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

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
78,882
156,771
Disagree. Popularity is ranked by user engagement, i.e. replies.
 

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,491
31,028
It's like the Lumie thread, except in this case its two intractable retards instead of one, so when one lesbian/lesbian wannabe cannot handle all the cognitive dissonance, they tap out and the other takes over or a while, whereas Lumie has to take breaks to imbibe garlic from time to time.
 

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Mist. Since u are the judge of studies how big must a sample size be in order to be statistically relevant?
 

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Avoiding the obvious comedy of that statement for the moment, the translation here is "I googled for some random article that I think supports my assertion." Did you even read the fucking article? Its conclusion was that behavior likely comes from BOTH SOURCES. Notice that no one here is ruling out environment as a possible source of behavior, just you and Dikey McTruckasaurus claiming that genetics has zero impact on behavior, which is demonstrably false in every single higher species on the planet, including our own. But hell no, you dug for one snippet of an article in your "study of how the brain learns" and quoted the out of context part, then declared victory without even bothering to read the entire thing and reflect on it. Clearly you need to study some more, because its clear that knowledge is simply incapable of penetrating that big floppy vagina brain of yours.
Like most wild assumptions, your interpretation of my claim to have studied something is wrong. When I say "studied", I mean "I had to learn about it and was held to a high standard of understanding" exactly the kind of thing we're talking about. I don't know about the States, but when you get a degree for a profession here you do actually learn things.

And yes, his conclusion was that there could very well be influence from both sources. However, it's dishonest to try to use this as a "gotcha!" when it's made clear that many, many attempts to PROVE the genetic influence have come up empty. I read the entire article before posting it, not just to make a point in a debate but because it's actually interesting. I like learning, so sue me.

But hey, at least you were mature about it.
 

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
28,244
75,987
I like learning, so sue me. But hey, at least you were mature about it.
rrr_img_71838.jpg
 

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,864
23,133
Mist. Since u are the judge of studies how big must a sample size be in order to be statistically relevant?
It's not size but the fact that studying a sample of only psych students is a non-representative sample. It's by nature a self-selected sample (actually self-selected on quite a few nested levels: graduated high school, went to college, chose liberal arts, chose psychology) and totally not representative of the general population. The only reason one would ever have to study only a bunch of psych students with a psych survey is that it's fucking easy, you can just force your students to fill out whatever forms you want!
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,671
8,933
I wonder how much of this societal learning view is being held onto because it plays right into the "we just have to teach our boys not to rape" mentality
 

Kirun

Buzzfeed Editor
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
19,113
15,518
I wonder how much of this societal learning view is being held onto because it plays right into the "we just have to teach our boys not to rape" mentality
How to rape is one of the first things my father taught me. In fact, it has been passed down through the generations. Funnily enough, all my male friends were also given these lessons by their fathers. Those who didn't grow up with fathers learned it from the nearest male hobo.
 

othree

Bronze Knight of the Realm
505
1,042
What a bunch of worthless words all bunched together in this thread.

You guys should go kayaking. It'll free your mind from wasting more time on useless endeavors such as which sexual orientation and race combination will garner you the most internet sympathy. Plus, you might get flipped and die from smashing your head on a rock. That would do us all a huge favor.
 

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
No I'm just challenging your assertion that they got experience on computers due to being secretaries. Which is utter bullshit, virtually nobody had a computer on their desk in the 80's much less secretaries. There definitely were more women in computers in the 80's (this is a fact I agree with, I looked it up!) but I don't know why. And I'm not the one making shit up to try to substantiate my position. Like how secretaries got computer experience in the 80's.
Computer science was/(is?) one of those self limiting sorts of jobs. The better you are at your job the less call there is for subsequent work. When you add in the specialized nature of the work (even moreso in the 80's. People forget what life was like before messydos) you've got the situation that contract work was invented for.

The point being that... sure... social factors COULD play a role in the selection. They are hardly the only class of actor in that complex interaction. I genuinely question if they are a real actor at all, or if they are an after the fact rationalization for what happened. I think you can fairly make the point that they are one (f)actor among many and that my initial reservation is just as niave as claiming they are they only, or the over riding, or even the most influential, factor. Just as niave, but less intellectually dishonest.

