You know what? After looking into the matter more extensively, the balance of the sources I found indicates you're right! Thanks!

Nope, not that part. There are plenty of married couples filing jointly that pay more taxes than non-married couples filing singly.

Now, I haven't yet come across a percentage of one option vs the other, but there does seem to be a marriage penalty for at least some married couples. Whether or not it constitutes a majority, I can't say. Got any info pertinent to the question?

Cheers!

They don't.

Uh huh. I'm pretty sure it's you that doesn't get it. I made no such claims. What I did do is provide you with a list of links that conclusively show biological differences in the brains of men and women, which were trivially easy to find, and which disprove your position that there's no reliable evidence to the contrary.

Did you actually read any of the papers in my list of citations? If you did, you would have noticed that the studies are grounded in observed brain structure/biology, not behavior. Controlling for culture in these studies would be based on the assumption that culture somehow has a measurable effect on brain structure and biochemistry, and that different cultures would have different brain structures. Is that your position?

In any event, I would point out that the last two papers I linked to do in fact seem to claim a causal relationship between male/female brain differences and observed behavior. The paper's abstract hosted on the Oxford Journal site reads in part:

I'm not a neurologist, and I take no position on the conclusions of that study. But it sure looks to me like the paper's researchers are claiming a direct relationship between differences in male/female brains and gender differences in the ability to perform a decision making task under stress. Does this study meet your standard of reliable information? If not, why?

Which OP is that? The only thing I see under discussion here is the question of 1) whether or not there are biological differences in the brains of men vs women, and 2) whether or not biology might play a role in women being underrepresented in some professions and overrepresented in others.

It took me about 3 minutes to find the following studies showing that brain structure/chemistry is indeed different for men and women:

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
http://nro.sagepub.com/content...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
http://www.brain-mind-institut...
http://scan.oxfordjournals.org...

The last two of the studies listed above don't just show gender specific biological differences in the brain, they link the differences to skills/behavior.

Honestly, a trained chimp could find this stuff. Why is it you can't?

LOL! You're a postdoc in philosophy, right? Nice!

???

I agree with everything you said. If you somehow disagree with something I said, I'm not seeing it in your post.

Interesting. Does the NCVS gather any stats on the crime of false accusation of rape? No? Can you point me to any reputable organization that does?

Reported rapes are themselves a dark figure; false rape accusations are an even darker figure. In practical terms, it may be impossible to get to the actual number of false accusations.

Nonetheless, the FBI's numbers say 1 in 12 reported rapes are unfounded. The FBI also notes that for the more general class of "false accusations of adult crime", women perpetrate the majority of them.

The concept is developed, and the products have already been deployed in the marketplace. This technology is successful. Period. But feel free to continue to come up with more far-fetched scenarios about how entrepreneurs at mind-boggling successful corporations are a bunch of no-nothing rubes.

If he had, he'd prolly be cured of his foot-in-mouth disease. ;-)

Pecan Lodge...started in shed 2, landed in deep ellum...poised to take over the world!

Nobody said ALL the election polls were accurate. YOU are the one who said:

How many times are you going to point to a SINGLE instance where the polls were wrong? Do you honestly think anyone reading this exchange is is as retarded as you are? The fact is, polls very rarely get elections results wrong. Exactly the opposite of your unbelievably ignorant claim.

What the fuck does "frequently" mean? Your position is that polls "very rarely match up with the actual election." FACTS disagree with you.

What the Republicans thought in 2012 has shit to do with the historic accuracy of polls. That Gallup got it wrong in the 2012 presidential election doesn't change the fact that Gallup got it right 85% of the time.

I thought you eschewed the validity of citations. Are you sure you want to bring them back into the argument? Why don't you show me some historical data confirming polls "very rarely match up with the actual election."

Uh, yeah, more often than not they do. Your argument is that polls are rarely accurate. I have provided DATA nullifying your claim. The best you can do is shit out cherry-picked data.

Continue to make a fool out of yourself. I'd say it's giving me a hard-on, but homo-eroticism is your specialty.

What a sad sad person your are. I don't have any notions about accuracy/response rates.

What I do have is polling DATA from every fucking national election since 1936. You claim election polls "very rarely match up with the actual election". I show you a 85% success rate, and you still cling to your ridiculous position.

I guess the fact that conducting polls is an activity of *every* *single* *election* campaign (that can afford them) in the US and elsewhere escapes you. All these politicians spending campaign resources conducting polls are just fooling themselves, because, according to you, polls are worthless.

In your next response, you might consider avoiding yet another attempt at misdirection. Seriously. Using this tactic once is bad enough. Using it over and over and over just makes you look even more brainless.

But hey, continue dancing around in a circle with one hand clasped to the other. Isn't that what retards do?

First you'll have to find some people who as out of touch with reality as you are. You can't make a circle when you're alone.

You've completely lost it. Synonyms...have you heard of them?

But go ahead and waste more time trying to split hairs with semantics. Poll response rates aren't the issue here. The track record of election polls is what's under debate. Since you are yet again trying to divert attention away from your initial position, let me remind you of it ONE MORE TIME:

Why do you continually try to avoid addressing this claim directly? Oh yeah, it's an indefensible position.

O boy, can we?!? I SO want to talk further about something that has zip zilch squat to do with your original position. Your obvious and clumsy attempts at misdirection are becoming tiresome.

No.

The only thing people around here expect you to respect are facts. Here's a fun fact: Gallup has successfully predicted the results of 17 of the last 20 presidential elections. Pew has a similar track record. If you want to continue to argue that an 85% success rate equals "very rarely" matching up "with the actual election", I'm here for you. I am more than happy for you to continue to embarrass yourself in front of anyone reading this exchange.

I don't give the smallest fuck over your many irrelevant citations. I'm simply telling you that your claim about how election polls "very rarely match up with the actual election" is complete horseshit.

Election polls in the US have a long track record of accuracy going back DECADES. The fact that you refuse to recognize this - even when you're pimp-slapped with actual data - just shows how utterly out of touch you are with reality.

No you pinhead, the topic at hand is your statement:

Why do you have to constantly be reminded of your dimwitted remark? I guess if I were you, I would want to forget about it too. After all, the only thing dumber than saying it would be defending it...oh wait.

What a childish little twat you are.

Yes, poll response rates are falling. Yes, declining rates can introduce selection bias. I guess it's a good thing I didn't claim otherwise.

But declining response rates don't automatically cause a poll to be inaccurate. How do I know that? Because the SECOND FUCKING PARAGRAPH of your huffpo article reads:

Talk about doing ZERO research. Protip: read through an article BEFORE claiming it supports your position.

What a pitiful display. Your ability to embarrass yourself with a constant flow of ignorant, self-contradictory statements is simply breathtaking. And your multiple sorry ass attempts to move the discussion away from your original statement isn't going well for you. Apparently you are oblivious to that fact.

I'm not going anywhere, nimrod. I've got lots of free time to help you continue to humiliate yourself.

You've fought the good fight. But unfortunately, Karmashock is a loser with no life who spends all day pumping the internet full of long winded falsehoods. The only way to defeat him is to quit your job and go full time. But even then you will have a tough time keeping up with the manic pace of his illogical posts.

I nominate you for a Saint Jude medal.

You're asking the wrong idiot. Karmashock pronounces it "new cue lar".