Return of Kings

[QE Harold Flair]

Evidence which you either haven't read or didn't understand, yes. If you go back to a couple of hours you'll find that both myself and Toby have made posts that either conclusively refute things you've said, or ask specific questions of you, which you've ignored.

If you can't answer the bell then that's fine, but ignoring the posts doesn't help you in any way.

You try to respond to several people at once, over varying slightly different aspects of a topic. I prove my case (vs Tobes) and then I get the PhD in boredom and insincerity, Lewis, spending several pages arguing about the peer review process and the merit of studies which I didn't even need to prove my case in the first place. I get slated by people like you for 'taking over threads' and now you're complaining that I am not answering enough. So, which is it?

[Toby]

I prove my case (vs Tobes)

:D

Keep trying, you'll convince yourself eventually.

[Henry]

Harold appears to think that once he's convinced himself, he's proved his case. :)

[QE Harold Flair]

:D

Keep trying, you'll convince yourself eventually.

You claimed doubt as to whether there was a biological component to behavioural differences between the sexes, did you not?

[John]

You try to respond to several people at once, over varying slightly different aspects of a topic. I prove my case (vs Tobes) and then I get the PhD in boredom and insincerity, Lewis, spending several pages arguing about the peer review process and the merit of studies which I didn't even need to prove my case in the first place. I get slated by people like you for 'taking over threads' and now you're complaining that I am not answering enough. So, which is it?

I've quoted you and broken my post up into nice bitesize chunks. There is no excuse for missing it so I can only conclude you've ignored it. If you actually had an understanding of the topic at hand you wouldn't need to remember what you'd said before and try to contort yourself to answer two slightly different questions in a consistent manner. Now, stop your whinging and go answer the questions.

Who are people like me, by the way? I certainly don't slate you for taking over threads. I slate you for your childish style of argument, your appeals to authority, your obvious hero worship, and your laughable refusal to actually read things.

[QE Harold Flair]

Harold appears to think that once he's convinced himself, he's proved his case. :)

Well I know I could never prove anything to certain people because you will never accept what I say. Just as in the God thread where you start replying to someone else by saying 'ignoring Harold's idiocy' when it had nothing to do with me. Of course you can't bring forth any of this when challenged.

[QE Harold Flair]

I've quoted you and broken my post up into nice bitesize chunks. There is no excuse for missing it so I can only conclude you've ignored it. If you actually had an understanding of the topic at hand you wouldn't need to remember what you'd said before and try to contort yourself to answer two slightly different questions in a consistent manner. Now, stop your whinging and go answer the questions.

Who are people like me, by the way? I certainly don't slate you for taking over threads. I slate you for your childish style of argument, your appeals to authority, your obvious hero worship, and your laughable refusal to actually read things.

Yes, that's nice. Now try that 100 times in a day. You will soon get tired of it. Besides which, none of this really matters since I didn't need the studies to prove my point. But this gets ignored, of course.

[Henry]

Well I know I could never prove anything to certain people because you will never accept what I say. Just as in the God thread where you start replying to someone else by saying 'ignoring Harold's idiocy' when it had nothing to do with me. Of course you can't bring forth any of this when challenged.

No, I choose not to bring it forth because I prefer to discuss things with reasonable, proper people than to engage in futile discussions with the very, very stupid.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, I choose not to bring it forth because I prefer to discuss things with reasonable, proper people than to engage in futile discussions with the very, very stupid.

So, a baseless accusation, then. Don';t say it if you can't handle being challenged on it.

Would you describe an internet stalker and a bully of 13 year old boys as a 'proper reasonable, person?' Should I bother engaging with you? I will continue to bring this up every time you try and take the moral highground on anything with me until you offer a full and frank apology.

[Toby]

You claimed doubt as to whether there was a biological component to behavioural differences between the sexes, did you not?

At one point, yes. I accepted it was an overstatement and that there are of course differences. As we've been over repeatedly, that was not the core argument and does not invalidate the wider points made. You're just clinging to it because your actual "case" is such faith-based nonsense.

[Henry]

So, a baseless accusation, then. Don';t say it if you can't handle being challenged on it.

I can "handle" it very well. I just choose not to waste my time. That you're regarded as being stupid (not just by me) isn't because you're the lone voice of truth being ignored by all the sheep, you know.

