Options

Political Correctness and the Demonology of Modern Prejudice

145791013

Posts

  • Options
    HerosCasurusHerosCasurus Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    There are some inherent differences genetically between men and women other than the obvious one.

    The real issue is to what extent those differences really affect things like personality, cognizance, etc...
    In other words, are humans a more nurture or nature based being?

    And I don't think there is very conclusive evidence either way simply because studies on this topic often have large methodological errors as many of you have pointed out, on either side. (this really stems from the fact it is almost impossible to separate an innate reaction from a learned one since we start learning immediately upon birth... oh, and there is some evidence we do so before that)

    I myself am a firm believer in nurture. I base this on the fact that in my experience people seem to be very largely products of their environment. I won't try to defend this... it involves too many observations and "buts." Take it as opinion

    As for the original poster's point:
    Buying your daughter a doll because thats what you perceive as a common thing young girls like is normal, and frankly, rational. In fact, thats you employing your observations to make a logical conclusion on what she might like. Nonetheless, if you give her the doll and she decides she wants a GI Joe with karate-chop action, or a toy gun, or w/e, then in the future you should get her what she wants.

    Further, it annoys me as well how irate people can get over generalizations. Honestly, if in my summed life experience i find that usually a certain type of person (insert some controversial qualifier; race, gender, w/e) tends to engage in a certain action, why is it wrong to then assume individuals with that trait will do that in my future dealings with them? It is our mind's logical method of categorizing something so we can quickly respond to similar, but unique, situations in the future. Stereotypes exist for a reason. Innately, the fault with stereotypes lays at the feet of those they are of, not those who make them. If you don't like how others perceive a particular group you belong to, don't play in to the stereotype, and change their perception.

    HerosCasurus on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    irt Tycho?
    So there's a conspiracy in modern science to trick society into incorrectly believing that women can be competent engineers? And the reason you can't cite any credible studies is because the conspirators keep them out of the media, so you can't reasonably be expected to support your claims?

    And of course every scientist realizes that it would totally not make his career to prove something as major as this, so they all keep things silent.

    Well, apparently all the scientists are just in on it together, because being the first to publish something as huge as that would be a tenured position wherever the fuck you want and a complimentary Porsche. This just seems wierd though with how the scientific community is predominately male in composition. Maybe they're just trying to get laid.

    There are no conspiracies. Stop shitting on the thread. I agree with you in a sense that if he doesn't have sources he shouldn't claim to have sources, but you're strawmanning here with the specific purpose of convoluting the discussion (lol conspiracy).

    Once again saying that there is a group of people deliberately keeping good research from being reported or published for the sake of political correctness as an agenda is referencing a conspiracy even if you deliberately make a point not to use the word "conspiracy". Ergo I'm not the one shitting on the thread.
    ege02 wrote: »
    Except that very little brings ratings like controversy. Any news network that had access to credible studies showing that women are natively inferior at x, y and z would be shooting themselves in the foot not to publicize it.

    I'm not going to disagree with you in your argument with Tycho, but you're wrong here. Controversy may sell in the short-run, but newspapers, due to the way the advertisement industry works, are primarily interested in long-term readership. If a paper was publishing research and pissing off large portions of its readers, it would be shooting itself in the foot. These footnotes and the sources they cite should provide a good explanation that dispel the myth that more readers/viewers = more profits for media.

    That's a collection of footnotes about Nicaragua. None of which state that pointing out that men and women are natively vastly different in their capabilities would result in lower readership/viewership. Your point is unsupported.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Nicaragua is also an incredibly fucked up country.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    The Cat spent a significant amount of time arguing in another thread that biological mothers have a stronger link to the child from birth than biological fathers. Putting aside the validity of that argument, thats one way which they're different. Assuming she's right. (which I am in no position to dispute).
    No, i didn't. And the rest of your post pretty much marks you as a bigger retard than even ege with his return to the TESTOSTERONE CONTROLS EVERYTHING bullshit I thought we'd finally hammered out of him the last time he made one of these stupid fucking threads. There are lots of women builders of all stripes. The reason there aren't more is basically, well, ignorant shitheads like you telling them from the time they can walk that they can't possibly succeed at any job like that and that men will hate them if they try.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Further, it annoys me as well how irate people can get over generalizations. Honestly, if in my summed life experience i find that usually a certain type of person (insert some controversial qualifier; race, gender, w/e) tends to engage in a certain action, why is it wrong to then assume individuals with that trait will do that in my future dealings with them? It is our mind's logical method of categorizing something so we can quickly respond to similar, but unique, situations in the future. Stereotypes exist for a reason. Innately, the fault with stereotypes lays at the feet of those they are of, not those who make them. If you don't like how others perceive a particular group you belong to, don't play in to the stereotype, and change their perception.