Maybe this sort of thing can be quantified. It has been and can be in other fields. The study of patterns in disease is extremely intricate and based almost entirely in statistics and mathematical models. The amazing thing is it also incredibly useful and fairly accurate. Sometimes they do swing and miss, but they don't miss often. It is possible to do it.

But the CDC does not self-justify their pet theories, models, and forecasts. They do not claim that something has to be one way and it is true unless it can be disproven -- and then immediately dismiss all contrary evidence as invalid. That's ridiculous. As in worthy of ridicule. That's what most Merlins THINK they do. But what they're actually doing is trying to accomplish something beyond getting next years grant.

It comes down to an epistemological question. And it shouldn't.
 

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,864
23,133
I wonder how much of this societal learning view is being held onto because it plays right into the "we just have to teach our boys not to rape" mentality
Look a hundred pages back, or in the Elliot Rodger thread for my thoughts on this ridiculous assertion.
 

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Mist. What about the second study I linked, that was actually a compendium of research of 22 other studies? Most of the other studies if not all of them pointed to the same thing. A better spatial performance by males over females.
Are those 22 studies also wrong in your book of science?
 

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,864
23,133
Mist. What about the second study I linked, that was actually a compendium of research of 22 other studies? Most of the other studies if not all of them pointed to the same thing. A better spatial performance by males over females.
Are those 22 studies also wrong in your book of science?
Again, adult brains. You'd have to prove that their brains didn't develop that way in part (and I'd say a large part) because of external, socially constructed incentives/rewards for boys to be better at spatial relations.
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,028
47,144
Again, adult brains. You'd have to prove that their brains didn't develop that way in part (and I'd say a large part) because of external, socially constructed incentives/rewards for boys to be better at spatial relations.
What did you have in mind here? Do you think there's some "spatial relations frat house" we all go to in 2nd grade?
 

mkopec

<Gold Donor>
25,823
38,443
My parents beat me silly until I could make my way through the neighborhood all by myself. My sister was the favorite so she didnt get beat as much.

I remember my room was floor to ceiling maps. And I was locked in there for weeks at a time.
 

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Again, adult brains. You'd have to prove that their brains didn't develop that way in part (and I'd say a large part) because of external, socially constructed incentives/rewards for boys to be better at spatial relations.
Why don't you say. "You'll have to prove aliens didn't do it", both have the same effect, which is you finding a reason to reject the theory, without any back up to it.

Now. Do you have any reason to backup you stance?? Anything other that hunches, anything other than your opinion?

Imagine that Tanoomba would have said.

You'd have to prove that their brains didn't develop that way in part (and I'd say a large part) because of alien working magic on the background, that allowed for boys to be better at spatial relations.
The two amount to the same. claims without backup against physical evidence.

You are like the Chapelle skit about Rkelly. "unless you have the grandma verifying it was R Kelly., while holding identification..." Nothing is never enough since u just wave your magic wands of Aliens did it.

Your counterclaim amounts to the same as "how can i prove that God didnt made it happen after the children were born". All three statements lack any evidence behind them, and on a counter claim you have to provide evidence.

If you claim that society model all those 23 studies, then bring some evidence to it, else the only evidence we are left with is biological.

Also what I find hilarious is how you accepted the physical aspect of the claim, how the muscles were different in males vs females, and didn't even bother to say "well adult bodies, children bodies have the same level of strength among the two sexes" as a counterclaim; but as soon as the brain is touched, you revert to "modelling modelling modelling", ignoring that a brain, muscle and other organs can be affected by the same biological channels, independent of society.

In the end it amount to two things.
I'm saying, and the studies, and most people are saying, we think biology is the answer, because is the only thing common among all the variables.

You are saying you are right because u cant be proven wrong, as no one in this day and age is born without a society that molds them.

That is what it boils one to, one of those two statements is not science, and it has the same truth validation, as aliens did it, or God did it, or magical gnomes did it.
 

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Again, adult brains. You'd have to prove that their brains didn't develop that way in part (and I'd say a large part) because of external, socially constructed incentives/rewards for boys to be better at spatial relations.
Once more time for clarity. I don't have to prove your point for you. You have to prove your own point.