Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gender and verbs across 100K stories: a tidy analysis

varianceexplained.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 178 posts

Re: Gender and verbs across 100K stories: a tidy analysis

#161

Post by antisthenes »

paulddraper wrote: post #160
EGreg wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually there is a very good biological explanation for why this is the case: men are more varied than women. Because until the modern era men were expendable and the victors impregnated the women for the next generation. http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

I don't understand how that theory would make women less varied. Successfully carrying, birthing, and raising the next generation depends almost entirely on the mother.

> I don't understand how that theory would make women less varied.

Look up sexual selection and dimorphism lectures from a respectable university. There's a huge body of evidence about the variation between sexes and a lot of it is beyond me since I'm not a biologist.

It explains rather well how the male population distributions get "cut off" as a result of sexual selection with constraint to resources.

Re: Gender and verbs across 100K stories: a tidy analysis

#162

Post by godmodus »

sctb wrote: post #157
godmodus wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats not trolling, thats a humorous jab at the fact they were too eager to draw sweeping conclusions based on a, while promising if fine tuned, shotgun methodology to classify gender, but since you were so quick to shout out troll, there, i spellt it out for you. Im glad atleast some folks find the post funny.

> ... were too eager to draw sweeping conclusions based on a, while promising if fine tuned, shotgun methodology to classify gender I'm not sure exactly what this means, but you didn't say this—you said something deliberately inflammatory on an already controversial topic. We need commenters not to do that here because it sparks tedious flamewars by which our intellectual curiosity (the reason this site exists) is de…

I merely referenced a meme to convey my opinion, which is repeated in the comment itself. We have to be careful not to turn hn into an ivory tower.

I do get you, but take it witha grain of sault. The real danger to our discourse is opinion Manipulation and echo chambers.

Re: Gender and verbs across 100K stories: a tidy analysis

#163

Post by zepto »

paulddraper wrote: post #159
zepto wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right - there's no wrongful sexism in first world countries and there is no difference in the messages males and females are given during their upbringing about how they should behave in society. Also, family courts make perfectly fair decisions. /s

> Right - there's no wrongful sexism in first world countries I don't think you read my comment, because it disagrees with that statement.

You said:

"There is legitimate wrongful sexism, but they aren't usually found in first world countries."

Re: Gender and verbs across 100K stories: a tidy analysis

#164

Post by coldtea »

hasenj wrote: post #150
zepto wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural differences are things like 'mean height', and the ability to get pregnant. It is quite reasonable that past societies divided labor based on suitability of physical capacities for different tasks. It wouldn't be reasonable to call this 'oppression' per se. However the structure of roles human societies has always been mediated by the level of technology. Gender divisions of labor, class and caste systems etc…

Think about that history affected our biology (due to evolution). Consider the case with food. We now have an abundance of food rich with carbs and fats, but if we eat too much of them we get sick, because our bodies were designed with certain assumptions about environment. In this case, or natural environment. Wouldn't the same be applicable to our social environment? Also, technology is not permanent. Consider what…

>Also, technology is not permanent. Consider what would happen if society collapsed for whatever reason.

Plus, "just because technology enables it" is never enough reason for anything.

Re: Gender and verbs across 100K stories: a tidy analysis

#165

Post by UncleMeat »

hasenj wrote: post #68

People who have poor understanding of human nature will consider this an evidence of sexism. Think for a minute about why "Fifty shades of grey" is popular among female readers. If there are many stories are filled with males competing over resources and women (in the form of violent criminals kidnapping women and brave heroes rescuing them) then might it be that these kinds of stories are what people are looking for…

That sounds like sexism to me. If our culture demands that stories about men and women fit into gender roles then that is a sexist culture. It might not be the direct fault of authors, but we cannot just throw up our hands and say "well it is giving the people what they want".

It is also possible to misunderstand the market. Remember when people said that the reason why action movies didn't have female leads was because nobody would watch them? And then The Hunger Games and TFA were released?

Re: Gender and verbs across 100K stories: a tidy analysis

#166

Post by euyyn »

hasenj wrote: post #143
euyyn wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if he means socially-constructed expectations about the roles of men and women, which have detrimental effects on women?

Of course, I suspect that's what he means, but I also suspect that what he sees as "detrimental" effects on women are actually not. But this is all a bit too abstract. Could you be specific of what these determintal effects are? Please not that any attempt to "make up" some egalitarian idealistic expectations without any regard to the biological reality is definitely going to have detrimental effects on both men and…

I can give you specifics.

A friend of mine studied electrical engineering in Spain, and was so good at it that she got accepted into MIT's Technology and Policy Master's Degree. Back when she was 18 and about to enter college, her father got into a big fight with her, because "engineering wasn't a profession for women".

My mother and I were raised by my mother only. Your idea that motherhood is at odds with "chasing after a high paying career like the powerful men in society" is ridiculous. They aren't at odds, and the propagation of that myth by people like you is detrimental to the women that consider the choice.

My neighbor made more money than her husband. So instead of "abandoning the role of fatherhood, to chase after a higher-paying career", he's the one staying at home raising their daughter, while she keeps working full time. She's the sweetest little girl, and they're very happy. In their case, the man might be better fit for that role than the woman is. I wouldn't have trouble believing that, were their roles reversed, the girl would be a bit less happy, and they certainly would have less income to save for her future.

Re: Gender and verbs across 100K stories: a tidy analysis

#167

Post by EGreg »

paulddraper wrote: post #160
EGreg wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually there is a very good biological explanation for why this is the case: men are more varied than women. Because until the modern era men were expendable and the victors impregnated the women for the next generation. http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

I don't understand how that theory would make women less varied. Successfully carrying, birthing, and raising the next generation depends almost entirely on the mother.

Because the men are able to evolve some things separately from women (eg on the Y chromosome) and versa - mitochondria is from the mother. And even if this was not the case - some genes express themselves only in men (D'OH) like testosterone and baldness.

Re: Gender and verbs across 100K stories: a tidy analysis

#168

Post by tptacek »

hasenj wrote: post #116
empath75 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I should adjust my perception of reality to match fiction?

The kind of fiction that gets popular reflects _something_ about reality.

Probably a lot of what's been most popular is stuff that very few people on HN would appreciate.

Re: Gender and verbs across 100K stories: a tidy analysis

#169

Post by ue_ »

tomp wrote: post #95
ue_ wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my knowledge, gender is thought of as a complex of at least two aspects: those differences between what is thought of as masculine and feminine, and the roles assigned to genders. In these cases, gender pertains to the ideas of gender identity and further gender expression. In other cases, gender is also thought of as including or being inextricably related to biological sex. Gender isn't "made up" in the same way…

The problem with "gender" as a concept is that they hijacked existing words ("man" and "woman") that were previously used for "sex". This can be clearly seen by trying to define these words without reference to sex - you can't except by defining them recursively ("men are people who identify as men"), in which case, I think a better choice would be to invent new words for this new concept.

Sex is to male and female as gender is to masculine and feminine.

Re: Gender and verbs across 100K stories: a tidy analysis

#170

Post by zepto »

coldtea wrote: post #164
hasenj wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about that history affected our biology (due to evolution). Consider the case with food. We now have an abundance of food rich with carbs and fats, but if we eat too much of them we get sick, because our bodies were designed with certain assumptions about environment. In this case, or natural environment. Wouldn't the same be applicable to our social environment? Also, technology is not permanent. Consider what…

> Also, technology is not permanent. Consider what would happen if society collapsed for whatever reason. Plus, "just because technology enables it" is never enough reason for anything.

"Just because it was this way in the past" is an even worse reason for anything,
Post reply on HN