    How is one person going to change a stereotype? And if they can't, then how is it rational (let alone fair) to assume that anyone with physical trait x is going to participate in behaviour y or that when behaviour y occurs it's most likely being performed by a person with physical trait x? I mean unless the behaviour requires the trait, like if Volkswagons are being bench-pressed we can safely assume they're being bench-pressed by someone with very large muscles just because otherwise they wouldn't be able to lift a damned car. But those sorts of situations are pretty easily identified.

    And supposing there's a young black male who doesn't commit violent-crimes, how is the stereotype that he is a violent criminal his fault?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    People are once again taught why generalizations are bad ITT.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Everyone I talked to seemed to think she was justified in complaining. But, lookin at the man, he's a huge, probably at least 110kg (~245 pounds) muscle-bound guy, and it was a position to be a fucking sheet-metal worker! You weren't turned down because you're a woman! You were turned down because he is strong and you are not!
    Actually, you have no fucking way of knowing how strong she was - you're making shit up to justify your idiotic prejudice. If she didn't meet the minimum physical standards for the job, the company would have been screaming it from the rooftops. You seem to have this picture in your head of some 90lb secretary one day deciding she'd like to weld shit for a living, and I'm willing to bet its because women who don't meet the waify standard of attractiveness in today's society don't even register on your radar. News flash: a lot of women are actually quite strong! Also, the strength difference between men and women is greatly exaggerated by cultural discouragement of women from participating in regular physical conditioning, and the gap narrows considerably in the face of a proper training program. There is, in fact, such a large overlap in potential strength averages that your argument holds no water whatsoever. Also, it breaks down even further when you start looking at specific types of strength and fitness. Men win on upper body lifting. Women win on lower body. Men win on short bursts. Women win on endurance. etc. etc. etc, but you don't know this stuff, you'd rather spout off in your comfortable ignorance, and you are manifestly unqualified to comment in this thread get out.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    HerosCasurusHerosCasurus Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Perhaps, i didn't clarify what i meant. We, as humans, all generalize all the time. EVERY TIME you meet a new person, or thing, you mentally begin processing things about them based on their physical appearance. Its unavoidable. Its how humans work. And it makes sense because we would have become extinct long ago if we didn't. Consider this: if i see big nasty thing with sharp teeth, i think, "well the last big nasty with sharp pointy teeth tried to eat me... i best run." Granted the observations with other humans are far more complex, but, they are still there.

    Further, i agree it is unfair that individuals get lumped into stereotypes, but, its inevitable, and i dont think it will change because of the innateness of their conception. Thus, crying wolf about it really doesn't help anything.

    HerosCasurus on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Perhaps, i didn't clarify what i meant. We, as humans, all generalize all the time. EVERY TIME you meet a new person, or thing, you mentally begin processing things about them based on their physical appearance. Its unavoidable. Its how humans work. And it makes sense because we would have become extinct long ago if we didn't. Consider this: if i see big nasty thing with sharp teeth, i think, "well the last big nasty with sharp pointy teeth tried to eat me... i best run." Granted the observations with other humans are far more complex, but, they are still there.

    Further, i agree it is unfair that individuals get lumped into stereotypes, but, its inevitable, and i dont think it will change because of the innateness of their inception. Thus, crying wolf about it really doesn't help anything.

    What makes you so sure that when I meet someone I start making assumptions about what skills they do and do not have based on physical traits irrelevant to the ability to perform those skills? And who's crying wolf? You stated that that stereotype is his own fault, I'm asking how. Also if something is innate it doesn't have an inception.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    HerosCasurusHerosCasurus Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    What makes you so sure that when I meet someone I start making assumptions about what skills they do and do not have based on physical traits irrelevant to the ability to perform those skills? And who's crying wolf? You stated that that stereotype is his own fault, I'm asking how. Also if something is innate it doesn't have an inception.

    BS you don't stereotype. No one is in a state of tabula rasa each time they meet someone. Your mind unconsciously makes those judgments. I will grant you this, you can consciously try to not let your stereotypes affect your perception of someone.

    I spoke, or wrote as it were, too quickly when i said it was the fault of "you," as i put it, if you are sterotyped. I meant a more global "you" as in those of a group.

    Meant conception sorry

    HerosCasurus on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    What makes you so sure that when I meet someone I start making assumptions about what skills they do and do not have based on physical traits irrelevant to the ability to perform those skills? And who's crying wolf? You stated that that stereotype is his own fault, I'm asking how. Also if something is innate it doesn't have an inception.

    BS you don't stereotype. No one is in a state of tabula rasa each time they meet someone. Your mind unconsciously makes those judgments. I will grant you this, you can consciously try to not let your stereotypes affect your perception of someone.

    Oh I certainly make some assumptions, but not about what skills they do and do not possess. I'll make some assumptions about what sorts of television programming they enjoy and what genre of music they prefer and I certainly make some general predictions (by that I mean non-specific, like "be friendly and coversational" versus "snarl and avoid everyone") about how they're going to respond if I go and interact with them, but I don't see why I'd be making assumptions about how well they did in physics-class. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    HerosCasurusHerosCasurus Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Well, you, might not do those things. But, stereotypes, as i am arguing them, are unique to the individual by virtue of them resulting from your personal experiences.

