Brainwash: The documentary series that got Scandinavia to axe its Gender Studies institution - General

I've watched first and last and I'd like to point out that the "findings" of a social darwinist biologist and the guy who really thinks that sitting toddlers in the midst of toys is really a good experiment when any scientist who knows his stuff will laugh about the predisposition of the setup need to be questioned. Then there is the one scientist who says that in India and if you are repressed when computers can get you a job you just go and get that job. Which is laughable. Don't get me wrong I am very critical of gender studies. Most of it is a bunch of made up bullshit. But that's more due to the fact that most sociology researchers don't know the first thing about scientific practice. [editline]25th July 2015[/editline] As evidently shown here

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290250]I've watched first and last and I'd like to point out that the "findings" of a social darwinist biologist and the guy who really thinks that sitting toddlers in the midst of toys is really a good experiment when any scientist who knows his stuff will laugh about the predisposition of the setup need to be questioned.[/QUOTE] They ran the experiment many, many times with many different children and were able to measure the gender of the child to the behavior with 100% accuracy. [QUOTE]Then there is the one scientist who says that in India and if you are repressed when computers can get you a job you just go and get that job. Which is laughable.[/QUOTE] If you need a job or you and your family will starve to death, you'll take any job you can find. I don't know what's so unbelievable about that. I just find the idea that thinking that people don't choose to be gay or don't choose to be male or female and are actually born that way means you're a Nazi or a Social Darwinist absolutely mind boggling.

The computer example because it completely goes against the point he was trying to make.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290303]The computer example because it completely goes against the point he was trying to make.[/QUOTE] So now you're moving the goal posts, what specifically is it about that study that you have a problem with?

:snip:

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290313]Also notice how the women with the grey hair points out " I find it hard to believe"[/QUOTE] And? You're really grasping at straws here. You do realize that's a turn-of-phrase right?

[QUOTE=Zyler;48290312]So now you're moving the goal posts, what specifically is it about that study that you have a problem with?[/QUOTE] WHich one are we talking about? There is one about facial recognition which proves that male human infants look at faces for a shorter time and one about sitting toddlers inbetween toys which could also prove that boy oriented toys have less faces in them and thus boys prefer them for all we know.(considering the first study which by the way neither the scientists nor the documentary did) Oh and look, boy oriented toys DO have less faces in them. And boy toddlers who even lack the skill to recognize themselves in a mirror up until they are DOUBLE the age(18 months) prefer them. Maybe because statistically speaking( and that's what hopefully we are doing) the other toys get less attention. How in the fuck do you draw conclusions towards something as complicated as society from that? That's just ridiculous. I'm just saying that nothing of this is conclusive. The biologists interpret social implications into their biological research and the sociologists are awfully unscientific.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290324]WHich one are we talking about? There is one about facial recognition which proves that male human infants look at faces for a shorter time and one about sitting toddlers inbetween toys which could also prove that boy oriented toys have less faces in them and thus boys prefer them for all we know.(considering the first study which by the way neither the scientists nor the documentary did) Oh and look, boy oriented toys DO have less faces in them. And toddlers who even lack the skill to recognize themselves in a mirror up until they are DOUBLE the age(18 months) prefer them. I'm just saying that nothing of this is conclusive. The biologists interpret social implications into their biological research and the sociologists are awfully unscientific.[/QUOTE] Again, the tests proved to have 100% accuracy in ascertaining the specific gender of the baby. I don't know what your issue is with it. The point of the study was simply to investigate whether human babies preferred engendered toys based on social construction or if they innately preferred the toys designed for their own gender, that's all the test was designed to prove.

The facial recognition one? My point is that it proves nothing more than what it was designed for yet it is mentioned by the guys as if there is some bigger point behind it and that's very unscientific and manipulative.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290346]The facial recognition one? My point is that it proves nothing more than what it was designed for yet it is mentioned by the guys as if there is some bigger point behind it and that's very unscientific and manipulative.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, what test are you talking about? Are you talking about the one with the toys or the study which showed that male babies look at faces less and prefer looking at systems? You're conflating two things here and seem to be getting very aggravated over a very simple concept. I can't respond to you if you don't explain clearly what you're talking about.

