Men: Femininity and Masculinity

[LaurieAG]

It makes one wonder how much the appearance as well as the conversational styles of both groups of men affect their impression on their mates.

 

Please give me your best answer whether it is objective scientific or subjective experiential.

 

I have known two mates in the past who had similar conversational styles (along your gradient from 1-10, both started at 5), both were stylish and had good relationships with women but one was gay and one was not.

 

One went down to take a role in 'Cats' for 2 years in another state capital and came back with an arrogant slant on his conversational style with men (gradient 2), compared with before, so it appears that there is some kind of experiental aspect, at least with regards to changes to conversational styles and attitudes. I saw him after another 5 years and his conversation style was back to normal (gradient 5), from my perspective anyway, while my other mate did not really change.

[Miser]

"Psychosis is not a good premise to base your assertion that LSD causes brain damage. "

Are you saying that psychosis is a sign of a healthy brain? I accept that it's difficult to distinguish cause and effect, but that article suggests they have,and that the link is causal.

Are you saying that LSD causes psychosis without damaging the brain?

 

 

"I want to add that Aristotle's claim that we use our heart to think still has a wide appeal among literary circles"

And, in bar room conversation, the idea that men think with their dicks is pretty commonplace: but that doesn't make it true either.

 

"One case I heard of was a man received a heart transplant from an adrenaline junkie, the man soon became an adrenaline junkie himself, pursuing activities such as sky diving, heli-skiing etc., I wonder if anyone can find the source for this"

Finding a source is probably easy.

Finding any credible reason to believe it is more difficult - after all, the heart doesn't actually make decisions.

 

 

I have experienced LSD 'psychosis' and much of it was the result of bad setting. One can certainly influence the environment so as to avoid these tricky situations. And even though the psychosis was altogether a very unpleasant situation, it taught me a lot about my own anxieties at the time with people. In terms of damage, define damaging the brain.

 

Metaphorically its true: think with one's dick means to be overpowered by one's libido.

 

That's difficult beyond my scope. But its an interesting anecdote.

 

Just because I thought it made the same point I did on page one, but in another way, here's one from yet another very brilliant mind:

 

 

http://sphotos-a.xx....031711715_n.jpg

 

The greatest asset we have are our opinions. Nothing is more important to us than that.

[iNow]

The greatest asset we have are our opinions. Nothing is more important to us than that.

My opinion is that opinions are not our greatest assets. Facts are.

[John Cuthber]

"Metaphorically its true: think with one's dick means to be overpowered by one's libido. "

I know.

So what?

What "thinking with your dick" means is not actually thinking with your dick.

It's true "metaphorically" but not really so it's not actually true.

 

"In terms of damage, define damaging the brain."

A cheap and cheerful definition here would be a psychotic reaction that doesn't go away when the drug is metabolised and eliminated.

So called "flashbacks" are probably the best known example.

[Miser]

My opinion is that opinions are not our greatest assets. Facts are.

Facts are but the consensus of the current scientific community. Science is directional in its endeavor, leading to a biased representation of reality. It is in its nature subjectivity. Opinions constitute the human in us. What we hold as facts represent what we value as individuals.

 

"Metaphorically its true: think with one's dick means to be overpowered by one's libido. "

I know.

So what?

What "thinking with your dick" means is not actually thinking with your dick.

It's true "metaphorically" but not really so it's not actually true.

 

"In terms of damage, define damaging the brain."

A cheap and cheerful definition here would be a psychotic reaction that doesn't go away when the drug is metabolised and eliminated.

So called "flashbacks" are probably the best known example.

Metaphorical reflects the non-arbitrary nature of our language. It reflects important universalities of human beings. Saying a person is cold doesn't mean his body temperature is low, but that the person is unemotional. This is jives well with our perception of coldness when in the presence of aloof individuals. This speaks volumes of our perception. Its perceptually true and bespeaks of human nature.

 

Flashbacks are rare if ever. The effects are actually subtler than the current 'mainstream consensus'.

[iNow]

And as for the questions I posed to you that are actually relevant to the thread... any plans on addressing those?

On another note, if your opinion was that raping small boys was the proper way to mitigate global warming, should we also consider that one of our "greatest assets" that "constitute what is human in us?"

It would be, after all, an opinion.

[Miser]

And as for the questions I posed to you that are actually relevant to the thread... any plans on addressing those?

