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 6

post #76 of 121

Setting aside such non-starters as discrimination, why does Head-Fi have so few women? The first suggestion was that they just don't hear so good :p. I don't know about that. Another suggestion is they have different interests. OK, but that doesn't answer the question because the question already supposed that they must have different interests. I, myself, don't know the reason. I'm certainly not disappointed that there aren't more women because homogeneity makes discussing anything (especially on-line) easier, if less varied.

post #77 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claritas View Post

Setting aside such non-starters as discrimination, why does Head-Fi have so few women? The first suggestion was that they just don't hear so good tongue.gif . I don't know about that. Another suggestion is they have different interests. OK, but that doesn't answer the question because the question already supposed that they must have different interests. I, myself, don't know the reason. I'm certainly not disappointed that there aren't more women because homogeneity makes discussing anything (especially on-line) easier, if less varied.
Audiophilia is an activity of the minority; there are so few of us! Taking into account that it's such a cost intensive activity, it makes more sense for males who on average make more money, to invest into it. Finally, makes are on balance more explorative to new things -- they tend to appreciate and be attracted to a wife variety of things (females have depth over breadth when it comes to appreciation -- from emotions to even the things they like!) so it would be rare for them to stumble upon something like this. And add to this that headphones are marketed as a product for men, and it seems we exclude females ultimately.
post #78 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 (:D). Please completely disregard everything that was just posted by mutabor as pseudoscience.

 

I prove my points by the latest, most complex, globally recognized scientific researches, for example, I have made a link to the research of a scientific team at the University of Pennsylvania which states that general stereotypes about genders are proven by brain study of almost a thousand participants of different age groups.

 

Quote:
 Maps of neural circuitry showed that on average women's brains were highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, in contrast to men's brains, where the connections were typically stronger between the front and back regions. 
Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men's brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women's for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.

 

So the brain study shows that gender generalizations are indeed determined by biological differences. 

 

What you are saying in this particular thread has nothing to do to science and biology except your bravado claims that you are a scientist.

 

You also ( as most of my opponents on this forum) don't understand my agenda and direction of my ideas which are based exclusively on philosophy and ethics. I'm not interested in sociological aspect of equality of women. I'm absolutely fine with the first wave of feminism which fought for social rights ( I oppose the second ideological wave). I agree that women should have equal rights and access to all levels of education and all specter of jobs. I'm also coming from a socialistic society and communists were pioneers in proclaiming equal rights of women. 

 

To understand my agenda you must have a very deep grasp of main religions ( Western and Eastern) including personal experience and to grasp idealistic western philosophy. None of my opponents answer this criteria. 


Edited by mutabor - 12/13/13 at 5:28am
post #79 of 121

Because feminism and modern gender ideology heavily relies on social determinism here is a good article which explains its questionable merits.

 

The “Ism” That Isn’t ( Why Social Determinism Cannot Mean What it Says)

 

Social determinism is one of three primary explanations of human behavior, the other two being free will and biological determinism. The idea that the human self is an extension of its society dates back to ancient Greece, and was integral to the internal logic of both Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics. What is remarkable about the contemporary view of the effect of culture on human behavior is its radical, one-dimension of society as literally "creating" humanness. Briefly, this doctrine states that people think and act in accordance with their social conditioning rather than through genetic predisposition or a real freedom of choice, and that human action must have a distinctly social cause.

 

The observation that should strike one immediately about social determinism is that it is far too general in scope to be a reliable explanation of human behavior. One could just as easily make the case that human behavior is influenced, or even "caused," by the fact that most of us have two arms and two legs. Such a statement would be technically true, but practically meaningless. A mere effect does not become an explanation for human behavior unless someone sees a reason--usually an ideological reason--to make one. It is now impossible to seriously attribute such problems as crime or poverty to physiology or physics, but they can easily be attributed to "society." In politically correct America, only when an explanation becomes a cause--a means of attributing responsibility or blame--does it become an active school of thought.

 

Social determinism parallels what economist Thomas Sowell calls the "unconstrained vision": the idea that the human self is infinitely plastic, allowing humanity to be changed--and ultimately, perfected. [9] Largely because of this "vision," social determinism has gained much ideological purchase, especially among liberal academics. Indeed, it has largely become a political doctrine that has given up any pretense of being scientific. The situations in which it is applied are sufficient to demonstrate this fact. For instance, although social determinism theoretically must explain the behavior of all members of a given culture, it is nevertheless applied very selectively. As Paul Hollander puts it, the currently popular form of social determinism proposes that "only the behavior of the 'underdogs' is socially determined and hence their responsibility for their actions and attendant moral accountability are reduced." [10] This "selective social determinism" relieves "some groups of responsibility for their behavior but not others." [11] While the poor are exonerated for their actions, the middle class is held fully responsible for its "greed" and "conspicuous consumerism," and it is not often maintained that their environment "drove them to it." Ordinary crimes are sometimes explained in terms of deprivation, but not "hate" crimes, even when the perpetrators are themselves poor.

