|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 12:53:30 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Not my style. I'd prefer to let him dig his hole as deep as he wants. |
Fair 'nuff.
| I asked the questions in order to further discussion. |
Oh. Sorry.
| Are the differences between mens' and womens' expressions of emotion due to any physiological differences, or are they primarily cultural? |
I think there's enough evidence for both. But trying to work out exactly how much is caused by nature or nurture and exactly how our concepts and identities as "men" and "women" form is not something we have the data and means for discovering yet. Of course there have been many studies, but they are mostly soft science studies, which aren't particularly reliable or revealing. And then there is the problem of this topic being incredibly emotionally charged for most people, which means that many researchers are more likely to be tainted by their own biases.
All that said, how important is it to understand how much in nature and nurture? After all, whether these gender differences are caused by one or the other, they still exist. We can't undo things that have already been done to people, all we can do is try to come to an awareness that helps us to overcome tendencies and perspectives that lead to harm.
| If the latter, we (as critical thinkers) ought to be discussing what the optimal emotional/logical ratio is for both sexes (or either sex, assuming that there are some physiological differences), and aiming for that proper mix, yes? |
I'd say no, but I honestly don't really understand what you are talking about. It sounds sensible on its face, but I suspect that your suggestion is one of those things that sounds nice in theory but falls flat in practical application. I don't think there is a optimal ratio of emotion/logic that works for everyone. The mind of any individual is incredibly complicated, and in my experience, people's greatest strengths are also their greatest weaknesses. Stubbornness, passion, patience, submissiveness, and pretty much any other trait (including being logical or intuitive or emotional) will serve an individual well or poorly, depending on the situation. A certain brilliant actor might be a total moron when it comes to science and believe in all sorts of wacko New Age crap, but it is the dominance of their intuitive/emotion side that makes them a brilliant actor (just an example - I am NOT saying that all actors derive all their talent from the single quality of emotion. Difference actors are talented for different reasons.) Likewise, a great scientist or programmer might derive most of their professional "greatness" from a pronounced logical side, which makes them a moron when it comes to understanding social and political trends.
| If men are societally "trained" to be tight-asses, we should be working to make them loosen up. And if women are trained to be overly emotional, shouldn't skeptical women be working to suck it up? |
Not necessarily, for the reasons I stated above. It may be that men and women's differences as gender grouping might be some sort of strength that provides a benefit to societies. It is just to complex to know for sure at this point in human understanding of these matters.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
 Posted - 07/22/2011 : 12:57:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
It is undesireable, absolutely, but unfortunately inevitable even if the CERN crew's intelligence and education is higher than average. They are still human beings.
|
Women are human beings too. It seems you are willing to accept that the men can act out... |
I'm not accepting it, I'm acknowledging that fact that it exist. In fact, I did what I could to counter it while in the military and in heavy manufacturing, by leading by example. And in my plutoon, it actually made a difference.
| because they are human beings but then the women must remain silent and not react because of that fact. Double standard. |
I have already agreed that Dawkins was a dick because of his opening piece in the debate, and I also think that the members of the He-Man Woman Hater's Club are way over the top.
Consider your hypothesis on double standard falsified.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 13:00:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by alienist
The point is women still have to think about the dangers they may be in because that possibility of harm is there. |
Men, too, but to a much lesser extent. At first, I thought Dude was crying "sexism!" at Rebecca Watson because of the implication that men don't need to be afraid of rapists, or that women don't rape people. He's denied both of those as being the reason why he thinks Watson's statements were sexist, so I'm at a loss as to his reasoning any more.
