[QUOTE=yawmwen;39691948]um 9 months is more than enough time for a child to learn masculine and feminine social ideas. hell, we have discovered that newborn babies(like right out of the womb) know language.[/QUOTE]
But it doesn't even know what gender it is at 9 months. What are you talking about.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39691948]no it doesn't show what interests the baby more.
do you know that newborn babies are pretty much blind, silly sil? they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a machine and a face right when they are born.[/QUOTE]
If that's the case then there wouldn't be a statistical difference.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692066]it can't show a difference because babies cannot differentiate between objects until 6 months.
"5. Object and face recognition
An infant is born with the ability to see facial features at arm's length, but is attracted instead to high-contrast borders of objects. For example, a baby will gaze at the edge of a face or the hairline when looking at a human face. By two to three months of age, a baby will begin to notice facial features, such as the nose and mouth. By three to five months, most babies can differentiate between mother's face and a stranger's face."
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[url]http://vision.about.com/od/childrensvision/tp/vision_develop.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
Explain the statistical difference then. Prove the math wrong that is.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39691824]socially considered masculine.[/QUOTE]
You should read the papers Simon Baron-Cohen (the bloke in the video) has written and the subject on the Autistic spectrum.
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/apr/17/research.highereducation[/url]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39692028]First of all it's not some dumb binary system. They measure time the kids looked at each picture.
Second, they compare statistics. Not all boys will look at longer at the mechanism, it doesn't say or matter. There are things that interfere with the test, the time of day, how long ago the kid took a poop and million other things, that's why you repeat the test many many times, to rule out the chance, see statistical significance. And in this test there's a statistical difference between boys and girls at 1st day of their life, before the social roles are even introduced.
Third, if this indeed was a coin toss then the result wouldn't show any difference.[/QUOTE]
They never stated the sample size, it could have been ten babies for all I know. The amount of time they spend looking at it doesn't mean anything, why would a baby care about a mechanical object any more than a face? they're probably just staring at things, like babies do.
also I have to bring this guys reliablility into question when he believes austism is what happens when your brain is too male.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39692087]But it doesn't even know what gender it is at 9 months. What are you talking about.[/quote]
evidence shows that a child's gender identity develops in the womb.
[quote]If that's the case then there wouldn't be a statistical difference.[/QUOTE]
yea it can be caused by sheer chance.
there isn't really a way the infant would be able to focus on the objects. the child is almost completely blind. any preference for machines/faces by the child would be purely coincidence since they aren't really able to differentiate stuff well.
or it's an agenda coming from the person doing the experiment.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39692106]They never stated the sample size, it could have been ten babies for all I know. The amount of time they spend looking at it doesn't mean anything, why would a baby care about a mechanical object any more than a face? they're probably just staring at things, like babies do.
also I have to bring this guys reliablility into question when he believes austism is what happens when your brain is too male.[/QUOTE]
yea this dude's credibility is very shaky, at best.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
also this supposed biological preference for "systems" doesn't explain why programming used to be a woman's job, why organizing is considered feminine, nurses are feminine, etc. these things are require knowledge of systems and great aptitude for it.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
why are most politicians men, even though politics requires a great amount of empathy and social skills that women supposedly have more of?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692111]
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
also this supposed biological preference for "systems" doesn't explain why programming used to be a woman's job, why organizing is considered feminine, nurses are feminine, etc. these things are require knowledge of systems and great aptitude for it.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
why are most politicians men, even though politics requires a great amount of empathy and social skills that women supposedly have more of?[/QUOTE]
It also doesn't explain the previously stated statistic of 70% of engineering graduates in Iran being women
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39691948]
do you know that newborn babies are pretty much blind, silly sil? they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a machine and a face right when they are born.[/QUOTE]
Babies are not born blind, do you think they would go to the lengths of their research of putting blind babies in front of people and objects just to realize they cannot actually see anything?
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692111]
why are most politicians men, even though politics requires a great amount of empathy and social skills that women supposedly have more of?[/QUOTE]
Thats a very interesting view about politicians.
