Randomness thread, part two.

[a500lbgorilla]

it would still be affected by the environment. and we would not be able to say that somebody like this is genetically determined to be like this. nobody can pinpoint a cause, genetic or environmental.

And thank god this problem is too complex for us. Because if there was reason to believe that certain gender-preferences were innate, that might stretch over to certain gender-behaviors - things like disposition, affectation, and mannerisms. Because Pavlov's dog shows that behaviors can be changed, and some people are very sensitive to the behaviors of others and therefore likely to have their behaviors changed, it would be incredibly rare for a man to act like a man for no other reason than because he's a man without society's influence.

Speaking of dogs, thank god we can't breed them for things like disposition.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253978/

Or foxes.

https://dogcogblog.wordpress.com/201...ox-experiment/

Thank god we don't take after our parents in things like disposition, affectation, and mannerisms. Thank god separated twins don't mirror each other in things like disposition, affectation, and mannerisms. Or else this notion that society shapes gender roles might not be the entire story.

http://www.livescience.com/47288-twi...-genetics.html

[spoonitnow]

1. 9 month olds preferring gender-appropriate toys.
2. 1 day old girls gaze lingering on faces and boys on mechanical objects (both in that video I linked for aub)
3. https://www.newscientist.com/article...fer-boys-toys/ The monkeys seem to be the same
4. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/15/3/339/ Before children can identify the gender of a toy, they prefer gender-appropriate toys.
5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...18506X08000949 Sex differences in rhesus monkeys parallel children in toy preference.
6. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01544131 No matter how they grouped the kids, toy preferences remained unchanged, though teachers reported all-girls being more socially sensitive and all-boys more rambunctious.

Literally like 5 minutes of googling to find these. But as we know, there's really no evidence to suggest that certain aspects of gender-appropriate behavior have a basis outside of the influence of culture and society.

The narrative of the times is that everyone is equal and that everyone deserves equal opportunity and equal results. That's one of the reasons why people have a general unrest when it comes to pointing out inherent differences in sex, etc.

I think the problem is that people get too caught up on the idea that one thing has to be better than the other if they aren't equal. Trichotomy doesn't apply to people (or the equity of hold'em hands, for that matter).

[aubreymcfate]

And thank god this problem is too complex for us. Because if there was reason to believe that certain gender-preferences were innate, that might stretch over to certain gender-behaviors - things like disposition, affectation, and mannerisms. Because Pavlov's dog shows that behaviors can be changed, and some people are very sensitive to the behaviors of others and therefore likely to have their behaviors changed, it would be incredibly rare for a man to act like a man for no other reason than because he's a man without society's influence.

Speaking of dogs, thank god we can't breed them for things like disposition.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253978/

Or foxes.

https://dogcogblog.wordpress.com/201...ox-experiment/

Thank god we don't take after our parents in things like disposition, affectation, and mannerisms. Thank god separated twins don't mirror each other in things like disposition, affectation, and mannerisms. Or else this notion that society shapes gender roles might not be the entire story.

http://www.livescience.com/47288-twi...-genetics.html

I don't think that is the entire story in the slightest and I made it a point numerous times to say so. You're attacking a reductive version of my argument that you've created.

All I am saying is that our environment shapes us because it is impossible to not be affected by the thing that saturates your entire perception. You didn't come out of the womb knowing what "boy" means in your societal context, but you did come with innate propensities that are then given form by your environment.

When did I say anything that made it seem like I was dismissing the effects of parents, family, or other factors? I actually mentioned family quite a few times -- of course our parents are important figures in our lives, especially when it comes to gender. Why do you think people are concerned about their kids having male and female role models?

I also said that I believe the propensity for masculinity or femininity IS innate. I firmly do not believe that everything is pure social construction and that we are all tabula rosas. If that were the case, no one would be transgender.

I said from the very beginning that I think there are innate gender preferences.

I'm also not trying to argue that both sexes are the exact same, that we are all equal in every sense of the word.

I don't have any "general unrest" about pointing out differences between sexes.

[aubreymcfate]

Btw in the case of the Fa'afafine, I believe they would have been feminine either way because they displayed natural inclinations towards femininity from a young age. But had they been raised male, you would definitely see a difference in how they come off.