[John]

Yes, that's nice. Now try that 100 times in a day. You will soon get tired of it. Besides which, none of this really matters since I didn't need the studies to prove my point. But this gets ignored, of course.

You needed some evidence to prove your point. Your own babbling does not constitute proof. So if it wasn't going to be the studies then what was it going to be? Those MENSA membership figures that 'proved' men were the geniuses and ignored the fact that most actual high level scientists or other 'credible people' wouldn't bother with such an obvious exercise in vanity?

Whether you needed the studies or you had some other proof that we're yet to see, you made certain claims about Toby's evidence and were challenged on them. If you're not willing to stand by them admit it and we can move on.

[Lewis]

I don't know what I'm going to do with my time now this is winding down. What have you got planned, Tobias?

[QE Harold Flair]

At one point, yes. I accepted it was an overstatement and that there are of course differences. As we've been over repeatedly, that was not the core argument and does not invalidate the wider points made. You're just clinging to it because your actual "case" is such faith-based nonsense.

It was more than an overstatement, it was wrong. But leaving that aside, you also agreed that boys have some 10 times more testosterone than girls. And that's only one of many, many differences. So, in conclusion:

1. Biological, behavioural differences confirmed
2. Different behaviours manifest in different strengths and weaknesses
3. Different strengths and weakness lead to different career choices

And part of that you disagree with?

[QE Harold Flair]

I have provided the only evidence I need, which is listed above. John.

[Toby]

It was more than an overstatement, it was wrong. But leaving that aside, you also agreed that boys have some 10 times more testosterone than girls. And that's only one of many, many differences. So, in conclusion:

1. Biological, behavioural differences confirmed
2. Different behaviours manifest in different strengths and weaknesses
3. Different strengths and weakness lead to different career choices

And part of that you disagree with?

We've been over this so many times now, you cannot possibly be so stupid as to think the strawman you wish to continue thrashing was the actual argument being put forward.

[QE Harold Flair]

We've been over this so many times now, you cannot possibly be so stupid as to think the strawman you wish to continue thrashing was the actual argument being put forward.

Your actual argument was that you were not sure if innate biological differences had an effect on career choices. Well, refute what I just said, then. It seems to me that if you can't, I am correct.

[Reg]

Judging by the post count, this has been about as interesting as three weeks of football.

[Toby]

Your actual argument was that you were not sure if innate biological differences had an effect on career choices. Well, refute what I just said, then. It seems to me that if you can't, I am correct.

No, it was not. We have been over this repeatedly. Are you seriously this dense? I know you want to snap up your ego-boosting e-victory because I overstated the case midway through our discussion, but we had already been going for two or three pages when that happened. I initially said that gender ratios are influenced by sexism in society - even accepting that perhaps male/female dominated jobs would remain male/female dominated without sexism, but positing that we could not know the extent to which the ratios may be affected by cultural factors. You cannot possibly still think that is the same as saying there are no naturally inherent factors. It simply isn't black and white like that and we've been going for long enough now that you must have picked up at least some of the nuance to the discussion.

I don't suppose we will ever agree on the suggestion that sexism is still prevalent, especially when you bizarrely dismiss surveys of girls and young women suggesting they have experienced sexism on the basis that self-declaring something only you would know about is somehow skewing results. There's nothing I could put forward on that issue that would make you even consider your viewpoint, despite the obvious correlation (http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100010p.pdf) between women's increased freedom and rights and their performance in various "masculine" fields of study.

I do not however think your view that we have all of a sudden reached the natural balance of career gender ratios makes any sense, given the rate of change even in recent years, but I suppose you're entitled to your beliefs, however difficult they are to justify without sheer faith to back them.

[John]

I have provided the only evidence I need, which is listed above. John.

That's not evidence. That's an argument.

If you're just admitting that you can't defend yourself any longer and trying to jump back to a previous save point then lol. Could you offer up some evidence that more women would be housewives if left to get on with it or is that another thing that's just axiomatically true?

[QE Harold Flair]

No, it was not. We have been over this repeatedly. Are you seriously this dense? I know you want to snap up your ego-boosting e-victory because I overstated the case midway through our discussion, but we had already been going for two or three pages when that happened. I initially said that gender ratios are influenced by sexism in society - even accepting that perhaps male/female dominated jobs would remain male/female dominated without sexism, but positing that we could not know the extent to which the ratios may be affected by cultural factors. You cannot possibly still think that is the same as saying there are no naturally inherent factors. It simply isn't black and white like that and we've been going for long enough now that you must have picked up at least some of the nuance to the discussion.

I don't suppose we will ever agree on the suggestion that sexism is still prevalent, especially when you bizarrely dismiss surveys of girls and young women suggesting they have experienced sexism on the basis that self-declaring something only you would know about is somehow skewing results. There's nothing I could put forward on that issue that would make you even consider your viewpoint, despite the obvious correlation (http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100010p.pdf) between women's increased freedom and rights and their performance in various "masculine" fields of study.

I do not however think your view that we have all of a sudden reached the natural balance of career gender ratios makes any sense, given the rate of change even in recent years, but I suppose you're entitled to your beliefs, however difficult they are to justify without sheer faith to back them.


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

^^^^^ This is what you said about a biological component in behavioural differences. So, like I said, you were sceptical of that claim and said there was no conclusive evidence when there is.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's not evidence. That's an argument.

If you're just admitting that you can't defend yourself any longer and trying to jump back to a previous save point then lol. Could you offer up some evidence that more women would be housewives if left to get on with it or is that another thing that's just axiomatically true?

Yes, and which do you doubt? Because if I can show they are all true (I can) then I have proven my case. And no I can't show that, but I can appeal to the common sense of anyone without an agenda on the issue. It seems fairly fucking obvious that more men would always want to go in the army, no matter what the culture or encouragement.

'Encouraging everyone' to do what they want will just leave the status quo as it is, obviously. That's why the encouragement is only targeted at females and STEM subjects, because this isn't about equality, it's about the encouragement of one sex over the other. Social engioneering, for want of a less dramatic description.

[Toby]

I very clearly, in the post you just quoted, accept I overstated that and explain why it does not alter the overall argument. Try actually reading the whole thing.

[John]

Yes, and which do you doubt? Because if I can show they are all true (I can) then I have proven my case. And no I can't show that, but I can appeal to the common sense of anyone without an agenda on the issue. It seems fairly fucking obvious that more men would always want to go in the army, no matter what the culture or encouragement.

'Encouraging everyone' to do what they want will just leave the status quo as it is, obviously. That's why the encouragement is only targeted at females and STEM subjects, because this isn't about equality, it's about the encouragement of one sex over the other. Social engioneering, for want of a less dramatic description.

It doesn't matter whether I doubt all of them or none of them. It is not evidence.

I wasn't asking about the army or STEM subjects. I asked a specific question about a specific example. I'm glad you can admit that you've made statements you cannot support with evidence.

[QE Harold Flair]

I very clearly, in the post you just quoted, accept I overstated that and explain why it does not alter the overall argument. Try actually reading the whole thing.

So you're still going with 'overstated', are you? What would it take to admit you were plain wrong?

[Toby]

So you're still going with 'overstated', are you? What would it take to admit you were plain wrong?

Okay. There are biological differences and I was wrong to suggest this was not conclusive. I have actually said that already, at least once.

Every other point still remains.

[QE Harold Flair]

It doesn't matter whether I doubt all of them or none of them. It is not evidence.

I wasn't asking about the army or STEM subjects. I asked a specific question about a specific example. I'm glad you can admit that you've made statements you cannot support with evidence.

Of course it's evidence. I can show all of those things to be true, so either you dispute them or the conclusion I come to or I am correct on that issue. It's no good posting questions which can't be answered and then complaining that you don't get an answer. Can you show evidence that sexism plays any role at all in career choices? I don't expect you can. If you accept those 3 things I posted as true, then you have to accept that it wpould be expected that people will choose different careers based on their strengths, which are partly biologically determined. It's just obvious, isn't it? Uncontacted tribes, when contacted, always have the men as hunters and the women looking after the home. Have they been socially conditioned? That's about as close as we can get to our natural state.

The claims I make which cannot be supported with evidence are because they are 'what if' questions which cannot be answered by either side. I gave the army example to highlight the obvious.

