111–120 of 153 posts
Here on HN you'll be banned if you're not careful too.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14942874 and marked it off-topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing to phrenology is completely appropriate. Phrenology was used to justify certain ideology. You don't think in 100 years the standards won't improve and we won't laugh at people who used this research to justify certain ideological views? His logic is flawed because he has a fixed mindset, which I believe is a logical dead end with little evidence to back it up. He is on the wrong side of history, and I make…
> phrenology 200-year-old research on phrenology was supported by dozens of data points. Today's research on cognitive sex-differences is supported by billions of data points. > little [sic] evidence to back it up And where is the evidence you've brought up that disproves the current scientific consensus? That is, where is your evidence disproving our massive trove of data showing cognitive differences between men an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> phrenology 200-year-old research on phrenology was supported by dozens of data points. Today's research on cognitive sex-differences is supported by billions of data points. > little [sic] evidence to back it up And where is the evidence you've brought up that disproves the current scientific consensus? That is, where is your evidence disproving our massive trove of data showing cognitive differences between men an…
I doubt the scientists would back his position. It's a gross misunderstanding of their research. He takes the research and jumps a huge gap to get to his conclusion.
And what might his conclusion be? You don't even bother stating what his conclusion is. You don't even bother providing evidence as to why it is a "gross misunderstanding" of research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "us" vs "them" conflict between men and women goes back thousands of years and was introduced with specific purposes. My personal research on this can be found at https://blog.kareldonk.com/sexual-suppression-and-repression... We'll start perceiving everyone as "us" as soon as most people realize what I discuss there.
from the link > Many thousands of years ago a technologically advanced race of extraterrestrial beings came to planet Earth to mine metals
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "us" vs "them" conflict between men and women goes back thousands of years and was introduced with specific purposes. My personal research on this can be found at https://blog.kareldonk.com/sexual-suppression-and-repression... We'll start perceiving everyone as "us" as soon as most people realize what I discuss there.
> My personal research on this Freud and ... aliens . Yeah, right, sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Yes, there are cognitive difference, but it doesn't matter. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? You make a lot of assertions that I think these guys scientific experiments refute.
Not OP, but the wiki entry on cognitive differences in the sexes does a good job listing many of them and is well cited: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_cognition
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to Dr. B. H. Hoff's (2012, National Study CDC/DOJ) Report on the National Violence Against Women Survey (notice there's no report on violence against men as anyone who spent money on such research would never be funded again - that's not an assumption, it's spelled out in print), 42.3% of victimized men, over 2 million men, are subjected to "severe physical violence" every year.
Anyone can be the perpetrator of domestic violence; and anyone can be the victim; and we need more support for male victims and more recognition of female perpetrators. But, you're wrong. Far more men than women are perpetrators of domestic violence, and far more women than men are the victims of domestic violence. This is true for crimes of sexual violence, and for stalking. Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual…
But like I said - if you use funding to report violence against men, you won't ever get any more funding. So, you can bring out all the statistics funded for violence against women, but you have a systemic imbalance here. And there is sufficient evidence that it needs further investigation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The current fashion is that there are basically NO biological sex-type differences; that any sex-type differences are socially imposed and generally disadvantageous to women. It's important to know that the existence of non physical systematic differences between male and female is as uncontroversial among scientists in the field as climate change is in that field. It's easy to be "pro science" when science confirm…
> When it says you're wrong is when you show how pro science you really are! That's key. It's perhaps one of the main barriers to exploring this topic. I think it expresses itself mostly unconsciously. It can be terrifying to scrutinize differences and know whatever sub-type you happen to be (man, woman, black, white, etc.) could "come up short" according to some cultural ideal. It's even more terrifying knowing that…
This topic has obviously become highly socio-political. The current fashion is that there are basically NO biological sex-type differences; that any sex-type differences are socially imposed and generally disadvantageous to women. I think a meta-study style article like this useful to show all the rich and varied science on the matter and to help spark a dialogue around "what if?". If we assume even half of the impli…
If we look at species other than human, those that have the sexes behave as equal partners tend to be very identical in traits with very few sex-type differences. Having division of complimentary abilities and preferences also means that losing half of that to predators results in a bigger loss than if both acts as backup for the other. Those species that do have many sex-type differences are usually refereed to as t…
This topic has obviously become highly socio-political. The current fashion is that there are basically NO biological sex-type differences; that any sex-type differences are socially imposed and generally disadvantageous to women. I think a meta-study style article like this useful to show all the rich and varied science on the matter and to help spark a dialogue around "what if?". If we assume even half of the impli…
"The current fashion is that there are basically NO biological sex-type differences" - seriously who argues this? I asked below and only got two examples of rebuttals, not examples of people actually arguing this.