[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]
I don't know what your exact problem with him is but I have had a look for you, take it as you will;
[url]http://www.disabled-world.com/health/neurology/brain/male-brain.php[/url]
[url]http://www.news-medical.net/health/Testosterone-Physiological-Effects.aspx[/url]
[url]http://blog.seattlepi.com/hormonallychallenged/2008/04/24/does-testosterone-affect-the-male-brain/[/url]
There is also this one;
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100428142246.htm[/url]
[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]
Is "every description of fetal development" good enough source? Every fetus is a hermaphrodite at the start, then if the genes give you testes you will produce testosterone and grow balls and a dick. If you don't get the testosterone from testes you will grow a vagina.
Every male fetus has much more testosterone than a female one. Isn't it common knowledge that males produce more testosterone?
[editline]24th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692813]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]
Your sources say "According to Today's Parent, a baby can imitate facial expressions when she is as young as three days old" and "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". It fucking says they can make out the face and if they can do that they can also tell what's not a face. The fact that they don't see perfectly has 0 significance.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39692843]
Your sources say "According to Today's Parent, a baby can imitate facial expressions when she is as young as three days old" and "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". It fucking says they can make out the face and if they can do that they can also tell what's not a face. The fact that they don't see perfectly has 0 significance.[/QUOTE]
there is no way to be sure that the baby was looking at a picture because his "man brain" told him he is a future mechanic or because he was just attracted to the fucking shape.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
that's my point and you keep ignoring it.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
and you still haven't fucking explained why a position requiring empathy(politics) would be so male dominated if women were naturally better at empathy.
I watched it all the way to the end and found it very interesting. Watching the people who think biology has nothing to do with the matter at the end of the video was strangely satisfying.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692948]there is no way to be sure that the baby was looking at a picture because his "man brain" told him he is a future mechanic or because he was just attracted to the fucking shape.[/QUOTE]
I keep ignoring it because you've made something up and you're putting it in my mouth and you're trying to make me reply to that. Nobody but you fucking said he's attracted to it because he's a future mechanic or some bullshit like that. It's just in your head.
All we said is: boys looked longer at a mechanical object and less at a face, compared to girls. That's before that's before any social influence. Therefore the difference is biological.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692948]and you still haven't fucking explained why a position requiring empathy(politics) would be so male dominated if women were naturally better at empathy.[/QUOTE]
Because there are barely any politics that are driven by empathy? It's about control, power, money, changing the world, fighting the opposing faction, strengthening the country, making the world how it's supposed to be. Giving shit to people is either means to get into power or a result of their goals, not the goal itself.
But even if we would live in that rainbow filled world of yours where politicians are there to help people, they would help people indirectly. You don't work with people who need help in politics, you work with other politicians and piles of law books. Women like to work with people, hence nurses for example.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692948]there is no way to be sure that the baby was looking at a picture because his "man brain" told him he is a future mechanic or because he was just attracted to the fucking shape.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
that's my point and you keep ignoring it.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
and you still haven't fucking explained why a position requiring empathy(politics) would be so male dominated if women were naturally better at empathy.[/QUOTE]
A quick word of advice: Do not ever get visibly irritated in an argument, or resort to swearing, it only makes your stance shakier.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39693143]I keep ignoring it because you've made something up and you're putting it in my mouth and you're trying to make me reply to that. Nobody fucking but you said he's attracted to it because he's a future mechanic or some bullshit like that. It's just in your head.
All we said is: boys looked longer at a mechanical object and less at a face, compared to girls. That's before that's before any social influence. Therefore the difference is biological.[/quote]
or it was a fucking coincidence.
[quote]Because there are barely any politics that are driven by empathy? It's about control, power, money, changing the world, fighting the opposing faction, strengthening the country, making the world how it's supposed to be. Giving shit to people is either means to get into power or a result of their goals, not the goal itself.
