Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Cooking pots?  Wow!  I hate cooking.

There are thousands of studies to support stereotypes. You’re probably taller, stronger, and more aggressive than me.  If this was a pissing contest, you’d win. 

Good for you, Syne.  Good for you.

(Dec 27, 2017 11:51 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Cooking pots?  Wow!  I hate cooking.

Well I would hope you don't share the toy preferences of "the youngest girls" (9 to 17 months) in that study.

Quote:There are thousands of studies to support stereotypes. You’re probably taller, stronger, and more aggressive than me.  If this was a pissing contest, you’d win. 

Good for you, Syne.  Good for you.

Are there any studies disproving early gendered preferences?
If this were an evenly matched intellectual pissing contest, you could at least start there.

(Dec 28, 2017 01:02 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Are there any studies disproving early gendered preferences?

You do realize they’re psychological studies, right?  Social science…remember?

Syne Wrote:If this were an evenly matched intellectual pissing contest, you could at least start there.

Well, the topic is about creativity.  You could at least start there.  

Nature vs. nurture, eh?  Okay, smart one, let’s see if you can dance.

Have you read Lord Byron’s Manfred?

Not all social sciences are equal. While they are all much less rigorous than the natural sciences, some (like psychology, anthropology, archaeology, history, etc.) are much more valuable than ones like sociology. And I assume that digression means you've found no studies disproving early gendered preferences.

I already gave you my two cents on creativity. Its you who decided to make the discussion a pissing contest about gender preferences, the subject/object dichotomy, the gender gap in STEM, etc.. And you continue your habit of simply changing the topic when you can't defend your position.

Discussion is not about making demands on the time of others, deary. But if you have some new topic, do tell.

(Dec 28, 2017 06:15 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Not all social sciences are equal. While they are all much less rigorous than the natural sciences, some (like  psychology, anthropology, archaeology, history, etc.) are much more valuable than ones like sociology. And I assume that digression means you've found no studies disproving early gendered preferences.

Know how to do 2-step?

You post an article. I post one. You debunk. I debunk.

Oh, look, Syne, we’re Googling.  

How boring.  

Syne Wrote:I already gave you my two cents on creativity. Its you who decided to make the discussion a pissing contest about gender preferences, the subject/object dichotomy, the gender gap in STEM, etc.. And you continue your habit of simply changing the topic when you can't defend your position.

Hmm...*scratches head*...I could have sworn that was you.

(Dec 17, 2017 05:10 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Men prefer things...women prefer people. I'd hazard that men spend less time on social media, crafting with friends, etc..

If evolution does play a role, men are tool/weapon makers, while women are social homemakers.

There is no consensus on nature vs. nurture in regards to our differences.  

Syne Wrote:Discussion is not about making demands on the time of others, deary. But if you have some new topic, do tell.

You're more comfortable with common nouns, aren't you?

Get back to me if you change your mind.

Astarte: the feminine form of the masculine—the morning and evening star.

(Dec 28, 2017 02:13 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Dec 28, 2017 06:15 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Not all social sciences are equal. While they are all much less rigorous than the natural sciences, some (like  psychology, anthropology, archaeology, history, etc.) are much more valuable than ones like sociology. And I assume that digression means you've found no studies disproving early gendered preferences.

Know how to do 2-step?

You post an article. I post one. You debunk. I debunk.

Oh, look, Syne, we’re Googling.  

How boring.  

Hey, if you're only interested in discussing your personal, subjective beliefs, go for it. Just don't complain when someone shows why you're wrong.

It actually is more interesting when you at least try to post substantive rebuttals. For instance, in your "I post one", they just argue several straw men. I've never seen anyone argue that "males and females ... should be educated in single-sex classrooms", nor does anyone say early gendered behavior can be observed in brain differences. And your " I debunk" says, "Yes, there are gender differences in the participation of men and women in some STEM fields among college students, and these differences do contribute to the underrepresentation of women in STEM professions."

Quote:

Syne Wrote:I already gave you my two cents on creativity. Its you who decided to make the discussion a pissing contest about gender preferences, the subject/object dichotomy, the gender gap in STEM, etc.. And you continue your habit of simply changing the topic when you can't defend your position.

Hmm...*scratches head*...I could have sworn that was you.

Go look for yourself:
Here you started in about the subject/object dichotomy and seemed to lament the gender gap in STEM. And here you seem to claim that encouragement trumps gender preferences.

See, where I only initially expressed my opinions (what you claim you want), you followed up with "Maybe you should read the book" and "you're wrong about that". Only then do I follow up with "All the studies on the subject to the contrary." You start what you then complain about others continuing, deary. You just don't seem to like facts challenging your opinions.

Quote:

(Dec 17, 2017 05:10 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Men prefer things...women prefer people. I'd hazard that men spend less time on social media, crafting with friends, etc..

