Or it could be what I said.....

It always crack me up how people try to make things more complicated than then really are.

Maybe it gives them a purpose.

Or something to do.

ETA: You know, if people just remembered what makes us the same instead of what makes us different we would all be better off.

But maybe, it makes us feel important, special.

To be different.

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

Sunday, April 26, 2009 1:08 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
[BTo citizen: I see through you pal. You can't find a even a ittle bitty bit of this research you've been going on about, so you weasle out by playing victim and blaming me. Boo-hoo! She called me illogical, I'm taking my toys and going home!

Pathetic.

You can't even put one post together, without attacking people, then cry and whine when you get it back. That's pathetic. As I said, I've found some studies, but didn't find the full text, and clearly said I was still look, clearly said I was putting way more time into the search than you are apparently putting into your attacks and illogical dismissals based on zero evidence. But that's not good enough is it. Because it wasn't there right at that moment that you wanted it, you had to carry on attacking.

Well I see through you too. Right from the outset you had a preconceived notion, and it seemed like my statements went counter to that. You and Rue both have still yet to attack my actual argument, you dance around this little strawman you've got, acting superior when I object to you lying about my statements, personally attacking me and then complaining when you get the exact same thing back, and saying it proves your insults directed at me. Well, if saying the same things back at you proves stuff about me, it does about you too, even if you're not objective enough to see it.

The repetition comes from you misrepresenting my argument, me having to continually set you straight, and you still misrepresenting my argument. It's not that I haven't answered some question, it's that the answer is to say that question has nothing to do with what I'm saying, you you really don't want to accept that answer. Clearly the strawman is far too important to you to give up, being as it is you're only basis for argument and objection. Excuse me if I'm not going to bother setting you straight politely, when it's sure not to stick and you've been anything but logical and polite throughout.

My argument went like this A-to-B via A-1-2-B. You and Rue both have been desperately trying to cut out number 2 from that progression, so that it's A-1- -B, and then said "you're so illogical making that mad leap". Yeah, if I was making the argument you claim I'm making, then I'd agree, but since your claim is well off, I won't. You've stripped out single sentences or even fragments out of the larger context that explains them, then pressed me on some bizarre interpretation that was never what I meant. The only way I could possibly keep you all happy would be to form all my posts out of ridiculous verbose and convoluted "legalese", which is something I'm not prepared to do just because your language comprehension isn't so great.

You talk about how things should work in scientific situations, yet I'm pretty sure that you would be "out on your ear", if you voiced your objection by shouting that they're just plain wrong, and incapable of thinking logically. You expect that you're going to foster good debate by making everyone act in an opposite manner to you I suppose?

You see through me? Better take the mirrors off your glasses because you're way off. But hey, maybe I can see through you, you came in here with a preconceived notion, and anyone who thought otherwise, or seemed to, had to be shut down. Clearly you've not even remotely prepared to consider anything but the voices in your head. No wonder you never find any headway here, because you clearly don't want to make any. You expect to come here, attack me personally, attack me again when I make the effort because it's not quick enough for your toddler attention span, and then you're surprised that I don't treat you and your opinion with more respect than you've even considered treating me and mine.

When you or Rue can actually go at my argument directly and logically, I'll support it, because it's not beholden to me to support the strawman you've created. I've constantly had to set people straight on the strawman Rue started, and you're now holding on to, and yeah, until you drop the strawman and actually go at what I said logically, rather than desperately hold on to the lie so you can demand I back up your strawman, which I'm neither beholden nor going to do, this discussion can't go forward. But it can't go forward because I'm not going to continue dealing with people who aren't prepared to discuss logically, and your not prepared to discuss what I actually said.

But since we're discussing illogical:

Quote:
Genetically speaking, humans are 97% the same as chimps. Do you believe you have more in common with a chimp (97%) that a human male does with a human female (95%) ?

That right there is probably the most illogical statement on this thread.

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

Sunday, April 26, 2009 4:45 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I don't think that inborn differences account for the fact that only 5% of all surgeons are women. Because otherwise, you'd have to believe that men and women are 95% different.

I don't agree with this maths, the problem I believe wants statistical analysis. But offhand I would say that the natural male brain only has to excel the female brain by a small amount in a few key skills departments (spatial something, etc.), and that would make all the difference (or most of it) in such a competitive profession.

