Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,028
47,139
Don't bother fanaskin, I posted like 6 papers and articles a while back and both of the retard brigade ignored them out of hand. "Science" supports them, with a lot of hand-waving but no backup. Our argument is only "feels" (ignores fully cited papers and articles)...

Replying to Tanoomba is the thread equivalent of barebacking Thai hookers.
 

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
but this can't possibly happen with the brain because?
A biological predisposition towards greater physical strength does, in fact, translate into being better suited for societal roles that depend on physical strength. Bravo.
Im glad you agree with me. Now what about spatial orientation. This is purely a brain task correct. Let look at studies that showed one gender performed better at spatial task than the other.

Gender effects in spatial orientation: cognitive profiles and mental strategies
Our results highlighted a set of differences between men and women: 1) VSWM predict orientation ability, better in men than in women. 2) The orientation performance of women is more accurately predicted by the tasks involving active processing, indicating that it is critical in women's visuo-spatial performance. 3) Gender-related differences emerge between men and women when different analyses for low and high ability groups are performed. In particular male good orienters show a higher performance than women on both route and survey tasks. 4) Gender-related differences in VSWM are confirmed: our results confirm the previous findings.
and another study
http://www.brandimontelab.it/pubpdf/...ion%202004.pdf
It seems that marked gender differences in VSWM
can account for some differences in the orientation
abilities. In particular, gender differences in orientation
emerge only when tasks require a high load of VSWM.
Consequently the VSWM load could be a determinant
factor, able to increase or level off individual differences
in orientation abilities. Males would show better
orientation performance, because of their larger VSWM
span. When the orientation task does not involve a high
load in VSWM, gender differences would disappear.
Now do you agree or not that males are better suited at geospatial task than females?? Very simple question.
 

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,863
23,133
Okay, here's how science actually works.

The documentary stated that women are biologically more suited towards empathy-related occupations. Multiple people also echoed that, because it 'feels' right from everyday experience.

But it's not even slightly true. We KNOW from scientific studies that babies are born with the same number of mirror neurons, the neurons responsible for feeling empathy, across genders. It's also been shown that both genders have similar activation levels of these mirror neurons and that both genders FEEL the same amount of empathy when reading facial expressions in controlled tests. However, the same study showed that females REACT outwardly to those empathic feelings more than male participants, despite both experiencing the same feelings internally. If that doesn't show you that one gender is conditioned to outwardly express their feelings more than the other, I don't know what would.
 

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,863
23,133
Only sex predicted means for all four traits, and sex predicted trait means much more strongly than did gender equality or the interaction between sex and gender equality. These results suggest that biological factors may contribute to sex differences in personality and that culture plays a negligible to small role in moderating sex differences in personality.
This conclusion is still just a fucking guess put there by the researcher. They would actually have to identify a biological mechanism by which a causal relationship occurs to come to such a conclusion.
 

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
But were taking about gender roles here, bro.

Now explain to me why my 2 boys play with guns, play fight, cars, trucks, legos always getting into "contests to see whose better" etc... From a very early age. There was no societal pressures on them. Maybe TV? But even this was limited to kids DVDs and such. Especially at an early age when we limited their TV screen time. Little Einstein DvDs and the such. We had toys of all kinds, including dolls and doll houses that my wife had lying around, stuffed anmals. Why is it that boys gravitate to trucks, trains, legos, and other such "masculine" toys? Were talking about toddlers here, bro. They were basically sheltered from "society" at this point. and its not like we forced them to lay with any of that shit. So why is it that they gravitated to those types of toys? Fuck, one of my first words past momma and dada that my first son uttered, was pointing at my car in the driveway from my front window and saying "caa". I still remember this moment as it happened yesterday.

This is why this entire premise that most things like gender roles are driven by society is a bunch of bullshit. Anyone with kids can attest to this as being bullshit.
Thanks for the update on your "feels", now with added anecdotal evidence!
No kids are raised in a vacuum. They are constantly, constantly exposed to societal expectations, long before they are able to realize it. Yes, that includes toddlers. Parents buy kids toys they expect them to play with. Parents show support and positive feedback when their children behave as expected, and concern and discouragement when they don't. This isn't a bad thing. We need to indoctrinate our youth as soon as possible to ensure that they grow up to be well-balanced and productive human beings in society. But the fact that you think babies are on auto-pilot and not subject to outside influences (until when? until they talk?) is a fucking joke.
 