But even if we would live in that rainbow filled world of yours where politicians are there to help people, they would help people indirectly. You don't work with people who need help in politics, you work with other politicians and piles of law books. Women like to work with people, hence nurses for example.[/QUOTE]
um what the fuck are you talking about politics is ALL about empathy. it doesn't matter if politicians help people or not. in order to get ANYWHERE in politics you have to be able to empathize with others and figure out how to best meet their needs in order for them to do what you want.
politics is a game of influence and social skill. women are supposedly far more suited to playing politician than something like nursing which requires complex technical knowledge.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=genkaz92;39693170]A quick word of advice: Do not ever get visibly irritated in an argument, or resort to swearing, it only makes your stance shakier.[/QUOTE]
sorry i tend to swear when people repeatedly ignore what i'm writing.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39693183]or it was a fucking coincidence.[/QUOTE]
Statistical significance rules out coincidence. Lrn2statistics.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39693183]um what the fuck are you talking about politics is ALL about empathy. it doesn't matter if politicians help people or not. in order to get ANYWHERE in politics you have to be able to empathize with others and figure out how to best meet their needs in order for them to do what you want.[/QUOTE]
You don't need empathy to tell what people need. Most of the time it's money. The other times it's something that pisses them off and they will be vocal about it so you don't need any insight, just a pair of ears. But it doesn't even matter because most of the time politicians don't even give a shit what people want they just want to push their ideas, if there's enough people with similar ideas, they will get elected and have opportunity to do so. Or just hire a good PR team and lie a lot.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39693183]politics is a game of influence and social skill. women are supposedly far more suited to playing politician than something like nursing which requires complex technical knowledge.[/QUOTE]
But you don't work with gears and heavy machines but with people who need help. Using a hammer or a shovel requires ~0 technical knowledge yet it's preferred by men not by women. And politics work with laws and other shit like that. How's that not "complex technical knowledge"?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39693183]or it was a fucking coincidence.
um what the fuck are you talking about politics is ALL about empathy. it doesn't matter if politicians help people or not. in order to get ANYWHERE in politics you have to be able to empathize with others and figure out how to best meet their needs in order for them to do what you want.
politics is a game of influence and social skill. women are supposedly far more suited to playing politician than something like nursing which requires complex technical knowledge.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
sorry i tend to swear when people repeatedly ignore what i'm writing.[/QUOTE]
Woman may possibly be better at social areas in an emotional sense, but they are not better at behaving in stressful environments in which anyone could backstab you at the very first opportunity.
Unfortunately in our current world, politics, as well as many other positions of power, frequently consist of ruthless cruelty, lust for power, and apathy on psycopathic levels (which is also directly related to actual psycopaths in such positions, and to the rather solid theory of psycopaths ruling the world.
A lot of politics are about deception, it is about exploitation frequently existing on complex logical levels, and abandoning any sort of emotion or humanity, if you had any to begin with (going back to psycopaths.)
Women, or the majority of women anyway, are not compatible with this environment, they are too emotional, vulnerable, pink, and fuzzy.
I am not saying that all politics are like this, but a lot of them are. Politics are about the illusion of empathy, they do not actually give a shit.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39693321]Statistical significance rules out coincidence. Lrn2statistics.
You don't need empathy to tell what people need. Most of the time it's money. The other times it's something that pisses them off and they will be vocal about it so you don't need any insight, just a pair of ears. But it doesn't even matter because most of the time politicians don't even give a shit what people want they just want to push their ideas, if there's enough people with similar ideas, they will get elected and have opportunity to do so. Or just hire a good PR team and lie a lot.
But you don't work with gears and heavy machines but with people who need help. Using a hammer or a shovel requires ~0 technical knowledge yet it's preferred by men not by women. And politics work with laws and other shit like that. How's that not "complex technical knowledge"?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=genkaz92;39693491]Woman may possibly be better at social areas in an emotional sense, but they are not better at behaving in stressful environments in which anyone could backstab you at the very first opportunity.
Unfortunately in our current world, politics, as well as many other positions of power, frequently consist of ruthless cruelty, lust for power, and apathy on psycopathic levels (which is also directly related to actual psycopaths in such positions, and to the rather solid theory of psycopaths ruling the world.
A lot of politics are about deception, it is about exploitation frequently existing on complex logical levels, and abandoning any sort of emotion or humanity, if you had any to begin with (going back to psycopaths.)
Women, or the majority of women anyway, are not compatible with this environment, they are too emotional, vulnerable, pink, and fuzzy.
I am not saying that all politics are like this, but a lot of them are. Politics are about the illusion of empathy, they do not actually give a shit.[/QUOTE]
ok this contradicts what your doctor is saying.
"Males tend to show far more "direct" aggression such as pushing, hitting and punching. Females tend to show more "indirect" (or "relational", covert) aggression. This includes gossip, exclusion, and bitchy remarks. It could be said that to punch someone in the face or to wound them physically requires an even lower level of empathy than a verbal snipe."
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/apr/17/research.highereducation[/URL]
according to baron-cohen women are better suited to a life of politics because it involves covert aggression instead of physical aggression.
so i ask again, why the fuck is politics a male-dominated game?