I'm not denying cultural/environmental pressures/expectations though, and their effect - I don't think Citizen is either - undoubtedly talented women aspiring to some professions meet more obstacles than men. So we have two principles at work here, and the question is which is the most powerful, governing principle.

One thing that swings it for me that there are fairly well defined natural male/female brains is when men for some womb chemistry reasons or other are born with 'feminine' brains. They of course are raised to be boys, and men - but their natural female brain can not be suppressed, even with their male hormones, and in the end they decide to have a sex change. Isn't this how you interpret this phenomenon rue?

Another argument for traditional gender roles is the logic I alluded to before - why would we evolve a neutral brain? Surely humans would perform their neccessary tasks much more effectively if we had specialised hunters/carers, etc. With woman's crucial physical burden to produce offspring and keep the species going, I think it is a strong argument that they should evolve into other roles than 'hunter', because they are not as physically suited (or expendable) as men.

Heads should roll

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

Sunday, April 26, 2009 5:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't think that inborn differences account for the fact that only 5% of all surgeons are women. Because otherwise, you'd have to believe that men and women are 95% different.

Rue, you must be tired, this really doesn't make sense, unless you were just trying to be funny.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Sunday, April 26, 2009 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
With woman's crucial physical burden to produce offspring and keep the species going, I think it is a strong argument that they should evolve into other roles than 'hunter', because they are not as physically suited (or expendable) as men.

This makes a lot of sense to me, though.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Sunday, April 26, 2009 8:15 AM

>_> I was trying to stay out of this, because Citizen and I mostly resolved our part of the conversation, but I don't see what doesn't make sense about Rue's comments.

More men are surgeons than women. Supposedly, 95% of surgeons are men.

If men are naturally better at surgery than women, and this is considered to be the only important factor in becoming a surgeon, then at least in this field, there is a 95% difference in the natural abilities of men (when it comes to being a surgeon) compared to women.

Rue's taking it a step further and using that difference in ability as representative of the genetic difference between men and women. Which DOESN'T make sense, I'll grant you, but her point is demonstrating that it doesn't make sense.

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

Sunday, April 26, 2009 12:09 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
>_> I was trying to stay out of this, because Citizen and I mostly resolved our part of the conversation, but I don't see what doesn't make sense about Rue's comments.

More men are surgeons than women. Supposedly, 95% of surgeons are men.

If men are naturally better at surgery than women, and this is considered to be the only important factor in becoming a surgeon, then at least in this field, there is a 95% difference in the natural abilities of men (when it comes to being a surgeon) compared to women.

Rue's taking it a step further and using that difference in ability as representative of the genetic difference between men and women. Which DOESN'T make sense, I'll grant you, but her point is demonstrating that it doesn't make sense.

Understand the argument but dispute the maths. This to me is like saying, '95% of the people above 6ft3 are men, and only 5% women. Therefore there is a 95% difference in height between the sexes'.

Because the surgical profession is a very highly skilled one and not just anyone can do it. There is a bar that you have to meet, in terms of your natural skills. Like the 6ft3-high bar I held up to the two sexes in the previous paragraph.

Heads should roll

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

Sunday, April 26, 2009 12:46 PM

Here we're talking only two states within a group (surgeons): male or female. There aren't any other "heights" so to speak to interfere with the statistics.

In other words, we're not talking about a range of possibilities (like heights) on top of the male of female state, focusing on the percentage of one state above an arbitrary point in the upper end of the bell-curve, and saying that percentage is representative of the rest.

Therefore, I'd say this is more an example of conditional probability than a bell curve.

I am, however, just taking Rue's word for it that 95% is the percentage of surgeons who are male. I haven't confirmed it.

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

Sunday, April 26, 2009 1:14 PM

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

"I don't agree with this maths, the problem I believe wants statistical analysis. But offhand I would say that the natural male brain only has to excel the female brain by a small amount in a few key skills departments (spatial something, etc.), and that would make all the difference (or most of it) in such a competitive profession."

