Female vs Male Psychology

[barbos]

Seriously? I mean seriously? What is so fucking cool about that?

Sarcasm.

What?

Yeah, and DeWry is a real university, I am being sarcastic here in case you are misreading cues again.

Ironic.

The video also shows that there are social reasons for the differences between men and women's career choices. Egeland, Lorentzen and Huitfeldt all point out that there are differences in the way in which boys and girls are treated, and society sets norms for boys and girls. Eia visits a toy store to show this in action.

You must be trolling me. Video shows no such thing. It merely shows these people making such claims, unsupported by studies.

I'm not trolling you. That's a stupid thing to suggest.

That's not a stupid thing to suggest, you completely missed the point in that video, or you did not miss and simply trolling me.

In your previous post you said:

But women don't want to be programmers, they want to be nurses and teachers. That's what that video discuss and the reasons for that are biological and evolutionary.

The only person providing an opinion on the evolutionary aspect of psychological differences is Anne Campbell. Eia present Campbell as an authority and does not cite any studies. You are willing to accept her claims on authority, but simultaneously unwilling to accept others' claim made on authority.

I don't need to accept it, I and many other people came to the same conclusion independently. It's not a rocket science, or something extraordinary. Just a simple application of laws of evolution to explain observed facts.

The influence of gender stereotypes on children's development has been documented since last millennium and is accepted by mainstream sociology:

And role of is was severely exaggerated.

 

[barbos]

No math skills don't mean programming is your only option, but yes the vast majority of programmers I know have exceptional ability in math, which is almost a requisite to be skilled in the field.

Programmers definitely do not need good math skills.

Nowdays yes. During hay day of IT boom bus drivers were hired as programmers, that's what lowered the standards.

 

[DBT]

There have been countless threads about this topic and they all proceed the same path. This one is no exception. The wrong side is flat out trolls the right side, they don't care about facts, science, data, they just ask for it and then when they are presented with it, they ignore it and ask for it again. And they can do that because militant political correctness is a norm in our society especially among left.
And that posted video is actually pretty similar to our discussions. Norvegian female "researcher" is particularly disgusting, but the man is pretty bad too. I particularly like reaction of US (female by the way) researcher watches the video of norvegian "scientists" and says "amaizing" to the "arguments" of their norvegian opponents.

I doubt that you understand what I said. As your objections and comments don't appear to relate to my comments I suspect that you have misinterpreted what I said and have been objecting to not what I actually said, but to your own flawed interpretation.

Nor have you offered any clear insights into the subject matter, instead referring to whatever the video said....which you may have misinterpreted, for all I know.

 

[barbos]

There have been countless threads about this topic and they all proceed the same path. This one is no exception. The wrong side is flat out trolls the right side, they don't care about facts, science, data, they just ask for it and then when they are presented with it, they ignore it and ask for it again. And they can do that because militant political correctness is a norm in our society especially among left.
And that posted video is actually pretty similar to our discussions. Norvegian female "researcher" is particularly disgusting, but the man is pretty bad too. I particularly like reaction of US (female by the way) researcher watches the video of norvegian "scientists" and says "amaizing" to the "arguments" of their norvegian opponents.

I doubt that you understand what I said. As your objections and comments don't appear to relate to my comments I suspect that you have misinterpreted what I said and have been objecting to not what I actually said, but to your own flawed interpretation.

Nor have you offered any clear insights into the subject matter, instead referring to whatever the video said....which you may have misinterpreted, for all I know.

That's rich coming from someone who is refusing to actually watch/read what people say before commenting.
I am sorry, but it's not me, it's you.

 

[bigfield]

double post -- see post below

 

[bigfield]

In your previous post you said:

But women don't want to be programmers, they want to be nurses and teachers. That's what that video discuss and the reasons for that are biological and evolutionary.

The only person providing an opinion on the evolutionary aspect of psychological differences is Anne Campbell. Eia present Campbell as an authority and does not cite any studies. You are willing to accept her claims on authority, but simultaneously unwilling to accept others' claim made on authority.

I don't need to accept it, I and many other people came to the same conclusion independently. It's not a rocket science, or something extraordinary. Just a simple application of laws of evolution to explain observed facts.

It's sloppy reasoning.

The influence of gender stereotypes on children's development has been documented since last millennium and is accepted by mainstream sociology:

And role of is was severely exaggerated.

