Return of Kings [Archive] - Page 2

Toby

06-02-2016, 04:11 PM

Not that a linked in profile of a former uni grad is impressive.

Nor have I ever made it out to be such. I simply pointed out you clearly couldn't have tried very hard to look for anything if you hadn't even found that. What she did before or since writing her thesis is irrelevant, you just can't challenge the actual content so you're trying to knock the author.

You are not looking at the arguments - your main bone of contention was the classification of one of the topys as feminine.

Simply not true. That is just one of a few methodological oversights that raises question marks over the validity of their results. The only reason I actually continued talking about it was that your refusal to actually read anything lead to you pointing that out for yourself, and you kept digging a hole trying to justify things from there. There were more potential question marks than that, something that thesis has sought to clarify by removing the recognised "uncontrolled variables" of things like colour and social behaviour.

That's why I said forget about it then and concentrate on the toys which are undoubtedly, stereotypically male or female - namely the doll and the trucks and balls. I keep asking you to refute this and you keep failing to do so.

I've addressed that a few times. This has gone on quite long enough without dragging things out further repeating things you haven't bothered to read, or have failed to understand.

Oh and behold, yet more evidence:

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2015/08/scientists-uncover-a-difference-between-the-sexes.html

(http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2015/08/scientists-uncover-a-difference-between-the-sexes.html)

Great. We can set it alongside the studies on the other side, and continue to chalk things up as unclear.

Of course it was. It's not something which can be proven 100% but all the evidence so far shows that more exposure to make hopmrones are linked with play with male orientated toys.

Sure, if you ignore any study that doesn't meet with that. Including, it should be noted, the first vervet monkey you yourself posted, where the males showed no real preference for any toy.

That has shown to be the case even in females with abnormally high levels of male hormone. So guess what? That's yet MORE evidence sup;porting biological reasons for differences between the sexes. You ignore literally everything that is presented against your position and make pathetically minor disputes about 1 of the toys.

I haven't ignored any of this. You're either lying, or you're failing to read/understand what is being written.

That's exactly what you're doing. I have shown 3 peer reviewed studies which all poiint towards the same thing and you try and pick holes where none exist. That's the whole point of peer reviews.

Something being peer reviewed doesn't mean it is a flawless and conclusive piece of research. This is a seriously weak argument, especially when methodological choices have been questioned by me and others, including in an approved and published Masters thesis (that as Lewis said, actually sought to confirm the same conclusions Alexander et al reached by improving on their methodology).

Why is a ball a male toy?

Their criteria for selecting which toys were male and which were female was purely which toys were popular with human children of each gender (based upon studies from the 70s and 80s). They theorised later that males would prefer toys that could be used for "active play".

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 04:14 PM

Their criteria for selecting which toys were male and which were female was purely which toys were popular with human children of each gender (based upon studies from the 70s and 80s). They theorised later that males would prefer toys that could be used for "active play".

Of course they were. They were seeking to replicate the same study in a close relative of ours. And the results were replicated.

The debate over why boys prefer toy vehicles and balls continues. In a new study, Alexander and her colleagues investigated whether 19-month-olds move around when playing with trucks and balls more than they do when playing with dolls. According to the study, they don't. Toddlers with higher levels of testosterone are more active than toddlers with lower levels of the sex hormone, but the active toddlers moved around just as much when holding a toy truck, ball or doll. "We find no evidence to support the widely held belief that boys prefer toys that support higher levels of activity," she wrote in an email. A paper detailing the work has been accepted for publication in the journal Hormones and Behavior.
If it isn't vigorous activity they're after, it could be that boys simply find balls and wheeled vehicles more interesting, while human figures appeal more to girls. As for why evolution would program these toy preferences, the researchers have a few ideas. According to Alexander, one possibility is that girls have evolved to perceive social stimuli, such as people, as very important, while the perceived worth of social stimuli (and thus, dolls that look like people) is weaker in boys. [The Smarter Sex? Women's Average IQ Overtakes Men's (http://www.livescience.com/21647-men-women-iq-scores.html)]
Boys, meanwhile, tend to develop superior spatial navigation abilities. "Multiple studies in humans and primates (http://www.livescience.com/32503-why-havent-all-primates-evolved-into-humans.html) shows there is a substantial male advantage in mental rotation, which is taking an object and rotating it in the mind," Wallen said. "It could be that manipulating objects like balls and wheels in space is one way this mental rotation gets more fully developed."

I'm not going over everything with you again. I have now posted 4 different studies which all show your claim that there is no biological difference in sexes and their behaviour to be false.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/

Oh look, more agreeing with me.

Men and women are different in many ways. These differences include both biological phenotypes [e.g. 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/#R1)] and psychological traits [e.g. 2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/#R2)]. Some of these differences are influenced by environmental factors [3 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/#R3); 4 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/#R4)]. Yet, there are fundamental differences between the sexes that are rooted in biology.

Toby

06-02-2016, 04:19 PM

To make my own plea to authority, since you clearly have no issue with them any more, why do you suppose respected scientists are still bothering to undertake studies seeking to confirm the female/male brain theory, if it is clearly correct already? The study by Joel et al (http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468) published last year included scans of the brains of more than 1400 people. Why did anybody fund them (and how did their work pass peer review) if the male/female brain theory is already inconclusively established?

Toby

06-02-2016, 04:20 PM

I have now posted 4 different studies which all show your claim that there is no biological difference in sexes and their behaviour to be false.

Strawman. I've never claimed that with certainty, as I have already clarified. There is simply no conclusive understanding either way.

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 04:25 PM

I never said you said it with certainty. I said you made that claim. Now you've been shown your claim is false, you will presumably admit you're wrong. And yes, there IS conclusive understanding in certain areas. We do have different chromozones, for instance. An undeniable fact. The male brain is bigger. Undeniable fact. There is a difference in the connections between male and female brains. Fact. Males have more testosterone. Fact.

I could go on but.....I don't need to.

Toby

06-02-2016, 04:26 PM

I never made that claim.

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 04:30 PM

Do you agree that testosterone has an effect on certain aspects of personality or behaviour? Or that different connections between the brain do?

Toby

06-02-2016, 04:35 PM

Yes, that's pretty well established.

Toby

06-02-2016, 04:38 PM

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 04:42 PM

Yes, that's pretty well established.

So since we know that males have more testosterone and that the connections in male and female brains differ, then you agree with me that this has effects on behaviours which differ between the sees?

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 04:43 PM

I now see your spazzy edit trying to make it look like I've argued against a bunch of things I didn't once dispute.

Yes, we have different chromosomes. Yes, male brains are typically larger. Yes, males typically produce more testosterone. The bit about connections in the brain is not conclusively established and disputed by the study I posted though.

Are you really so desperate as to feel the need to misrepresent me like that?

I don't even need the connections, testosterone is enough on its own. I'm not misrepresenting anything. You said this.

Of course there are, I haven't denied that at any point. Whether that has biologically inherent effects on our personality is in no way clear, and that is what we were discussing.

You are now admitting you're wrong, whether you meant to or not.

Toby

06-02-2016, 04:51 PM

So since we know that males have more testosterone and that the connections in male and female brains differ, then you agree with me that this has effects on behaviours which differ between the sees?

The connections are not established conclusively to be different, I do not agree on that point. Again, nice edit to make it look like I do.

Testosterone is associated with behavioural responses in very specific circumstances, yes. In terms of overall personality - including suitability for certain jobs, as we were initially discussing - I maintain it is not yet clear to what extent it makes a difference.

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 05:07 PM

This is excruciating on your part. Let's follow the chain of where that quote came from:

http://www.thethirdhalf.co.uk/images/misc/quote_icon.png I dunno why people are so triggered by the mere suggestion that there could be inherent differences between men and women.

I don't pretend to know whether there is or not (my instinct is that there is, based on basically nothing) I just don't understand why it's such a big deal.

I'm not, just frustrated by people making out it is certain fact when it is clearly a topic of intense debate among those studying it.

It absolutely is a fact that there are inherent differences.

Now, did you just not state that correctly? Because it looks to me as if you were originally saying it isn't a fact that there are inherent, biological differences.

And it's pretty bloody obvious that males and females having different biological make-ups in the brain is going to lead to different personalities, traits and *gasp* will even be a factor in career choices. Someone with very low testosterone is unlikely to be a fighter pilot, for example.

Here's yet more evidence on my side:

There are over eighty known hormones. Almost all affect personality

Men and women have different levels of hormones - ergo we tend to develop different personality traits.

http://www.darionardi.com/BulletinArt9.html

randomlegend

06-02-2016, 05:08 PM

I'm triggered by Harold's spelling of chromosomes.

I think saying testosterone only affects behaviour in "very specific circumstances" is pretty bold.

Toby

06-02-2016, 05:17 PM

This is excruciating on your part. Let's follow the chain of where that quote came from:

Now, did you just not state that correctly? Because it looks to me as if you were originally saying it isn't a fact that there are inherent, biological differences.

And it's pretty bloody obvious that males and females having different biological make-ups in the brain is going to lead to different personalities, traits and *gasp* will even be a factor in career choices. Someone with very low testosterone is unlikely to be a fighter pilot, for example.

I've already clarified that I mistakenly took RL's post to mean in terms of personality and behaviour, as we were discussing, not physical nature, as you then took it.

Studies do not conclusively show males and females to have biologically different brains (other than in size) which is where we have largely differed on this. Testosterone isn't due to the biological make up of the brain, but I accept that hormones affect behaviour. I don't think science conclusively supports the idea of distinctly "male" and "female" brains but I accept there are behaviours that may be more common among males.

I think saying testosterone only affects behaviour in "very specific circumstances" is pretty bold.

Fair enough, it may well be.

randomlegend

06-02-2016, 05:19 PM

I did mean in terms of personality and behaviour, I just wasn't referring to you as someone who was especially butthurt about it.

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 05:24 PM

I've already clarified that I mistakenly took RL's post to mean in terms of personality and behaviour, as we were discussing, not physical nature, as you then took it.

I could only take it in the eway you wrote it. Even if taken in the way it is meant, you are still wrong, as I have demonstrated.

Studies do not conclusively show males and females to have biologically different brains (other than in size) which is where we have largely differed on this. Testosterone isn't due to the biological make up of the brain, but I accept that hormones affect behaviour. I don't think science conclusively supports the idea of distinctly "male" and "female" brains but I accept there are behaviours that may be more common among males.

You're all over the place. You've now changed your position from there are no biological differences between males and females that affect behaviour, to male and female brains are not different. I mean don't get me wrong, it's good that you're finally realising I was right. Whether these traits and personalitiy differences between the sexes comes from the brains, testosterone or hormones, I'm still correct. There are differences between the genders, biologically, that affect behaviour, and not just from social engineering.

Toby

06-02-2016, 05:27 PM

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 05:30 PM

Well the difference at birth is that boys have testicles. They don't have massively different levels of testosterone to girls until they hit puberty. After that point, yes, hormones will affect behaviour. I don't think it particularly follows that males are therefore unsuited or necessarily uninterested in care giving roles, as was suggested, but I accept I overstated things in the follow up post to RL.

It does follow, though. It doesn't always follow, obviously. But then I never said it did. It shows why, if people are left to their own devices, the numbers of men we see in care giving roles and the number of women in more competitive/dangerous roles is exactly what you would expect.

randomlegend

06-02-2016, 06:00 PM

The levels of androgens are different enough in utero to turn them into a boy in the first place.

Toby

06-02-2016, 06:03 PM

The levels of androgens are different enough in utero to turn them into a boy in the first place.

And they have high levels for the first few months of infancy, but then don't they quite quickly decline until boys and girls have similar levels until about ages 11-12?

randomlegend

06-02-2016, 06:19 PM

Oh fair enough, I see where you're coming from now. Yes, the mechanism is heavily suppressed through childhood until adolescence.

Lewis

06-02-2016, 06:36 PM

I'll ignore Lewis until he addresses what I said rather than pretending to have read a 76 page uni student's thesis.

It's only fifty-eight pages of actual text (spaced well apart and packed with graphs), so it's probably about fifteen thousand words. It didn't even take twenty minutes.

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 06:45 PM

It's only fifty-eight pages of actual text (spaced well apart and packed with graphs), so it's probably about fifteen thousand words. It didn't even take twenty minutes.

76 pages in 20 minutes equates to a page nearly every 15 seconds. :happycry:

Lewis

06-02-2016, 07:00 PM

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 07:07 PM

IT'S ONLY FIFTY-EIGHT PAGES OF ACTUAL TEXT (SPACED WELL APART AND PACKED WITH GRAPHS), and a full page of text in that format is less than 250 words (so it's probably not as long as I just suggested). Just because you can't read.

You still have to click through them, and even 58 is a page every 20 seconds. To sum up, I don't believe you.

And if you did, you need to get back to pretending to be an author. Not to mention I've already proven my case in the meantime.

Lewis

06-02-2016, 07:24 PM

Okay. I never read it all. I only read the bits that proved this wrong:

In any case, you don't get to refute a study or set of studies and findings by simply having a whinge about a tiny piece of their experiment - you go out and refute it by setting up your own experiments which show your own hypothesis to be correct. Note the zero studies which have done so.

Don't get personal mate.