    HerosCasurus on
  • Options
    JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I make assumptions about what skills they do and do not possess. I'll make assumptions about what sorts of television programming they enjoy and what genre of music they prefer and I certainly make predictions about how they're going to respond if I go and interact with them, I be making assumptions about how well they did in physics-class.

    Oh, you're fucked now.

    JamesKeenan on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Well, you, might not do those things. But, stereotypes, as i am arguing them, are unique to the individual by virtue of them resulting from your personal experiences.

    Wait I thought the stereotypes came from the people being stereotyped, not the person doing the stereotyping. Because the way you just said it here it comes from the person doing the stereotyping.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Well isn't that partly true? It may be absence or presence of facts, or it may just be the influence of society or personal experience, but our judgments and prejudices can only come from ourselves. If you've never heard of a stereotype, you can't know to make it just by meeting the race/personality type/whatever by meeting the person. Alternatively, you may have experienced in your lifetime that all jocks you know sneeze three times and hit their chest. That may turn into a hilarious stereotype joke for you.

    Absurd example, but I think it establishes my point. :)

    JamesKeenan on
  • Options
    HerosCasurusHerosCasurus Registered User regular
    edited December 2007

    Honestly, if in my summed life experience i find that usually a certain type of person (insert some controversial qualifier; race, gender, w/e) tends to engage in a certain action, why is it wrong to then assume individuals with that trait will do that in my future dealings with them? It is our mind's logical method of categorizing something so we can quickly respond to similar, but unique, situations in the future. Stereotypes exist for a reason.

    HerosCasurus on
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ZeeBeeKay wrote: »
    Not sure if someone has said this yet, or if it is completely wrong, but this is what I've learned:

    Patriarchy (and thus male dominance) developed with the societal ability to accumulate more property. Nomadic societies are largely egalitarian (far more so than sedentary societies in comparable areas and times) and generally matrilineal because the child's mother is known, its father is not. When agriculture developed, men did the hard labor (plowing and such, probably as a replacement for their previous hunting duties but I'm iffy on that), because women were largely in charge of watching the offspring, horticulture (planting and such) and training them to do the labor that they could. So, as men did the more productive labor, they became more economically important, and accumulated more wealth/property. With that wealth and property came the desire to leave it to their offspring (understandably), which then turned into a male dominated society because they thought that if women were allowed freedom they would start popping out babies that didn't belong to their husbands.

    (also interesting to me: with the rise of patriarchal societies came the de-powering of a lot of female gods, and the destruction of a lot of the gods' female forms. I don't have my history text right here, though, so I've not got an example so this is just kind of an irrelevant sidebar)

    t historical; dr: There's a reason patriarchy developed, and its directly related to the type of society we live in. Men aren't inherently dominant, and there's nothing PC about saying that.

    You are either reading some pretty dodgy history books, taught by a pretty dodgy professor, or are making some pretty dodgy assumptions from what you have been taught.

    I would like to see these history books which have sources from, er, before recorded history, because otherwise I am pretty impressed by the archaeologists who managed to accurately define these quite complex political & cultural mores from a couple of unearthed campsites. I am also interested in the books which say economics, property ownership, division of labour, etc were an important factor of subsistence societies several thousand years before the invention of economics, property ownership, division of labour, etc.

    1. Your assertions about nomadic societies are completely wrong. Go to Mongolia or to find North African Arab nomads today and see horse-coursing; they are not "matrilineal". Go there five hundred years ago, and meet the steppe warrior-emperors Temur and Genghis Khan - they weren't matrilineal then. Go there one thousand five hundred years ago or thereabouts, and meet Attila & his mates at the borders of China - not much matrilineal. Native American tribes - not matrilineal. I'm no expert, but it isn't much of a stretch to imagine these children of early nomads, who haven't differed much in the last 2000 years, didn't differ much to their predecessors. Nomad societies require everyone to share a similar skill set (ie riding, making camp, hunting) often regardless of sex (ie Steppe female warriors, where the 'Amazon' myth in Roman culture came from), and thus can be seen as more egalitarian. But they remained extremely male-orientated (see 2 below). Also, 500-1500 years ago they were often polygamous & retained strong family ties, so your assertion about father/motherhood is wrong. It is more likely that the father of a child would be well-known, the mother would be one of several consorts.

    2. Why was there enough of a male/female ratio for polygamy, and why were they male-orientated? The amazingly massive factor you totally ignored: war. Whether women fight or not, war still tends to be a male-dominated activity, because they tend to be the stronger & more aggressive. Nomadic societies, particularly the earliest Steppe / African tribes we know of, are noted for their martial prowess in current records. Similarly, early rooted civilisations were largely defined by their ability to wield power. Your emphasis on the accumulation of property is bizarre in this ommission; property accumulation is of no use if you cannot defend it. Today, we have property rights & a legal system to enforce this. In pre-recorded civilisations, they did not.