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
for fuck's sake the stereotype for women's cliques in high school is essentially the same as the stereotype for politics.
[QUOTE=lapsus_;39693088]I watched it all the way to the end and found it very interesting. Watching the people who think biology has nothing to do with the matter at the end of the video was strangely satisfying.[/QUOTE]
But those people at the end weren't refuted. The person who said it was amazing they didn't believe it was biological was an evolutionary psychologist, a science known for being rather crap and has been used on various occasions to justify all kinds of crap.
It might be due to woman not being allowed much of a political involvement until very recently, but the numbers are growing and I believe half the Labour party has 31% females (that number is still going up). Politics is a very broad spectrum, politics has lots of job titles and positions and you may discover that men and woman are more dominant in particular jobs in government.
However, jobs focused in purely male/female traits we will see a less involvement from a particular sex unless we see these types with higher/lower testosterone, as stated earlier on in the video this was called the equality paradox I believe which lead to the whole documentary.
[QUOTE=genkaz92;39693491]
Women, or the majority of women anyway, are not compatible with this environment, they are too emotional, vulnerable, pink, and fuzzy.
I am not saying that all politics are like this, but a lot of them are. Politics are about the illusion of empathy, they do not actually give a shit.[/QUOTE]
Please tell me you're joking and that that is sarcasm.
There are plenty of women in politics who do a very good job.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39693759]ok this contradicts what your doctor is saying.
"Males tend to show far more "direct" aggression such as pushing, hitting and punching. Females tend to show more "indirect" (or "relational", covert) aggression. This includes gossip, exclusion, and bitchy remarks. It could be said that to punch someone in the face or to wound them physically requires an even lower level of empathy than a verbal snipe."
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/apr/17/research.highereducation[/URL]
according to baron-cohen women are better suited to a life of politics because it involves covert aggression instead of physical aggression.
so i ask again, why the fuck is politics a male-dominated game?
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
for fuck's sake the stereotype for women's cliques in high school is essentially the same as the stereotype for politics.[/QUOTE]
Any person worth their weight in salt knows that the reason for women not being in politics at least in some countries is a lot more to do with discrimination than it is to do with any biological stuff.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39693759]ok this contradicts what your doctor is saying.
"Males tend to show far more "direct" aggression such as pushing, hitting and punching. Females tend to show more "indirect" (or "relational", covert) aggression. This includes gossip, exclusion, and bitchy remarks. It could be said that to punch someone in the face or to wound them physically requires an even lower level of empathy than a verbal snipe."
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/apr/17/research.highereducation[/URL]
according to baron-cohen women are better suited to a life of politics because it involves covert aggression instead of physical aggression.
so i ask again, why the fuck is politics a male-dominated game?
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
for fuck's sake the stereotype for women's cliques in high school is essentially the same as the stereotype for politics.[/QUOTE]
And I would like to try answering again by saying that politics require a combination of complex logic, competition, apathy, and many other elements. It is also important to keep in mind that "direct aggression" can exist on many different levels, including a highly developed one.
Women may be supposedly better at "covert aggression" but they are missing the element of having a thick skin (up to the point of psychopathy), inclination for exploitation or planning on a continuously high logical level, actually caring about politics, competition in a male sense, etc.
A lot of female's "covert aggression" has to do with emotional outbursts, bonding, socializing, and other emotional areas.
I am not trying to say that women have poor cognitive abilities as much as they have different priorities and preferences, I have no disrespect for any of them.
I am also not talking about every woman here.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39693860]Please tell me you're joking and that that is sarcasm.
There are plenty of women in politics who do a very good job.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
Any person worth their weight in salt knows that the reason for women not being in politics at least in some countries is a lot more to do with discrimination than it is to do with any biological stuff.[/QUOTE]
I am not trying to be needlessly entrenched in my opinions here, maybe I am somehow wrong, and that women will become just as common in politics as men. But considering the video above, and various other observations, it is entirely possible that it is mainly not their thing, and that politics really are a primarily male field.
Lastly, let's keep the male vs female spectrum in mind. Plenty of women existing in politics may possibly be much closer to males than other females are. I am not talking about physical sex.
surely if women were so manipulating and covert then they wouldn't have been oppressed for centuries, yes?
i mean even if you make the claim that they are illogical and too emotional, you have to admit that if they are better at manipulation they shouldn't be second-class citizens.
[editline]24th February 2013[/editline]
also i appreciate how the traits you seem to be giving women all tend to be negative(bitchy, passive-aggressive, overly emotional) while the ones given to men are positive(logical, intelligent, powerful, assertive).