[QUOTE=Zyler;48290353]I'm sorry, what test are you talking about? Are you talking about the one with the toys or the study which showed that male babies look at faces less and prefer looking at systems? You're conflating two things here and seem to be getting very aggravated over a very simple concept. I can't respond to you if you don't explain clearly what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] Yes and I'm saiying that the setup is ridiculous because there are so many unknown factors. In one of the scenes they even show him sitting next to the toddler. And to answer your question: both. All that the study is proving that boys toys are prefered by male toddlers and girls toys are prefered by female toddlers. Toddlers, just as a reminder, who don't even recognize themselves in a mirror and thus have NO COGNITIVE PROCESS behind the decission. What the study does not allow or provide is: -drawing conclusions towards complicated social issues -extrapolate the example to other cultures/ethnicities. I doubt they did this experiment in other countries -conclusions of WHY they prefer them And funnily enough this is where the other study comes in. Female toddlers look at faces longer than male toddlers. Boys toys have less faces than girl toys. Again, no conclusion to social implications can be drawn.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290409]All that the study is proving that boys toys are prefered by male toddlers and girls toys are prefered by female toddlers. Toddlers, just as a reminder, who don't even recognize themselves in a mirror and thus have NO COGNITIVE PROCESS behind the decission. [/QUOTE] If this were the case, why would they pick the toys with the faces on them 100% of the time. I don't know, it seems pretty straight forward to me: 1) Social scientists argue that the only reason boys like boy toys and girls like girl toys is because they are socially conditioned to do so. They argue that it is impossible to prove otherwise because all children are socially conditioned from the moment they are born. 2)Behavioral Psychologists get around this problem by performing tests on recently newborn infants who have not had time to socialize. They arrange boy toys and girl toys in a room and allow the test subjects to move towards any of the toys. Using the results of this study, they are able to predict the gender of the baby using the toys they pick with 100% accuracy. Thereby justifying the assertion that boy infants are more attracted to boy toys and girl infants are more attracted to girl toys. This also disproves the idea that behavior is socially constructed. 3)In order to ascertain why this behavior exists, Psychologists look at infants who are just minutes old and examine eye movements. They find in their tests that girl infants are more attracted to looking at faces while boy infants are more attracting to looking at interesting looking objects around the room. This suggests that there is some sort of innate different between the cognitive behavior of male and female infants. 4)Because behavior is provably not socially constructed, it seems a plausible conclusion to take that the preference in male and female toys stems from this difference in cognitive behavior. This toy selection shows that boys generally prefer systematic objects, like model trains, building blocks, lego and computers while girls generally prefer human faces and people. 5)This difference in cognitive behavior and male and female interests as children along with other socially conditioned behaviors could cause the general population-wide differences we see in male and female interests as adults. [quote]-extrapolate the example to other cultures/ethnicities. I doubt they did this experiment in other countries -conclusions of WHY they prefer them[/quote] The data from previous studies showed that gender differences were consistent across all cultures. Men and women seem to generally prefer different things for complex evolutionary reasons, I believe they explain some of this concept in the Part 5 video where they explain why men and women are attracted to certain people.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290409]Yes and I'm saiying that the setup is ridiculous because there are so many unknown factors. In one of the scenes they even show him sitting next to the toddler. And to answer your question: both. All that the study is proving that boys toys are prefered by male toddlers and girls toys are prefered by female toddlers. Toddlers, just as a reminder, who don't even recognize themselves in a mirror and thus have NO COGNITIVE PROCESS behind the decission. What the study does not allow or provide is: -drawing conclusions towards complicated social issues -extrapolate the example to other cultures/ethnicities. I doubt they did this experiment in other countries -conclusions of WHY they prefer them [I]And funnily enough this is where the other study comes in. Female toddlers look at faces longer than male toddlers. Boys toys have less faces than girl toys. Again, no conclusion to social implications can be drawn.[/I][/QUOTE] I have to get this right - you do agree that the Cohen study would suggest that female newborns prefer faces, and that male newborns prefer the mechanical structure? And wouldn't that suggest that female toddlers prefer toys with faces partly because they're biologically inclined to do so? Here's the study in full by the way: [url]http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/godis/sex.pdf[/url] If toddlers don't even recognize themselves and don't think about it, wouldn't that mean the distribution should be random? How do you explain that it wasn't, then?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48290493]I have to get this right - you do agree that the Cohen study would suggest that female newborns prefer faces, and that male newborns prefer the mechanical structure? And wouldn't that suggest that female toddlers prefer toys with faces partly because they're biologically inclined to do so? Here's the study in full by the way: [url]http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/godis/sex.pdf[/url] If toddlers don't even recognize themselves and don't think about it, wouldn't that mean the distribution should be random? How do you explain that it wasn't, then?[/QUOTE] No? Facial recognition is one of the first things to settle in. Why would it need to be random, it's a complex neurological process. [editline]25th July 2015[/editline] Oh god the study is full of Clever Hans opportunities. [editline]25th July 2015[/editline] 3 people in the room including the mother oh my god who peer reviewed this [editline]25th July 2015[/editline] Hahaha the differences are far far far within the standard deviation