The role is exaggerated by the likes of Egeland and Lorentzen--they consider it to be the only factor--but they do not represent the mainstream. (They also don't represent any side of the discussion on this forum.) The mainstream recognises that men and women are psychologically different (on average) but have also identified social structures that influence a person's identity according to their sex.

The work done by researchers such as Baron-Cohen and Diseth still still tenuous. For instance, no-one has replicated the study that measured toy preference in neonates, which means that it is too early to start extrapolating from their findings to make far-reaching conclusions about adults' preferences.

At most, the science shows that boys and girls are innately different psychologically, but it doesn't yet know how different except that the existing studies show a great deal of overlap between the sexes on any metric that is measured. The science also shows that social structures such as the household, the consumer economy, the extended family etc. encourage children to form identities that conform to the stereotypical norms for their gender, rather than freely expressing their innate preferences. It is a long way from establishing the relative influences of nature vs nurture.

Programmers definitely do not need good math skills.

Nowdays yes. During hay day of IT boom bus drivers were hired as programmers, that's what lowered the standards.

The development of high-level OOP languages, the availability of extensive libraries, and the Internet all significantly lowered the bar for entry into programming. In addition, many disciplines (such as database driven applications and front-end development) do not require any math beyond middle school.

 

[DBT]

I doubt that you understand what I said. As your objections and comments don't appear to relate to my comments I suspect that you have misinterpreted what I said and have been objecting to not what I actually said, but to your own flawed interpretation.

Nor have you offered any clear insights into the subject matter, instead referring to whatever the video said....which you may have misinterpreted, for all I know.

That's rich coming from someone who is refusing to actually watch/read what people say before commenting.
I am sorry, but it's not me, it's you.

I'm basing my assessment purely on the content of your comments. You being the one who began by responding to my comments in a way that did not relate to what I said....which has nothing to do with the video.

The distinctions between the male and female brain that were once assumed have now become blurred;

quote;
''In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain. But a new study finds that human brains do not fit neatly into “male” and “female” categories. Indeed, all of our brains seem to share a patchwork of forms; some that are more common in males, others that are more common in females, and some that are common to both. The findings could change how scientists study the brain and even how society defines gender.''

 

[barbos]

In your previous post you said:

But women don't want to be programmers, they want to be nurses and teachers. That's what that video discuss and the reasons for that are biological and evolutionary.

The only person providing an opinion on the evolutionary aspect of psychological differences is Anne Campbell. Eia present Campbell as an authority and does not cite any studies. You are willing to accept her claims on authority, but simultaneously unwilling to accept others' claim made on authority.

I don't need to accept it, I and many other people came to the same conclusion independently. It's not a rocket science, or something extraordinary. Just a simple application of laws of evolution to explain observed facts.

The influence of gender stereotypes on children's development has been documented since last millennium and is accepted by mainstream sociology:

And role of is was severely exaggerated.

The role is exaggerated by the likes of Egeland and Lorentzen--they consider it to be the only factor--but they do not represent the mainstream.

They don't exagerate, they flat out refuse correct explanation and even lie about said mainstream. They both said they are the mainstream

(They also don't represent any side of the discussion on this forum.)

They do, they do.

The mainstream recognizes that men and women are psychologically different (on average) but have also identified social structures that influence a person's identity according to their sex.

Then ask privately that mainstream about how much it is genes/hormones and how much is it social structures? Any scientist with half a brain knows that that is not wise to publicly alienate half of the taxpayers

The work done by researchers such as Baron-Cohen and Diseth still still tenuous. For instance, no-one has replicated the study that measured toy preference in neonates, which means that it is too early to start extrapolating from their findings to make far-reaching conclusions about adults' preferences.

1 day old children? I actually heard this first from the video. Studies with older kids are multiple and perfectly fine with me.
People like these norevigian shitheads are trying to apply unattainable standards to these kind of studies, at the same time they don't apply them to themselves. That woman was particularly pathetic when she was pressured. She ended up saying something like "It is so because it is my theory", she was visibly uncomfortable. The man was not much better, he used word "missing link" that alone would give you a pause to think if he might be a creationist or something.
Of course it was a setup, producers selected these two imbeciles to represent the opposing view point. But still, these are actual people in universities who teach.

At most, the science shows that boys and girls are innately different psychologically, but it doesn't yet know how different except that the existing studies show a great deal of overlap between the sexes on any metric that is measured. The science also shows that social structures such as the household, the consumer economy, the extended family etc. encourage children to form identities that conform to the stereotypical norms for their gender, rather than freely expressing their innate preferences. It is a long way from establishing the relative influences of nature vs nurture.

