What are the differences between (cisgendered straight) Men and Women?

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
It's the summer time, so no need to pussyfoot around the big issues...

1. A Y chromosome
2. The plumbing, ability to give birth on one hand, and on the other hand higher masturbation rates, taller, stronger, faster.
3. Political representation, boardroom representation.
4. Pay.
5. Life expectancy.

If p.ie poster can explain, why these 5 things are linked, I would be very grafetul (apologies to non-binary, transgendered, bisexual or gay people for excluding you from the discussion, but sometimes exclusion can be a good thing).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome
Contra Grant On Exaggerated Differences | Slate Star Codex
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135672/
 


EoinMag

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
4,811
Is Breitbart down?

You know a place to discuss the burning issues?

(burning crosses)
(burning mosques)
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
It's the summer time, so no need to pussyfoot around the big issues...

1. A Y chromosome
2. The plumbing, ability to give birth on one hand, and on the other hand higher masturbation rates, taller, stronger, faster.
3. Political representation, boardroom representation.
4. Pay.
5. Life expectancy.

If p.ie poster can explain, why these 5 things are linked, I would be very grafetul (apologies to non-binary, transgendered, bisexual or gay people for excluding you from the discussion, but sometimes exclusion can be a good thing).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome
Contra Grant On Exaggerated Differences | Slate Star Codex
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135672/
The biggest one, which is actually mentioned at great length in one of your citations is:

Objects versus People: “men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people”.

What is this “object vs. people” distinction?

It’s pretty relevant. Meta-analyses have shown a very large (d = 1.18) difference in healthy men and women (ie without CAH) in this domain. It’s traditionally summarized as “men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people”. I would flesh out “things” to include both physical objects like machines as well as complex abstract systems; I’d also add in another finding from those same studies that men are more risk-taking and like danger. And I would flesh out “people” to include communities, talking, helping, children, and animals.

So this theory predicts that men will be more likely to choose jobs with objects, machines, systems, and danger; women will be more likely to choose jobs with people, talking, helping, children, and animals.

Somebody armed with this theory could pretty well pretty well predict that women would be interested in going into medicine and law, since both of them involve people, talking, and helping. They would predict that women would dominate veterinary medicine (animals, helping), psychology (people, talking, helping, sometimes children), and education (people, children, helping). Of all the hard sciences, they might expect women to prefer biology (animals). And they might expect men to do best in engineering (objects, machines, abstract systems, sometimes danger) and computer science (machines, abstract systems).

The logical evidence-based conclusion that is a mortal threat to the Progressive grievance industry:

This theory gives everyone what they want. It explains the data about women in tech. It explains the time course around women in tech. It explains other jobs like veterinary medicine where women dominate. It explains which medical subspecialties women will be dominant or underrepresented in. It doesn’t claim that women are “worse than men” or “biologically inferior” at anything. It doesn’t say that no woman will ever be interested in things, or no man ever interested in people. It doesn’t say even that women in tech don’t face a lot of extra harassment (any domain with more men than women will see more potential perpetrators concentrating their harassment concentrated on fewer potential victims, which will result in each woman being more harassed).

It just says that sometimes, in a population-based way that doesn’t necessarily apply to any given woman or any given man, women and men will have some different interests. Which should be pretty obvious to anyone who’s spent more than a few minutes with men or women.
 

TedHankey

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
1,061
It's the summer time, so no need to pussyfoot around the big issues...

1. A Y chromosome
2. The plumbing, ability to give birth on one hand, and on the other hand higher masturbation rates, taller, stronger, faster.
3. Political representation, boardroom representation.
4. Pay.
5. Life expectancy.

If p.ie poster can explain, why these 5 things are linked, I would be very grafetul (apologies to non-binary, transgendered, bisexual or gay people for excluding you from the discussion, but sometimes exclusion can be a good thing).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome
Contra Grant On Exaggerated Differences | Slate Star Codex
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135672/
1 results in 2, men exploit 2 to achieve 3 and 4, 3 and 4 tend to bring about 5.

Now, on to the birds and the bees...
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
The biggest one, which is actually mentioned at great length in one of your citations is:

Objects versus People: “men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people”.

I've forgotten most statistics I ever learnt, does d=1.18 mean that for every 5 men doing a "thing" thing there are 6 women doing a "people" thing? 1.18 does not seem like that a large a difference given the ratio of female to male TDs is 2:7 (and isn't politics a people/caring/touchy-feeley career where the bureaucrats do the technical drafting?)
(It's August and it's p.ie - please don't expect me to read my own citations.)
 

redhead

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
6,664
It's the summer time, so no need to pussyfoot around the big issues...

1. A Y chromosome
2. The plumbing, ability to give birth on one hand, and on the other hand higher masturbation rates, taller, stronger, faster.
3. Political representation, boardroom representation.
4. Pay.
5. Life expectancy.

