Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do: Study • Hacker News Board

Re: Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do: Study

#191

Post by dahart » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 3:37 PM UTC

rpmisms wrote: post #162

dahart wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent is completely correct, why are you fighting it? This isn’t something you can out-logic, the words have definitions. Sex is the biological part and gender is the social & cultural aspects of sex.

According to Merriam-Webster, gender /includes/ the social & cultural aspects of sex. The exclusion of sex from gender is an extremely recent development that isn't widely accepted yet. Also, motherhood and fatherhood are biologically gender-linked roles. They are measurable biological phenomena that tie strongly into your definition of gender.

Gender doesn’t exclude sex. Gender relates to sex, but it is not the same thing.

> The exclusion of sex from gender is an extremely recent development that isn’t widely accepted yet.

What are you talking about? The use of gender as a sex “role” was coined in 1955, over 60 years ago. Before that “gender” referred to grammatical gender, not to people. So if you use “gender” relating to people, that form of the word has always meant the social aspects of sex, not the biological aspects. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

There was never a time when “gender” meant the same thing as “sex”.

> Also, motherhood and fatherhood are biologically gender-linked roles.

You’re confusing yourself. Being a mother & father are sex based facts. Fatherhood and motherhood as words that can mean that someone is factually a mother or father, or it can in context be referring to the gender roles of motherhood and fatherhood. The stereotype of a father playing catch with a son is a gender role, not biology. You’re choosing words which have both meanings, which doesn’t help you understand what sex and gender actually mean.

Re: Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do: Study

#192

Post by astine » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 3:37 PM UTC

lightbyte wrote: post #57

conanbatt wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If gender identity is not biological, what is it?

Gender identity is an emergent social construct, there isn't anything biological about it.

The distinction between a social construct and biology is artificial. Reading and writing are a social construct but learning to read and write at a young age has a profound impact on your brain structure.[1] I think what you mean to say is that there is no instinctual sense of gender identity that people are born with... that it is purely a learned identity. I'm not certain that is true as gender distinctions are pretty deeply ingrained nearly every culture around the world including most hunter-gather cultures, (The exact extent and nature of the distinction varies, but mere existence of an distinction is close to a constant.) and there is reason to believe that the sexual division of labor was key to the evolution of human sociality, which would make gender identity distinction hundreds of thousands of years old at the youngest. I'd be interested in any studies demonstrating that there is no instinctual component.

1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23273798.2018.1...

Re: Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do: Study

#193

Post by LocalH » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

im3w1l wrote: post #95

WhompingWindows wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the first paragraph you're asking for causal explanation. Then in the second paragraph you're dishing out a bunch of potential causal explanations as confounders. Some researchers would deem it over-reaching to dish out causal explanations willy nilly. Most of those questions should be relegated to follow-up studies or a BRIEF mention in the discussion section. It's perfectly okay science to simply observe a pheno…

If you don't have the causal explanations then you cannot generalize beyond the population you sampled. What does that mean? That the correct conclusion to draw is very narrow: Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do [in Graz, Austria, in the year 2019]

I think for the HN headline at least, the word "may" could fit after "men".

Re: Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do: Study

#194

Post by vanderZwan » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

K0SM0S wrote: post #185

dahart wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The confounding explanations for this type of research are mind boggling. Yes! This is very true, your questions are good questions to ask of any study of genders & attitudes. It’s even more important to ask of studies that try to factor out cultural issues, because confounding explanations are extremely difficult to remove. > Social Psychology has one of the worst reproducibility problems in all of academia. This…

Just a few remarks, notwithstanding your/my opinions. Physics has not "one of the better reproducibility rates" but 100%; per the Scientific Method any valid theory must: - be reproducible (verifiable empirically) - have predictive power - not negate existing theories This constitutes 'acceptable proof'. It yields a 'compound effect' to theoretical research: for instance, Newton's Laws were never wrong, just narrower…

> Physics has not "one of the better reproducibility rates" but 100%

I'd ask if you ever taken a good look at cosmology, but your username would suggest that you have. Which makes it all the more surprising to me that you make a claim like this.

Re: Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do: Study

#195

Post by krapp » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 3:41 PM UTC

shantly wrote: post #187

tomschlick wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the shift for social psychologists probably happened 25ish years ago. Though, I'd argue up until 5 or so years ago if you asked the average person the majority would tell you gender == sex. Even today I'd guess close to half couldn't tell you the defined difference between the two.

> Even today I'd guess close to half couldn't tell you the defined difference between the two. I kinda halfway try to follow this stuff, and honestly, I'd have trouble defining most of the terms involved in a way that didn't step on someone's toes—and I'd be trying not to! No wonder people are put off by it.

If someone wants you to refer to them as $GENDER, then just refer to them as $GENDER. Don't treat people differently because they don't conform to the traditional gender binary. Don't treat attraction between the same sex as being fundamentally different than attraction between opposite sexes.

That's 99.9% of it, right there.