    3. Your assertion about the 'depowering of female gods' is similarly utter rubbish, and here I think you are extrapolating yourself. It is patently untrue. Greco-Roman, Mediterranean cultures were highly patriarchal, as were ancient Celtic / Gothic societies. The Greco-Egyptian pantheon (which was the basis for most of the religious panethons of the period) however, contains a fine balance of male & female figures, up to the very highest levels of power (Zeus / Hera, Isis / Osiris). The Norse / Celtic pantheon also has many strong female figures. Surviving polytheistic religions also have a significant smattering of female gods or androgynous figures (Hinduism & related faiths). All of these existed or came into existence millenia after the period you are talking about, and all of them in very patriarchal societies. Sure, they demonstrate some typical bias - females are the gods of fertility, love; men of war, hitting metal with other bits of metal - but they are very far from 'depowering female gods'. The emergence of monotheistic religions post-AD was the religious watermark for getting rid of female divinities, but this did not even remotely coincide with the emergence of patriarchal society.

    There are simply a thousand and one more reasons why societies are / are not matriarchal, some of them very specific to the one example. Your version is insanely simplistic, and doesn't seem to be based on a shred of proof. I don't know if you are spouting bullshit or you have been taught badly, but this is some extraordinarily vapid Marxist revisionist crap you are talking, which to force its apparent point about feminism or the centricity of social organisation, neatly ignores the minor fact that for the whole of history human society and civilization has largely evolved & developed through killing each other.

    Oh, but we're better than that now. :roll:

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ZeeBeeKay wrote:
    See, and here is where I blow what little credibility I have, I don't know. In what I've read there's always been an implication of a more egalitarian society before they settled down (ie women being able to own property, businesses, etc) but I've never seen it explicitly spelled out. There certainly is a contrast between, say, Muhammed's first wife being a wealthy widowed business owner and the women in Greece being locked in their rooms wearing veils, but I'm not sure how equal the sexes were in purely nomadic societies. It's always seemed to be one of those things that only developed with sedentary society because in a nomadic one everyone is needed to help keep everything working.

    Oh dear god.

    Muhammed was born several thousand years after the women in Greece were wearing veils (?), unless you are talking about some modern Islamic state of Greece that I haven't heard of, and not ancient Greece. Also, Muhammed was born thousands of years after sedentary society began. The idea that early nomadic societies had property, businesses etc for women to own is also extraordinarily amusing.

    You don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I'll admit that I have huge problems with archaeological extrapolation in a great deal of this pre-recorded historical theory, but these theorists are arguing about shit that happened long before the nomadic tribes you mention. We're talking pre-Tigris and Euphrates. And the "depowering of female gods" allegedly happened long before any well-organized polytheistic religion.

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007

    Honestly, if in my summed life experience i find that usually a certain type of person (insert some controversial qualifier; race, gender, w/e) tends to engage in a certain action, why is it wrong to then assume individuals with that trait will do that in my future dealings with them? It is our mind's logical method of categorizing something so we can quickly respond to similar, but unique, situations in the future. Stereotypes exist for a reason.

    You have more say in what you decide about people upon initial impressions than you're giving credit for. At the very least it's not like you aren't privy to your own thoughts, you know these things you decide about people and if you catch something in there that doesn't make sense you have the power to go "hey, this doesn't make any sense" and discard that judgment. Trying to determine everything about a person before talking to them is foolish.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    That was my point Zstrek. That kind of extrapolation relies heavily on comparing what is found in digs from the period with the ancestral / modern equivalents today or in recorded history. Thus it would be a bit bizarre if archaeologists were claiming that early nomads were very egalitarian when later nomads are emphatically not, and that early sedentry civilisation was very matriarchal, when most early recorded civilisations were patriarchal.

    Trivia: the 'first civilisations were matriarchal' bit I saw mentioned earlier is usually a misattributed reference to Egyptian society as the first known civilisation (early societies along the Nile Delta != Egyptian as we think of it), using a similar misapprehension that early Egyptian civilisation was matriarchal.

    Two, ZeeBeeKay is jumping all over history in his examples, talking about early pre-recorded civilisations and then using examples from between 500BC - 500AD, well into recorded history.

    Three, assuming this 'depowering of female gods' did happen pre-polytheistic religion, are we just going to ignore the fact that they had a massive resurgance in patriarchal Mediterranean societies from around 2000BC which lasted for a good 2.5 thousand years, ie 1000 years longer than patriarchal monotheism?

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    ege has a point when he says that people have already made up their minds about this, society has made this decision without any sort of solid science to back it up from either side. Any science that goes against these views is immediately considered flawed, any that agrees is considered to be true.

    ...