Important to note that there are cases of men raised Fa'afafine that are not that way by nature and resisted.

[a500lbgorilla]

Aubrey, the reason we got into this argument is very simple.

I dismissed the influence of culture and society.
You said that's not possible. Culture and society permeate your perception of the world.
I return that it didn't permeate my perception of the world.
You said that's not possible.
Why isn't it possible? Because how could it not be?

Then it's ballooned into a way to try to show you why it could be possible.

I suggest that girls are more sensitive to culture and society, and you, as a girl, would come to believe it permeates your perceptions, while I, as a guy, am more resistant to its influence and so can dismiss it.

PS, you take after your parents because they build your genome and your genome has a huge influence on how you behave.

[a500lbgorilla]

Btw in the case of the Fa'afafine, I believe they would have been feminine either way because they displayed natural inclinations towards femininity from a young age. But had they been raised male, you would definitely see a difference in how they come off.

Important to note that there are cases of men raised Fa'afafine that are not that way by nature and resisted.

And these failed Fa'afafine, how do you they behave? Like normal males even though they weren't raised as normal males? *fingers crossed*

The Fa'afafine seem like a part of a culture that is accepting of transMtF. Out of 200k somoans, there are only like 1000 fafs. And according to this person's experience, they were also raised in a rather lassie-faire manner.

http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue6/schmidt.html

"When I was young, I know I was like this. I do all the girl's work when I was young. I do the washing, and my sister's just mucking around, cleaning the house, but my job at home is cooking, washing, ironing – everything."

Boys that acted like girls were allowed to act like girls. Cool. I don't seem much of the culture influence who they are to become what the culture needs/wants them to be, but rather a culture that doesn't actively try to suppress their nature.

[a500lbgorilla]

And my argument with wuf is different. It's like arguing over a launch trajectory where I say it's largely influenced by initial parameters and wuf says its atmosphere. Now is the nature-nurture debate about how men come to act like men and women come to act like women more like a cannonball fired on a warm, still day or like a paper airplane thrown into the wind?

[MadMojoMonkey]

1. 9 month olds preferring gender-appropriate toys.
2. 1 day old girls gaze lingering on faces and boys on mechanical objects (both in that video I linked for aub)
3. https://www.newscientist.com/article...fer-boys-toys/ The monkeys seem to be the same
4. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/15/3/339/ Before children can identify the gender of a toy, they prefer gender-appropriate toys.
5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...18506X08000949 Sex differences in rhesus monkeys parallel children in toy preference.
6. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01544131 No matter how they grouped the kids, toy preferences remained unchanged, though teachers reported all-girls being more socially sensitive and all-boys more rambunctious.

Literally like 5 minutes of googling to find these. But as we know, there's really no evidence to suggest that certain aspects of gender-appropriate behavior have a basis outside of the influence of culture and society.

Disclaimer: I only clicked the first two links. (numbers 3 and 4 above)

These are "small N" studies, where N is the number of results observed. Meaning that the number of participants and the number of times the study has been run are too low to show that they are not dominated by statistical variance in the result.

***
I'm no psychologist, but how do we determine what counts as a "masculine" or "feminine" toy to a monkey?
This is either fascinating or bunk... not sure which.

***
What are the definitions here?
Can you pin down "certain aspects of gender-appropriate behavior"?

It strikes me that we all agree that there are differences, but that we don't agree on what the specifics differences are.
I think we're all aware of the spread in the data... some men are quite "manly" while other men are "girly" and the same goes for women.
:/
The language is biased against women here, offering the diminutive "girly" instead of the word "womanly." I could have used "womanly," in the above sentence, but that's not historically how the language has been used. (Historically meaning what I was taught as a child.)
I don't think anyone here is denying this kind of cultural bias shaping people's perceptions.

We're not looking for hardline distinctions between masculine and feminine, just general trends, right?

The difficulty is that we're all familiar with our own culture and our own notions of masculine and feminine are susceptible to being painted by our culture. Psychologically, this is not the best. Psychologically, we want to find statements with the most widespread applicability.

We need a baseline for what actions or behaviors are "universally" masculine and feminine across cultures.

***
All of this assumes that there are exactly 2 gender roles / sexual roles in human society, which I find to be a dubious assertion.
We already know that not all humans have exactly 2 chromosomes. The idea that there are only XX-female and XY-male humans, and that male and female is a cut-and-dry distinction is observationally shown to be not descriptive of reality.

Does having a Y chromosome make someone a man?

I was not familiar with the term intersex. wikipedia intersex

I guess that's what I was talking about, all wrapped up in one term.

So when we acknowledge that sex (physical, genetic, male/female sex) doesn't even include all humans with a rigid dichotomy of male/female, then I think we should suspect that there is more to the gender roles than a rigid dichotomy.

[wufwugy]

Literally like 5 minutes of googling to find these. But as we know, there's really no evidence to suggest that certain aspects of gender-appropriate behavior have a basis outside of the influence of culture and society.

Hold on a second. Nobody has argued against this. Where has anybody suggested that gender is entirely cultural?

1. 9 month olds preferring gender-appropriate toys.
2. 1 day old girls gaze lingering on faces and boys on mechanical objects (both in that video I linked for aub)
3. https://www.newscientist.com/article...fer-boys-toys/ The monkeys seem to be the same
4. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/15/3/339/ Before children can identify the gender of a toy, they prefer gender-appropriate toys.
5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...18506X08000949 Sex differences in rhesus monkeys parallel children in toy preference.
6. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01544131 No matter how they grouped the kids, toy preferences remained unchanged, though teachers reported all-girls being more socially sensitive and all-boys more rambunctious.

These are not what I asked for. They do not demonstrate cause and they cannot be extrapolated to a supposed cause of behavior in the type of unrelated circumstances that started this debate. No where has anybody said that the sexes aren't predisposed to certain things. Is that what you think we're saying? When I point out that we don't know in which ways or to what degrees or how easily culture engages or disengages a certain disposition, do you think I'm saying that genes don't matter?

[wufwugy]

And my argument with wuf is different. It's like arguing over a launch trajectory where I say it's largely influenced by initial parameters and wuf says its atmosphere.

I say it's both and we don't know to what degree of either. Both Aubrey and I have argued that it is largely initial parameters too. In fact, it is mostly initial parameters, because it's not possible to exit the parameters. But genetics are not a lock that is opened by just one type of key. We know that environment changes gene expression and behavior, we just don't know when or to what degree. Even when you say that you feel like you didn't experience cultural influence on your gender, we know that you DID but we don't know for what or to what degree.

In most iterations of culture, the genders are likely to be similar to how they are now, where two large groups are mainstream binary and a smaller group is more varied. But we can't tell exactly what any of those look like and we know from anthropological and psychological work that culture matters. That doesn't mean that a different culture could make any male identify as female. In fact, we know that only a small number of males have those parameters. But what we also know is that no males have a set of parameters that are unaffected by the environment. The dominant male gender has all sorts of different characteristics in different societies, some that are antithetical to our own. I am unable to see why you're arguing against the role of culture.

[wufwugy]

The narrative of the times is that everyone is equal and that everyone deserves equal opportunity and equal results. That's one of the reasons why people have a general unrest when it comes to pointing out inherent differences in sex, etc.

Nobody here does that. It's got to be that we're talking past each other. Nobody is saying there are not inherent differences in the sexes. There are a lot. What we're saying is that it's wrong to jump to conclusions that are wrong. Boys looking at mechanical objects doesn't demonstrate that boys are better at math than girls. For all we know the mechanical correlation disappears if girls are taught arithmetic and boys are not. There are a million explanations that haven't been ruled out. Jumping to conclusions when they are wrong is wrong.

A lot of what you say is along the lines of "men are like this and women are like this", and it's true. But we don't know how much or in what ways it's true due to genes. The closer to the extremes we get, it's probably more genetic, but what the identity means also varies. I don't think there is any iteration of culture that would have influenced me to identify as female, but there are a ton that would have influenced what male means to me and possibly pushed me towards a less extreme and simply version of male that I currently identify as. But hell, what do I know, the conditioning probably does exist that could have gotten me to identify as female. The mind is more malleable that people wish to think.