 

On another note, if your opinion was that raping small boys was the proper way to mitigate global warming, should we also consider that one of our "greatest assets" that "constitute what is human in us?"

 

It would be, after all, an opinion.

 

Roll out the red carpet, because I'm back. I've been putting off replying because I expect a cynical interlocutor. And what do we know, here you are.

 

As we progressed through discourse, those questions were more or less answered. Whatever you are still confused about, please state your questions explicitly. Keep in mind that I've addressed your many concerns. Whenever I do, you don't acknowledge them. It seems like your whole approach is that of attack. But fine, this is the internet. We are more or less not responsible for our actions or words, and politeness means little even in urban life. However, do remember all the derogatory remarks I've thrown your direction, I will stand by them.

 

Do I think that? That's a little presumptuous... just a little. Opinions are non-arbitrary so you can't just make them up. They need to have a source, whether it is biology or culture or from some divine inspiration. Unless you are insinuating I'm a Green peace fanatic who justifies pedophilia with climate concerns, I'd say there's no basis for your argument. Also, there's no basis for that insinuation either, I'm not a pedophile but I do care for the planet. But I digress.

 

State your concerns explicitly so I will answer them as politely as I can

Edited December 15, 2012 by Miser

[iNow]

I think this is the fourth time, but okay:

 

What is the threshold between "high fat to muscle ratio" and "low fat to muscle ratio" that you are using to demarcate feminine and masculine males?

[Miser]

And once again, I remind you I needn't quantify it so precisely in this conversation. You are simply asking for the impossible for the amount of time I'm willing to dedicate to this topic. You obviously have no understanding of how psychology works, nor how a reasonable discourse looks like. From the sample size that you've exposed to thus far, picture a curvilinear graph . The androgynous lot belonging in the 68 percent and the masculine and feminine diverging toward the two polar ends.

 

Thanks again for derailing the topic. =)

[John Cuthber]

Asking what you think you mean by masculine and feminine isn't derailing the topic.

Without that data it was never "railed" in the first place.

Since you have now confirmed that you don't really know, it's difficult to see this thread getting anywhere.

[iNow]

You obviously have no understanding of how psychology works, nor how a reasonable discourse looks like.

 

So, in other words, you cannot even describe your own criteria for the groups you are arbitrarily placing people into. You cannot articulate the characteristics of these folks, not even using your own metric of ratio of fat to muscle. Got it.

 

Go ahead, though. Keep avoiding the relevant questions and attacking me personally. I'm confident that is the best possible path toward convincing people of the accuracy of your position.

Edited December 16, 2012 by iNow

[Miser]

Asking what you think you mean by masculine and feminine isn't derailing the topic.

Without that data it was never "railed" in the first place.

Since you have now confirmed that you don't really know, it's difficult to see this thread getting anywhere.

It's meant to excavate people's ideas, not get fixated on semantics. Its difficult for minds overly concerned with quantifying operant definitions for experimental subjects that bogs the conversation down.

 

 

 

So, in other words, you cannot even describe your own criteria for the groups you are arbitrarily placing people into. You cannot articulate the characteristics of these folks, not even using your own metric of ratio of fat to muscle. Got it.

 

Go ahead, though. Keep avoiding the relevant questions and attacking me personally. I'm confident that is the best possible path toward convincing people of the accuracy of your position.

 

 

Its not meant as helping my claim but a personal attack. I'm just reciprocating the same kindness you've shown me. It is not arbitrary, categories almost always fall into a normal curve. The continuum is supposed to be on a gradient, from 1 - 10. Why don't you give me a fat to muscle ratio that would be a satisfying medium for the entire population of the world? It is a fruitless endeavor because its impossible.

 

You simply don't have the expertise to engage in a psychological discussion. The conversation would be fine and full of good observations if it weren't for getting bogged down on impossible definitions. This is not a paper yet, this is a casual discourse. If you can't summon up your intuition, which is what I'm asking for, maybe you should avoid commenting on human matters and focus on more atomic ones

 

Also, tell me about your relationship with your mother.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Miser

[iNow]

Why don't you give me a fat to muscle ratio that would be a satisfying medium for the entire population of the world? It is a fruitless endeavor because its impossible.

And yet that's the metric that you yourself proposed when asked how you are deciding what constitutes a feminine versus a masculine male. Fascinating.