    There are actually lots of studies on this, however many are not reported to the media because it would cause such a shit-storm, and because its pretty impossible to draw general conclusions from them in the first place.

    These are the claims you made. "Claims made" being something very different from "opinions stated". You never use the word conspiracy but if I go and describe a vessel that rides on four wheels and is powered by a gasoline-burning internal combustion engine which is operated from the inside as a means of conveyance it would be pretty retarded for me to flip out at you for just calling it a car. I'm not going to argue over opinions, that would also be retarded. I'm only arguing over claims.

    I like how you dont mention the part where I stated why most studies aren't released to the media. And the part where I stated that scientists aren't hiding anything. And how you cut the last sentence from the first paragraph, which leaves out how my complaints about this attitude is from a scientific method perspective. And how you seemed to just totally ignore my response post to your claims.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    ege has a point when he says that people have already made up their minds about this, society has made this decision without any sort of solid science to back it up from either side. Any science that goes against these views is immediately considered flawed, any that agrees is considered to be true.

    ...

    There are actually lots of studies on this, however many are not reported to the media because it would cause such a shit-storm, and because its pretty impossible to draw general conclusions from them in the first place.

    These are the claims you made. "Claims made" being something very different from "opinions stated". You never use the word conspiracy but if I go and describe a vessel that rides on four wheels and is powered by a gasoline-burning internal combustion engine which is operated from the inside as a means of conveyance it would be pretty retarded for me to flip out at you for just calling it a car. I'm not going to argue over opinions, that would also be retarded. I'm only arguing over claims.

    I like how you dont mention the part where I stated why most studies aren't released to the media. And the part where I stated that scientists aren't hiding anything. And how you cut the last sentence from the first paragraph, which leaves out how my complaints about this attitude is from a scientific method perspective. And how you seemed to just totally ignore my response post to your claims.

    How am I supposed to respond to "Violent Chemistry is a fucktard" over and over? "Why no! As it happens this research study here shows that Violent Chemistry is in fact 98.2% non-fucktard by mass." And I responded to your claim that deciding not to use a predictive tool that hasn't shown itself to be consistently accurate is bad-science, I just did it in a later post. You refer to this research as both good research and as stupid research, but your claim that it's unjustly discarded rests on the assumption that the research is good, so that's how I'm reading that. If I don't read it that way, your allegation isn't coherent. You insist that the research is withheld from both the media and academic journals (because otherwise you couldn't cop-out of citing it), but that no one is actually holding it back from these channels of communication. I'm giving your incoherent rambling the most generous read I can and the best you're willing to give in exchange is name-calling.

    Edit: Also what claims exactly did I make? I only recall questioning yours, not making any of my own apart from that controversy sells.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    ege has a point when he says that people have already made up their minds about this, society has made this decision without any sort of solid science to back it up from either side. Any science that goes against these views is immediately considered flawed, any that agrees is considered to be true.

    ...

    There are actually lots of studies on this, however many are not reported to the media because it would cause such a shit-storm, and because its pretty impossible to draw general conclusions from them in the first place.

    These are the claims you made. "Claims made" being something very different from "opinions stated". You never use the word conspiracy but if I go and describe a vessel that rides on four wheels and is powered by a gasoline-burning internal combustion engine which is operated from the inside as a means of conveyance it would be pretty retarded for me to flip out at you for just calling it a car. I'm not going to argue over opinions, that would also be retarded. I'm only arguing over claims.

    I like how you dont mention the part where I stated why most studies aren't released to the media. And the part where I stated that scientists aren't hiding anything. And how you cut the last sentence from the first paragraph, which leaves out how my complaints about this attitude is from a scientific method perspective. And how you seemed to just totally ignore my response post to your claims.

    How am I supposed to respond to "Violent Chemistry is a fucktard" over and over? "Why no! As it happens this research study here shows that Violent Chemistry is in fact 98.2% non-fucktard by mass." And I responded to your claim that deciding not to use a predictive tool that hasn't shown itself to be consistently accurate is bad-science, I just did it in a later post. You refer to this research as both good research and as stupid research, but your claim that it's unjustly discarded rests on the assumption that the research is good, so that's how I'm reading that. If I don't read it that way, your allegation isn't coherent. You insist that the research is withheld from both the media and academic journals (because otherwise you couldn't cop-out of citing it), but that no one is actually holding it back from these channels of communication. I'm giving your incoherent rambling the most generous read I can and the best you're willing to give in exchange is name-calling.

    Edit: Also what claims exactly did I make? I only recall questioning yours, not making any of my own apart from that controversy sells.