No, it is not long way, and here is why - "transgenders". These are as kids would violently defy your gender stereotypes theories.

 

[barbos]

That's rich coming from someone who is refusing to actually watch/read what people say before commenting.
I am sorry, but it's not me, it's you.

I'm basing my assessment purely on the content of your comments. You being the one who began by responding to my comments in a way that did not relate to what I said....which has nothing to do with the video.

Your comments was and still is irrelevant google-shit, and I merely pointed it out.

 

[bigfield]

The video also shows that there are social reasons for the differences between men and women's career choices. Egeland, Lorentzen and Huitfeldt all point out that there are differences in the way in which boys and girls are treated, and society sets norms for boys and girls. Eia visits a toy store to show this in action.

You must be trolling me. Video shows no such thing. It merely shows these people making such claims, unsupported by studies.

I'm not trolling you. That's a stupid thing to suggest.

That's not a stupid thing to suggest, you completely missed the point in that video, or you did not miss and simply trolling me.

I've reviewed the video several times, including previous time it was posted on FRDB/TFT and on other forums. The point of the video is clear: Harald Eia sets out to convince viewers that there is a debate within sociology between ideologues who believe that gender is entirely socialised, and hard-eyed realists doing proper science who says that gender is biological.

The problem is that Egeland and Lorentzen are not representative of mainstream sociology at all. Lorentzen and Egeland are gender theorists. Social theorists are not sociologists--it's a different methodology, and gender theorists tend to draw their ideas form social theories such as Marxism rather than basing their work on scientific inquiry. Their claim to represent the mainstream is categorically false. Eia also interviews a columnist and a politician to give the impression that there is some kind of consensus, but their opinions are also irrelevant.

In reality, the belief that gender identity is not at all biological is a radical idea, not mainstream. Your acceptance of the narrative presented by Eia is naïve.

In your previous post you said:

But women don't want to be programmers, they want to be nurses and teachers. That's what that video discuss and the reasons for that are biological and evolutionary.

The only person providing an opinion on the evolutionary aspect of psychological differences is Anne Campbell. Eia present Campbell as an authority and does not cite any studies. You are willing to accept her claims on authority, but simultaneously unwilling to accept others' claim made on authority.

I don't need to accept it, I and many other people came to the same conclusion independently. It's not a rocket science, or something extraordinary. Just a simple application of laws of evolution to explain observed facts.

And yet you and your 'many other people' have completely failed to account for the observations made by social scientists, that there exist social structures that influence children's development with respect to gender. Don't be so foolish as to think that sociologists are as one-eyed as gender theorists like Egeland and Lorentzen.

 

[bigfield]

They don't exagerate, they flat out refuse correct explanation and even lie about said mainstream. They both said they are the mainstream

(They also don't represent any side of the discussion on this forum.)

They do, they do.

As pointed out above, they are not the mainstream. And there is no-one on this forum who has expressed the view that gender is entirely socialised. You're building a strawman that no-one is going to defend because it represents no-one's views.

The mainstream recognizes that men and women are psychologically different (on average) but have also identified social structures that influence a person's identity according to their sex.

Then ask privately that mainstream about how much it is genes/hormones and how much is it social structures? Any scientist with half a brain knows that that is not wise to publicly alienate half of the taxpayers

I have no time for your conspiracy theory bullshit. This is the tactic used by GMO opponents and climate denialists, and holds no water for the same reason.

The work done by researchers such as Baron-Cohen and Diseth still still tenuous. For instance, no-one has replicated the study that measured toy preference in neonates, which means that it is too early to start extrapolating from their findings to make far-reaching conclusions about adults' preferences.

1 day old children? I actually heard this first from the video. Studies with older kids are multiple and perfectly fine with me.

Feel free to link to those studies, then.

This meta analysis finds that experiments with young children do not find consistent differences between the sexes, which is contrary to the findings of both Diseth and the Cambridge autism researchers:

Sex Differences in Intrinsic Aptitude for Mathematics and Science? A Critical Review
https://software.rc.fas.harvard.edu/lds/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/spelke2005.pdf

So one wonders which studies you are 'perfectly fine with'.

