7 ms·

Your comment is sexist and pseudoscientific.

by nilved 12y ago

seunosewa 12y ago
Is it incorrect, though?
- acornax 12y ago
  Yes.
  - quantized 12y ago
    No.
- nilved 12y ago
  Yep.
  - ShirtlessRod 12y ago
    Solid argument, especially after throwing around insults instead of discussing (or refuting) the points brought up in the original comment.
jeffreyrogers 12y ago
It's neither sexist nor pseudoscientific, but rather well supported by evidence. Just because you wish a fact weren't so doesn't make it any less true.
- sanderjd 12y ago
  Citation needed. It does not mesh with my experience of life. Though it does seem that boys are socially pressured to act as if it were true, which can make it look from the outside as if it is.
  - jeffreyrogers 12y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psych... This is not a controversial area of psychology. The burden of proof is on anyone making claims to the contrary (like the person I was replying to).
    - Dewie 12y ago
      What are you saying? That there are differences between the sexes, psychologically? That's not what was taken issue with, here. That was the specific proposed difference of men being simpler/more straightforward in some psychological sense. If you meant to refer to the latter, then linking a whole Wikipedia article on psychological sexual differences seems a bit unspecific.
      - jeffreyrogers 12y ago
        I'm saying that claiming different sexes interact with the world differently and have different strengths and weaknesses does not make you a sexist. I also claim that there is strong evidence to support this assertion and that the vast majority of psychologists and biologists (and virtually every respected one) believe there are innate psychological differences between the sexes not explained through environment alone. The entire field of evolutionary psychology is based on this idea.
        sanderjd 12y ago
        You seem to be arguing against something that nobody debated. What we are debating is the specific claim that "guys are less subtle" and "wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things" and that "the male power dynamic is powerful/weak", while "girls sweat the details". My experience is not that the sexes interact with world identically, but that those specific sorts of claims are hackneyed stereotypes and that in reality both men and women are individuals with the full range of complexity that implies. Furthermore, I think it sucks that largely because of the commonality of those sorts of stereotypes that it can be difficult for both boys and girls to behave differently than they are "supposed to".
- cyorir 12y ago
  There has been a lot of study into sexual dimorphisms. Check wikipedia for a primer[0]. Or grab yourself a basic neuroscience textbook[1]. That being said, the poster above stated, "Guys are less subtle -- we're wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things. The male power dynamic is powerful/weak. Girls sweat the details." These are very vague statements which do not relate to specific cognitive tasks, so no research can tell you about whether or not "Girls sweat the details." Unless a statement like this is restated, it is not testable, and therefore is not supported by current evidence. If something like "Males performed differently on average at a spatial task A, or a cognitive task B," then maybe you could find some scientific literature. At the very least, unqualified and vague statements like that posted only serve to confuse, and may be considered potentially sexist. [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psycho... [1] http://www.openisbn.com/isbn/9780878936977/ http://www.openisbn.com/isbn/9780878936977/
  - jeffreyrogers 12y ago
    Thanks for posting links to research. I agree that the poster you refer to could have been more clear in his/her thought, but my general point was that merely discussing sex differences shouldn't be grounds to accuse people of sexism. Regardless of whether you're happy about it or not sex differences exist and on average different genders are better at different tasks. This is pretty solid psychology and no reputable psychologist would disagree with this. What it doesn't mean is that every woman is better than every man in certain areas or vice-versa, but it does mean there are patterns of behavior more common in women than in men, etc.
    - lukeschlather 12y ago
      Sex and gender are two different things, and no reputable psychologist would agree with a statement that blithely conflates them. The arguments you're making perpetuate structural oppression of women. One might as well talk about how race differences exist and on average different ethnicities are better at different tasks. (That is to say, I find the language you're using morally repugnant.)
Spooky23 12y ago
I'm offering an observation & opinion on a topic of controversy. I'm not a social scientist, and didn't offer this perspective under the guise of scientific authority. I also didn't label or judge anyone -- disagreement with your perspective isn't sexist. This isn't an unusual observation. I'd offer to you: http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/toy-guns-do-they-lead-real-life-violence http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/toy-guns-do-th... I don't know why, but girls and boys tend to gravitate towards different types of play. And they do so very young. That's just a fact.
- nilved 12y ago
  > I also didn't label or judge anyone -- disagreement with your perspective isn't sexist. > "Guys are less subtle -- we're wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things." > "Girls sweat the details." Upon re-reading, you might notice that you did, in fact, both label and judge. > I don't know why, but girls and boys tend to gravitate towards different types of play. And they do so very young. That's just a fact. That fact is a very controversial _opinion_ that is on the way out of mainstream thought. Certainly, it isn't a fact in the "tested and proven" sense of the word.
  - fleshweasel 12y ago
    I am amazed by the degree of vitriol that comes out when people observe that there are differing tendencies between boys and girls. I am amazed by the tendency of social scientists to ascribe everything about that to social construction. Observations like these do not mean that a particular human being will be a certain way. They do not mean that one group is better or worse than another.
    - QuantumChaos 12y ago
      I think the vitriol arises from the stranglehold progressives have on the use of "science" in public discourse. The only allow "science" to be used is used to demonstrate that women are in some sense more oppressed or less fortunate than men, or that women are more capable or good than men. There is a double standard when it comes to evidence and argumentation. In one direction, it is ok to use "science" and even "biology". In the other, it is only ok to use sociology or feminist theory.
omegaham 12y ago
I'll confirm his opinion anecdotally. I don't think that there's any science on the subject; despite its importance in adult development, it seems that few people actively study the interactions of teenagers. When I was going through school, people grouped themselves according to activity. The football players all hung out together; so did the baseball players, D&D players, drama kids, band kids, etc. Kids were affiliated with multiple groups according to interest; a kid could be, for example, a football player, a baseball player, a member of the chess club, and an academic decathlete, and his network of friends reflected that. This was independent of being male or female; girls did the exact same thing with their sports, clubs, and activities. The difference was how hierarchy was determined. With boys, it was either not really thought about, (who is the leader of an electronics hobby group?) or leadership was determined by a default position (football quarterback, team captains, etc). There was relatively little struggle going on. In contrast, with girls, there was always infighting because there was no default leader and there was a perceived need for one. With no default leader, girls were constantly jostling each other to get a leg up on the competition. It led to the insane results of, "I'm friends with Sharon, but I fucking hate her" and "Oh, we're best friends now, but if I get the chance to ditch you for another group of better-connected friends, you're gone." Both mindsets were pretty retarded - the guys' mindset often had bad results because of the fact that a great quarterback might be an idiot,[1] and the hierarchy reflects that because all of the high-ranking people are now his dumbshit friends. But it just seems to me like the girls' mindset could never get good results, whereas the boys' mindset could succeed by accident if the stars aligned and made a nice, smart kid really good at throwing a prolate spheroid. In both cases, the proper thing to tell kids seems to be Paul Graham's advice of "Look around. The world you guys have created is dumb as hell and fake as a Twinkie. You won't be dealing with this idiocy once you have something real to work on. And if you do, you can do better and find a place where people aren't playing high-school games." [1]http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a5/6b/57/a56b576006067000346eaf3f97048640.jpg http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a5/6b/57/a56b57600606...
xerophtye 12y ago
Identifying different behavior in genders doesn't exactly make him sexist. Not in the bad sense anyway. Personally i think the notion that both genders behave identically (on average) is flawed.