    Cop-out of citing what? What research? I made no claims which require citation, I made no scientific claims at all! This whole discussion of males having better spatial reasoning, or whatever, is not something I ever took a side on, I specifically stated that I didn't even have an opinion on it yet. And I insist research is witheld from medical journals? What the fuck man, this is blatantly making stuff up, I never said anything about anything being withheld from journals. Show me where I said stuff was being withheld from journals. I said "research" (ie, reserach into male and female psychology, differences/similarities and whatever, I never specified) is often not released to the media because there is no reason to do so. What could I cite that would backup my claims here? I'd just have to find some peer-reviewed psych papers on a similar topic and then attempt to show that there was no media coverage. I dont feel like doing this, but I doubt you think that every paper on the topic is released to the media anyway. Otherwise I'd just have to find studies which come to different conclusions and I believe several have already been posted in this thread, aside from being a dime a dozen in psychology as a whole.

    [Tycho?] wrote:
    There are actually lots of studies on this, however many are not reported to the media because it would cause such a shit-storm, and because its pretty impossible to draw general conclusions from them in the first place.
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    What does this mean? Who knows. There are actually lots of studies on this, however most are not reported to the media because it would cause such a shit-storm

    This is where you're wrong because studies 'showing' women to be more stupid / better at shopping than men are constantly in the newspapers.

    I meant credible studies, ones that are actually designed to learn things instead of causing a fuss. It isn't general practice to release the results of some random psych study to the media. However I shouldn't have said "most" since I dont actually know the proportions.
    [Tycho?] wrote:
    I said many studies relating to this are not released to the media. This is true. Do you know why? Because these studies are common as muck, and there is no good reason to release a scientific study to the media unless it is very very important. Only idiots draw huge generalized conclusions about society as a whole from a single excersise in statistics, especially considing the wide variety of results that come from them. Note that I didn't say "Studies showing women to be stupid are kept out of the media by conspirators". In fact, I didn't even comment on what the results of those studies was (its not like I would know anyway, I'm not a psychologist).

    Again, you said
    So there's a conspiracy in modern science to trick society into incorrectly believing that women can be competent engineers? And the reason you can't cite any credible studies is because the conspirators keep them out of the media, so you can't reasonably be expected to support your claims?

    You accuse me of implying that modern science is involved in a massive conspiracy. Of implying that women cannot be good engineers. I find these to be extremely offensive, since I dont believe for a second that science is involved in some massive conspiracy, and I know for a fact that women are perfectly compentant engineers. You assert these things despite my original post saying nothing about any of that, and my posts afterwords further explaining myself.

    Honestly I dont understand the point you're making about the good-bad science thing. People in general, in the media, in this thread and so on are fixed on a particular belief, and tend to disregard any studies which contradict those beliefs. This is bad scientific method. I have already stated that I dont have concrete opinions on this yet, because I see studies that come to different conclusions and I dont know which I can trust. I am withholding my views on the issue since I do not have enough information to make the call, which basically what I am criticizing other people for not doing. Maybe my original statement on this was vague or something:
    [Tycho?] wrote:
    ege has a point when he says that people have already made up their minds about this, society has made this decision without any sort of solid science to back it up from either side. Any science that goes against these views is immediately considered flawed, any that agrees is considered to be true. This is poor scientific method.
    I think thats pretty straight-forward, but whatever, other people were complaining about it too, so I dont know.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    People in general, in the media, in this thread and so on are fixed on a particular belief, and tend to disregard any studies which contradict those beliefs. This is bad scientific method.

    Fine, you haven't made any claims. This right here isn't a claim. It's just your opinion. I'm just a huge prick who keeps deliberately misreading everything you say and twisting it against you. Your opinion is right, I quit.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    As far as this subject is concerned, Galbraith's The Affluent Society, specifically the second chapter, should be required reading. It's entitled The Concept of Conventional Wisdom, and it's where the term was originally coined.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    As far as this subject is concerned, Galbraith's The Affluent Society, specifically the second chapter, should be required reading. It's entitled The Concept of Conventional Wisdom, and it's where the term was originally coined.

    Is it asking too much for a synopsis?

    It sounds like an interesting read, but I've got finals to study for :P.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    But this has already been covered, men were and typically maintained their position of power, often creating laws of social rules to bar women from entry, women could not be king, a woman could not be 'the man of the house'. And the reason it originated that way was in agriculture men have several advantages due to the genetic differences that do exist mainly in physique and childbirth.

    No. If anything, the advent of agriculture largely eliminated the advantage that men genetically had over women in hunting in terms of strength (ability to throw heavy stuff such as rocks and spears at moving objects) and spatial reasoning (ability to find their way home after long hunting treks). With agriculture you no longer needed these.
    Except humans weren't "hunters", they were "hunter gatherers". And just as it is now meat is pretty hard to get(hunted meat), so most of the actual food would come from the gathering, which the females were more prone to do. With agriculture men did almost all of it, etc. This is the as far as I have heard widely accepted theory and the theory which you have not responded to.

    No, look, that doesn't make sense. Hunting yields more food than gathering, firstly because a man could kill a bison and feed fifteen people that night, secondly because meat on average has more calories (thanks to fat) and nutritious potential (thanks to protein) than fruit, and thirdly because fruits are seasonal whereas animals are for the most part always there even if they are harder to catch.