People like these norevigian shitheads are trying to apply unattainable standards to these kind of studies, at the same time they don't apply them to themselves. That woman was particularly pathetic when she was pressured. She ended up saying something like "It is so because it is my theory", she was visibly uncomfortable. The man was not much better, he used word "missing link" that alone would give you a pause to think if he might be a creationist or something.
Of course it was a setup, producers selected these two imbeciles to represent the opposing view point. But still, these are actual people in universities who teach.

Yeah, they are gender theorists, not scientists, and it certainly doesn't hurt to expose them as the ideologues they are. But Harald Eia was disingenuous in selecting them to representing the nurture side of the nature vs nurture discussion. The video is not a honest attempt to look at the science, and compares unfavourably to the work of science reporters like Peter Hadfield.

Your insistence that DBT watch Eia's video is quite pointless, as it doesn't even support your views.

At most, the science shows that boys and girls are innately different psychologically, but it doesn't yet know how different except that the existing studies show a great deal of overlap between the sexes on any metric that is measured. The science also shows that social structures such as the household, the consumer economy, the extended family etc. encourage children to form identities that conform to the stereotypical norms for their gender, rather than freely expressing their innate preferences. It is a long way from establishing the relative influences of nature vs nurture.

No, it is not long way, and here is why - "transgenders". These are as kids would violently defy your gender stereotypes theories.

They only defy strict structuralist theories and show that people have a degree of agency, but they do not contradict the theory that children are encouraged to conform to gender norms. Transgender children typically find themselves in conflict with social structures that discourage them from expressing their preferred gender identity; social structures have only changed recently to become more tolerant of LGBT people.

 

[barbos]

The video also shows that there are social reasons for the differences between men and women's career choices. Egeland, Lorentzen and Huitfeldt all point out that there are differences in the way in which boys and girls are treated, and society sets norms for boys and girls. Eia visits a toy store to show this in action.

You must be trolling me. Video shows no such thing. It merely shows these people making such claims, unsupported by studies.

I'm not trolling you. That's a stupid thing to suggest.

That's not a stupid thing to suggest, you completely missed the point in that video, or you did not miss and simply trolling me.

I've reviewed the video several times, including previous time it was posted on FRDB/TFT and on other forums. The point of the video is clear: Harald Eia sets out to convince viewers that there is a debate within sociology between ideologues who believe that gender is entirely socialised, and hard-eyed realists doing proper science who says that gender is biological.

That's better, but there is really no debate among actual scientists.

The problem is that Egeland and Lorentzen are not representative of mainstream sociology at all.

Tell that to DBT

Lorentzen and Egeland are gender theorists. Social theorists are not sociologists--it's a different methodology, and gender theorists tend to draw their ideas form social theories such as Marxism rather than basing their work on scientific inquiry. Their claim to represent the mainstream is categorically false. Eia also interviews a columnist and a politician to give the impression that there is some kind of consensus, but their opinions are also irrelevant.

In reality, the belief that gender identity is not at all biological is a radical idea, not mainstream. Your acceptance of the narrative presented by Eia is naïve.

He does not present any such narative. And I certainly don't accept it, I told you myself that it was a setup. But still general public and this forum included do support this politically correct notion. Plus radical professors in women studies.

In your previous post you said:

But women don't want to be programmers, they want to be nurses and teachers. That's what that video discuss and the reasons for that are biological and evolutionary.

The only person providing an opinion on the evolutionary aspect of psychological differences is Anne Campbell. Eia present Campbell as an authority and does not cite any studies. You are willing to accept her claims on authority, but simultaneously unwilling to accept others' claim made on authority.

I don't need to accept it, I and many other people came to the same conclusion independently. It's not a rocket science, or something extraordinary. Just a simple application of laws of evolution to explain observed facts.

And yet you and your 'many other people' have completely failed to account for the observations made by social scientists, that there exist social structures that influence children's development with respect to gender. Don't be so foolish as to think that sociologists are as one-eyed as gender theorists like Egeland and Lorentzen.

How the fuck I failed to account for it? The whole shebang always starts with it, all the time. Some feminist come and starts usual bullshitting inequality this, inequality that, culture this, culture that.
if anybody failed to account something it is you, who watched that video few times and somehow missed that american professor specifially accounting for that and then making a conclusion that supposed cultural effects do not change over different cultures, at alll.

 

[DBT]

I'm basing my assessment purely on the content of your comments. You being the one who began by responding to my comments in a way that did not relate to what I said....which has nothing to do with the video.