If p.ie poster can explain, why these 5 things are linked, I would be very grafetul (apologies to non-binary, transgendered, bisexual or gay people for excluding you from the discussion, but sometimes exclusion can be a good thing).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome
Contra Grant On Exaggerated Differences | Slate Star Codex
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135672/

1 & 2 are biological differences linked by the presence/absence of testosterone

3 & 4 are non biological differences linked to historical factors which were originally dictated by the presence/absence of testosterone in a time before birth control existed

Not sure about 5 but then again neither are most of the scientific community:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-life-expectancy-lo/
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
I've forgotten most statistics I ever learnt, does d=1.18 mean that for every 5 men doing a "thing" thing there are 6 women doing a "people" thing? 1.18 does not seem like that a large a difference given the ratio of female to male TDs is 2:7 (and isn't politics a people/caring/touchy-feeley career where the bureaucrats do the technical drafting?)
(It's August and it's p.ie - please don't expect me to read my own citations.)
Noooo. It means nootnig like that. Cohen's d of 1.18 is massive:

Effect sizes


This is where a d=1.18 would fit:


Another common measure of effect size is d, sometimes known as Cohen's d (as you might have guessed by now, Cohen was quite influential in the field of effect sizes). This can be used when comparing two means, as when you might do a t-test, and is simply the difference in the two groups' means divided by the average of their standard deviations*. This means that if we see a d of 1, we know that the two groups' means differ by one standard deviation; a d of .5 tells us that the two groups' means differ by half a standard deviation; and so on. Cohen suggested that d=0.2 be considered a 'small' effect size, 0.5 represents a 'medium' effect size and 0.8 a 'large' effect size. This means that if two groups' means don't differ by 0.2 standard deviations or more, the difference is trivial, even if it is statistically signficant
And this is what it implies in real world terms.


What is meant by 'small', 'medium' and 'large'?

Good question! In Cohen's terminology, a small effect size is one in which there is a real effect -- i.e., something is really happening in the world -- but which you can only see through careful study. A 'large' effect size is an effect which is big enough, and/or consistent enough, that you may be able to see it 'with the naked eye'. For example, just by looking at a room full of people, you'd probably be able to tell that on average, the men were taller than the women -- this is what is meant by an effect which can be seen with the naked eye (actually, the d for the gender difference in height is about 1.4, which is really large, but it serves to illustrate the point). A large effect size is one which is very substantial.

In essence, it is something nearly everyone should observe as obvious. I.e. people generally would agree that "men are more interests in objects and women more interested in people" as a plainly observable difference. Which I think people generally do.

Except people who work at Google where such an observation is a sackable offense.
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
Noooo. It means nootnig like that. Cohen's d of 1.18 is massive
...
In essence, it is something nearly everyone should observe as obvious. I.e. people generally would agree that "men are more interests in objects and women more interested in people" as a plainly observable difference. Which I think people generally do.

Except people who work at Google where such an observation is a sackable offense.
Does it not mean:
more men than women are more interested in things than people
More women than men are more interested in people than things?
(There being great exceptions to any generality).
 

RadicalJacobin

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
302
The biggest one, which is actually mentioned at great length in one of your citations is:

Objects versus People: “men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people”.
I don't disagree per say but I don't get how this explains why women are so underrepresented in politics as surely this involves dealing with people almost non-stop.
 

EUrJokingMeRight

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
11,664
All men were once women.

No woman was ever a man.

Life experience, That's why.

:)
 

TedHankey

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
1,061

EUrJokingMeRight

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
11,664
Are all men transgender? (I won't ask about those who identify as trans*- that's another threads work).
Men are men but give them too much estrogen or if they ingest too much feminism and believe it, then they'll revert into bigger coconuts than any woman or feminist ever was.

It's genetic.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,310
Sense of humor?

[video=youtube;I7izJggqCoA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7izJggqCoA[/video]
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
Men are men but give them too much estrogen or too much feminism and they'll revert into bigger coconuts than any woman.
Feminists who are men and men who are feminists, being described by a word starting with C, which is hairy on the outside and moist on the inside - just shocking! (Was that the snapper or commitments?)
 

EUrJokingMeRight

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
11,664
Feminists who are men and men who are feminists, being described by a word starting with C, which is hairy on the outside and moist on the inside - just shocking! (Was that the snapper or commitments?)
I'd go with the commitments....only because it starts with 'C' and ends in 'TS' and there are more than one in that particular group.

But it could be the snapper, Which is a natural product of evolution of my previous point.
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
Sense of humor?

[video=youtube;I7izJggqCoA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7izJggqCoA[/video]
That is gloriously upfront. The Hitch does accept women have a sense of humour, otherwise men would have no point in being funny. He states Women are not funny except a few exceptions because they don't need to be unless they are of a certain ethnic/religious group (best not to identify in the post-Myers era)or have an orientation whereby they have a need to impress other women or butch.

Disclaimer: by republishing, I cannot be taken to endorse, condone or support the content of the video or views expressed therin.
 


New Threads

Top