Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Not going to happen (Score 1) 421 421

That's not a big scripted response. I have entire expert systems scripts that trigger in certain circumstances. I don't even think about it.

Oh good! I was starting to think your automated system was limited to responding to ACs with the text "login and we'll talk about it". Glad to hear you've built a much more comprehensive system. I bet it saves you a shitload of time!

As to winkies... I am serious... the error is yours :D

Well, I'm sure we can allow you at least one misuse of a winkie. I certainly won't hold it against you. : )

Shit is occasionally "wrong"... and I spend a lot of my time every day slapping people upside the head and getting them to pull their heads out of their asses.

I don't do that because I want them to feel bad. I do that because they need to fix it and they need to not do that... often.

You sound just like my dad after one of his "episodes". Thanks for the memories!

Comment Re:Not going to happen (Score 1) 421 421

I hear people making that comment seriously all the time. You made it, so you got the scripted response.

That's a helluva scripted response you gots there!

ps - thanks for the winkie at the end of your error comment. Now I know you weren't being serious. : )

Comment Re:It's coming. Watch for it.. (Score 0) 161 161

Here's a good example of an overly aggressive driver

Huh? Did we watch the same video? Passing a bicyclist who refuses to yield the road to a faster vehicle isn't "overly aggressive", and there is no indication in that video that the motorist passed the cyclist dangerously. In fact, the video clearly shows the cyclist chasing down the motorist and initiating a confrontation.

Now, the motorist's behavior after he pulled over is despicable...but there was not a problem one with his passing the cyclist.

IMO, a cyclist who doesn't yield the road to faster vehicles when the opportunity presents it isn't doing himself or his community any favors.

Comment Re:Subject (Score 1) 212 212

I guess you're the type who resorts to sniping when you can lo longer support your arguments. You must be very proud.

I doubt, however, that you're open to any enlightenment whatsoever. You've demonstrated a very closed minded viewpoint in this discussion.

Comment Re:Subject (Score 1) 212 212

Dualism is false, and to say that men and women have different behavior is to say that there are such physical differences.

So you acknowledge the possibility that gender differences in brain structure/biochemistry could cause differences in the ability of the genders to perform certain tasks. Have I got that right?

If culture affects behavior, then culture necessarily affects brain structure and neurochemistry.

That's a pretty extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof... got anything? Can you cite any peer reviewed study that supports your assertion, or should we just take your word for it?

What was under discussion previously in this thread was that such differences are inherent, that is, determined by the genetic differences between men and women.

I don't think so. You keep saying that, but again, my reading of the discussion so far is you are arguing that culture alone explains observed gender strengths/weaknesses. If I'm not mistaken, you now seem to have reversed your position on the matter.

I did read the links you posted. While they are quite interesting, none of them provide any evidence that what they discover is inherent to men and women.

I guess it's a good thing that no one here has claimed a causal link between gender specific brain differences and gender specific skill differences. Why do you keep saying someones has?

...the skeptical position that even more complex traits such as skill-levels and proclivities are likely cultural as well.

You don't know much about the scientific method. An unbiased researcher would not dismiss a possible influence on an experiment.

The second is merely absurd in the face of the ongoing portrayal of STEM in our culture's media, let alone what one would see in carefully observations of social interaction between STEM workers (in academia or industry).

Then you should have no trouble citing an authoritative study that refutes that poster's claim.


Comment Re:nothing new under the sun (Score 1) 446 446

From your own link, many people who file jointly pay less taxes than filing alone. In certain odd circumstances you can end up paying more if you file jointly, but you have the option of filing separately anyway.

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

So worst case scenario, you pay the same as single people. Any other scenario, you pay less.

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?


Comment Re:Subject (Score 1) 212 212

You didn't get it. When you take studies about differences in brain structure and claim it supports a the notion that a specific apparent behavioral different is inherently biological, that is vague handwaving.

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.

Further, behavioral studies which crucially fail to control for culture don't actually say anything other than how people behave, as opposed to why.

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:

"The current study used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to determine whether induced stress resulted in gender-specific patterns of brain activation during a decision task involving monetary reward....Gender differences in behavior were present in stressed participants but not controls, such that stress led to greater reward collection and faster decision speed in males but less reward collection and slower decision speed in females."

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?

The interesting thing here, demonstrated in the OP's responses, is that the underlying motivation is the belief that women don't face obstacles in STEM.

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.

Comment Re:Subject (Score 1) 212 212

In any event, there is plenty of evidence of biological differences in the brains of men and women...

Vaague handwaving over common-sense notions isn't systematic evidence.

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

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?

"Anyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann