Originally Posted by protonitron
I have started reading your links, but I will need time to evaluate their legitimacy so I am unable to swap my viewpoint completely at present. For now I am impartial since I feel I have equally persuasive reasons to support both views.
*some time later*
I have gone through the first wiki article (the whole page), It provides points both for and against the idea that intelligence differs and for the specific article the link sent me to (concerning spatial ability) it goes on to say that "Results from studies conducted in the physical environment are not conclusive about sex differences, with various studies on the same task showing no differences. For example, there are studies that show no difference in 'wayfinding'.[68] One study found men more likely to report having a good sense of direction and are more confident about finding their way in a new environment, but evidence does not support men having better map reading skills."
Concerning visualisation of spatial rotation: "Performance in mental rotation and similar spatial tasks is affected by gender expectations.[5][73] For example, studies show that being told before the test that men typically perform better, or that the task is linked with jobs like aviation engineering typically associated with men versus jobs like fashion design typically associated with women, will negatively affect female performance on spatial rotation and positively influence it when subjects are told the opposite.[74][75][76][77] Experiences such as playing video games also increase a person's mental rotation ability.[68][78] A study from the University of Toronto showed that differences in ability get reduced after playing video games requiring complex mental rotation. The experiment showed that playing such games creates larger gains in spatial cognition in females than males." So I am still sceptical of your example of spatial intelligence.
Concerning a study showing differences performance of different sexes in SAT like tests of spatial ability: "These gender differences found are largely in geometry and word problems and tend to be in countries with the highest achieving students and with the largest gender gap in experience.[84] Smaller differences were noted in countries with lower achieving students in mathematics which includes the United States. Moore and Smith state that within the United States, poorly educated female students outperform their male peers, but as the level of education increases, the male advantage in mathematics emerges" Again a lot of the difference appears to be cultural.
I have negated parts of the example you gave because I believe the parts I quoted suitably justify my scepticism of the unquoted parts supporting pig's argument. It has become apparent from reading the article that the parts of the brain used for certain tasks probably differers depending on sex and that hormones can play a part in brain development but that the relationship is very complex (the fact that it was considered too complex for such a detailed and in depth article implies that my interpretation of it would be unreliable without further understanding of the subject.).
Now onto the next link: I am not going to look at it in any sort of detail because I find it improbable that it says any other than "look how many men do the thing people expect men to do compared to women" and vice versa. I am disappointed in your ignorance of the effect of social expectation and pressures on personal life choices. If a society thinks girls should work in medicine, then its treatment of girls will be different, and the placebo effect will also play a factor. In a society where people don't think girls are as good at being builders, there won't be as many girls being builders. I understand that I am proving that you are definitively wrong, but I don't need to, I just need to prove that you are not conclusively right.
Third link: You just made the same point twice, the legitimacy of the evidence is not what I am questioning, I am just sceptical of the application.
Fourth link: "That said, and despite the advances made in recent years,Note4 women remain less likely to choose a career in STEM areas, and more particularly in engineering, mathematics and computer science. This stands in contrast to nearly all other fields of study, where women now represent the vast majority of graduates—especially health and social science programs. Why are women staying away from STEM programs?" basically girls don't go for engineering and stuff as often as boys. To me this is not enough conclusive evidence for me to take the view that women are better or worse at certain carriers as a result of non reproductive based gender physiology because cultural conditioning is, in my opinion, a serious limiting factor in such a test. Too many variables for the results to be accredited to a singular factor.
