Are you male or female?
Nov 16, 2008 at 8:17 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 102

jonathanjong

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Posts
4,041
Likes
12
Inspired by this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/why...phones-378827/

To elaborate: Lots of people on the thread complained about the generalization made in the OP and subsequent posts. Partly due to my work as a social psychologist, I think that generalizations are OK as long as (a) they're accurate, and (b) they are recognized as generalizations. In my experience, it has certainly been the case that my male acquaintances react more positively than my female acquaintances. Does this mean that no women are into audio gear? Nope. But there is a main effect of gender in the liking of headphones. So, perhaps the title of the thread mentioned above was unjustified, but a toned down version of it seems to be true. Now, as a rough empirical measure, I want to know the proportion of males to females who are active here. Go.
 
Nov 16, 2008 at 8:34 AM Post #4 of 102

Rednamalas1

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Posts
4,968
Likes
17
Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I knew that option was asking for trouble. But I keep telling my students not to assume that participants are either male or female, because they might identify with neither...


well biologically speaking... there are 6+ genders so...
tongue.gif
 
Nov 16, 2008 at 8:48 AM Post #5 of 102

feNcheL

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Posts
231
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rednamalas1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
well biologically speaking... there are 6+ genders so...
tongue.gif



confused_face(1).gif
What do you mean?
 
Nov 16, 2008 at 8:52 AM Post #7 of 102

MoxMonkey

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Posts
305
Likes
0
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rednamalas1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
well biologically speaking... there are 6+ genders so...
tongue.gif



biologically there are more than two depending on what biological factors you are using to classify people
 
Nov 16, 2008 at 8:59 AM Post #9 of 102

Rednamalas1

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Posts
4,968
Likes
17
Quote:

Originally Posted by MoxMonkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif
biologically there are more than two depending on what biological factors you are using to classify people


well that too, but I was talking about people with single X chromosome, or XXY, XXX etc. They generally can't reproduce with monosomy, trisomy or tetrasomy. So they're all filed under "chromosomal abnormalities"
 
Nov 16, 2008 at 9:04 AM Post #10 of 102

jonathanjong

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Posts
4,041
Likes
12
^ But there are more biological facts relevant to sex than chromosomes. There's gross anatomy, there's hormone levels. Bring gender into it, and the waters are muddied further. There's self-identification, there's gender roles. It's not obvious how people should be classified, even though in the West, the bias is towards self-identification.

Zeph: Why's this thread pointless? I genuinely want to know if there are disproportionately more active male members than active female ones. This won't conclusively show that males are more interested in audio gear than females are, but it's a step on the way. And the discussion on what sex/gender is is important too, but for different reasons.
 
Nov 16, 2008 at 9:07 AM Post #11 of 102

Rednamalas1

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Posts
4,968
Likes
17
Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif
^ But there are more biological facts relevant to sex than chromosomes. There's gross anatomy, there's hormone levels. Bring gender into it, and the waters are muddied further. There's self-identification, there's gender roles. It's not obvious how people should be classified, even though in the West, the bias is towards self-identification.

Zeph: Why's this thread useless?



yup, prenatal hormonal levels also muddles up the gender issues as well. And yeah, I heard that "gender is socially constructed" argument several times. And since I'm in bio/cog psyc, rather than social/developmental, we're mortal enemies against anything developmental
biggrin.gif


EDIT: perhaps a serious argument/debate in Member's forum for a change? *gasp*
 
Nov 16, 2008 at 9:12 AM Post #13 of 102

Rednamalas1

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Posts
4,968
Likes
17
Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Ah, but a developmental perspective is crucial in neuroscience! And in cognitive science, I might add.


yup, but we're ridiculed by the idea that everything has to have "meaning" attached to it.

Also, I hate susan summers
angry_face.gif
 
Nov 16, 2008 at 9:21 AM Post #15 of 102

Rednamalas1

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Posts
4,968
Likes
17
TV show's susan summers who now does shopping shows advertising non-FDA approved hormone-replacement-therapy.

claiming that her HRTs are completely natural and organic, while ignoring that hormone is hormone is hormones: it's all the same!!

and she recommends them to everyone from women in 30s to people in 70+ - saying that it slows down aging.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top