4 ms·

They are measuring the differences between male and female responses to questionnaires. I don't get why this is so hard to understand, or worse heartbreaking to

by tinco 7y ago

They are measuring the differences between male and female responses to questionnaires. I don't get why this is so hard to understand, or worse heartbreaking to you. Who cares what agreable means, it's just some concept that they've got correlated questions to. It's just proper science, no one was hurt, why get emotional about it? Everybody has the intuition that there's general difference between the psychology in men and women. They developed a methodology that shows and quantifies that phenomenon. That's good and proper science. That the content is not well doesn't dimish its value. When Volt measured electric charge but didn't get what was happening and even got the direction of charge wrong, that might have been heartbreaking, but it also was world changing that he definitely should not have just not done. Even if he made matters a little bit worse. Edit: woops, was Franklin, not Volt

webkike 7y ago
If this is proper science, what’s the hypothesis?
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Pretty outdated concept of science you try to club with there, it's perfectly possible to do exploratory studies you know. In any case, how about this hypothesis: there exists no systematic sex differences in replies to standardised p-type questionaries?
  - webkike 7y ago
    Outdated? They taught me that shit in elementary school 12 years ago You can explore all you want; but how is it useful. “Science” as we describe it nominally is predicated on usefulness. This doesn’t help anyone. The fact that we are arguing means that this study was worse than useless
    - tinco 7y ago
      It is not useless. Besides the point that the whole idea of science is that all of it is or could be useful in some way. This research establishes a platform on which you could build more specific research on that might be helpful in determining whether something is a personality trait, a sexual trait, or some kind of disorder. Or if you want to go even more specific, maybe research like this could be used to convince governments that deny transsexuality that it in fact is possible to scientifically show that a person aligns more with a different sex, which might give them access to subsidy or insurance for surgery. Some people might be helped just because the science acknowledges the reality of their feelings. In any case, your anti intellectual disposition is shameful.

by tinco 7y ago

webkike 7y ago

If this is proper science, what’s the hypothesis?

SiempreViernes 7y ago
Pretty outdated concept of science you try to club with there, it's perfectly possible to do exploratory studies you know. In any case, how about this hypothesis: there exists no systematic sex differences in replies to standardised p-type questionaries?
- webkike 7y ago
  Outdated? They taught me that shit in elementary school 12 years ago You can explore all you want; but how is it useful. “Science” as we describe it nominally is predicated on usefulness. This doesn’t help anyone. The fact that we are arguing means that this study was worse than useless
  - tinco 7y ago
    It is not useless. Besides the point that the whole idea of science is that all of it is or could be useful in some way. This research establishes a platform on which you could build more specific research on that might be helpful in determining whether something is a personality trait, a sexual trait, or some kind of disorder. Or if you want to go even more specific, maybe research like this could be used to convince governments that deny transsexuality that it in fact is possible to scientifically show that a person aligns more with a different sex, which might give them access to subsidy or insurance for surgery. Some people might be helped just because the science acknowledges the reality of their feelings. In any case, your anti intellectual disposition is shameful.