 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / November 2009Trouble-making again: male -vs- female.
At http://audio.wnyc.org/lopate/lopate051509dpod.mp3 a podcast, is a discussion of what it means to be a boy. One about girls follows. It opens with the opinion expressed that during early development, boys and girls have similar brains. Before birth, but later, a boy's gonads start producing testosterone -- just as much as an adult has. This goes to help a boy's brain develop differently. The expert was inclined to agree only partly with the suggestion that without the testosterone, boys would be girls. An "over-simplification," she said. The same speaker asserted that in practically all species, from lizards to primates, male and female brains differ, but with humans, the differences are less. An opinion on Wikipedia was to the effect that testosterone makes for large brains just as for "large" everything else, but no authority was quoted. As I said before, I don't care two hoots about the differences. My self- esteem is in no way dependent on them. I am who I am - a bit of both. According to one psychologist, so are we all. I am sorry for those who see a self-esteem issue in it. As an example of the kind of differences I pick up: A couple of days ago a woman friend circulated to her e-mail list a screamingly funny one that had come in, about what a bored husband got up to while in tow behind his wife in a department store. It was a fictitious letter from the store to his wife: some of you may have seen it. It purported to be from Target, a clothing chain store here, but there may be one in the States, or somebody may have edited the original. There was a reference to "rest rooms" which isn't exactly a common term in Oz. I won't give away any spoilers. I am the only male on this woman's list, and I am used to seeing "women's news." Anyway, on reading that email, I was fairly certain that it was written by a woman. A woman would not have done the things described, but a man would not even have thought them up. Actually, it even seems like something a woman would not have written either, but being denied that option, I would say it was a woman. My wife, whose approach tends to be literal, thought the letter was genuine! Having two different genders makes life all that much more interesting. Doug L. > At http://audio.wnyc.org/lopate/lopate051509dpod.mp3 a podcast, is a > discussion of what it means to be a boy. One about girls follows. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > primates, male and female brains differ, but with humans, the differences > are less. The differences between male brains and female brains are certainly well-known (even if the consequences of those differences are not well understood). > An opinion on Wikipedia was to the effect that testosterone makes for large > brains just as for "large" everything else, but no authority was quoted. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Having two different genders makes life all that much more > interesting. I like having two different genders. But I'm not sure what your story has to do with having two different genders. I mean yes, the email you are talking about is in part funny because it trades on stereotypes. So maybe it is the existence of stereotypes that you find makes life interesting? And you and your wife react differently because she is literal minded and you are not (but that isn't a gender thing as far as I know). > Anyway, on reading that email, I was fairly certain that it was > written by a woman. A woman would not have done the things > described, but a man would not even have thought them up. Actually, > it even seems like something a woman would not have written either, > but being denied that option, I would say it was a woman. I simply cannot understand why this is so important to you. >> Anyway, on reading that email, I was fairly certain that it was >> written by a woman. A woman would not have done the things [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I simply cannot understand why this is so important to you. I didn't say that it was. If you prefer the company of men who are not "tuned in" to women, go across to soc.men. You will find plenty there. Bill was right. I am wasting my time here. I no longer have anything in common with this group, like all the others who have gone away. He is the only person left with a bit of humanity. Time to move along and let this group become a little clique like alt.support.depression. >>> Anyway, on reading that email, I was fairly certain that it was >>> written by a woman. A woman would not have done the things [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is the only person left with a bit of humanity. Time to move along and > let this group become a little clique like alt.support.depression. Well, now wait a minute. I never said that. :-) I still think there are at least some in here with a dose of humanity, Doug, and you're one of them. :-) And just because someone else "can't understand why...", is no reason to chuck it all. Because, truth be told, there are going to be a few misunderstandings in here, just as in RL. The *only* place where there won't be any misunderstandings .. isn't on this planet - that much I know. >>> Anyway, on reading that email, I was fairly certain that it was >>> written by a woman. A woman would not have done the things [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is the only person left with a bit of humanity. Time to move along > and let this group become a little clique like alt.support.depression. Only if you have something in *common* with people do they have humanity?!? From other points of view, Bill is no prince. If you need to go where everyone is sweetness and light, perhaps there is a better place for you somewhere. But to call others in this group lacking in humanity is nonsense. >>>> Anyway, on reading that email, I was fairly certain that it was >>>> written by a woman. A woman would not have done the things [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > somewhere. But to call others in this group lacking in humanity is > nonsense. I am no prince, but neither are you a princess. So what was the point? > >> Anyway, on reading that email, I was fairly certain that it was > >> written by a woman. A woman would not have done the things [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "tuned in" to women, go across to soc.men. You will find plenty > there. You do realize how self-centered and obnoxious it is to tell a woman to go hang out with a bunch of people who condone rape, just because she may disagree with you. > Bill was right. I am wasting my time here. I no longer have anything > in common with this group, like all the others who have gone away. He > is the only person left with a bit of humanity. Time to move along and > let this group become a little clique like alt.support.depression. Like Bill, you're depressed (and like Bill you have my empathy for that - I know it is terrible). Also like Bill you have trouble recognizing your perspective as something that is only your perspective and not an absolute truth. So are you saying that to be human you must be depressed, and unable to see outside of yourself? I'm not sure where you find a newsgroup devoted to such qualitites. >>>> Anyway, on reading that email, I was fairly certain that it was >>>> written by a woman. A woman would not have done the things [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > recognizing your perspective as something that is only your > perspective and not an absolute truth. It seems that is true for more than just us! So let's be more objective about that. Actually, come to think of it, when I have asserted anything as being "the absolute truth"? > So are you saying that to be human you must be depressed, and unable > to see outside of yourself? I'm not sure where you find a newsgroup > devoted to such qualitites. I don't think he said any such thing. That seems a bit of a stretch, Doug. And this? BTW, this post has missing attributions, Doug. I wrote some of it (see below) - you might check your newsreader settings: >>>>> Anyway, on reading that email, I was fairly certain that it was >>>>> written by a woman. A woman would not have done the things [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> recognizing your perspective as something that is only your >> perspective and not an absolute truth. I wrote this part (which you still haven't addressed): > It seems that is true for more than just us! So let's be more objective > about that. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I don't think he said any such thing. That seems a bit of a stretch, > Doug. >>> Anyway, on reading that email, I was fairly certain that it was >>> written by a woman. A woman would not have done the things [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > not "tuned in" to women, go across to soc.men. You will find plenty > there. You sure as hell are not "tuned in" to me, and I am a woman. I don't care where you hanf out. I don't care if you like it here or you don't. That is none of my business. But I do enjoy challenging bullshit when I see it, and your fixation on casting women in ways that are wrong is bullshit I enjoy challenging. > Bill was right. I am wasting my time here. I no longer have anything > in common with this group, like all the others who have gone away. He > is the only person left with a bit of humanity. Time to move along > and let this group become a little clique like alt.support.depression. >>>> Anyway, on reading that email, I was fairly certain that it was >>>> written by a woman. A woman would not have done the things [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You sure as hell are not "tuned in" to me, and I am a woman. I'm not sure if anyone here is tuned into you, though, lol. > I don't care > where you hanf out. I don't care if you like it here or you don't. That is > none of my business. But I do enjoy challenging bullshit when I see it, > and > your fixation on casting women in ways that are wrong is bullshit I enjoy > challenging. I enjoy challenging bullshit, too. That's why I'll call you or anyone on some of it when it happens! And in here just as in RL, it sure does happen. >> Bill was right. I am wasting my time here. I no longer have anything >> in common with this group, like all the others who have gone away. He >> is the only person left with a bit of humanity. Time to move along >> and let this group become a little clique like alt.support.depression. > Time to move along and let this group become a little clique > like alt.support.depression. It's been that for a very long time now. And a poisonous one, at that. If you don't fall in lockstep with what it means to be 'supportive', and if you express views which could possibly be twisted into mischaracterizing them as less than tolerant, then you'll be vilified, ostracized, and generally pounced upon. And no amount of attempts to debate, or even discuss these differences will yield any quarter. Just look at Anderson's response to you. He's implying that you told Stephanie that she should hang out with a bunch of people who condone rape. That's how disgusting he, and very many other's here can be. Suggest that kids might just benefit from having a parental role model from each gender, and you'll immediately be branded as a bigot, and a homophobe whose only agenda is to deny gays the right to be a couple, marry, or adopt children. And this from the self-professed people of 'tolerance'. We're supposed to be able to have a dialog about issues like race, and sexual preferences, and other controversial issues of the day, but it's only if we first agree with everything that one side of that dialog espouses. It is only from that premise of agreement and acquiescence that we can have a so-called 'dialog'. This NG is a clique, and has been a poisonous one for a very long time now, and Anderson is one of its most vocal leaders. Somehow, at some point, he's come to the perception that you've defeated one of his positions, and that you might even have made him look foolish in the process, and so now, he's on a mission to discredit you in any way that he can, no matter how vile the accusations and implications, and his response to your post above is just another log that he's throwing on that fire. >>> Anyway, on reading that email, I was fairly certain that it was >>> written by a woman. A woman would not have done the things [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is the only person left with a bit of humanity. Time to move along and > let this group become a little clique like alt.support.depression. Stephanie, if you support the status of women in America, I am glad that I live in Australia. I got to this story while researching Nora Ephron, a name that I had heard somewhere, but didn't know. She came out in defence of Ryan O'Neal for not recognizing his own daughter. That was fair enough, but on the assumption that she was an unknown woman, he made a pass at her - and at a funeral! Women deserve more decency than that, even in the U.S. I had to stop my wife wanting a group family portrait at my mother's funeral, where one of the grandchildren had been crying her eyes out, and was in no condition to be photographed. A funeral is definitely not the place for that kind of thing. That led me to the story of the 30 U.S. Senators who wanted to keep their rights to rape women employed by Government sub-contractors: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department- oppose_n_326569.html Rachel Remen, a prominent psychiatrist and author, once commented that in Samoa (I think) everybody has to say hello to everybody they pass, both coming and going. She wrote that if she tried that in New York, she would be knocked on the head - and probably told that she wasn't cute enough for a birthday cake! If American women are willing to take it, they deserve everything they get. Australia is two centuries younger, and hasn't forgotten that colonization could not have happened without the support of our women. It was the same in America, but memories are short. I am glad that my wife and daughters live in a free country. As I said when I first came here, our cultures are completely different. It wasn't his electors who praised our P.M. for disregarding his oath of office, it was Time Magazine, published by the "democracy" that made him do it, and that won't even ratify the treaty for the prosecution of criminals wanted for genocide, but according to one authority, makes them Mayors. Doug L. >>>> Anyway, on reading that email, I was fairly certain that it was >>>> written by a woman. A woman would not have done the things [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Stephanie, if you support the status of women in America, I am glad > that I live in Australia. Please specify as to which "status of women in America" you mean. I have no idea what status you mean or why you conclude I have asserted any support for any such status. > I got to this story while researching Nora > Ephron, a name that I had heard somewhere, but didn't know. She came > out in defence of Ryan O'Neal for not recognizing his own daughter. > That was fair enough, but on the assumption that she was an unknown > woman, he made a pass at her - and at a funeral! Women deserve more > decency than that, even in the U.S. Anyone has a right to more decency than that. In any event if you think this kind of moronic behavior is relegated to women and to America, I think you mistaken. > I had to stop my wife wanting a > group family portrait at my mother's funeral, where one of the > grandchildren had been crying her eyes out, and was in no condition > to be photographed. A funeral is definitely not the place for that > kind of thing. You had better not record someone having an emotional moment! Could SHE have stopped it if SHE were uncomfortable. NO ONE has to safeguard my decency, respect or any such thing as I am perfectly capable of doing so myself. Apparently *despite* being a woman. >>>> Anyway, on reading that email, I was fairly certain that it was >>>> written by a woman. A woman would not have done the things [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Doug L. From what I've read here, I think Stephanie is more of a Libertian, and doesn't believe the government should be involved whatsoever, because she expects women to be able to take care of themselves completely on their own, just like she says she does. IOW, she doesn't believe there are any "victims", except those who *choose* that role, or who *choose* to stay in that role, and it's just that simple, from her viewpoint. I sure disagree with that. > At http://audio.wnyc.org/lopate/lopate051509dpod.mp3 a podcast, is a > discussion of what it means to be a boy. One about girls follows. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Having two different genders makes life all that much more interesting. No doubt! Certainly the differences in the male and female brain as it pertains to evolution was necessary at one time. But now, knowing the differences in cognition, emotion, information, etc., it has great value too. And IMO as long as these difference are not being used to stifle, I think it is something to celebrate. Vickie >> At http://audio.wnyc.org/lopate/lopate051509dpod.mp3 a podcast, is a >> discussion of what it means to be a boy. One about girls follows. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > But now, knowing the differences in cognition, emotion, information, > etc., it has great value too. And someday you will even be able to support that assertion! (Or not.) > And IMO as long as these difference are not being used to stifle, I > think it is something to celebrate. > > Vickie >>> At http://audio.wnyc.org/lopate/lopate051509dpod.mp3 a podcast, is a >>> discussion of what it means to be a boy. One about girls follows. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > And someday you will even be able to support that assertion! (Or not.) It's quite long, but enjoy...I did! http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html Vickie >> And IMO as long as these difference are not being used to stifle, I >> think it is something to celebrate. >> >> Vickie >>>> At http://audio.wnyc.org/lopate/lopate051509dpod.mp3 a podcast, is >>>> a discussion of what it means to be a boy. One about girls [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Vickie I have never challenged that there are differences in male and female brains. I challenged that that is useful in the ways you have asserted in the past. >>> And IMO as long as these difference are not being used to stifle, I >>> think it is something to celebrate. >>> >>> Vickie >>>>> At http://audio.wnyc.org/lopate/lopate051509dpod.mp3 a podcast, is >>>>> a discussion of what it means to be a boy. One about girls [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > brains. I challenged that that is useful in the ways you have asserted in > the past. I stated quite clearly that it has great usefulness in the medical field. And especially towards the treatment of mental disorders. If you are speaking of benefits to society, which I think you are, we differ in respects to acknowledging gender differences in social settings and the benefits they give. I agree with Dr. Courten-Myers that: "The recognition of gender-specific ways of thinking and feeling -- rendered more credible given these established differences -- could prove beneficial in enhancing interpersonal relationships. However, the interpretation of the data also has the potential for abuse and harm if either gender would seek to construct evidence for superiority of the male or female brain from these findings." *I* have never tried to say one brain is better than another over all. You would like to stick with the reasoning of "While this knowledge could in theory be used to justify misogyny and prejudice against women" as stated by the author, he also writes: "fortunately this has not happened". So while you would like to brush off any value to the knowledge, which is your right, I appreciate it. Vickie >>>> And IMO as long as these difference are not being used to stifle, I >>>> think it is something to celebrate. >>>> >>>> Vickie >>>>>> At http://audio.wnyc.org/lopate/lopate051509dpod.mp3 a podcast, >>>>>> is a discussion of what it means to be a boy. One about girls [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > I stated quite clearly that it has great usefulness in the medical > field. And especially towards the treatment of mental disorders. I missed that. In what way does it help with treating mental disorders? Are you able to google me a link to that discussion? > If you are speaking of benefits to society, which I think you are, we > differ in respects to acknowledging gender differences in social > settings and the benefits they give. It is not a lack of acknoeldgement, it is a lack of agreement! >>>>>>> At http://audio.wnyc.org/lopate/lopate051509dpod.mp3 a podcast, >>>>>>> is a discussion of what it means to be a boy. One about girls [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > I missed that. In what way does it help with treating mental disorders? > Are you able to google me a link to that discussion? It was quite awhle ago, to Erin if I am correct. Not so good at finding discussions, but I will give a little time to it. >> If you are speaking of benefits to society, which I think you are, we >> differ in respects to acknowledging gender differences in social >> settings and the benefits they give. > > It is not a lack of acknoeldgement, it is a lack of agreement! Agreement to what? That differences exist when related to interpersonal relationships, to information, emotion, cognition, language? To agreeing with my idea of its value? To Sabbatini's findings? Or any of the other references he lists? Vickie > "Stephanie" <noway@nohow.com> wrote in message >> I missed that. In what way does it help with treating mental >> disorders? Are you able to google me a link to that discussion? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > interpersonal relationships, to information, emotion, cognition, > language? To agreeing with my idea of its value? In order for the issue to be my lack of acknowledgement, you would have had to objectvily demonstrated that the idea is fact which you have not done. I am not agreeing that it is fact, not failing to acknowledge an objective fact. > To Sabbatini's findings? Or any of the other references he lists? > > Vickie > >>>>>>> At http://audio.wnyc.org/lopate/lopate051509dpod.mp3 a podcast, > >>>>>>> is a discussion of what it means to be a boy. One about girls [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > To agreeing with my idea of its value? > To Sabbatini's findings? Which findings? He doesn't give any of his own. (Or if he does, he doesn't identify them as published reviewed research.) He begins that article by reciting some cliches, but cites no research (his own, or anyone else's) to justify that. I see that you like finding someone with a Ph.D. who believes in some of the same cliches you do, but the thing about science is, all the degrees from all the most famous universities in the world don't mean a fig if you can't justify your point with research. It really is never difficult to find someone with a Ph.D. (or who says he has one) who holds some opinion or another. The difficulty is to find someone who has actually done the research to justify that position. Now I know nothing about Renato Sabbatini. But if you read his CV he does not turn out to be an expert on the brain and sex-linked differences in cognition or sex-linked differences in anything else. So his opinion on that subject is worth the same as mine, yours or anyone else; his Ph.D. and research are simply unrelated. I'm late to the discussion and haven't read the posts beyond this, so excuse me if my post is outdated. [..] > I stated quite clearly that it has great usefulness in the medical field. I agree that studying gender differences can be useful in the medical field, the same way that studying other group differences are useful (like ethnic background, residents of certain areas, particular cultural behaviors like diet, etc). They all provide information on *average* conditions that are helpful in medical research. > And especially towards the treatment of mental disorders. I agree with this far less than the above statement, because treatment of mental disorder involves treating *individuals*, which requires a different approach than relying on "group tendencies". > If you are speaking of benefits to society, which I think you are, we differ > in respects to acknowledging gender differences in social settings and the > benefits they give. I agree that when it comes to public policy, funding for various programs, advertisement, and other things that target *groups* taking gender differences into consideration can be useful. > I agree with Dr. Courten-Myers that: > "The recognition of gender-specific ways of thinking and feeling -- rendered > more credible given these established differences -- could prove beneficial > in enhancing interpersonal relationships. I TOTALLY disagree with this. When it comes to "interpersonal relationships" we are no longer talking about group tendencies. In relating to individuals, using our preconcieved assumptions can be more harmful than helpful. Yes, it makes our jobs *easier* to rely our understanding of group tendencies, and it's tempting to take shortcuts and make a whole bunch of assumptions based on stereotypes, but the price could be quite high. > However, the interpretation of the > data also has the potential for abuse and harm if either gender would seek > to construct evidence for superiority of the male or female brain from these > findings." To me that's not the real danger. I don't think that making assumptions about men and women necessarily means that we are making value judgement. I think it's a bad idea to do so in interpersonal relationships because it increases the chance of failing in whatever we are trying to do. Let's give an example from the medical field that was mentioned above (though I'm not in medical field and don't know much). The recommended dosage of many medications depends on size or weight. A doctor may present a general average recommendation for men and women (say, in a research report in a medical journal). The same doctor would be absolutely wrong if he/she prescribed "average recommended dosage" to a particular patient merely based on the patient's sex. The "interpersonal relationship" between the doctor/ patient requires measuring the weight of the particular person without considering the "average weight of men/women". Prescribing the "average" dose to an individual patient based on their stereotypical size will cause big problems of overdosing and underdosing. The same is true in dealing with mental issues. Just because observing and measure the mental properties of a person is not as easy as observing their size, doesn't mean that the variations of those properties are less than variations in size. The same principle is true in other "interpersonal relationships". If you assume a particular person fits some *average tendency* that you have in your mind, and treat them based on that assumption, you are far more likely to fail in the relationship. In interpersonal relationships we are mostly happy when our expectations are met. If our expectations are based on stereotypes and don't match the particular person's personality they will fail us. In my experience many problems between people start from the point where they *expects* a certain stereotypical behavior or response, and when they don't get it they can't deal with it. The risk of using the general stereotypes (which can be quite valid and useful in group-based contexts) for interpersonal relationship of any kind is far greater than simply giving the impression that we are making a gender value judgement. It's a recipe for failure. If you expect a man or woman to think/feel/behave in a certain way, and they don't, you will at least be disappointed -- and quite likely worse. > I'm late to the discussion and haven't read the posts beyond this, so > excuse me if my post is outdated. [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > expect a man or woman to think/feel/behave in a certain way, and they > don't, you will at least be disappointed -- and quite likely worse. I find that recognizing and appreciating the differences can be helpful. Like most anything else, it can be overdone or misused. But to simply dismiss them, and say they are going to be harmful in all cases, or are of no value, or are inconsequential, or are "less than the variations found between individuals of the same sex over the entire range of that species", is ridiculous. Let's resummarize this. At the risk of sounding a bit immodest, I think this summarizes the point, pretty well: Recognizing and appreciating the differences can be helpful. Like most anything else, it can be overdone or misused. But to simply dismiss them, and say they are going to be harmful in all cases, or are of no value, or are inconsequential, or are "less than the variations found between individuals of the same sex, over the entire range of that species", is ridiculous, and in fact, is not even true. > Let's resummarize this. At the risk of sounding a bit immodest, I think > this summarizes the point, pretty well: > > Recognizing and appreciating the differences can be helpful. Is it? Since no one can even say what these differences are, if it is going to be really helpful, we'll have to do without that help. > Like most anything else, it can be overdone or misused. But to simply > dismiss them, and say they are going to be harmful in all cases, or are of > no value, or are inconsequential, or are "less than the variations found > between individuals of the same sex, over the entire range of that species", > is ridiculous, and in fact, is not even true. What makes you believe it is not true that the differences in personality and intellectual abilities between men and women are smaller than either the differences among men or the differences among women? >> Let's resummarize this. At the risk of sounding a bit immodest, I think >> this summarizes the point, pretty well: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is it? Since no one can even say what these differences are, if it is > going to be really helpful, we'll have to do without that help. I just stated what some of the common differences are in my earlier post. Here is it again, in case you missed it: "Is is "stereotyping" to recognize that (for example) women are generally more into cosmetics, than men are? That men often tend to act more aggressively than women do (i.e. testosterone)? That women often tend to share more with each other (in place of just competing)? That men are generally taller than women are? That women tend to be more the primary caretakers than men are? (Etc, etc, etc)." Recognizing it is one thing - a good thing. But burying your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist, is another. I, for one, appreciate some of those common differences; and yes, even taking into account the variations existing within a same sex, it's still quite notable. >> Let's resummarize this. At the risk of sounding a bit immodest, I >> think this summarizes the point, pretty well: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > smaller than either the differences among men or the differences among > women? I am gonna go on a wildly unsubstatiated psychobabble bit of potential nonsense. As such, I will be able to find no one to support or prove my position because I may be wildly full of sh.t. But here goes. I think the need for stereotyping, group association and the affixing of others into classification stems from lack of or confusion about ones one place and worth. Without the ability to know ones own individual worth, one can at least associate the worth of being associated as a group. I am a good nurturer *as a woman* whether or not one is able to recognize their *own* worth as a nurturer. I am a good provider *as a man* whether or not he recognizes himself as a good provider... Furthermore it can be helpful to identify ones "role" in the absence of looking within oneself for one's goals, responsibilities, skills and aptitudes. In a position in which one may not have a super close understanding of their partner, gender geneneralization may be an attempt to get to *any* understanding of their partner. If you cannot understand *them* at least perhaps you can understand the traits of their gender. Of course, that puts one in a worse situation if their partner happens to differ from the supposed gender norm. I think people with a strong sense of themselves are going to be less inclined to look at their association to groups and thus assume others' group association defines them as well. I remember when I came here in the first place, that is exactly how I was thinking. Anyway I am sure this will not be all that appreciated by some. Oh well. > I'm late to the discussion and haven't read the posts beyond this, so > excuse me if my post is outdated. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > of mental disorder involves treating *individuals*, which requires a > different approach than relying on "group tendencies". I hold tight to the knowledge that medical researchers are studying gender difference in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. Right now, after being diagnosed, a p-doc or GP will prescribe any one of the universally used AD's for the treatment of many disorders. It is hit and miss after that. Can you imagine the importance and success of dealing with these disorders by using an SSRI (or what-have-you) that starts off specifically designed for your biology? Some facts are well known. Women are depressed on average more than men. Boys are four times as likely to be autistic. Or that having reduced serotonin, women are more depressed but men more implussive. (read in Science Daily awhile back) It is not an end all be all, and I am not discounting that each person individually needs what is right for them. But to be pointed in the right direction? A better jumping off point? I am all for it. >> If you are speaking of benefits to society, which I think you are, we >> differ [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and make a whole bunch of assumptions based on stereotypes, but the > price could be quite high. I could be wrong, but are you confusing interpersonal relationships with intimate (one on one) relationships? That is a *type* of interpersonal relationship but not all. >> However, the interpretation of the >> data also has the potential for abuse and harm if either gender would [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > their size, doesn't mean that the variations of those properties are > less than variations in size. Well, hmmm, this is kind of mixing a few types of relationships. A doc and patient isn't really "social" relating, right? In any case, I stick with my above example of the usefulness of gender differences in medicine. > The same principle is true in other "interpersonal relationships". If > you assume a particular person fits some *average tendency* that you > have in your mind, and treat them based on that assumption, you are > far more likely to fail in the relationship. I disagree. But... I don't think once getting to *know* a person and having an *intimate* relationship with them that any such "average tendencies" plays a huge role. If you have the time and interest for this intimacy, of course you want to know the person. > In interpersonal relationships we are mostly happy when our > expectations are met. If our expectations are based on stereotypes and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > expect a man or woman to think/feel/behave in a certain way, and they > don't, you will at least be disappointed -- and quite likely worse. Or just surprised and take note of their difference than the average. Maybe find that person more endearing because of it. If the relationship is fleeting, you work with what you know to be average, pretty much anyway, yes? Vickie > "Nellie" <ellie_fi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I hold tight to the knowledge that medical researchers are studying gender > difference in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. OK. I am all for the research part. But if I have a mental disorder I hope that my doc doesn't rely on my sex for diagnosis and treatment. If I find out that a doctor has two different protocols for treating a mental disorder for men and women, and chooses one or the other based on the sex of the patient I'll find another doc. That doesn't mean that gender research of mental disorders is invalid. > Right now, after being diagnosed, a p-doc or GP will prescribe any one of > the universally used AD's for the treatment of many disorders. > It is hit and miss after that. That's true. I'm not knowledgeable about medical stuff, but I think this is because diagnosis and treatment of such disorders are more difficult that clear physical problems. > Can you imagine the importance and success of dealing with these disorders > by using an SSRI (or what-have-you) that starts off specifically designed > for your biology? Absolutely. You