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 07:29 PM

Well now you've admitted to lying once I'm not sure it's worth believing anything you claim.

If I'm wrong about that part I'll admit it (it doesn't seem to have caught on), it makes no difference to the overall conclusion that I am correct.

Lewis

06-02-2016, 07:43 PM

I did read it. I can read quite fast. I pretend write fast as well.

I never cared about whatever you and Tobias were arguing. I just wanted to show that somebody performed a credible (and it is credible) study. The main thing is that you were wrong about that.

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 07:49 PM

Yes, 250 words per 20 seconds apparently, while also looking at graphs and having to move the page up and down and taking in amaking sure the study was credible. I believe you, mate.

By the way, if this study was credible, why isn't anyone taking any notice? You do know the way you make your name in science is by proving other people wrong? That doesn't seem to have happened here.

Lewis

06-02-2016, 08:02 PM

If you read it like I've pretended to, you would see that that is exactly what has happened (albeit inadvertently, since she expected to replicate previous findings). I don't care whether that decides the issue one way or the other, but she proved that those particular studies were flawed and gained a Masters degree for doing so.

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 08:10 PM

You already admitted you hadn't. And as Tobes says, you can't judge a study if you haven't read it all.

I'll repeat the point I made earlier - 'actual professors' also accept papers by those claiming that evolution is incorrect and that intelligent desing is of equal merit. It means nothing.

I'll also restate, if these studies are flawed, why is nobody saying so except the most dubious and unqualified people?

Toby

06-02-2016, 08:22 PM

I don't think I said you had to read it all. It certainly helps to have a knowledge of whatever bits you're discussing though.

A reading rate of 750wpm isn't that implausible for somebody that's spent almost a decade in academia. Do you have an example of a passing Masters thesis that disputes evolution?

Boydy

06-02-2016, 09:21 PM

You could have made that soda bread in the time it took you to pretend to read that thesis, Lewis.

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 09:23 PM

Probably easier to do in the US than here, but even if I were to completely accept Mrs Linked in, used to study at university woman's thesis, I am still correct on the overall point. As I have demonstrated. If you really believe there's that many flaws in the work I posted, I again invite you to point it out to the authors of the study. But you won't, because you will be shown up and you know it.

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 09:24 PM

You could have made that soda bread in the time it took you to pretend to read that thesis, Lewis.

We're all mates here, where my backslap? :)

I was proven right, anyway. He didn't read it, and admitted it.

Pepe

06-02-2016, 09:27 PM

Ffs. :D

Boydy

06-02-2016, 09:31 PM

You could've found us all some more great butcher deals in the time it took you to prove Lewis only pretended to read that thesis, Harold.

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 09:31 PM

I get them sent to me, mucker.

Boydy

06-02-2016, 09:34 PM

You could've shared some more then.

Toby

06-02-2016, 09:34 PM

If you really believe there's that many flaws in the work I posted, I again invite you to point it out to the authors of the study. But you won't, because you will be shown up and you know it.

I might have considered it but my good friend Jamie has done an excellent job already so there would be little value in it.

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 09:35 PM

I might have considered it but my good friend Jamie has done an excellent job already so there would be little value in it.

She's done such a good job that all the scientific magazines and literature seem to still quote the study she claims is faulty as being quite correct. Still, she inspired you and the guy who talks to himself on his blog.

Boydy

06-02-2016, 09:35 PM

Get Hammer on the 'Ask the Expert' case again and get him to email that study ro the other authoes and see what they think.

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 09:36 PM

Get Hammer on the 'Ask the Expert' case again and get him to email that study ro the other authoes and see what they think.

That's exactly what I would like to see.

Toby

06-02-2016, 09:36 PM

Go on, Hammer. Include a link to that blog as well.

Lewis

06-02-2016, 10:20 PM

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 10:37 PM

I read it, you humourless flid. She did actual, original scientific research with real-life monkeys and was awarded a Masters degree for doing so. Do you think the 'qualified' people you're appealing to would dismiss her research as merely having been a 'uni project'? Because they didn't. They awarded her a Masters degree for it. So what makes you think you can attack the credibility of her research without even reading it?

Well I don't know since she doesn't appear to have made any headway in the field and nobody seems to agree with her. As I've said, it wouldn't be hard to email the authors and find out if you're that interested. My being correct stands alone from those studies.

What makes you think you can come here and lie about reading it all?

Lewis

06-02-2016, 10:45 PM

I don't need to e-mail anybody. I can see that her studies were deemed credible enough to have earned her a Masters degree. Until you can prove why they were not, I can only lol at your anti-intellectualism and unintentional disregard for the scholarly standards you claim to be upholding.

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 10:49 PM

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 11:05 PM

https://media1.giphy.com/media/wsXojxjPW6olW/200.gif

Toby

06-02-2016, 11:21 PM

http://gpls.cns.umass.edu/nsb/alumns/ms

http://i.imgur.com/pTt9qaL.png

There's no question she got her degree for it and that the university were sufficiently satisfied to put their name against it.

Lewis

06-02-2016, 11:24 PM

Do you know who deemed them credible? There's a difference between doing something which earns a degree (how do you know she got a degree for that?) and getting proper, multiple peer reviews.

And as I repeat yet again, it's irrlevant to me being correct. Your claim to have read the whole thing to 'defend her' is as laughable as they come. As if your approval would mean anything.

Why won't such staunch defenders like you and tobes open yourself up to the authors if you think their work is flawed?

It says on the thesis which three professors deemed the studies credible (feel free to Google their credentials), and the website for the graduate programme lists (http://gpls.cns.umass.edu/nsb/students/curriculum-and-program-requirements#Master%27s%20Degree) 'Submission of a formal Master's thesis based upon original research' as part of the overall requirements. That means she would not have passed had her thesis not been deemed credible by the aforementioned three professors.

She doesn't need my approval. She has the approval of the three professors who passed her Masters thesis. So (again) what makes you think you can question the validity of her research when, not only have you not even read it, but you don't even know how academic assessment works?

QE Harold Flair

06-02-2016, 11:54 PM

A bit of a diufference passing a thesis and actually getting your work peer reviewed in scientific journals. Neither of you seem very willing to take the obvious challenge I have offered you. Still, as I keep repeating, I've already demonstrated I am correct on the main point, regardless of this study (on which the evidence still favours me, from numerous studies in both monkeys and humans, both before and after 2009).

randomlegend

06-02-2016, 11:55 PM

I wonder what she'd think if she knew this argument was being had over her?

Also she's a Physician Assistant and thus terrible in every way.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 12:09 AM

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 12:24 AM

The thesis was peer reviewed. That is how it was assessed. Look at the names of the people who passed it.

You claimed that 'every study' showed one thing, and you have been proven wrong by this thesis. I don't care about your 'main point'. I was just lolling at you trying to deny a Masters thesis legitimacy when you could not be less qualified to dismiss it as 'some uni student's project'.

It's funny - I typed her 'work' into google and her name, and there's literally fuck all on it from anyone. Perhaps it's not a shock that she's now given up. I guess her work failed to revolutionise much. Still, at least you and Tobes have her back, even if you are too scared to lose face by putting this to the original authors. Would you like contact details?

Toby

07-02-2016, 12:28 AM

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 12:31 AM

:D

As if you would resort to bothering academics were the shoe on the other foot. I'll leave that sort of thing to Hammer. There's nothing else to be achieved here, anybody who is interested can read both studies and see for themselves.

Well I probably wouldn't be questioning peer reviewed science without knowing what I'm talking about. I just want to see you shown up, really. I mean don't get me wrong, you already have been. But I know because it's me that won't count for much in the eyes of anyone else. Perhaps that's why Lewis isn't bothering to defend you on the main point any more and has gone off on some autistic tangent about defending some woman.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 12:35 AM

Toby

07-02-2016, 12:41 AM

Well I probably wouldn't be questioning peer reviewed science without knowing what I'm talking about.

"Peer-reviewed" doesn't make something a completely bullet-proof and unquestionable piece of work. Anybody reading it can look through it and raise questions about why certain choices were made and how certain decisions were reached. A really good study will answer those questions for the reader and shouldn't leave you thinking, "okay, but why didn't you do x?"

There's nothing particularly complex about the studies either. Obviously the researchers have taken a lot of background knowledge into it and they know what they're talking about, but unlike the studies about actual brain scans or similar medical areas, there's no jargon or specific terminology to get around. Anybody could read it quite easily and anybody could judge for themselves how convincing it is. You haven't, so you're really not well placed to comment.

Calling out to what Lewis is doing is again an example of you being a massive hypocrite, as you always piss and whinge about that coming from the other side.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 12:48 AM

"Peer-reviewed" doesn't make something a completely bullet-proof and unquestionable piece of work. Anybody reading it can look through it and raise questions about why certain choices were made and how certain decisions were reached. A really good study will answer those questions for the reader and shouldn't leave you thinking, "okay, but why didn't you do x?"

Ask the expert. It's almost as if you're not really that interested in it, but more so in trying to undermine what I say. Almost.

There's nothing particularly complex about the studies either. Obviously the researchers have taken a lot of background knowledge into it and they know what they're talking about, but unlike the studies about actual brain scans or similar medical areas, there's no jargon or specific terminology to get around. Anybody could read it quite easily and anybody could judge for themselves how convincing it is. You haven't, so you're really not well placed to comment.

Brain scans are nice and all, but I already won the argument when I showed there are multiple ways in which males and females are biologically different, and how those biological differences give rise to different behaviours and traits between the sexes. Case closed, me old mucker. You can argue about these studies all you like, I've already trounced you.

Calling out to what Lewis is doing is again an example of you being a massive hypocrite, as you always piss and whinge about that coming from the other side.[/QUOTE]

Spoonsky

07-02-2016, 12:48 AM

I've never seen Lewis defend anything as passionately as he's defended the institution of a Masters thesis here. Which I guess is unsurprising.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 12:53 AM

My qualifications are all I've got until I master soda bread.

Toby

07-02-2016, 12:55 AM

Ask the expert. It's almost as if you're not really that interested in it, but more so in trying to undermine what I say. Almost.

Trying to undermine you is precisely what I am disinterested in at this point. I'm content with my reading of the two reports and content that anybody else with an interest can judge for themselves. That you are either unwilling or incapable of reading them isn't a huge concern for me.

Brain scans are nice and all, but I already won the argument when I showed there are multiple ways in which males and females are biologically different, and how those biological differences give rise to different behaviours and traits between the sexes. Case closed, me old mucker. You can argue about these studies all you like, I've already trounced you.

I accept I overstated the extent to which there is uncertainty on biological differences, particularly in response to RL's post. I don't accept that rules out cultural influence in career choices for men and women, or that the prevalence of men in traditional feminine career roles (and vice versa) is as it would be were gender not approached in such a dimorphic way. If you recall, that's what we were talking about when this all started however many pages ago.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 12:59 AM

Seriously, who do you think you are to dismiss her research without even reading it? I'm not interested in the studies. I just can't comprehend how unbelievably thick and arrogant somebody has to be to dismiss a Masters thesis as shite whilst simultaneously appealing to another authority. If you tried that in a piece of academic writing you would fail, so doing so in an attempt to deny somebody credibility is ridiculous even for you.

I appear to be in good company. I've dismissed it as shite on the basis that nobody in these field appears to take it seriously, and the author has since gone on to drop out of academia all together. I'm happy that the stduies I linked, which all converged on findings consistent with my view, are good enough. And, besides that, I've since conclusively shown that I'm right even without those studies. Bottom line is, I've been proven correct. And really, that's all that matters when Tobes starts multi-quoting.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 01:02 AM

Trying to undermine you is precisely what I am disinterested in at this point. I'm content with my reading of the two reports and content that anybody else with an interest can judge for themselves. That you are either unwilling or incapable of reading them isn't a huge concern for me.

Would you like their contact details? If you are not interested in showing the failings of theit studies then what else am I to conclude if you won't put your money where your mouth is?

I accept I overstated the extent to which there is uncertainty on biological differences, particularly in response to RL's post. I don't accept that rules out cultural influence in career choices for men and women, or that the prevalence of men in traditional feminine career roles (and vice versa) is as it would be were gender not approached in such a dimorphic way. If you recall, that's what we were talking about when this all started however many pages ago.

Not directly, no. There are biological differences which, for example, see more men go into dangerous and high octane roles. We have 10 times the testosterone, for a start. This isn't even up for debate, really. I can't believe you're still trying this line :D

You know, back in the early human days when men went out hunting and women cared for babies (still happens in remote tribes who had no human contact), do you think they were arguing about 'social pressures'? Do you think men were wishing they could stay home and look after babies?

randomlegend

07-02-2016, 01:05 AM

Looking at medicine makes me think there is something in the biology argument for the different genders choosing certain careers.

It's about as traditionally male-dominated as you can get, but as soon as the actual (as opposed to cultural) barriers have disappeared you have more women than men in medical school. The care-giving side of medicine strongly appeals to women (in my opinion) and so the cultural barriers have not been enough to stop them from pursuing it.

Other traditionally male-dominated subjects have not seen the same shift when the actual barriers have come down, because I honestly don't believe subjects like physics appeal to women to the same extent.

