4 ms·

Yepp, that blog link you posted, from whoever this Jorge Laborda may be, is just 3 paragraphs recapping snippets from that book, it's right in the first line: "

Yepp, that blog link you posted, from whoever this Jorge Laborda may be, is just 3 paragraphs recapping snippets from that book, it's right in the first line: "Why Men Don't Listen & Women Can't Read Maps", by Allan Pease. Since you like to appeal the authority of Some Dude, let me give it to you straight from the "About the Author" section from goodreads.com[1] of your sources. Are you ready? > Allan Pease is an Australian author and motivational speaker. Despite having no education in psychology, neuroscience, or psychiatry, he has managed to establish himself as an "expert on relationships". Originally a musician, he became a successful life insurance salesman, he started a career as a speaker and trainer in sales and latterly in body language. This resulted in a popular sideline of audio tapes, many of which feature his irreverent wit. Hahahahahaha, I literally couldn't make this shit up. Good luck out there, buddy! [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/873930 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/873930

anthk 6mo ago
If you think different sets of hormones do not condition tons of behaviours you are deluded, buddy. It affects me as a man, too, be highly educated or not. As I said, one of my favourite recreational Math authors (like Conway or Gardner) it's a woman, and her favourite Math branch it's discrete Math. Now, please, understand that she was pefectly able to understand the rest, as Mathematician men are able to the same with subjects they don't like much, too. PD: women on average have a more developed language area than men. They can process and send more complex information like men on a single sentence from subtones in every word. If men use more 'complex' language than women on average it's because women already told everything implicitly with every subtone in words driving subtle but different messages women are able to understand but men do not. So, most of what men do it's to add syntactic sugar while women have a much superior context aware syntax.
- the_gipsy 6mo ago
  YOU are delusional, amigo. I literally give you a link that points out that what you're basing your beliefs on, is from some motivational speaker, pop-science, borderline con-artist author. And you reply with... more anecdotes. Do you not see the irony? Are you incapable of reflecting on this? There are of course some statistical biological (hormonal, physiological, whatever) differences between women and men. But there are also statistical biological differences between... men! And we are not grouping men like this, except in caste systems or believers in racism. So why should we do this for women? Because it's extremely convenient for people like you, to have women classified as child-rearers and general house servants, and then retroactively explain that this is "natural" with anecdata and pseudoscience, and never having to make any real attempt at gender equality. No hay más ciego que el que no quiere ver...
  - anthk 6mo ago
    >No hay más ciego... Le dijo la sarten al cazo. Yes, there are differences, and this is not pseudoscience. Nor hints about castes about races. https://www.uoc.edu/en/news/2023/286-gender-differences-in-visuospatial-abilities https://www.uoc.edu/en/news/2023/286-gender-differences-in-v... >why should we do this for women? Should we ban men from poetry/arts too? That would be dumb. In my case, Discrete Math and combinatorics where hell compared to other Math branches. Yet I could approach them from overlapping subjects. Women do the same, they applied different strategies and then they bound them together. This requieres effort for both genders? OFC, but that's the 'winning' strategy; the most different skills you gather, the better. Men prefer measure and rotate and women use nodes and graphs? How about using both by definning a lattice and placing easy nodes as helping points making orientation a breeze for both genders? Also, if you negate any difference, how come men and women tend to lose different brain sections upon dementia/Alzheimer?
    - the_gipsy 6mo ago
      > Should we ban men from poetry/arts too? That would be dumb. Exactly, so please stop with the "women are better at [whatever task you don't want to deal with]" stereotypes. It's all pseudoscience, trying to find some "natural" or biological basis for oppressing people, just like racism.
      - anthk 6mo ago
        No, is not pseudoscience, it's called 'hormones'. Your discourse it's a bit antropocentric. We aren't special for the Physics in the universe, nor we have free will. Again, I don't care about either left or right wing beliefs. Hormones' influence it's pretty real. In order to avoid oppresions, we have the law systems, thank you.
        the_gipsy 6mo ago
        It's not enough!
- gosub100 6mo ago
  You can't talk about nature, as that contradicts "The Message"
  - anthk 6mo ago
    People doesn't seem to understand the concept of overlapping Bell curves. I'm a geeky guy, but I love good jokes and rimericks, and good mystery novels too. The left loves to focus on extremes and tries to cancel the whole graph, as it happened with the post from Google on women and men in STEM. The right would love to snip any edge (artsy men, even if they are nerdy/geeky), or technical women -there are several, even in rural places where often men died young, far earlier than women and thus they had to learn several skills in order to survive. Heck, with Bulma from Dragon Ball and Scully from The X-Files there are tons of them, more than the mentioned Bell curve's edges. And yet here we are. Both the extreme left and extreme right hate Science, because it makes most of their arguments a total bullshit. Said this: - quotas on race, gender or sexuality are bullshit. Are you poor and/or disabled? Ok, set quotas for these, as they are in actual danger. - It will never a 50/50 parity of men/women in STEM by design. Maybe in 50000 years, but for that you would need to have proper parental leaves and throw the 40h week to the trash. Since the 80's the productivy skyrocketed and by just working 20h/week (even by employing 1.5x more people) the producitivy would be equal if not superior, because of the lack of burnouts. Also, the economy would rise a lot too, as people would have more time to go outside and do the chores. Healthcare costs would plummet down too as stress and mental related illnesses would go near 0.