[wufwugy]

Boys that acted like girls were allowed to act like girls. Cool. I don't seem much of the culture influence who they are to become what the culture needs/wants them to be, but rather a culture that doesn't actively try to suppress their nature.

Still culture.

I mean, you're right, but what you're saying is not cultural influence is cultural influence. Also, by the time a boy has started acting like a girl, the vast majority of environmental influences have already hit him. It is also possible to change this, albeit hard and unlikely.

The silly thing about all this is that the logical end of the points you are mostly making is genetic determinism while the logical end of the points I'm mostly making is environmental determinism. Neither are true. I am curious what you actually think though. Like, do you really think that environment doesn't matter?

[a500lbgorilla]

Wuf, it's not enough to say both. We're both saying both. You gotta get into the how both work to get into my argument.

And what we mean by evidence is clearly different. I mean something akin to observation and you mean something akin to proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Notice this paragraph and see if it applies to what you're doing when you're dismissing some good observations.

A person's assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis will affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence.[1] These assumptions or beliefs will also affect how a person utilizes the observations as evidence. For example, the Earth's apparent lack of motion may be taken as evidence for a geocentric cosmology. However, after sufficient evidence is presented for heliocentric cosmology and the apparent lack of motion is explained, the initial observation is strongly discounted as evidence.

Your assumptions have you seeing those studies and declaring them mirages. I, on the other hand, take them and try to incorporate them into my beliefs.

[a500lbgorilla]

Even when you say that you feel like you didn't experience cultural influence on your gender, we know that you DID but we don't know for what or to what degree.

Yeah, I have an accent. I'd say culture gave me that.

[aubreymcfate]

Thanks wuf.

Yeah, all I am saying is that when it comes to male/female behavior, environment and genetics play a role.

Of course the Fa'afafine have an innate nature or disposition -- I never tried to make the argument that they were formed that way by pure will of their parents. I brought up the failed Fa'afafine for exactly that reason. To show that there are innate propensities in us. The Fa'afafine was to illustrate a point about external signifiers that are learned (hence my whole disposition thing).

To quote wugy "When I point out that we don't know in which ways or to what degrees or how easily culture engages or disengages a certain disposition, do you think I'm saying that genes don't matter?"

You're actually having the same exact conversation with both me and wufwugy, so I don't understand why you're twisting my words to look one way and his another. We are both saying that genes and environment shape us, but we don't know conclusively the extent to how much either does.

Let's just abandon the word culture because I think it's a misnomer. Environment is the key word here.

[aubreymcfate]

Another good wugy quote, in case you skimmed past and didn't catch it:

"I don't think there is any iteration of culture that would have influenced me to identify as female, but there are a ton that would have influenced what male means to me and possibly pushed me towards a less extreme and simply version of male that I currently identify as. But hell, what do I know, the conditioning probably does exist that could have gotten me to identify as female. The mind is more malleable that people wish to think."

It's a very basic point I've been trying to make this whole time. Rilla, our main argument was you trying to tell me that it's possible for you to have grown completely impervious to any environmental influence. I disagree that it is possible for any living thing to grow in a bubble from its environment when it's engaging and interacting with that environment every day. It has nothing to do with parents pushing gender roles or telling their kids what it means to be a man or woman (of course that has an effect but that is not necessarily what I'm even talking about). It's the engagement with your environment that we all partake in.

Of course, we each have a unique relationship with our environment as well, and I think genetics (along with other things) play a role in that.

[wufwugy]

Wuf, it's not enough to say both. We're both saying both. You gotta get into the how both work to get into my argument.

And what we mean by evidence is clearly different. I mean something akin to observation and you mean something akin to proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Notice this paragraph and see if it applies to what you're doing when you're dismissing some good observations.



Your assumptions have you seeing those studies and declaring them mirages. I, on the other hand, take them and try to incorporate them into my beliefs.

I'm not saying they're mirages. I've put a decent amount into the philosophy of scientific research as a hobby. One of the most important lessons I've learned is that each study only demonstrates exactly what it demonstrates and extrapolation has to be specific and finely combed.