said it just right, "specifically designed for my biology" would be my ideal -- which I can't usually get. The second best would be as close to my specific biology AND *condition* as possible. Don't forget in most cases genetics, history, past experiences, preexisting conditions, overall physical and mental conditions and stuff like that, are much more important in diagnosis and treatment of a disorder than raw biological makeup. Though there are few things about my *female* biology which are clearly different from a *male* one, my overall physical/mental profile might put me much closer to a man with similar condition than women with different profile. > Some facts are well known. Yes, they are. I don't see anyone disputing that. > Women are depressed on average more than men. True. But a depressed women doesn't necessarily need a different treatment than a depressed man, nor does she necessarily respond the same way to a treatment that is helpful to another woman. > Boys are four times as likely to be autistic. And an autistic boy could be more "similar" to an autistic girl than to another autistic boy. The point is, when a doctor wants to treat an autistic boy or girl, the useful information is the particular condition of that boy or girl, not the "fact" that boys are mole likely to be autistic. > It is not an end all be all, and I am not discounting that each person > individually needs what is right for them. Oh, thank god for that! > But to be pointed in the right direction? ... or the wrong one. > A better jumping off point? I am > all for it. I prefer that my doctor doesn't rely on gender stereotypes when prescribing a treatment for me. > >> If you are speaking of benefits to society, which I think you are, we > >> differ [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I could be wrong, but are you confusing interpersonal relationships with > intimate (one on one) relationships? Nope. I consider any relationship that involves particular "individuals" interpersonal. So, for example, the relationship that the media advertisers have with their audience isn't interpersonal because they are addressing "groups". Even a sales person who comes to my door to sell something isn't addressing "me" personally. But a sales clerk at a store who is trying to help me find something has an interpersonal relationship with me -- and I would like them to listen to what *I* want, instead of pointing me to the areas that they think "women" like. > That is a *type* of interpersonal relationship but not all. True. > >> However, the interpretation of the > >> data also has the potential for abuse and harm if either gender would [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Well, hmmm, this is kind of mixing a few types of relationships. It's making a distinction between "group" and "individual", that's all. > A doc and patient isn't really "social" relating, right? Are you assuming that "interpersonal" means "social"? My doctors have a very "interpersonal" relationship with me -- or I would dump them! > In any case, I stick with my above example of the usefulness of gender > differences in medicine. OK, keep on stickin' :-) Though I'm not sure which example of usefulness you are talking about. I did give an example of usefulness in medical research. I just don't believe that the usefulness stretches to "interpersonal" relationships, even in medicine. > > The same principle is true in other "interpersonal relationships". If > > you assume a particular person fits some *average tendency* that you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If you have the time and interest for this intimacy, of course you want to > know the person. I'm not talking about "intimate". If a person is faced with a new boss or employee, and makes a bunch of assumption because of the sex of the said boss or employee, they can start off on a very wrong road (I observed such a case at work recently). And yet, you may find statistical info on male vs female bosses or some such. Applying that info to a particular situation can be harmful. >> "Nellie" <ellie_fi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 186 lines] > statistical info on male vs female bosses or some such. Applying that > info to a particular situation can be harmful. The key operative phrase there is "can be". It can also be helpful, and insightful. (at least to some of us) Going outside can be harmful, too. Does that mean we should stay inside? On Oct 21, 6:40 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: [..] > > I'm not talking about "intimate". If a person is faced with a new boss > > or employee, and makes a bunch of assumption because of the sex of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The key operative phrase there is "can be". It can also be helpful, and > insightful. (at least to some of us) OK. You're welcome to get your "insight" from wherever you want. Keep on stereotyping people.... > On Oct 21, 6:40 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > OK. You're welcome to get your "insight" from wherever you want. Keep > on stereotyping people.... Is is "stereotyping" to recognize that (for example) women are generally more into cosmetics, than men are? That men often tend to act more aggressively than women do (i.e. testosterone)? That women often tend to share more with each other (in place of just competing)? That men are generally taller than women are? That women tend to be more the primary caretakers than men are? Etc, etc, etc. Or is it just recognizing and acknowledging some realities, and not being too PC to state it? If so, so be it. The alternative of denying a reality doesn't make any sense to me, particularly for the sake of being PC these days. Obviously it can be overused and abused, just like most anything. That doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. >> "Nellie" <ellie_fi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > on the sex of the patient I'll find another doc. That doesn't mean > that gender research of mental disorders is invalid. Interesting. I would be more apt to find another doc if he didn't take the knowledge he knew, for example, if, hypothetically, SSRI's were believed to be better than a TCA for women with personality disorder specifically, but for men the opposite were true. That this doc ignores research and thinks, meh, let's start her on a TCA as they are proven to be good for personality disorder, generally, when in fact (hypothetically) only works optimally for men. >> Right now, after being diagnosed, a p-doc or GP will prescribe any one of >> the universally used AD's for the treatment of many disorders. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > this is because diagnosis and treatment of such disorders are more > difficult that clear physical problems. Very true. So the more research scientists do and find the better it will be for those who suffer. >> Can you imagine the importance and success of dealing with these >> disorders [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > much closer to a man with similar condition than women with different > profile. I disagree. Biology is biology and XX chromosomes places you directly related to others with those same two and all the chemicals and hormones that ride along with those. Genetics, history, past experiences, preexisting conditions, etc., fall second to our biological make-up. There are exceptions of course, hermaphrodites or transgender. (And with my own belief, I think homosexual's biology [within the brain] can have more similarities to their gender opposite so may not be able to use gender specific treatment in regards to mental disorders. Or at least a doc would have to tread lightly.) >> Some facts are well known. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > treatment than a depressed man, nor does she necessarily respond the > same way to a treatment that is helpful to another woman. That is exactly what the research is hoping to find. >> Boys are four times as likely to be autistic. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > condition of that boy or girl, not the "fact" that boys are mole > likely to be autistic. Unfortunately I know little to nothing about autism. My point is that more boys are autistic than girls. It means something about the genetic make-up of boys that makes them more susceptible and should not be discounted. >> It is not an end all be all, and I am not discounting that each person >> individually needs what is right for them. > > Oh, thank god for that! lol You really thought that I think all medicine should be left and treated at the gender-line? >> But to be pointed in the right direction? > > ... or the wrong one. That is where we are now. If we can narrow down the hit and miss aspect by shaving off some of the misses, isn't that a good thing? >> A better jumping off point? I am >> all for it. > > I prefer that my doctor doesn't rely on gender stereotypes when > prescribing a treatment for me. I think she might already. I am sure your doc has assessed the fact that you are a woman ;-) and therefore looks at things like: thyroid disease osteoporosis autoimmune disorders rheumatoid arthritis urinary tract infections ask for bone density scans prescribe hormone therapy during menopause Perhaps the chemicals and make-up in our brain are even *more* gender specific than research out there shows and should be treated accordingly. >> >> If you are speaking of benefits to society, which I think you are, we >> >> differ [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > to what *I* want, instead of pointing me to the areas that they think > "women" like. With money involved, that's a whole different ball of wax! You are right that a good salesperson is going to listen to your wants and needs and lead you to the proper product. If buying a car, a salesperson might suspect I would love the fact that every visor has a light-up mirror on it, when in fact I would rather it have a honkin' steel cage around it for safety. But I'm not going to get bunged up about it. The salesperson will figure that out soon enough. In their mind I am sure they are going to go with first instincts and show what they think you want. When sales logs show that more women buy the Eclipse Spyder or Toyota RAV4 over a Viper, they are not going to discount it! >> That is a *type* of interpersonal relationship but not all. > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > in medical research. I just don't believe that the usefulness > stretches to "interpersonal" relationships, even in medicine. For me it is wrapped up tight in the amount of time you have with a person. >> > The same principle is true in other "interpersonal relationships". If >> > you assume a particular person fits some *average tendency* that you [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > statistical info on male vs female bosses or some such. Applying that > info to a particular situation can be harmful. Yes, when going into a situation where you are going to be spending a great deal of time with someone, you do need to use common sense. Vickie > >> "Nellie" <ellie_fi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > TCA as they are proven to be good for personality disorder, generally, > when in fact (hypothetically) only works optimally for men. I'd look for another doc if he was less concerned about what worked for me than he was about what worked better on average for men. (snip) > >> No doubt! > >> Certainly the differences in the male and female brain as it pertains [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html There is no doubt that there are physical differences (on average) between men's and women's brains. The problem comes when one makes the unsupported leap to what the differences in "cognition, emotion, information, etc." (as you write) might be. (Or whatever unsupported leaps one wants to make.) Those differences are very cloudy if they are there at all, and tend to be much smaller than the differences you find _within_ each sex. > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > differences in "cognition, emotion, information, etc." (as you write) > might be. (Or whatever unsupported leaps one wants to make.) Once again you say it is unsupported and these writings of Sabbatini clearly SUPPORT my leap. And I *will* take Sabbatini: Renato M.E. Sabbatini holds a doctorate in neurophysiology by the Faculty of Medicine of the University of São Paulo at Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, and was a guest scientist and post-doctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Neurobiology in Munich, Germany. He is currently chairman of medical informatics and adjunct professor at the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the State University of Campinas, in Campinas, Brazil; associate editor and chairman of the editorial board of "Brain & Mind" Magazine. over whatever *you* are supporting. > Those differences are very cloudy if they are there at all, and tend > to be much smaller than the differences you find _within_ each sex. Cloudy, as you state, or not, they are there. There is use. There is value. Unless you want to pretend there is not, your choice. Vickie >> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Brazil; associate editor and chairman of the editorial board of > "Brain & Mind" Magazine. It would be interesting to see his facts upon which he bases these assertions. > over whatever *you* are supporting. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > value. > Unless you want to pretend there is not, your choice. Because you assert it, that makes it true fact beyond a reasonable doubt! >>> (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > It would be interesting to see his facts upon which he bases these > assertions. Jesu! Now you are challenging Johns Hopkins U, and a host of studies led by psychiatrists and neurophysiologists. >> over whatever *you* are supporting. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Because you assert it, that makes it true fact beyond a reasonable doubt! I don't even think you read the writings now! Vickie >>>> (snip) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Jesu! Now you are challenging Johns Hopkins U, and a host of studies > led by psychiatrists and neurophysiologists. I would love to see the studies that demonstrate this interpersonal value! That would be very interesting to me indeed. I would not be the least bit surprised to find that you have mistaken what they assert! Furthermore, the fact that people have degrees does not make their assertions correct. For a very long time, degreed people were believed in things like spontaneous generation! >>> over whatever *you* are supporting. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I don't even think you read the writings now! Of course you don't. > >>> (snip) > >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Jesu! Now you are challenging Johns Hopkins U, and a host of studies > led by psychiatrists and neurophysiologists. You like to cite institutions. Johns Hopkins does not have an official position on this. Scientists working at Johns Hopkins have done research that may have some relevance to whether men's and women's cognitive processes are different, but since a _lot_ of scientists work at Johns Hopkins, you have to talk about specific scientists, and specific studies and what they say. > >> over whatever *you* are supporting. > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I don't even think you read the writings now! Vickie - all you are pointing out is one "writing" and that is Sabbatini's web page (not even a peer reviewed article) that asserts that there are physical differences between men's brains and women's brains (no one contests this), and then quotes some other researchers. It neither refers to nor contains any research by Sabbatini (as much as you may like his credentials). Nor does it make a single unambiguous claim about differing "cognition, emotion, etc." though he does quote other authors who _might_ make such claims. > > (snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Once again you say it is unsupported and these writings of Sabbatini > clearly SUPPORT my leap. No, they support physiological differences, as he clearly writes. They don't support differences in "cognition, emotion, information, etc." > And I *will* take Sabbatini: Then read what he wrote instead of what you wish he had wrote. > Renato M.E. Sabbatini holds a doctorate in neurophysiology by the > Faculty of Medicine of the University of São Paulo at Ribeirão Preto, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Cloudy, as you state, or not, they are there. There is use. There is > value. Evidence? (Saying "Sabbatini" doesn't count as evidence.) > But saying "Sab > Unless you want to pretend there is not, your choice. I'm still waiting for evidence. I understand that you don't need that for yourself. >>> (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > They don't support differences in "cognition, emotion, > information, etc." Sabbatini writes: "But, aside from external anatomical and primary and secondary sexual differences, scientists know also that there are many other subtle differences in the way the brains from men and women process language, information, emotion, cognition, etc. " He doesn't write that he's doe the report. He writes that he knows that scientists know...... Taking the word of such a credentialed and respected Phd as to what scientists know IS support for Vickie's assertions. It'll never be the kind of support that you'd ever accept, given that you've already gone on record as disagreeing with her assertions, and how incredibly defensive you get when you're proven wrong, but there can be no reasonable doubt that it's very good support nonetheless. >> And I *will* take Sabbatini: > > Then read what he wrote instead of what you wish he had wrote. Clearly, she did. He wrote that he knows what scientists know. His credentials, plus what he says he knows combines nicely to be considered 'support'. It may not be absolute proof, which, at this point, is all that you'd accept. But it is 'support'. >> Renato M.E. Sabbatini holds a doctorate in neurophysiology by >> the Faculty of Medicine of the University of São Paulo at [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Evidence? (Saying "Sabbatini" doesn't count as evidence.) Sure it does. What a respected Phd says that he knows IS evidence. It's not absolute proof (not that you'd now accept that either), but it is evidence. In fact, if that Phd were called to the stand in a civil case, his testimony about what he knows that scientist know wrt his field of expertise would be admiited as evidence. >> But