If evolution does play a role, men are tool/weapon makers, while women are social homemakers.

There is no consensus on nature vs. nurture in regards to our differences.  

Specific differences that show in both infants and other primates certainly point to nature. But that doesn't mean all differences are inherent.
It seems to upset you that even a few differences could be inherent.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Discussion is not about making demands on the time of others, deary. But if you have some new topic, do tell.

You're more comfortable with common nouns, aren't you?

Get back to me if you change your mind.

Astarte: the feminine form of the masculine—the morning and evening star.

Cryptic incomplete sentences are not communication.  

(Dec 28, 2017 10:14 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Go look for yourself:
Here you started in about the subject/object dichotomy and seemed to lament the gender gap in STEM. And here you seem to claim that encouragement trumps gender preferences.

See, where I only initially expressed my opinions (what you claim you want), you followed up with "Maybe you should read the book" and "you're wrong about that". Only then do I follow up with "All the studies on the subject to the contrary." You start what you then complain about others continuing, deary. You just don't seem to like facts challenging your opinions.

You didn't read the book.  You wouldn't understand but while you're here...like what?

(Dec 19, 2017 01:34 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Men appreciate things in and of themselves, for many reasons that have little to do with people. Women tend to appreciate things for their usefulness to people.

What useless 'things' do men appreciate that have little to do with people?

Syne Wrote:Specific differences that show in both infants and other primates certainly point to nature. But that doesn't mean all differences are inherent.
It seems to upset you that even a few differences could be inherent.

Nope, it doesn’t bother me at all. I mean, there are a few obvious ones that I have no complaints about.

It seems to upset you that there might be some uncertainty.  You see this a lot with closed-minded individuals.

Syne Wrote:Cryptic incomplete sentences are not communication.  

I guess that answers my question.  You haven't read Manifred.

(Dec 28, 2017 11:49 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Dec 28, 2017 10:14 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Go look for yourself:
Here you started in about the subject/object dichotomy and seemed to lament the gender gap in STEM. And here you seem to claim that encouragement trumps gender preferences.

See, where I only initially expressed my opinions (what you claim you want), you followed up with "Maybe you should read the book" and "you're wrong about that". Only then do I follow up with "All the studies on the subject to the contrary." You start what you then complain about others continuing, deary. You just don't seem to like facts challenging your opinions.

You didn't read the book.  You wouldn't understand but while you're here...like what?

My last post answered that: "Yes, there are gender differences in the participation of men and women in some STEM fields among college students, and these differences do contribute to the underrepresentation of women in STEM professions."[source]

Quote:

(Dec 19, 2017 01:34 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Men appreciate things in and of themselves, for many reasons that have little to do with people. Women tend to appreciate things for their usefulness to people.

What useless 'things' do men appreciate that have little to do with people?

Models, toys, cars without sufficient comfort, seating, or cup holders, useless gadgets, collectible spinning tops, etc..

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Specific differences that show in both infants and other primates certainly point to nature. But that doesn't mean all differences are inherent.
It seems to upset you that even a few differences could be inherent.

Nope, it doesn’t bother me at all. I mean, there are a few obvious ones that I have no complaints about.

It seems to upset you that there might be some uncertainty.  You see this a lot with closed-minded individuals.

Yeah, you like things that seem to affirm your misandry. We all get that.

LOL! What upset, and what uncertainty? You've offered nothing to refute the evidence I've shown you. And I just admitted that not all differences are inherent nor even certain.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Cryptic incomplete sentences are not communication.  

I guess that answers my question.  You haven't read Manifred.

LOL! So your response to me telling you "Discussion is not about making demands on the time of others" is to uselessly test whether I let you waste my time?
Oh, maybe discussion for you is just an opportunity to attempt to manipulate people.

(Dec 29, 2017 01:37 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]My last post answered that: "Yes, there are gender differences in the participation of men and women in some STEM fields among college students, and these differences do contribute to the underrepresentation of women in STEM professions."[source]

I’m sorry.  That wasn’t very clear.  "Like what," was meant to be in conjunction with "what useless 'things' do men appreciate that have little to do with people?"

Syne Wrote:Models, toys, cars without sufficient comfort, seating, or cup holders, useless gadgets, collectible spinning tops, etc..

Same thing with girls and women.  They like fidget spinners, slinkys, tchotchkes, collectibles, yo-yos, jacks, magnets, Legos, rocks, marbles, crystals, etc.  

Syne Wrote:Yeah, you like things that seem to affirm your misandry. We all get that.

Well, I don't get it. Care to explain?

Syne Wrote:You've offered nothing to refute the evidence I've shown you.

You're always making demands on other people's time.  Your loaded questions do exactly that.

