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

No evidence that testosterone reduces cognitive empathy

penntoday.upenn.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 257 posts

Re: No evidence that testosterone reduces cognitive empathy

#231

Post by tomlock »

brigandish wrote: post #227
tomlock wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To imply that those who don't wish to act the way you wish them to don't care about minorities is invidious and not supported by any evidence I've seen. It is if how I wish them to act is to care about minorities, like for instance the population that is not a part of, in your words, the population that's "overwhelmingly binary" - aka a minority, by definition. > As are most people until they are compelled. So you'…

> Why do you, of all the people in the world, get to decide what is and isn't absurd? I get to decide what I think is absurd, because: a) I'm free. b) I would still value my opinion as good enough for me even if I wasn't. To think otherwise would be absurd, and the irony of being told this by one who wishes to impose their view upon others else they be othered is, at the very least, amusing. > It is if how I wish the…

Ahhhh awesome, so when you were talking about your perspective on the interplay of sex and gender you weren't implying that there was anything inherently, objectively absurd about there being 42 sexes, you were just implying you felt that was absurd for some... personal reason? By the way, there's probably way more than 42 since so many things play into sex characteristics, and some of the measures are continuous rather than discrete.

> You're running around in circles now and thus, there is little point in continuing.

By saying there existed an "overwhelmingly binary" sex spectrum, you implied the existence of a minority, so I'm simply saying to give those people the respect they deserve. That's how I "wish them to act" so it absolutely follows, based on your words, that someone who doesn't "wish to act the way you wish them to" doesn't want to respect those minorities. Easy logical reasoning to follow.

Re: No evidence that testosterone reduces cognitive empathy

#232

Post by tomlock »

brigandish wrote: post #228
tomlock wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeking out mental health assistance more proactively, discussing mental health with their friends.

1. These aren't masculine traits. 2. You appear to be seeking out a personal argument with me, I suggest you desist.

1. I wish they were incorporated more into male identity because then maybe the male suicide rate would be lower. I've made an effort to make it a part of my masculinity and so have my friends.

2. I suggest you abandon your quest to read "toxic masculinity" as some evil conspiracy to vilify masculinity.

Re: No evidence that testosterone reduces cognitive empathy

#233

Post by tripzilch »

gerbilly wrote: post #187
BurningFrog wrote: post #127

Another victim in the "replication crisis" bloodbath for psychology. Personally, I'm probably going to wait 5 years before I believe any psychology science claim. Especially if it confirms something I already believe in :)

It's a kind HN received wisdom that all psychology studies are false or invalid. Personally, I see this blanket dismissal as one of the blind spots of our otherwise intelligent community. Perhaps because so many of us are engineers, and that it strokes our egos to see the softer sciences fail?

> Perhaps because so many of us are engineers, and that it strokes our egos to see the softer sciences fail?

Just the "lol math is hard and statistics is annoying" crowd. Honestly the thing that pisses me off most about psychology students is how only a tiny fraction of them understands and gets the actual importance of hard statistics to their field.

But instead, it's almost accepted to trash the statistics courses as just these boring hurdles to get past by. And it's still cool to suck at math.

Re: No evidence that testosterone reduces cognitive empathy

#234

Post by tripzilch »

djsumdog wrote: post #144
tomlock wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's cool is that if people take a more nuanced view of gender and sex than saying it can be measured by one test with only two options, it means they can't take the narrow view that either of those things are binary. Here's hoping!

I don't think that's what's being suggested at here at all. In the past few years, there has been an overemphasis on "maleness" being bad and leading to negative. In a lot of western social history (and even a lot of eastern societies) there has always been the concept of "the divine feminine" (Mother earth, goddesses and so fourth). We've seen the growing emphasis of bad men and toxic masculinity; as if the man has…

Can you make this point without using the word "toxic"? Because it's so meaningless and inflammatory ...

Re: No evidence that testosterone reduces cognitive empathy

#235

Post by blanche_ »

collyw wrote: post #184
PeterStuer wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe societies are dominated by overambitious sociopaths, regardless of their gender? I feel we are long past the 'no true Scotsman' defense of woman in public office on average just exhibiting the same ruthless self-interest as the men they replaced.

True, the most sexist (in the sense that men were treated differently from women) boss I have seen was a woman. She seemed to prey on weaker personalities, an d treated men better than women.

