Wow. So you disagreed with my claim that there was no evidence. But you also claim that there is evidence. But you won't say what it is.

Amazing what a flexible view of reality you have, are there any other mutually exclusive angles that you want to rave about?

You quoted a point. You argue that the context of that point was not what you meant. You are an idiot.

Classic passive aggressive troll games, ignoring points, shifting, insults. Later loser, you are just not good enough at this to make it interesting.

It is extraordinary that there is no hard evidence? Should be easy for you to provide a single counter-example then.

You did argue that point - by taking a quote from that discussion. Have you read the manual or are you just picking it up as you go along?

Hilarious. You should do this for a living.

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just wrote?

No. But I do see I gaping logical error in your response.

Is a young girl constrained to playing with pink and fluffy toys?

No. But you seem to have assumed that my answer would be yes.

Explain your sexist attitude in what toys little girls are alloed to play with.

Your query seems to be invalid as it is based on an incorrect assumption.

In my world, if a girl wanted to play with Tonka toy tractors, that is what she would get to play with.

Glad to hear it. Tonka toy tractors are an excellent toy for anyone.

But if she wanted to play "Disney princesss", she could do that too.

Excellent, and indeed why not? I asked how we would see a bias if there is a systematic bias in the toys available for girls. If they are restricted to "market deemed acceptable female toys" then they are being excluded from certain choices. Saying that we should not do this does not exclude girls from choosing whatever kind of toy they want. It simply means that they should have a real choice, that somewhere among the 2000 rows of pinky fluffy little princess variations there would actually be a Tonka toy tractor, and not that she would have to head over into the "boys" section to get that real choice.

And sorry, but sexist attitudes like yours are pretty piggish, You don't have the right to tell me what toys my daughter can play with.

So how does that sound when you read it back?

Interesting material. I skipped the video but I dug out the original article. The experiment design is neat and seems to show a clear preference, but there is something a little odd about it. Why is the red pan (wholly inanimate and very culturally dependent) more popular with the female sample than the doll? This does water down the hypothesis that the authors loosely sound out in the discussion than it is the animate / inanimate distinction that provides an explanation for the differentiated interest. Nice experiment, it seems to have been cited heavily - has anybody achieved sharper results.

It's lovely that you think that I'm some kind of social scientist, but really: point to a single piece of hard evidence that proves that girls are hardwired to develop interests or traits in the absence of social feedback.

Ah, but under slashdot rules and regulations disagreeing with the hivemind is trolling. Doesn't bother me, I've had karma to burn forever, including the inevitable sockpuppet accounts that will modbomb me for a few weeks until they get bored and move on.

Well a bias in females IS systematic, just like it is for males, the system being biology.

Definitely true anatomically, but there is no evidence that is true behaviourally.

It it compels both sexes to different preferences and behavior.

By confusing anatomy and behaviour you have just asserted a claim that has no evidence. I am not saying it definitely false, as I have no evidence either, but I am saying that at this point in time we don't know either way.

Ever consider girls don't like girly things cause there marketed towards them, but rather, that girly things are marketed to girls cause thats there tried and true demographic?

Yes we all indulge in speculation. Have you ever encountered any evidence that it is true?

That press release says that a bunch of anthropologists have seen something that may possibly look like innate behaviour. That is strong enough for you to declare that it is biological? I am guessing that you do not do this for a living.

What feminists argue really has no bearing on anything. It would be a bit rich to assume that a bias in females was systematic, but then again that is not what I said. I said that the stimulus presented to that group was systematically biased, as a result of which we cannot say anything at all about bias in that group. Certainly we can't the type of conclusions that the OP was extracting from his butt.

It is a bit rich to talk of a natural distribution in the population of girls. How would we observe it when there is a systematic bias towards pink and fluffy in every toy and media aimed at girls? All you have really stated is that given a bias towards X in our sample, we have observed a tendency to pick X. That is not a conclusion that I would be proud of, and it mirrors the opening paragraphs of TFA.

It's not hard. Put whatever you want inside one of these: http://www.fractal-design.com/...

Technically it is not silent: in the dead of night I can tell there is a fan inside there, but I have to concentrate and it is quite indistinct. Mine has a GTX970 in it so there is no need to compromise between power and silence.

When doesn't that work? I haven't seen a problem with video in a browser on linux for years.