Of course men get attacked, too, and women are also attackers, but the vast majority of sexual assaults are from men attacking women, so the risk posed is much higher in any such random encounter. Women don't need to be as wary of other women, and men can be even less concerned about becoming victims. The risk is never zero for any of these groups, but we can easily point to which ones experience the highest risk. And it's not sexist to do so. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 13:09:50 [Permalink]
|
| In college, 2 friends and I formed the She-ra man hater's club one night. Our motto was to Use, Abuse and Sexually Peruse all men. Obviously we weren't serious about this club. I forget what prompted this except for we were all a little too drunk. |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 13:28:15 [Permalink]
|
Mab wrote: | No, but its existence shouldn't be unexpected. She seemed surprised that it happened at CERN. But it is a part of human nature, group dynamics, and herd mentality/psychology. It is undesireable, absolutely, but unfortunately inevitable even if the CERN crew's intelligence and education is higher than average. They are still human beings. |
What are you saying, that women shouldn't complain about this sort of thing? Just because we have come to expect inappropriate behavior doesn't mean that we should just accept it and not try to change it. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 14:17:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by alienist
I forget what prompted this except for we were all a little too drunk. |
That's exactly how some friends of mine and I started a group we called Alcoholics Unanimous. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2011 : 17:27:17 [Permalink]
|
Not to kick a dead horse, but this is the most balanced view of elevatorgate that I have read.
Feminism and Atheism |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2011 : 19:10:52 [Permalink]
|
That was surprisingly good, coming from Kazez. Of course, characterizing Watson's criticism of Kirby as the former calling the latter "ignorant" when she'd said "argument from ignorance," and then to preach about criticizing ideas instead of people, is just wrong. And Kazez' implication that Watson thinks the only thing keeping women away from skeptic/atheist meetings is sexism is laughable.
But the fact that the piece wasn't riddled with many, many more fallacies, as I'm used to from Kazez, is good. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2011 : 10:53:08 [Permalink]
|
One last try to explain why you are wrong about probability, I no longer care what your opinion of my opinion of Watson is, but you have a real knowledge deficit that you should probably try and correct.
Take 100 dice, 99 of them are loaded to roll 3 every time, one of them is loaded to roll 6 every time. When you roll them all you'd see that there is a 1% chance of a die comming up six. So you are justified in saying that, for this entire set, 1% of the dice will produce a six.
Now pick a random die out of your set. What is the chance, or probability, it will roll a six? For this particular die you know that the probability is either 0 or 1, not .01, because the generating conditions determine the probability.
When using probability to look at large sets you can determine general trends within that group without understanding the generating conditions. In order to determine probability with an individual inside that group you must understand the generating conditions first.
Argue with Karl Popper if you want. I'll email you the full text article if you can't access it.
To bring this back to elevator guy.... when you can tell me what the generating conditions are that guarantee a stanger will rape a woman in an elevator then you can determine probability with regard to a single individual.... if you can devise a way to measure those generating conditions in that individual. Since those generating conditions are not known (and are not measurable in a random individual even if they were known) you can't determine the actual probability of EG being a rapist.
Now lets discuss the other thing you apparently don't understand; units. It is never ok to mix up units in mathematics, even in probability. You can't say that in the set of 100 dice the probability of a six is .01, therefore the probability of one die rolling six is also .01. (as shown above, the actual probability of a randomly selected die rolling 6 is either 0 or 1, because you know the generating conditions) An equation written using "100 dice" as the unit of measure will not produce useful information for different units of measure unless there is a conversion. With probability you have a real problem when you switch units because this amounts to changing the initial conditions, it means that you are describing something competely different. It is an error to make a conclusion in units that differ from the initial units measured.
There are some instances, like your marble example, where the units can be interchanged. These are instances where you have accurate data concerning all of the variables and the generating conditions are known fully.
This is just me chasing after your red herrings, and only because it might help people (and maybe you) understand probability a little better.
With regard to the rest of this argument, nothing has changed my mind about Watson being a sensationalist tabloid hack. She routinely refuses to admit error and her behavior towards those who disagree with her is a long string of ad hom arguments (summarized well by Kazez from Kil's link).
2) As much as Watson makes a legitimate point about misogynistic rhetoric that's been directed toward her, she's gratuitously dismissive toward people who see things differently. She dismissed Kirby as "ignorant" and "privileged"; McGraw as "ignorant of feminism"; and Dawkins as too wealthy, old, heterosexual, white, and male to understand.
|
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2011 : 15:20:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
One last try to explain why you are wrong about probability... |
Well, at least you tried an explanation this time, even if you did get it wrong....I no longer care what your opinion of my opinion of Watson is, but you have a real knowledge deficit that you should probably try and correct.
