or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Numbers,.... Male vs Female HeadFiers?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Numbers,.... Male vs Female HeadFiers? - Page 5

post #61 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claritas View Post
 

 

"Two newspapers in one" -- James Taranto

 

Who, this guy?

 

 

'And while college "justice" is often downright oppressive, the excesses of contemporary feminism know no age limits. As the story of Hunter Yelton demonstrates, the war on men is also a war on little boys."

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303932504579252140450035638

post #62 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post
 

Who, this guy?

 

It's a joke of his. He uses it when a newspaper story contradicts itself.


Edited by Claritas - 12/12/13 at 2:54pm
post #63 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claritas View Post
 

 

It's a joke of his. He uses it when a newspaper story contradicts itself.

 

Do you think he got your joke? :)

post #64 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

Dear readers of this thread,

I am speaking in my capacity as a real-life scientist, one who just sat through doctorate level courses in Neuropsychology, Endocrinology, and several other difficult sounding classes (biggrin.gif ). Please completely disregard everything that was just posted by mutabor as pseudoscience, the practice of twisting small truths and stretching them to meet a specific agenda.

Firstly, the sex hormones are indeed partially responsible for one's behavior. They are also responsible for the formation of reproductive paraphernalia. But to attribute so many things to them is simply wrong.

I have female classmates who are far more adept than I am at solving complex biopharmaceutics and drug kinetics problems. When it comes to medicinal chemistry, these female classmates can also easily visualize the chemical structures of large drug molecules and predict what changes will be brought about by their various metabolic enzymes. By mutabor's logic (rather, by the writings he so dearly clings to...it's obvious his ideas have been the result of some sort of cherry-picking material), these women should be butch lesbians who scoff at high heels and lipstick. Instead, they're among the most graceful and feminine women I know.

The fact is that, unless one has specific neural disorders like schizophrenia or manic episodes, most behavior is a learned process. It starts extremely early in life, too. Most people have formed the outlines of their personalities before they reach the age of 5. I myself am a more conceptual learner, shying away from tasks like math and chemistry. Am I a gay man with a lisp? No, I'm 6'4", 220 pounds of muscle, and I'm as athletic and manly as they come. 

I'm speaking out because I hate generalizations. They don't belong in an civilization that leans on evidence-based science. And as a lover of the scientific process, I hate seeing it distorted.






This should tell any discerning reader everything they need to know.

For someone claiming to have attended doctorate level courses, your style of argument is weak.
You hate generalizations yet half what you wrote is based on your own experience and then generalising it.
post #65 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post


For someone claiming to have attended doctorate level courses, your style of argument is weak.
You hate generalizations yet half what you wrote is based on your own experience and then generalising it.

 

Yes, the fact that women outnumber men in most medical and pharmacy schools is a generalization.

 

I had something far more intense typed up, but I can't be mean to a fellow Game of Thrones fan. Valar morghulis, brother.


Edited by eke2k6 - 12/12/13 at 4:36pm
post #66 of 121

The debate over sexism has taken a perverted turn here. 

The question here is whether both men and women can be great -- and I think that yes they can. Of course, women may be more suited to do some things, and men some others. This doesnt mean that women should be ostracized completely from being good at something, and same with men! 

Also, both genders should be equally respected for the things they both do and the importance they have to our society -- a world without women or a world without men would be much worse than a world where both exist.

 

I also want to ask about the validity of some studies on sexism. Because human brains are incredibly plastic, in an early age they can be molded to be good at x things or y things. Studies about women and male brains have a fundamental problem for me; they look at the brains of grown up women and men after their brains have become less plastic, less ready to change, and fundamentally constant. 

How this may screw things up is because if our society does in fact target women and men differently, then women will be targeted in such a way that their brains will obviously form differently than men -- remember the brain is plastic in the years of formation, while men will take on different things. If you give a girl a truck to play with as a child, im sure shell become more adept with such things. Or even legos. But no, we choose to give her dolls and a doll house. Thus her brain develops to be better at activites which relate to that. In other words, maybe its less of a genetic difference at the end of the day, but the way society actually affects us biologically, especially in early years of formation.

Furthermore, what this means is that even if there are predetermined differences (by testing the brains of both male and female babies). they can be nullified by things learned in these formative years and the thought processes imbued into females in these formative years.

post #67 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post


I had something far more intense typed up, but I can't be mean to a fellow Game of Thrones fan. Valar morghulis, brother.

Women are oppressed -> skewed gender ratio in schools -> hence women are oppressed.

Glad you found a way out.
And I'm not your brother.
Edited by proton007 - 12/12/13 at 4:59pm
post #68 of 121

And as an additional question, what are some female dominated professions or industries? 

post #69 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post
 

 

Yes, the fact that women outnumber men in most medical and pharmacy schools is a generalization.

 

I had something far more intense typed up, but I can't be mean to a fellow Game of Thrones fan. Valar morghulis, brother.

 

If I could see an average of the MCAT scores of male and female applicants accepted to the top 20 medical schools, I can guess what they'd show from the fact that they're not released. The best I can find is: https://www.aamc.org/download/161702/data/.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusho View Post
 

Because human brains are incredibly plastic, in an early age they can be molded to be good at x things or y things. Studies about women and male brains have a fundamental problem for me; they look at the brains of grown up women and men after their brains have become less plastic, less ready to change, and fundamentally constant. 

[...] In other words, maybe its less of a genetic difference at the end of the day, but the way society actually affects us biologically, especially in early years of formation.

