Men: Femininity and Masculinity

[Miser]

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

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Now here's someone who knows how to handle people.

 

The man-flu, and the following comparisons to women were not relevant to the discussion. Whether women complain more was never part of the topic. Perhaps I shouldn't be so critical. After-all, it was an attempt to attach relevant research to the dialogue.

 

Fair enough. Though fundamentally, I disagree to the claim that Wikipedia is better than Psychology Today as a scientific source. Both try to be a scientific as possible. Depending on the article, appropriate reference may or may not be found.

 

But people's ideas are the people themselves. The two are inseparable . Why is it that some conversational styles are more effective than others? Why am I less reluctant to discuss the issue at hand with you than with them? It was a direct insult against one's mother. According to psychoanalytic theories, scientists share poor relationship with their mother, which is responsible for an overly objective style of conversing and a more objective approach at finding truth, at the expense of neglecting the speaker and regarding solely the idea. I reject their way of speaking on the premise that people are not machines and still need the appropriate tact if civil discussions were to accrue.

 

Yes, but people should be free to discuss both philosophy and science. What you perceive as attacks were ways of persuading them to not be so narrow and dogmatic in scope of discussion.

That's not how I read it. But even if it is, I borrowed his words to better illustrate a point, mostly because it was Aristotle who got me thinking. It was never meant to be an appeal to authority. Just as I borrowed Carl Rogers' words to emphasize the importance of subjective, experiential discussion over scientific discussion. If both types of discourse benefits the growth of scientific knowledge, then both are necessary.

The citations I made to support my claims - the testosterone and estrogen effects on human cognition - was to illustrate that intuition has its place. Psychology is a broad field and requires an intuitive sifting through of existing knowledge to find emergent patterns. Simply stating that everything is confirmation bias is nonsensical.

[iNow]

What you perceive as attacks were ways of persuading them to not be so narrow and dogmatic in scope of discussion.

And how did that work out for you?

Simply stating that everything is confirmation bias is nonsensical.

It's a good thing that's not what I stated, then. You were discussing perceived patterns across broad swaths of the population, but you were incapable of defining the characteristics and defining criteria of the groups into which you were placing people.

 

The criticism of your point was that these assertions you were making about "feminine men," especially since you could not clearly articulate your criteria for what constitutes a "feminine man," were almost certainly nothing more than the result of your own confirmation bias. You formed a preconception in your mind about a pattern among the population and you over-remembered examples that reinforced this preconception and under-remembered examples that contradicted it.

 

The criticism was that your contention is incredibly unlikely to be based on any real or measurable effect. That is not equivalent to "stating that everything is confirmation bias," only that your conjecture in the OP very likely is.

 

Precision in language is rather important when engaged in science. Failing to respect this point will do you no favors when seeking to understand the cosmos and when trying to abandon the acceptance of falsehoods from your mind.

[Ringer]

Fair enough. Though fundamentally, I disagree to the claim that Wikipedia is better than Psychology Today as a scientific source. Both try to be a scientific as possible. Depending on the article, appropriate reference may or may not be found.

Alright, so here's an example from Psychology Today:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rewired-the-psychology-technology/201212/weapons-mass-distraction

 

This doesn't have anything to do with the topic specifically, but it's just an example of things I, personally, dislike about PT as well as the real problems it tends to have as a source.

 

This article talks about how bad cells phones are by showing that younger people are more anxious when they don't have access to their cell phones, but the data shown has no reference to check the data against. So for all we know he had a sample size of 5 for each generation, and led every question in a personal interview. It also ignores all the evidence showing that texting and regular phone use increases reading and phonetic abilities (I can provide references if you would like) which would go against his basic premise of not being able to focus or attend to work since it would imply that it is easier for one to focus and retain information if they do use the phone more. On top of that, he creates a false equivalence of people's mild anxiety of not checking their phone with the debilitating anxiety of OCD. This would probably be profoundly insulting to people that have to actually deal with that problem. Also, pretty much his entire article is used to sell his book.

 

These problems seem very common in PT from what I have seen. So I would much rather use Wiki than PT.