This is obviously broad brush-strokes - I'm sure there are extraordinary female physicists in the world without a caring instinct to speak of - and purely personal musing, but yeah. Maybe I'll do a Masters on it.

ItalAussie

07-02-2016, 01:09 AM

Other traditionally male-dominated subjects have not seen the same shift when the actual barriers have come down, because I honestly don't believe subjects like physics appeal to women to the same extent.

This is obviously broad brush-strokes - I'm sure there are extraordinary female physicists in the world without a caring instinct to speak of - and purely personal musing, but yeah. Maybe I'll do a Masters on it.
Actually, the numbers in mathematics have seen fairly dramatic equalisation in the last couple of decades, and we're now starting to see the effects of that propagating through to the higher levels of the discipline. Mathematics was pretty good about acknowledging that there was a problem, and taking measures to fight the perception as a "boy's club". As a result, all the numbers show that the work has been paying off, and that there's been a shift in demographics.

Chemistry is significantly equalised as well. Physics is also changing, although it started later than math, and therefore is still catching up.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 01:09 AM

Actually, the numbers in mathematics have seen fairly dramatic equalisation in the last couple of decades, and we're starting to see the effects of that propagating through to the higher levels of the discipline. Physics is also changing, although it started later than math, and therefore is still catching up.

Yes, because of drives to get more women in.

randomlegend

07-02-2016, 01:10 AM

Fair enough, but it's still not happened anything like as dramatically. Even if it eventually becomes even in maths and physics, I think the speed and extent of the shift in medicine says something about it's appeal to women compared to other subjects.

Toby

07-02-2016, 01:11 AM

Would you like their contact details? If you are not interested in showing the failings of theit studies then what else am I to conclude if you won't put your money where your mouth is?

Like I've said a few times now, no, I'm not that bothered if you don't wish to accept it. The research is there for any who actually care about the topic beyond ego-massaging.

Not directly, no. There are biological differences which, for example, see more men go into dangerous and high octane roles. We have 10 times the testosterone, for a start. This isn't even up for debate, really. I can't believe you're still trying this line :D

There aren't that many jobs that are dangerous and high-octane. Testosterone doesn't explain men being more prevalent in careers in science and engineering.

Other traditionally male-dominated subjects have not seen the same shift when the actual barriers have come down, because I honestly don't believe subjects like physics appeal to women to the same extent.

This is precisely where cultural bias is a problem in my eyes. I can see the argument that testosterone driven men are more successful in roles that require risk-taking or aggression, but what does any of that have to do with physics? This is where I think the disputable stuff about male brain/female brain, or about toy preferences or any of the rest of it, can have a real effect.

Toby

07-02-2016, 01:12 AM

Yes, because of drives to get more women in.

Also viewable as a removal of a cultural barrier.

randomlegend

07-02-2016, 01:12 AM

It may be that medicine particularly does appeal - and thus the cultural barriers were overcome due to the strength of desire to pursue it - rather than that physics particularly doesn't.

ItalAussie

07-02-2016, 01:14 AM

Yes, because of drives to get more women in.

Because of drives to encourage women to do what they want to do, without feeling like they'd be shut out based on their gender.

It turns out that if you open the door to everyone who wants to do math, the numbers level out. And this is a good thing, because you don't miss out on highly talented people who didn't see a place for themselves. We're now starting to see the effects of this bubbling up into the numbers in academic posts too, which can only be a good thing. Encouraging people to fearlessly follow their interests and aptitude is benefitting everyone.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 01:17 AM

I appear to be in good company. I've dismissed it as shite on the basis that nobody in these field appears to take it seriously, and the author has since gone on to drop out of academia all together. I'm happy that the stduies I linked, which all converged on findings consistent with my view, are good enough. And, besides that, I've since conclusively shown that I'm right even without those studies. Bottom line is, I've been proven correct. And really, that's all that matters when Tobes starts multi-quoting.

The three professors who assessed (peer reviewed) it took it seriously. Hence deeming it worthy of a Masters degree. Plus most people who complete graduate studies 'drop out' of academia. So that is no basis to dismiss it.

Have there actually been any subsequent studies into monkeys and toy preference? You seemed to be suggesting that those 2002 and 2008 studies were the end of it until the 2009 dissertation appeared, so which ones have been completed since that saw fit to ignore her contribution?

Toby

07-02-2016, 01:19 AM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SFWuFOp0ijc/UMx7LbZCuBI/AAAAAAAAAbk/odf6PzAs17s/s400/shortucas2.png

I fear for those 17% when they discover the thrill-chasing, danger-dodging, high octane workplace of a Computer Science graduate.

ItalAussie

07-02-2016, 01:21 AM

Incidentally, I would absolutely support a similar push to encourage boys to consider arts courses - particularly fine arts or drama - if that's where they felt their talents and interests lie. I suspect that similar social/cultural blocks are in place there, without it being a question of interest or aptitude.

That said, it's not my field, so I don't know it nearly as well as I understand the way the situation been approached within mathematics.

randomlegend

07-02-2016, 01:23 AM

That's one I was thinking about the other day actually. My girlfriend did psychology and there were like two boys on the whole course. I don't see what societal pressure is making men think they can't do psychology; they just don't seem generally as interested.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 01:24 AM

Like I've said a few times now, no, I'm not that bothered if you don't wish to accept it. The research is there for any who actually care about the topic beyond ego-massaging.

So you've spent 2 days of multi-quoting and endle3ss, fruitless google searches on something you don't care about. I'll admit I care about being right and proving you wrong. What's your excuse?

There aren't that many jobs that are dangerous and high-octane. Testosterone doesn't explain men being more prevalent in careers in science and engineering.

No, that's why I never mentioned science and engineering. There are plenty of jobs which require aggression and that are dangerous. The armed forces being the most obvious. And of course it isn't just about those things, it's also about risk-taking, confidence and competitiveness even in jobs such as board directors etc.

This is precisely where cultural bias is a problem in my eyes. I can see the argument that testosterone driven men are more successful in roles that require risk-taking or aggression, but what does any of that have to do with physics? This is where I think the disputable stuff about male brain/female brain, or about toy preferences or any of the rest of it, can have a real effect.

Men are much more likely to be geniuses than women. Women have an equal oir slightly higher average IQ, but far less at genius level and also far less at dunce level.

randomlegend

07-02-2016, 01:25 AM

Ital's going to go balls deep on that last claim, I can FEEL it.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 01:28 AM

The three professors who assessed (peer reviewed) it took it seriously. Hence deeming it worthy of a Masters degree. Plus most people who complete graduate studies 'drop out' of academia. So that is no basis to dismiss it.

Have there actually been any subsequent studies into monkeys and toy preference? You seemed to be suggesting that those 2002 and 2008 studies were the end of it until the 2009 dissertation appeared, so which ones have been completed since that saw fit to ignore her contribution?

I've read a lot of science articles post 2009, some of which I've posted here, which only cite their studies. If you can find a single one which cites the opposite I'm all ears.

ItalAussie

07-02-2016, 01:29 AM

Ital's going to go balls deep on that last claim, I can FEEL it.

Nah, I don't want to engage. It's an old myth, but the only people reading this are people who already know where each other stand on the topic. No need to rehash old wars.

randomlegend

07-02-2016, 01:31 AM

Pussy ass bitch.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 01:31 AM

Ital's going to go balls deep on that last claim, I can FEEL it.

That's fine, it's backed up by evidence.

Toby

07-02-2016, 01:31 AM

So you've spent 2 days of multi-quoting and endle3ss, fruitless google searches on something you don't care about. I'll admit I care about being right and proving you wrong. What's your excuse?

I'm interested in the topic, as I've said repeatedly. I don't need to bother academics to further that interest, as I'm quite content reading the studies themselves.

No, that's why I never mentioned science and engineering. There are plenty of jobs which require aggression and that are dangerous. The armed forces being the most obvious. And of course it isn't just about those things, it's also about risk-taking, confidence and competitiveness even in jobs such as board directors etc.

That's fine, so free of neatly defined gender roles men would continue to be more prevalent in the army. There we can have one I don't dispute. It still stands that women are relatively underrepresented in roles that have nothing to do with aggression or facing danger, even at junior level before competitive risk-takers have beaten them to all the promotions.

Men are much more likely to be geniuses than women. Women have an equal oir slightly higher average IQ, but far less at genius level and also far less at dunce level.

Even if this were true - and again I'm not sure there is absolutely conclusive knowledge on it - there are plenty of people studying and working in physics -related areas that are not at "genius" IQ levels.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 01:37 AM

Nah, I don't want to engage. It's an old myth, but the only people reading this are people who already know where each other stand on the topic. No need to rehash old wars.

But even in these enlightened times, men still do display a wider range of intellectual ability. Using several different measures of intelligence including IQ (http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wendy_Johnson3/publication/240323443_Sex_Differences_in_Variability_in_Genera l_Intelligence_A_New_Look_at_the_Old_Question/links/0c960527272f2b12b8000000.pdf) and SAT scores, more men are found in the high and low tails, according to Josh Aronson, a professor of applied psychology at NYU. “Yes, the pattern that I see most often in the IQ literature, and the one that accords with my experience of nearly 40 years being near universities, is that you find more men at the extremes of performance, more among the mind-blowingly brilliant handful that you meet in a lifetime, and also more among the truly intellectually challenged handful. Within the extreme tails of the distribution, however, performance is generally equal between the sexes. But yes, men seem to have an edge at the extreme right end of of the bell curve.”

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/04/B3QBLUOCMAAfMK1-12.png

The same findings explain why men are better at chess (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/21/watch-why-men-are-better-at-chess/). But – and this is where feminists are going to lose their shit – I was recently sent a data set, taken from the study site IQComparisonSite (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx), which goes even further than previously reported studies. Here’s what the authors say:

'Male and female mean IQs are about equal below the age of 15 but males have a higher mean IQ from age 15 on. The effect of sex differences in IQ is largest at the high extreme of intelligence. Since many of the more prestigious roles (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx) in society are associated with high IQ, the lack of female representation in these roles may be partially due to fewer females being competitive at the highest levels.'

http://qz.com/441905/men-are-both-dumber-and-smarter-than-women/

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 01:42 AM

That's fine, so free of neatly defined gender roles men would continue to be more prevalent in the army. There we can have one I don't dispute. It still stands that women are relatively underrepresented in roles that have nothing to do with aggression or facing danger, even at junior level before competitive risk-takers have beaten them to all the promotions.

Under-respresented by whose standards? If they're less pre-disposed to wanting to do those things then how many women do you think should be represented in those jobs? We don't have an answer really, do we? What would be a fair distribution to you?

Even if this were true - and again I'm not sure there is absolutely conclusive knowledge on it - there are plenty of people studying and working in physics -related areas that are not at "genius" IQ levels.

Yes, but those who are generally have a much higher IQ than the mean, which is more represented by men.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 01:45 AM

I've read a lot of science articles post 2009, some of which I've posted here, which only cite their studies. If you can find a single one which cites the opposite I'm all ears.

They must take you ages to read. I'm quite interested now. Can I have some names/links?

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 01:47 AM

They must take you ages to read. I'm quite interested now. Can I have some names/links?

You can go back in the thread and find some. Or you can google anything at all on this subject, since the counter narrative is vanishingly small.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 01:49 AM

Can't you just tell me? You've read them, so just give me names. Spread the knowledge.

randomlegend

07-02-2016, 01:50 AM

The more I think about it the more I think it's just bollocks that males and females have no significant behavioural differences or those they do are societal.

Girls are better at disguising autism, for example, and they don't even understand societal cues.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 01:52 AM

Can't you just tell me? You've read them, so just give me names. Spread the knowledge.

No, I can't. I don't remember their names but I did post a few while I was dominating Tobes.

Toby

07-02-2016, 01:56 AM

Under-respresented by whose standards? If they're less pre-disposed to wanting to do those things then how many women do you think should be represented in those jobs? We don't have an answer really, do we? What would be a fair distribution to you?

It's not about what's "fair". This all started because you denied cultural biases had much impact at all on where men and women choose to work.

I do not believe this is true. It's impossible to say how things would look in a world free of stereotypical gender roles, and I don't believe such a world would ever truly exist, but as Ital and RL have demonstrated upthread, certain measures to reduce cultural barriers do increase the number of women working in certain areas. Similarly we've seen more men taking on roles in areas like nursing and primary school teaching in recent years.

I still believe there are strong cultural biases and many roles that are considered inherently male or female, and I don't think this is helpful for anybody. Even if a career is typically more attractive to one sex, I don't think it helps anybody for somebody from the minority gender to be told it is a man's/woman's job, as still happens, or to continue to enforce gender biases beyond whatever natural preferences by telling children that certain things are for boys or girls.

Yes, but those who are generally have a much higher IQ than the mean, which is more represented by men.

I don't believe were it true that that would explain the gender difference seen in university courses or at junior level. More girls than boys achieve the necessary grades for admission, in the UK at least.

Spoonsky

07-02-2016, 02:00 AM

Lewis

07-02-2016, 02:09 AM

No, I can't. I don't remember their names but I did post a few while I was dominating Tobes.

You never posted a study of monkeys that was completed after that thesis, so just help me out. If you can't remember the names you should be able to find them from their content.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 02:17 AM

It's not about what's "fair". This all started because you denied cultural biases had much impact at all on where men and women choose to work.