Your comments was and still is irrelevant google-shit, and I merely pointed it out.

You merely assert your opinion. Which, not being explained, apparently has nothing to do with what I said, or the articles I've quoted.

You have not explained your case, or offered a reasoned argument.....only to repeat; 'watch the video' - 'oh, that's bullshit' - 'oh, that's google-shit' - over and over.

It's extremely poor form.

I expected better from you.

 

[barbos]

They don't exagerate, they flat out refuse correct explanation and even lie about said mainstream. They both said they are the mainstream

They do, they do.

As pointed out above, they are not the mainstream.

As pointed out above, I never claimed they were.

And there is no-one on this forum who has expressed the view that gender is entirely socialised.

Don't be so sure, there are some norvegian "researchers" here.
And it's not how it usually displayed on this forum. It's never direct. It's always indirectly implied.
It's simply implied that social factors are biggest or the only ones. When in reality the opposite is true.
You yourself is guilty of that too when you say I ignore social factors (which I don't), it's the same tactics creationists use with their "missing link" bullshit.

You're building a strawman that no-one is going to defend because it represents no-one's views.

The mainstream recognizes that men and women are psychologically different (on average) but have also identified social structures that influence a person's identity according to their sex.

Then ask privately that mainstream about how much it is genes/hormones and how much is it social structures? Any scientist with half a brain knows that that is not wise to publicly alienate half of the taxpayers

I have no time for your conspiracy theory bullshit. This is the tactic used by GMO opponents and climate denialists, and holds no water for the same reason.

There is no conspiracy here, in US at least even though most scientists are atheist you don't find them offending religions very often.

The work done by researchers such as Baron-Cohen and Diseth still still tenuous. For instance, no-one has replicated the study that measured toy preference in neonates, which means that it is too early to start extrapolating from their findings to make far-reaching conclusions about adults' preferences.

1 day old children? I actually heard this first from the video. Studies with older kids are multiple and perfectly fine with me.

Feel free to link to those studies, then.

Feel free to google it.

This meta analysis finds that experiments with young children do not find consistent differences between the sexes, which is contrary to the findings of both Diseth and the Cambridge autism researchers:

meta studies should go straight to trash.

Sex Differences in Intrinsic Aptitude for Mathematics and Science? A Critical Review
https://software.rc.fas.harvard.edu/lds/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/spelke2005.pdf

So one wonders which studies you are 'perfectly fine with'.

Reviews go to the same place as meta studies.

People like these norevigian shitheads are trying to apply unattainable standards to these kind of studies, at the same time they don't apply them to themselves. That woman was particularly pathetic when she was pressured. She ended up saying something like "It is so because it is my theory", she was visibly uncomfortable. The man was not much better, he used word "missing link" that alone would give you a pause to think if he might be a creationist or something.
Of course it was a setup, producers selected these two imbeciles to represent the opposing view point. But still, these are actual people in universities who teach.

Yeah, they are gender theorists, not scientists,

Yeah, they are not true Scotsmen.

and it certainly doesn't hurt to expose them as the ideologues they are. But Harald Eia was disingenuous in selecting them to representing the nurture side of the nature vs nurture discussion.

It's a fair game, these assholes are employed when they should not be.

The video is not a honest attempt to look at the science,

When it comes to science it gives correct picture and conclusion.

and compares unfavourably to the work of science reporters like Peter Hadfield.

Your insistence that DBT watch Eia's video is quite pointless, as it doesn't even support your views.

That's a bullshit. It supports my views completely. It does not support your views.

At most, the science shows that boys and girls are innately different psychologically, but it doesn't yet know how different except that the existing studies show a great deal of overlap between the sexes on any metric that is measured.

That's a meaningless word sequence worthy of these norvegian assholes.

The science also shows that social structures such as the household, the consumer economy, the extended family etc. encourage children to form identities that conform to the stereotypical norms for their gender, rather than freely expressing their innate preferences. It is a long way from establishing the relative influences of nature vs nurture.

Fine, but have they been able to make more norvegian girls to go to engineering?
And have they been shown to be able to cure gays?
No, it is not long way, and here is why - "transgenders". These are as kids would violently defy your gender stereotypes theories.

They only defy strict structuralist theories and show that people have a degree of agency, but they do not contradict the theory that children are encouraged to conform to gender norms. Transgender children typically find themselves in conflict with social structures that discourage them from expressing their preferred gender identity; social structures have only changed recently to become more tolerant of LGBT people.

Meaningless gibberish again.

 

[bigfield]

How the fuck I failed to account for it? The whole shebang always starts with it, all the time. Some feminist come and starts usual bullshitting inequality this, inequality that, culture this, culture that.
if anybody failed to account something it is you, who watched that video few times and somehow missed that american professor specifially accounting for that and then making a conclusion that supposed cultural effects do not change over different cultures, at alll.

I haven't missed Lippa's work; he just doesn't support your claims.

Lippa showed that stereotypical gender roles are fairly similar across different cultures. This is evidence that gender roles are not arbitrary, but derived from innate human traits that people across all societies have in common. In order words, he is suggesting that social norms must be based on biological norms; he is not suggesting that social norms have no influence on children's development.

In terms of your overly simplistic nurses-and-engineers example, this means that girls are encouraged to become nurses and discouraged from becoming engineers, and vice versa for boys, regardless of their individual traits and preferences.

 

[barbos]

Your comments was and still is irrelevant google-shit, and I merely pointed it out.

You merely assert your opinion. Which, not being explained, apparently has nothing to do with what I said, or the articles I've quoted.

You have not explained your case, or offered a reasoned argument.....only to repeat; 'watch the video' - 'oh, that's bullshit' - 'oh, that's google-shit' - over and over.

It's extremely poor form.

I expected better from you.

That's merely your opinion.

 

[barbos]

How the fuck I failed to account for it? The whole shebang always starts with it, all the time. Some feminist come and starts usual bullshitting inequality this, inequality that, culture this, culture that.
if anybody failed to account something it is you, who watched that video few times and somehow missed that american professor specifially accounting for that and then making a conclusion that supposed cultural effects do not change over different cultures, at alll.

I haven't missed Lippa's work; he just doesn't support your claims.

You are fucking ridiculous. You fucking missed it. And it does support my claim and it does not support your claim which let me remind you was "People on my side forget to account for cultural factors"
I fucking explained to you that these threads always start with fucking cultural factors, so by definition I could not possibly be forgetting to account for it because my whole fucking point is always is that starters of these threads intentionally forget to account for biological factors which are in fact the most important ones.

Lippa showed that stereotypical gender roles are fairly similar across different cultures. This is evidence that gender roles are not arbitrary, but derived from innate human traits that people across all societies have in common. In order words, he is suggesting that social norms must be based on biological norms;[/B] he is not suggesting that social norms have no influence on children's development.

In terms of your overly simplistic nurses-and-engineers example, this means that girls are encouraged to become nurses and discouraged from becoming engineers, and vice versa for boys, regardless of their individual traits and preferences.

Read the bold part and think hard what you yourself have said. You just copy stuff I actually say and then say it contradicts me.
Are you trolling me? cause it certainly look like you are.

 

[bigfield]

Don't be so sure, there are some norvegian "researchers" here.

Yeah, right. You're just bullshitting me.

And it's not how it usually displayed on this forum. It's never direct. It's always indirectly implied.
It's simply implied that social factors are biggest or the only ones. When in reality the opposite is true.
You yourself is guilty of that too when you say I ignore social factors (which I don't), it's the same tactics creationists use with their "missing link" bullshit.

The forum member who has claimed that social factors are the only ones are a figment of your imagination. No-one on here has expressed Egeland and Lorentzen's view.

Are biological factors the biggest factors or the only factors? Where is your evidence for either of these claims? How do you account for the social structures that impose gender roles?

You're building a strawman that no-one is going to defend because it represents no-one's views.

The mainstream recognizes that men and women are psychologically different (on average) but have also identified social structures that influence a person's identity according to their sex.

Then ask privately that mainstream about how much it is genes/hormones and how much is it social structures? Any scientist with half a brain knows that that is not wise to publicly alienate half of the taxpayers

I have no time for your conspiracy theory bullshit. This is the tactic used by GMO opponents and climate denialists, and holds no water for the same reason.

There is no conspiracy here, in US at least even though most scientists are atheist you don't find them offending religions very often.

Unless you mean to claim that scientists doctor their experimental results to please the public, you have no point.

The work done by researchers such as Baron-Cohen and Diseth still still tenuous. For instance, no-one has replicated the study that measured toy preference in neonates, which means that it is too early to start extrapolating from their findings to make far-reaching conclusions about adults' preferences.

1 day old children? I actually heard this first from the video. Studies with older kids are multiple and perfectly fine with me.

