You aren't actually refuting any of the studies in the documentary which invalidate your hypothesis, just the fact that it was filmed by a comedian. You're reacting theexactway all the sociologists acted in that film when confronted with experiments and data instead of theories. That was an heroic act.
Yes, it was clearly explained that genders have certain preferences, but not where those preferences come from. They all come from modelling behaviors, which is a better and simpler explanation than the scientists in the video.
I actually did refute it by presenting a simpler hypothesis that explains their results better than their own. They claimed it was biological because it was across cultures, but showed no actual evidence of biological forces which produced said results, results that could easily be explained by an extremely simple behavioral psychology theory: modelling. THAT is the opposite of scientific.
The dude is a sociologist and several times in the documentary he is stating that everything the scientists are telling him goes against everything he's been taught. Yet he continues to pursue questioning their results and premises until he has enough to form a conclusion.
Uhhh, no? Who the fuck has a 'mentor', lol? How do children showing preferences for certain type of interaction or activities have anything to do with 'mentorship'? If that were the case how do any children go after 'male' careers if the overwhelming majority of elementary school teachers (ie mentors in the so-called 'formative' years) are female? I think instead you are drawing a farcical conclusion based upon your need to quickly disprove anything that suggests your social 'sciences' are anything more than a hack when they step outside of reporting societal and cultural trends and into the realm of hard science.
You fucking suck at reading comprehension because that's the opposite of what I said. What I said that even if you did find minor differences in proficiency it would be irrelevant when compared to the variation between individuals.
Neither of the American or British scientists they talked were any more 'hard' science than the others. They were psychologists and sociologists too. They just happened to agree with your uninformed point of view.
Except their hypotheses were tested with studies and experiments. Yours is just made up by you to fit your existing bullshit theory. Again, if you watched it, you would see they did studies on children too young for any mentor relationship to matter.
They didn't bother to show how any of their data on how much the babies differed in their facial/mechanical interests. I'm guessing their R values weren't very high. Those are the exact kinds of studies where people fudge statistics until they get something that looks meaningful or passes a certain significance test. It happens CONSTANTLY in studies like that. The fact that you're taking it as a fact because it supports your point of view, without actually looking at their data, is a fucking joke.
The fact you completely dismiss a study because it conflicts with your self-hypothesis is the absurdity. It is amazing how you react exactly like the sociologists from Norway. Presented with evidence, rather than cite their own studies or mention them at all, they go "cause feelings". Your feelings and anecdotal information have fuckall to do with anything. The study may be wrong, but without any scientific information going the other way, I'll go with it.
One of the potential explanations given was hormonal differences (particularly testosterone). They even included some supporting evidence for it.
Where's your studies? Bet the R values aren't very high so I think we can safely ignore your basic observation over Mist's conjecture to fit her desired fact pattern.
It's NOT hard to argue with the 'testosterone link' at all. Sure, there's some small correlations, but it's not anywhere near a large enough correlation to explain the massive gender differences in occupations. The only way to explain that is to bring sociological forces into it. Further, hormones are themselves influenced by sociological forces all the time.
I'm an educational psychologist and a statistician. Yes I've spent plenty of time with kids (more than I'd like) and run the full gamut of developmental psych courses. I'm a research psychologist and not a clinical one so I do spend most of my time with statistics and not people though.
