3 ms·

we're not discussing the motives of gender studies researchers. Have you considered the possibility that those researchers have the same motivation as the "fr

by mafribe 11y ago

we're not discussing the motives of gender studies researchers. Have you considered the possibility that those researchers have the same motivation as the "friends"? You brought up gender studies researchers by referencing material of questionable scientific credibility. As to you "doing a lot of work on exactly that subject", what are the results? Why do you, like a lot of men, automatically genuflect to damsels, going on about their distress?

richmarr 11y ago
> Have you considered the possibility that those researchers have the same motivation as the "friends"? You seem to be implying that a significant portion of discrimination is (by fair means or foul) invented, on the basis that women have a motive to do so. By that same logic, a significant portion of men would therefore refute and deny any genuine stories of discrimination, as they have a motive to do so. The best way to unpick this stuff is with actual data, and there's plenty of data (from labs, randomised controlled trials, and other types of study) that says discrimination is still occurring at a systematic level. > You brought up gender studies researchers by referencing material of questionable scientific credibility. Feel free to offer some thoughtful analysis of the actual papers mentioned. > As to you "doing a lot of work on exactly that subject", what are the results? To be published when ready. > Why do you, like a lot of men, automatically genuflect to damsels, going on about their distress? That would be empathy, Bob.
- mafribe 11y ago
  You seem to be implying ... Yes. A significant portion of discrimination is invented, on the basis that women have a motive to do so. Do you agree or disagree? By that same logic ... First, that's an orthogonal issue, why bring it up? Secondly, it's false, because there are no corresponding incentives. there's plenty of data Most of this data has been collected by people with massive and unresolved confirmation bias. Feel free to offer some thoughtful analysis of the actual papers mentioned. Would it be worth my time? Can you give me any reason to believe that this isn't standard issue gender studies material, with methodology so bad that Trofim Lysenko looks like a shining beacon of scientific probity in comparison? I have read enough of those. How, to raise but one point, do these papers deal with confirmation bias?

by mafribe 11y ago

richmarr 11y ago

> Have you considered the possibility that those researchers have the same motivation as the "friends"? You seem to be implying that a significant portion of discrimination is (by fair means or foul) invented, on the basis that women have a motive to do so. By that same logic, a significant portion of men would therefore refute and deny any genuine stories of discrimination, as they have a motive to do so. The best way to unpick this stuff is with actual data, and there's plenty of data (from labs, randomised controlled trials, and other types of study) that says discrimination is still occurring at a systematic level. > You brought up gender studies researchers by referencing material of questionable scientific credibility. Feel free to offer some thoughtful analysis of the actual papers mentioned. > As to you "doing a lot of work on exactly that subject", what are the results? To be published when ready. > Why do you, like a lot of men, automatically genuflect to damsels, going on about their distress? That would be empathy, Bob.

mafribe 11y ago
You seem to be implying ... Yes. A significant portion of discrimination is invented, on the basis that women have a motive to do so. Do you agree or disagree? By that same logic ... First, that's an orthogonal issue, why bring it up? Secondly, it's false, because there are no corresponding incentives. there's plenty of data Most of this data has been collected by people with massive and unresolved confirmation bias. Feel free to offer some thoughtful analysis of the actual papers mentioned. Would it be worth my time? Can you give me any reason to believe that this isn't standard issue gender studies material, with methodology so bad that Trofim Lysenko looks like a shining beacon of scientific probity in comparison? I have read enough of those. How, to raise but one point, do these papers deal with confirmation bias?