That is a known pattern for people in discriminated group that they want to behave like the majority and take it to the extreme. So female bosses in environment when females are underrepresented may behave like that. It goes hand in hand with internalized sexism (and she tries to prove that she is not like 'other girls/women'). This and more interesting patterns like that are described in What works for women at work.

Re: No evidence that testosterone reduces cognitive empathy

#236

Post by tripzilch »

brigandish wrote: post #227
tomlock wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To imply that those who don't wish to act the way you wish them to don't care about minorities is invidious and not supported by any evidence I've seen. It is if how I wish them to act is to care about minorities, like for instance the population that is not a part of, in your words, the population that's "overwhelmingly binary" - aka a minority, by definition. > As are most people until they are compelled. So you'…

> Why do you, of all the people in the world, get to decide what is and isn't absurd? I get to decide what I think is absurd, because: a) I'm free. b) I would still value my opinion as good enough for me even if I wasn't. To think otherwise would be absurd, and the irony of being told this by one who wishes to impose their view upon others else they be othered is, at the very least, amusing. > It is if how I wish the…

Why do you even bother to share your very free personal own opinion if you can't argue it in a broader context? If you're going to pose something as a general objective idea, then backpedal and defending it as only your very own personal views which you are entitled to hold but really if they have no bearing on the general context of discussion you might as well not share it because who wants to hear this?

Re: No evidence that testosterone reduces cognitive empathy

#237

Post by tekknik »

gerbilly wrote: post #214
weberc2 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dismissal ("that's not true") is different than skepticism ("I can't trust this to be true"). You're "ego" quip is not very charitable of this community--a more likely and more charitable interpretation is that people don't trust the fields that fail to reproduce, especially those fields that appear to be more interested in advancing an agenda than research (e.g., all of the drama around the implicit association test…

> You're "ego" quip is not very charitable of this community And the blanket dismissal often posted here in a knee jerk reaction isn't very charitable to a whole body of research, that is arguably harder to operationalize than the hard sciences. I'd prefer a more substantial discussion of the findings or paper at hand rather than to just bring up the replication crisis anytime any psychological finding is mentioned o…

you can call it whatever you want but if they can’t reproduce the findings the they are dangerous at best. Especially with a study as sexist as the original here.

Re: No evidence that testosterone reduces cognitive empathy

#238

Post by CapricornNoble »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #229
CapricornNoble wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>If you badly feel you're in the wrong body and you want it changed, I'm ok with that. I don't see any other reasons are needed. Should this apply to other physical/genetic characteristics as well, such as ethnicity? Should Caucausians be able to change their physical appearance (via tanning, etc...) to Native American, identify as such ( cough Elizabeth Warren cough ), and then be entitled to any/all social benefi…

> Should this apply to other physical/genetic characteristics as well, such as ethnicity? Should Caucausians be able to change their physical appearance (via tanning, etc...) to Native American Let's try... > Should this apply to other physical/genetic characteristics... you can change your physical characteristics, you can't (that I can think of) change your genetic ones. > ...such as ethnicity? Ethnicity, hmm. I do…

>>>Unless you pin down what you mean by ethnicity, I can't even begin answer.

Let's go with common genealogy or phenotype.

>>>Ethnicity seems a social construction

So in the absence of society you would not be able to physically distinguish between these two gentlemen [1][2] and would classify them as the same ethnicity? You cannot discern objectively-measurable distinctions between the appearances of these two faces? Facial recognition software demonstrates otherwise. [3] Every face has measurements, which cluster with other similar faces. I doubt it would be difficult to map each of those clusters with what we consider an "ethnicity".

>>>But, maybe. After all an american indian guy decided to 'identify' as a tiger " rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_Cat>. While that's a very odd decision to me, I'm not going to step in and physically stop him. Would you?

Did he receive any LEGAL benefits normally given to large predatory felines? If no, then intervention isn't required. If yes, then absolutely I would oppose it. "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken" - Tyler Durden.

>>plesse leave politics out of this, ta, it's complex enough.

Regardless of her politics, Elizabeth Warren is a public, high-profile figure and a perfect example of an American using their "internal" identity for legal gain. Rachel Dolezal is an alternative example. Both demonstrate that these aren't really hypothetical issues, but present-day issues crossing the spectrum of not only social issues but also medical and cosmetic technology (elective, plastic surgery, skin treatments, etc...).