[QUOTE=Vasili;39692219]Babies are not born blind, do you think they would go to the lengths of their research of putting blind babies in front of people and objects just to realize they cannot actually see anything?[/QUOTE]
if they had an agenda, maybe.
but yea they are pretty much blind.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39692106]They never stated the sample size, it could have been ten babies for all I know. The amount of time they spend looking at it doesn't mean anything, why would a baby care about a mechanical object any more than a face? they're probably just staring at things, like babies do.[/QUOTE]
If the sample size is 10 then he would be laughed at for releasing a paper on it.
Again if there wasn't any meaning behind this, there wouldn't be a statistical difference. It would be 50-50 with statistically insignificant difference if you were right.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39692106]also I have to bring this guys reliablility into question when he believes austism is what happens when your brain is too male.[/QUOTE]
I have to bring your reliability into question because he said "genetic condition" when you "produce too much testosterone". Words like "autism" and "too male" was never used. You've made it up.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692111]evidence shows that a child's gender identity develops in the womb.[/QUOTE]
Really? Every class I had about this said that the earliest (with exceptions) is 1 and half year.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692111]yea it can be caused by sheer chance.
there isn't really a way the infant would be able to focus on the objects. the child is almost completely blind. any preference for machines/faces by the child would be purely coincidence since they aren't really able to differentiate stuff well.
or it's an agenda coming from the person doing the experiment.[/QUOTE]
For like 5th time there wouldn't be statistical significance if you were right.
they can make out basic shapes and borders.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39692210]It also doesn't explain the previously stated statistic of 70% of engineering graduates in Iran being women[/QUOTE]
It does. In the video you haven't watched. The more free the country, the more free people are to pursue what they want and be picky about it. In Iran it's more of a need than want. It's in the video.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692111]why are most politicians men, even though politics requires a great amount of empathy and social skills that women supposedly have more of?[/QUOTE]
What fantasy world do you live in?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39692243]
Really? Every class I had about this said that the earliest (with exceptions) is 1 and half year. [/quote]
the development starts in utero. it's linked partially to hormones released in the uterus that begin the development.
[quote]For like 5th time there wouldn't be statistical significance if you were right.[/QUOTE]
there would be a statistical significance if this guy fudged the data himself to fit an agenda.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692237]if they had an agenda, maybe.
but yea they are pretty much blind.[/QUOTE]
No they are not blind, they have limited vision like someone with short sight. To say one of our lead psychologists in autism study is trying to push an agenda regarding genders doesn't really disprove the study.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39692268]
What fantasy world do you live in?[/QUOTE]
the fantasy world where being a politician is a social job, i guess.
maybe you're right, politicians never try to persuade, influence, or socialize in the real world.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vasili;39692299]No they are not blind, they have limited vision like someone with short sight. To say one of our lead psychologists in autism study is trying to push an agenda regarding genders doesn't really disprove the study.[/QUOTE]
no the study can be shown to be false in other ways. i'm saying that because the study is flawed, the guy is probably not very credible.
and the best they can really see it borders and fuzz. they can't even really focus on objects that well(at least not reliably).
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
also what was the control in this experiment?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692301]
no the study can be shown to be false in other ways. i'm saying that because the study is flawed, the guy is probably not very credible.
and the best they can really see it borders and fuzz. they can't even really focus on objects that well(at least not reliably).[/QUOTE]
Source me, and show me in other ways because currently you're just using fallacy's to discredit a professional study.
Simon Baron-Cohen is pretty damn credible.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baron-Cohen[/url]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692286]the development starts in utero. it's linked partially to hormones released in the uterus that begin the development.[/QUOTE]
Physical development yes. Psychologically it starts at 1 and a half year. Until then the baby isn't aware consciously or subconsciously what gender it belongs to. I mean fuck for some time the baby thinks that it and it's mom are the same being.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692286]there would be a statistical significance if this guy fudged the data himself to fit an agenda.[/QUOTE]
Oh it's the "I'm not gonna believe it until I see the evidence. What's that evidence? It's fake." guy.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39692243]If the sample size is 10 then he would be laughed at for releasing a paper on it.
Again if there wasn't any meaning behind this, there wouldn't be a statistical difference. It would be 50-50 with statistically insignificant difference if you were right.