Feel free to link to those studies, then.

Feel free to google it.

I did, but I still don't know what studies you are referring to. So I think you are full of shit.

This meta analysis finds that experiments with young children do not find consistent differences between the sexes, which is contrary to the findings of both Diseth and the Cambridge autism researchers:

meta studies should go straight to trash.

Sex Differences in Intrinsic Aptitude for Mathematics and Science? A Critical Review
https://software.rc.fas.harvard.edu/lds/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/spelke2005.pdf

So one wonders which studies you are 'perfectly fine with'.

Reviews go to the same place as meta studies.

That's blatant confirmation bias in action.

People like these norevigian shitheads are trying to apply unattainable standards to these kind of studies, at the same time they don't apply them to themselves. That woman was particularly pathetic when she was pressured. She ended up saying something like "It is so because it is my theory", she was visibly uncomfortable. The man was not much better, he used word "missing link" that alone would give you a pause to think if he might be a creationist or something.
Of course it was a setup, producers selected these two imbeciles to represent the opposing view point. But still, these are actual people in universities who teach.

Yeah, they are gender theorists, not scientists,

Yeah, they are not true Scotsmen.

and it certainly doesn't hurt to expose them as the ideologues they are. But Harald Eia was disingenuous in selecting them to representing the nurture side of the nature vs nurture discussion.

It's a fair game, these assholes are employed when they should not be.

The video is not a honest attempt to look at the science,

When it comes to science it gives correct picture and conclusion.

You mean it appeals to your preconceived beliefs.

and compares unfavourably to the work of science reporters like Peter Hadfield.

Your insistence that DBT watch Eia's video is quite pointless, as it doesn't even support your views.

That's a bullshit. It supports my views completely. It does not support your views.

Nuh-uh!

That's a meaningless word sequence worthy of these norvegian assholes.

Meaningless gibberish again.

You're just in over your head.

Fine, but have they been able to make more norvegian girls to go to engineering?
And have they been shown to be able to cure gays?

Sociology is first and foremost a positive science, concerned with explaining how things are, rather than how things ought to be or how to make those changes happen. 'They' aren't required to make people do anything.

'Making' Norwegian girls go to engineering is immoral; why would 'they' want to do that?

There is absolutely no scientific reason to think that homosexuality is curable. That definitely doesn't follow from anything I've said; it certainly isn't my view that sexuality is purely socialised, let alone mutable. Even Lorentzen and Egeland do not express any views on sexuality.

 

[bigfield]

I haven't missed Lippa's work; he just doesn't support your claims.

You are fucking ridiculous. You fucking missed it. And it does support my claim and it does not support your claim which let me remind you was "People on my side forget to account for cultural factors"

That's a made-up quotation. The bullshit is strong with this one.

I fucking explained to you that these threads always start with fucking cultural factors, so by definition I could not possibly be forgetting to account for it because my whole fucking point is always is that starters of these threads intentionally forget to account for biological factors which are in fact the most important ones.

Your characterisation of previous threads is inaccurate.

Lippa showed that stereotypical gender roles are fairly similar across different cultures. This is evidence that gender roles are not arbitrary, but derived from innate human traits that people across all societies have in common. In order words, he is suggesting that social norms must be based on biological norms;[/B] he is not suggesting that social norms have no influence on children's development.

In terms of your overly simplistic nurses-and-engineers example, this means that girls are encouraged to become nurses and discouraged from becoming engineers, and vice versa for boys, regardless of their individual traits and preferences.

Read the bold part and think hard what you yourself have said. You just copy stuff I actually say and then say it contradicts me.
Are you trolling me? cause it certainly look like you are.

Claiming that I am trolling you is still stupid.

You claimed I missed Lippa's work, but Lippa's work is consistent with the position that I have held constantly, that children are influenced by both biological and social factors. You seem to think that I am denying the existence of biological factors, but that is rubbish; I simply reject your claim that biology is the dominant factor, because that has not yet been established by science.

 

[DBT]

You merely assert your opinion. Which, not being explained, apparently has nothing to do with what I said, or the articles I've quoted.

You have not explained your case, or offered a reasoned argument.....only to repeat; 'watch the video' - 'oh, that's bullshit' - 'oh, that's google-shit' - over and over.

It's extremely poor form.

I expected better from you.

That's merely your opinion.

The manner of your response is there for anyone to see. As I said, I expected better from you.