Well like I said, back in the day and still today in remote parts, men are the hunters and women are the carers. That's just how it is. I think cultural biases are dictated largely by biological factors. In other words, the kind of numbers you see now is what you would find, anyway. Perhaps even more distorted in favour of men/women.

I do not believe this is true. It's impossible to say how things would look in a world free of stereotypical gender roles, and I don't believe such a world would ever truly exist, but as Ital and RL have demonstrated upthread, certain measures to reduce cultural barriers do increase the number of women working in certain areas. Similarly we've seen more men taking on roles in areas like nursing and primary school teaching in recent years.

Yes, it's never going to be possible to be exact. But perhaps more men are taking nursing because they've been socially conditioned to? It can work both ways.

I still believe there are strong cultural biases and many roles that are considered inherently male or female, and I don't think this is helpful for anybody.

You don't seem to have a ballpark of what would be a fair reflection, though. I mean it's as I say - if there is a strong biological reason for this then naturally the cultural biases would follow this, anyway.

I don't believe were it true that that would explain the gender difference seen in university courses or at junior level. More girls than boys achieve the necessary grades for admission, in the UK at least.

Yes, and that's been put down to a larger part of it now being coursework as opposed to straight exams, where women do better on the former and men on the latter.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 02:18 AM

You never posted a study of monkeys that was completed after that thesis, so just help me out. If you can't remember the names you should be able to find them from their content.

You're changing track now. I said scientific articles which linked to the studies. None oif them cite the opposition case proposed. Any idea why that might be? Can you find a single one?

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 02:19 AM

I had the same thought reading this thread. Dance is the worst for it, but art is a big one too.

What if boys just don't want to do it, though? And let's face it, not many heterosexual boys want to do dance.

On another related note, I remember C. Hitchens saying ages ago that women aren't funny because they don't need to be. And he's dead right. There isn't a single comedienne who could be considered a great, that I can think of.

Toby

07-02-2016, 02:26 AM

Well like I said, back in the day and still today in remote parts, men are the hunters and women are the carers. That's just how it is. I think cultural biases are dictated largely by biological factors. In other words, the kind of numbers you see now is what you would find, anyway. Perhaps even more distorted in favour of men/women.

Yes, it's never going to be possible to be exact. But perhaps more men are taking nursing because they've been socially conditioned to? It can work both ways.

You don't seem to have a ballpark of what would be a fair reflection, though. I mean it's as I say - if there is a strong biological reason for this then naturally the cultural biases would follow this, anyway.

Yes, and that's been put down to a larger part of it now being coursework as opposed to straight exams, where women do better on the former and men on the latter.

We've established what your position is so you're repeating yourself at the beginning there. I don't say with certainty that current ratios wouldn't be maintained were cultural bias reduced - it's impossible to do that - but I think reducing those cultural biases would be in everybody's interests: doing so would mean those suited for certain posts wouldn't be put off by any needless cultural barrier.

Your last paragraph doesn't address the point. For whatever reason it happens, girls achieve better grades than boys, are more likely to have suitable grades for entry to Physics courses, and therefore the ratio of males to females on those courses is not explained purely by supposed differences in intelligence.

Toby

07-02-2016, 02:29 AM

What if boys just don't want to do it, though? And let's face it, not many heterosexual boys want to do dance.

As an active pursuit requiring excellent spatial awareness and fine motor skills, dance would fit the "naturally male" claims more than, say, accountancy.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 02:29 AM

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 02:30 AM

As an active pursuit requiring excellent spatial awareness and fine motor skills, dance would fit the "naturally male" claims more than, say, accountancy.

Yes, but there's the inescapable fact that women are more graceful and naturally more pleasnt to look at.

Toby

07-02-2016, 02:36 AM

Those put off by a social barrier probably don't have the necessary drive and determination to make anything of themselves, anyway. What you don't seem to get is that you're the one advocating social engineering. We both agree that we can't say for sure if it exists, yet you want to make sure it does.

:cab:

No. I don't want to make sure we have 50:50 gender ratios in every career. I simply wish we could get past morons like yourself saying things like, "I don't think many heterosexual boys would want to do x". It doesn't help anybody in anyway. It simply puts people off doing what they actually want to do and pushes them towards what is expected of them. If there are natural biases, they will be borne out without parents, teachers, employers and homophobes on the internet policing young people's choices.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 02:39 AM

You're changing track now. I said scientific articles which linked to the studies. None oif them cite the opposition case proposed. Any idea why that might be? Can you find a single one?

I specifically asked for 'subsequent studies into monkeys and toy preference'. Maybe the tinpot thesis settled that particular debate.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 02:41 AM

:cab:

No. I don't want to make sure we have 50:50 gender ratios in every career. I simply wish we could get past morons like yourself saying things like, "I don't think many heterosexual boys would want to do x". It doesn't help anybody in anyway. It simply puts people off doing what they actually want to do and pushes them towards what is expected of them. If there are natural biases, they will be borne out without parents, teachers, employers and homophobes on the internet policing young people's choices.

I know, you're offended by true things. I can't help that. I guarantee you that homosexual males make up more dancers than they do the general population. But again, if you don't acept the premise that these things are mostly biological then I'm sure your faux outrage makes more sense. I'm still not sure what this dark, mysterous force telling boys and girls what they are expected to do is? I never experienced this.

I'm not saying heterosexual boys can't or shouldn't do dancing, I'm saying any idea of promoting and pushing agendas is harmful Let them decide what they want. Simple, really. Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are wildly different things.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 02:42 AM

I specifically asked for 'subsequent studies into monkeys and toy preference'. Maybe the tinpot thesis settled that particular debate.

Find me one person who quotes it. Anyone. I genuinely don't think anyone has seen it given the zero references to it.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 02:45 AM

Why would anybody need to quote it if nobody has studied monkeys and toy preferences since?

Toby

07-02-2016, 02:46 AM

I know, you're offended by true things. I can't help that. I guarantee you that homosexual males make up more dancers than they do the general population. But again, if you don't acept the premise that these things are mostly biological then I'm sure your faux outrage makes more sense. I'm still not sure what this dark, mysterous force telling boys and girls what they are expected to do is? I never experienced this.

Shockingly, growing up being told that dancing is for girls might make a lot of boys, especially heterosexual boys, think dancing is not for them. And that is a very clear example of cultural bias pressed on children. Perhaps less so now but certainly through my childhood and therefore yours.

Plenty of role model figures in children's lives make comments about their choices and about their possible future roles. I'm sure plenty of girls who take an interest in, say, engineering are still to this day met with, "oh that's a man's job lol!" and vice versa for boys who take an interest in, say, nursing. I wish everybody grew up in your world free of sexism but I'm pretty certain we're not there yet.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 02:47 AM

Why would anybody need to quote it if nobody has studied monkeys and toy preferences since?

I think you're having reading problems. I said this originally - 'I've read a lot of science articles post 2009'

Not studies. Articles.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 02:48 AM

Shockingly, growing up being told that dancing is for girls might make a lot of boys, especially heterosexual boys, think dancing is not for them. And that is a very clear example of cultural bias pressed on children. Perhaps less so now but certainly through my childhood and therefore yours.

Plenty of role model figures in children's lives make comments about their choices and about their possible future roles. I'm sure plenty of girls who take an interest in, say, engineering are still to this day met with, "oh that's a man's job lol!" and vice versa for boys who take an interest in, say, nursing. I wish everybody grew up in your world free of sexism but I'm pretty certain we're not there yet.

Growing up, I wasn't told dancing is for any particular sex. In fact I wasn't told anything was for a particular sex.

Again, this is pointless since you don't accept my premise. Are there too many gays in hairdressing? Not enough male lapdancers, perhaps?

Toby

07-02-2016, 02:48 AM

Growing up, I wasn't told dancing is for any particular sex. In fact I wasn't told anything was for a particular sex.

Like I say, great for you.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 02:52 AM

I think you're having reading problems. I said this originally - 'I've read a lot of science articles post 2009'

Not studies. Articles.

Have any of them been on monkeys and toy preferences?

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 02:54 AM

Have any of them been on monkeys and toy preferences?

Yes, more broadly about the differences in the sexes but often citing the studies. If you want them, you go find them.

Spoonsky

07-02-2016, 02:55 AM

'What do we want?'

'Monkeys and toy preferences!'

'When do we want 'em?'

'Now!'

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 02:56 AM

Like I say, great for you.

Yes, andf my upbringing and education was a standard one. I didn't see it anywhere. Perhaps you have some objective evidence?

Lewis

07-02-2016, 02:58 AM

I don't understand the distinction you've drawn between studies and articles. By articles do you mean things in New Scientist and stuff like that?

Toby

07-02-2016, 03:01 AM

Yes, andf my upbringing and education was a standard one. I didn't see it anywhere. Perhaps you have some objective evidence?

It's a pretty anecdotal thing by nature -not least because it be so insidious - but it's generally backed up by surveys, particularly of girls and young women. For example:

https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/system_pages/small_navigation/press_office/latest_press_releases/girls_attitudes_survey_2013.aspx

Three quarters of 11-21s say sexism affects most areas of their lives and many worry that gender discrimination will curtail their future choices.

More than a third of girls aged 7-21 (36 per cent) have been patronised or made to feel stupid because of their sex, rising sharply to 60 per cent of 16-21s.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 03:04 AM

I don't understand the distinction you've drawn between studies and articles. By articles do you mean things in New Scientist and stuff like that?

No, go and look.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 03:06 AM

It's a pretty anecdotal thing by nature -not least because it be so insidious - but it's generally backed up by surveys, particularly of girls and young women. For example:

https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/system_pages/small_navigation/press_office/latest_press_releases/girls_attitudes_survey_2013.aspx

Lol well girls have been told the narrative that they're discriminated against. Now that's social engineering. And if we're talking a certain sex being made to feel stupid because of their sex - how many adverts and programes have you seen where the man is the dumb twat? That's always the narrative. I can't think of many where the woman plays the idiot.

Oh and girlguiding :D

Toby

07-02-2016, 03:09 AM

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 03:11 AM

Yeah, I thought you might say that. There's not really anything anybody can say against views so deep-seated as those.

It's amusing that somebody so neurotically obsessed with traditional views of masculinity supposedly had no childhood influence to explain their insecurities.

You're a bit obsessed with this. You claim I'm insecure but you're the only one who has definitely displayed insecurity on this board. Not me. I don't get upset or silenced by these attempts at shaming so I would give up on it if I were you.

The 'unwanted sexual attention' one is interesting. I wonder if they would report it 'unwanted sexual attention' if a young Brad Pitt was chatting them up as opposed to the dufus they think is ugly?

Toby

07-02-2016, 03:13 AM

That you can't afford a single moment of introspection only further enhances it.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 03:16 AM

That you can't afford a single moment of introspection only further enhances it.

Oh right, so agree with you or else, right? Introspection will surely lead to whatever Tobes accuses me of, obviously.

Toby

07-02-2016, 03:16 AM

Want to try that again in English?

Lewis

07-02-2016, 03:19 AM

No, go and look.

The only things you have posted that post-date the thesis are:

1) The livescience article about toy preferences in children
2) The livescience article about fingers and jawlines
3) The Northwestern University link about human brains
4) 'The Genetics of Sex Differences in Brain and Behavior'
5) 'Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sexually differentiated childhood behavior'

The monkey studies are only relevant to the first one, and that only mentions the 2002 and 2008 ones in passing, so I'm not sure how seriously they investigated the literature (the thesis actually makes interesting points about the limitations of conducting these experiments on children, which you would know if you read it). So either you know of a load more articles I can read (just give me names ffs) but which you haven't posted, or you've been dismissing some academic research because it hasn't appeared in articles/studies for which it would have no relevance, which would further confirm the lolness of your attempts to judge its worth.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 03:20 AM

Well you've said I'm insecure, and when I deny the accusation you claim it's because I lackl introspection. Isn't that hard to follow is it? If only I could be more introspective, I can agree to whatever pathology Tobes accuses me of having. Sounds great!

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 03:21 AM

The only things you have posted that post-date the thesis are:

1) The livescience article about toy preferences in children
2) The livescience article about fingers and jawlines
3) The Northwestern University link about human brains
4) 'The Genetics of Sex Differences in Brain and Behavior'
5) 'Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sexually differentiated childhood behavior'

The monkey studies are only relevant to the first one, and that only mentions the 2002 and 2008 ones in passing, so I'm not sure how seriously they investigated the literature (the thesis actually makes interesting points about the limitations of conducting these experiments on children, which you would know if you read it). So either you know of a load more articles I can read (just give me names ffs) but which you haven't posted, or you've been dismissing some academic research because it hasn't appeared in articles/studies for which it would have no relevance, which would further confirm the lolness of your attempts to judge its worth.

Are you autistic? Serious question.

Type the name of the authors or the study into google. Not hard.

First result on google, took 5 seconds - https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys/

There's loads.