Your comment is sexist and pseudoscientific.

by nilved 12y ago

Your comment is sexist and pseudoscientific.

seunosewa 12y ago

Is it incorrect, though?

acornax 12y ago
Yes.
- quantized 12y ago
  No.
nilved 12y ago
Yep.
- ShirtlessRod 12y ago
  Solid argument, especially after throwing around insults instead of discussing (or refuting) the points brought up in the original comment.

jeffreyrogers 12y ago

It's neither sexist nor pseudoscientific, but rather well supported by evidence. Just because you wish a fact weren't so doesn't make it any less true.

sanderjd 12y ago
Citation needed. It does not mesh with my experience of life. Though it does seem that boys are socially pressured to act as if it were true, which can make it look from the outside as if it is.
- jeffreyrogers 12y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psych... This is not a controversial area of psychology. The burden of proof is on anyone making claims to the contrary (like the person I was replying to).
  - Dewie 12y ago
    What are you saying? That there are differences between the sexes, psychologically? That's not what was taken issue with, here. That was the specific proposed difference of men being simpler/more straightforward in some psychological sense. If you meant to refer to the latter, then linking a whole Wikipedia article on psychological sexual differences seems a bit unspecific.
    - jeffreyrogers 12y ago
      I'm saying that claiming different sexes interact with the world differently and have different strengths and weaknesses does not make you a sexist. I also claim that there is strong evidence to support this assertion and that the vast majority of psychologists and biologists (and virtually every respected one) believe there are innate psychological differences between the sexes not explained through environment alone. The entire field of evolutionary psychology is based on this idea.
      - sanderjd 12y ago
        You seem to be arguing against something that nobody debated. What we are debating is the specific claim that "guys are less subtle" and "wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things" and that "the male power dynamic is powerful/weak", while "girls sweat the details". My experience is not that the sexes interact with world identically, but that those specific sorts of claims are hackneyed stereotypes and that in reality both men and women are individuals with the full range of complexity that implies. Furthermore, I think it sucks that largely because of the commonality of those sorts of stereotypes that it can be difficult for both boys and girls to behave differently than they are "supposed to".
cyorir 12y ago
There has been a lot of study into sexual dimorphisms. Check wikipedia for a primer[0]. Or grab yourself a basic neuroscience textbook[1]. That being said, the poster above stated, "Guys are less subtle -- we're wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things. The male power dynamic is powerful/weak. Girls sweat the details." These are very vague statements which do not relate to specific cognitive tasks, so no research can tell you about whether or not "Girls sweat the details." Unless a statement like this is restated, it is not testable, and therefore is not supported by current evidence. If something like "Males performed differently on average at a spatial task A, or a cognitive task B," then maybe you could find some scientific literature. At the very least, unqualified and vague statements like that posted only serve to confuse, and may be considered potentially sexist. [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psycho... [1] http://www.openisbn.com/isbn/9780878936977/ http://www.openisbn.com/isbn/9780878936977/
- jeffreyrogers 12y ago
  Thanks for posting links to research. I agree that the poster you refer to could have been more clear in his/her thought, but my general point was that merely discussing sex differences shouldn't be grounds to accuse people of sexism. Regardless of whether you're happy about it or not sex differences exist and on average different genders are better at different tasks. This is pretty solid psychology and no reputable psychologist would disagree with this. What it doesn't mean is that every woman is better than every man in certain areas or vice-versa, but it does mean there are patterns of behavior more common in women than in men, etc.
  - lukeschlather 12y ago
    Sex and gender are two different things, and no reputable psychologist would agree with a statement that blithely conflates them. The arguments you're making perpetuate structural oppression of women. One might as well talk about how race differences exist and on average different ethnicities are better at different tasks. (That is to say, I find the language you're using morally repugnant.)

