|
|
| |
Forum Overview
::
Motherfucking News
|
| |
|
by laudablepuss 02/12/2007, 10:38am PST |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Zseni wrote:
Always so many studies about how women are different than men, and by different we usually mean inferior. It's as though people found it insufficient to let nature - in the sense of naturally observable phenomena - take its course; the weaknesses and inabilities of women must be constantly and concretely demonstrated by research.
So . . . the research is not based on observable phenomina?
Some dude has made quite a name for himself with a book about how food science is basically wrong. He explains that food scientists keep deciding that whatever they are studying is the most important of all possible food attributes: first macronutrients, then vitamins and minerals, then more abstract nutrients like bran or omega-3 fatty acids. We are undoubtedly getting somewhere important as far as knowing what food is and isn't, and what it can and can't do, but in the interim food science and its ol' buddy, the tragedy of the commons, have created all kinds of problems - diabetes epidemics, hyper-processed foodstuffs, the neglect of the humble yam. Etc.
Robert Laughlin (in his book, A Different Universe) points out that a great deal of bad science is being done in areas where emergent properties loom large, like materials science and certain areas of biology. This sounds suspiciously like what he was talking about. But the kind of bad science that's most likely in this case is the kind that often happens in anthropology and other areas that study people: namely political agendas. I'm not sure either one applies, however.
Slate is a beigeist tragedy. There isn't a man alive who has lived a woman's life, so it's absurd to continue to expect note-for-note congruity between women and men. Still more absurd to set up one group as "better" than the other in a domain like "handles stress" - what if women cried less, but men got heart disease less often? Which one actually handles stress better? This sort of experiment is radically different than something like "which chemical catalyzes a hydrogen-producing reaction better" for reasons I shouldn't have to explain to you.
Further: men as a whole don't evince the same response to all stimuli, but a paper about how, of two groups of men, group A handled stress better than group B, is a mere statistical anomaly, and nobody would presume to say that it said something about men as a whole other than that they're different from one another individually.
I'm not saying the scientific exploration of gender differences is a dead zone of no utility, but I am saying: don't take this or that report as some kind of gospel. Be always prepared to think critically, even destructively, of this sort of report, and think always of the actual women and men in your life.
There's your rebuttal.
First: show me the study you mention about about two groups of men.
Second are you arguing that because "handles stress" isn't well enough defined that the hypothetical component studies you mention aren't important? Or true in a meaningful way?
Well, if "take it with a grain of salt" is your rebuttal, I guess that's fine. But here's my point: there are, in fact, real tangible differences between men (generally) and women (generally). A great many of them, if not ALL of them, will be classifiable as "better than" or "worse than". Some of the news will be unpleasant to your preconceived notions. That doesn't automatically make it bad science. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
Hey, Zseni! by laudablepuss 02/09/2007, 2:11pm PST 
Re: Hey, Zseni! by Zseni 02/09/2007, 10:11pm PST 
by continuing to overcompensate by obviously 02/09/2007, 10:39pm PST 
Anonymous Zseni slams are the folding like a napkin/woman of Caltrops. by motherfuckerfoodeater 02/10/2007, 2:39am PST 
Aww...that's sweet. Who says that chivalry is dead? by Neener 02/10/2007, 3:55am PST 
Re: Hey, Zseni! by Oratio 02/10/2007, 7:33pm PST 
Over 900 men could piss their name in the snow legibly vs women's less than 100! NT by Mischief Maker 02/10/2007, 7:55pm PST 
Only women listen to pseudoscientific reports about nutrition, fatty acids etc. NT by Advantage: Men 02/11/2007, 7:51am PST 
Re: Hey, Zseni! by laudablepuss 02/12/2007, 10:38am PST 
Oh yeah! They're TANGIBLE all right! Heh heh! NT by Mischief Maker 02/12/2007, 12:06pm PST 
Re: Hey, Zseni! by Zseni 02/12/2007, 2:05pm PST 
Let's talk about dogs and licking! by laudablepuss 02/12/2007, 2:50pm PST 
No, the content just doesn't support the headline... by Zseni 02/12/2007, 5:30pm PST 
Re: Junk Science by Furcifer 02/13/2007, 9:34am PST 
Re: Junk Science by laudablepuss 02/13/2007, 10:24am PST 
You're an idiot, Laudable NT by Cannibal Dave 02/13/2007, 2:56pm PST 
That's very easy for you to say, sitting on your ass and eating cheetos, BUDDY. NT by laudablepuss 02/13/2007, 3:39pm PST 
Thanking God Laudablepuss isn't in charge of anything science related. NT by The World 02/13/2007, 3:46pm PST 
Re: Junk Science by Furcifer 02/14/2007, 7:16am PST 
Re: Junk Science by laudablepuss 02/14/2007, 10:23am PST 
Re: Junk Science by Furcifer 02/15/2007, 7:02pm PST 
Pearls before Laudable NT by Cannibal Dave 02/15/2007, 7:27pm PST 
Re: Junk Science by laudablepuss 02/16/2007, 10:05am PST 
Re: Junk Science by Furcifer 02/18/2007, 10:05am PST 
there's lots of bitchy and aggressive women NT by whacha talking about willis? 02/19/2007, 11:46am PST 
Thanks for making my point. by Furcifer 02/19/2007, 2:31pm PST 
Re: Hey, Zseni! by Oratio 02/10/2007, 7:19pm PST 
Re: Hey, Zseni! by laudablepuss 02/12/2007, 10:42am PST 
A screed on brevity by in 8 words 02/12/2007, 8:09pm PST 
Re: Hey, Zseni! by Jerry Whorebach 02/13/2007, 10:54pm PST 
|
|
| |
|
| |