But people's ideas are the people themselves. The two are inseparable . Why is it that some conversational styles are more effective than others? Why am I less reluctant to discuss the issue at hand with you than with them? It was a direct insult against one's mother. According to psychoanalytic theories, scientists share poor relationship with their mother, which is responsible for an overly objective style of conversing and a more objective approach at finding truth, at the expense of neglecting the speaker and regarding solely the idea. I reject their way of speaking on the premise that people are not machines and still need the appropriate tact if civil discussions were to accrue.

 

 

No they are not. If I am proven wrong I do not change as a person, but my idea does change. I've never heard the idea of scientists having poor relationships with their mothers. Since I have a great relationship with my mother, and many of the scientists I know have fine relationships with their mothers, I would say that theory is crap. If it is based on Freud know that he was a quack and tended to pull things out of the air. As for him coming up with a couple good ideas, even a broke clock is right twice a day.

Yes, but people should be free to discuss both philosophy and science. What you perceive as attacks were ways of persuading them to not be so narrow and dogmatic in scope of discussion.

Wouldn't it have been easier to ask them not to be so narrow and dogmatic? Because I, as well as they, did not see that angle at all. When an insult is used the argument tends to get lost because if insults are used it is usually assumed the person insulting has nothing more of interest to say. That's one reason it is a horrible idea to use a personal insult for any purpose.

 

Philosophy and science can be discussed, but it should be made clear which is being discussed early on.

That's not how I read it. But even if it is, I borrowed his words to better illustrate a point, mostly because it was Aristotle who got me thinking. It was never meant to be an appeal to authority. Just as I borrowed Carl Rogers' words to emphasize the importance of subjective, experiential discussion over scientific discussion. If both types of discourse benefits the growth of scientific knowledge, then both are necessary.

And that's perfectly fine, the problem came when nothing else was brought to support that statements made.

 

The citations I made to support my claims - the testosterone and estrogen effects on human cognition - was to illustrate that intuition has its place. Psychology is a broad field and requires an intuitive sifting through of existing knowledge to find emergent patterns. Simply stating that everything is confirmation bias is nonsensical.

 

No one argued that testosterone and estrogen don't affect human cognition, so that was not the premise that needed to be supported.

[John Cuthber]

 

Response to post #19

 

1 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.

 

2 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.

 

3 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.

 

4 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.

 

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

 

6 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.

 

7 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.

 

 

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.

 

8 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.

 

9 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.

1 I think WIKI has two merits, if it's wrong there's a fair chance someone will correct it and it cites references that you can follow if you wish.

Complaining about WIKI is shooting the messenger and, as such, pointless.

2 LOL can you tell what accent I have?

No?

OK, that wraps up the idea that spoken language is important here. Why did you raise it? Had you forgotten that this is a website?

3 Your starting point was Aristotle who talked (rather insultingly) about women. It's rather silly to try to exclude them from the discussion. Not least because you hadn't actually defined what a womanish man was so that would leave the discussion floundering. On the other hand, women are a fairly well defined group so it's not unreasonable to use them as a reference.

4 see 1

 

5 OK, my mistake, I just checked and I mistyped whining as shining.

The point is that our Aussie cousins are noted for saying that men who are involved in sport complain a lot. So that tends to argue that either you are mistaken or that sporting men are womanish. I will let you tell them that.

Together with the "man flu" reference they show that it is perceived by some that it is "manly" to complain. This is at odds with your original hypothesis(which I remind you is based on the work of someone noted for getting things flatly wrong).

 

6 I think I have indicated the basis for at least the great majority of points I have made. If I have missed some please let me know and I will clarify them

 

7 When pressed repeatedly for weeks, you do what the forum rules require. Why didn't you do that earlier?

 

8 It is a place for discussion. By not answering people's questions you failed to take part in a civilised discussion. Instead you made random noises about their mothers.

 

9 At a guess, someone who gets asked about his relationship with his mother or if he hurts people's feelings often; or perhaps most bizarrely, is accused of being a chemist.

Edited December 19, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Miser]

Alright, so here's an example from Psychology Today:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rewired-the-psychology-technology/201212/weapons-mass-distraction

 

This doesn't have anything to do with the topic specifically, but it's just an example of things I, personally, dislike about PT as well as the real problems it tends to have as a source.