The video:
I am only addressing reliable sources from the video: Simon Baron-Cohen's study of newborns seems a little inconclusive, I already knew that exposure to testosterone caused autism (mentioned in one of the Oliver Sacks novels I had read). But the fact he uses a mobile to represent interest in mechanics makes me sceptical of the care with with the test was taken. To be honest the only thing which matters is the attention payed to the face as this determines empathy, the mobile simply provides a distraction (or perhaps a control to compare with the face). If the test (on just 100 babies) is to be taken as accurate, then all it proves is that women are more empathetic. In my opinion this is a completely viable argument but it doesn't have enough proof for me to adopt it just yet I am afraid. I would need to read his book "The Essential Difference: The Truth about the Male and Female Brain" to elaborate further on the legitimacy of his experimental results. His language in the interview was far from reassuring and as he said things which did not actually imply anything about gender in a way which made it sound like it supported his claim (not sure about the exact sentence but it was something like "girls exposed to high levels of testosterone in the womb were shown to have a more masculine toy choice" it in fact seemed to me like he was trying to imply that the child was more masculine in behaviour whereas this definition of masculine is entirely based on the study which he was describing at the time (not sure if this is bootstrap or circular logic but I don't like it). Perhaps I am just being paranoid and reading into his terminology too much) this implies that he is not prone to giving an unbias conclusion and the strength of his personal opinion on the matter might cloud his judgement.
Since I don't want to buy a book with a title inclusive of the term "The truth about [insert anything which some people might find vaguely interesting here]" because I would be forced to cringe every time I saw it, I will have to just rely on Wikipedia. Before you start quoting it (I haven't read the article at all yet and will do so after finishing the video) please note "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources. (December 2013)"
at the top of the page.
The social evolutionist or whatever the fuck she was called: A lot of what she said was designed to be misleading and a lot of her points were just plain illogical (her "this happens therefore this must be true" points are what I am referring to), however, this obviously does not mean she is necessarily wrong, however, I believe that the larger amount of testosterone in the womb of male foetuses is because this is the male reproductive hormone, not because natural selection favour boys who lack empathy. In other words, I am not buying this social evolutionist shit. Nevertheless, the effect of testosterone can still have a coincidental effect.
Ok, I give up, for now I am willing to believe that men's brains are more likely to have certain aspects similar both in characteristics and causes of those seen in Aspergers syndrome but on a less extreme level. But the whole masculinity of the condition is exaggerated to disgusting lengths by the video. Women are better with people and men are more likely to take an interest in mechanical things as a result of a lack of empathy as a result of an excess of the male sexual hormone. This does not explain all the links you posted about gender abundances in each workplace.
I will look into this issue further because it is interesting. Ok? Until then it seems that I have been hoisted on my own petard.
Now onto you cultural point.
Fair enough, but it was derived from unequal marriage rights. And the want for a boy can't entirely be justified by culture since it is (according to the sources in the article) a result of poverty (derived from unequal marriage rights making girls more expensive) and the idea that they just do it out of habit (but only in impoverished areas) seems far fetched when you look at how the authorities in China condemn it as evil.
I know my logic and impartiality will have heavily lapsed at some points in this post, I have spent more than 2 fucking hours writing it and logic and impartiality is tiring for me to keep up that long. Now I just need to read the article about Empathizing–systemising theory on wikipedia.
You should have "SPOILER"ed it.
Also, in my perspective, feminism is alright, but society makes it not focused on equal rights for women. They take it too far and towards the border of the definition of feminism and "feminazi."