Take 100 dice, 99 of them are loaded to roll 3 every time, one of them is loaded to roll 6 every time. When you roll them all you'd see that there is a 1% chance of a die comming up six. So you are justified in saying that, for this entire set, 1% of the dice will produce a six. |
No, that's a mistake. If the dice are loaded that way, then rolling all 100 of them will guarantee exactly one six, every time. It's a 100% chance of "a die coming up six."| Now pick a random die out of your set. What is the chance, or probability, it will roll a six? For this particular die you know that the probability is either 0 or 1, not .01, because the generating conditions determine the probability. |
No, if I don't know which die it is, then the generating condition is that there's a 1% chance I've randomly picked the die which will roll only sixes. My pick is the generating condition, not the roll of a die (the roll is fixed: see your first mistake, above). You continue to insist that the generating conditions are other than what they really are, both in this new example of yours and with EG.| When using probability to look at large sets you can determine general trends within that group without understanding the generating conditions. In order to determine probability with an individual inside that group you must understand the generating conditions first. |
Yeah, see, I've never given a damn about the probability that EG was a rapist. The argument was about perceived threats, and not about the probability of EG in particular having any particular hidden traits.
As of your next-to-last post, you seemed to be claiming that the perception of a threat is always unjustified if later things turn out okay. Is that correct?
Yeah, I can't see more than the first page.| To bring this back to elevator guy.... when you can tell me what the generating conditions are that guarantee a stanger will rape a woman in an elevator then you can determine probability with regard to a single individual.... |
My argument never hinged on that. You've been arguing against a straw man of your own creation.| Since those generating conditions are not known (and are not measurable in a random individual even if they were known) you can't determine the actual probability of EG being a rapist. |
I don't give a shit about the "actual probability of EG being a rapist." Never have.| Now lets discuss the other thing you apparently don't understand; units. It is never ok to mix up units in mathematics, even in probability. You can't say that in the set of 100 dice the probability of a six is .01, therefore the probability of one die rolling six is also .01. (as shown above, the actual probability of a randomly selected die rolling 6 is either 0 or 1, because you know the generating conditions) An equation written using "100 dice" as the unit of measure will not produce useful information for different units of measure unless there is a conversion. With probability you have a real problem when you switch units because this amounts to changing the initial conditions, it means that you are describing something competely different. It is an error to make a conclusion in units that differ from the initial units measured. |
Where have I done so?
(By the way, you do realize that probabilities are ratios, and thus unitless, yes?)| There are some instances, like your marble example, where the units can be interchanged. These are instances where you have accurate data concerning all of the variables and the generating conditions are known fully. |
And? Again, I don't know where I've made any unit errors in this discussion. This seems to have come out of the blue.| This is just me chasing after your red herrings, and only because it might help people (and maybe you) understand probability a little better. |
It seems to be you throwing up more smoke-screens.With regard to the rest of this argument, nothing has changed my mind about Watson being a sensationalist tabloid hack. She routinely refuses to admit error and her behavior towards those who disagree with her is a long string of ad hom arguments (summarized well by Kazez from Kil's link).| 2) As much as Watson makes a legitimate point about misogynistic rhetoric that's been directed toward her, she's gratuitously dismissive toward people who see things differently. She dismissed Kirby as "ignorant" and "privileged"; McGraw as "ignorant of feminism"; and Dawkins as too wealthy, old, heterosexual, white, and male to understand. |
|
Well, that just shows your bias: you haven't criticized Kazez for her errors of fact. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2011 : 17:27:37 [Permalink]
|
SIWOTI, and this time it's me.Originally posted by Dave W.
(By the way, you do realize that probabilities are ratios, and thus unitless, yes?) |
This was dumb, I was thinking of something else. Of course probabilities are expressed in ratios, and of course the units on the ratios are important. Herp-a-derp-derp.