Spooky23 12y ago

I'm offering an observation & opinion on a topic of controversy. I'm not a social scientist, and didn't offer this perspective under the guise of scientific authority. I also didn't label or judge anyone -- disagreement with your perspective isn't sexist. This isn't an unusual observation. I'd offer to you: http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/toy-guns-do-they-lead-real-life-violence http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/toy-guns-do-th... I don't know why, but girls and boys tend to gravitate towards different types of play. And they do so very young. That's just a fact.

nilved 12y ago
> I also didn't label or judge anyone -- disagreement with your perspective isn't sexist. > "Guys are less subtle -- we're wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things." > "Girls sweat the details." Upon re-reading, you might notice that you did, in fact, both label and judge. > I don't know why, but girls and boys tend to gravitate towards different types of play. And they do so very young. That's just a fact. That fact is a very controversial _opinion_ that is on the way out of mainstream thought. Certainly, it isn't a fact in the "tested and proven" sense of the word.
- fleshweasel 12y ago
  I am amazed by the degree of vitriol that comes out when people observe that there are differing tendencies between boys and girls. I am amazed by the tendency of social scientists to ascribe everything about that to social construction. Observations like these do not mean that a particular human being will be a certain way. They do not mean that one group is better or worse than another.
  - QuantumChaos 12y ago
    I think the vitriol arises from the stranglehold progressives have on the use of "science" in public discourse. The only allow "science" to be used is used to demonstrate that women are in some sense more oppressed or less fortunate than men, or that women are more capable or good than men. There is a double standard when it comes to evidence and argumentation. In one direction, it is ok to use "science" and even "biology". In the other, it is only ok to use sociology or feminist theory.

omegaham 12y ago

I'll confirm his opinion anecdotally. I don't think that there's any science on the subject; despite its importance in adult development, it seems that few people actively study the interactions of teenagers. When I was going through school, people grouped themselves according to activity. The football players all hung out together; so did the baseball players, D&D players, drama kids, band kids, etc. Kids were affiliated with multiple groups according to interest; a kid could be, for example, a football player, a baseball player, a member of the chess club, and an academic decathlete, and his network of friends reflected that. This was independent of being male or female; girls did the exact same thing with their sports, clubs, and activities. The difference was how hierarchy was determined. With boys, it was either not really thought about, (who is the leader of an electronics hobby group?) or leadership was determined by a default position (football quarterback, team captains, etc). There was relatively little struggle going on. In contrast, with girls, there was always infighting because there was no default leader and there was a perceived need for one. With no default leader, girls were constantly jostling each other to get a leg up on the competition. It led to the insane results of, "I'm friends with Sharon, but I fucking hate her" and "Oh, we're best friends now, but if I get the chance to ditch you for another group of better-connected friends, you're gone." Both mindsets were pretty retarded - the guys' mindset often had bad results because of the fact that a great quarterback might be an idiot,[1] and the hierarchy reflects that because all of the high-ranking people are now his dumbshit friends. But it just seems to me like the girls' mindset could never get good results, whereas the boys' mindset could succeed by accident if the stars aligned and made a nice, smart kid really good at throwing a prolate spheroid. In both cases, the proper thing to tell kids seems to be Paul Graham's advice of "Look around. The world you guys have created is dumb as hell and fake as a Twinkie. You won't be dealing with this idiocy once you have something real to work on. And if you do, you can do better and find a place where people aren't playing high-school games." [1]http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a5/6b/57/a56b576006067000346eaf3f97048640.jpg http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a5/6b/57/a56b57600606...

xerophtye 12y ago

Identifying different behavior in genders doesn't exactly make him sexist. Not in the bad sense anyway. Personally i think the notion that both genders behave identically (on average) is flawed.