Here's an example in politics: people argue that big money helps candidates. But we don't actually know if that's true because we don't know if the accumulation of big money isn't the effect of a good candidate. So, we don't know what comes first: a good candidate who gets the big money, or the big money making a candidate good. So, when people say "big money decides elections!" I say we don't actually know that, because, well, we don't.

Also, I did say "it is mostly initial parameters, because it's not possible to exit the parameters". This doesn't look like I'm discarding the idea.

[aubreymcfate]

Also, I feel I should clarify, I am not saying that all aspects of things like disposition and mannerism and speaking style and any of that external expressive stuff is 100% the result of environmental shaping. Of course we take after our parents. Of course we're genetically disposed to be a certain way.

Environment is not the ultimate arbiter of who we are. But, I think it is a mark of general collective human hubris to be so attached to our own egos that makes it difficult to conceive that our identities are more plastic and mutable than we think.

[a500lbgorilla]

Like, do you really think that environment doesn't matter?

...

To be a bit epistomological, primary among my beliefs is that I don't really know but I'll always settle for something that doesn't seem wrong and is pragmatic.

Falling down from there, boys and girls are different. The internal experience of being a boy or a girl is different. I don't worry so much about outliers like faffergirls or transgenders, because the problem is difficult enough as is and there are plenty of normal people to focus on.

Next to that, a great guiding principle in biology is 'Structure is Purpose' so I'm interested in how girls and boys are different structurally and there's some reason to believe their brains are different. These reasons stem from differences in behavior at very young ages and differences in hormone profiles in the womb.

You can look at the brain and see regions where the purpose of the structure has clear implication on how a person behaves or what their internal life is like. These structures, I would bet, are largely outside of the touch of culture (amygdala for one) (assuming the culture provides peace, stability, a home, relationships, etc etc). There are other structures which are very dynamic and likely can be molded by culture (neocortex). (One of the reasons I'm so interested in the brain is because of the dominant role it has in explaining people in general, and so I would have a lot of 'nature' to draw in in trying to make sense of 'em, and if you want to use brain plasticity to explain how nurture can change the brain, you're going to have to learn what brain plasticity is, how it works, and where it doesn't work.)

On top of that, I would say that trying to understand people by focusing on culture and how it affects them is a poor tact for trying to unravel this puzzle.

I rather instead think it's a much better idea to start from genetics, brain structure, history, etc etc, to see what you can isolate as human nature and brainstorm from there. Society is a culturefuck of nonsense where you can spin tales to explain anything you want any way you want. I'd rather take it that Nature is the ship, Culture is the ocean.

Aside from that, and walking pretty fair afield, growing up in my culture didn't feel like I was being raised or influenced as both of these words imply some external forcer. I rather consider that I grew up in a society that has an ancestry through Britain, through Christendom, through Rome, through the ancient world, and has probably been evolving to be a good fit for a large portion of its population. I don't think culture influenced me, because it didn't have to. It knew what boys do and need when they grow up and so that stuff was there, and I was allowed to grow up. Certainly, if I grew up in different circumstances, I may have clashed with my culture and my beliefs would be different. Though, I would like to believe that I would recognize the majority of Me's that might come from other cultures and times.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm not saying they're mirages. I've put a decent amount into the philosophy of scientific research as a hobby. One of the most important lessons I've learned is that each study only demonstrates exactly what it demonstrates and extrapolation has to be specific and finely combed.

Here's an example in politics: people argue that big money helps candidates. But we don't actually know if that's true because we don't know if the accumulation of big money isn't the effect of a good candidate. So, we don't know what comes first: a good candidate who gets the big money, or the big money making a candidate good. So, when people say "big money decides elections!" I say we don't actually know that, because, well, we don't.

Also, I did say "it is mostly initial parameters, because it's not possible to exit the parameters". This doesn't look like I'm discarding the idea.

Philosophy of Science is an incredible subject worth getting into. So much of it applies so far.

[a500lbgorilla]

Another good wugy quote, in case you skimmed past and didn't catch it:

"I don't think there is any iteration of culture that would have influenced me to identify as female, but there are a ton that would have influenced what male means to me and possibly pushed me towards a less extreme and simply version of male that I currently identify as. But hell, what do I know, the conditioning probably does exist that could have gotten me to identify as female. The mind is more malleable that people wish to think."