Toby

07-02-2016, 03:23 AM

That's not what I was saying, no. I don't suggest introspection so that you'll agree with me, I just mean in my entire time on this board you've never at any point dropped your guard to talk about anything particularly personal or human.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 03:25 AM

Toby

07-02-2016, 03:52 AM

Research on the cognitive abilities of males and females, from birth to maturity, does not support the claim that men have greater intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science. Male and female infants do not differ in the cognitive abilities at the foundations of mathematical and scientific thinking; they have common abilities to represent and learn about objects, numbers, language, and space. Male and female children harness these abilities in the same ways, at the same times, to master the concepts and operations of elementary mathematics. Although older boys and girls show somewhat different cognitive profiles, the differences are complex and subtle (it is not the case, e.g., that women are verbal and men are spatial). These differences tend to be small, and they stem primarily from differing strategy choices. Above all, these differing profiles do not add up to a male or female advantage in learning advanced mathematics. High school boys show both higher mean scores and greater variability on the SAT-M, but high school and college men and women are equally proficient in mathematics classes, both on average and within the pool of the most talented students.

The finding that men and women show equal aptitude for mathematics and science does not imply that humans’ genetic endowment is irrelevant to these achievements. On the contrary, infants’ abilities to represent and understand objects, number, and space depend in part on capacities that are present and functional from the beginning of life. Preschool children’s abilities to construct natural number concepts and to learn verbal counting also depend, in part, on our uniquely human biological endowment: Humans in all cultures attain these skills to some degree (Pica, Lemer, Izard, & Dehaene, 2004), whereas no other animal has done so even after extensive training (Matsuzawa, 1985; Pepperberg, 1994). All these abilities contribute to the learning of science and mathematics, most likely through a complex process in which intrinsic capacities are tuned both by everyday experience and by instruction (e.g., Dehaene, 1997; Newcombe, 2002; Spelke & Newport, 1998). The negative conclusions of this review imply only that our considerable gifts for mathematics and science have been bestowed, in equal measure, on males and females.

It remains the case that university faculties have many more male than female mathematicians and scientists. Moreover, male and female undergraduates are not equally likely to major in physics or engineering (Xie & Shauman, 2003), and mathematically gifted men and women tend to gravitate toward different sorts of careers (Benbow et al., 2000). Might there be some genetically determined cognitive difference, not yet discovered, that accounts for these disparities? The questions addressed in this review are empirical, and so the answer to every Might there be ...? question is yes. Nevertheless, the wealth of research on cognition and cognitive development, conducted over 40 years, provides no reason to believe that the gender imbalances on science faculties, or among physics majors, stem from sex differences in intrinsic aptitude. To be sure, there are more men than women who major in physics and engineering today.

A generation ago, however, many more men than women majored in biology, medicine, and mathematics, and many more men became economists or accountants. A century ago, far more men attended college. Those disparities, we now know, had social causes, for they have been eliminated or reversed (see Halpern et al., 2005). Studies of cognitive sex differences suggest that today’s gender disparities have causes similar to those of past disparities. If that is the case, then studies of cognitive development and of its biological basis will not explain the preponderance of men on academic faculties of mathematics and science. We must look beyond cognitive ability to other aspects of human biology and society for insights into this phenomenon.

https://software.rc.fas.harvard.edu/lds/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/spelke2005.pdf

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 04:09 AM

I fear they're ignoring the top level, which is what I pointed out. It remains the case that men are more likely to be geniuses (and idiots). That explains why there are more men in the higher reaches of all problem solving disciplines.

US Mensa demographics - 66% men, 34% women. That's just as one would expect given the IQ data I provided earlier.

Toby

07-02-2016, 04:12 AM

If you're not going to read the whole thing, at least read from the bottom left of p955.

I didn't post it to dispute your general intelligence claims, or anything else you've said. It's just an interesting review of the studies into differences in male/female maths ability.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 04:15 AM

If you're not going to read the whole thing, at least read from the bottom right of p955.

I don't need to. It doesn't refute what I said.

Meanwhile, directly on this subject. Apparently the woman thinks girls are crap at chess because there's some massive sexism in that well known, balls out, testosterone fuelled arena of the chess nerds. Obviously. Milo sorts her out though, don't worry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uohO8Kli_Q

Toby

07-02-2016, 04:16 AM

I don't need to. It doesn't refute what I said.

I didn't intend to, not everything is about you you know.

Toby

07-02-2016, 04:20 AM

That video is like a hitlist of all your arguments, it couldn't be clearer you've got nearly all of them from him. :D

The Simon Baron-Cohen study he mentions is actually critiqued in that review.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 04:21 AM

I didn't intend to, not everything is about you you know.

You didn't intend to what?

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 04:22 AM

That video is like a hitlist of all your arguments, it couldn't be clearer you've got nearly all of them from him. :D

The Simon Baron-Cohen study he mentions is actually critiqued in that review.

Of course, he's essential reading, with a few others. Where do you get yours from? Thin air?

John

07-02-2016, 04:23 AM

Toby

07-02-2016, 04:23 AM

You didn't intend to what?

Refute what you were saying about IQ levels, as was obvious from the words on the page.

This is simply a de facto thread on feminism and gender now, and that article was interesting enough to share.

Boydy

07-02-2016, 04:43 AM

Get some sleep, lads.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 04:59 AM

Why have you spent five minutes watching a year old video of Milo Yiannopoulos instead of reading things for yourself, Harold? All you've done is make it ever clearer that you're an anti-intellectual hero worshipper with no interest in thinking for yourself.

The weight of the delusion under which you must be labouring every time you call yourself a free thinker or whatever is actually quite upsetting.

Yes, I clearly just follow everyone else..... says the man who comes in on the side of.....everyone vs Harold even though I've been proven right. You probably missed the part where I demolished Tobes and forced him to backtrack and even shuffle-shuffle numerous times.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 05:08 AM

Refute what you were saying about IQ levels, as was obvious from the words on the page.

This is simply a de facto thread on feminism and gender now, and that article was interesting enough to share.

Now that I got you to admit you were wrong on biolgical factors being inherent in behaviour, yes. I'm not against feminism, anyway. Only the particular strain we see which wants 'safe spaces' and likes to use tags such as 'killallwhitemen' and 'maletears'. These people are fairly small in number and yet hold great sway. I know you claim they are not really feminists but that's not what they claim or how they are labeled.

simon

07-02-2016, 09:03 AM

Fucking hell, lads.

Please find a job, Lewis. I think Harold is on the verge of breaking you.

Toby

07-02-2016, 01:15 PM

Lewis has clearly had great fun in this thread. Those of you who can't see that are a bit daft.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 01:16 PM

'Great fun' :D

Toby

07-02-2016, 01:17 PM

Enjoying things. :D

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 01:22 PM

That foreword for the book will never get finished at this rate.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 02:57 PM

Are you autistic? Serious question.

Type the name of the authors or the study into google. Not hard.

First result on google, took 5 seconds - https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys/

There's loads.

That was published in April 2008. The thesis was February 2009. You stupid twat.

simon

07-02-2016, 04:48 PM

Lewis has clearly had great fun in this thread. Those of you who can't see that are a bit daft.

I only read the last page. And 'read' is probably a bit of an overstatement.

Toby

07-02-2016, 04:52 PM

You need to embrace it and get involved.

simon

07-02-2016, 05:00 PM

I'm trying to avoid arguments/debates that involve Harold. It's for the benefit of my own sanity.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 08:08 PM

That was published in April 2008. The thesis was February 2009. You stupid twat.

No need to get personal, mate. If you were really interested you could do it yourself. But, as usual, you are complete non genuine.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 08:16 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29418230 - this one seems to reference a different study, and is from 2014. More evidence, presumably. Haven't looked yet though tbh, you big pooh bum
http://animalwise.org/2012/01/26/born-this-way-gender-based-toy-preferences-in-primates/ - from 2012, you nobhead
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/gender-toys-children-toy-preferences-hormones_n_1827727.html - from 2012, ya silly sausage
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5879647/do-girls-naturally-prefer-dolls-to-trucks-evidence-from-2-primate-studies - from 2012, ya nonce
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/101220-chimpanzees-play-nature-nurture-science-animals-evolution/ - from 2010, numbnuts

I mean shall I go on? This was from the first 10 or so Google results. But you were almost certainly genuine.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 08:26 PM

You attempted to dismiss a peer reviewed, original academic study on the basis that nobody had mentioned it elsewhere. Seeing as nobody appears to have studied the issue since, you've began to equate academic credibility with exposure. Okay. I'm sure anybody with academic credentials and experience would lol heartily at that, but nevertheless:

I've read a lot of science articles post 2009, some of which I've posted here, which only cite their studies. If you can find a single one which cites the opposite I'm all ears.

You've offered a 'livescience' blog (which mentions the previous studies in passing) and an article published nine months before the thesis. I am completely genuine. I want you to share your extensive knowledge with me. I want to learn. What are these credible articles on monkeys and toy preference that take the 2002 and 2008 studies as having been definitive?

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 08:29 PM

Oh dear. Try reading the last post.

Who said anything about them being definitive? Trying to set up arguments for you, yourself, to knock down again? If you wanted to learn, therse articles are extremely easy to find. You are disengenuous, as you often are.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 08:36 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29418230 - this one seems to reference a different study, and is from 2014. More evidence, presumably. Haven't looked yet though tbh, you big pooh bum

That is literally a bloke chucking toys at monkeys. Very scientific.

http://animalwise.org/2012/01/26/born-this-way-gender-based-toy-preferences-in-primates/ - from 2012, you nobhead

'In their study, the researchers compared how 34 rhesus monkeys living in a single troop'. The thesis isolated the monkeys to avoid socialised behaviours. That was its entire purpose. This blog also refers to the 2008 study as a 2009 study.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/gender-toys-children-toy-preferences-hormones_n_1827727.html - from 2012, ya silly sausage

That is the 'livescience' article you have already linked (same author).

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5879647/do-girls-naturally-prefer-dolls-to-trucks-evidence-from-2-primate-studies - from 2012, ya nonce

That is the second link in another website.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/101220-chimpanzees-play-nature-nurture-science-animals-evolution/ - from 2010, numbnuts

This article doesn't mention the 2002 and 2008 studies, but does nevertheless seem to report a comprehensive study; one which concludes:

This interesting study seems to support the notion that [doll-playing is] probably in part because of biology, in part because of socialization, and probably in the biggest part because of the interaction of the two -that may be where the real magic is.

Haven't you been arguing otherwise all through this thread?

Lewis

07-02-2016, 08:38 PM

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 08:40 PM

And I never argued socialization never played a part. Tobes argued that it might be all or nearly all down to socialisation. I've shown that to be an incorrect statement. Trying to set up yet another strawman, are we?

This was from the first 10 results. I could go on and on finding articles which link to those studies. But again, you're not actually interested.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 08:42 PM

So the case for having 'dismissed it as shite on the basis that nobody in these field appears to take it seriously', other than the three professors who passed it at least, is that two blogs (one of which mentioned the previous studies in passing, the other of which seems to think there was only one) never thought to mention it.

If you can find a single article, anywhere, that cites it I'll read it. I couldn't find any. You asked for articles post 2009 - you got them. So now you'e trying a new line of attack. I'm also pretty sure only one of those could be described as a bloig. National Geographic and the BBC are fairly repyutable, I'd say. Want more?

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 08:48 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm9xXyw2f7g

:evictory:

And the full Horizon episode it's from, 2014:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ1T1jlwVuo

Lewis

07-02-2016, 08:50 PM

And I never argued socialization never played a part. Tobes argued that it might be all or nearly all down to socialisation. I've shown that to be an incorrect statement. Trying to set up yet another strawman, are we?

There are still differences (they only studied structure), and you would still have to explain why chimps and other primates exhibit the same sort of biases that we do. They don't have social engineering, do they?

What did you mean by that then?

If you can find a single article, anywhere, that cites it I'll read it. I couldn't find any. You asked for articles post 2009 - you got them. So now you'e trying a new line of attack. I'm also pretty sure only one of those could be described as a bloig. National Geographic and the BBC are fairly repyutable, I'd say. Want more?

National Geographic doesn't mention the previous studies at all and is about a completely different study, and please don't expect me (or anybody) to take a bloke lobbing toys on the grass as worthwhile. So you're down to poorly-written blogs vs a Masters thesis approved by three experts.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 08:53 PM

What did you mean by that then?

I meant there are inate differences as well (it doesn't even have to be in the brain to be biological). And my last link rather flies in the face of even this claim, anyway. You're really clutching st straws.

National Geographic doesn't mention the previous studies at all and is about a completely different study, and please don't expect me (or anybody) to take a bloke lobbing toys on the grass as worthwhile. So you're down to poorly-written blogs vs a Masters thesis approved by three experts.

Don't all these studies involve just that? Get a grip. And no, Mr Disingenuous. You asked for articles, not scientific papers. I have already cited muliple, peer reviewed and largely accepted scientific studies. But you aren't bothered about this, you said earlier. You just wanted to defend the woman.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 08:58 PM

I meant there are inate differences as well (it doesn't even have to be in the brain to be biological). And my last link rather flies in the face of even this claim, anyway. You're really clutching st straws.

'They don't have social engineering'. Poor choice of words aside, that is a pretty comprehensive dismissal of socialisation being an influence. And I know your last link says otherwise. You've basically proved yourself wrong. Well done.

Don't all these studies involve just that? Get a grip.