    We know that, generally speaking, men did the hunting. and women did the gathering (there are exceptions but not many). Society was mostly egalitarian, but still male-dominated.

    This went on for a couple of million years, during the Mesolithic period. Men evolved better hunting skills because men who were better hunters brought home more food and using that food were able to 1) feed themselves better and thus get stronger, and 2) "seduce" and copulate with more women. Their genes were passed on more than the genes of average hunters, so over time males on average became better hunters; faster, stronger, spatially smarter (think hunting tactics and traps), with larger builds, and with a better ability to find their way home after long hunting treks. Women on the other hand evolved to gather stuff better; they rarely traveled far from their tribe (for they ran the risk of being captured by other tribes), so they were working in a smaller area. In order to get the most yield from this small area they had to be exceptionally good at spotting details; i.e. fruit, mushrooms, etc. among the bushes and in the visually-crowded forest canopy. Women who were good at that passed on more genes because they were able to provide their babies with a greater variety of nutrition, which increased their fertility.

    Then, agriculture was invented.

    Now, you have this new way to acquire food from the environment, and it for the most part requires skills that are closely associated with gathering skills. It is not like hunting at all. The food is right there, you don't have to travel very far, you don't have to rely on strength and luck because the yields are consistent, you don't have to rely on a large build in order to harvest.

    Which gender do you think is at an advantage here? Men, who have spent the last two million years hunting stuff and thus have evolved to be stronger and better at throwing shit at moving objects, or women, whose brains have evolved to spot and register fruit and mushrooms and whatnot in a visually-crowded setting (i.e. forest canopy, among the bushes, in the farm)?

    Men don't really have an advantage here, unless during their hunting millenniums they have also evolved to be more dominant and aggressive and territorial and thus ended up better at defending their farmlands from others and acquiring more land.
    That's a collection of footnotes about Nicaragua. None of which state that pointing out that men and women are natively vastly different in their capabilities would result in lower readership/viewership. Your point is unsupported.

    Uh, sorry, I meant to link #36, which talks about the relationship between media sources and advertisement revenue.
    The Cat wrote:
    even ege with his return to the TESTOSTERONE CONTROLS EVERYTHING bullshit

    I never said that. Strawman.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    But this has already been covered, men were and typically maintained their position of power, often creating laws of social rules to bar women from entry, women could not be king, a woman could not be 'the man of the house'. And the reason it originated that way was in agriculture men have several advantages due to the genetic differences that do exist mainly in physique and childbirth.

    No. If anything, the advent of agriculture largely eliminated the advantage that men genetically had over women in hunting in terms of strength (ability to throw heavy stuff such as rocks and spears at moving objects) and spatial reasoning (ability to find their way home after long hunting treks). With agriculture you no longer needed these.
    Except humans weren't "hunters", they were "hunter gatherers". And just as it is now meat is pretty hard to get(hunted meat), so most of the actual food would come from the gathering, which the females were more prone to do. With agriculture men did almost all of it, etc. This is the as far as I have heard widely accepted theory and the theory which you have not responded to.

    No, look, that doesn't make sense. Hunting yields more food than gathering, firstly because a man could kill a bison and feed fifteen people that night, secondly because meat on average has more calories (thanks to fat) and nutritious potential (thanks to protein) than fruit, and thirdly because fruits are seasonal whereas animals are for the most part always there even if they are harder to catch.

    Go find and kill a bison.

    Go on, we'll wait.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    But in any case, if gathering yields more calories than hunting, then that further destroys the theory that men were in control because they brought home more food.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Perhaps, i didn't clarify what i meant. We, as humans, all generalize all the time. EVERY TIME you meet a new person, or thing, you mentally begin processing things about them based on their physical appearance. Its unavoidable. Its how humans work. And it makes sense because we would have become extinct long ago if we didn't. Consider this: if i see big nasty thing with sharp teeth, i think, "well the last big nasty with sharp pointy teeth tried to eat me... i best run." Granted the observations with other humans are far more complex, but, they are still there.

    Further, i agree it is unfair that individuals get lumped into stereotypes, but, its inevitable, and i dont think it will change because of the innateness of their conception. Thus, crying wolf about it really doesn't help anything.

    Its still fucking stupid, in that a number of you people come in here and post shit claims about 'how women are' and then claim that we should stop with all this 'PC nonsense', when if I came in here and argued that men are 'naturally' obsessive little weirdos with moderate to severe emotional retardation who like to treat people around them like objects and therefore tough shit to any man who wanted to work intrying to make it in childcare, nursing, or interior design, you'd be screaming misandry and trying to get me demodded. That was a long sentence, but I'm basically saying that a large portion of you are smug hypocrites.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Native American tribes - not matrilineal.
    Actually, quite a few were. I also like how you've avoided mentioning other regions where matrilinearity in various forms was practiced - in the south pacific, for instance, historically in parts of the Med, and its still practiced in China among the Mosu as has already been pointed out in this thread. Yes, patriarchies tended to be really good at charging in and killing people who didn't live like them, but that doesn't mean you get to strut around denying the existence of any female-centric cultures.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    NoelVeigaNoelVeiga Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    So... hey, first time poster somewhat, but don't let that keep you from paying attention or anything...