You simply don't have the expertise to engage in a psychological discussion.

Really? How is it that you have a complete understanding of my background, skills, and training? By what mechanism can you speak accurately about my expertise? Do you have any other insights into my skills and background that you'd like to share with me?

If you can't summon up your intuition, which is what I'm asking for, maybe you should avoid commenting on human matters and focus on more atomic ones

My intuition is fine. What you seem to be missing is that I think your idea is both ludicrous and unsupported and based on little more than confirmation bias.

Also, tell me about your relationship with your mother.

Why? What does that have to do with your assertion that feminine men (which remains a group without clear characteristics or definition) whine too much? Edited December 16, 2012 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

1 It's meant to excavate people's ideas, not get fixated on semantics. Its difficult for minds overly concerned with quantifying operant definitions for experimental subjects that bogs the conversation down.

 

 

2 You simply don't have the expertise to engage in a psychological discussion.

 

3 Also, tell me about your relationship with your mother.

1 It's not getting "fixated on semantics" to ask you wtf you are on about.

 

2 There seems little evidence that you have the ability to carry on a sensible discussion of science.

 

3 She's still dead, thanks for asking.

[Miser]

And yet that's the metric that you yourself proposed when asked how you are deciding what constitutes a feminine versus a masculine male. Fascinating.

 

Really? How is it that you have a complete understanding of my background, skills, and training? By what mechanism can you speak accurately about my expertise? Do you have any other insights into my skills and background that you'd like to share with me?

My intuition is fine. What you seem to be missing is that I think your idea is both ludicrous and unsupported and based on little more than confirmation bias.

Why? What does that have to do with your assertion that feminine men (which remains a group without clear characteristics or definition) whine too much?

 

I was giving one proposition to inspire other similar propositions, meanwhile, it was never central to the topic of discussion. The standards by which one judge a person to be feminine is many - how they dress, speak, and walk. There is simply no time to go into all that, nor is this the discussion to do it in. Yet you keep on asking for the impossible, like what specific ratio would be characterized as male. Do you expect me to do that calculation by normalizing the entire population of the world and then giving you a medium. Absurd!

 

Because I've been exposed enough to your way of arguing. Your perspective is narrow and your intuition about human life is weak. I don't need to know anything about you other than how you carry about yourself to know more than you think I know.

 

Your intuition is not fine. There's simply no way for a discussion about human nature to get off the ground with your rigidity. If you can't discern a man to be more masculine than the next, by whatever standard, then you are blind in that sense.

 

Nope, it is common in the sciences for the practitioner to suffer a cold and distant relationship with the mother. Your denial of human subjectivity and pathological inclination toward objectivity seems to support this

 

1 It's not getting "fixated on semantics" to ask you wtf you are on about.

 

2 There seems little evidence that you have the ability to carry on a sensible discussion of science.

 

3 She's still dead, thanks for asking.

 

You two are basically the same person to me, so look to the above

[iNow]

Okay, so I take it that you don't want to talk about the subject of your thread? This is getting confusing. You brought it up, yet you run away without fail from reasonable questions and respond instead with off topic personal attacks and baseless assumptions about others and their relationships with their mothers. You assume much, but apparently know little. Good luck with that.

[John Cuthber]

 

You two are basically the same person to me, so look to the above

I guess it didn't occur to you that he and I are asking the same questions because they are the sort of questions that any scientist should ask.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to answer the questions.

[Miser]

So, for the last time, I'm not here to make claims. I want to get a discussion rolling. Why don't you provide me with a possible quantification of masculinity and femininity?

 

And nothing I said have been baseless. The offense was, and has been, started by you. I merely reciprocated.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Miser

[John Cuthber]

So, for the last time, I'm not here to make claims.

But you did, in the opening post and as I pointed out (Post 19 I think) you were simply flat wrong to do so.

 

The comments about our mothers are plainly baseless.

So was this assertion "As we progressed through discourse, those questions were more or less answered." from post 32

 

This, from post three is wrong on two counts "Now femininity can be defined roughly as a high deposit of fat to musculature ratio. Because fat has been found to break apart testosterone*

(because you just redefined old as feminine)

 

And perhaps most importantly, the whole thread is based on an assertion by someone who is well known for getting things wrong so the whole thing is baseless.