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39694137]surely if women were so manipulating and covert then they wouldn't have been oppressed for centuries, yes?
i mean even if you make the claim that they are illogical and too emotional, you have to admit that if they are better at manipulation they shouldn't be second-class citizens.[/QUOTE]
The fact of females being naturally more submissive must also be considered. There is nothing inferior about that, instead it is the natural way of existing for many of them. Being submissive is an extremely bad trait to have in positions of power.
Your current response does not appear to be making any sense whatsoever, you seem to be arguing with yourself.
I also repeatedly stated that I have nothing against females, and that I instead listed male attributes as properties, I also stated that the political world is filled with vile nightmares, not sure how that points out males as superior in any way whatsoever. emotional outbursts and bonding are not negative properties, but characteristics, it is a way of reacting to the world.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39694137]surely if women were so manipulating and covert then they wouldn't have been oppressed for centuries, yes?
i mean even if you make the claim that they are illogical and too emotional, you have to admit that if they are better at manipulation they shouldn't be second-class citizens.
[editline]24th February 2013[/editline]
also i appreciate how the traits you seem to be giving women all tend to be negative(bitchy, passive-aggressive, overly emotional) while the ones given to men are positive(logical, intelligent, powerful, assertive).[/QUOTE]
Again, in the video its stated women do not like confrontation, especially that which is hostile and could resort in violence, a evolutionary perspective.
[QUOTE=genkaz92;39694229]The fact of females being naturally more submissive must also be considered. There is nothing inferior about that, instead it is the natural way of existing for many of them. Being submissive is an extremely bad trait to have in positions of power.
Your current response does not appear to be making any sense whatsoever, you seem to be arguing with yourself.
I also repeatedly stated that I have nothing against females, and that I instead listed male attributes as properties, I also stated that the political world is filled with vile nightmares, not sure how that points out males as superior in any way whatsoever. emotional outbursts and bonding are not negative properties, but characteristics, it is a way of reacting to the world.[/QUOTE]
surely you can see how the idea that women are naturally submissive and overly emotional is negative while the idea that men are powerful and in control is overwhelmingly positive.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39694287]surely you can see how the idea that women are naturally submissive and overly emotional is negative while the idea that men are powerful and in control is overwhelmingly positive.[/QUOTE]
Actually no, I did not mean to represent either set of properties as a negative or a positive thing. Being naturally dominant and being naturally submissive is not about superiority or inferiority, it is about taking different places of equal importance within a society, as was shown in the video with the example of nursing vs engineering. I can see why you could receive the impression of me somehow being sexist or misogynist, but that is not even remotely the case.
You probably received the idea of me being sexist from discussing the fact that politics require a a lot of things attributed to the male gender, while I was making a point about a very unforgiving profession, and why it may be a male dominated field, regardless of the physical sex.
I was discussing the fact that males and females have different priorities and characteristics attributed to their genders. I would also like to repeat that I am approaching the whole thing from the perspective of a spectrum, not in a black and white manner.
[QUOTE=genkaz92;39694355]Actually no, I did not mean to represent either set of properties as a negative or a positive thing. Being naturally dominant and being naturally submissive is not about superiority or inferiority, it is about taking different places of equal importance within a society, as was shown in the video with the example of nursing vs engineering. I can see why you could receive the impression of me somehow being sexist or misogynist, but that is not even remotely the case.
You probably received the idea of me being sexist from discussing the fact that politics require a a lot of things attributed to the male gender, while I was making a point about a very unforgiving profession, and why it may be a male dominated field, regardless of the physical sex.
I was discussing the fact that males and females have different priorities and characteristics attributed to their genders. I would also like to repeat that I am approaching the whole thing from the perspective of a spectrum, not in a black and white manner.[/QUOTE]
Submissive = the one being lead
Dominant = the one making the decisions
Guess which one tends to get the best deal in life
also regardless of whether you think biological sex can affect personality, there is definitely no evidence to say that women = submissive, men = dominant.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39694617]Submissive = the one being lead
Dominant = the one making the decisions
Guess which one tends to get the best deal in life
also regardless of whether you think biological sex can affect personality, there is definitely no evidence to say that women = submissive, men = dominant.[/QUOTE]
Testosterone which is very high in men encourages dominant behaviour. Sometimes dominant behavior is aggressive, but often dominance is expressed nonaggressively. Because of this you can make a clear indication that men are far more prone to dominant behaviour compared to women, in fact it should be largely obvious.