    Hasn't this strayed a little bit from the original intent?

    I mean, that there are differences between men and women is pretty much a given fact. You're arguing about where the differences came from as if that mattered for anything. How did that happen?

    Redefine this argument, please, for the sake of sanity.

    However babies or cavemen (if you gentlemen will allow me the use of such a vulgar word) specialized is irrelevant. We live in a society in which 50% of the people go through higher learning. I'm only vaguely familiar with anthropology, but I'm betting that twenty years of sociological brainwashing and training count quite a bit more than some vague natural predisposition. After all, the one defining trait of mankind is adaptability.

    You're discussing the lack of body hair to provide heat on people wearing fur coats.

    As for the original question about political correctness, I'd warn against underestimating the power of idealism. As I said, people adapt. Create a strong enough compulsion to do so and people will fit in any social niche you carve for them. Of course, being on denial about actual problems is a problem on itself, but in this case both sides seem to be desperately looking for infinitesimal edges based on science in an argument about an issue that is social. The assumptions you people are making about what's important and what isn't here are more telling and relevant than accepting or not any biological predispositions.

    NoelVeiga on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    I never said that. Strawman.

    You said, and I'm pretty much quoting you directly from a couple of pages back, 'men are prime in society because they have more testosterone'. Liar. Also, wrong and stupid. Jesus, you're in the middle of a college campus. Go learn something, for god's sake.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Native American tribes - not matrilineal.
    Actually, quite a few were. I also like how you've avoided mentioning other regions where matrilinearity in various forms was practiced - in the south pacific, for instance, historically in parts of the Med, and its still practiced in China among the Mosu as has already been pointed out in this thread. Yes, patriarchies tended to be really good at charging in and killing people who didn't live like them, but that doesn't mean you get to strut around denying the existence of any female-centric cultures.

    It does if you're really good at charging in and killing them all.
    ;-)

    moniker on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    I never said that. Strawman.

    You said, and I'm pretty much quoting you directly from a couple of pages back, 'men are prime in society because they have more testosterone'. Liar. Also, wrong and stupid. Jesus, you're in the middle of a college campus. Go learn something, for god's sake.

    Yes, but I specifically stated that is not the only reason.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    But in any case, if gathering yields more calories than hunting, then that further destroys the theory that men were in control because they brought home more food.

    THERE IS NO SUCH THEORY:
    The theory is that when women gathered nuts and various non meat foods and men gathred food it was more equal, then when agriculture came along men would be the primary "food getters" etc. There are various other reason and they've been outlined in the thread.
    Basically hunting does not get more food, now hunting is good because it gets you meat for the whole brain development deal etc but there is also not enough meat to sustain a group of humans only on that, nor are we designed to live off of only meat, it's alot easier to gather food for a day from an apple tree than it is from an elk.
    Do you now understand the theory?
    Do you now wish to try and rebut it somehow?

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    I never said that. Strawman.

    You said, and I'm pretty much quoting you directly from a couple of pages back, 'men are prime in society because they have more testosterone'. Liar. Also, wrong and stupid. Jesus, you're in the middle of a college campus. Go learn something, for god's sake.

    Yes, but I specifically stated that is not the only reason.

    No, you padded your claim with a little handwaving in the general direction of other factors in the hopes that people wouldn't call you on it.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Native American tribes - not matrilineal.
    Actually, quite a few were. I also like how you've avoided mentioning other regions where matrilinearity in various forms was practiced - in the south pacific, for instance, historically in parts of the Med, and its still practiced in China among the Mosu as has already been pointed out in this thread. Yes, patriarchies tended to be really good at charging in and killing people who didn't live like them, but that doesn't mean you get to strut around denying the existence of any female-centric cultures.

    It does if you're really good at charging in and killing them all.
    ;-)

    No, you still don't get to claim that they never existed in the first place.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    As far as this subject is concerned, Galbraith's The Affluent Society, specifically the second chapter, should be required reading. It's entitled The Concept of Conventional Wisdom, and it's where the term was originally coined.

    Is it asking too much for a synopsis?

    It sounds like an interesting read, but I've got finals to study for :P.

    The book itself is more or less a discussion on how the field of economics, which was born in a world of mass poverty, has failed to adjust to the age of economic security. The chapter on conventional wisdom is about how our ideas are resistant to change, even over long periods of time, and that this is in large part due to what he coins as conventional wisdom, that we accept as truth what is acceptable and convenient, not what is necessarily true. It's a very good read, and hard for me to really sum up all his points.

    geckahn on
Sign In or Register to comment.