4 ms·

The effect size -- even if I let you cherry pick citations (in a field experiencing a reproducibility crisis, no less) -- is several orders of magnitude smaller

The effect size -- even if I let you cherry pick citations (in a field experiencing a reproducibility crisis, no less) -- is several orders of magnitude smaller than the parent poster asserts (1000x). According to your own sources it's an effect that is literally closer to "women are bad at math" than "men are taller than women". Literally. The comparison of effect sizes for those three things is right there on the first page. And for a proxy that your own source chose. Again, parent asserted 1000x. 1000x. And you post an article with an effect size that's absolute garbage data in any field outside of psychology and assert "Science!". To defend a post claiming 1000x. Or, in your words: stop arguing in bad faith, troll ;-)

scarmig 5y ago
> According to your own sources it's an effect that is literally closer to "women are bad at math" than "men are taller than women". Just so people can see this: In a review of 177 studies, Oliver and Hyde (1993) found large male-female differences in the incidence of masturbation. In technical terms, the meta-analytic effect size for masturbation was 0.96, which is smaller than the physical sex difference in height (2.00) but larger than most psychological sex differences, such as the performance difference on standardized math tests (0.20). These and many other empirical findings provide evidence for men's greater sexual interest. Now, the fact that you try to portray this review article as also arguing that "women are bad at math" is itself indicative of how much good faith you're engaging in. But it speaks for itself, and it's pretty lame for you to try to imply that people saying that women have lower sex drives than men are sexist. And, yes, masturbation frequency is itself just a proxy. It's also just one of dozens of different proxies that'd suggest the same thing, contrary to your implication that it's the only thing the paper reviews. Can you name a single proxy for lust that would suggest that women have equivalent lust as men? Actually, can you cite a single paper suggesting that, instead of proposing weird unsupported hypotheticals like "lesbians cuddle more than gay men because gay men are amoral horndogs"? As far as I can tell, this is all just the left-wing version of "ivermectin!!1!"

scarmig 5y ago

> According to your own sources it's an effect that is literally closer to "women are bad at math" than "men are taller than women". Just so people can see this: In a review of 177 studies, Oliver and Hyde (1993) found large male-female differences in the incidence of masturbation. In technical terms, the meta-analytic effect size for masturbation was 0.96, which is smaller than the physical sex difference in height (2.00) but larger than most psychological sex differences, such as the performance difference on standardized math tests (0.20). These and many other empirical findings provide evidence for men's greater sexual interest. Now, the fact that you try to portray this review article as also arguing that "women are bad at math" is itself indicative of how much good faith you're engaging in. But it speaks for itself, and it's pretty lame for you to try to imply that people saying that women have lower sex drives than men are sexist. And, yes, masturbation frequency is itself just a proxy. It's also just one of dozens of different proxies that'd suggest the same thing, contrary to your implication that it's the only thing the paper reviews. Can you name a single proxy for lust that would suggest that women have equivalent lust as men? Actually, can you cite a single paper suggesting that, instead of proposing weird unsupported hypotheticals like "lesbians cuddle more than gay men because gay men are amoral horndogs"? As far as I can tell, this is all just the left-wing version of "ivermectin!!1!"