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,863
23,133
But were taking about gender roles here, bro.

Now explain to me why my 2 boys play with guns, play fight, cars, trucks, legos always getting into "contests to see whose better" etc... From a very early age. There was no societal pressures on them. Maybe TV? But even this was limited to kids DVDs and such. Especially at an early age when we limited their TV screen time. Little Einstein DvDs and the such. We had toys of all kinds, including dolls and doll houses that my wife had lying around, stuffed anmals. Why is it that boys gravitate to trucks, trains, legos, and other such "masculine" toys? Were talking about toddlers here, bro. They were basically sheltered from "society" at this point. and its not like we forced them to lay with any of that shit. So why is it that they gravitated to those types of toys? Fuck, one of my first words past momma and dada that my first son uttered, was pointing at my car in the driveway from my front window and saying "caa". I still remember this moment as it happened yesterday.

This is why this entire premise that most things like gender roles are driven by society is a bunch of bullshit. Anyone with kids can attest to this as being bullshit.
Because you responded positively to them every time they acted like boys and not at all or negatively every time they acted like girls. You probably weren't even conscious of it, but you definitely did. Children's brains are very good receptors of even the subtlest of incoming information, hence why they're able to learn/acquire so much information so quickly.
 

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
this is literally how behaviorists say people learn, they imitate/mimic behavior of people around them and are rewarded/punished for that behavior, do you even know what you are talking about? what is your idea of a learning mechanism. you can't just say they "learned"
People learn through exposure. They see society functioning around them, they learn how society works and what is expected from them. The "mimicry" theory of learning has lost a lot of popularity because it's extremely limited in its ability to explain much learning.



yeah nothing except logic, if there was no innate structure wouldn't you see wild deviations between cultures? especially in the isolated periods were there was no contact between cultures?
Why would you? Even humans on opposite sides of the globe evolved down remarkably similar paths. Gender roles were essential to the survival of primitive man everywhere, not just pockets of the globe. It's therefore not only logical but expected that we would continue to see the after-effects of these gender roles across multiple cultures. That doesn't change the fact that, due to the way the brain has evolved since primitive times, we are no longer slaves to our instincts. We have replaced our instincts with the ability to learn which was a great deal. It allowed for modern civilization as we know it. Again, there is no reason to cling to antiquated notions of "boys are like this, girls are like this" when we now know that this is primarily the result of roles we continue to assign and reinforce out of habit. Well, no reason but "feels".
 

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
I like how you two skipped my post with actual evidence, of an intellectual task where both gender perform statistically different. Care to comment? It was a simple question after all.
 

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,863
23,133
I like how you two skipped my post with actual evidence, of an intellectual task where both gender perform statistically different. Care to comment? It was a simple question after all.
Again, adult brains. Where's your evidence that those changes weren't the result of a lifetime's worth of conditionally rewarding the development of certain skills and behaviors?
 

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,863
23,133
Gender, Competitiveness and Career Choices
First study doesn't even make any biological connections. It's just a statistical observation of gender differences with no mention of biological connections at all. The word biology only shows up in number of teaching hours per academic subject.

Last study is neutral on the biology issue as well.

Not sure why you linked either. It's like you didn't bother to read them.

THE THIRD ARTICLE IS A FUCKING BOOK REVIEW AND ISN'T EVEN DIRECTLY ABOUT SCIENCE. It's a book reviewabouta bookaboutthe scientific study of sex differences and whether that's good or bad.

The second study has been reproducibly refuted by recent economic studies studying matriarchal tribes.

YOU LOST. GIVE THE FUCK UP.
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,028
47,139
First study doesn't even make any biological connections. It's just a statistical observation of gender differences with no mention of biological connections at all. The word biology only shows up in number of teaching hours per academic subject.

Last study is neutral on the biology issue as well.

Not sure why you linked either. It's like you didn't bother to read them.

THE THIRD ARTICLE IS A FUCKING BOOK REVIEW AND ISN'T EVEN DIRECTLY ABOUT SCIENCE. It's a book reviewabouta bookaboutthe scientific study of sex differences and whether that's good or bad.