 

Some years ago, Christopher Lasch observed that modern-day liberalism, like other political creeds, is not a program, but a language. [22] If this is true of political ideologies, it is all the more true of social determinism, which, as we have seen, is most often used not to explain, but to indict. It is applied selectively, an unusual trait for a doctrine whose believers actually have the faith in it that they claim to. As is the case with the enemy that has been met, "society" turns out to be us, and many intelligent and benign individuals have taken this inanity seriously, encumbering themselves with personal guilt. This is a doctrine that denies free will, and yet incorporates it by spreading blame--as if certain carefully chosen individuals, at least, have unimpeded free will and thus absolute personal responsibility.

 

This is not to say that the cultural milieu in which one was raised, and in which one lives should not be used as a partial explanation for behavior. But to transform this common sense observation into a form of determinism is not only foolish, but destructive, certainly philosophically naive.


Edited by mutabor - 12/13/13 at 4:39am
post #80 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

I prove my points by the latest, most complex, globally recognized scientific researches, for example, I have made a link to the research of a scientific team at the University of Pennsylvania which states that general stereotypes about genders are proven by brain study of almost a thousand participants of different age groups.


So the brain study shows that gender generalizations are indeed determined by biological differences. 

What you are saying in this particular thread has nothing to do to science and biology except your bravado claims that you are a scientist.

You also ( as most of my opponents on this forum) don't understand my agenda and direction of my ideas which are based exclusively on philosophy and ethics. I'm not interested in sociological aspect of equality of women. I'm absolutely fine with the first wave of feminism which fought for social rights ( I oppose the second ideological wave). I agree that women should have equal rights and access to all levels of education and all specter of jobs. I'm also coming from a socialistic society and communists were pioneers in proclaiming equal rights of women. 

To understand my agenda you must have a very deep grasp of main religions ( Western and Eastern) including personal experience and to grasp idealistic western philosophy. None of my opponents answer this criteria. 
1. What are the two waves of feminism and what are their differences?
And 2. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/07/brain-science-ditch-male-female-cliche
I recommend you read that -- supports what I've been saying all this time. But you did pose a lot of points that are interesting to think about smily_headphones1.gif
Thanks!
post #81 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

Because feminism and modern gender ideology heavily relies on social determinism here is a good article which explains its questionable merits.

The “Ism” That Isn’t ( Why Social Determinism Cannot Mean What it Says)

Social determinism is one of three primary explanations of human behavior, the other two being free will and biological determinism. The idea that the human self is an extension of its society dates back to ancient Greece, and was integral to the internal logic of both Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics. What is remarkable about the contemporary view of the effect of culture on human behavior is its radical, one-dimension of society as literally "creating" humanness. Briefly, this doctrine states that people think and act in accordance with their social conditioning rather than through genetic predisposition or a real freedom of choice, and that human action must have a distinctly social cause.

The observation that should strike one immediately about social determinism is that it is far too general in scope to be a reliable explanation of human behavior. One could just as easily make the case that human behavior is influenced, or even "caused," by the fact that most of us have two arms and two legs. Such a statement would be technically true, but practically meaningless. A mere effect does not become an explanation for human behavior unless someone sees a reason--usually an ideological reason--to make one. It is now impossible to seriously attribute such problems as crime or poverty to physiology or physics, but they can easily be attributed to "society." In politically correct America, only when an explanation becomes a cause--a means of attributing responsibility or blame--does it become an active school of thought.

Social determinism parallels what economist Thomas Sowell calls the "unconstrained vision": the idea that the human self is infinitely plastic, allowing humanity to be changed--and ultimately, perfected. [9] Largely because of this "vision," social determinism has gained much ideological purchase, especially among liberal academics. Indeed, it has largely become a political doctrine that has given up any pretense of being scientific. The situations in which it is applied are sufficient to demonstrate this fact. For instance, although social determinism theoretically must explain the behavior of all members of a given culture, it is nevertheless applied very selectively. As Paul Hollander puts it, the currently popular form of social determinism proposes that "only the behavior of the 'underdogs' is socially determined and hence their responsibility for their actions and attendant moral accountability are reduced." [10] This "selective social determinism" relieves "some groups of responsibility for their behavior but not others." [11] While the poor are exonerated for their actions, the middle class is held fully responsible for its "greed" and "conspicuous consumerism," and it is not often maintained that their environment "drove them to it." Ordinary crimes are sometimes explained in terms of deprivation, but not "hate" crimes, even when the perpetrators are themselves poor.

Some years ago, Christopher Lasch observed that modern-day liberalism, like other political creeds, is not a program, but a language. [22] If this is true of political ideologies, it is all the more true of social determinism, which, as we have seen, is most often used not to explain, but to indict. It is applied selectively, an unusual trait for a doctrine whose believers actually have the faith in it that they claim to. As is the case with the enemy that has been met, "society" turns out to be us, and many intelligent and benign individuals have taken this inanity seriously, encumbering themselves with personal guilt. This is a doctrine that denies free will, and yet incorporates it by spreading blame--as if certain carefully chosen individuals, at least, have unimpeded free will and thus absolute personal responsibility.