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290652]No? Facial recognition is one of the first things to settle in. Why would it need to be random, it's a complex neurological process. [editline]25th July 2015[/editline] Oh god the study is full of Clever Hans opportunities. [editline]25th July 2015[/editline] 3 people in the room including the mother oh my god who peer reviewed this [editline]25th July 2015[/editline] Hahaha the differences are far far far within the standard deviation[/QUOTE] You mean that the person showing the face and the mechanical structure could be influencing the results without knowing, I suppose? And I honestly don't know where you're going with the facial recognition stuff - but I'm not in that discussion so let's just digress. Let me just say that I'm not saying these studies are conclusive or anything, I'm just intrigued. Edit: Should that matter when the mother is hidden from view? And Table 1 is outside the standard deviation while Table 2 isn't (if I've done my statistics right) - which one would be more relevant in this case? Table 1 would show that there is a clear preference for female newborns to look at the face, but it of course doesn't explain how big the preference is. Does that mean Table 2 basically makes Table 1 irrelevant?

In Table 2 the differences are very very much within standard deviation. And funnily enough the interpretation is really really wrong. Table 1 women shows 36.2% preference of face against 63.8% no preference or preference of mobile. How in the hell do you interpret "preference of face" from that? [editline]25th July 2015[/editline] The only thing this study shows is that within the selected group of PRESELECTED(toddlers who are crying - maybe because they disliked the face????) children more female toddlers prefer face than male toddlers but still both are significantly minor to no preference or other preferences. [editline]25th July 2015[/editline] And the face. Did the mothers look like the face? Do male toddlers get more care from their father due to social factors and thus don't prefer the motherly face? And the most glaring: WHY WAS THIS NOT DONE WITH A MALE FACE FOR CONTROL?

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290911]In Table 2 the differences are very very much within standard deviation. And funnily enough the interpretation is really really wrong. Table 1 women shows 36.2% preference of face against 63.8% no preference or preference of mobile. How in the hell do you interpret "preference of face" from that? [editline]25th July 2015[/editline] The only thing this study shows is that within the selected group of PRESELECTED(toddlers who are crying - maybe because they disliked the face????) children more female toddlers prefer face than male toddlers but still both are significantly minor to no preference or other preferences. [editline]25th July 2015[/editline] And the face. Did the mothers look like the face? Do male toddlers get more care from their father due to social factors and thus don't prefer the motherly face? And the most glaring: WHY WAS THIS NOT DONE WITH A MALE FACE FOR CONTROL?[/QUOTE] Those are some fair points, glad I haven't totally forgotten how to do the basic X^2 tests. I suppose the important metric would be the discrepancy between the female and male newborns though, as long as there's a clear, statistically significant difference, does it really matter whether there's an actual preference (as in, more than 50%) or just a relative preference? The study mentions (as you said) that crying newborns were disqualified, at the same time there were more female newborns than male included in the study, which could support your point that male babies would be more familiar with a male face, and thus they cried more in the tests leading to the sex difference in test subject. I must admit that I don't think there would be a significant difference in "dad screen time" when it comes to the first ~40 hours of a baby's life, but it's a possibility of course.

this argument doesn't matter ultimately he's still bitching about a series he refuses to watch properly, including [I]all[/I] of the most important and polarizing subjects they discuss

I'm not trying to take a side here I just think there's bullshit going on on both sides.

