3 ms·

> The science is clear, for example, that although the female brain isn’t designed to compartmentalize personal feelings the same way a man’s brain does, a woma

> The science is clear, for example, that although the female brain isn’t designed to compartmentalize personal feelings the same way a man’s brain does, a woman can — if she chooses — force a calm demeanor when she is starting to feel defensive. That's a lie. This statement has nothing to do with science. Can you point in the direction of something that proves or disproves that statement? I've witnessed a lot of anecdotal evidence that women don't do as well at compartmentalization as men. I didn't make much of it until I also read a book that points it out ("Viva La Diferencia" by Pilar Sordo) as one of the differences between typical male and typical female behavior. All in all, it seems that the typical behavioral patterns are different enough between males and females, so I'm interested in evidence both for and against it. Your categorical statement makes it look like you can produce some of that evidence.

Udo 16y ago
> I've witnessed a lot of anecdotal evidence that women don't do as well at compartmentalization as men. I didn't make much of it until I also read a book that points it out ("Viva La Diferencia" by Pilar Sordo) as one of the differences between typical male and typical female behavior. Like I said, that's a _very_ popular opinion and it sells a lot of books. It's also something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. > The science is clear, for example, that although the female brain isn’t designed to compartmentalize personal feelings the same way a man’s brain does You ask me to prove my assertion that this is not based science, and of course I can mostly point to the fact that the supposed science the article is talking about was itself not cited anywhere. So I have to prove a negative, but the article gets a pass with disguising a blanket statement as science just because it resonates better with popular world views? There is no actual biological or medical evidence supporting the article's claims. Pop psychology studies of this matter are hampered by the simple fact that they're unable to distinguish cultural from biological mechanisms. Evolutionary psychology is also considered a pseudoscience because it's based on starting with equating popular assumptions to self-evident truths and then going out to find evidence to support these arbitrary claims, while ignoring everything else.
- CodeMage 16y ago
  > I've witnessed a lot of anecdotal evidence that women don't do as well at compartmentalization as men. I didn't make much of it until I also read a book that points it out ("Viva La Diferencia" by Pilar Sordo) as one of the differences between typical male and typical female behavior. Like I said, that's a _very_ popular opinion and it sells a lot of books. I agree that it's popular. What I'm trying to find out is how much of it is just an opinion and how much is proven. There certainly seems to be a behavioral pattern out there. It's also somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. What do you mean by "somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy"? You ask me to prove my assertion that this is not based science, and of course I can mostly point to the fact that the supposed science the article is talking about was itself not cited anywhere. So I have to prove a negative, but the article gets a pass with disguising a blanket statement as science just because it resonates better with your world view? No, not really. It seems I wasn't clear enough with my question. I wasn't asking you to prove your "assertion that this is not based science". When you said "That is a lie", I saw what seemed to be categorical denial of the claim that men and women have different capacity for compartmentalization and I was intrigued enough by your vehemence to ask you to point me to what made you so sure. The article didn't "get a pass" because it never even entered into my side of discussion at all.
  - Udo 16y ago
    > What I'm trying to find out is how much of it is just an opinion and how much is proven. There is no significant difference in functional brain structure or organization to suggest these differences are hard-wired. In fact, most of the brain is still considered a black box and basic research is still occupied with finding out how the basic building blocks interact. Sadly, that leaves people who's job it is to examine learned behavior with a lot of room to assert biological predisposition in an attempt to make their (often amateurish) statistical findings more substantial. They get away with it, too, mainly because their opinions are so popular, and their popularity growths with the number of studies appearing in mainstream press in support of the majority world view. > There certainly seems to be a behavioral pattern out there. There are many different behavioral patterns out there and what you get to experience depends largely on the country, cultures and subcultures you are embedded in. I'm not denying that behaviors exist, I'm just speaking out against abusing science to falsely attribute underlying biological causes to behavior that is very likely more learned than innate. > What do you mean by "somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy"? I mean the traditional view of gender behavior (which has recently once again become the modern view) is not only imprinting people with a specific bias but also causes humans to behave accordingly. It thus becomes a self-sustaining system, because the more people believe it to be true, the more they behave accordingly, and the more they gather evidence in support of the underlying values. It's a cycle, and confirmation bias does the rest of the work. > When you said "That is a lie", I saw what seemed to be categorical denial of the claim that men and women have different capacity for compartmentalization and I was intrigued enough by your vehemence to ask you to point me to what made you so sure. Ah, OK, I misunderstood you there. The statement made in the article is not supported by hard science, as far as I know. This is what prompted me to claim the implication that gender behavior is rooted in well-documented scientific observations and models is indeed a lie. Of course, there are many behavioral studies carefully designed show ...pretty much anything you could ever want. But that's not the equivalent of hard science. That's statistics with an agenda. Interestingly enough, there was a popular meme in mainstream media about scientific results "wearing off", i.e. becoming less true over time. The results in question used to document this alleged property of the universe were mostly - wait for it - pop psychology studies with agendas behind them. It's telling that these people would rather assume intelligent malice exerted by the universe than admitting their studies were bogus to begin with. These studies are mostly human behavior studies that basically equate popular opinions with universal truths, and then those researchers are shocked, shocked! to find out their results don't hold up over time.