The quite excellent 2009 thesis details its testing procedures on pages 21 to 33, and they seem far sounder than 'leave toys on grass for the monkeys'. The muliple, peer reviewed and largely accepted scientific studies were on different subjects entirely, and your articles are irrelevant or blogs.

Toby

07-02-2016, 09:04 PM

And I never argued socialization never played a part. Tobes argued that it might be all or nearly all down to socialisation.

News to me.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 09:04 PM

They don't have social engineering'. Poor choice of words aside, that is a pretty comprehensive dismissal of socialisation being an influence. And I know your last link says otherwise. You've basically proved yourself wrong. Well done.

There's a difference between social engineering and naturally learned behaviour. It's surely to be expected that if we do have innate differences then they will be shown in behaviour, leading to the future generations learning that same behaviour.

The quite excellent 2009 thesis details its testing procedures on pages 21 to 33, and they seem far sounder than 'leave toys on grass for the monkeys'. The muliple, peer reviewed and largely accepted scientific studies were on different subjects entirely, and your articles are irrelevant or blogs.

On different subjects to what? They wre all on the same broad subject of male and female innate behaviour in humans and close relatives. What are you on about? Again, I'll ask you to find anyone who takes her work seriously. Or, if you do, I'll give you the contact details of the authors and you can write to them. Not like you have anything better to do, obviously. And as I keep repeating, I've alreadfy proven my case, regardless of these studies. They are the icing on the cake.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 09:06 PM

News to me.

It's not outdated, though. This is biological. It happens in other species. It's obviously not all-encompassing, but it still remains the case that women gravitate to that line of work and life more than men. Because we are DIFFERENT.

Right back at the very start.

Toby

07-02-2016, 09:07 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm9xXyw2f7g

Fucking lol at any suggestion that was remotely scientific.

Toby

07-02-2016, 09:08 PM

Right back at the very start.

You were talking about something I said mate but you've only quoted yourself.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 09:13 PM

Fucking lol at any suggestion that was remotely scientific.

Well it wasn't supposed to be a massive study, it was for a science program, and just shows what we would expect to see.

BAck to what I really won on -
Yes, there are differences, that is acknowledged. Whether they are biologically inherent is what is being debated

I've shown you up on that. And to be fair, you've admitted almost as much earlier by backtracking.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 09:15 PM

Of course there are, I haven't denied that at any point. Whether that has biologically inherent effects on our personality is in no way clear, and that is what we were discussing.

And that.

simon

07-02-2016, 09:15 PM

Not like you have anything better to do, obviously.

:D

Somebody sound the irony klaxon.

Toby

07-02-2016, 09:17 PM

Well it wasn't supposed to be a massive study, it was for a science program

Well, exactly. And yet you stuck it up to attempt to dispute an actual scientific study.

and just shows what we would expect to see.

That about sums up your approach to this all, yes.

BAck to what I really won on -

I've shown you up on that. And to be fair, you've admitted almost as much earlier by backtracking.

Yeah, sure, I overstated things a bit with that post. I've admitted as such a few times now. You still can't bring yourself to climb down to the middle ground where things so obviously lie. Science has not established to what extent differences are inherent, and we have steadily seen more and more supposed differences debunked over the past century or so. Yes, men and women are different, but I don't think they are to the extent you evidently do, and I think a lot of the stuff you have posted (intelligence levels, toy preferences, brain connections) is at best hotly disputed and at worst verging on myth.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 09:19 PM

There's a difference between social engineering and naturally learned behaviour. It's surely to be expected that if we do have innate differences then they will be shown in behaviour, leading to the future generations learning that same behaviour.

So it was just another case of you using words you don't understand. Fair enough.

On different subjects to what? They wre all on the same broad subject of male and female innate behaviour in humans and close relatives. What are you on about? Again, I'll ask you to find anyone who takes her work seriously. Or, if you do, I'll give you the contact details of the authors and you can write to them. Not like you have anything better to do, obviously. And as I keep repeating, I've alreadfy proven my case, regardless of these studies. They are the icing on the cake.

On monkeys and toy preferences. The two (multiple) articles you posted 'on the same broad subject' (peer reviewed studies being famous for their broad approach) don't even mention the 2002 and 2008 studies, such is their connection to that subject, so you have yet to post a relevant article that isn't a blog or a report about something else.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 09:22 PM

Well, exactly. And yet you stuck it up to attempt to dispute an actual scientific study.

I've already put up 4 studies which dispute the other study and correlate with each other. This was just so we could see it in action. I'm not using it as strong evidence, I just find it 'interesting'.

That about sums up your approach to this all, yes.

Yes, it does. Because my premise, based on scientific evidence, would require this train of thought. If you accept that it's mostly innate, then you would absolutely expect to see the results we do. It's not a hard concept.

Yeah, sure, I overstated things a bit with that post. I've admitted as such a few times now. You still can't bring yourself to climb down to the middle ground where things so obviously lie. Science has not established to what extent differences are inherent, and we have steadily seen more and more supposed differences debunked over the past century or so. Yes, men and women are different, but I don't think they are to the extent you evidently do, and I think a lot of the stuff you have posted (intelligence levels, toy preferences, brain connections) is at best hotly disputed and at worst verging on myth.

I didn't want to rub your nose in it but you've made me. You didn't 'overstate', you were plain wrong.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 09:27 PM

So it was just another case of you using words you don't understand. Fair enough.

Well no, since 'social enginewering' suggest a deliberate attempt at influencing behaviour. If you accept innateness in this, then those behaviours will continue through each generation and will be passed on, without any devious reason other than that's what humans do.

On monkeys and toy preferences. The two (multiple) articles you posted 'on the same broad subject' (peer reviewed studies being famous for their broad approach) don't even mention the 2002 and 2008 studies, such is their connection to that subject, so you have yet to post a relevant article that isn't a blog or a report about something else.

Deliberately lying or just reading too fast to take it in?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/gender-toys-children-toy-preferences-hormones_n_1827727.html

The monkey research, conducted with two different species in 2002 and 2008, strongly suggested a biological explanation for children's toy preferences. In recent years, the question has become: How and why does biology make males (be they monkey or human) prefer trucks, and females, dolls?

Toby

07-02-2016, 09:28 PM

I've already put up 4 studies which dispute the other study and correlate with each other. This was just so we could see it in action. I'm not using it as strong evidence, I just find it 'interesting'.

You haven't really. The two studies you posted are all addressed in the 2009 thesis, as are infant studies if that's what you're adding in to make up this new claim of 4.

Yes, it does. Because my premise, based on scientific evidence, would require this train of thought. If you accept that it's mostly innate, then you would absolutely expect to see the results we do. It's not a hard concept.

Sorry, what?

I didn't want to rub your nose in it but you've made me. You didn't 'overstate', you were plain wrong.

I overstated the level of uncertainty. There is still extreme uncertainty over the extent of differences, but yes, I was wrong to say there was uncertainty over any differences at all. I'm happy to admit that, rather than claim I meant something other than what my words clearly say. It's not the huge victory you seem to think it was, since the "main point" you keep harking back to related to gendered career roles, and this was a relatively minor point within that. What still remains the core argument is that the biological differences between men and women are not understood to a level that would explain the prevalence of women in certain job roles through simple natural preference.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 09:29 PM

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/you-can-give-a-boy-a-doll-but-you-cant-make-him-play-with-it/265977/

The very next result on google, just for lewis? How many would you like? Time to try a new angle?

Toby

07-02-2016, 09:30 PM

Deliberately lying or just reading too fast to take it in?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/gender-toys-children-toy-preferences-hormones_n_1827727.html

:D

You might want to read back over that post slowly and carefully before you accuse somebody else of trying to read things too quickly.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 09:33 PM

You haven't really. The two studies you posted are all addressed in the 2009 thesis, as are infant studies if that's what you're adding in to make up this new claim of 4.

So tell me why nobody in the science world has anything to say about it? Tell me why articles and reports and science programmes on this issue all go with the research I posted?

Sorry, what?

I've already told you. If there is an innate factor which drives behaviour one way or the other it will show in society, as it does. You're wanting to attribute some overarching sexism as a reason, without much basis for doing so.

I overstated the level of uncertainty. There is still extreme uncertainty over the extent of differences, but yes, I was wrong to say there was uncertainty over any differences at all. I'm happy to admit that, rather than claim I meant something other than what my words clearly say. It's not the huge victory you seem to think it was, since the "main point" you keep harking back to related to gendered career roles, and this was a relatively minor point within that. What still remains the core argument is that the biological differences between men and women are not understood to a level that would explain the prevalence of women in certain job roles through simple natural preference

The level of certainty is 100% in my favour. Boys have 10 times more testosterone than girls - you admit that testosterone affects behaviour = I have already proven you wrong.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 09:33 PM

Well no, since 'social enginewering' suggest a deliberate attempt at influencing behaviour. If you accept innateness in this, then those behaviours will continue through each generation and will be passed on, without any devious reason other than that's what humans do.

I know, which begs the question why you were using the term 'social engineering' in the first place.

Deliberately lying or just reading too fast to take it in?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/gender-toys-children-toy-preferences-hormones_n_1827727.html

That is the 'livescience' blog (look at who wrote them both, and the words in them) which mentions the studies in passing in the introduction to a story about something else. If that is one of your 'muliple, peer reviewed and largely accepted scientific studies' then lol indeed.

EDIT: That other link doesn't actually cite the studies, and was written by somebody with an agenda (I know who Christina Hoff Sommers is, because I tend to agree with that agenda).

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 09:35 PM

:D

You might want to read back over that post slowly and carefully before you accuse somebody else of trying to read things too quickly.

'so you have yet to post a relevant article that isn't a blog or a report about something else.'

Huffington Post isn't a blog, and yes it clearly does mention the studies.

Anything to say?

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 09:38 PM

I know, which begs the question why you were using the term 'social engineering' in the first place.

Because that's what Tobes was claiming.

That is the 'livescience' blog (look at who wrote them both, and the words in them) which mentions the studies in passing in the introduction to a story about something else. If that is one of your 'muliple, peer reviewed and largely accepted scientific studies' then lol indeed.

It is irrelevant. I provided an article, and have done so again. But now you're shifting the argument and saying it doesn't count because she has an agenda. Couldn't make this up, really. :D

And you're verifiably wrong, as well. Again:

Among our close relatives such as vervet and rhesus monkeys, researchers have found that females play with dolls far more than their brothers, who prefer balls and toy cars. It seems unlikely that the monkeys were indoctrinated by stereotypes in a Top-Toy catalog. Something else is going on.

Toby

07-02-2016, 09:39 PM

So tell me why nobody in the science world has anything to say about it? Tell me why articles and reports and science programmes on this issue all go with the research I posted?

In the science world, there haven't been any studies after it was published. In the media world, probably because those writing the articles haven't actually researched it that thoroughly.

I've already told you. If there is an innate factor which drives behaviour one way or the other it will show in society, as it does. You're wanting to attribute some overarching sexism as a reason, without much basis for doing so.

It doesn't follow that because there is an innate difference, that it necessarily presents itself to the extent it does now.

The level of certainty is 100% in my favour. Boys have 10 times more testosterone than girls - you admit that testosterone affects behaviour = I have already proven you wrong.

This is just a complete failure in logic, along the same lines as above. There being a difference does not mean there is necessarily a difference to the extent we see. The past century has seen scientific studies steadily chipped away at the accepted beliefs about how extreme that difference is, so I see no reason to accept that they're done on that front, especially as studies like that 2015 one posted continue to find in favour of men and women not actually being as different as is generally believed.

Toby

07-02-2016, 09:41 PM

Because that's what Tobes was claiming.

Again, it really isn't. I've clarified that enough that you can only be deliberately misrepresenting me by this point.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 09:43 PM

In the science world, there haven't been any studies after it was published. In the media world, probably because those writing the articles haven't actually researched it that thoroughly.

Which makes it even more bewildering that modern science reports, articles and programmes still use the research I p[rovided and not the clear knock down argument you claim. Strange, that.

It doesn't follow that because there is an innate difference, that it necessarily presents itself to the extent it does now.

How do you know? What do you base that on?

This is just a complete failure in logic, along the same lines as above. There being a difference does not mean there is necessarily a difference to the extent we see. The past century has seen scientific studies steadily chipped away at the accepted beliefs about how extreme that difference is, so I see no reason to accept that they're done on that front, especially as studies like that 2015 one posted continue to find in favour of men and women not actually being as different as is generally believed.

Wrong.

Fact 1 - Testosterone is a part of biology.
Fact 2 - Boys have 10 times more than girls
Fact 3 - testosterone has effects on behaviour

Stop doing double cartwheels when it's so painfully obvious, for fuck sakes.

Now you're claim was there's nothing to say that biology has an effect on differing behaviour between the sexes. You are outright wrong on that claim. Just admit it.

Toby

07-02-2016, 09:43 PM

'so you have yet to post a relevant article that isn't a blog or a report about something else.'

Huffington Post isn't a blog, and yes it clearly does mention the studies.

Anything to say?

He had already ruled out Huffington Post because it was a reprinting of the LiveScience blog.

And Huffington Post does have loads of blog content anyway.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 09:46 PM

Because that's what Tobes was claiming.