[QE Harold Flair]

Okay. There are biological differences and I was wrong to suggest this was not conclusive. I have actually said that already, at least once.

Every other point still remains.

There have been lots of points made so what is your knockdown argument? Bear in mind I conceded that socialisation plays a role, too. But then that would be the case in any circumstance. I think I just disagree with you define as 'sexism'.

[Toby]

We've been at this point before, I've said "fine, we're not that far apart but for your view that things now are probably a reflection of natural inclinations" and then you've thrown yourself back in with your bollocks strawman.

But: we're probably not that far apart but for your view that things now are probably a reflection of natural inclinations. I'm happy to cut our losses there, since as I've said there's very little point in arguing about something so unverifiable as to what extent sexism still makes a difference.

[QE Harold Flair]

We've been at this point before, I've said "fine, we're not that far apart but for your view that things now are probably a reflection of natural inclinations" and then you've thrown yourself back in with your bollocks strawman.

But: we're probably not that far apart but for your view that things now are probably a reflection of natural inclinations. I'm happy to cut our losses there, since as I've said there's very little point in arguing about something so unverifiable as to what extent sexism still makes a difference.

Well they are - how many remote tribes have the women hunting or men taking care of the children? A crude example maybe, but it's on the same track.

Edit, nevermind I'll direct that to John, who just took the baton for the last leg.

[Toby]

You're right, it is a crude example.

Again, I accept there may be natural inclinations, especially to the "dangerous and risk taking" posts we originally discussed. I'm far less sure of the extent of those differences, I'm far less sure there are major differences in science/maths ability, and I'm far less sure that male:female ratios (and female:male ratios, in jobs predominantly staffed by women) won't continue their long term trend towards convergence.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well I agree with you there - if we continue encouraging women and not men to get into the main fields then of course we will see more women doing so.

[Toby]

Yes, we've done that one.

If you don't actually have any new arguments you know you don't have to repeat old ones.

[John]

I'll pick it up with you tomorrow if you fancy going back in the meantime and answering the questions and addressing the points you've ignored, despite several promptings.

[QE Harold Flair]

The stuff about peer review has been done to death, and I've spent several pages going through it with Lewis. You also failed to answer my question, claiming it as 'not evidence' when it clearly is.

[Toby]

I bought Cordelia Fine's book, Delusions of Gender after posting about it here. There's some fascinating stuff in it so I'd recommend it to anybody interested in that sort of thing.

[QE Harold Flair]

The title is fucking stupid.

[Toby]

Cool.

[randomlegend]

Not as stupid as the name 'Cordelia Fine'.

[QE Harold Flair]

She coins the term 'neurosexism' :happycry:

[Toby]

I know it might be hard to believe a woman writing about gender might not do so with joyless "militance", but the whole book is pretty well humoured and things like that seem at least partially in jest.

[QE Harold Flair]

I know it might be hard to believe a woman writing about gender might not do so with joyless "militance", but the whole book is pretty well humoured and things like that seem at least partially in jest.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgE8p6n9Z7o


Seems pretty hilarious and almost certainly in jest.

Also, what I have gleaned from an interview with her about her book is that all the evidence points to biological differences but there were study flaws (she claims). She makes no positive case for her own position, cites no evidence.

[Toby]

Her own position (in the book you haven't read at least) is simply that many perceived gender differences - especially in terms of career interests - are unsubstantiated, and a lot of what we accept as fact about the differences between men and women stems from shoddy research.

I'll happily discuss the book with you should you read it, but until you do I don't see any point.

[QE Harold Flair]

Of course they are unsubstantiated. You can always claim it's social constructs etc. It's the same way the God fearing always refute evidence against God (prove God doesn't exist, then!). The great thing for her is that she doesn't need to prove anything.

I'm not interested in reading the book judged by her interview. Scientists are supposed to be objective, and all she can do is criticise others while not providing evidence of her own.

[Toby]

She has to substantiate the claim that previous studies have been faulted. She doesn't just say, "this was shoddy research, ignore it", as you would know if you actually had a clue what you were commenting on.

[QE Harold Flair]

But again, saying there are faults in other studies doesn't make your case any stronger. When all previous studies point to something, one might do well to take heed. She's clearly got an agenda.

