Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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.

Cheers!

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?

Cheers!

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:

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?

Comment Re:All this means is that you can catch them (Score 1) 339 339

I think you've confused "data" with the plural of anecdote.

According to the very conservative numbers from the NCVS (national crime victimization survey) nearly 300,000 rapes and/or sexual assaults occur each year.

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?

Single or even double-digit number of false rape reports in the newspapers is statistical noise.

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.

Comment Re:Phillips not the first with harebrained schemes (Score 1) 279 279

Do you really think those people are going to argue with management that they shouldn't have a job developing this concept?

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.

Comment Re:That is not necessarily true (Score 1) 278 278

Really... and all the election polls were accurate? http://www.yourememberthat.com...

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

"...look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?"

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.

Election polls are frequently wrong.

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

The republicans in 2012 thought they were going to win as I remember.

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.

There is so much evidence that you're choking on stupidity: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

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."

Your argument would require that the polls all agree with each other... but they don't.

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.

Comment Re:That is not necessarily true (Score 1) 278 278

As to the notion that you can retain accuracy with 9 percent response rates [blah blah blah]...

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?

Comment Re:That is not necessarily true (Score 1) 278 278

Are you channeling more of your stupidity from beyond the grave? Alright... I'll link hands with some people and I'll invite you into our circle, spirit... ... Ooooommm.... *meditates on your idioicy* :p

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.

As to poll response rates not making them less accurate... it does make them less precise though.

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:

"...look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?"

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

And lets talk further about how these are telephone polls and they don't poll cellphones.

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.

Do you want to know the last time I owned a land line phone?

No.

And I'm supposed to respect any of it? Sorry... I'm not one of the peasants your lot bamboozles with this stupidity.

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.

Comment Re:That is not necessarily true (Score 1) 278 278

I cited many examples of people talking about poll inaccuracy.

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.

As to opinion polls, actually the topic is about Pew Opinion poll.

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

...look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?

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.

Kill yourself. No really. Put down the keyboard. Get up. And stop wasting oxygen.

What a childish little twat you are.

As to ignorance regarding poll participation... You really did zero research in your short life didn't you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

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:

"Yet the study also finds evidence that on most of the wide variety of measures tested, the declining response rates alone are not causing surveys to yield inaccurate results."

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.

The world is better place now that you're gone. There is one less moron. :D

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

I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated. -- Poul Anderson

Working...