Re: Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do: Study

#196

Post by TallGuyShort » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #175

TallGuyShort wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how someone can simply adopt stereotypes of another gender, consider themselves that gender, and then be considered that gender. If I'm a man according to my chromosomes, but my mannerisms, grooming, music and fashion choices are considered feminine, am I woman? Or just a feminine man? And if I'm a woman, but I'm still attracted to other women, am I entitled to represent myself as a lesbian? All I'…

You're confusing sex with gender. Sex is biological, gender is cultural, albeit often correlated with biology. For instance - it was once considered perfectly masculine behavior for men to wear pantyhose, high heels and makeup, and to kiss each another on the mouth. Now, those traits would likely be considered feminine (or at least, not masculine.) Does that mean men were formerly somehow more biologically female, be…

No, I very intentionally never used the word sex, because everything I mentioned was gender. My concern is when stuff that is entirely social (okay, let's keep calling that gender) starts getting codified or labelled, and I'm still confused why we have discrete labels for things that, according to many of the same people using the most labels, are a completely fluid spectrum. I'm okay with completely fluid spectrum, but here's what happened in this HN discussion: someone commented about the research being about "biological genders", and everyone says they're confused. Do a Ctrl+F of the linked article for "Gender" and "Sex" and then tell me that the research isn't also confused because everyone is confused all of the time, especially people who are "confused".

Re: Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do: Study

#197

Post by dahart » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 3:45 PM UTC

K0SM0S wrote: post #185

dahart wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The confounding explanations for this type of research are mind boggling. Yes! This is very true, your questions are good questions to ask of any study of genders & attitudes. It’s even more important to ask of studies that try to factor out cultural issues, because confounding explanations are extremely difficult to remove. > Social Psychology has one of the worst reproducibility problems in all of academia. This…

Just a few remarks, notwithstanding your/my opinions. Physics has not "one of the better reproducibility rates" but 100%; per the Scientific Method any valid theory must: - be reproducible (verifiable empirically) - have predictive power - not negate existing theories This constitutes 'acceptable proof'. It yields a 'compound effect' to theoretical research: for instance, Newton's Laws were never wrong, just narrower…

I think you might have misunderstood? Academic physics publications do not have perfect reproduction rates. Especially theoretical physics. The criteria for a valid theory doesn’t prevent human mistakes.

Everything you said applies to social sciences too. Per the scientific method any valid theory must be reproducible and predictive. It’s an unfortunate fact of life that the academic research and publication process allows results that turn out to be untrue, both in social sciences and hard sciences.

Maybe have a gander at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_scien...

Re: Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do: Study

#198

Post by shantly » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 3:46 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #195

shantly wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even today I'd guess close to half couldn't tell you the defined difference between the two. I kinda halfway try to follow this stuff, and honestly, I'd have trouble defining most of the terms involved in a way that didn't step on someone's toes—and I'd be trying not to! No wonder people are put off by it.

If someone wants you to refer to them as $GENDER, then just refer to them as $GENDER. Don't treat people differently because they don't conform to the traditional gender binary. Don't treat attraction between the same sex as being fundamentally different than attraction between opposite sexes. That's 99.9% of it, right there.

I don't even mean pronouns. I mean the stuff like elsewhere in this thread where people are stepping in it (depending on the perspective of the reader) re: whether gender identity is wholly a social construct. "Yeah, it's entirely social" is no longer the safe fallback answer for careful liberals (I write, as a careful liberal)

Re: Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do: Study

#199

Post by lwhi » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 3:50 PM UTC

reroute1 wrote: post #177

lwhi wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, this is where I leave you I'm afraid.

You are essentially arguing that all gender studies are useless because there is parity among individuals in each gender. It's true there is parity, but the scientific division between male and female is very clear. It seems VERY useful to study the differences. To throw them away because all men and women aren't identical feels to me like a terribly short sighted perspective.

I'm saying I believe the premise and criteria should be more nuanced. Men vs. women suggests comparison of two binary absolutes.

Re: Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do: Study

#200

Post by coldtea » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 3:52 PM UTC

im3w1l wrote: post #95

WhompingWindows wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the first paragraph you're asking for causal explanation. Then in the second paragraph you're dishing out a bunch of potential causal explanations as confounders. Some researchers would deem it over-reaching to dish out causal explanations willy nilly. Most of those questions should be relegated to follow-up studies or a BRIEF mention in the discussion section. It's perfectly okay science to simply observe a pheno…

If you don't have the causal explanations then you cannot generalize beyond the population you sampled. What does that mean? That the correct conclusion to draw is very narrow: Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do [in Graz, Austria, in the year 2019]

>If you don't have the causal explanations then you cannot generalize beyond the population you sampled.

At the individual level.

You can still know that you have statistically applicable results to the whole population, without having to sample everybody -- just enough to be representative of all kinds.

If you do a random enough pick, then if some people fall outside your sample ("you didn't test for people that don't like water, and the casual explanation requires being OK with water to work, so excludes them from showing the same results") they'll still be outliers statistically.