|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
 Posted - 12/09/2002 : 08:56:09
|
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 10:09:28 [Permalink]
|
You forget one thing, droves of women are doing things on the web for hours a day in many cases but don't make it to Skeptic sites. I just can't agree with your argument because of this. If women weren't on the web much at all I could consider it further. I suppose if we had some more data like men's time online a day vs women's it might help. But from what I have read women do spend a lot of time on the web these days.
@tomic
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 10:17:25 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, I play euchre online and there's plenty of females on there.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 21:00:36 [Permalink]
|
| Do you think the majority of the men on the web are skeptics? That arguement sounds flawed as well. |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 21:06:13 [Permalink]
|
| Also, I never stated that women weren't prevalent online. I simply stated that there are several reasons there may not appear to be female skeptics online and I listed them. I would dare say that the ratio of men online to men online who are skeptics might be quite similar or close to that of women. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 15:49:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deborah
A friend of mine speculates that debating is a form of competition and that seems to be something more natural to men. He asked me how women compete, and there really was a vagueness to my response. It seems that most women compete socially. The way we look, our social circle, our successes, our material possessions, how caring or giving we are. Rarely have I seen two women debate or compete in a way that seems intellectual. Not to say women are not intellectual. My personal opinion is we have an intellectual advantage over men!
I was saw a program quite some time ago that dedicated a fair amount of time to showing a particular test done on young children of (if my recolletion is correct) under 3 years of age. The child was placed in front of a large monitor and given a cord. Whenever the cord was yanked, a new, bright, fun image popped up on the screen - I do not recall if it was accompanied by sound.
The child would sit yanking the cord and looking at the monitor. Then, the feedback was removed. The poor kid would pull on the cord and absolutely nothing would happen.
What they found was a tendency for baby girls to cry briefly, and then leave to find something else of interest. Baby boys would yank the cord harder and harder as they cried louder and louder.
Maybe a lot of debate is simply yanking each other's chain ... 
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Legallee Insane
Skeptic Friend
Canada
126 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 22:52:19 [Permalink]
|
RD's statements do make sense on a certain level.
Being a guy I am attracted to a good arguement or debate because its fun to try to outwit people and "win."
I can't speak for women but I can use the analogy that when to girls fight they become extremely angered and don't talk to each other for at least a week, whereas when two guys fight over something, they will most likely still be best friends the next day. |
--"Only the fool says in his heart: There is no god -- The wise says it to the world"
--"I darn you to HECK!" - Catbert
--"Don't worry, we're not laughing at you, we're laughing near you." |
|
|
|
smartblonde57
New Member
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 15:48:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Legallee Insane
Being a guy I am attracted to a good arguement or debate because its fun to try to outwit people and "win."
I can't speak for women but I can use the analogy that when to girls fight they become extremely angered and don't talk to each other for at least a week, whereas when two guys fight over something, they will most likely still be best friends the next day.
Maybe that's because, for whatever reason, women/girls are not taught critical thinking skills as much as men/boys are, so they react to disagreement more emotionally. |
-- Mary
http://www.smartblonde57.com |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 16:01:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smartblonde57
Maybe that's because, for whatever reason, women/girls are not taught critical thinking skills as much as men/boys are, so they react to disagreement more emotionally.
Much, if not most, of these debates fail as exemplars of critical thinking, suggesting to me that there is little correlation between the propensity to debate and the ability to do it well. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
hocndoc
New Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 00:26:40 [Permalink]
|
Touche' ReasonableDoubt.
The trouble with forums is that there are so many of them, that that proponents of any point of view are scattered all over the place. Few stumble on, or have the time or energy for, more than just a few.
Another problem is what I call the "Tower of Bable." Everyone seems to have her or his own unique language. Especially with the luxury of picking apart responses word by word. Add in a few posters who are out to "win," and consensus is more and more unlikely.
I haven't figured out why there isn't more willingness on these interest-specific boards to attempt to translate the other person's idea into your own language, giving her or him the benefit of the doubt as a fellow self-identified skeptic, Christian, Democrat, etc.
|
| Edited by - hocndoc on 12/14/2002 00:27:38 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 06:10:44 [Permalink]
|
| It is also true that much of what we call debates are, in fact, unmoderated arguments. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2002 : 13:42:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What they found was a tendency for baby girls to cry briefly, and then leave to find something else of interest. Baby boys would yank the cord harder and harder as they cried louder and louder.
Maybe a lot of debate is simply yanking each other's chain ...
Your point is interesting, however, it does not address the question I asked which is "How do women compete with each other?"
Your research example confirms a couple of things for me though
1. Even at age 3 or less, little boys and girls are socialized to respond in certain ways.
2. Girls learn faster :)
And my apologies for not being present to moderate our discussion, as I stated in my original post...I am time challenged! |
|
|
|
Legallee Insane
Skeptic Friend
Canada
126 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2002 : 22:20:29 [Permalink]
|
I have read a few articles which are admittedly a slight bit outdated, but present the case for why there are so few women in engineering and moreso scientific fields as compared to men. The biggest reason they gave for women not entering more science related fields is that these fields are generally very competetive.
The article contrasted that most profs in these areas are male, as are most of the students, so therefore the assignments tend to turn into a sort of competition between all the students to see who can do better on each one. This type of environment is inherently better suited to male learning, as females generally prefer to cooperate and work together for the good of the group and come to a solution together.
One article also spoke of the fact that some women in the sciences tend to have a different or "female" way of doing things. These ways are not considered the "classical" methods prefered by men so they are judged as being invalid.
Another reason there may be so few women appearing on more scientific related boards like this one is that from a very early age, even if girls do well in science classes, they tend to stray away from them after a certain age, choosing not to learn anything about it. |
--"Only the fool says in his heart: There is no god -- The wise says it to the world"
--"I darn you to HECK!" - Catbert
--"Don't worry, we're not laughing at you, we're laughing near you." |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2002 : 04:52:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deborah
Your point is interesting, however, it does not address the question I asked which is "How do women compete with each other?"
No, it didn't. Sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by Deborah
Your research example confirms a couple of things for me though
1. Even at age 3 or less, little boys and girls are socialized to respond in certain ways.
2. Girls learn faster :)
Nurter and nature, respectively?  |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 12:26:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nurture(spelling correction) and nature, respectively?
I'm still out on this one. I suspect it's something like a 50/50 rule. I think that nature dictates our "range" and nurture influences where we fall in the range.
[On vacation in Florida]
Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 13:16:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deborah
quote:
Nurture(spelling correction) and nature, respectively?
I'm still out on this one. I suspect it's something like a 50/50 rule. I think that nature dictates our "range" and nuture influences where we fall in the range.
[On vacation in Florida]
I tend to favor - vacation in Florida
- nature, and
- nurture (properly spelled)
in that order. I suspect that nature defines tendencies/propensities, while nurture promotes/enables capabilities. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