You said it in response to him claiming that your claim 'This is clearly biological' was not certain. So either you were using 'social engineering' wrong, or you were wrong.

It is irrelevant. I provided an article, and have done so again. But now you're shifting the argument and saying it doesn't count because she has an agenda. Couldn't make this up, really. :D

The Huffington Post is a blog. It even says which other blog (By: Natalie Wolchover Published: 08/24/2012 07:26 AM EDT on Lifes Little Mysteries) they have taken it from. Between it and the piece written by an economist, the studies are given this much coverage:

The monkey research, conducted with two different species in 2002 and 2008, strongly suggested a biological explanation for children's toy preferences.

Well the thesis begs to differ. But okay. It's only a blog. She isn't particularly interested in exploring the literature because she just uses it as an introduction into something else entirely.

Among our close relatives such as vervet and rhesus monkeys, researchers have found that females play with dolls far more than their brothers, who prefer balls and toy cars. It seems unlikely that the monkeys were indoctrinated by stereotypes in a Top-Toy catalog. Something else is going on.

Thorough consideration given to the field there. You have posted two actual scientific articles in this thread. This (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/) and this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/); neither of them cite the 2002 and 2008 studies on account of them not having anything to do with the subject whatsoever.

You've dismissed a Masters thesis approved by three professors as 'shite', and used blogs in an attempt to back yourself up. You're an embarrassment.

Toby

07-02-2016, 09:47 PM

Which makes it even more bewildering that modern science reports, articles and programmes still use the research I p[rovided and not the clear knock down argument you claim. Strange, that.

Which modern science reports? Stop trying to conflate actual studies with short new articles. The people writing those are not going to spend long researching, they're simply reporting on the studies - often, as we see in the LiveScience blog you initially posted - without really looking that critically at them.

How do you know? What do you base that on?

How do I know what? I'm saying precisely that we do not know. Your logic is faulty, just because there is a difference does not prove that the difference is as extreme as witnessed in society.

Wrong.

Fact 1 - Testosterone is a part of biology.
Fact 2 - Boys have 10 times more than girls
Fact 3 - testosterone has effects on behaviour

Stop doing double cartwheels when it's so painfully obvious, for fuck sakes.

Read what is actually being said. Those points are not disputed. You are not so stupid that you cannot understand the nuance of this point. Yes, there is a difference. No, the extent of that difference is not fully established. Do you see how those are not remotely the same point? Do you understand what those words mean?

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 09:51 PM

Again, it really isn't. I've clarified that enough that you can only be deliberately misrepresenting me by this point.

You can clarify it all you like, the words are there for all to see

Toby

07-02-2016, 09:52 PM

Well, yeah, but I'd hope everybody else has a better grasp on what "social engineering" means.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 09:55 PM

You said it in response to him claiming that your claim 'This is clearly biological' was not certain. So either you were using 'social engineering' wrong, or you were wrong.

But you're not bothered though, remember? And yes, some behaviour is clearly biological, and most is both learned and biological. Which I have gone a good way to proving.

The Huffington Post is a blog. It even says which other blog (By: Natalie Wolchover Published: 08/24/2012 07:26 AM EDT on Lifes Little Mysteries) they have taken it from. Between it and the piece written by an economist, the studies are given this much coverage:
The monkey research, conducted with two different species in 2002 and 2008, strongly suggested a biological explanation for children's toy preferences.

Well the thesis begs to differ. But okay. It's only a blog. She isn't particularly interested in exploring the literature because she just uses it as an introduction into something else entirely.
Among our close relatives such as vervet and rhesus monkeys, researchers have found that females play with dolls far more than their brothers, who prefer balls and toy cars. It seems unlikely that the monkeys were indoctrinated by stereotypes in a Top-Toy catalog. Something else is going on.

Thorough consideration given to the field there. You have posted two actual scientific articles in this thread. This (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/) and this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/); neither of them cite the 2002 and 2008 studies on account of them not having anything to do with the subject whatsoever.

You've dismissed a Masters thesis approved by three professors as 'shite', and used blogs in an attempt to back yourself up. You're an embarrassment.

Okay, so if I post scientific articles how far will you move the goalposts next? You've already tried to discount one because she 'has an agenda'. As if anyone doesn't have an opinion on the matter.

I also am very amused that you calimed the article from the Atlantic didn't mention the studies, and now proven wrong, you've chosen to ignore that and try claiming well, errrr errr, it's not very considered!

Toby

07-02-2016, 09:57 PM

But you're not bothered though, remember? And yes, some behaviour is clearly biological, and most is both learned and biological. Which I have gone a good way to proving.

You didn't apply that phrase to just any behaviour, you said specifically that toy preferences were "clearly biological".

In fact, looking back I see you've taken my first utterance of "biologically inherent" out of context, and that it clearly applied only to toy preferences.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 10:00 PM

But you're not bothered though, remember? And yes, some behaviour is clearly biological, and most is both learned and biological. Which I have gone a good way to proving.

I'm not really. But at least you've admitted that 'Tobes' was right.

Okay, so if I post scientific articles how far will you move the goalposts next? You've already tried to discount one because she 'has an agenda'. As if anyone doesn't have an opinion on the matter.

I also am very amused that you calimed the article from the Atlantic didn't mention the studies, and now proven wrong, you've chosen to ignore that and try claiming well, errrr errr, it's not very considered!

She is entitled to her opinion, and it is an interesting read; but it is not a 'scientific article'. How far do you think you would get if you submitted an academic paper that used the Huffington Post and Christina Hoff Sommers as proof of argument? If you want to attack the credibility of a Masters thesis, approved by three professors, you have to contradict the research upon which it was based. Showing me that two blogs (on other matters) haven't read her thesis proves nothing other than your inability to understand what your fingers are doing.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 10:01 PM

Again, Tobes, admit you were wrong. You claimed this in response to what I said:

I'm not talking about the brain here. There are absolutely biological differences, physically. Do you deny that?

We have different chromozones for a start. So to say that it isn't a fact there are biological differences is to be thoroughly wrong.

Of course there are, I haven't denied that at any point. Whether that has biologically inherent effects on our personality is in no way clear, and that is what we were discussing.

So after admitting there are biological differences, you then claim it's not clear whether these biological differences have an effecdt on our personality. Well, they do. As I have demonstrated with only one tiny part of our biological differences.

Toby

07-02-2016, 10:04 PM

Again, Tobes, admit you were wrong. You claimed this in response to what I said:

So after admitting there are biological differences, you then claim it's not clear whether these biological differences have an effecdt on our personality. Well, they do. As I have demonstrated with only one tiny part of our biological differences.

Yes, I have admitted that already. I said clearly that for that specific instance you took my words out of context. I said it again though in a more broad sense and have repeatedly accepted it was wrong. If only you could be even close to as gracious in approaching the various bits of nonsense you have claimed in this thread.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 10:07 PM

I'm not really. But at least you've admitted that 'Tobes' was right.

Right about what? And how have I done that? He's just admitted he was wrong right after your post. :D

She is entitled to her opinion, and it is an interesting read; but it is not a 'scientific article'. How far do you think you would get if you submitted an academic paper that used the Huffington Post and Christina Hoff Sommers as proof of argument? If you want to attack the credibility of a Masters thesis, approved by three professors, you have to contradict the research upon which it was based. Showing me that two blogs (on other matters) haven't read her thesis proves nothing other than your inability to understand what your fingers are doing.

How is it not? Okay, let's see yhow narrowly you can define the parameters. Has to be a scientific article you approve of, and by someone who it can be shown has no agenda? Oh and if you lie about it containing no references to the studies in 2002 and 2008 (as you have done twice now)` then you can just move on to some other half arsed complaint about another aspect of it.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 10:07 PM

Yes, I have admitted that already. I said clearly that for that specific instance you took my words out of context. I said it again though in a more broad sense and have repeatedly accepted it was wrong. If only you could be even close to as gracious in approaching the various bits of nonsense you have claimed in this thread.

You didn't. You said you 'overstated it a bit'.

Toby

07-02-2016, 10:11 PM

You didn't. You said you 'overstated it a bit'.

Read the page again. I've said at least three times now that it was wrong.

You continue to overstate the other side, claiming that the presence of testosterone justifies any and all differences between men and women in modern society. That is not even close to being adequately evidenced by science for such a bold claim - it is an argument of faith, and one which you have sought to confirm with perhaps the most biased approach to scientific research imaginable.

Boydy

07-02-2016, 10:18 PM

Guys, in an effort to help to find a resolution to this thread. I've set up an experiment with my (boy) dog. I've left out a doll and a truck on the floor for him to see what he prefers. I will report back soon with my findings.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 10:19 PM

Right about what? And how have I done that? He's just admitted he was wrong right after your post. :D

Did he? Oh well, I'm wrong about Tobias being right. I was obviously reading it too fast.

How is it not? Okay, let's see yhow narrowly you can define the parameters. Has to be a scientific article you approve of, and by someone who it can be shown has no agenda? Oh and if you lie about it containing no references to the studies in 2002 and 2008 (as you have done twice now)` then you can just move on to some other half arsed complaint about another aspect of it.

Where have I lied about the actual peer reviewed articles not mentioning the 2002 and 2008 studies? They have bibliographies at the end that list every piece of academic writing they have referred to, and neither of them mention those studies (and why would they, seeing as they are about different things?).

Blog posts and Atlantic articles, whilst interesting, are not counter-evidence to actual scientific research. To disprove research you have to repeat the experiment and fail to repeat their findings. To dismiss research as 'shite' you have to find serious problems in their methodology and/or fail to repeat their findings. You cannot dismiss a Masters thesis by linking me to a blog that does not engage the literature to any respectable standard, and Christina Hoff Summers mentioning monkeys in passing.

I am not narrowing parameters or looking to approve something. Unlike you, I just know how academic assessment works, so I need actual reasons to discount the findings reported in the 2009 thesis. Blogs on different subjects not mentioning the research is not an actual reason.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 10:20 PM

I'm not overstating the part you were wrong about. The rest is just a case of following the evidence of multiple studies, on multiple difference species.

That there are biolgical elements to our behaviour is where this all started, remember? I am 100% corrrect, then.

Boydy

07-02-2016, 10:24 PM

Magic

07-02-2016, 10:33 PM

Non-binary dogs. :cool:

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 10:34 PM

Did he? Oh well, I'm wrong about Tobias being right. I was obviously reading it too fast.

Yes, you are wrong. Just as you were when you claimed there no references to the 2002 and 2008 studies.

What are these credible articles on monkeys and toy preference that take the 2002 and 2008 studies as having been definitive?

So that's clever. Because what defines credible? Note that you're not asking for a scientific article at all here, just articles. I also never said anything about them being 'definitive'. Yet another word you've chucked in all by yourself.

Toby

07-02-2016, 10:40 PM

That there are biolgical elements to our behaviour is where this all started, remember? I am 100% corrrect, then.

It isn't. It started with me saying "perhaps" career choice differences would remain with or without sexism, a clear acknowledgement that it is not a black or white issue. You then brought up toy preferences and the rest is history.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 10:46 PM

Yes, so you were still saying this isn't definitive, when it is. Different career choices would remain. Because, as we know, biology does effect behaviour and personality, and personality and behaviour does affect what kind of career you go for.

Toby

07-02-2016, 10:49 PM

Jesus fucking Christ. It's about the extent of the difference. Do you understand that it isn't a binary issue? There are different scales involved. Are you really this fucking dense?

Lewis

07-02-2016, 11:00 PM

Yes, you are wrong. Just as you were when you claimed there no references to the 2002 and 2008 studies.

Again, I said the actual articles never mentioned them. The two I linked. They don't.

So that's clever. Because what defines credible? Note that you're not asking for a scientific article at all here, just articles. I also never said anything about them being 'definitive'. Yet another word you've chucked in all by yourself.

In a debate regarding the credibility of a Masters thesis approved by three professors, I would define 'credible' as having been backed by people who know what they are talking about in articles that actually engage with the subject properly. Academic stuff. Not passing mentions in blogs about toddlers, basically, and had I known you would attempt to dismiss a Masters thesis approved by three professors with blog links I would not have engaged you as if you had any credibility. I would have just posted a load of lol smileys and started a blog lolling at you.

If you discount a 2009 experiment that failed to reproduce the findings of earlier experiments (having developed their methodology in the hope of reproducing those findings) then you regard the earlier experiments as having been definitive. This is because you have dismissed counter-findings. You recognise no alternatives. That is what you were doing, but fortunately nobody else has done likewise.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 11:23 PM

Jesus fucking Christ. It's about the extent of the difference. Do you understand that it isn't a binary issue? There are different scales involved. Are you really this fucking dense?

That's fine. But it's not what you said. I can only go with what you say.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 11:24 PM

Again, I said the actual articles never mentioned them. The two I linked. They don't.

What is an 'actual article' as opposed to a standard article?

In a debate regarding the credibility of a Masters thesis approved by three professors, I would define 'credible' as having been backed by people who know what they are talking about in articles that actually engage with the subject properly. Academic stuff. Not passing mentions in blogs about toddlers, basically, and had I known you would attempt to dismiss a Masters thesis approved by three professors with blog links I would not have engaged you as if you had any credibility. I would have just posted a load of lol smileys and started a blog lolling at you.