[Toby]

Your God analogy is idiotic. She's the one saying gender differences need to be better substantiated, while people like you say "prove they don't exist then". They're almost entirely the opposite position.


But again, saying there are faults in other studies doesn't make your case any stronger. When all previous studies point to something, one might do well to take heed. She's clearly got an agenda.

She doesn't just do that. She points to studies where supposed gender differences are neutralised or even switched through various methods. She points to various studies evidencing that knowledge of existing cultural biases affects people's performance on psychological or cognitive ability testing. She points out that even just asking people to state their gender at the start of a maths test led to a greater disparity in scores. She points to tests where participants re told about fictional gender biases where their results mirror those biases, whereas in control groups they obviously do not.

There is plenty of evidence for a "positive" case in the book, and it is absolutely hilarious that you think you're placed to comment without reading even a single chapter of it.

[QE Harold Flair]

I just sat through a thoroughly depressing 40 minute interview with her about her book where all she did was criticise other studies. The God analogy was in reference to the types who deny evolution, claiming 'faulty' study methods and the like.

What's clearly hilarious is that there definitely ARE gender differences and virtually all the proper evidence points to this. As I have said, you can find gender differences in any primates, and we are no different. Women will always be more drawn to nurturing than men and men will always be more goal/work/hunter driven.

[Toby]

That's nice dear.

[QE Harold Flair]

Ooooh I'm so angry at you faux-nonchalant replies! Stop it!

Do you have a theory as to why there are so many men in jail as opposed to women?

[Toby]

Women will always be more drawn to nurturing than men and men will always be more goal/work/hunter driven.

This is the sort of thing that is challenged, and she shows that in controlled tests women do not demonstrate any more empathy or compassion than men. She points further to studies indicating that people - whether they consciously agree with them or not - tend towards cultural biases and stereotypes they fit.

That may go some way to explaining the prevalence of men in prison but it's not something I have a strong theory on, no.

[Spammer]

Does she look at it cross-culturally? Like, tribes in the Amazon and people cut off from the modern world and shit like that?

[QE Harold Flair]

So the fact that every society of humans past and present has women as nurturers and men as 'hunters' is all just social contruction, is it?

And how does what you just said go any way towards explaining more men, by far, being in prison? It's very, very easily explained by nature. Men are more violent than women, due in no small part to us having 10 times more testosterone, which leads men to seek social dominance. That leads to violence. I think what feminst twats seem to forget is that we are part of the animal kingdom, and it shows.

[Lewis]

Why don't you e-mail her? :harold:

[Toby]

Does she look at it cross-culturally? Like, tribes in the Amazon and people cut off from the modern world and shit like that?

There are a few international studies discussed but nothing like that that I remember.

[QE Harold Flair]

Fucking socially constructed cunts, all these uncontacted tribes.

[QE Harold Flair]

Why don't you e-mail her? :harold:

I don't need to. She hasn't undertaken a study.

Back to the drawing board, eh?

[Toby]

So the fact that every society of humans past and present has women as nurturers and men as 'hunters' is all just social contruction, is it?

I don't know, but there are certainly a number of studies to suggest there aren't major differences in the sort of "empathic" or "agentic" brain moulds put forward by people like Baron-Cohen.

Not that careers in Physics have anything to do with hunting.


And how does what you just said go any way towards explaining more men, by far, being in prison? It's very, very easily explained by nature. Men are more violent than women, due in no small part to us having 10 times more testosterone, which leads men to seek social dominance. That leads to violence. I think what feminst twats seem to forget is that we are part of the animal kingdom, and it shows.

That people's behaviour unconsciously adapts to better fit cultural expectations of them could have some influence on men behaving in that manner.

But then the book (which you haven't read) doesn't suggest there are no differences at all anyway, so this is a bit of a strawman.

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't know, but there are certainly a number of studies to suggest there aren't major differences in the sort of "empathic" or "agentic" brain moulds put forward by people like Baron-Cohen.

Not that careers in Physics have anything to do with hunting.

They do if you start from the fact we are hunter gatherers, and the hunters were men. So when you see the men at the top end of high paying jobs it's largely come from that base. Women don't need to be powerful or have social status to get a mate. Men do. Women go for powerful men, in case you hadn't noticed. So the reason the high end of jobs are mostly dominated by men shouldn't be a surprise - we need it to get laid and reproduce. There is no greater driver than reproduction.