Watching most of the episodes, I have to say I'm surprised and even scared by the stance the sociologists and "experts" in Norway have when shown studies that go against their points of view. Most of them deny them by simply arguing that the biological aspect "doesn't matter" and that these studies are somehow "frantic" about finding a biological background in those topics, wich to me sound ridiculous. It's political correctness silencing objective science, blinding themselves to the true nature of the world simply to defend their own ideas of a perfect world, as if somehow gaining a better understanding of these topics will directly result in more prejudice. [QUOTE=Killuah;48292020]I'm not trying to take a side here I just think there's bullshit going on on both sides.[/QUOTE] IMO you're focusing too much in one study while ignoring the entire point of the series. I don't have the knoledge to prove or disprove the theories defended in these videos, but to me the worst of both sides is definetly the one wich turns a blind eye to scientific analysis simply to defend their own points of view, wich themselves have only theoretical bases.

i'd like to see this for myself, but if it essentially boils down to an attack on the social sciences by "science" instead of just these sociologists and these scientists in particular then i think Killuah is justified in his apprehension there's significant evidence for genetic determinism in gender and sexuality but sociology as a discipline rightly holds that people are hugely dependent on culture, circumstance, social organization, values etc in forming the normatives for their existence on top of that evolutionary behaviorism, the relationships between genetics and the mind are avenues of research frequently debased into political commentary, one of those things that really remind you that at the end of the day it's [I]people[/I] that [I]do[/I] science. it's hardly a beacon of truth as far as the sciences go.

[QUOTE=Silber;48292282]Watching most of the episodes, I have to say I'm surprised and even scared by the stance the sociologists and "experts" in Norway have when shown studies that go against their points of view. Most of them deny them by simply arguing that the biological aspect "doesn't matter" and that these studies are somehow "frantic" about finding a biological background in those topics, wich to me sound ridiculous. [/QUOTE] It became really scary IMO in the last video discussing the gender and whether it's innate or learned. These people being so adamant that it's all nurture, I'm like, what the fuck, don't these people see where their reasoning leaves transgender people?! They want to just leave people with unclear genitalia to deal with this shit at the point where it becomes much harder to fix, okay, that's evil, but where does that leave people who don't feel at home with the gender that fits their biological sex? Leave them and teach them to accept shit too? Hey girl, sure you feel like a bloke, but gender is all learned anyway, just learn to be a girl! Or better yet, there's literally no difference between the two, so nothing to worry about! Holy shit these people are idiots. They believe in their utopia to such and extent they fail to see the implications.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;48293075]i'd like to see this for myself, but if it essentially boils down to an attack on the social sciences by "science" instead of just these sociologists and these scientists in particular then i think Killuah is justified in his apprehension there's significant evidence for genetic determinism in gender and sexuality but sociology as a discipline rightly holds that people are hugely dependent on culture, circumstance, social organization, values etc in forming the normatives for their existence on top of that evolutionary behaviorism, the relationships between genetics and the mind are avenues of research frequently debased into political commentary, one of those things that really remind you that at the end of the day it's [I]people[/I] that [I]do[/I] science. it's hardly a beacon of truth as far as the sciences go.[/QUOTE] It is strictly about these two groups arguing with each other over specific points