>>>This is about people who feel they don't fit their body and you try to drag in this?

I try to keep a long-term, macroscopic view on social issues. But honestly, if I were to elaborate on my position it would be a long, kinda-rambling mess, so I'll table that point of the discussion.

>>>And why do you assume I'm from the US?

Oddly enough I'm usually fighting the same bias inherent in a US (and especially SFV/SFBA-heavy) website. I'm American but don't live there. So....touché on that one.

>>>Final question, have you ever met a trans person?

Of course. I live in Asia. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes in a bar in Thailand, Philippines, or the bigger cities in Japan has been hit on by a trans person.

>>>Or understand what they can choose to undergo because they feel so wrong - they can go through a lot, it's not an easy thing.

Every human is operating within the restrictions of their physical form. My rackmate at OCS was a short dude (like 5'4") and years later he told me he considered leg extension surgery....the same kind that killed the guy in [4]). Short guys experience all sorts of emotional abuse and nobody really gives two shits about them either. Should my friend declare that he is 6'1" because he FEELS taller? Should we update all of his government documents and forms of identification as such? Of course not. Feelings are ephemeral, fleeting, and subjective. Step off a cliff and say to yourself "I FEEL like I shouldn't fall...I identify as a bird." Does gravity comply? No. Life is hard. Get harder.

[1]http://thewarriorfitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Warr...

[2]https://tinyurl.com/yyoamjl4

[3]https://github.com/ageitgey/face_recognition

[4]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21082702

Re: No evidence that testosterone reduces cognitive empathy

#239

Post by sysbin »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #238
tempguy9999 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should this apply to other physical/genetic characteristics as well, such as ethnicity? Should Caucausians be able to change their physical appearance (via tanning, etc...) to Native American Let's try... > Should this apply to other physical/genetic characteristics... you can change your physical characteristics, you can't (that I can think of) change your genetic ones. > ...such as ethnicity? Ethnicity, hmm. I do…

>>>Unless you pin down what you mean by ethnicity, I can't even begin answer. Let's go with common genealogy or phenotype. >>>Ethnicity seems a social construction So in the absence of society you would not be able to physically distinguish between these two gentlemen [1][2] and would classify them as the same ethnicity? You cannot discern objectively-measurable distinctions between the appearances of these two faces…

Most trans people I know have committed suicide when they cannot "successfully" transition and for matching their identity (one's identity is very personal & social in life).

I can only imagine there's a group of short people that wish they were tall and commit suicide. I personally have never had someone tell me they were so distraught about being short that they were considering suicide. Although if it were the case "I would be alright" if medical professionals found it necessary to do a surgery for making the person taller and so the suicidal ideation goes away. I know some midgets have committed suicide and find it sad because in the future we likely will be able to prevent a person developing into a small skeleton.

Social dynamics about how a person looks matters. I think society would be better if surgery wasn't considered such a taboo by people thinking that most of the time the surgeries are pointless. Many people rebound to a greater person when they fix something visual about them and that has somehow held them back in life.

Limitations are "going away" with the outcome of science progressing in the medical community. Similar to religious bigots decreasing in numbers but they do enough damage on their way out.

Re: No evidence that testosterone reduces cognitive empathy

#240

Post by brigandish »

tripzilch wrote: post #236
brigandish wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you, of all the people in the world, get to decide what is and isn't absurd? I get to decide what I think is absurd, because: a) I'm free. b) I would still value my opinion as good enough for me even if I wasn't. To think otherwise would be absurd, and the irony of being told this by one who wishes to impose their view upon others else they be othered is, at the very least, amusing. > It is if how I wish the…

Why do you even bother to share your very free personal own opinion if you can't argue it in a broader context? If you're going to pose something as a general objective idea, then backpedal and defending it as only your very own personal views which you are entitled to hold but really if they have no bearing on the general context of discussion you might as well not share it because who wants to hear this?

It appears that you are misinterpreting the form of my argument because you don’t understand how people who aren’t authoritarian can hold an opinion of their own while it also being valid generally because we don’t need to impose them on others, its authority comes from its truth not who I am, which is why you also fail to understand the retort. Thus, my opinion is good enough for me. Only you think it’s backpedaling to point out what should be obvious.

If you’re so keen on educating yourself then you should start with Orwell and move on to J S Mill.

Post reply on HN