That people's behaviour unconsciously adapts to better fit cultural expectations of them could have some influence on men behaving in that manner.

Double-twist back somersaults aside, isn't it more easily explained by exactly what I said? Are you really making the claim that men are more violent because men see themselves as more violent? Laughable.


But then the book (which you haven't read) doesn't suggest there are no differences at all anyway, so this is a bit of a strawman.

When she comes up with her own study I'll pay more attention.

[Toby]

They do if you start from the fact we are hunter gatherers, and the hunters were men. So when you see the men at the top end of high paying jobs it's largely come from that base. Women don't need to be powerful or have social status to get a mate. Men do. Women go for powerful men, in case you hadn't noticed. So the reason the high end of jobs are mostly dominated by men shouldn't be a surprise - we need it to get laid and reproduce. There is no greater driver than reproduction.

Cool.


Double-twist back somersaults aside, isn't it more easily explained by exactly what I said? Are you really making the claim that men are more violent because men see themselves as more violent? Laughable.

No, I didn't claim that if you read properly. However, it may be further exaggerated by that.


When she comes up with her own study I'll pay more attention.

You're paying enough attention to try to pick holes in arguments you've never read, so I was more just prodding at how unspeakably stupid that is.

[Davgooner]

Jesus. I'd assumed this was a TV show and as such swerved it.

[QE Harold Flair]

Cool.

I really don't mind if you can't refute what I say.


No, I didn't claim that if you read properly. However, it may be further exaggerated by that.

So you're conceding that the main reason is what I say it is?


You're paying enough attention to try to pick holes in arguments you've never read, so I was more just prodding at how unspeakably stupid that is.

I've read a lot about this area, actually. At least as much as you, I'd say.

[Toby]

I really don't mind if you can't refute what I say.

It's all just faith based, "common sense innit" thinking. We've been round and round on it enough for me to know there's no point challenging you - you're literally at the point where you're arguing against a book you haven't read a page of, so it's not like you're approaching things from a point of sincere interest in understanding if things could be different.


So you're conceding that the main reason is what I say it is?

I'm saying there are both natural and societal factors. That's not "conceding" anything.


I've read a lot about this area, actually. At least as much as you, I'd say.

That's nice buddy, you must be really proud. Whatever else you've read, you haven't read the book and you're simply guessing what is says.

[Spammer]

The stuff about people living up to stereotypes is a legit thing. I read about a study in which Asian-American women did different Maths tests, before each being asked to focus on being a woman for one and being Asian for another. It was found that it made a significant difference to their Maths ability on the test.

Can't remember any more details, will find study though if anyone's interested.

[QE Harold Flair]

But 'stereotpyes' are not created in a vacuum. They come from a real thing.

[Toby]

The same thing has been observed for completely made up stereotypes though. It doesn't depend on people knowing about it beforehand, various studies have shown that if you say to people before a test, "boys/girls/white people/Asians/people who pick their nose usually do a bit better on this", the results will mirror whatever bias is supposedly there, even if it's the first time the participants have heard of such a link.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's all just faith based, "common sense innit" thinking. We've been round and round on it enough for me to know there's no point challenging you - you're literally at the point where you're arguing against a book you haven't read a page of, so it's not like you're approaching things from a point of sincere interest in understanding if things could be different.

How so? These are well observed fatcs. What do you see wrong with what I said? This wasn't me arguing against the book, as such.



I'm saying there are both natural and societal factors. That's not "conceding" anything.

Well you said the latter exaggerates the former, which means the former is the more dominant reason. In which case we are near agreement. Where we differ, I fear, is that I believe 'stereotypes', so-called, are there for a reason. More women Do prefer to nurture. More men ARE geniuses and idiots. That's not to say all men are this or all women are that, but to say what I say is fine and backed up by evidence. At what point does the truth become a stereotype? If I say more men are geniuses that's not stereotyping, it's a fact.




That's nice buddy, you must be really proud. Whatever else you've read, you haven't read the book and you're simply guessing what is says.

Well the title is already wrong, she needs to work on that. And you're right, just as you have not read the full reports which you have spent pages arguing against, I am also arguing against the premises.