Women in STEM fields

Beliefs about innate talent may dissuade students from STEM

Lack of Mathematical Confidence a Potential Culprit

Personally, I wouldn’t want to work in an environment that made me feel uncomfortable and unhappy.

(Dec 2, 2017 07:00 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Ah, you seem to be conflating anecdotal encounters, with internet science geeks, with men in general. I assure you, they make up a relatively small fraction of men, with the internet geek variety tending to be especially insecure.

It’s not just internet geeks, nor is it just geeks.  There are anecdotal instances that all women experience.  During a dinner, I corrected a highly educated man.  He started getting a little aggressive.  I looked at everyone else at the table, and asked them if they understood what I was talking about. They did and they all agreed with me. Outside, after dinner, he grabbed me by the arm and said, "I told you, yada-yada." I looked at his wife in disbelief and she pulled him back.  She must have schooled him because ever since then he's been overly nice. 

Syne Wrote:LOL! So your response to me telling you "Discussion is not about making demands on the time of others" is to uselessly test whether I let you waste my time?  
Oh, maybe discussion for you is just an opportunity to attempt to manipulate people.

Or maybe I just thought it would be a fun, creative way to express my perspective.

No worries but I'm bored now.  

Good day to you, Syne.

(Dec 29, 2017 05:29 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Dec 29, 2017 01:37 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Models, toys, cars without sufficient comfort, seating, or cup holders, useless gadgets, collectible spinning tops, etc..

Same thing with girls and women.  They like fidget spinners, slinkys, tchotchkes, collectibles, yo-yos, jacks, magnets, Legos, rocks, marbles, crystals, etc.  

No doubt women like pretty things, ostensibly because of their "sensori-emotional value". But of the things without such appeal, can you show that they like them on par with men? Seems contrary to relevant studies, as well as common experience. After all, gadgets, etc. are largely marketed to men, because that's where the marketing dollar provides the most return.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Yeah, you like things that seem to affirm your misandry. We all get that.

Well, I don't get it. Care to explain?

You certainly only seem to like (agree with) the sex differences that imply negative traits in men, but none that imply any in women.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:You've offered nothing to refute the evidence I've shown you.

You're always making demands on other people's time.  Your loaded questions do exactly that.

Pfft! You've yet to give me ONE example of a loaded question, even though I've asked you for one several times now. If you think questions are a "demand on your time", what are you doing on a discussion forum? I've never asked you to read a book or even view a long video, hypocrite.

Quote:Women in STEM fields

Beliefs about innate talent may dissuade students from STEM

Lack of Mathematical Confidence a Potential Culprit

Personally, I wouldn’t want to work in an environment that made me feel uncomfortable and unhappy.

The gender pay gap is an intellectually dishonest myth. Averages between people who freely pick careers in fields with significantly different earning potential are meaningless. And averages in the same field that fail to account for hours/years worked are similarly meaningless.

"Gender gaps in beliefs were also modest. In 12th grade, boys rated their math abilities higher than girls did by 0.2 points on a 4-point scale, for instance. Accounting for gaps in self-perceived abilities did not explain the much larger gaps in majors. Men outnumber women 3-to-1 among college graduates in math-intensive STEM majors, for instance." - https://theconversation.com/beliefs-abou...stem-42967

And that small difference in math ability belief comes no where near accounting for the rate at which women leave STEM majors after calculus.

Quote:

(Dec 2, 2017 07:44 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Dec 2, 2017 07:00 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Ah, you seem to be conflating anecdotal encounters, with internet science geeks, with men in general. I assure you, they make up a relatively small fraction of men, with the internet geek variety tending to be especially insecure.

Yeah, maybe you’re right.  

Thanks, Syne!

It’s not just internet geeks, nor is it just geeks.  There are anecdotal instances that all women experience.  During a dinner, I corrected a highly educated man.  He started getting a little aggressive.  I looked at everyone else at the table, and asked them if they understood what I was talking about. They did and they all agreed with me. Outside, after dinner, he grabbed me by the arm and said, "I told you, yada-yada." I looked at his wife in disbelief and she pulled him back.  She must have schooled him because ever since then he's been overly nice.

So, you met an internet geek IRL. Your point?

Is this just a non sequitur to affirm your misandrist perception of the world?
Is it an attempt at manipulation in order to avoid rebuttal to you above links?
Is it an attempt at poisoning the well, by implying that anyone who tries to correct you is bad?

Quote:

Syne Wrote:LOL! So your response to me telling you "Discussion is not about making demands on the time of others" is to uselessly test whether I let you waste my time?  
Oh, maybe discussion for you is just an opportunity to attempt to manipulate people.

Or maybe I just thought it would be a fun, creative way to express my perspective.

No worries but I'm bored now.  

Of course you are. Manipulative people easily bore of those they cannot manipulate.