The second study has been reproducibly refuted by recent economic studies studying matriarchal tribes.

YOU LOST. GIVE THE FUCK UP.
So, a couple of studies about competitiveness and career choices, both concluding that women make different choices from men due to competitiveness and risk aversion (the medical student one with "a preference towards patient care") with another about the biological basis of competitiveness, and I didn't bother to read them?

You sure bro?

No wait, you're right. Everything we post is just feels! These studies don't exist! * waves hand

And even if they do exist, they're wrong! And nevermind that there's professional disagreement about this. It's just feels on our side.

Just feels. Sorry for taking your time with these fucking studies and shit. Back to the feels.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,887
138,036
http://www.functionalneurology.com/m...1/3373_sexual/

Programmed gender identity is irreversible

The irreversibility of programmed gender identity is clearly illustrated by the sad story of the John-Joan- John case (i.e. the case of David Reimer). In the 1960s and 1970s, in the context of the concept of behaviorism, it was postulated that a child is born as a tabula rasa and is subsequently forced in the male or female direction by society's conventions. Although it is true that, in humans, self-face recognition appears to emerge at around 18 months of age (26) and that by the age of 2-3 years children are able to correctly label themselves and others according to gender (27), there is no evidence that external or social events might modify these processes. However, J. Money argued that: "Gender identity is sufficiently incompletely differentiated at birth as to permit successful assignment of a genetic male as a girl. Gender identity then differentiates in keeping with the experiences of rearing" (28). This view had devastating results in the John-Joan-John case (29). Money maintained that gender imprinting does not start until the age of 1 year, and that its development is well advanced by the age of 3-4 years (30). This was, indeed, the basis for the decision to make a girl out of an 8-month-old boy who lost his penis due to a mistake during minor surgery (i.e. an operation to correct phimosis). The testicles of this child were removed before he reached the age of 17 months in order to facilitate feminization. The child was dressed in girls' clothes, received psychological counseling and was given estrogens in puberty. According to Money, this child developed as a normal female. However, Milton Diamond later made it clear that this had not been the case at all. In adulthood, this child changed back to male, married, and adopted several children (31). Unfortunately, he had a troubled life and committed suicide in May 2004.This story illustrates the enormous programming influence of the intrauterine period on gender. Other cases have been described in the literature (32), due to enzymatic disorders (33-35) or to cloacal exstrophy (36), that support the existence of early permanent programming of brain sex by biological factors and androgen exposure, rather than by social environment and learning(17,37).
 

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Again, adult brains. Where's your evidence that those changes weren't the result of a lifetime's worth of conditionally rewarding the development of certain skills and behaviors?
One hundred and seven young adults (54 women) participated in this study. Age ranged between 18 and 36 years (mean age = 22.5). Participants were psychology students of the University of Rome and for their participation received a money voucher that could be used in a local bookseller.

That is quite a broad sample,

Is going through mazes a lifetime worth of conditioning? Do people take their kids to mazes?
Is reading maps, a life time of conditioning.
"Guess what we are doing Boys tonight, not girls . IT MAP READING TIME!!!"" Really mist..

You are really grasping at straws.

Also what does been an adult has to do? The argument is that biology give one gender a better aptitude at certain tasks. You already agree that it does to physical tasks, while I got a completely intellectual one, and yet you continue to refuse the evidence that men are better at spatial tasks that females.

It is the retard brigade.
 

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
The hilarious part is that probably mist cant get to point A from point B, without using a GPS. lol at that irony.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,887
138,036
Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth

BACKGROUND Cloacal exstrophy is a rare, complex defect of the entire pelvis and its contents that occurs during embryogenesis and is associated with severe phallic inadequacy or phallic absence in genetic males. For about 25 years, neonatal assignment to female sex has been advocated for affected males to overcome the issue of phallic inadequacy, but data on outcome remain sparse.