[QE Harold Flair]

The same thing has been observed for completely made up stereotypes though. It doesn't depend on people knowing about it beforehand, various studies have shown that if you say to people before a test, "boys/girls/white people/Asians/people who pick their nose usually do a bit better on this", the results will mirror whatever bias is supposedly there, even if it's the first time the participants have heard of such a link.

So if that's the case, given the massive feminism drive over the last 40 years - where's the female Picasso? Where's the female Mozart? Where's the female Einstein? The female Hawking?

What are these studies, by the way?

[Toby]

You're just rehashing the same shit we've been over and over here. There's simply no value to going into it again. I posted in here to say to anybody interested that the book is a good read: if you're not interested, it's not a big deal to me. If you do decide you're interested enough to read it, cool, I'll be happy to see your rebuttal of wherever you think she's gone wrong. Until then, there's no upside to anybody involved in starting this all over again.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, I'm not. There is no 'ism' in science, and that includes feminism. When you start with an ideological agenda it leads to bad conclusions.

I'd like to see those studies, though.

[Toby]

Read the book if you're actually interested. I suspect you're not though.

[phonics]

Harold can't read a three sentence forum post properly and you want him to try a book? He'll end up eating it.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm not even talking about the book now. You said there were various studies, which I would like to see.

[QE Harold Flair]

Harold can't read a three sentence forum post properly and you want him to try a book? He'll end up eating it.

Good contribution.

[Toby]

I'm not even talking about the book now. You said there were various studies, which I would like to see.

All are discussed in the book. As I say, if you're actually interested in the topic and wish to learn more about it, it's a very good read. I'm not going to recreate the bibliography for somebody who has no intention of reading any of it.

[QE Harold Flair]

Oh, right. Have you got any names for them? I'm not buying the book. I've every intention of looking at the studies or I wouldn't have brought it up.

[Toby]

No need to buy it: https://sexnotgender.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/fine_cordelia_delusions-of-gender.pdf

P32 for the specific stuff on this. All citations are hyperlinked.

[Spammer]

Do your own research?

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm not reading her book. PDF's are a fucking eyesore in any case. Never mind, I couldn't find them on a google search as I don't really know what to look for.

[Toby]

See my edit. Page 32 onwards and the start of the third chapter reference various studies. All citations are hyperlinked to the relevant part of the bibliography.

If you can't read PDFs I'm not too sure how you'll cope with the actual studies, of course.

[QE Harold Flair]

I didn't say I can't read PDF's.

[Boydy]

Oh, right. Have you got any names for them? I'm not buying the book. I've every intention of looking at the studies or I wouldn't have brought it up.

Go to a library then.

[QE Harold Flair]

Why would I do that when I have the internet?

[Boydy]

You said you weren't buying the book and didn't want to read the PDF. Go to a library and borrow the book for free.

[Lewis]

He's not reading it because it has an agenda. Somebody has to respect the principles of scientific inquiry.

[QE Harold Flair]

You said you weren't buying the book and didn't want to read the PDF. Go to a library and borrow the book for free.

I also said I don't want to read the book.

[QE Harold Flair]

He's not reading it because it has an agenda. Somebody has to respect the principles of scientific inquiry.

I won't be reading your peer reviewed foreword for the same reason.

[Lewis]

You probably wouldn't understand it anyway.

[QE Harold Flair]

Probably not. People are still debating the meaning of 'nothing'.

[Boydy]

I also said I don't want to read the book.

Just every other book ever, then.

[QE Harold Flair]

Just every other book ever, then.

Incorrect. I love factual books, I never read novels or fiction.

[Disco]

Yet you obsess over Ric Flair (so presumably have watched and enjoyed wrestling), how does that circle get squared?

[QE Harold Flair]

Yet you obsess over Ric Flair (so presumably have watched and enjoyed wrestling), how does that circle get squared?

I've no idea what you're on about.

[Boydy]

'Factual books' sounds like something a ten-year old would call them.

[QE Harold Flair]

'Factual books' sounds like something a ten-year old would call them.

Oh, right.

[Disco]

I've no idea what you're on about.

Yes you do. You won't read fiction but you'll watch it.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes you do. You won't read fiction but you'll watch it.

Your observations are perhaps too complex for me.

[Disco]

It's just facts Harry, nothing to be scared of.