[iNow]

John did a fine job summing it up calmly and coherently, so I'll just add a slightly peripheral point...

 

 

Miser - I suspect that you're used to be the smartest member of your small local group of friends wherever you happen to live or party or whatever, but that's not the case here. You are in a community filled with people of eclectic backgrounds, often good education, and a shared passion for the methodology of science. Ideas must first survive the gauntlet before they are accepted as valid. How about you chill out a bit, stop making assumptions about other people posting here or about their knowledge and expertise, and start answering the questions and criticisms that have been put to you? If you cannot, that's okay, but it also means it may be time to abandon your opening idea or premise.

 

If your idea has merit and if it's actually worth discussing, then there is no reason you should be unable to address the points we are raising. This is not an unreasonable point I'm making. What is unreasonable is the way you've responded to those posts (which I'd paraphrase as, "Nuh uh, you're a poopy head with mommy issues"). That shows only your own immaturity, your own inability to discuss the topic rationally, and implies that you're merely trying to deflect with hand waving and personal barbs questions you seem unable to answer.

 

Now, do you actually want to discuss this subject like an adult or do you want to continue acting all high and mighty like an ignorant spoiled child? You choose.

[John Cuthber]

Miser,

As iNow says, you should change your attitude and learn how to debate science properly.

Alternatively, you can carry on as you are, and I will keep laughing at you (at least until you get chucked out of the forum).

 

Your decision.

[Miser]

But you did, in the opening post and as I pointed out (Post 19 I think) you were simply flat wrong to do so.

 

The comments about our mothers are plainly baseless.

So was this assertion "As we progressed through discourse, those questions were more or less answered." from post 32

 

This, from post three is wrong on two counts "Now femininity can be defined roughly as a high deposit of fat to musculature ratio. Because fat has been found to break apart testosterone*

(because you just redefined old as feminine)

 

And perhaps most importantly, the whole thread is based on an assertion by someone who is well known for getting things wrong so the whole thing is baseless.

 

Response to post #19

 

First, you seem to fallaciously believe that somehow wikipedia links are superior to Psychology Today articles (which are articles written by psychologists based on the frontier of psychological research.

 

The tangent that you went on makes no sense to me. What I said in passing, you analyzed. Not everything spoken in a sentence deserve equal weight in thought. Sure it can be operationally defined, and thanks for flexing your intellectual muscles for me - I get it -, but it was nonetheless irrelevant to the topic.

 

So, skipping your analysis which is filled with flaws (For example, why would you go into the discussion of 'whether women make unhappy' when 'womanish' was stated as a modifier to "men". Womanish man is very differently from women. Would you like an analysis on that? Or is that a fair assumption. Transexuals excluded.

 

And please don't cite wikipedia and be smug about it. A lot of their citations came straight out of the media oven, warm with exaggerations and biases, which I'd think you would be above. But evidently not.

 

I do appreciate the Australian anecdote, though I have no idea what the hell it means. Would you elaborate please.

 

I don't understand why you have to reshape everything that I said, especially considering how baseless your adjustments are.

 

So here's one method of going about this empirical question.

 

To definitively give answer to "do feminine men complain more", one must first set the criteria of what constitute as feminine. It's fair to demand it. In typical psychological experimentation, we can employ objective judges to give ratings of the men. Perhaps there are better ways but provisionally it will do.

 

Second, under experimental settings, we must obviously establish the dependent variable (the average masculinity/femininity score of the experimental subject being the independent) given an exertion to stimulate complaining. So, to do this, it can range from anything from making him put his arms in cold water to doing a boring and tedious task. Meanwhile, an assistant is to become acquainted with this subject - by chatting and opening venues of discourse - and sit beside him as the subject is conducting the series of task (Which gender the assistant would best be is still up in the air, provisionally I would propose an extraverted male).

 

As the process continues, the assistant is to record their dialogue (this occurs without the knowledge of the subject only until after the experiment is over). Then the number of incidence that satisfy as a complaint would be recorded as data and plotted as the dependent variable.

 

This would be typical of a psychological experiment.