Furthermore, what this means is that even if there are predetermined differences (by testing the brains of both male and female babies). they can be nullified by things learned in these formative years and the thought processes imbued into females in these formative years.

 

A lot has been written about this, and the most famous cases, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Reimer, indicate that sex and sex roles are biologically determined.

post #70 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claritas View Post
 

 

If I could see an average of the MCAT scores of male and female applicants accepted to the top 20 medical schools, I can guess what they'd show from the fact that they're not released. The best I can find is: https://www.aamc.org/download/161702/data/.

 

A lot has been written about this, and the most famous cases, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Reimer, indicate that sex and sex roles are biologically determined.

That was a very sad case. But i dont think you are seeing my point; that while sex and sex roles can be biologically determined, maybe the results we are seeing in this real world about academic abilities, spacial reasoning, etc. have to do more with abilities that are stressed in the formative years of these children. Im not talking about a complete change in sexuality -- that is a completely separate topic. But then again, you probably know a lot more than I do :).

Like then the question comes about how much what people learn when they are young actually affects them later and their brain formation, etc. 

post #71 of 121

I think whether females are oppressed or not depends on the country and environment they live in. I don't feel that females are oppressed around where I live, they get equal opportunity. In my opinion anyway.

post #72 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusho View Post
 

[...] while sex and sex roles can be biologically determined, maybe the results we are seeing in this real world about academic abilities, spacial reasoning, etc. have to do more with abilities that are stressed in the formative years of these children. [...] then the question comes about how much what people learn when they are young actually affects them later and their brain formation, etc. 

 

Maybe. It's a good thought. But so far as I know, it's been accounted for, to the extent possible, in studies about cognitive ability. They consistently demonstrate average female superiority in verbal ability and "flood-lighting" (multi-tasking), and average male superiority in spatial ability and "spotlighting" (intense focus). Other findings include what I wrote before about men being both more extremely smart and extremely stupid than women. The extreme smart part explains why most Nobel Prize winners in science, Fields Medalists, &c. are male; the extreme stupid part explains why so many jailbirds are male.

post #73 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claritas View Post
 

 

Maybe. It's a good thought. But so far as I know, it's been accounted for, to the extent possible, in studies about cognitive ability. They consistently demonstrate average female superiority in verbal ability and "flood-lighting" (multi-tasking), and average male superiority in spatial ability and "spotlighting" (intense focus). Other findings include what I wrote before about men being both more extremely smart and extremely stupid than women. The extreme smart part explains why most Nobel Prize winners in science, Fields Medalists, &c. are male; the extreme stupid part explains why so many jailbirds are male.

Well the smart part is easy to explain -- for so many years women were barred from scientific practices, or their achievements stolen from them. Now most nobel prize winners are people who have demonstrated ability in their work for years upon years -- just look into the next 50 years and we can see if your thesis holds up. And jailbirds are even simpler to explain. People with violent tendencies tend to go to jail -- the male ability to inflict harm upon others at a greater level than females takes part in this, and males are as a whole a more aggressive gender (yes, ill admit there may be something biological to do with this -- but parents also let males fight with each other when young, play games that have violence, etc. Its viewed as more common place).

Also, because in the times of the first humans, males were the ones who largely fought for food and stuff because of their added physical abilities (strength, etc), it may have been adaptive for them to have increased levels of testosterone, as opposed to females who had to take care of their young, appear emotionally calm yet able, etc.

 

yes there may be average female superiority in the subjects you highlight, but I want to see if these studies are done on pure kids that are around 3 years old -- but then it would be practically impossible :). So we do it on adults. SO many factors are involved -- to teachers interact differently with males and females? Thus this develop different outcomes? or even the things these kids play with during formative years -- does this impact their ability to interact with academics differently? if so, thjis would be society actually changing the abilities of kids.

But then again, what do I know -- Ive never had the chance to go to a full fledged college so yea :(

post #74 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusho View Post
 

[...] because in the times of the first humans, males were the ones who largely fought for food and stuff because of their added physical abilities (strength, etc), it may have been adaptive for them to have increased levels of testosterone, as opposed to females who had to take care of their young, appear emotionally calm yet able, etc.

 

yes there may be average female superiority in the subjects you highlight, but I want to see if these studies are done on pure kids that are around 3 years old -- but then it would be practically impossible :). So we do it on adults. SO many factors are involved -- to teachers interact differently with males and females? Thus this develop different outcomes? or even the things these kids play with during formative years -- does this impact their ability to interact with academics differently? if so, this would be society actually changing the abilities of kids.

 

OK, I understand your point now. I don't remember how old the subjects were in the studies, so you might be right.

 

About the idea that being hunters caused an increase in testosterone, I suspect it was the other way round: having more testosterone made men hunters. 

post #75 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claritas View Post

OK, I understand your point now. I don't remember how old the subjects were in the studies, so you might be right.

About the idea that being hunters caused an increase in testosterone, I suspect it was the other way round: having more testosterone made men hunters. 
Of course you are right about more testosterone =men= hunters. But selectively, it was the men with the most testosterone which survived. This is why men are so much more aggressive than women. Then for women, they had to look more emotional, be more caring -- abd the person who did this obviously had the higher chance of mating and producing offspring. At the end of the day, this probably enhanced biological differences and helped create the discourses of patriarchy and matriarchy, and stem a divide in the behavior of the two sexes. They are made to do different things. Yet I question how important this is of even how much practicality this divide has with things like spatial reasoning, writing, etc. I think there may be something to do with how their brains are formed and fed knowledge/ abilities in formative years. Etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Numbers,.... Male vs Female HeadFiers?