METHODS We assessed all 16 genetic males in our cloacal-exstrophy clinic at the ages of 5 to 16 years. Fourteen underwent neonatal assignment to female sex socially, legally, and surgically;

RESULTS Eight of the 14 subjects assigned to female sex declared themselves male during the course of this study, whereas the 2 raised as males remained male. Subjects could be grouped according to their stated sexual identity. Five subjects were living as females; three were living with unclear sexual identity, although two of the three had declared themselves male; and eight were living as males, six of whom had reassigned themselves to male sex. All 16 subjects had moderate-to-marked interests and attitudes that were considered typical of males. Follow-up ranged from 34 to 98 months.
so even those these men were assigned female sex at birth and socially treated as female it pretty much didn't take, suggesting an innate biological structure, what does your behaviorism theory have to say about that mist?
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,887
138,036
guys it's all learned behavior and tanoomba: that's not how the brains works

Gender Identity and Sex-of-rearing in Children with Disorders of Sexual Differentiation

Of 84 total patients, 69 were reared female, but only 32 lived as female, while 29 lived as male; four patients refused to discuss sex-of-living; parents of four patients rejected their declarations of male identity. All 15 patients reared male lived as male including two genetic females.

Conclusion: Active prenatal androgen effects appeared to dramatically increase the likelihood of recognition of male sexual identity independent of sex-of-rearing. Genetic males with maletypical prenatal androgen effects should be reared male.
I don't even discount social modifiers towards behavior, or even something like Pavlovian programming but this whole very very very small affect from biology line of thought seems out of whack. there seems to be a biological innate structure that would give a kind of baseline.
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,671
8,933
Nothing mystical about it. I mean, I guess it wouldseemmystical if you don't understand how the brain works, but we've actually been able to explain very well, through repeatable experiments and observations, how our external influences shape the development of our brains and ultimately dictate how we behave. On the other hand, youfeelthat biology must be playing a stronger role than modern science is giving it credit for. If I have to choose between a scientifically sound explanation and Fanaskin's "feels", you'll forgive me for sticking with the former.
complete wishy washy, vague, informationless drivel. Par for the course

"but we've actually been able to explain very well, through repeatable experiments and observations, how our external influences shape the development of our brains and ultimately dictate how we behave"

-Pretend to cite real science (don't cite anything)
-Tack your argument on to the end of the sentence for positive re-enforcement
-Stick crayon up nose
-???
-Profit
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,671
8,933
Wow, I don't remember the last time anyone missed a point by so wide a margin, peppered with several inaccurate assumptions to boot! Well done.

We live in a developed society and, presumably, all of us have regular incomes. We accommodate for our hunger on a daily basis. We plan for it every time we do groceries, prepare meals, save our leftovers, go out for dinner, etc. Yes, one of the reasons we have to be productive members of society is so we can put "food on the table". Yes, our need to eat is not something that can be ignored. But see, unlike primitive man, our hunger is not what pushes us into action. For primitive man, feeling hunger meant "get off your ass and find some food or you will soon die". For us eating is just a biological function that we take for granted as we are easily able to accommodate for it as part of our daily routine. We eat because we're hungry but we choose when we eat, what we eat, how much we eat, and how often we eat because we live in a society that allows us that degree of freedom in accommodating this biological requirement. Hunger is no longer a "driving force" behind our decision-making any more than taking a shit is. None of us have to worry about where our next meal is coming from, so the fact that we get hungry and need food to survive (as vitally important as that is biologically) is actually not at all important when it comes to the important decisions we make about how we live our lives.

Also, the fact that you're claiming obesity is a result of people giving in to their instincts is ridiculous and based on nothing but your "feels". And no, today's fatties wouldn't be the "winners" in the plains of Africa. See, the plains of Africa don't have McDonald's, and the fatties that have been riding the gravy train would learn very quickly that living on the plains of Africa doesn't accommodate that lifestyle, a lifestyle that developed and was allowed to flourish by itsenvironment.
Tell me more about these primitive men. Tell me about all the instincts you know so well. Did they just sit around all day until they felt hungry then "got up off their asses"? You want to talk about feels? Your whole premise is nothing but an imaginary scenario you've constructed in your mind to support your argument. It's laughably inept.

And yes, the fatties would be the winners. Evolutionarily speaking, the fatter you are, the more successful you are. Show me a fat bear and I'll show you a successful one. The instinct to eat is one of our strongest . You can't just say "oh hurrr, feels" every time someone makes a point that contradicts your silly ones. It's getting old and only serves to make you look foolish. Tell me again about severing the connection between the stomach and brain. That was a really well researched argument