 

When pressed, I had to give an answer. As with most things in life, at least for people who have a shred of humility and open-mind, every truth is provisional. It wasn't meant to be an absolute. Yet I stand by it, even though it needs modification. You on the other hand have made baseless, and sometimes smug, remarks about how science should be conducted. If I'm so common for getting things wrong, go back to the abstinence post and read the single article on Masturbation and its relatedness to an anxious parenting style plus poor prostate health. Its what I should have began with if I knew I would be encountering people with so little philosophical faculties. Not that you have successfully proven most of my statements to be definitively wrong. Otherwise, I would accept your better argument.

 

John did a fine job summing it up calmly and coherently, so I'll just add a slightly peripheral point...

 

 

Miser - I suspect that you're used to be the smartest member of your small local group of friends wherever you happen to live or party or whatever, but that's not the case here. You are in a community filled with people of eclectic backgrounds, often good education, and a shared passion for the methodology of science. Ideas must first survive the gauntlet before they are accepted as valid. How about you chill out a bit, stop making assumptions about other people posting here or about their knowledge and expertise, and start answering the questions and criticisms that have been put to you? If you cannot, that's okay, but it also means it may be time to abandon your opening idea or premise.

 

If your idea has merit and if it's actually worth discussing, then there is no reason you should be unable to address the points we are raising. This is not an unreasonable point I'm making. What is unreasonable is the way you've responded to those posts (which I'd paraphrase as, "Nuh uh, you're a poopy head with mommy issues"). That shows only your own immaturity, your own inability to discuss the topic rationally, and implies that you're merely trying to deflect with hand waving and personal barbs questions you seem unable to answer.

 

Now, do you actually want to discuss this subject like an adult or do you want to continue acting all high and mighty like an ignorant spoiled child? You choose.

 

Why don't you look at the track record. Every time I refuted your fallacious claims I did not hold them above you and say you have no understanding of science, evolution, psychology and neuroscience. I allowed you to change subjects onto other concerns you have regarding the topic. My assumption is not baseless, it is a well-documented phenomenon in the realms of science, and I see them particularly clearly in you. Whether that has any truth, only you would know. And aren't all that ad hominem? You are not above making personal attack. This is but one of many incidences. All that you've said about me can be said about yourself. Sartre said it best "Hell is other people" and by god you just saw what you see in yourself.

 

Here's my value judgement: Pride in knowledge is secondary and even detrimental. Knowledge should be sought for the delight it brings in uncovering never-before-known mysteries. Nobody has ever called me a spoiled child because I'm always reasonable, except among unreasonable people. It's very interesting to hear you call me a child when nobody has ever done so in my life. Could what you perceive of me be a reflection of yourself? So it is quite gratifying to see Sartre being correct once again about human nature. I remind you that he sought truth not through science, but philosophy. Yet his observations are so great and permeating.

 

The forum is meant to be a place of civil discussion. This can range from everything in philosophy to literature (especially in psychology which I remind you is a new science that needs information from all areas of life). Out of personal interest, and to enrich my understanding of human beings, I wanted people to talk subjectively about life not about silly definitions. Everything said here could potentially supplement a future research. Everything is useful. But if you get bogged down on something so trivial as personal attacks and semantics then its really everyone's loss.

 

What kind of man accuses the other man of changing a subject when he previously prompts a discussion on another? I don't intentionally change a subject, the speaker prompted a divergent discussion so I pursued it. The most vehement of attacks come from your unfounded arrogance, not me.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Miser

[Ringer]

 

Response to post #19

 

First, you seem to fallaciously believe that somehow wikipedia links are superior to Psychology Today articles (which are articles written by psychologists based on the frontier of psychological research.

But psychology today isn't a peer reviewed source so is not evidence. Since it is not peer reviewed what is written in it tends to be the psychologists conjectures, many of which aren't strongly supported. Also, since Wiki gives link to all its sources you can verify the bases of what is written, many of Psychology Today's articles do not have sources cited in a clear way.

And please don't cite wikipedia and be smug about it. A lot of their citations came straight out of the media oven, warm with exaggerations and biases, which I'd think you would be above. But evidently not.

Again, Wiki is a fine source since you can easily check its sources.

So here's one method of going about this empirical question.

 

To definitively give answer to "do feminine men complain more", one must first set the criteria of what constitute as feminine. It's fair to demand it. In typical psychological experimentation, we can employ objective judges to give ratings of the men. Perhaps there are better ways but provisionally it will do.

That shouldn't be done this way because the parameters of 'feminine' would differ from judge to judge. You would have to do an separate experiment to show femininity scores are consistent across cultures to eliminate bias. It would be much easier to define feminine in a consistent way.

