5 ms·

>Second, men are conditioned to be more competitive towards women than men. In studies on boys and girls in gym class, boys try harder in competitive foot races

>Second, men are conditioned to be more competitive towards women than men. In studies on boys and girls in gym class, boys try harder in competitive foot races against girls versus their male peers [ 10 ]. The study this observation is derived from only talks about competitions of physical ability.

gress 12y ago
Given this study, do you think it is more reasonable a) to think this competition extends to other spheres, or b) to think that it does not. If your answer is b), what evidence do you have to support this?
- dikaiosune 12y ago
  If your answer is a), what evidence do you have to support this? A claim requires evidence, skepticism is just asking for evidence to support a claim. B is just skepticism when you paraphrase it fairly.
  - gress 12y ago
    Sorry, B is not skepticism. B is another claim. It is the claim that men do not compete more strongly with women than with men in domains outside of physical activity. Unless you have evidence to support this claim, we should be skeptical of it, especially in light of A.
    - dikaiosune 12y ago
      It's a claim only in the sense that any skepticism is a claim (which, sure, is true in a narrow semantic sense). Skepticism is disbelieving an assertion due to lack of evidence. All B is saying is that there's no evidence provided that trends in physical competition can be used to extrapolate intellectual or political competition. Extrapolation from one set of evidence requires more than just gut feeling -- it requires supplementary evidence to show that the two situations are more than coincidentally related. Of course, I would expect men to be more competitive with women in a number of areas (not just grade school PE races) based on my limited experience and the cited study, but where's the evidence? edit: speeling
      - mfisher87 12y ago
        > Given this study, do you think it is more reasonable a) to think this competition extends to other spheres, or b) to think that it does not. Just following along with you guys. B is another claim because it is not disbelief, it is a negative claim: > b) to think that it does not. Maybe you misinterpreted it on reading, but it's very clearly not simply disbelief, it is rejection. Neutral disbelief (read: skepticism) would be to take neither position a nor b.
        dikaiosune 12y ago
        Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was more referring to the disbelief/skepticism in the original comment: > The study this observation is derived from only talks about competitions of physical ability. This doesn't say anything about disproving the extrapolation to other areas of competition, it's just pointing out the problem with relying on the cited study for the assertions made. In that sense, I think it's fairly neutral. I tried to make it clear, but probably not clear enough: > B is just skepticism when you paraphrase it fairly. By "paraphrase it fairly," I was referring to proveanegative's comment, when paraphrased in context and while honoring it's implied skepticism, as opposed to rejection. gress had rewritten it as a statement of rejection: > a) to think this competition extends to other spheres, or b) to think that it does not Although now that you point it out, maybe we've been talking past each other. As I stated above, I think it's reasonable to assume based on gut heuristics that this competition extends beyond the gym. However a new burden of evidence is assumed when one cites studies to grant apparent legitimacy to one's argument. I don't think that burden of evidence has been met here.
- proveanegative 12y ago
  Are you advocating the use of this kind of reasoning (generalizing from a subset to the whole set) as a general rule? I.e., "Given this study, do you think it is more reasonable a) to think this drug works for other diseases, or b) to think that it does not. If your answer is b), what evidence do you have to support this?" If not, why apply it when discussing human behavior?
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Here's a study that suggests in other spheres men compete less against women, unless they perceive the woman is herself competing. In that case they compete in return. "Men compete more against men than against women, but compete against women who are thought to compete." http://ftp.iza.org/dp1833.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp1833.pdf
trhway 12y ago
>>Second, men are conditioned to be more competitive towards women than men. In studies on boys and girls in gym class, boys try harder in competitive foot races against girls versus their male peers [ 10 ]. these are 2 different races. In the first case a boy runs to avoid shame. In the second - to win. The second is a real competition, while the first isn't even a race really, more just like running from a bear.
semi-extrinsic 12y ago
Also, I believe (at least I hope) that men are able to see women in a more relaxed way than boys see girls, doing far less thinking about showiing off.

gress 12y ago

Given this study, do you think it is more reasonable a) to think this competition extends to other spheres, or b) to think that it does not. If your answer is b), what evidence do you have to support this?

dikaiosune 12y ago
If your answer is a), what evidence do you have to support this? A claim requires evidence, skepticism is just asking for evidence to support a claim. B is just skepticism when you paraphrase it fairly.
- gress 12y ago
  Sorry, B is not skepticism. B is another claim. It is the claim that men do not compete more strongly with women than with men in domains outside of physical activity. Unless you have evidence to support this claim, we should be skeptical of it, especially in light of A.
  - dikaiosune 12y ago
    It's a claim only in the sense that any skepticism is a claim (which, sure, is true in a narrow semantic sense). Skepticism is disbelieving an assertion due to lack of evidence. All B is saying is that there's no evidence provided that trends in physical competition can be used to extrapolate intellectual or political competition. Extrapolation from one set of evidence requires more than just gut feeling -- it requires supplementary evidence to show that the two situations are more than coincidentally related. Of course, I would expect men to be more competitive with women in a number of areas (not just grade school PE races) based on my limited experience and the cited study, but where's the evidence? edit: speeling
    - mfisher87 12y ago
      > Given this study, do you think it is more reasonable a) to think this competition extends to other spheres, or b) to think that it does not. Just following along with you guys. B is another claim because it is not disbelief, it is a negative claim: > b) to think that it does not. Maybe you misinterpreted it on reading, but it's very clearly not simply disbelief, it is rejection. Neutral disbelief (read: skepticism) would be to take neither position a nor b.
      - dikaiosune 12y ago
        Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was more referring to the disbelief/skepticism in the original comment: > The study this observation is derived from only talks about competitions of physical ability. This doesn't say anything about disproving the extrapolation to other areas of competition, it's just pointing out the problem with relying on the cited study for the assertions made. In that sense, I think it's fairly neutral. I tried to make it clear, but probably not clear enough: > B is just skepticism when you paraphrase it fairly. By "paraphrase it fairly," I was referring to proveanegative's comment, when paraphrased in context and while honoring it's implied skepticism, as opposed to rejection. gress had rewritten it as a statement of rejection: > a) to think this competition extends to other spheres, or b) to think that it does not Although now that you point it out, maybe we've been talking past each other. As I stated above, I think it's reasonable to assume based on gut heuristics that this competition extends beyond the gym. However a new burden of evidence is assumed when one cites studies to grant apparent legitimacy to one's argument. I don't think that burden of evidence has been met here.
proveanegative 12y ago
Are you advocating the use of this kind of reasoning (generalizing from a subset to the whole set) as a general rule? I.e., "Given this study, do you think it is more reasonable a) to think this drug works for other diseases, or b) to think that it does not. If your answer is b), what evidence do you have to support this?" If not, why apply it when discussing human behavior?
waterlesscloud 12y ago
Here's a study that suggests in other spheres men compete less against women, unless they perceive the woman is herself competing. In that case they compete in return. "Men compete more against men than against women, but compete against women who are thought to compete." http://ftp.iza.org/dp1833.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp1833.pdf

trhway 12y ago

>>Second, men are conditioned to be more competitive towards women than men. In studies on boys and girls in gym class, boys try harder in competitive foot races against girls versus their male peers [ 10 ]. these are 2 different races. In the first case a boy runs to avoid shame. In the second - to win. The second is a real competition, while the first isn't even a race really, more just like running from a bear.

semi-extrinsic 12y ago

Also, I believe (at least I hope) that men are able to see women in a more relaxed way than boys see girls, doing far less thinking about showiing off.