I have to bring your reliability into question because he said "genetic condition" when you "produce too much testosterone". Words like "autism" and "too male" was never used. You've made it up.
[/QUOTE]
It's another study he did were he concluded that autism is due to being extremely male.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39692342]
Oh it's the "I'm not gonna believe it until I see the evidence. What's that evidence? It's fake." guy.[/QUOTE]
no it's the "this study is fundamentally flawed, so come back when you get a guy who isn't a fucking hack" guy.
[QUOTE=Vasili;39692341]Source me, and show me in other ways because currently you're just using fallacy's to discredit a professional study.
Simon Baron-Cohen is pretty damn credible.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baron-Cohen[/URL][/QUOTE]
well his credibility is definitely flawed if he overlooked the fact that infants are pretty much blind.
[URL]http://www.babycenter.com/0_developmental-milestones-sight_6508.bc[/URL]
[URL]http://www.ehow.com/about_6067661_infant-eyesight-development.html#page=2[/URL]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39692370]It's another study he did were he concluded that autism is due to being extremely male.[/QUOTE]
link
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692397]no it's the "this study is fundamentally flawed, so come back when you get a guy who isn't a fucking hack" guy.
well his credibility is definitely flawed if he overlooked the fact that infants are pretty much blind.
[URL]http://www.babycenter.com/0_developmental-milestones-sight_6508.bc[/URL]
[URL]http://www.ehow.com/about_6067661_infant-eyesight-development.html#page=2[/URL][/QUOTE]
Your link said
[quote]According to Today's Parent, a baby can imitate facial expressions when she is as young as three days old.[/quote]
And it's supposed to prove this right.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692066]it can't show a difference because babies cannot differentiate between objects until 6 months.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39691948]do you know that newborn babies are pretty much blind[/QUOTE]
Yeah okay.
The true nature of gender is currently unknown, but regardless of how it forms or when it forms, the existence of it should not be ignored.
I am not going to ignore the fact that you could probably force a person of one gender to be more similar to the other gender if you brought him up in such a manner, but that person would not switch genders because of it.
I am also not going to ignore the probability that girls and boys are a lot more similar than the society frequently makes them out to be, especially if we were to consider the hypothetical situation of a boy and a girl growing up without any boundaries whatsoever.
As it was mentioned earlier in the thread, girls are frequently in need of being taught how to appreciate some masculinity, and boys are frequently in need of being taught how to appreciate some femininity. Frankly, it possibly would not be even necessary to do that in a society that has discrimination more actively in check.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39692470]Your link said
And it's supposed to prove this right.
Yeah okay.[/QUOTE]
"This month or next, he'll be able to consistently focus both eyes and track a moving object."
"By three or four months of age, a baby's eyesight is developed enough to allow him to see and recognize faces."
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39692446][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baron-Cohen[/URL][/QUOTE]
There is a biological difference between male and female brain.
His studies show that autistic children have their "male" parts of the brain overdeveloped.
Colloquially "it's too male". But that's yours oversimplication.
[editline]24th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692502]"This month or next, he'll be able to consistently focus both eyes and track a moving object."
"By three or four months of age, a baby's eyesight is developed enough to allow him to see and recognize faces."[/QUOTE]
How is it able to "imitate facial expressions when she is as young as three days old" then?
Also, key words: moving object, recognize faces (as in distinguish one face from another)
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692397]no it's the "this study is fundamentally flawed, so come back when you get a guy who isn't a fucking hack" guy.
well his credibility is definitely flawed if he overlooked the fact that infants are pretty much blind.
[URL]http://www.babycenter.com/0_developmental-milestones-sight_6508.bc[/URL]
[URL]http://www.ehow.com/about_6067661_infant-eyesight-development.html#page=2[/URL][/QUOTE]
I point you towards this;
[quote]
At first your baby can't focus farther than 8 to 12 inches away — just far enough to make out the face of the person holding him. He can detect light, shapes, and movement beyond that, but it's all pretty blurry right now.[/quote]
They are capable of identifying, but at short distances as the test was looking at faces and objects I believe that applies. So no, they're not pretty much blind - they can see.