anthk 6mo ago

If you think different sets of hormones do not condition tons of behaviours you are deluded, buddy. It affects me as a man, too, be highly educated or not. As I said, one of my favourite recreational Math authors (like Conway or Gardner) it's a woman, and her favourite Math branch it's discrete Math. Now, please, understand that she was pefectly able to understand the rest, as Mathematician men are able to the same with subjects they don't like much, too. PD: women on average have a more developed language area than men. They can process and send more complex information like men on a single sentence from subtones in every word. If men use more 'complex' language than women on average it's because women already told everything implicitly with every subtone in words driving subtle but different messages women are able to understand but men do not. So, most of what men do it's to add syntactic sugar while women have a much superior context aware syntax.

the_gipsy 6mo ago
YOU are delusional, amigo. I literally give you a link that points out that what you're basing your beliefs on, is from some motivational speaker, pop-science, borderline con-artist author. And you reply with... more anecdotes. Do you not see the irony? Are you incapable of reflecting on this? There are of course some statistical biological (hormonal, physiological, whatever) differences between women and men. But there are also statistical biological differences between... men! And we are not grouping men like this, except in caste systems or believers in racism. So why should we do this for women? Because it's extremely convenient for people like you, to have women classified as child-rearers and general house servants, and then retroactively explain that this is "natural" with anecdata and pseudoscience, and never having to make any real attempt at gender equality. No hay más ciego que el que no quiere ver...
- anthk 6mo ago
  >No hay más ciego... Le dijo la sarten al cazo. Yes, there are differences, and this is not pseudoscience. Nor hints about castes about races. https://www.uoc.edu/en/news/2023/286-gender-differences-in-visuospatial-abilities https://www.uoc.edu/en/news/2023/286-gender-differences-in-v... >why should we do this for women? Should we ban men from poetry/arts too? That would be dumb. In my case, Discrete Math and combinatorics where hell compared to other Math branches. Yet I could approach them from overlapping subjects. Women do the same, they applied different strategies and then they bound them together. This requieres effort for both genders? OFC, but that's the 'winning' strategy; the most different skills you gather, the better. Men prefer measure and rotate and women use nodes and graphs? How about using both by definning a lattice and placing easy nodes as helping points making orientation a breeze for both genders? Also, if you negate any difference, how come men and women tend to lose different brain sections upon dementia/Alzheimer?
  - the_gipsy 6mo ago
    > Should we ban men from poetry/arts too? That would be dumb. Exactly, so please stop with the "women are better at [whatever task you don't want to deal with]" stereotypes. It's all pseudoscience, trying to find some "natural" or biological basis for oppressing people, just like racism.
    - anthk 6mo ago
      No, is not pseudoscience, it's called 'hormones'. Your discourse it's a bit antropocentric. We aren't special for the Physics in the universe, nor we have free will. Again, I don't care about either left or right wing beliefs. Hormones' influence it's pretty real. In order to avoid oppresions, we have the law systems, thank you.
      - the_gipsy 6mo ago
        It's not enough!
gosub100 6mo ago
You can't talk about nature, as that contradicts "The Message"
- anthk 6mo ago
  People doesn't seem to understand the concept of overlapping Bell curves. I'm a geeky guy, but I love good jokes and rimericks, and good mystery novels too. The left loves to focus on extremes and tries to cancel the whole graph, as it happened with the post from Google on women and men in STEM. The right would love to snip any edge (artsy men, even if they are nerdy/geeky), or technical women -there are several, even in rural places where often men died young, far earlier than women and thus they had to learn several skills in order to survive. Heck, with Bulma from Dragon Ball and Scully from The X-Files there are tons of them, more than the mentioned Bell curve's edges. And yet here we are. Both the extreme left and extreme right hate Science, because it makes most of their arguments a total bullshit. Said this: - quotas on race, gender or sexuality are bullshit. Are you poor and/or disabled? Ok, set quotas for these, as they are in actual danger. - It will never a 50/50 parity of men/women in STEM by design. Maybe in 50000 years, but for that you would need to have proper parental leaves and throw the 40h week to the trash. Since the 80's the productivy skyrocketed and by just working 20h/week (even by employing 1.5x more people) the producitivy would be equal if not superior, because of the lack of burnouts. Also, the economy would rise a lot too, as people would have more time to go outside and do the chores. Healthcare costs would plummet down too as stress and mental related illnesses would go near 0.