Second, under experimental settings, we must obviously establish the dependent variable (the average masculinity/femininity score of the experimental subject being the independent) given an exertion to stimulate complaining. So, to do this, it can range from anything from making him put his arms in cold water to doing a boring and tedious task. Meanwhile, an assistant is to become acquainted with this subject - by chatting and opening venues of discourse - and sit beside him as the subject is conducting the series of task (Which gender the assistant would best be is still up in the air, provisionally I would propose an extraverted male).

 

 

Depending on how you define feminine and complaining would change how this second part turns out. The cold water experiment would be skewed by pain tolerance, so it may not be a good idea to use that one unless pain tolerance is part of the measure of being feminine. Having the confederate in the room may change the outcome as well, people may complain less when being watched. Would complain constitute an obvious statement such as, 'this is uncomfortable/boring' or only when the subject is making excessive remarks about the situation. This is an arbitrary mark, but the demarcation should be known before the experiment starts so you don't fish for p-values. Other than that this part is looks fine.

As the process continues, the assistant is to record their dialogue (this occurs without the knowledge of the subject only until after the experiment is over). Then the number of incidence that satisfy as a complaint would be recorded as data and plotted as the dependent variable.

It's common to take a video of experiments, so you could have audio and video for more than just auditory reactions.

 

When pressed, I had to give an answer. As with most things in life, at least for people who have a shred of humility and open-mind, every truth is provisional. It wasn't meant to be an absolute. Yet I stand by it, even though it needs modification. You on the other hand have made baseless, and sometimes smug, remarks about how science should be conducted. If I'm so common for getting things wrong, go back to the abstinence post and read the single article on Masturbation and its relatedness to an anxious parenting style plus poor prostate health. Its what I should have began with if I knew I would be encountering people with so little philosophical faculties. Not that you have successfully proven most of my statements to be definitively wrong. Otherwise, I would accept your better argument.

I agree with most of the complaints John and iNow have had, since I have a background in psychology and tend to do fairly well in philosophical areas I find your complaints completely baseless. John and iNow also have a strong background in science, so their advice on scientific processes should not be overlooked just because you disagree with them.

 

Why don't you look at the track record. Every time I refuted your fallacious claims I did not hold them above you and say you have no understanding of science, evolution, psychology and neuroscience. I allowed you to change subjects onto other concerns you have regarding the topic. My assumption is not baseless, it is a well-documented phenomenon in the realms of science, and I see them particularly clearly in you. Whether that has any truth, only you would know. And aren't all that ad hominem? You are not above making personal attack. This is but one of many incidences. All that you've said about me can be said about yourself. Sartre said it best "Hell is other people" and by god you just saw what you see in yourself.

I said you have misunderstandings in those areas in a completely different thread, I don't believe he said that from what I have read, and I stand by those statements. I also haven't seen any ad hominem against you, but you have been dishing them out rather steadily. If your assumption is not baseless and is well documented, give peer reviewed evidence from a scientific journal. If you do not do that, it is considered scientifically baseless and that's all that matters in a scientific discussion of its merits. Note that even if it is baseless it doesn't mean it's not true, but trying to tell people it is scientifically true without scientific evidence is not the way to go about it.

 

The forum is meant to be a place of civil discussion. This can range from everything in philosophy to literature (especially in psychology which I remind you is a new science that needs information from all areas of life). Out of personal interest, and to enrich my understanding of human beings, I wanted people to talk subjectively about life not about silly definitions. Everything said here could potentially supplement a future research. Everything is useful. But if you get bogged down on something so trivial as personal attacks and semantics then its really everyone's loss.

Psychology being a fairly new science doesn't give it reason to cut corners in scientific methodology. Definitions are a large part of that methodology.

 

[Miser]

But psychology today isn't a peer reviewed source so is not evidence. Since it is not peer reviewed what is written in it tends to be the psychologists conjectures, many of which aren't strongly supported. Also, since Wiki gives link to all its sources you can verify the bases of what is written, many of Psychology Today's articles do not have sources cited in a clear way.

 

Again, Wiki is a fine source since you can easily check its sources.

 

That shouldn't be done this way because the parameters of 'feminine' would differ from judge to judge. You would have to do an separate experiment to show femininity scores are consistent across cultures to eliminate bias. It would be much easier to define feminine in a consistent way.