RedPanda won't fuck his dog
Long list of criticisms for the theory: The theory has been criticized on multiple grounds. Some research in systemizing and empathizing in early life indicates that boys and girls develop in similar ways, casting considerable doubt on the theory of sex differences in these areas.[26] A cognitive style that more naturally opposes empathizing is Machiavellianism, which emphasizes self-interest and which has been shown to be strongly correlated with competitiveness; evolutionary theory predicts that males will be more competitive than females. In contrast, research has generally shown a weak negative correlation between empathizing and systemizing.[27]
Another criticism is that original EQ and SQ, which form most of the research basis behind the notions of empathizing and systemizing, both clearly measure more than one factor, and that sex differences exist on only some of the factors.[27]
As a basis for his theory, Baron-Cohen cites a study done on newborn infants in which baby boys looked longer at an object and baby girls looked longer at a person.[28] However, a review of studies done with very young children found no consistent differences between boys and girls.[28][29]
Critics say that because his work has focused on higher-functioning individuals with autism spectrum disorders, his work requires independent replication with broader samples.[30] A Nature article published in 2011 says, "Some critics are also rankled by Baron-Cohen's history of headline-grabbing theories—particularly one that autism is an 'extreme male' brain state. They worry that his theory about technically minded parents may be giving the public wrong ideas, including the impression that autism is linked to being a 'geek'."[30]
Time magazine said Baron-Cohen "most dramatically wandered into fraught territory in 2003, when he published the book The Essential Difference, which called autism a manifestation of an extreme 'male brain'--one that's 'predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems,' as opposed to a 'female brain,' one that's 'predominantly hard-wired for empathy'--and ended up on the wrong side of the debate on science and sex differences."[31] A book review published in the journal Nature, wrote:
"The idea that males are more interested in systemizing than females merits serious consideration ... It is unquestionably a novel and fascinating idea that seems likely to generate a rich empirical body of literature as its properties are tested. The second part of the theory—that females are more empathic than males—is more problematic."[19]
Colleagues Isabelle Rapin and Helen Tager-Flusberg expressed reservations about the theory;[32]
Isabelle Rapin ... finds Dr. Baron-Cohen's theory "provocative" but adds that "it does not account for some of the many neurological features of the disorder, like the motor symptoms [such as repetitive movements and clumsiness], the sleep problems or the seizures." Others worry that the term "extreme male brain" could be misinterpreted. Males are commonly associated with "qualities such as aggression," says Helen Tager-Flusberg ... "What's dangerous is that's the inference people will make: Oh, these are extreme males."[32]
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences characterized The Essential Difference as "very disappointing" with a "superficial notion of intelligence", concluding that Baron-Cohen's major claims about mind-blindness and systemizing–empathizing are "at best, dubious".[33] The Spectator says that "The emphasis on the ultra-maleness approach is no doubt attributable to the fact that Baron-Cohen works mainly with higher functioning autism and Asperger's syndrome."[34]
I haven't read the concerns although I read through the rest of the article relatively attentively. Would it help to say that I played with Barbie dolls as a 4 year old? to be honest this was not a personal preference but rather the sort of statement of rejection towards social expectations which was so appealing to me as a pre-pubescent controversialist. I also couldn't understand why all my friends were so decidedly and unreasonably hateful towards anything associated with the opposite gender. I have a much higher understanding of mechanical processes than I do of social ones (this has been tested many times at my school since I have do learning support, am dyslexic and have attention deficit hyperactive disorder) and I tend to obsess over certain things (just one example from a large selection would be that I went through phases of being mad about a random thing for a year and then forgetting about it entirely as a kid).
I know I shouldn't talk about myself so much but I am tired and wanted to write about something a subject I know shit about for once.
-----
I said to not fucking mention feminazis in the thread starting post you twerp. I originally typed this with caps lock but didn't want to get too many infractions.