But this is still bad:| Take 100 dice, 99 of them are loaded to roll 3 every time, one of them is loaded to roll 6 every time. When you roll them all you'd see that there is a 1% chance of a die comming up six. |
To better see why, replace "dice loaded to roll a 3 every time" with "red socks" and "die loaded to roll a six every time" with "blue sock." Throw 99 red socks and one blue sock in a drawer, mix them up, and pour them all out on the floor, and the odds are 1.000 that the resultant pile will contain "a blue sock" (a die coming up six).| So you are justified in saying that, for this entire set, 1% of the dice will produce a six. |
Yes, 1% of the socks are blue.| Now pick a random die out of your set. What is the chance, or probability, it will roll a six? For this particular die you know that the probability is either 0 or 1, not .01, because the generating conditions determine the probability. |
Now I put all the socks back in the drawer, mix them up again, and blindly remove a single sock. Obviously, it is either red or blue (those are the constraints on the characteristics), but the odds that I have picked (the generating condition) the blue sock are 0.01, period.
(Extra credit question that's off topic: if there are 50 red socks and 50 blue socks in the drawer, and the lights are out, how many do I need to pull out before I am guaranteed to have drawn a matching pair?)
This is worse:| Argue with Karl Popper if you want. |
Apparently, you, Dude, know Karl Popper's mind so well that you know he would agree with you if you happened to describe this to him. How fallaciously arrogant. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2011 : 18:38:58 [Permalink]
|
And now that I've read it, in no place do I see anything like what you're trying to assert, Dude. It's a paper about interpreting probabilities in physics without resorting to metaphysical concepts and instead realizing that the probabilities are churned out by one's experimental set-up instead of being inherent to the objects under test. It doesn't say anything about any prohibitions on applying group probabilities to individuals, only that single events must be seen as coming from a hypothetical stream of repeated experiments in which the experimental conditions are held constant (and that's not something that differs among the different interpretations of probability).
I was nodding in agreement with Popper the whole way through the paper, so if you think I'm arguing against anything he wrote, you'll have to point out what and why. Keep in mind that I've never even come close to trying to "determine the actual probability of EG being a rapist." The actual odds of EG being a rapist have been completely irrelevant to any of my arguments (and yours, too, so far as I can tell). It's just a huge, sloppy red herring of yours.
That's one of the reasons why I asked you to describe my arguments. Any description you offer will be wildly different from my real arguments, if you think that Popper would have a problem with what I've been saying. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2011 : 22:08:11 [Permalink]
|
| To better see why, replace "dice loaded to roll a 3 every time" with "red socks" and "die loaded to roll a six every time" with "blue sock." Throw 99 red socks and one blue sock in a drawer, mix them up, and pour them all out on the floor, and the odds are 1.000 that the resultant pile will contain "a blue sock" (a die coming up six). |
and
No, that's a mistake. If the dice are loaded that way, then rolling all 100 of them will guarantee exactly one six, every time. It's a 100% chance of "a die coming up six."
|
Only because you know the generating conditions.
In my example, if I didn't tell you the initial conditions of the dice, you'd only be able to state that 1% of the rolls come up 6. But you are so set on missing the point that you have, indeed, missed the point. Well done.
| Well, that just shows your bias: you haven't criticized Kazez for her errors of fact. |
So? I'm commenting on one paragraph she wrote (out of the first thing of hers I have ever read), but I'm supposed to go back and research her history and point out her errors? What the fuck are you smoking?
| Again, I don't know where I've made any unit errors in this discussion. This seems to have come out of the blue. |
I've pointed out your error a dozen times. You can't go from the set (units) of "all men" to the set (units) of "elevator guy" and say that because in the set of "all men" 2% will rape a stranger in their lifetime that "elevator guy" has a 2% chance to commit a rape.
The actual odds of EG being a rapist have been completely irrelevant to any of my arguments (and yours, too, so far as I can tell). It's just a huge, sloppy red herring of yours.
|
and
| How fallaciously arrogant. |
You know what? Fuck you. That's what. I now oficially regret coming back here and attempting to explain why you are wrong. Please feel free to continue being wrong, I no longer give a fuck about trying to convince you.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2011 : 06:11:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
(Extra credit question that's off topic: if there are 50 red socks and 50 blue socks in the drawer, and the lights are out, how many do I need to pull out before I am guaranteed to have drawn a matching pair?)
|
3
What do I win? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I do not like Rebecca Watson (aka skepchick)