 

Depending on how you define feminine and complaining would change how this second part turns out. The cold water experiment would be skewed by pain tolerance, so it may not be a good idea to use that one unless pain tolerance is part of the measure of being feminine. Having the confederate in the room may change the outcome as well, people may complain less when being watched. Would complain constitute an obvious statement such as, 'this is uncomfortable/boring' or only when the subject is making excessive remarks about the situation. This is an arbitrary mark, but the demarcation should be known before the experiment starts so you don't fish for p-values. Other than that this part is looks fine.

 

It's common to take a video of experiments, so you could have audio and video for more than just auditory reactions.

 

 

I agree with most of the complaints John and iNow have had, since I have a background in psychology and tend to do fairly well in philosophical areas I find your complaints completely baseless. John and iNow also have a strong background in science, so their advice on scientific processes should not be overlooked just because you disagree with them.

 

 

I said you have misunderstandings in those areas in a completely different thread, I don't believe he said that from what I have read, and I stand by those statements. I also haven't seen any ad hominem against you, but you have been dishing them out rather steadily. If your assumption is not baseless and is well documented, give peer reviewed evidence from a scientific journal. If you do not do that, it is considered scientifically baseless and that's all that matters in a scientific discussion of its merits. Note that even if it is baseless it doesn't mean it's not true, but trying to tell people it is scientifically true without scientific evidence is not the way to go about it.

 

 

Psychology being a fairly new science doesn't give it reason to cut corners in scientific methodology. Definitions are a large part of that methodology.

 

First, I'd like to thank you for your friendlier tone.

 

I disagree. Psychology Today tends to have good references. Ones without it I would overlook as being poorly cited. Whether Psychology Today is a good source largely depends on the discernment of the reader. The wikipedia article that he cited, notably that of the Man Flu, was reported by the 'Daily mail', 'The Daily Telegraph' and 'BBC World service'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_flu

 

Are these good sources? You decide.

 

This discussion isn't in nature a scientific one. I merely wanted to survey reactions of the viewers. The conversation went along fine until the demands came for an objective standard. Which, according to the calibre of this forum, is insufficient. But why should arguments stop just because scientific literature is limited? 'The Trail of the human serpent is overall', truth doesn't have to be reached, at least not yet, by science, To ask me to construct a congruent scientific definition would be asking for the impossible right now. But we can sure as hell talk about it.

 

Not all of their advice are good advice as I've stated above. Much of it has no meaning provided the context and much of it drove the discussion onto detours, per my response to # 19.

 

So you wouldn't call the tone of the following to be hostile in nature?

 

"Miser,

As iNow says, you should change your attitude and learn how to debate science properly.

Alternatively, you can carry on as you are, and I will keep laughing at you (at least until you get chucked out of the forum).

 

Your decision"

 

Why should I change my attitude when they completely misinterpreted the post.

 

What kind of remark is:

"Miser - I suspect that you're used to be the smartest member of your small local group of friends wherever you happen to live or party or whatever, but that's not the case here.“

 

 

And they say my claims are baseless.

"And perhaps most importantly, the whole thread is based on an assertion by someone who is well known for getting things wrong so the whole thing is baseless."

That is a flat out ad hominem. Well known for getting what wrong?

 

Keep in mind once again, that this isn't the making of a journal article. The whole point of this discussion is to gather opinions and further reflection on the topic. Much of psychology and therapy is the discovery of truth through subjective means.

 

As Carl Rogers says in addressing the limits of objective truths in therapy "If we project ourselves into the future, and suppose that we have had the answers to most of the questions which psychology investigates today, what then? Then we would find ourselves increasingly impelled to treat all others, and even ourselves, as objects". There is merit in discussion, be it scientific or not.

 

Also, note #9 and my response to it #10. He prompted me to support my assertion that testosterone and estrogen is important. So I did. In post #11, he completely changes the subject and makes it into a personal attack, completely disregarding the related neuroscience paper I generously made extracts of. This kind of behavior is disappointing for any one who respects truth.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Miser

[Ringer]

 

First, I'd like to thank you for your friendlier tone.