 

This article talks about how bad cells phones are by showing that younger people are more anxious when they don't have access to their cell phones, but the data shown has no reference to check the data against. So for all we know he had a sample size of 5 for each generation, and led every question in a personal interview. It also ignores all the evidence showing that texting and regular phone use increases reading and phonetic abilities (I can provide references if you would like) which would go against his basic premise of not being able to focus or attend to work since it would imply that it is easier for one to focus and retain information if they do use the phone more. On top of that, he creates a false equivalence of people's mild anxiety of not checking their phone with the debilitating anxiety of OCD. This would probably be profoundly insulting to people that have to actually deal with that problem. Also, pretty much his entire article is used to sell his book.

 

These problems seem very common in PT from what I have seen. So I would much rather use Wiki than PT.

 

No they are not. If I am proven wrong I do not change as a person, but my idea does change. I've never heard the idea of scientists having poor relationships with their mothers. Since I have a great relationship with my mother, and many of the scientists I know have fine relationships with their mothers, I would say that theory is crap. If it is based on Freud know that he was a quack and tended to pull things out of the air. As for him coming up with a couple good ideas, even a broke clock is right twice a day.

 

Wouldn't it have been easier to ask them not to be so narrow and dogmatic? Because I, as well as they, did not see that angle at all. When an insult is used the argument tends to get lost because if insults are used it is usually assumed the person insulting has nothing more of interest to say. That's one reason it is a horrible idea to use a personal insult for any purpose.

 

Philosophy and science can be discussed, but it should be made clear which is being discussed early on.

 

And that's perfectly fine, the problem came when nothing else was brought to support that statements made.

 

 

No one argued that testosterone and estrogen don't affect human cognition, so that was not the premise that needed to be supported.

 

That's true. It is thus why its important to rely on the good judgement of the individual to discern good articles from bad ones. Wikipedia provides information, but it is too broad in scope. To find specialized knowledge, it is best to use PT. Admittedly though, some make claims without reference and that can be annoying.

 

That article in particular is probably the result of his intuitive reasoning. Maybe that means little among hard scientists but it is still quite important to acknowledge. To digress a bit, I would say we have to separate the effects of 'the phonetic improvement from phone use' from the 'anxiety for not using phones'. Both play a role in affecting attention.

 

What was said about OCD is due to the quality of psychological illness being on spectrums. In other words, its rarely black and white. It's not whether you have it or you don't. Though a person may not satisfy the criteria of being a full flown obsessive compulsive, relevant impulses may exist. Like it or not, we all reside somewhere on the OCD spectrum, though the severity differs from person to person. The behavior of checking phones is related to "checking", and the act of checking in general dispels anxiety. Perhaps that is supposed to be implicit in the psychological repertoire.

 

I do see your concern and, as with anything else, one must be vigilant.

 

Are our intellectual construct a reflection of our selves? I say it does. Everything goes through the bottom-up and top-down processes of our brain. A stimuli is modified by previous schemas and previous schemas select what is encoded. A little like Plato's cave allegory where a person is used to seeing shadows all his life becoming disoriented when exposed to anything outside of the cave. No matter how rational we act, we still act upon pre-existent impulses. This seems banally true and what I've learned thus far seems to support my reasoning. Feel free to disagree.

 

Maybe its fair to dismiss Freud on scientific grounds but lets not completely forget his important contribution to philosophy and the beginning of psychology. He worked with whatever he had in his day. Its no surprise that people in the past are usually more wrong than people in the present.

 

Onto the claim about the relationship between scientists and their mother. This is taken out of Gender and Science, '"One of McClelland's especially interesting finding was that 90 percent of a group of eminent scientists see, in the "mother-son" picture routinely given as part of the Thematic Appreciation Test, "the mother and son going their separate ways", a relatively infrequent response to this picture in the general population. It conforms, however, with the more general observation of a distant relationship to the mother, frequently coupled with "open or covert attitudes of derogation". "'

 

Obviously it won't apply to all scientists, but it re-emerges with enough frequency to warrant consideration. After reading this passage, I felt compelled to ask. The desire to confirm, or not, this observation simply outweighed the risk of hurt feelings. This especially seemed likely because of their complete neglect of human intuition. If I hadn't uttered it, I would be thinking about it anyways. I maintain that it was best that I articulated what I thought. Whether that's baseless is personal to you.