[QUOTE=Kommodore;48293075]i'd like to see this for myself, but if it essentially boils down to an attack on the social sciences by "science" instead of just these sociologists and these scientists in particular then i think Killuah is justified in his apprehension there's significant evidence for genetic determinism in gender and sexuality but sociology as a discipline rightly holds that people are hugely dependent on culture, circumstance, social organization, values etc in forming the normatives for their existence on top of that evolutionary behaviorism, the relationships between genetics and the mind are avenues of research frequently debased into political commentary, one of those things that really remind you that at the end of the day it's [I]people[/I] that [I]do[/I] science. it's hardly a beacon of truth as far as the sciences go.[/QUOTE] You've got one side saying things are a combination of nature and nuture, and trying to be scientifically objective and consider all possibilities. The other side says it's all nuture, no exceptions and anyone who disagrees is literally Hitler. And they won't even consider the possibility of nature existing despite the fact that they're supposed to be scientists and consider all possibilities, all because it goes against their vision of a utopian society that erases the existence of anyone who doesn't fit into that society (trans-people, violent people, etc). I suggest you actually watch the videos before you form an absolute opinion on this. Harald is fair to both sides and asks pretty easy questions. He isn't looking to 'prove a point', he's genuinely just trying to find the answers to these specific questions of social issues.

I'm no scientist obviously but most living things have gender roles. They vary from species to species but it is very rarely that both males and females do the same tasks. It simply can't be a fully societal construct if even creatures that have very little of what you could call a society still possess those gender roles. I think the societal influences on gender and how it's constructed are very small compared to what is created by nature. Gender is mental driver for physical sex. That's why trans people feel like they're not in their own bodies and feel uncomfortable with themselves. Because mental gender is confused by physical body since they do not match with instructions they are giving one another. To claim gender is 100% a nurture construct seems very ignorant. Our bodies are different, and so are our minds. It's expected that they will naturally have different biases.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290409]Yes and I'm saiying that the setup is ridiculous because there are so many unknown factors. In one of the scenes they even show him sitting next to the toddler. And to answer your question: both. All that the study is proving that boys toys are prefered by male toddlers and girls toys are prefered by female toddlers. Toddlers, just as a reminder, who don't even recognize themselves in a mirror and thus have NO COGNITIVE PROCESS behind the decission. What the study does not allow or provide is:[B] -drawing conclusions towards complicated social issues -extrapolate the example to other cultures/ethnicities. I doubt they did this experiment in other countries[/B] -conclusions of WHY they prefer them And funnily enough this is where the other study comes in. Female toddlers look at faces longer than male toddlers. Boys toys have less faces than girl toys. Again, no conclusion to social implications can be drawn.[/QUOTE] I thought that this is pretty much EXACTLY what the study DOES prove. Since it shows that social and cultural forces have no say whatsoever in male and female toddlers' preferences.

The 'play with toy' tests are super shitty. I can't believe some people are even trying to defend them. Obviously there are biological differences between 'men' and 'women' - and of course those differences will impact things like aggression, attatchment, etc. But it bears stating that our current culture is not the inevitable result of biological chemicals but the result of particular cultural choices. [editline]26th July 2015[/editline] By the way, there is a serious disservice the way they reported on intersex people. Let's not forget all the secondary sex characteristics or physiological changes that come with our dna - not just our external genitalia. I get the purpose of this video was to say, "Hey, biology has a role!" but it is rather upsetting how shitty the advocates they grabbed for the socio-cultural viewpoint. [editline]26th July 2015[/editline] I mean FUCK, David Reimer anyone?? How about instead of taking cell samples from the kid we let them decide if they wanna be male or female in life.

The Gender Equality Paradox is weird as hell. I haven't watched the whole doc - in the first vid now; tbh [U]I think[/U] interests, what you like / dislike comes from what you are taught in your childhood. Also on the argument of men / women have different brains, isn't it just which part of your brain is most developed over the other? (left-right hemispheres)

[QUOTE=SmashAA;48297085]The Gender Equality Paradox is weird as hell. I haven't watched the whole doc - in the first vid now; tbh [U]I think[/U] interests, what you like / dislike comes from what you are taught in your childhood. Also on the argument of men / women have different brains, isn't it just which part of your brain is most developed over the other? (left-right hemispheres)[/QUOTE] that would not explain the existence of homosexual or transgender individuals, and makes no sense evolutionally your last point has no point

[QUOTE=bitches;48297130]that would not explain the existence of homosexual or transgender individuals, and makes no sense evolutionally your last point has no point[/QUOTE] Yeah, you're right. Damn this all seems complicated.