Even if it was the case, he also mentions boys produce twice as much testosterone which influences the way the brain develops and the higher that testosterone is the slower they are to developed language and avoid eye contact more, this means slower social development. It is explained earlier women tend to have less testosterone and as such are far more social and have more empathy compared to men, also said girls who develop a high level of testosterone also take a greater interest in more masculine toy preferences.
This connects to how all males are on the autistic spectrum and the theory that the more autistic you are the more of a male brain you have. The study hasn't been quick, its been on a process of 8 years following the same people and studying effects and causes of genders psychology, the main conclusion was those with higher testosterone had less empathy with recognizing others emotions or taking other perspective but they have much more interest in systems and how things work.
Both men and women can have high testosterone but its common in men and less in women, this is very likely where the whole term 'tomboy/tomgirl' comes from.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39692516]There is a biological difference between male and female brain.
His studies show that autistic children have their "male" parts of the brain overdeveloped.
Colloquially "it's too male". But that's yours oversimplication.
[editline]24th February 2013[/editline]
How is it able to "imitate facial expressions when she is as young as three days old" then?
Also, key words: moving object, recognize faces (as in distinguish one face from another)[/QUOTE]
"This means that even thought the optics of the eye are mature, infants still can’t see as well as adults because brain areas responsible for vision are still immature"
"Parents often say their baby prefers a certain color, often bright red or blue. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to tell what colors a baby prefers, or what colors he or she can see by simply noticing what he or she looks at. This is because their eyes might be attracted by the brightness, the darkness, or the contrast of an object against its surroundings, and not by the color alone."
[url]http://www.ski.org/Vision/babyvision.html[/url]
"cutting edge research"
"pick a toy"
lmfao
[QUOTE=Vasili;39692571]
They are capable of identifying, but at short distances as the test was looking at faces and objects I believe that applies. So no, they're not pretty much blind - they can see.
Even if it was the case, he also mentions boys produce twice as much testosterone which influences the way the brain develops and the higher that testosterone is the slower they are to developed language and avoid eye contact more, this means slower social development. It is explained earlier women tend to have less testosterone and as such are far more social and have more empathy compared to men, also said girls who develop a high level of testosterone also take a greater interest in more masculine toy preferences.
This connects to how all males are on the autistic spectrum and the theory that the more autistic you are the more of a male brain you have. The study hasn't been quick, its been on a process of 8 years following the same people and studying effects and causes of genders psychology, the main conclusion was those with higher testosterone had less empathy with recognizing others emotions or taking other perspective but they have much more interest in systems and how things work.
Both men and women can have high testosterone but its common in men and less in women, this is very likely where the whole term 'tomboy/tomgirl' comes from.[/QUOTE]
can you cite something that isn't done by this dude that shows infant children produce more or less testosterone based on sex?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692714]"This means that even thought the optics of the eye are mature, infants still can’t see as well as adults because brain areas responsible for vision are still immature"
"Parents often say their baby prefers a certain color, often bright red or blue. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to tell what colors a baby prefers, or what colors he or she can see by simply noticing what he or she looks at. This is because their eyes might be attracted by the brightness, the darkness, or the contrast of an object against its surroundings, and not by the color alone."
[url]http://www.ski.org/Vision/babyvision.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Is there "babies can't tell the difference between a face and mechanical object" somewhere in there? Because I can't see it. I can however see that babies can see and know that it's a face from up to 12 inches and that they can imitate facial expressions even at 3 days old in your sources.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39692765]Is there "babies can't tell the difference between a face and mechanical object" somewhere in there? Because I can't see it. I can however see that babies can see and know that it's a face from up to 12 inches and that they can imitate facial expressions even at 3 days old in your sources.[/QUOTE]
your presumption that baby boys and baby girls have a preference for mechanics or faces is deeply flawed considering the evidence doesn't support them being able to have a preference or reliable even see the object.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692735]can you cite something that isn't done by this dude that shows infant children produce more or less testosterone based on sex?[/QUOTE]
You don't need to cite anything, just remember high-school biology to know that a boy fetus begins producing testosterone as early as 10 weeks into development.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
