2 ms·

> We are talking here about knowledge - men and women are different mentally, this isn't something unknown, or something requiring a study. The whole point of

> We are talking here about knowledge - men and women are different mentally, this isn't something unknown, or something requiring a study. The whole point of science is to double-check this sort of thing, the stuff "everyone knows" that seems obvious to casual observation, like that the earth is flat. Plus you're simply asserting and re-asserting that this is capital-K Knowledge, without providing any reasons, just banging the podium. That's not very convincing. This is anti-intellectualism. > Given that there are obvious mental differences, and that most people don't believe in duality, that would imply there have to be neurological differences, if your study didn't find them, your study is faulty. Either that, or it's evidence for dualism. Or maybe the differences are very social and contextual — men and women's brains largely operate the same way and are structured the same, but give different outputs because they're given different inputs — and the impacts of those social and contextual inputs are simply too fine-grained to show up.

ars 2y ago
If you make a study that finds that plants don't need water to grow your study is wrong. It's like that here, this isn't one of those things that needs extra evidence or debate. > This is anti-intellectualism. And what epithet would you give to those who pretend there is no difference? > Or maybe the differences are very social and contextual This is certainly an interesting idea (and one I've heard before). But you have to prove it. You can't just declare "I found no differences, therefor it must be a social difference". The standard of evidence to declare this is very high, it requires actual proof not just a well reasoned argument. And you will have to somehow explain all the evidence against this - for example in nordic countries they found that if they give the household enough money the wife prefers to stop working, and stay home. This went against their idea that men and women should be paid the same, and supported identically, because then women will want to work. Instead they found women actually preferred to be home, and they only wanted to work if they had to (i.e. not enough money). Men however had the opposite result. So their goal of equal employment would require them to reduce support. I'm not sure what the government chose to do. > are simply too fine-grained to show up. Then your study is faulty and you should declare "invalid study", not "valid study we found nothing".

ars 2y ago

If you make a study that finds that plants don't need water to grow your study is wrong. It's like that here, this isn't one of those things that needs extra evidence or debate. > This is anti-intellectualism. And what epithet would you give to those who pretend there is no difference? > Or maybe the differences are very social and contextual This is certainly an interesting idea (and one I've heard before). But you have to prove it. You can't just declare "I found no differences, therefor it must be a social difference". The standard of evidence to declare this is very high, it requires actual proof not just a well reasoned argument. And you will have to somehow explain all the evidence against this - for example in nordic countries they found that if they give the household enough money the wife prefers to stop working, and stay home. This went against their idea that men and women should be paid the same, and supported identically, because then women will want to work. Instead they found women actually preferred to be home, and they only wanted to work if they had to (i.e. not enough money). Men however had the opposite result. So their goal of equal employment would require them to reduce support. I'm not sure what the government chose to do. > are simply too fine-grained to show up. Then your study is faulty and you should declare "invalid study", not "valid study we found nothing".