Another criticism is that original EQ and SQ, which form most of the research basis behind the notions of empathizing and systemizing, both clearly measure more than one factor, and that sex differences exist on only some of the factors.[27]
As a basis for his theory, Baron-Cohen cites a study done on newborn infants in which baby boys looked longer at an object and baby girls looked longer at a person.[28] However, a review of studies done with very young children found no consistent differences between boys and girls.[28][29]
Critics say that because his work has focused on higher-functioning individuals with autism spectrum disorders, his work requires independent replication with broader samples.[30] A Nature article published in 2011 says, "Some critics are also rankled by Baron-Cohen's history of headline-grabbing theories—particularly one that autism is an 'extreme male' brain state. They worry that his theory about technically minded parents may be giving the public wrong ideas, including the impression that autism is linked to being a 'geek'."[30]
Time magazine said Baron-Cohen "most dramatically wandered into fraught territory in 2003, when he published the book The Essential Difference, which called autism a manifestation of an extreme 'male brain'--one that's 'predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems,' as opposed to a 'female brain,' one that's 'predominantly hard-wired for empathy'--and ended up on the wrong side of the debate on science and sex differences."[31] A book review published in the journal Nature, wrote:
"The idea that males are more interested in systemizing than females merits serious consideration ... It is unquestionably a novel and fascinating idea that seems likely to generate a rich empirical body of literature as its properties are tested. The second part of the theory—that females are more empathic than males—is more problematic."[19]
Colleagues Isabelle Rapin and Helen Tager-Flusberg expressed reservations about the theory;[32]
Isabelle Rapin ... finds Dr. Baron-Cohen's theory "provocative" but adds that "it does not account for some of the many neurological features of the disorder, like the motor symptoms [such as repetitive movements and clumsiness], the sleep problems or the seizures." Others worry that the term "extreme male brain" could be misinterpreted. Males are commonly associated with "qualities such as aggression," says Helen Tager-Flusberg ... "What's dangerous is that's the inference people will make: Oh, these are extreme males."[32]
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences characterized The Essential Difference as "very disappointing" with a "superficial notion of intelligence", concluding that Baron-Cohen's major claims about mind-blindness and systemizing–empathizing are "at best, dubious".[33] The Spectator says that "The emphasis on the ultra-maleness approach is no doubt attributable to the fact that Baron-Cohen works mainly with higher functioning autism and Asperger's syndrome."[34]
I haven't read the concerns although I read through the rest of the article relatively attentively. Would it help to say that I played with Barbie dolls as a 4 year old? to be honest this was not a personal preference but rather the sort of statement of rejection towards social expectations which was so appealing to me as a pre-pubescent controversialist. I also couldn't understand why all my friends were so decidedly and unreasonably hateful towards anything associated with the opposite gender. I have a much higher understanding of mechanical processes than I do of social ones (this has been tested many times at my school since I have do learning support, am dyslexic and have attention deficit hyperactive disorder) and I tend to obsess over certain things (just one example from a large selection would be that I went through phases of being mad about a random thing for a year and then forgetting about it entirely as a kid).
I know I shouldn't talk about myself so much but I am tired and wanted to write about something a subject I know shit about for once.
-----
Originally Posted by Kookoo11
You should have "SPOILER"ed it.
Also, in my perspective, feminism is alright, but society makes it not focused on equal rights for women. They take it too far and towards the border of the definition of feminism and "feminazi."
I said to not fucking mention feminazis in the thread starting post you twerp. I originally typed this with caps lock but didn't want to get too many infractions.
Last edited by Zelda; Jan 28, 2015 at 03:20 AM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Gender inequality does not necessarily mean misogyny, there exists no belief that women are inferior to men, and the practice is purely pragmatic.
Yeah, inequality =/= misogyny, but inequality calls for feminism since feminism is all about equality of the sexes. Since inequality calls for feminism, it's relevant to Eastern countries because in them is type of inequality you were just talking about. The West may have made it fashionable, but the idea of equality between sexes isn't an exclusively Western concept.
edit: Proto, there's no need to reproduce articles like that here. Just link the source, or post the most relevant excerpts.
Last edited by Ele; Jan 28, 2015 at 08:01 AM.
About the "Can you hit a woman" thing.
Why do they use it like we have some sort of advantage over them, surely this is slightly sexist being unable to hit a woman when she's hit you.
If I was to randomly hit a woman I'd expect a punch, same goes for if a woman was to hit a man.
Why do they use it like we have some sort of advantage over them, surely this is slightly sexist being unable to hit a woman when she's hit you.
If I was to randomly hit a woman I'd expect a punch, same goes for if a woman was to hit a man.
Life's not a waste of time and time's not a waste of life so let's stop wasting time, get wasted and have the time of our lives - Mr Worldwide 3:18