Udo 16y ago

> I've witnessed a lot of anecdotal evidence that women don't do as well at compartmentalization as men. I didn't make much of it until I also read a book that points it out ("Viva La Diferencia" by Pilar Sordo) as one of the differences between typical male and typical female behavior. Like I said, that's a _very_ popular opinion and it sells a lot of books. It's also something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. > The science is clear, for example, that although the female brain isn’t designed to compartmentalize personal feelings the same way a man’s brain does You ask me to prove my assertion that this is not based science, and of course I can mostly point to the fact that the supposed science the article is talking about was itself not cited anywhere. So I have to prove a negative, but the article gets a pass with disguising a blanket statement as science just because it resonates better with popular world views? There is no actual biological or medical evidence supporting the article's claims. Pop psychology studies of this matter are hampered by the simple fact that they're unable to distinguish cultural from biological mechanisms. Evolutionary psychology is also considered a pseudoscience because it's based on starting with equating popular assumptions to self-evident truths and then going out to find evidence to support these arbitrary claims, while ignoring everything else.

CodeMage 16y ago
> I've witnessed a lot of anecdotal evidence that women don't do as well at compartmentalization as men. I didn't make much of it until I also read a book that points it out ("Viva La Diferencia" by Pilar Sordo) as one of the differences between typical male and typical female behavior. Like I said, that's a _very_ popular opinion and it sells a lot of books. I agree that it's popular. What I'm trying to find out is how much of it is just an opinion and how much is proven. There certainly seems to be a behavioral pattern out there. It's also somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. What do you mean by "somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy"? You ask me to prove my assertion that this is not based science, and of course I can mostly point to the fact that the supposed science the article is talking about was itself not cited anywhere. So I have to prove a negative, but the article gets a pass with disguising a blanket statement as science just because it resonates better with your world view? No, not really. It seems I wasn't clear enough with my question. I wasn't asking you to prove your "assertion that this is not based science". When you said "That is a lie", I saw what seemed to be categorical denial of the claim that men and women have different capacity for compartmentalization and I was intrigued enough by your vehemence to ask you to point me to what made you so sure. The article didn't "get a pass" because it never even entered into my side of discussion at all.
- Udo 16y ago
  > What I'm trying to find out is how much of it is just an opinion and how much is proven. There is no significant difference in functional brain structure or organization to suggest these differences are hard-wired. In fact, most of the brain is still considered a black box and basic research is still occupied with finding out how the basic building blocks interact. Sadly, that leaves people who's job it is to examine learned behavior with a lot of room to assert biological predisposition in an attempt to make their (often amateurish) statistical findings more substantial. They get away with it, too, mainly because their opinions are so popular, and their popularity growths with the number of studies appearing in mainstream press in support of the majority world view. > There certainly seems to be a behavioral pattern out there. There are many different behavioral patterns out there and what you get to experience depends largely on the country, cultures and subcultures you are embedded in. I'm not denying that behaviors exist, I'm just speaking out against abusing science to falsely attribute underlying biological causes to behavior that is very likely more learned than innate. > What do you mean by "somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy"? I mean the traditional view of gender behavior (which has recently once again become the modern view) is not only imprinting people with a specific bias but also causes humans to behave accordingly. It thus becomes a self-sustaining system, because the more people believe it to be true, the more they behave accordingly, and the more they gather evidence in support of the underlying values. It's a cycle, and confirmation bias does the rest of the work. > When you said "That is a lie", I saw what seemed to be categorical denial of the claim that men and women have different capacity for compartmentalization and I was intrigued enough by your vehemence to ask you to point me to what made you so sure. Ah, OK, I misunderstood you there. The statement made in the article is not supported by hard science, as far as I know. This is what prompted me to claim the implication that gender behavior is rooted in well-documented scientific observations and models is indeed a lie. Of course, there are many behavioral studies carefully designed show ...pretty much anything you could ever want. But that's not the equivalent of hard science. That's statistics with an agenda. Interestingly enough, there was a popular meme in mainstream media about scientific results "wearing off", i.e. becoming less true over time. The results in question used to document this alleged property of the universe were mostly - wait for it - pop psychology studies with agendas behind them. It's telling that these people would rather assume intelligent malice exerted by the universe than admitting their studies were bogus to begin with. These studies are mostly human behavior studies that basically equate popular opinions with universal truths, and then those researchers are shocked, shocked! to find out their results don't hold up over time.