It's a very basic point I've been trying to make this whole time. Rilla, our main argument was you trying to tell me that it's possible for you to have grown completely impervious to any environmental influence. I disagree that it is possible for any living thing to grow in a bubble from its environment when it's engaging and interacting with that environment every day. It has nothing to do with parents pushing gender roles or telling their kids what it means to be a man or woman (of course that has an effect but that is not necessarily what I'm even talking about). It's the engagement with your environment that we all partake in.

Of course, we each have a unique relationship with our environment as well, and I think genetics (along with other things) play a role in that.

Culture is not the environment to me. Culture is more associated with arts and traditions in my mind. Society is not the environment to me either. Society is more associated with authority structures and laws.

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't take to the cultural influence ideas because, personally, I've never experienced it. Culture for me is commercialism.

Literally, I meant culture as in

the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.

Not as in the environment you physically grow up in.

[aubreymcfate]

Remember that Marshall McLuhan video I posted, the one where he basically predicts the internet in 30 seconds? McLuhan's entire body of work is based on understanding the way our consciousness, perception, and society-at-large is fundamentally altered by shifts in the technological landscape. That's why he was able to make such prescient commentary about the internet in 1968.

We are shaped by that with which we interact with day in day out. The fact that your parents were "laissez-faire" is beyond irrelevant. Understanding genetics and studying the brain are crucial -- you're right. What I'm saying goes hand in hand with that. You can't understand one without the other.

[aubreymcfate]

Literally, I meant culture as in

the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.

Not as in the environment you physically grow up in.

I'm glad you said that. This is why I kept saying we were miscommunicating. That is not what I was talking about.

[a500lbgorilla]

Hey, I used the word right.

[aubreymcfate]

I had my reasons for saying culture and society but I'll have to parse through those reasons carefully and reconfigure my rhetoric on the issue.

[aubreymcfate]

Environment is the gestalt of everything that we are sensorily exposed to, and culture and society are a part of that.

[a500lbgorilla]

No segway, I just wanna post this video.

[oskar]

I've always felt like I never really had an original thought. I just take something I've heard and then twist it around. Like when you hear a joke about a cat, and then when you tell the joke someone else you make the cat a dog, and bam: your joke. So this video resonated well with my thought germs.
Also nothing new to the average Burroughs reader.

[a500lbgorilla]

I've always felt like I never really had an original thought. I just take something I've heard and then twist it around. Like when you hear a joke about a cat, and then when you tell the joke someone else you make the cat a dog, and bam: your joke. So this video resonated well with my thought germs.
Also nothing new to the average Burroughs reader.

Same. And the twist is probably stolen too.

"Good artists copy, great artists steal."

PPicaso

[wufwugy]

wuf theorem 143: originality is derivation with a twist.

[a500lbgorilla]

nh

[oskar]

This theory also explains why it took so goddamn long for humans to get smart and why you get a huge explosion in development once writing is invented.

[wufwugy]

What a load of dogshit

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/d...me.single.html

She justifies the inaction of others while claiming she would have done the same. Step outside of the putrid butthole known as DC, where the individual and communities are weak and beaten, and you'll find every person in the vicinity would have helped, even you. In half the places in the country, the assailants would have been riddled with bullets and the law would high-five the good aim.

People are victims of their own ideas. There isn't a problem of public assaults gone unpunished. There's a problem of stripping the individual of the duty and the power to do the right thing.

[spoonitnow]

What a load of dogshit

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/d...me.single.html

She justifies the inaction of others while claiming she would have done the same. Step outside of the putrid butthole known as DC, where the individual and communities are weak and beaten, and you'll find every person in the vicinity would have helped, even you. In half the places in the country, the assailants would have been riddled with bullets and the law would high-five the good aim.

People are victims of their own ideas. There isn't a problem of public assaults gone unpunished. There's a problem of stripping the individual of the duty and the power to do the right thing.

Fuck her. She's the type of cunt that has fought to keep men from being able to physically engage women, then feels entitled to the protection of men from these "liberated" "women."

[JKDS]

One big issue is that it's genuinely hard to tell when someone needs help. Pushing each other and laughing about it is common culture, and it's next to impossible to differentiate friends fooling around from strangers committing battery.