This is not to say that the cultural milieu in which one was raised, and in which one lives should not be used as a partial explanation for behavior. But to transform this common sense observation into a form of determinism is not only foolish, but destructive, certainly philosophically naive.
The philosophically naive would believe in you and believe in me! You write about research which has not been very specific and has drawn too many conclusions from too little data. And my belief is a social theory -- few experiments have confirmed it. We must wait before we declare a true diff unitive stance of difference or homogeneity. In the mean time, could you explain how you got into gender theories and why you believe in sexism (NOT saying it's wrong). I think with a little background it may be easier for me to understand your position smily_headphones1.gif.
post #82 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusho View Post

could you explain how you got into gender theories.  smily_headphones1.gif.

 

When I read about third wave feminism I was unpleasantly surprised how far this movement has gone. 

post #83 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post
 

 

When I read about third wave feminism I was unpleasantly surprised how far this movement has gone. 

I find most feminists are hypocrites. Not all, but a lot are. 

post #84 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusho View Post


 http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/07/brain-science-ditch-male-female-cliche
I recommend you read that -- supports what I've been saying all this time. 
 
I've read this article before. While scientific research performed at the University of Pennsylvania ( described in the article) proves that males and females brains determine different patterns in genders behavior this dude observer is in denial of scientific evidence and keeps going with his wishful thinking.
 
There is another problem with feminism. Many parts which constitute feminist theory like social determinism, elements of Marxist theory ( oppression and class struggle theory), post-modernism - all these parts I find utterly wrong. The spread of feminist theory means the spread of erroneous ideas.

Edited by mutabor - 12/14/13 at 2:38am
post #85 of 121

I am not going to really respond to the last few pages of this thread, but I want to say that if you think Head-Fi has a generally welcoming atmosphere for people of all genders, I would disagree. While it's not a horribly toxic environment like say, many gaming websites, there's enough complaining about WAF, asinine comments when booth babes are pictured with headphones at audio conventions and other sundry comments from members of the community that I would not describe Head Fi as a neutral safe zone.

 

However, on the original topic of this thread - whether or not biological females may have reduced auditory faculties - I was talking to a friend of mine who has completed a psychology degree and is on the autisim spectrum. He actually suggested something interesting:

 

1. Men are more likely to be on the autism spectrum. 

 

Quote:
Boys are at higher risk for autism than girls. The ASD sex ratio averages 4.3:1

 

2. People on the autism spectrum are more likely to have a special interest they obsess over. This may include collecting and auditioning audio equipment.

3. People on the autism spectrum are more likely to be hypersensitive to sound and pitch changes and more likely to seek out auditory stimulation.

 

Please note that he (and I) are not suggesting that all audiophiles have an autism spectrum disorder or that audiophilia is a kind of pathology.

 

But I think you would reasonably expect an overrepresentation of males in the headphone / audio enthusiast community who are on the autism spectrum or who exhibit behaviours that relate to autism spectrum behaviours without being functionally impaired to a degree where they would be diagnosed with autism.

 

This is all just speculation based on a few assumptions, but it was worth mentioning to suggest one factor among many others, biological and cultural, that could lead to an overrepresentation of males in the hobby.


Edited by a_recording - 12/14/13 at 6:18am
post #86 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_recording View Post
 

 

Please note that he (and I) are not suggesting that all audiophiles have an autism spectrum disorder or that audiophilia is a kind of pathology.

 

Sure, not all audiophiles are autistic. Let me guess how many...89,76%? Yeah, we should make a poll.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_recording View Post
 

But I think you would reasonably expect an overrepresentation of males in the headphone / audio enthusiast community who are on the autism spectrum or who exhibit behaviours that relate to autism spectrum behaviours without being functionally impaired to a degree where they would be diagnosed with autism.

 

 

Bingo! Look for example how there are much more monks than nuns and monks are often good looking while nuns are generally ugly. 

post #87 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

 

Bingo! Look for example how there are much more monks than nuns and monks are often good looking while nuns are generally ugly. 

 

If both men and women could be monks and men were more likely to be attractive than women, and if being attractive made you perform better as a monk and made you more likely to enjoy being a monk, then I would also expect attractive males to be overrepresented in the ranks of monks.

 

I'm not really seeing the comparison you are making here, unless you are implying that a woman can't be an audiophile in the same way that a woman can't be a monk.


Edited by a_recording - 12/14/13 at 3:50pm
post #88 of 121
post #89 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post
 

http://www.mcrcad.org/2010-Sax-hearing.pdf

Thanks for sharing That!

post #90 of 121

this has nothing to do with hearing ability. there are biological differences between males and females. more over it is ones culture and upbringing. the same misnomer could be applied to race and ethnicity. it really is just peoples culture and upbringing that affects these preferences. you can go in a hello-kitty forum and ask why there are no men. different things are tailored to different audiences through learned traits. now, to that effect you can say people learn a sexual preference. I feel many are born as they are but anything can be taught. teach a girl to be a soldier from a young age and she will probably be tough as nails with a complete indifference to hello-kitty per se. what appeals to a certain demographic is mostly learned. for the record I am an expert on audio and across the board woman do hear better. however that has no bearing on their preferences in life. furthermore this thread is completely skewed because men are trying to disseminate how woman in general think. in conclusion, why does this even matter? it is what it is.

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