 

I disagree. Psychology Today tends to have good references. Ones without it I would overlook as being poorly cited. Whether Psychology Today is a good source largely depends on the discernment of the reader. The wikipedia article that he cited, notably that of the Man Flu, was reported by the 'Daily mail', 'The Daily Telegraph' and 'BBC World service'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_flu

 

Are these good sources? You decide.

You mean the statement about its report in those places and in the next sentence it says:

The study had nothing to do with the flu (the experiment was related to bacterial, not viral, infection) and was performed on genetically modified mice rather than human beings, so the results are not necessarily applicable to humans.

and cites the NHS source? Yeah, I'd say they do a good job saying a reference was made to a study and the reference was inaccurate. Going on to explain why it was inaccuracy and what the study observed while properly citing the study. I'd say it does a good job.

This discussion isn't in nature a scientific one. I merely wanted to survey reactions of the viewers. The conversation went along fine until the demands came for an objective standard. Which, according to the calibre of this forum, is insufficient. But why should arguments stop just because scientific literature is limited? 'The Trail of the human serpent is overall', truth doesn't have to be reached, at least not yet, by science, To ask me to construct a congruent scientific definition would be asking for the impossible right now. But we can sure as hell talk about it.

 

 

Any discussion in the science sub-forums is considered a scientific discussion and is treated as such. For non-scientific discussion you should post in the lounge. Note, though, that your topic is a scientific topic, so I don't see how this isn't a scientific discussion. I doubt you would want us all to just make things up.

Not all of their advice are good advice as I've stated above. Much of it has no meaning provided the context and much of it drove the discussion onto detours, per my response to # 19.

I don't see how post 19 was in any way off topic. He replied to what you said in appropriate ways, could you elaborate on why it shouldn't have been part of the discussion?

So you wouldn't call the tone of the following to be hostile in nature?

 

"Miser,

As iNow says, you should change your attitude and learn how to debate science properly.

Alternatively, you can carry on as you are, and I will keep laughing at you (at least until you get chucked out of the forum).

 

Your decision"

 

Why should I change my attitude when they completely misinterpreted the post.

 

You have been directly insulting members, not their ideas them as people, and that post is a response to that. Compared to saying someone has no understanding of how psychology works and talking about their mothers this is a very polite reply. Also those insults are not only against the rules, they have been driving the discussion even further away from being productive.

 

What kind of remark is:

"Miser - I suspect that you're used to be the smartest member of your small local group of friends wherever you happen to live or party or whatever, but that's not the case here.“

 

 

It's an observation that is made, and is true, for a lot of people coming here for the first time. It's not meant as an insult, iNow's insults aren't subtle in any way, but just an observation to try to help you understand what tends to happen when someone who is use to being top intelligence in a group goes to a group that is just as intelligent. Many times it is not pretty.

And they say my claims are baseless.

 

"And perhaps most importantly, the whole thread is based on an assertion by someone who is well known for getting things wrong so the whole thing is baseless."

 

That is a flat out ad hominem. Well known for getting what wrong?

The way I read it he was talking about Aristotle, who got a lot of stuff wrong. It still wouldn't be an ad hominem, because it is dispelling an appeal to authority that Aristotle should be right because he is Aristotle. Bringing up Aristotle got a lot of things wrong is an argument against the claim, not the person. Therefore there was not an ad hominem.

Keep in mind once again, that this isn't the making of a journal article. The whole point of this discussion is to gather opinions and further reflection on the topic. Much of psychology and therapy is the discovery of truth through subjective means.

 

As Carl Rogers says in addressing the limits of objective truths in therapy "If we project ourselves into the future, and suppose that we have had the answers to most of the questions which psychology investigates today, what then? Then we would find ourselves increasingly impelled to treat all others, and even ourselves, as objects". There is merit in discussion, be it scientific or not.

 

 

As I said, anything in the science sub-forum is considered, and treated like, a scientific discussion.

Also, note #9 and my response to it #10. He prompted me to support my assertion that testosterone and estrogen is important. So I did. In post #11, he completely changes the subject and makes it into a personal attack, completely disregarding the related neuroscience paper I generously made extracts of. This kind of behavior is disappointing for any one who respects truth.

He didn't change the subject, he restated that biases would harm many aspects of your experiments. That was the majority of post 9, so there was no change in subject. Also, the only source you cited that states anything about what you would be comparing was the testosterone paper, but you never stated if aggression was part of a non-feminine trait. That's why it's important to define these things.