If spatial ability, like most biological measures, follows a more or less normal curve, then 95% would be (roughly) 2 standard deviations. You would have to show that 1) only people who perform at the top 5% of ability are accepted into surgical residency and 2) females are 2 SD away from males on those skills. I don't think you can show either.

"One thing that swings it for me that there are fairly well defined natural male/female brains is when men for some womb chemistry reasons or other are born with 'feminine' brains. They of course are raised to be boys, and men - but their natural female brain can not be suppressed, even with their male hormones, and in the end they decide to have a sex change. Isn't this how you interpret this phenomenon rue?"

In short - no. Sexual identity (do I feel myself to be male or female), and sexual orientation (do I feel more attracted to one sex or the other) don't have a known cause. (For orientation there are diffrences in brain structure, but that has no known cause.) And which sex you feel like you belong to does not relate to which sex you are attacted to. And it also isn't related to any purported difference in abilities. I know of no study that shows that gay or transgender males for example do less well in spatial ability tests than straight males. Or that lesbian or transgender females do better than straight females on the same tests.

So it becomes problematic to say that there are 'female brains' in males which are female 'just because' (despite male hormones), and that further, those female-brains'-in-the-wrong package are like normal female brains in terms of abilities.

"Another argument for traditional gender roles is the logic I alluded to before - why would we evolve a neutral brain? Surely humans would perform their neccessary tasks much more effectively if we had specialised hunters/carers, etc. With woman's crucial physical burden to produce offspring and keep the species going, I think it is a strong argument that they should evolve into other roles than 'hunter', because they are not as physically suited (or expendable) as men."

The better question would be - why should they be different ? Humans have 46 chromosomes. Only 1 - 2% of all chromosomes - is different between men and women. We are all made from the same basic plan, and in fact, males start out female. The basic biochemistry is the same. All the 96% autosomal chromosomes divide out randomly between the sexes. And indeed, males and females share the other sex chromosome - one X chromosome - the remaining 2% that's the same. Nearly all of life's necessary tasks are identical between the sexes: eating, digestion, energy production, movement ... And when there is no specific pressure on males or females, the sexes, as creatures doing the same things with the same diet in the same environment, end up more or less identical in size. (This is the third time I'm bringing this up - it seems to keep bouncing of the rim with you. PLEASE address this point before you bring up this idea yet again.)

When one looks at species where males and females are VERY different, the driving factor is harem mating. That doesn't seem to be the case with people.

And making suppositions (very unfounded ones I might add, and most likely wrong) about the role of males and females during the evolutionary past is not the way to bolster another supposition. If you look at some of the materials I've referenced and linked, you'll see that humans were VERY dimorphic in the past, and came to be much closer in size during our evolution. That argues that the things that made us people reduced the differences, not increased them. (Also the third time I've bought up the fact that the purported evolutionary past you and Citizen are wedded to is inaccurate.)

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

Silence is consent.

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

Sunday, April 26, 2009 1:17 PM

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

Citizen

Which thing have you shown to be true ?

That these differences are genetic and not a result of nurture ?
No.
That they are large ?
No.
That they are meaningful ?
No.
That they are due to some supposed evolutionary pressure ?
No.

NO ONE HERE is arguing that there are no differences. But you simply haven't been able to prove your points. Not as a result of any straw-man arguments on anyone's part. But b/c you haven't met the reasonable disagreements that have come your way.

To make your argument, you have many, MANY steps you need to solidify. But you keep trying to prove one assumption with the next. It doesn't work.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Sunday, April 26, 2009 1:25 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Byte,

I'm breaking down the profession of surgeon into its requisite skills; 3D spatial visualisation and so on - which i'm assuming are scientifically testable and quantifiable. My understanding of this whole argument is that there would be a male bell curve and a female bell curve for the scores of these tests, and they would be spaced a certain difference apart on the same graph (showing men overall performing better).

Agree? Natural attributes being measured, just like heights.

Obviously there is overlap between the two bell curves, and they don't need to be spaced 95% apart for only 5 women out of 100 to make the cut off line.

Heads should roll

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

Sunday, April 26, 2009 1:26 PM

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

"I am, however, just taking Rue's word for it that 95% is the percentage of surgeons who are male."

That is the figure I got for Britain. In the US it is more like 88 - 90%.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Sunday, April 26, 2009 1:30 PM