[url]http://cogprints.org/663/1/bbs_mazur.html[/url]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39694617]Submissive = the one being lead
Dominant = the one making the decisions
Guess which one tends to get the best deal in life[/QUOTE]
"best deal" in life is relative, every individual regardless of position, always has plenty of bullshit to deal with, arguably increasingly more as the said individual reaches the "best deal" in life. Dominance is met with enormous amounts of additional challenges, and dominance would not be capable of making a single step without submission. No matter how prominent or how quiet the position of someone is, both of them run a crucial system that would not function without either one.
It seems like yawmwen has issues admitting he's wrong. Whenever he got argued against all he did was go "oh yeah bet you don't have any evidence!"
Then when he was given evidence he started saying "oh but this evidence is shit because the group is incredible"
Then when he is told the group is credible he starts arguing that anyone who see differently from him is ignorant and can't comprehend what he is telling them.
Really doesn't make for a solid arguement I'm afraid.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39694617]Submissive = the one being lead
Dominant = the one making the decisions
Guess which one tends to get the best deal in life
also regardless of whether you think biological sex can affect personality, there is definitely no evidence to say that women = submissive, men = dominant.[/QUOTE]
It is also important to keep in mind that our conversation was not necessarily a professional scientific experiment to begin with. I am expressing my perceptions about gender, and explaining why I have those perceptions, you are doing the same thing, and are expressing a disagreement with me, which I respect. I mentioned earlier in the thread that the true nature of gender is unknown, but we could always try to share our current perception, whether through agreeing or disagreeing, and disagreeing does frequently make things quite interesting.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;39694723]It seems like yawmwen has issues admitting he's wrong. Whenever he got argued against all he did was go "oh yeah bet you don't have any evidence!"
Then when he was given evidence he started saying "oh but this evidence is shit because the group is incredible"
Then when he is told the group is credible he starts arguing that anyone who see differently from him is ignorant and can't comprehend what he is telling them.
Really doesn't make for a solid arguement I'm afraid.[/QUOTE]
Yeah its called [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts"]moving the goalpost[/URL], if you would like to know for future reference.
[QUOTE=Vasili;39694778]Yeah its called [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts"]moving the goalpost[/URL], if you would like to know for future reference.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately I have been guilty of that fallacy myself in the past, and hopefully not accidentally in this thread.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;39694723]It seems like yawmwen has issues admitting he's wrong. Whenever he got argued against all he did was go "oh yeah bet you don't have any evidence!"
Then when he was given evidence he started saying "oh but this evidence is shit because the group is incredible"
Then when he is told the group is credible he starts arguing that anyone who see differently from him is ignorant and can't comprehend what he is telling them.
Really doesn't make for a solid arguement I'm afraid.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Vasili;39694778]Yeah its called [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts"]moving the goalpost[/URL], if you would like to know for future reference.[/QUOTE]
actually it's [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority[/url]
just because this dude is a psychologist does not make him right. and his study seems quite unreliable considering it makes assumptions that are pretty much impossible to show with a newborn child.
it would be more of authority fallacy if it had been said he was right due to him being a psychologist (or rather, we), not because of the rather credible information provided.
though I'm not taking sides on whose doing what, I'm just explaining a fallacy for future reference.
[QUOTE=genkaz92;39694757]It is also important to keep in mind that our conversation was not necessarily a professional scientific experiment to begin with. I am expressing my perceptions about gender, and explaining why I have those perceptions, you are doing the same thing, and are expressing a disagreement with me, which I respect. I mentioned earlier in the thread that the true nature of gender is unknown, but we could always try to share our current perception, whether through agreeing or disagreeing, and disagreeing does frequently make things quite interesting.[/QUOTE]
But the perception that you have expressed is one that has in many ways been used to justify suppressing women, that is why I take issue with it
[editline]24th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vasili;39694693]Testosterone which is very high in men encourages dominant behaviour. Sometimes dominant behavior is aggressive, but often dominance is expressed nonaggressively. Because of this you can make a clear indication that men are far more prone to dominant behaviour compared to women, in fact it should be largely obvious.
[url]http://cogprints.org/663/1/bbs_mazur.html[/url][/QUOTE]
The dominant group always get the best deal because they set all the rules, while submissive types get fucked over, this is why it is very much necessary that women are given ample chances at dominant roles.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39695045]
The dominant group always get the best deal because they set all the rules, while submissive types get fucked over, this is why it is very much necessary that women are given ample chances at dominant roles.[/QUOTE]
No one is saying otherwise.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