If you discount a 2009 experiment that failed to reproduce the findings of earlier experiments (having developed their methodology in the hope of reproducing those findings) then you regard the earlier experiments as having been definitive. This is because you have dismissed counter-findings. You recognise no alternatives. That is what you were doing, but fortunately nobody else has done likewise.

What about if those professors had an agenda? Why hasn't her 2009 study been cited by anybody and no articles of any stripe since cite it? Still refuse to answer this.

Toby

07-02-2016, 11:31 PM

That's fine. But it's not what you said. I can only go with what you say.

It very much is what I said.

Some latter posts in the multi-quote wank off that followed went too far, but the initial premise of the discussion was very clear.

Perhaps there would be a disparity whatever the case, but there are certainly cultural stereotypes that would put off even males well-suited to care work form applying, just as similar cultural stereotypes may put women off of traditionally masculine jobs.

To which you responded:

There is no perhaps. You are wrong, deal with it. When does a normal, natural behaviour become a 'stereotype'? I never said all this. or all that. Most women tend to go for caring roles, most men go for dangerous jobs. Which is precisely what you would expect given the evidence I have brought forwwaqrd, and which you cannot deny.

Yes, they don't want to because it's biological. It has barely anything to do with social conditioning or sexism, which is what you claimed. You have been proven wrong.

So at least we have finally seen you climb down and concede to the middle ground. It's only taken 8 pages.

QE Harold Flair

07-02-2016, 11:35 PM

Yes, you are wrong. And I just showed the process by which you are wrong to even cast doubt on it.

I've nothing to climb down from.

Testosterone>behaviour/personality>career - all unquestionably linked.

Simple, and not in any doubt.

Toby

07-02-2016, 11:48 PM

Fucking hell.

Let's break this down in a manner you might understand, to borrow the style of your earlier testosterone post.

FACT #1: The past century has seen the removal of cultural barriers for women and increased rights within society.
FACT #2: This has coincided with more women in the workplace, more women in jobs traditionally associated with men, and more men in jobs traditionally associated with women.
FACT #3: Measures to encourage women to take up career paths and areas of study in which men are more prevalent have succeeded in reducing the ratio of men to women. This is evidence that removal of cultural barriers encourages women to take on roles traditionally associated with men.
FACT #4: Girls and young women in modern society still believe that sexism affects their future career choices.

Your view that current gender ratios are a purely a reflection of natural preference simply doesn't stand up in the face of such a dramatically changing picture over the past few decades. The removal of cultural barriers has very clearly brought more women into traditionally male dominated careers. Therefore, in a culture without sexism - or in more realistic terms, further reduced sexism - it is plausible that more women would take on those roles, and more men would take on traditionally female roles. This is a very simple point, and yet you seem to struggle with the idea that there is nuance beyond MEN HAVE TESTOSTERONE YOU IDIOT.

Imagine Arsenal's 2003/04 team had lost Henry for the season, and had not gone unbeaten, but had won the title. They're still champions, only not by the same margin and not to such acclaim. Are they the best team in the country? Yes. Are they as good as they would have been with Henry? No. This thread would be like reacting to somebody saying, "imagine what it would have been like had they had Henry" with, "YOU FUCKING IDIOT, THEY'RE CHAMPIONS OF ENGLAND" and posting a load of Pires' goal tallies to demonstrate how good they were.

Lewis

07-02-2016, 11:54 PM

What is an 'actual article' as opposed to a standard article?

One is written (and preferably endorsed) by experts and has a specific focus. The other is not. I could write a blog. Would that be credible to you?

What about if those professors had an agenda? Why hasn't her 2009 study been cited by anybody and no articles of any stripe since cite it? Still refuse to answer this.

That is why they had three of them assess it. Maybe all three of them did? But (as with the thesis) you have no basis to question their credibility.

I have answered it. No academic articles cite it because no relevant ones (as far as either of us can tell) have been completed since, and your shithouse offerings haven't cited (not the same as mentioned in this context) it because they have all been blog posts on different subjects that barely engage with the literature.

QE Harold Flair

08-02-2016, 12:19 AM

One is written (and preferably endorsed) by experts and has a specific focus. The other is not. I could write a blog. Would that be credible to you?

Well I'm not sure since you keep changing. I originally just said scientific articles, by which I obviously meant what I had posted, which was articles from the science magazines and newspapers, online sites etc. I wasn't referring to study papers. I've already done that.

I have answered it. No academic articles cite it because no relevant ones (as far as either of us can tell) have been completed since, and your shithouse offerings haven't cited (not the same as mentioned in this context) it because they have all been blog posts on different subjects that barely engage with the literature.

Again, i'm not referring to official studies. I refer to articles in the terms I mean, not you. As far as I can tell, even those on the socialisation side never cite it. Why is that?

Lewis

08-02-2016, 12:52 AM

If a 'science article' (whether academically-approved or written for the Huffington Post) attempts to make an intervention in the specific debate on monkeys and toy preferences, and ignores the 2009 thesis in its review of the relevant literature, then it is effectively worthless. Even if they did so unintentionally, you could just ignore it, because it would not have addressed findings that contradicted the studies upon which they would presumably have to base their conclusions. It is that simple.

There are (as far as we can tell) no academic papers seeking to intervene in that specific debate, which is why it has not been cited in any of those, and what you have offered are not attempts to intervene in that specific debate (nor do they claim to be), which is why they do not properly review all of the relevant literature.

QE Harold Flair

08-02-2016, 12:59 AM

So just to ask again, can you find anything at all which cites her 2009 paper? There are not a lack of those who would not wish it to be true, after all.

Lewis

08-02-2016, 01:24 AM

No, because (as far as we can tell) there have not been any relevant scientific studies done since, and everything you've provided that mentions the 2002 and 2008 studies has not even attempted to properly review the literature (largely because they are articles about other things). If you want to confer academic credibility on something based on blog mentions then lol; but I'll stick with standard methods of academic assessment.

QE Harold Flair

08-02-2016, 01:34 AM

'There haven't been any relevant studies done since' doesn't seem to stop science magazines et al quoting the earlier studies.

You know, it's almost as if nobody takes it as credible enough to mention it.

Lewis

08-02-2016, 01:57 AM

If you attempt to intervene in the monkey/toy preference debate without mentioning the 2009 experiments your writing lacks credibility. It's not even something you can disagree with. This is how academic assessment works. Fortunately you have not actually posted any attempts to do that, because your links that mention the previous studies are articles on different things, so they have no real requirement to present a thorough survey of the literature.

QE Harold Flair

08-02-2016, 02:10 AM

You should write in, mate.

It's amazing to think that all those people who would like to show that male and females are not inherently different refuse to use that evidence, isn't it?

Lewis

08-02-2016, 12:47 PM

It is. But so long as academic assessment is based on more than blog mentions, she remains credible.

Boydy

08-02-2016, 01:12 PM

Maybe this is where you're going wrong, Lewis. You need to get more blog mentions to get a job.

I'll mention you in mine.

Lewis

08-02-2016, 01:31 PM

In the meantime, qualifications plus online exposure means I can now win TTH debates by quoting myself.

QE Harold Flair

08-02-2016, 02:02 PM

Yea Lewis, haha. Wanna go for a pint, mate?

While we wait, and since you obviously do care now (after claiming you didn't), why don't you ask the authors of the study?

Boydy

08-02-2016, 02:14 PM

Lewis doesn't drink.

Lewis

08-02-2016, 02:18 PM

Ask academics whether they consider a Masters thesis credible? What do you honestly think would happen there?

QE Harold Flair

08-02-2016, 02:19 PM

I'm not surprised.

Meanwhile, Lewis and Toby need to realise that a thesis and a proper publication are completely different things. Perhaps that's why nobody mentions that paper.

QE Harold Flair

08-02-2016, 02:30 PM

I need a link to her study again, since I can't find it? Lewis?

Nevermind, I found it.

Question - Is a thesis considered as a publication?

Vilis O Nams, PhD, Professor
In the field of sciences, it is not considered a peer-reviewed publication. Typically when people submit their cv's, they divide their publication lists into peer-reviewed papers and non peer-reviewed. I guess you could put in in the list of non peer-reviewed publications, but that would seem like padding. If you have a PhD or MSc degree, it is assumed that you wrote theses from them.

In addition, I been in involved with hiring several faculty members in our department and the committee typically completely ignores the list of non peer-reviewed publications. Completely. And if you would put the thesis in the list of peer-reviewed publications then we would definitely see it as padding - which would downgrade the applicant in our eyes.

https://www.quora.com/Is-a-thesis-considered-as-a-publication

How a Master's Thesis became a peer reviewed article (I.e, it's not one at that stage)

http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/inphdeep/how-a-masters-thesis-becomes-a-peer-reviewed-article-episode-1-editing-and-learning-to-live-with-what-youve-done/

Lewis

08-02-2016, 04:54 PM

Have I referred to it as a publication even once? Have you got an article about how it isn't a submarine as well? Because that would be really useful.

You are attempting to question the credibility of original scientific research done to obtain a universally-recognised scientific qualification. If you want to do that, you have to prove the findings wrong and/or question the methodology. If you e-mailed the authors of the 2002 and 2008 studies they might well be able to do that; but they would not respond with instructions to just ignore it as 'shite' and 'some uni student's project', because they know that doing so would undermine the very assessment processes upon which their own credibility depends.

Pepe

08-02-2016, 04:59 PM

How a Master's Thesis became a peer reviewed article (I.e, it's not one at that stage)

Is this news to you? :D

QE Harold Flair

08-02-2016, 05:23 PM

Is this news to you? :D

Of course not. I've said all along that a master's theses is not equivalent to a peer reviewed article. Turn your ire on those who claim it is (Tobes and Lewis, if you're wondering).

QE Harold Flair

08-02-2016, 05:24 PM

Lewis

08-02-2016, 06:13 PM

You have 'conclusively shown' that some blogs about other things haven't fully-engaged with the relevant literature. You simply do not know what you are talking about, let alone how to debate it.

Pepe

08-02-2016, 06:18 PM

Of course not. I've said all along that a master's theses is not equivalent to a peer reviewed article. Turn your ire on those who claim it is (Tobes and Lewis, if you're wondering).

That is not what they are claiming. Also, that thing you quoted discusses whether a thesis is a peer-reviewed article or not, not whether they are equivalent.

QE Harold Flair

08-02-2016, 07:58 PM

You have 'conclusively shown' that some blogs about other things haven't fully-engaged with the relevant literature. You simply do not know what you are talking about, let alone how to debate it.

You still don't get it, do you? This isn't 'relevant literature' until it is submitted to a scientific journal for review.

QE Harold Flair

08-02-2016, 07:59 PM

That is not what they are claiming. Also, that thing you quoted discusses whether a thesis is a peer-reviewed article or not, not whether they are equivalent.

Good guess, but actually it's exactly what they're claiming. And duh, peer reviewed work > non peer reviewed work. That's how science works, you'll find.

People say I can never admit I'm wrong, tolo. This is fairly hilarious.

Yevrah

08-02-2016, 08:37 PM

I hadn't even noticed this had hit 10 pages before now.

10 pages?

Fucking hell.

Lewis

08-02-2016, 08:41 PM

You still don't get it, do you? This isn't 'relevant literature' until it is submitted to a scientific journal for review.

Its approval was subject to review by three professors. What makes their review processes less credible than what academic journals use? You don't appear to have any knowledge of experience of either, so what are you basing your opinion on?

If the review process confers relevance, every single link you've posted in this thread (Huffington Post, Atlantic, 'livescience', National Geographic, and so on) in order to demonstrate that nobody takes the thesis seriously is worthless, because their content is not subject to any form of review. So well done on that.

QE Harold Flair

08-02-2016, 08:50 PM

It's like talking to a wall. That it was reviewed by 3 professors still means it is of lesser significance than papers which have been submitted to journals for peer review. It would appear, due to the non existence of this study anywhere, that this was not submitted for journal review. Therefor it's not part of the scientific literature. End of story.

Lewis

08-02-2016, 09:23 PM

QE Harold Flair

08-02-2016, 09:25 PM

They get sent them, usually if the professors agree that the paper is worthy to be peer reviewed (it costs money). So it would appear that wasn't the case here. And it's usually the case, as in the example I posted earlier, that masters theses have to amended significantly before they put to review.

I see you're now railing against the whole scientific method in an attempt to justify you being clearly wrong. :D They are asked to submit their own referees so the referees can also be checked (and are often named alongside the author for others to check). It's not so different to have referees on your CV, but you might not know much about that.

Pepe

08-02-2016, 09:34 PM

How do you think journals review articles?

The journals the 2002 and 2008 studies appeared in (Evolution and Human Behavior and Hormones and Behavior respectively) ask authors to submit their own list of referees, which is a rather ropey approach to peer review seeing as their conflict of interest guidelines are hardly water-tight. If anything, the thesis would have been subject to more strenuous assessment over the course of its completion.

My advisor asked two students (one of them close to finishing and quite knowledgeable and one useless second year student) to peer-review the articles he was supposed to. I got the review for my article last week and to be fair two of the reviewers seem quite knowledgeable. The third basically said 9/10, would publish. This is supposedly the biggest publication in my field.