saying "Sab >> Unless you want to pretend there is not, your choice. > > I'm still waiting for evidence. I understand that you don't > need that for yourself. Your definition of evidence is very strange. > >>> (snip) > >>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Taking the word of such a credentialed and respected Phd as to what > scientists know IS support for Vickie's assertions. Nope. He doesn't do research in this area. So his Ph.D. makes his opinions no more valuable than yours, mine or Vickie's. >>>>> (snip) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Nope. He doesn't do research in this area. So his Ph.D. makes > his opinions no more valuable than yours, mine or Vickie's. Wrong. He doesn't have to do the actual research in order to know that the scientist in that field know what he says they know. It's not perfect closure of the loop, but it certainly suffices as 'support' for Vicki's posts. I acknowledge that 'support' may mean 'evidence', and that 'evidence may mean 'proof' to some people, but not to reasonable people who are engaged in what should be a reasonable discussion among lay people. > >>>>> (snip) > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > not perfect closure of the loop, but it certainly suffices as > 'support' for Vicki's posts. His opinions is worth the same as yours, mine or Vickie's. So if you like, it is "support" in that sense. But he has no expertise in the field, and does not quote actual research about different brain behavior in men and women (though he does quote research about different brain morphology in men and women - that of course being uncontroversial). >>>>>>> (snip) >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > His opinions is worth the same as yours, mine or Vickie's. Renato M.E. Sabbatini holds a doctorate in neurophysiology by the Faculty of Medicine of the University of São Paulo at Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, and was a guest scientist and post-doctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Neurobiology in Munich, Germany. He is currently chairman of medical informatics and adjunct professor at the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the State University of Campinas, in Campinas, Brazil; associate editor and chairman of the editorial board of "Brain & Mind" Magazine. I think not. "Vickie <vkrajnik@yahoo.com>" wrote linking to: > http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html "Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com>" commented: > There is no doubt that there are physical differences (on average) > between men's and women's brains. > > The problem comes when one makes the unsupported leap to what the > differences in "cognition, emotion, information, etc." (as you write) > might be. Actually, it's not what *she* wrote, but what the author of the study wrote. It's in the second paragraph: "[A]side from external anatomical and primary and secondary sexual differences, scientists know also that there are many other subtle differences in the way the brains from men and women process language, information, emotion, cognition, etc." Mr Sabbatini may have overstated the case, but it doesn't seem to me that Ms Vickie has made an "unsupported leap" beyond what the paper says. She simply cited the paper; if it's wrong, it's wrong, but that's not because of any wild extrapolations on her part. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "Everyone has always regarded any usage but his own as either barbarous or pedantic." -- Evelyn Waugh > "Vickie <vkrajnik@yahoo.com>" wrote linking to: > > http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > differences in the way the brains from men and women process language, > information, emotion, cognition, etc." But of course this isn't a study at all. This is just an opinion. One that Sabbatini is welcome to, but not one that is in his area of expertise and thus not one that has any more weight than yours or mine. > Mr Sabbatini may have overstated the case, but it doesn't seem to me > that Ms Vickie has made an "unsupported leap" beyond what the paper > says. She simply cited the paper; if it's wrong, it's wrong, but that's > not because of any wild extrapolations on her part. It's not really a paper. It is an unsupported leap on a web page. It happens to be one that Vicki shares with Sabbatini, apparently. But that's all it is. > "Vickie <vkrajnik@yahoo.com>" wrote linking to: >> http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > "Everyone has always regarded any usage but his own as either barbarous > or pedantic." -- Evelyn Waugh Here are some ramblings.... At this point it is highly unlikely anything worth a bit a spit is going to change the outcome of this conversation or for me to find interesting at all. I will now spend my time debating what proof is good enough, what isn't, and I don't feel like it, plain and simple. I am amazed that people who have actually studied this stuff and have degrees by their names mean little or nothing to some here. I wonder they are here at all, considering doctors visits and surgery are done by people who have "only" studied and have degrees in medicine. If ever there is a moment where they have to live by a wing and a prayer and put their faith in something without proof to their standards, that they are able to come through it. Perhaps they have, but it is much easier to deny here. (dramatic, I know, pardon) I wonder how they are able to dip their pickles into every known subject and consider themselves experts above those who spend lifetimes achieving that status. Or to not consider themselves experts, but so lofty as to dismiss what is written like a spoiled child dismisses *another* small trinket. The next time I am up for debating the definition of the article "a" I'll be back. I certainly do not want to debate the(my) integrity. Right now though, I'd like to stick my head in the chamber pot for letting things bother me so! Good thing about me though, I can reach "high" very quickly, but can come back to normal fairly quickly too. Off to the exercise bike! I'd like a new seat, as my a.s goes numb after 30mins. Feeling better already. :-) V (snip) > I am amazed that people who have actually studied this stuff and have > degrees by their names mean little or nothing to some here. But Sabbatini _hasn't_ studied this stuff. (He just has a degree by his name.) So who are you talking about who _has_ studied this stuff and has a degree by his or her name? > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But Sabbatini _hasn't_ studied this stuff. (He just has a degree > by his name.) But it's his field, and he has stated what the scientists in his field know. Not that it's beyond question, but the idea that this does not suffice as 'support' for Vickie's opinion is ridiculous, and just more of the kind of right-fighting, which is born of extreme defensiveness, that this NG has become.. > So who are you talking about who _has_ studied this stuff and > has a degree by his or her name? He did study it. He studied it enough to know that the scientist in his field know what he says they know. > > (snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But it's his field, That's the thing, it isn't. >>> (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's the thing, it isn't. How so? Renato M.E. Sabbatini holds a doctorate in neurophysiology by the Faculty of Medicine of the University of São Paulo at Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, and was a guest scientist and post-doctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Neurobiology in Munich, Germany. He is currently chairman of medical informatics and adjunct professor at the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the State University of Campinas, in Campinas, Brazil; associate editor and chairman of the editorial board of "Brain & Mind" Magazine. > >>> (snip) > >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > in Campinas, Brazil; associate editor and chairman of the editorial > board of "Brain & Mind" Magazine. Yes, all of this might make him an expert on neurophysiology. But Vickie isn't making claims about neurophysiology. She's making claims that women and men have different intellectual abilities. Sabbatini has no expertise on that at all, and that isn't an issue of neurophysiology. >>>>> (snip) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > abilities. Sabbatini has no expertise on that at all, and that isn't > an issue of neurophysiology. What *specific* claim in that regard? I'm still waiting for a *specific* answer to this. >>>>>> (snip) >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > What *specific* claim in that regard? >>>>> (snip) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > intellectual abilities. Sabbatini has no expertise on that at > all, and that isn't an issue of neurophysiology. So when a respected and learned person publishes a position 'paper' (yes, I saw where you also took issue with the fact that it was posted online, and not on a piece of paper < :-) >) which is copyrighted by a university, and which is well footnoted, and which is will be available for all of his peers in the academic community to see and verify, claims that scientists in a particular field know something or other........ .....then to you, this is no more valuable than had I, or Vickie, or anyone else, simply posted an opinion in ASM? It has no value to you as being supportive of an opinion, and the only support that would satisfy you would be had Vicki then chased down the particular scientists to whom he referred, and then chased down the studies they had conducted, and then posted links to those studies so that you could then examine them for yourself? To say that this takes the term 'unsupported opinion' to an extreme is an understatement, and really is a rather silly standard in the context of lay people exchanging thoughts and ideas. It's not a silly standard for someone to adopt if they're trying desperately to avoid a situation wherein they think they'd look rather silly, but otherwise, it really is. > >>>>> (snip) > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > to see and verify, claims that scientists in a particular field know > something or other........ Posting online or not isn't the issue. Peer review is the issue. But of course you knew that. If someone writes something (online or on paper) outside of his or her area of expertise, self-publishes it, then yes, it is no more valuable than anything else. >>>>>>> (snip) >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Posting online or not isn't the issue. Peer review is the > issue. But of course you knew that. I know that anything could be 'the' issue for you, no matter that the relevant issue is whether or not the source of the information upon which Vicki based her opinion was cogent, relevant, and published by what, by all appearances, is a respected, learned professional. Try as you might to demean what Vicki's source as 'posted online' (as though it might as well been in a useless Usenet NG, and 'she found someone to agree with her' as though she started with hr opinion, and then looked for backup instead of simply exploring the issue, and learning from what she found, but those attempts do not demean anything except for your credibility. > If someone writes something (online or on paper) outside of his > or her area of expertise, self-publishes it, then yes, it is no > more valuable than anything else. What a silly position to take. >>>>>>>> (snip) >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > what she found, but those attempts do not demean anything except for your > credibility. Hey, just wanted to say I appreciate the back-up here. I think that is what gets me so stirred up. The demeaning part of it all. Vickie >> If someone writes something (online or on paper) outside of his >> or her area of expertise, self-publishes it, then yes, it is no >> more valuable than anything else. > > What a silly position to take. > Hey, just wanted to say I appreciate the back-up here. > I think that is what gets me so stirred up. The demeaning part of it > all. I wonder why you feel being disagreed with is demeaning? > Vickie > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> What a silly position to take. Now who is being demeaning? Do you think that my position would be more worthy of merit if I went of and got a doctorate in something else? >> Hey, just wanted to say I appreciate the back-up here. >> I think that is what gets me so stirred up. The demeaning part of it >> all. > > I wonder why you feel being disagreed with is demeaning? If you disagreed with me, and you have, I don't feel demeaned. When posting a link and instead of disagreeing with the content, one only tries to discredit the author and the person who posted the link, what else can I conclude other than an attempt at abasement? And especially in this case, where the author clearly is credible, at least to most of us here, I think. >>>> If someone writes something (online or on paper) outside of his >>>> or her area of expertise, self-publishes it, then yes, it is no [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Now who is being demeaning? Do you think that my position would be more > worthy of merit if I went of and got a doctorate in something else? I let AY answer if he wants to. Vickie >>> Hey, just wanted to say I appreciate the back-up here. >>> I think that is what gets me so stirred up. The demeaning part of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > only tries to discredit the author and the person who posted the > link, what else can I conclude other than an attempt at abasement? That they disagree with your conclusions. I am not sure what you mean by "discredit." You made a bunch of claims that are easy to disagree with. > And especially in this case, where the author clearly is credible, at > least to most of us here, I think. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Vickie >>> Hey, just wanted to say I appreciate the back-up here. >>> I think that is what gets me so stirred up. The demeaning [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the link, what else can I conclude other than an attempt at > abasement? More significantly, IMO, was the comment that you went online to find someone who would agree with you. Why would he assume that you would be so closed minded as that instead of assuming that you're an open-minded person who was interrested in the topic, went online to do some research, and then found that site as part of your overall learning experience? And then, of course, he demans that author in which you put some credibility by using the connotation that it was just anyone who 'posted' some stuff online. What I find even more interesting is that he went after you for not supporting your opinion, but then he psoted his own opinion about the differences between males and females, AND DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY SUPPORT FOR THAT EITHER! "The problem comes when one makes the unsupported leap to what the differences in "cognition, emotion, information, etc." (as you write) might be. (Or whatever unsupported leaps one wants to make.) "Those differences are very cloudy if they are there at all, and tend to be much smaller than the differences you find _within_ each sex." Where's his support for THAT? But you do see what's going on here, don't you? You have a disagreement with Steph, he enters the frey to take up the banner and pounce on you, and then after all of that, and his silly position is shown to be rather silly and useless, she reenters the frey to pounce of you for something else. It's the kind of rat trap mentailty that exists here. It's one of many reasons why this NG is pretty much useless now. Among other reasons, there are these two tag team right-fighters, one of whom uses this forum to get the personal validation that he can memorize facts pretty well, and that he's so clever that he can trip anyone up with his word games, and his side-kick who admires that, for whatever reason, and so is engaged in full-blown hero worship of the guy. It'd be pathertic if it wasn't so amusing to me. > And especially in this case, where the author clearly is > credible, at least to most of us here, I think. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> be more worthy of merit if I went of and got a doctorate in >> something else? It wasn't just anything else. That's Anderson's tact, and now his side kick is picking up on it, as silly as it is. That would be like saying that a guy who has a doctorate in physics is just anybody when it comes to the related field of math, and so any claims he makes about math could just as easily have been made by any idiot. The idea that if you've got a PhD in one field, you're no more qualified to have an opinion in any other field, no matter how closely related, as anyone else is absolute hog wash. The guy's field is the human brain, and so the notion that there no particular value to his opinion about how the human brain affects human behavior is about as stupid as it gets. It's typical of the kind of nonsense in which people have to engage in order to sustain their right-fighting positions. Bottom line? Stephanie intimated that you could not support your assertion (another tactic she learned from her hero), you proved her wrong, he jumped to her defense thinking that he had one, you proved him wrong as well, and so now she's back to rescue him from his rescue of her. What a pathetic mess. They deserve each other. >>>> Hey, just wanted to say I appreciate the back-up here. >>>> I think that is what gets me so stirred up. The demeaning [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > wrong as well, and so now she's back to rescue him from his rescue of her. > What a pathetic mess. They deserve each other. You know, it is really my own fault for feeling goaded into showing "proof". The outcome will always be the same. I *am* interested in the topic, for my own reasons, so I should leave it at that. Vickie > You know, it is really my own fault for feeling goaded into showing > "proof". The outcome will always be the same. Think on this. Were you ever in debate club? Your kids ever in debate club? Imagine what the judges or referees or whatever they call themselves would say to a person who used someone with a PhD not in the field of question with not studies to back up assertions was used as proof of a an assertion during a judged debate. If you were ever to actually provide some kind of proof, who knows, the outcome might actually be different. I suspect we will never know. > I *am* interested in the topic, for my own reasons, so I should leave > it at that. > > Vickie >> You know, it is really my own fault for feeling goaded into showing >> "proof". The outcome will always be the same. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > question with not studies to back up assertions was used as proof of a an > assertion during a judged debate. No, never in debate. No interest in it much. I'd much rather discuss subjects instead of debate for debate sake. V > If you were ever to actually provide some kind of proof, who knows, the > outcome might actually be different. I suspect we will never know. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Vickie > I'd much rather discuss subjects instead of debate for debate sake. But debate is *not* for its own sake and therein is your error. Debate is for *reasons* sake. To forsake debate is to forsake the ability to tell correct from incorrect. And sure enough you tend to draw on authority without checking on the applicability of our authorities. Which means because you can't tell correct from incorrect you grab at straws hoping to be correct and then asserting that you are correct. Debate and critical thinking are like driving and a car. They are different expressions of the same thing - A quest to be able to tell the correct from the incorrect. Appeal to authority is a weak justification for saying you're correct. Appeal to the wrong authority is weaker still. Doug A's commentaries about research ask for very strong justification. There's plenty of ground between citing a local cub scout den leader as an authority and conducting your own lab experiments. > > I'd much rather discuss subjects instead of debate for debate sake. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > There's plenty of ground between citing a local cub scout den leader as > an authority and conducting your own lab experiments. Finally, amen brother. This is the entire point of every dispute of this nature between these parties on this ng. Longtime lurker In news:7c273b89-7c5f-44e5-86ec-e5590a88dd4f@b3g2000pre.googlegroups.com, Kattrina <mtnkat1962@yahoo.com> mused: >> Doug A's commentaries about research ask for very strong >> justification. He only ask that of others, and his standard for the extensiveness and narrowness of the research he requires before he accepts that his position was the inferior one will be a moving target for as long he perceives that whatever is presented to him continues to show his position to be the inferior one. > In > news:7c273b89-7c5f-44e5-86ec-e5590a88dd4f@b3g2000pre.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > long he perceives that whatever is presented to him continues to > show his position to be the inferior one. So when does this target stop moving? >> I'd much rather discuss subjects instead of debate for debate sake. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you grab at straws hoping to be correct and then asserting that you are > correct. Not when the subject itself is put aside because of an "opinion" of the credibility of authority by someone who is not an authority themselves. If having the scientist in front of us, we would then have a better idea, but we don't and in this group arena, most likely we won't. > Debate and critical thinking are like driving and a car. They are > different expressions of the same thing - A quest to be able to tell the > correct from the incorrect. > > Appeal to authority is a weak justification for saying you're correct. -Correct in what regard? -How do you show your experience on screen? -This environment and our limitations in finding specific research has to be taken into account. -Then was it weak to begin with to ask for it? > Appeal to the wrong authority is weaker still. Who gets to say it is the wrong or right authority? > Doug A's commentaries about research ask for very strong justification. That doesn't make him the authority on the subject. Or at least it shouldn't. > There's plenty of ground between citing a local cub scout den leader as > an authority and conducting your own lab experiments. And if the local cub scout den leader is the one conducting the lab experiment? I guess I don't understand you. Vickie >>> I'd much rather discuss subjects instead of debate for debate sake. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the credibility of authority by someone who is not an authority > themselves. The subject was not "put aside" it was merely not supported by the person who asserted it... you. The actual authority of your supposed authorty was also ... I was going to say questioned but I will replace it with soundly routed. >>>> I'd much rather discuss subjects instead of debate for debate sake. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > also ... I was going to say questioned but I will replace it with soundly > routed. By who? What expert are you thinking of? Vickie > Who gets to say it is the wrong or right authority? The "right" authority (in science) is one who is an expert in the field he is discussing and preferably has done research supporting his specific contentions. In other fields (law, politics) the expertise looks a little different. Plenty of people in this newsgroup have degrees by our names, but that doesn't mean we can cite ourselves or each other as authorities in stuff we are just interested in and have read up on. You could probably cite me as an authority on patent law (at least good enough for general discussion purposes), but not as an authority on ADHD, even though I've read quite a bit in the field. I would need to cite research just like anyone else. Even in my own field, I would be expected to come up with references if asked - but most people would take my word for how long the term of a patent is. Now this doesn't mean I am necessarily *right* about a particular point of patent law. Other people in my field could disagree, because it is something that can't be known with certitude (e.g. the supreme court hasn't ruled on the particular point yet, so we are drawing different inferences from precedents that aren't quite on point). On a more general note: I have noticed that you get defensive when asked for references. You seem to feel that your integrity or worth is being questioned. I just want to be very specific that this isn't what is intended. People with scientific backgrounds have learned not to trust to common sense or conventional wisdom, because the scientific method has shown it to be wrong too many times. It isn't *you* we are dismissive of, but rather plausible explanations without proof. You aren't obligated to provide proof when asked - no one pays you to be here and debate the way other people want you too. I just want you to realize why people ask for proof and not to take it personally. >> Who gets to say it is the wrong or right authority? > > The "right" authority (in science) is one who is an expert in the field > he is discussing and preferably has done research supporting his > specific contentions. In other fields (law, politics) the expertise > looks a little different. I'm not so sure. A person who is in a closely related field, and passes the information on from the actual researcher in the field, should not be discounted. Perhaps she is not as perfect a source as the researcher himself, but to say she has about as much knowledge as a bus-boy is wrong to me. My sister is a micro-biologist. Identifies all sorts of microbes. She also knows what specific microbes can do to the body. She also knows how certain medicines effect the microbes. She is not an immunologist specifically. If an immunologist were not present, would you rather ask sis' advice on how the body defends itself against certain microbes and what you should do to boost your natural immune system? Or your local congressman? > Plenty of people in this newsgroup have degrees by our names, but that > doesn't mean we can cite ourselves or each other as authorities in stuff [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > here and debate the way other people want you too. I just want you to > realize why people ask for proof and not to take it personally. Is there a responsiblity at all to the person who asks for proof? Is this the way to ask someone to make sure it is not take *personally*? "And someday you will even be able to support that assertion! (Or not.)" Yeah, I take responsibility for my feeling of being baited. I said so here: 'You know, it is really my own fault for feeling goaded into showing "proof".' In any case, I am through with showing proof, whatever kind that might be, to whomever decides they are authority to judge it as so or no. Vickie > My sister is a micro-biologist. > Identifies all sorts of microbes. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and what you should do to boost your natural immune system? > Or your local congressman? ROTFLOL > In any case, I am through with showing proof, whatever kind that > might be, to whomever decides they are authority to judge it as > so or no. That's exactly right. Asking for proof is not reasonable in the context of a casual conversation. It's not as though the person asking for proof is gonna go off and treat anyone on that basis. Alternatively, had it been you who had berated him with your own claim, then he might have a justification to demand proof for your claim. But in this case, you were having a casual conversation, stated an opinion, and then got tag teamed for no particular reason at all except for the fact that they were trying to save face on some level or other. Say what you have to say, offer your opinions, and if people want to marginalize you for it, they've only exposed themselves as idiots for doing so, not you. (snip) > > In any case, I am through with showing proof, whatever kind that > > might be, to whomever decides they are authority to judge it as > > so or no. > > That's exactly right. Asking for proof is not reasonable in the > context of a casual conversation. And yet the _only_ person who has done that in this thread is you. > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And yet the _only_ person who has done that in this thread is you. Perfect passive-agressive behavior! "I didn't ASK for it,...I only implied it was necessary." Whatta fuckin' turd. > > (snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Perfect passive-agressive behavior! > "I didn't ASK for it,...I only implied it was necessary." No I did neither. > Whatta fuckin' turd. You kiss your mother with that mouth? Yuck. >> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "I didn't ASK for it,...I only implied it was necessary." > Whatta fuckin' turd. Yoop *I* was the one who asked for evidence as part of a longer standing conversation. >>> (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yoop *I* was the one who asked for evidence as part of a longer > standing conversation. But not the *ONLY* one > >>> (snip) > >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > But not the *ONLY* one Well, yes. There was _you_ who repeatedly asked for proof. (But only from me - you aren't interested in proof from anyone else.) >>>>> (snip) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Well, yes. There was _you_ who repeatedly asked for proof. (But only > from me - you aren't interested in proof from anyone else.) I saw not one example of Doug asking for proof. >>>>>> (snip) >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I saw not one example of Doug asking for proof. Prove it. >> But not the *ONLY* one > > Well, yes. There was _you_ who repeatedly asked for proof. > (But only from me - you aren't interested in proof from anyone > else.) I don't normally ask for proof from people who post their opinions when engaaged in casual conversations. I generally take them at their word when they claim to have learned something from a credible source. But I do tend to require proof from right-fighting liars who enjoy trying to bully others to meet standards which they, themselves, cannot ever hope to meet for themselves. So yes, I did ask for proof from you. Go figure. > >> But not the *ONLY* one > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > themselves, cannot ever hope to meet for themselves. So yes, I did > ask for proof from you. Go figure. At the same time as you falsely asserted I was asking for proof. And at the same time as you criticized me for asking for proof. Go figure that. >>>> But not the *ONLY* one >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > At the same time as you falsely asserted I was asking for proof. I'm sure that you feel that way. > And at the same time as you criticized me for asking for proof. I'm sure you feel that way too. > >> Who gets to say it is the wrong or right authority? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > on from the actual researcher in the field, should not be > discounted. But in the case you were talking about the person _wasn't_ passing information on from actual researchers in the field. (Or if he was, we can't tell since he didn't say where he got it.) >> Who gets to say it is the wrong or right authority? > > The "right" authority (in science) is one who is an expert in > the field he is discussing and preferably has done research > supporting his specific contentions. In other fields (law, > politics) the expertise looks a little different. Context. If there were a panel discussion held for the purposes of acheiving some higher level of understanding among professionals who would then employ that understading for particular purpsoes, you'd have a point. But for lay people who are disussing things among themselves for no other purpose than to excxhange ideas, the notion that only peered reviewed studies (Anderson's standard) will sufice as support for opinions in order to those 'discussions' to go forward, much less in order to avoid being demeaned for posting unsupported opinions, is simply nonsense. In her travels on the internet as she looked into this issue for her own education, she came across an article wherein a PhD in studies of the brain (one of the primary functions of which is to control behavior) stated that he knew that scientists in the field of behavior have said on the subject. But by the rediculous standrds being imposed here by some (for no other reason than to engage in right-fighting, IMO), Vicki was maginalized and insulted for offereing the above. > You aren't obligated to provide proof when asked - no one pays > you to be here and debate the way other people want you too. I > just want you to realize why people ask for proof and not to > take it personally. Some people ask because it's nothing more than obfuscation, and any proof offered would never be good enough. > Some people ask because it's nothing more than obfuscation, and any > proof offered would never be good enough. There ya go. "Emma Anne <emma_anne@mac.com>" wrote some of that sensible stuff she usually writes, but I want to take issue with one point: > On a more general note: I have noticed that you get defensive when > asked for references. In Ms Vickie's defense, she is asked for references by people who do not provide counter-references, and it has been repeatedly stated that she made a leap of logic which she never made -- she merely read it on a website. Rightly or wrongly, she believed the author of that page, and did not extrapolate beyond what it said. Further, Mr Anderson replied by saying something like "But the variation among males is larger than the variations between males and females", a claim for which he provided no reference whatever. So, look at it from her perspective: people are putting words in her mouth by repeatedly saying she made a leap which she never made. She was told that her reference is no good, but she is being told this by someone who provided no reference at all. Why *shouldn't* she take it personally when she's being held to a different standard? She's expected to provide *better* references by people who don't provide any. If her neuroscientist isn't an expert, and she shouldn't take his word for it without a better reference, why should she take anyone in this group as an expert? Maybe it's a mistake for her to trust that web page, but at least it was written by an author who gave his real name and has credentials in a related field. It would be much worse on her part to believe instead a netnews post by someone using an assumed name and whose credentials are completely unknown. And yet the people who want her to do the dumber thing, and believe them, are implying that *she* is the one who has trouble thinking clearly. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "In starting any thesis, it seems to me, one should put forward as one's point of departure something incontrovertible; the expression should be simple and dignified." -- Diogenes > "Emma Anne <emma_anne@mac.com>" wrote some of that sensible stuff > she usually writes, but I want to take issue with one point: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > among males is larger than the variations between males and females", > a claim for which he provided no reference whatever. And that point is tangential or ancilliary to the main point. > So, look at it from her perspective: people are putting words in her > mouth by repeatedly saying she made a leap which she never made. She [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > them, are implying that *she* is the one who has trouble thinking > clearly. Exactly, which I find pretty sad. And still hard to understand why. > "Emma Anne <emma_anne@mac.com>" wrote some of that sensible stuff she > usually writes, but I want to take issue with one point: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on a website. Rightly or wrongly, she believed the author of that > page, and did not extrapolate beyond what it said. Hmm. I think it is more complex than this. Sabbatini made the leap from physical differences in the brain to behavioral differences. I think Vickie read his words and made the same leap. (Or maybe made that leap independently.) It is a common confusion. Of course physical differences in the brain _can_ lead to behavioral differences, but many physical differences in the brain do not imply measurable behavioral differences. (If you require examples, I can give some - but I hope this is a point that people already know.) > Further, Mr Anderson replied by saying something like "But the variation > among males is larger than the variations between males and females", > a claim for which he provided no reference whatever. True enough. Though if anyone wishes to make a claim about specific intellectual, emotional or behavioral differences I suspect I can provide evidence that on that particular item (say, ability to read maps, or ability to care for children to name examples that have come up in the past in this type of thread) the variation within each gender is wider than the variation between genders. But I'm certainly not claiming to be able to prove this in general. > So, look at it from her perspective: people are putting words in her > mouth by repeatedly saying she made a leap which she never made. I think she did, but it is possible as you say that she didn't follow Sabbatini's reasoning but was merely parroting his words. > She > was told that her reference is no good, but she is being told this by > someone who provided no reference at all. Yes. The fact that I provided no reference is unrelated to whether her reference is any good. > Why *shouldn't* she take it personally when she's being held to a > different standard? She's expected to provide *better* references by > people who don't provide any. I'm not sure who you are speaking for. I don't expect her to provide better references. I expect about what we got. >> "Emma Anne <emma_anne@mac.com>" wrote some of that sensible >> stuff she usually writes, but I want to take issue with one [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Hmm. I think it is more complex than this. Hmmmm, no. > Sabbatini made the leap from physical differences in the brain to > behavioral differences. Nope, not that either. He said scientists know............. Prove that's a leap. > I think Vickie read his words and made the same leap. You made the leap of definitively saying that she made the same leap, when all she did was to take an expert in matter of the human brain when he said that scientists in matters of the very closely related field of behavior (which, of course, what brains control) know. > (Or maybe > made that leap independently.) Actually, made no leap at all. > It is a common confusion. What's all too common in this NG is that right-fighters like you populate it. >> Further, Mr Anderson replied by saying something like "But the >> variation among males is larger than the variations between >> males and females", >> a claim for which he provided no reference whatever. > > True enough. :-) >> So, look at it from her perspective: people are putting words >> in her mouth by repeatedly saying she made a leap which she >> never made. > > I think she did, but it is possible as you say that she didn't > follow Sabbatini's reasoning but was merely parroting his words. You just don't quit, do you. She must've really made you look like a foll pretty often for you to be on such a hate filled vendetta to discredit her. >> She >> was told that her reference is no good, but she is being told >> this by someone who provided no reference at all. > > Yes. The fact that I provided no reference is unrelated to > whether her reference is any good. But it is related to the fact that she presented a very creible reference and therfore mat a standard which you failed miseerably to meet. >> Why *shouldn't* she take it personally when she's being held to >> a different standard? She's expected to provide *better* >> references by people who don't provide any. > > I'm not sure who you are speaking for. Him, obviously. DUH > I don't expect her to > provide better references. I expect about what we got. More passive-agressive, a-hole responses. By you have proven that you're a clever a-hole. No one can deny that much about you. >> "Emma Anne <emma_anne@mac.com>" wrote some of that sensible stuff she >> usually writes, but I want to take issue with one point: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Hmm. I think it is more complex than this. What a surprise. Your opinion about what you *thought* she meant trumps what she actually said. S.O.P. > Sabbatini made the leap from physical differences in the brain to > behavioral differences. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (If you require examples, I can give some - but I hope this is a > point that people already know.) Again,...no surprise. You "can" give some,...but you never really do. >> Further, Mr Anderson replied by saying something like "But the >> variation among males is larger than the variations between males [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > intellectual, emotional or behavioral differences I suspect I can > provide evidence that on that particular item *I* suspect you can't. <chuckle> This is getting silly. Stop claiming and start doing. >(say, ability to read > maps, or ability to care for children to name examples that have come > up in the past in this type of thread) the variation within each > gender is wider than the variation between genders. > > But I'm certainly not claiming to be able to prove this in general. You have more than a couple times. The strange thing here Doug,...is that I actually leaned toward your view at one time, but you,...by simple virtue of avoiding any real evidence of your *opinion*,... have convinced me otherwise. That,...and some fresh research. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5225226 LISTEN to the entire piece, and pay attention to the differences this researcher has noticed in the *behavior* of men and women upon being confronted by differing cues. >> So, look at it from her perspective: people are putting words in her >> mouth by repeatedly saying she made a leap which she never made. > > I think she did, but it is possible as you say that she didn't follow > Sabbatini's reasoning but was merely parroting his words. f.ck you Doug. How superior do you need to feel? Jesus,...you're an a.s. >> She >> was told that her reference is no good, but she is being told this by >> someone who provided no reference at all. > > Yes. The fact that I provided no reference is unrelated to whether > her reference is any good. <shakes head> Why does anyone bother? You're an a.shole. End of story. >> Why *shouldn't* she take it personally when she's being held to a >> different standard? She's expected to provide *better* references by >> people who don't provide any. > > I'm not sure who you are speaking for. I don't expect her to provide > better references. I expect about what we got. > And yet the people who want her to do the dumber thing, and believe > them, are implying that *she* is the one who has trouble thinking > clearly. Thank you. >> I'd much rather discuss subjects instead of debate for debate >> sake. > > But debate is *not* for its own sake and therein is your error. It's been my experience that Vicki full well knows what the value of debate *should* be, and I think her comment is not reflective of any error she's making in that regard, but rather, about how some debates can drift rather quickly from their original point to some other points that really have little to no value at all except to the person who is hell bent upon being right as opposed to the real purpose of a debate. I think Vicki is claiming that when a debate deteriorates to that level, it's debate for the sake of debate rather than debate for the sake of the reasons why debates should have value. >> I'd much rather discuss subjects instead of debate for debate sake. > > But debate is *not* for its own sake and therein is your error. > > Debate is for *reasons* sake. To forsake debate is to forsake the > ability to tell correct from incorrect. Thus my new post on critical thinking skills. > And sure enough you tend to > draw on authority without checking on the applicability of our [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > different expressions of the same thing - A quest to be able to tell > the correct from the incorrect. Ah you already see what I mean. > Appeal to authority is a weak justification for saying you're correct. > Appeal to the wrong authority is weaker still. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > scout den leader as an authority and conducting your own lab > experiments. (snip) > Doug A's commentaries about research ask for very strong justification. > There's plenty of ground between citing a local cub scout den leader as > an authority and conducting your own lab experiments. Yes, and I certainly wouldn't expect someone to conduct their own lab experiments. But this particular topic (gender differences) has been subject to a lot of experiments, so one could read about those rather than asking a local cub scout leader (or anyone else) for an opinion. >>> You know, it is really my own fault for feeling goaded into showing >>> "proof". The outcome will always be the same. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, never in debate. No interest in it much. The point was not about whether or not you are interested in debate but in what consitutes a reasoned support or proof of an assertion that might be generally acceptable to people even nice that nasty Doug and I. > I'd much rather discuss subjects instead of debate for debate sake. > V [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> >>> Vickie >>>> You know, it is really my own fault for feeling goaded into showing >>>> "proof". The outcome will always be the same. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > what consitutes a reasoned support or proof of an assertion that might be > generally acceptable to people even nice that nasty Doug and I. No, I consider it a puck to the face arguement after I gave what was asked for. You keep spouting adjectives I feel for you and Doug, and sorry but you are off the mark. If you find yourself and him to be "mean 'ol Doug and Steph", perhaps do something about it? Vickie >> I'd much rather discuss subjects instead of debate for debate sake. >> V [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>>> >>>> Vickie >> You know, it is really my own fault for feeling goaded into >> showing "proof". The outcome will always be the same. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > assertions was used as proof of a an assertion during a judged > debate. More nonsense. First of all, discussions among lay people should not be reduced to contests, although it does explain a lot. Secondly, to discount what an expert in the human brain says about how the brain affects behavior is like discounting that what a physics expert says about math. The fields are so closely related that an expert in one is certainly very well qualified to say what he's come to know about the other, and certainly qualified enough to be used as 'support' for a position. You're trying to make it sound like Vicki used an expert in trains for his opinions about brains, which is pure, right-fighting nonsense. But keep trying. Your hero isn't off the ropes yet. > If you were ever to actually provide some kind of proof, who > knows, the outcome might actually be different. I suspect we > will never know. More passive-aggressive bullshit. Why have you not asked for *proof* of what Anderson posted on the subject? That's a rhetorical question. We know why you'd never challenge your hero. :-) (snip) > Secondly, to discount what an expert in the human brain says about > how the brain affects behavior is like discounting that what a > physics expert says about math. If you look at the publications of this particular "expert" you will see that they are not at all related to human behavior. It is naive to think that (for example) a brain surgeon would be better versed than a layperson (for example) on whether women are better at emotional connections than men. Furthermore, you are smart enough to know that. > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you look at the publications of this particular "expert" you > will see that they are not at all related to human behavior. Renato M.E. Sabbatini holds a doctorate in neurophysiology by the Faculty of Medicine of the University of São Paulo at Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, and was a guest scientist and post-doctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Neurobiology in Munich, Germany. He is currently chairman of medical informatics and adjunct professor at the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the State University of Campinas, in Campinas, Brazil; associate editor and chairman of the editorial board of "Brain & Mind" Magazine. Neurobiology: The biological study of the nervous system or any part of it. Neurobiology: a branch of biology that deals with the nervous system and its ability to react, learn, etc. It's not THE feild of behavioral studies, but totally unreated? Silliness. > It is naive to think that (for example) a brain surgeon would be > better versed than a layperson (for example) on whether women are > better at emotional connections than men. But it wouldn't be naive to think that a brain surgeon would know a lot more than a lay person about how the brain affects behavior, at the very least to the extent that he would've come to know what some scientists whose specialty is behavior have asserted about behavior. And whereas Vicki never said that the guy was a brain surgeon, and never said that the guy studeid those differences himself, your attempt to cause what she actually has done to drift to something which she has not done is rather pathetic. > > (snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > the very least to the extent that he would've come to know what some > scientists whose specialty is behavior have asserted about behavior. Brain surgeons know lots of things. Neurophysiologists probably also know lots of things. Neither are by training experts in how men's behavior differs from women's behavior. It is possible for either to choose to become experts on this I suppose, but the research publications of Sabbatini indicate quite clearly that his current field of expertise is using technology to teach medical students. If you look at his (mostly self-created wiki page) you can see what he claims his areas of expertise to be. They are nowhere near human behavior. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renato_M._E._Sabbatini I realize that you don't care about this, and your goal in this thread is merely to try to discredit me. But in the unlikely event anyone is still reading besides you and me, it is worth realizing that Sabbatini is not an expert on human behavior, nor does he claim to be. > And whereas Vicki never said that the guy was a brain surgeon, and > never said that the guy studeid those differences himself, your > attempt to cause what she actually has done to drift to something > which she has not done is rather pathetic. When you can't argue the facts, you choose to try to impugn your opponent. I've never "attempted to cause what Vickie has actually to drift to something she has not done" (whatever the hell you mean by that tortured locution). >>> (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Neither are by training experts in how men's behavior differs > from women's behavior. They don't have to be experts in behavior to have had to study, and to have come to learn, what experts in the related field of behavior have said about how the brain affects behavior. To persist with the notion that the brain is unrelated to behavior is pure nonsense born of extreme right-fighting. [snip more useless, right-fighting, passive agressive nonsense] >> If you were ever to actually provide some kind of proof, who >> knows, the outcome might actually be different. I suspect we [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what Anderson posted on the subject? That's a rhetorical question. We > know why you'd never challenge your hero. :-) That's it, right there, what she wrote. Is that passive aggressive? Seems pretty shitty right there in my face. Vickie >>> If you were ever to actually provide some kind of proof, who >>> knows, the outcome might actually be different. I suspect we [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Vickie And where is the prince and princess in all this? >> You know, it is really my own fault for feeling goaded into showing >> "proof". The outcome will always be the same. > > Think on this. Were you ever in debate club? Your kids ever in debate > club? So *that's* what this is! It all makes sense now. >>> You know, it is really my own fault for feeling goaded into >>> showing "proof". The outcome will always be the same. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So *that's* what this is! > It all makes sense now. It's what it is when some people have no choice but to take it to that level in order to preserve their right-fighting tactics. >>> You know, it is really my own fault for feeling goaded into showing >>> "proof". The outcome will always be the same. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So *that's* what this is! > It all makes sense now. What is? I was just trying to take the thought process out of the realm of mean ol' Stephanie and Doug and look at in terms of rational argument. (For the record, I have never been on a debate club, though I have been able to witness several. Fascinating stuff.) (snip) > You know, it is really my own fault for feeling goaded into showing "proof". > The outcome will always be the same. Since you started the thread, I'm not sure who was "goading" you. > I *am* interested in the topic, for my own reasons, so I should leave > it at that. I'm interested in it too. To me, one of the interesting things is how persistent the idea that "women are better at this, men are better at that" is even though whenever anyone is challenged for evidence, the differences that they come up with are tiny, and are dwarfed by the the differences _within_ women and _within_ men. For example, what makes the "men are better at directions" such a sticky idea when studies actually show that the average differences between the sexes are much smaller than the range among men and the range amone women? > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > differences that they come up with are tiny, and are dwarfed by the > the differences _within_ women and _within_ men. Then if you don't feel the need like those who persistent in an idea, you don't have the same interest. There is no going further for you. > For example, what makes the "men are better at directions" such a > sticky idea when studies actually show that the average differences > between the sexes are much smaller than the range among men and the > range amone women? And if that is true, what does it have to do with what I am discussing? I'm not discussing average differences between individuals. I know they are there. I am interested in differences in groups, specifically gender differences. Why are people persistant in the idea? Plenty of reasons. Reasons I suspect having no purpose.....for *you*. Vickie >> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > And if that is true, what does it have to do with what I am discussing? It has *nothing* to do with it, as I've already stated too. > I'm not discussing average differences between individuals. I know they > are there. Exactly. And it is true that the differences between the extreme ends within the same species are very large, which has NOTHING to do with this specific discussion. It's just tangential to it. > I am interested in differences in groups, specifically gender differences. > Why are people persistent in the idea? Plenty of reasons. > Reasons I suspect having no purpose.....for *you*. Not only "no reasons", but he apparently doesn't understand or agree with the premise of the discussion in the first place (due to the tangential part mentioned above). > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Since you started the thread, I'm not sure who was "goading" > you. Startring a thread is not mutually explsive to being goaded for what's posted, no matter that you want to make it look like that. But, then again, making things look different than they actually are is your thing, isn't it. >> I *am* interested in the topic, for my own reasons, so I should >> leave [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and are dwarfed by the the differences _within_ women and > _within_ men. Prove it. And by your own standard, it can't be someone you find on the internet who agrees with you. > For example, what makes the "men are better at directions" such a > sticky idea Prove it's a sticky idea. > when studies actually show Prove they actually show > that the average > differences between the sexes are much smaller than the range > among men and the range amone women? Prove it, and not by finding someone on the internet who agrees with you. > > (snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Prove it. I can't prove it and would never assert that I could. However my experience is that anytime anyone names a specific intellectural skill where the gender difference is supposed to be more significant than the differences within genders, it is easy to show they are wrong. Maybe someone will come up with an example where the gender difference really _is_ that big. I'm waiting. > And by your own standard, it can't be someone you find on > the internet who agrees with you. That isn't my standard. My standard is peer-reviewed research. >>> (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I can't prove it and would never assert that I could. So it's your position that Vicki overstates the differences between men and women because the differences between the genders is dwarfed by differences withing the genders, but you yet, you can't prove that's true, even though you challenge her to prove that what she says IS true. > However my experience is that anytime anyone names a specific > intellectural skill where the gender difference is supposed to > be more significant than the differences within genders, it is > easy to show they are wrong. Prove it. > Maybe someone will come up with an example where the gender > difference really _is_ that big. I'm waiting. I'm waiting for you to support your opinions too. >> And by your own standard, it can't be someone you find on >> the internet who agrees with you. > > That isn't my standard. My standard is peer-reviewed research. So now you think that Vicki should submit her opinions to peer review? > >>> (snip) > >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > that's true, even though you challenge her to prove that what she > says IS true. I can prove that she overstates those differences. I can't prove the gender differences (in general) are dwarfed by the differences within genders. I can show that for all the examples Vickie has brought up about behavioral gender differences the evidence points to gender differences being dwarfed by differences within genders (Vickie has avoided bringing up any specific examples in this thread though). > > However my experience is that anytime anyone names a specific > > intellectural skill where the gender difference is supposed to > > be more significant than the differences within genders, it is > > easy to show they are wrong. > > Prove it. It is my experience. It doesn't require proof. > > Maybe someone will come up with an example where the gender > > difference really _is_ that big. I'm waiting. > > I'm waiting for you to support your opinions too. OK. > >> And by your own standard, it can't be someone you find on > >> the internet who agrees with you. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So now you think that Vicki should submit her opinions to peer > review? No. I'm correcting you since you are once again putting words in my mouth. My standard for evidence has nothing to do with whether it appears on the internet or not. My standard for evidence of gender difference is peer reviewed research (as opposed to, for example, a Dave Barry column). Vickie's opinions, my opinions, your opinions etc. are not evidence at all. They are opinions and don't require peer review. >>>>> (snip) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > I can prove that she overstates those differences. Prove it, and not by finding someone on the internet who agrees with you. > I can't prove the gender differences (in general) are dwarfed by > the differences within genders. Prove that the differences in cognition, emotion, information, etc.tend to be much smaller than the differences you find within each sex. > I can show that for all the examples Vickie has brought up about > behavioral gender differences the evidence points to gender > differences being dwarfed by differences within genders (Vickie > has avoided bringing up any specific examples in this thread > though). Then do so, and not by finding someone on the internet who agrees with you. >>> However my experience is that anytime anyone names a specific >>> intellectural skill where the gender difference is supposed to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It is my experience. It doesn't require proof. :-) >>> Maybe someone will come up with an example where the gender >>> difference really _is_ that big. I'm waiting. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > No. Then prove your assertions, but not by just finding someone on the internet who agrees with you. > It is my experience. It doesn't require proof. ...and *that*, Ladies and Gentlemen,...is that. > > > It is my experience. It doesn't require proof. > > ...and *that*, Ladies and Gentlemen,...is that. That's right. I'm not claiming it is the truth - I'm simply claiming it is my experience. Maybe the difference in those claims isn't so clear to everyone, but to me is seems profound. >>>> It is my experience. It doesn't require proof. >> >> ...and *that*, Ladies and Gentlemen,...is that. > > That's right. I'm not claiming it is the truth - I'm simply claiming > it is my experience. ...but Vickie isn't allowed the same latitude? > Maybe the difference in those claims isn't so clear to everyone, but > to me is seems profound. Watching you "discuss" is like watching a bucket full of eels. >>>>> It is my experience. It doesn't require proof. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ...but Vickie isn't allowed the same latitude? Vicki IS claiming it is the truth, the objective truth and those of us who do not agree with it are ... sh.t I cannot remember. It is not denial. It's... failure to accept... so that amounts to the same thing. >> Maybe the difference in those claims isn't so clear to everyone, but >> to me is seems profound. > > Watching you "discuss" is like watching a bucket full of eels. >>>>>> It is my experience. It doesn't require proof. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It is not denial. It's... failure to accept... so that amounts > to the same thing. Except for the dirty truth that your disagreement is supported by a totally unsupported opinion whereas Vicki has at least provided some 'support' for her opinion. And the notion that she expressed her opinion as 'the truth' is just more of the kind of right-fighting nonsense of the type that lead Anderson to characterize Vicki's support as being that she went on the internet to find someone who agreed with her instead of the possibility that she was looking into the issue, and learned what she learned. >>>>>> It is my experience. It doesn't require proof. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > do not agree with it are ... sh.t I cannot remember. It is not denial. > It's... failure to accept... so that amounts to the same thing. The objective truth is that it is Vickie, not Vicki, who you think is making these claims. (There is no Vicki in here as far as I know). > >>>> It is my experience. It doesn't require proof. > >> ...and *that*, Ladies and Gentlemen,...is that. > > That's right. I'm not claiming it is the truth - I'm simply claiming > > it is my experience. > > ...but Vickie isn't allowed the same latitude? Of course she is. > > Maybe the difference in those claims isn't so clear to everyone, but > > to me is seems profound. > > Watching you "discuss" is like watching a bucket full of eels. If you say so. > However my experience is that anytime anyone names a specific > intellectural skill where the gender difference is supposed to be more > significant than the differences within genders, it is easy to show > they are wrong. THEN DO IT!!!!!! Jesus Christ, Doug,...hold yourself to the same standard you hold others, ...or hold yer goddamn tongue. > > > However my experience is that anytime anyone names a specific > > intellectural skill where the gender difference is supposed to be more > > significant than the differences within genders, it is easy to show > > they are wrong. > > THEN DO IT!!!!!! I have, each time someone has put forth an example (Vickie has not done that in this thread, nor has anyone else). > Jesus Christ, Doug,...hold yourself to the same standard you hold > others, I do, thanks. Without feeling compelled to shout about it. > ...or hold yer goddamn tongue. >>>> However my experience is that anytime anyone names a specific >>> intellectural skill where the gender difference is supposed to be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have, each time someone has put forth an example (Vickie has not > done that in this thread, nor has anyone else). <shakes head> Wow,...didn't see *that* coming did I? What you have "shown" is that you disagree, nothing else. (Yes, I *have* read the entire thread.) >> Jesus Christ, Doug,...hold yourself to the same standard you hold >> others, > > I do, thanks. Without feeling compelled to shout about it. Ohhh, to be as civil as you,...wouldn't that be grand. > >>>> However my experience is that anytime anyone names a specific > >>> intellectural skill where the gender difference is supposed to be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What you have "shown" is that you disagree, nothing else. > (Yes, I *have* read the entire thread.) I never claimed to have shown anything else (I don't know why you want to use the scare quotes). I did claim, and still claim, that the article Vickie started this thread with is simply one person's opinion - unbacked by research - and therefore is not evidence that men's minds work differently from women's. >>>>>> However my experience is that anytime anyone names a >>>>>> specific [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > this thread with is simply one person's opinion - unbacked by > research To what point would you make that claim? > - and therefore is not evidence that men's minds work > differently from women's. And what's your point in saying that? Were you just posting rambling thoughts of no contributory value to the conversation, or were those comments meant to convey a point? And why would you point out that she had no evidence for her position, and then go on to give your own opinion on the matter for which you also provided no support? > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Since you started the thread, I'm not sure who was "goading" you. I answered Doug L's post. Stephanie answered: "And someday you will even be able to support that assertion! (Or not.)" So, you are right. Perhaps goaded is the wrong word. Slighted? Mocked? Snubbed? Take your pick. Whatever the feeling, it rose my hackles. And instead of walking, I provided a insightful article...... >> I *am* interested in the topic, for my own reasons, so I should leave >> it at that. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > between the sexes are much smaller than the range among men and the > range amone women? >>>>> Hey, just wanted to say I appreciate the back-up here. >>>>> I think that is what gets me so stirred up. The demeaning [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > I *am* interested in the topic, for my own reasons, so I should > leave it at that. Which is exactly what these know-it-alls want. Anderson thrives on being perceived as the expert of all things discussed in some venue or other, and so he landed here to get that validation. If anyone claims to know what he doesn't know, or more than he knows, or God forbid, show that he's wrong about what he thinks he knows, then it'll be his mission from that point on, with the help of his minions, to make sure that you leave here post haste. That's exactly why he'll be the last man standing. Him and his merry band of followers. You know how the convention here is to use ">" in order to quote wat someone else posted? Apparently, what I actually posted didn't lend itself to refutation to the extent that Anderson would've liked, and so he actually changed the words that I posted by using the ">" in front of *his* words so that he would have a better argument. It's gotten so bad that it's borderline pathological. >>>>>> Hey, just wanted to say I appreciate the back-up here. >>>>>> I think that is what gets me so stirred up. The demeaning [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > It's gotten so bad that it's borderline pathological. If true, I find that pretty lame in this type of discussion. Best to read orginal for certain. I'd still be pissed. Vickie (snip) > > You know how the convention here is to use ">" in order to quote wat > > someone else posted? Apparently, what I actually posted didn't lend [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Best to read orginal for certain. > I'd still be pissed. Of course it is not true. You might consider the source. > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Of course it is not true. More lies. The ">>" is your version of what I posted, and what's in quotes is what I actually posted. >> If I had started a thread and then, when proven wrong >> when that person provides the support, dismissing that support [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Except Vickie started the thread, right? You've just hit a new low. I never posted that paragraph as you made it appear. Here's what I posted.... "More interestingly, though, is for you to be dismissive of another opinion for lack of support (especially when, in the very same post, you provide no support for your own), and then, when proven wrong when that person provides the support, dismissing that support as useless by assuming that the person searched for the support after coming to their opinion, instead of providing an opinion based upon what they learned." Admit that you made some sort of mistake which made it appear that I posted somethng that I never did, or admit that you lied. Your choice. For a right-fighter like you, I suspect that you'd rather be seen as a liar than having made a mistake. > You might consider the source. >> You know how the convention here is to use ">" in order to >> quote wat someone else posted? Apparently, what I actually [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Best to read orginal for certain. > I'd still be pissed. Here's the exchange. The ">>" is supposedly mine, and ">" is his. I challenged him to either admit that he made some sort of mistake in misquoting me, but he's chosen not to do so. He can't. He's got to be right. >> If I had started a thread and then, when proven wrong >> when that person provides the support, dismissing that support [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Except Vickie started the thread, right? You've just hit a new low. I never posted that paragraph as you made it appear. Here's what I posted.... "More interestingly, though, is for you to be dismissive of another opinion for lack of support (especially when, in the very same post, you provide no support for your own), and then, when proven wrong when that person provides the support, dismissing that support as useless by assuming that the person searched for the support after coming to their opinion, instead of providing an opinion based upon what they learned." Admit that you made some sort of mistake which made it appear that I posted somethng that I never did, or admit that you lied. Your choice. For a right-fighter like you, I suspect that you'd rather be seen as a liar than having made a mistake. > >> You know how the convention here is to use ">" in order to > >> quote wat someone else posted? Apparently, what I actually [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I challenged him to either admit that he made some sort of mistake > in misquoting me, but he's chosen not to do so. He can't. Of course I can. There may be a misattribution there, but I can't see that it is significant in any way. At no time did I insert or delete ">." So if there is a misattribution, I apologize, but it was not deliberate, and I can't even see where it was harmful to you. (You do yourself enough harm with the things you actually write.) > He's got to be right. There is something so funny about this coming from you. (Assuming I am attributing this to you correctly). >>>> You know how the convention here is to use ">" in order to >>>> quote wat someone else posted? Apparently, what I actually [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Of course I can. Then why do you keep snipping the proof that I posted about how you misquoted me? > There may be a misattribution there, Which YOU did purposefully. It's not just a misattribution..... It's YOUR purposeful misquoter, and it's a lie. >but I > can't see that it is significant in any way. That's not for you to decide. Quote what I actually say, not what you wished I would've said. > At no time did I > insert or delete ">." I never said that you did. I said, and have proven, that you changed the words after the ">>" to make it appear as though they were mine. > So if there is a misattribution, I > apologize, but it was not deliberate, and I can't even see where > it was harmful to you. (You do yourself enough harm with the > things you actually write.) It's not harmful to me. It was a cheap ploy on your part to keep from having to address the issue head on, and instead, changing the subject. For whatever stupid reason you had, you wanted to change the point to being one of who initiated the thread so that you could take the discussion in that direction, even though it's irrelevant. >> He's got to be right. > > There is something so funny about this coming from you. > (Assuming I am attributing this to you correctly). Whereas you can't be trusted, that's an assumption no one can make. It's not the first time you';ve been caught lying about what others have said, and I have no doubt that it will not be the last. You have no honor, no pride, and no self-respect. >>>>> Hey, just wanted to say I appreciate the back-up here. >>>>> I think that is what gets me so stirred up. The demeaning [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> >> It'd be pathetic if it wasn't so amusing to me. I don't find it amusing. I find it more sad than amusing. >>> And especially in this case, where the author clearly is >>> credible, at least to most of us here, I think. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > "proof". > The outcome will always be the same. But I too keep naively believing it may change. Isn't that one of the definitions of insanity, though? Or rather goes with the territory? > I *am* interested in the topic, for my own reasons, so I should leave it > at > that. Yeah but...it's interesting talking about it. Correction. SOME of us find it interesting. Some just want to argue it. >> "Vickie <vkrajnik@yahoo.com>" wrote linking to: >>> http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Feeling better already. :-) The fact is that what you provided IS not only 'support', but it's solid 'evidence' for your position. What a Phd knows about what the scientists in his field of expertise know IS evidence, and his testimony to that effect would be accepted in any court of law. So to say that you've got no 'support' for your position, the standard for which is even less than that of 'evidence', is plainly perposturous. > >> "Vickie <vkrajnik@yahoo.com>" wrote linking to: > >>> http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > scientists in his field of expertise know IS evidence, and his > testimony to that effect would be accepted in any court of law. Right. But this example is what a Ph.D. knows about what scientists _outside_ of his field of expertise know. That's neither support nor evidence - just opinion. >>>> "Vickie <vkrajnik@yahoo.com>" wrote linking to: >>>>> http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > scientists _outside_ of his field of expertise know. That's > neither support nor evidence - just opinion. How do you figure that it's outside of his field of expertise? Renato M.E. Sabbatini holds a doctorate in neurophysiology by the Faculty of Medicine of the University of São Paulo at Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, and was a guest scientist and post-doctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Neurobiology in Munich, Germany. He is currently chairman of medical informatics and adjunct professor at the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the State University of Campinas, in Campinas, Brazil; associate editor and chairman of the editorial board of "Brain & Mind" Magazine. The bottom line here is this..... Vicki posted her opinion, you babbled your contrary opinion, for which you provided no support, and then accused her of making an unsupported leap. Unknown to you, however, she had great support for her opinion in that she refers to a well referenced and footnoted article written by a reknown phd in the field of neurophysiology, plus has very many other credentials in which he clearly, and authroitatively states what scientists say about the subject at hand. Obviously, you could not then admit that you were wrong to claim that she had no support for her position, and so you now have no choice but to come to some tortured definition of 'support' that is beyond any standard of resonableness. And all to avoid having to admit that you just might've been wrong. A simple 'yes, you're right that you have support for your opinion' would've been sufficient, but you can't even muster that much. >>>>> "Vickie <vkrajnik@yahoo.com>" wrote linking to: >>>>>> http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > How do you figure that it's outside of his field of expertise? I expect he is defining it too narrowly. > Renato M.E. Sabbatini holds a doctorate in neurophysiology by the > Faculty of Medicine of the University of São Paulo at Ribeirão [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > A simple 'yes, you're right that you have support for your opinion' > would've been sufficient, but you can't even muster that much. I'll agree about one thing. It does seem some people do have a problem admitting they are wrong. I don't know why it's such a big deal to them. In short, errare humanum est. > >>>> "Vickie <vkrajnik@yahoo.com>" wrote linking to: > >>>>> http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > in Campinas, Brazil; associate editor and chairman of the editorial > board of "Brain & Mind" Magazine. Yes. Well, medical informatics is unrelated to the subject at hand. Being an adjunct professor is not normally a noteworthy credential (in fact, usually the opposite), and being a neurophysiologist (which he actually _is_) does not give expertise on whether men and women behave differently. Nor does he refer to research on the subject, needless to say. >>>>>> "Vickie <vkrajnik@yahoo.com>" wrote linking to: >>>>>>> http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > neurophysiologist (which he actually _is_) does not give > expertise on whether men and women behave differently. The issue, as far as Vicki meeting the standard for having support for her opinion, isn't whether he has the expertise to know the subject definitively, but rather, whether or not he has the cache to know what the experts on the very narrow issue at hand know. You seem to be horribly confused among the terms 'proof', 'eveidence', and 'support'. Clearly, she has support for her position. It might be bullet proof, or it might not be, but it certainly passes the straight face test of the term 'support' in this context, regardless of whether or not that makes what anyone posted here look silly. > Nor does he refer to research on the subject, needless to say. Obviously, you thought differently. But whether he refers to research is irrelevant to whether or not he can be believed to the point of qualifying as reasonable support for an opinion. > >>>>>> "Vickie <vkrajnik@yahoo.com>" wrote linking to: > >>>>>>> http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > You seem to be horribly confused among the terms 'proof', > 'eveidence', and 'support'. No, I'm not. Perhaps you are? > Clearly, she has support for her > position. If going on the internet and finding someone with a Ph.D. who agrees with you constitutes support, then I'll agree with that. But I don't actually consider that support. Finding _research_ that agrees with you, I'd consider that support. Finding an actual expert (not just someone who does something else, has a Ph.D. and is ready to sound off) could also be considered support if that expert can ground his or her opinion in research. But no, finding someone who agrees with you, even if that person has a Ph.D. doesn't meet my test for support. >>> Yes. Well, medical informatics is unrelated to the subject at >>> hand. Being an adjunct professor is not normally a noteworthy [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > No, I'm not. Perhaps you are? Perhaps I am. But a big part of being confused about a thing is not knowing it, and so I don't know how you can be so sure of yourself. >> Clearly, she has support for her >> position. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > considered support if that expert can ground his or her opinion > in research. The fact that he didn't choose to include a reference to every study that would support every position he took doesn't mean that he doesn't have it, or that he can't produce it. It just means that he didn't think it was germain to the point of that particular 'paper'. Just like when you said "Those differences are very cloudy if they are there at all, and tend to be much smaller than the differences you find _within_ each sex." Does the fact that you didn't include a link to a study that proves this to be true mean that you can't? does it mean that you have no support whatsoever for this wild a.s claim? Or does it mean that you read it somewhere, and could produce support for it if necessary? > But no, finding someone who agrees with you, even if that person > has a Ph.D. doesn't meet my test for support. Well, at least Vicki went a lot further to support her opinion than you did. (snip) > The fact that he didn't choose to include a reference to every study > that would support every position he took doesn't mean that he > doesn't have it, or that he can't produce it. Correct. But the fact that he didn't include _any_ reference to a study that would demonstrate that men's and women's thought processes are different means that he provided no justification for Vickie's position. > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are different means that he provided no justification for Vickie's > position. I was under the impression that women's brains had better (i.e., more) neural pathways connecting the two hemispheres of the brain, than men do. Is that in dispute? > > (snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > neural pathways connecting the two hemispheres of the brain, than men do. > Is that in dispute? Not by me, but I really don't know. What is in dispute by me is whether one can justify claims about how women think, feel emotions, etc. differently from men. Everytime someone makes a claim like this, when you examine the evidence you discover the difference between women and men is smaller than the difference among women or among men. >>> (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > evidence you discover the difference between women and men is > smaller than the difference among women or among men. Unsupported opinion noted. > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Correct. That's why I said it. It's also why I said this, which you chose to snip for obvious reasons.. The fact that he didn't choose to include a reference to every study that would support every position he took doesn't mean that he doesn't have it, or that he can't produce it. It just means that he didn't think it was germain to the point of that particular 'paper'. Just like when you said "Those differences are very cloudy if they are there at all, and tend to be much smaller than the differences you find _within_ each sex." Does the fact that you didn't include a link to a study that proves this to be true mean that you can't? does it mean that you have no support whatsoever for this wild a.s claim? Or does it mean that you read it somewhere, and could produce support for it if necessary? > > (snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's why I said it. It's also why I said this, which you chose to > snip for obvious reasons.. Ah. Now you've descended from invective, condescension, and putting words into other people's mouths to taking words out of context. I guess that means this conversation is over. Not that it was really much of a conversation I suppose. >>> (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ah. Now you've descended from invective, No, Anderson, I haven't. I was just out to let you prove my point for me, and you've accomodated me very well. Thanks. >>> (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I guess that means this conversation is over. Not that it was really > much of a conversation I suppose. I see a white flag waving. Good surrender Doug. > >>> (snip) > >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I see a white flag waving. Good surrender Doug. Yes. AY wins the battle of most interesting in invective, putting words into other's mouths, and taking words out of context. He can have that one. >>>>> (snip) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > putting words into other's mouths, and taking words out of > context. And yet, you are the only one how has attempted to hide the context of the remarks made by the other person. You are also the only one who totally mischarachterized what Vicki did (i.e., looked for support for her position online instead of looking online for information, and klearning from it), and very many other things that I have said. But that's what right-fighters do. >>>> (snip) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I see a white flag waving. Good surrender Doug. I'm still trying to figure out where this is going to end up. :-) Maybe it's like the river... >> "Vickie <vkrajnik@yahoo.com>" wrote linking to: >>> http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > Right now though, I'd like to stick my head in the chamber pot for letting > things bother me so! I know the feeling too. What's the solution, though? > Good thing about me though, I can reach "high" very quickly, but can come > back to normal fairly quickly too. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > V LOL. Isn't it amazing, though. I still find it a bit sad, though. But then again, I find a lot of things a bit sad. I still missed this? > Doug Anderson wrote: >> Doug Laidlaw <blackhole@afraid.org> writes: <snip> (since you like snippage) >>> Like Bill, you're depressed (and like Bill you have my empathy for >>> that - I know it is terrible). Also like Bill you have trouble >>> recognizing your perspective as something that is only your >>> perspective and not an absolute truth. <snip> Actually, and come to think of it, when I have asserted anything as being "the absolute truth"? Does *anybody* really know the absolute truth? I generally think all we have ... is our perceptions of the truth. Who knows, this whole thing called life may be a dream. Vickie wrote: >> Vickie wrote: >>>> Vickie wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > No, I consider it a puck to the face arguement after I gave what was > asked for. You did not. That is the very cruz of the issue. You cannot see what constitutes and argument and evidence which supports and argument. > You keep spouting adjectives I feel for you and Doug, and sorry but > you are off the mark. > If you find yourself and him to be "mean 'ol Doug and Steph", perhaps > do something about it? I don't think either of us are mean. I think you think we are mean, We are mean, it is all our responsibility that you feel goaded and accosted and demeaned and diminished. You were "goaded." You are not responsible for your own actions, I am by "goading" you. You are not responsible for your own thoughts, because you have a supposed expert to think for you, even if he has no reason to think what he does. At least he thinks the same things you do. So is this still in question? Doug Anderson wrote: > "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Is it? Since no one can even say what these differences are, if it is > going to be really helpful, we'll have to do without that help. I just stated what some of the common differences are in my earlier post. Here is it again, in case you missed it: "Is is "stereotyping" to recognize that (for example) women are generally more into cosmetics, than men are? That men often tend to act more aggressively than women do (i.e. testosterone)? That women often tend to share more with each other (in place of just competing)? That men are generally taller than women are? That women tend to be more the primary caretakers than men are? (Etc, etc, etc)." Recognizing it is one thing - a good thing. But burying your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist, is another. I, for one, appreciate some of those common differences; and yes, even taking into account the variations existing within a same sex, it's still quite notable. Reedited. Doug Anderson wrote: > "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Is it? Since no one can even say what these differences are, if it is > going to be really helpful, we'll have to do without that help. I just stated some commonly found differences in my earlier post. Here is it again in case you missed it (classified by someone else as "stereotyping", since its grouping people - guess that's sinful): Is is wrong to recognize that, (for example), women are generally more into cosmetics, than men are? That men often tend to act more aggressively than women do (testosterone)? That women often tend to share more with each other, in lieu of just competing? That men are generally stronger and taller than women are? That women tend to be much more the primary caretakers than men? Some of these differences are nature-based, and some are nurture-based, but either way, they are quite common and prevalent. I find that recognizing and appreciating the differences can be helpful. Like most anything else, it can be overdone or misused. But to simply dismiss them, and say they are going to be harmful in all cases, or are of no value, or are inconsequential, or are "less than the variations found between individuals of the same sex over the entire range of that species", seems silly. Reedited. Doug Anderson wrote: > "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Is it? Since no one can even say what these differences are, if it is > going to be really helpful, we'll have to do without that help. I just stated some commonly found differences in my earlier post. Here is it again in case you missed it (classified by someone else as "stereotyping", since its grouping people - guess that's sinful): Is is wrong to recognize that, (for example), women are generally more into cosmetics than men are? That men often tend to act more aggressively than women do (testosterone)? That women often tend to share more with each other in lieu of just competing? That men are generally stronger and taller than women are? That women tend to be (much more) the primary caretakers than men? Some of these differences are nature-based, and some are nurture-based, but either way, they are quite common - and prevalent. I find that recognizing and appreciating the differences can be helpful. Like most anything else, it can be overdone or misused. But to simply dismiss them, and say they are going to be harmful in all cases, or are of NO value, or are inconsequential, or are "less than the variations found between individuals of the same sex over the entire range of that sex and are therefore of no significance or importance", seems ridiculous. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.