 

It takes some time to get to the bottom of subterranean feelings especially when under attack from all sides.

 

It was important to prove that the importance of the two neuraochemicals did coincide with my intuitions and that intuitions are not completely useless.

 

1 I think WIKI has two merits, if it's wrong there's a fair chance someone will correct it and it cites references that you can follow if you wish.

Complaining about WIKI is shooting the messenger and, as such, pointless.

2 LOL can you tell what accent I have?

No?

OK, that wraps up the idea that spoken language is important here. Why did you raise it? Had you forgotten that this is a website?

3 Your starting point was Aristotle who talked (rather insultingly) about women. It's rather silly to try to exclude them from the discussion. Not least because you hadn't actually defined what a womanish man was so that would leave the discussion floundering. On the other hand, women are a fairly well defined group so it's not unreasonable to use them as a reference.

4 see 1

 

5 OK, my mistake, I just checked and I mistyped whining as shining.

The point is that our Aussie cousins are noted for saying that men who are involved in sport complain a lot. So that tends to argue that either you are mistaken or that sporting men are womanish. I will let you tell them that.

Together with the "man flu" reference they show that it is perceived by some that it is "manly" to complain. This is at odds with your original hypothesis(which I remind you is based on the work of someone noted for getting things flatly wrong).

 

6 I think I have indicated the basis for at least the great majority of points I have made. If I have missed some please let me know and I will clarify them

 

7 When pressed repeatedly for weeks, you do what the forum rules require. Why didn't you do that earlier?

 

8 It is a place for discussion. By not answering people's questions you failed to take part in a civilised discussion. Instead you made random noises about their mothers.

 

9 At a guess, someone who gets asked about his relationship with his mother or if he hurts people's feelings often; or perhaps most bizarrely, is accused of being a chemist.

 

Fair enough. I've learned much.

 

7. Because we were diverted in discussing other things. I felt it important to defend every claim I made, against every argument you made. I respond as prompted

[John Cuthber]

Nice try.

Why didn't you actually define what you were talking about in the first post?

OK, so you forgot or whatever.

But the very first line of the first reply you got asked you to do it.

"The concept of "feminine" is ambiguous, ill-defined, and often applied based on little more than personal bias and local cultural experience. It is not really a useful characteristic, it is not an either/or trait, nor is it consistently applied across observers. It would help if you could define what you mean when you use that term."

 

So, before anyone said anything that diverted you in any way, you were asked to clarify what you were on about: and you didn't.

[iNow]

Nice try.

Why didn't you actually define what you were talking about in the first post?

OK, so you forgot or whatever.

But the very first line of the first reply you got asked you to do it.

"The concept of "feminine" is ambiguous, ill-defined, and often applied based on little more than personal bias and local cultural experience. It is not really a useful characteristic, it is not an either/or trait, nor is it consistently applied across observers. It would help if you could define what you mean when you use that term."

 

Gosh. That's practically an ad hom. I cannot believe such filth is allowed here at SFN. I think I should probably be banned for such vitriolic, vicious, vandalistic posts.

[Miser]

Nice try.

Why didn't you actually define what you were talking about in the first post?

OK, so you forgot or whatever.

But the very first line of the first reply you got asked you to do it.

"The concept of "feminine" is ambiguous, ill-defined, and often applied based on little more than personal bias and local cultural experience. It is not really a useful characteristic, it is not an either/or trait, nor is it consistently applied across observers. It would help if you could define what you mean when you use that term."

 

So, before anyone said anything that diverted you in any way, you were asked to clarify what you were on about: and you didn't.

Nice try what? What am I trying?

 

And I did try to clarify it for you. You should read the following post. I emphasized that the discussion is in nature subjective. Look to the above to find my provisional definition. If it doesn't satisfy you, as it doesn't me, provide me a better one.

 

 

 

Gosh. That's practically an ad hom. I cannot believe such filth is allowed here at SFN. I think I should probably be banned for such vitriolic, vicious, vandalistic posts.

 

 

 

That's in no way a diversion from the topic nor is it essentially hostile. Good approach! That's definitely not a straw-person argument to what I have said. You've shown how definitely a classy gentleman you are.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Miser

[iNow]

That's definitely not a straw-person argument to what I have said. You've shown how definitely a classy gentleman you are.

I agree completely. It most certainly was not a strawman argument of what you'd said. If you think it was, then perhaps we should open another thread so we can help you better learn what a strawman argument is, and when it applies. That is not the case here.

 

Regardless, it sure has seemed these last several posts that you've chosen to ignore our requests for actual on-topic discussion and have decided instead that further personal comments would suit your purposes better. That's fine, but I have no interest in continuing that with you. Enjoy.

[Miser]

I agree completely. It most certainly was not a strawman argument of what you'd said. If you think it was, then perhaps we should open another thread so we can help you better learn what a strawman argument is, and when it applies. That is not the case here.

 

Regardless, it sure has seemed these last several posts that you've chosen to ignore our requests for actual on-topic discussion and have decided instead that further personal comments would suit your purposes better. That's fine, but I have no interest in continuing that with you. Enjoy.

By oversimplifying my position, you've committed the straw man fallacy. There's no question about it. And you shouldn't be stubborn.

 

Uh huh, like you weren't the one who also diverted the topic. Your holier than thou atttude is undeserved. Leave the discussion, how much have you contributed? Good riddance

[iNow]

In fairness, I have tried contributing to your topic by trying to work with you to bring it clarity and some actual science. You have been stubbornly reluctant to actually address the on-topic comments and have consistently chosen instead to lash out with invective, personal barbs, and assertions about our relationships with our mothers.

 

Before you act all "holier than thou," I recommend that you try improving your own approach instead of continuing to act like an obnoxious twit.

Edited December 20, 2012 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

Nice try what? What am I trying?

 

 

Well, you wrote "Because we were diverted in discussing other things. I felt it important to defend every claim I made, against every argument you made. I respond as prompted." so it's fair to assume that you were trying to convince people that it was true.

 

But, cruel heartless scientist that I am, I posted evidence which showed that it isn't true.

You weren't "diverted" at all- you were asked to clarify what you had written as the very first line of the first reply.

 

It's not the first time I have pointed out that what you say simply isn't supported by evidence or even flys in the face of the evidence.

I don't plan to stop doing that so, if you don't want your nose rubbing in it every time you say something that's just flat out wrong, try being less wrong or, at least try being less pig-headed about it.

 

You could start by finding out what a straw man fallacy is.

[Miser]

Well, you wrote "Because we were diverted in discussing other things. I felt it important to defend every claim I made, against every argument you made. I respond as prompted." so it's fair to assume that you were trying to convince people that it was true.

 

But, cruel heartless scientist that I am, I posted evidence which showed that it isn't true.

You weren't "diverted" at all- you were asked to clarify what you had written as the very first line of the first reply.

 

It's not the first time I have pointed out that what you say simply isn't supported by evidence or even flys in the face of the evidence.

I don't plan to stop doing that so, if you don't want your nose rubbing in it every time you say something that's just flat out wrong, try being less wrong or, at least try being less pig-headed about it.

 

You could start by finding out what a straw man fallacy is.

 

And so I did. I responded to every concern possible. I have clarified how Masculinity and Femininity could be objectively recorded in the scientific literature via objective judges and then some. What you don't find clear about, please state them. I don't rather care that I am wrong, what concerns me is how unsatisfying your counter-arguments are. Granted, some are right and I have done my best to address them.

 

And how have I been wrong?

 

He oversimplified my claim to say that I've perceived every statement you've made is an attack. This is not the case. The ad hominem that I see were recurring but not wholly prevalent. He made a poor caricature of what I had said and made it so ridiculous that its beyond adherence. Hence, it is a straw man.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

 

In fairness, I have tried contributing to your topic by trying to work with you to bring it clarity and some actual science. You have been stubbornly reluctant to actually address the on-topic comments and have consistently chosen instead to lash out with invective, personal barbs, and assertions about our relationships with our mothers.

 

Before you act all "holier than thou," I recommend that you try improving your own approach instead of continuing to act like an obnoxious twit.

 

 

 

I have addressed the problem, but still was quickly diverted into discussing other things.

 

So, what else needs to be addressed? We'll start anew from #47 and #48

Edited December 20, 2012 by Miser

[iNow]

I have clarified how Masculinity and Femininity could be objectively recorded in the scientific literature via objective judges and then some.

More than anything else, I'd still like to know what specific criteria and thresholds you are using to determine when a male is or is not considered feminine. My recollection is that you brushed that question aside and did not, in fact, address it. If I am mistaken, then I apologize, but I'd welcome you quoting the part of this thread I missed where you answered and addressed that specific request.

[Miser]

More than anything else, I'd still like to know what specific criteria and thresholds you are using to determine when a male is or is not considered feminine. My recollection is that you brushed that question aside and did not, in fact, address it. If I am mistaken, then I apologize, but I'd welcome you quoting the part of this thread I missed where you answered and addressed that specific request.

 

That's very big of you. I appreciate that.

 

As of now, I rely on the subjective judgment of say 10 objective judges that is to be watching the experiment through a camera in another room. They are to judge the masculinity/femininity of the experimental subject on a 1-10 point scale. The subject would then proceed to conducting a series of tasks which would elicit complaining. See #47 48

 

The average judgment of the 10 would serve as the independent variable,

 

As Ringer pointed out, this is not perfect, but it is my provisional attempt, and, dare I say, more congruent with the current methods of science.

 

Judges have the advantage of bypassing overly reductionistic definitions of masculinity and femininity as it can bypass the myriads of individual factors that contribute to this judgement. In short, the sum is greater than its parts. Everything from clothing to the manner of speech could affect the opinion of the judge, and rightly so.

 

Now, I still don't want to completely discard the fat to muscle ratio. If one wants to be strict, this parameter needs to be defined more closely to its context and considered with other factors. It is one of many factors that contribute to whether a person is masculine or feminine, though by itself it is poor. But for now, I will rely on the "Objective judges" method.

[John Cuthber]

"As of now, I rely on the subjective judgment of say 10 objective judges"

"But for now, I will rely on the "Objective judges" method."

Lol

[Miser]

"As of now, I rely on the subjective judgment of say 10 objective judges"

"But for now, I will rely on the "Objective judges" method."

Lol

 

I would argue that subjective is objective, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion

[John Cuthber]

 

I would argue that subjective is objective, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion

It seems to me that you would argue with a signpost.

It's also reasonable to suggest that you would argue unsuccessfully that subjective is objective.

Have you considered a career in stand up comedy?

[Miser]

It seems to me that you would argue with a signpost.

It's also reasonable to suggest that you would argue unsuccessfully that subjective is objective.

Have you considered a career in stand up comedy?

 

Aren't you also arguing with a signpost then.

 

Like I said, beyond the scope. And I will argue successfully, I wouldn't make claims that have no basis.

 

You definitely seemed to have made the consideration.

 

And that's not the point. Now you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing, and not to get at any higher truths.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Miser

[John Cuthber]

If you can't tell a subjective judge from an objective one then I'm not the only one who won't get to the truth.

The point (which you missed) is that you actually need an objective judge- not to mention double blind conditions etc to get a reliable measurement of what you are looking at.

but I pointed that out ages ago and you ignored it.

[Miser]

If you can't tell a subjective judge from an objective one then I'm not the only one who won't get to the truth.

The point (which you missed) is that you actually need an objective judge- not to mention double blind conditions etc to get a reliable measurement of what you are looking at.

but I pointed that out ages ago and you ignored it.

 

That's not what I mean. Objectivity is in nature subjective. After all, man is the measure of all things. But don't take this too far, there are truths that are more comprehensive and precise than others. Like that of a statistically significant finding being much more reliable than the mere opinion of an individual. Yet, this doesn't mean the individual's opinions are completely useless. I don't want to get into that right now. We're straying again.

 

Its implicit in any experiment the necessity of the double-blind condition. I didn't ignore it, if I did I must have thought it a redundant comment. But please refer to the specific post you are talking about.

 

Better yet, lets continue from #65