Friends themselves will say things like "cut it out, stop" etc, and ive seen some people even shout "help" when they didn't want it.

I mean, stabbing is obviously not hard to distinguish, but the girls in the linked article would be. In fact, had the victim defended himself, people would have sided with his attackers (gender roles, + not knowing the full story)

[JKDS]

Just saw she was a girl. The points regarding non intervention still stand

[wufwugy]

ofc it all depends. i guess i assume that since she claims she was assaulted, she made it clear she was being assaulted. but really, you never know, some people dont make it clear. her thesis is still bullshit. she says she thinks people wouldnt help because, hey, that's how people are. i think she only knows a certain type of people and a certain type of mentality.

[JKDS]

I agree. I mean, that point is easily disproved by the existence of fire fighters and police officers.

[OngBonga]

Once, Pavlov was at the pub, and as soon as the heard the phone ringing, he remembered he hadn't fed the dog.

[OngBonga]

When I was a kid, I had problems with a particular bully and his two friends. They would get the same bus from school to town, and in town they would follow me. Eventually, the main twat started to push me around, and I just looked at him and said I didn't want to fight, loudly enough for passers by to hear. Some dude stepped in and said "he's not interested, leave him". He looked at me, looked at the dude, and fucked off. That was the last incident I had with that kid. Once they get it into their heads that they won't get away with it, they tend to find someone else to pick on.

I was carrying a knife thanks to those twats, the only time I have ever done so. That dude who stepped in did more to help that bully than he did to help me. I was 13, I'd have gotten away with stabbing him, I was already in foster care so I had little to lose. That bully nearly fucked with the wrong kid.

[spoonitnow]

ofc it all depends. i guess i assume that since she claims she was assaulted, she made it clear she was being assaulted. but really, you never know, some people dont make it clear. her thesis is still bullshit. she says she thinks people wouldnt help because, hey, that's how people are. i think she only knows a certain type of people and a certain type of mentality.

It's just all a part of the typical libtard fantasy world. She would rather place blame on people not saving her than place blame where it really belongs with those two bitches who were fucking with her.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Do you actually believe the fact that she's also a "libtard" matters in this respect?

EDIT: Or do you choose your words to put as much conflict in each sentence as possible?

[spoonitnow]

Do you actually believe the fact that she's also a "libtard" matters in this respect?

EDIT: Or do you choose your words to put as much conflict in each sentence as possible?

It matters a whole, whole lot here. Libtard != liberal. The fact that she refused to place responsibility on the people who were, in fact, responsible is the whole point, and it's a major basis for all of libtard thinking.

[aubreymcfate]

ofc it all depends. i guess i assume that since she claims she was assaulted, she made it clear she was being assaulted. but really, you never know, some people dont make it clear. her thesis is still bullshit. she says she thinks people wouldnt help because, hey, that's how people are. i think she only knows a certain type of people and a certain type of mentality.

Actually, we do know that people are like this. It's a phenomenon with a name that's widely studied and researched.

The murder of Kitty Genovese is the most well-known case.

I mean, I'm sure you've heard of the Bystander Effect, so why it is so insane that she's pointing out that it happened to her and that it is a thing that happens at large? She's not blaming anyone or putting the responsibility on anyone just because she's being forthright about her contradictory and, as she admits herself, hypocritical emotions.

Oh wait, I forgot. Bystander Effect is liberal propaganda. Duh.

edit: This has nothing to do with a certain type of mentality (people don't imagine themselves not helping in these scenarios), and the existence of firefighters and police is irrelevant. No one is saying that it is not in our human nature to want to help others. It's about group behavior and group psychology. Obviously there are always exceptions, and I assume (don't know for sure) that this phenomenon is more prevalent in urban, densely populated areas, especially since the more bystanders there are, the less likely people are to help (diffusion of responsibility).

[JKDS]

Ha, I nailed the ambiguity part of it.

[wufwugy]

Actually, we do know that people are like this. It's a phenomenon with a name that's widely studied and researched.

The murder of Kitty Genovese is the most well-known case.

I mean, I'm sure you've heard of the Bystander Effect, so why it is so insane that she's pointing out that it happened to her and that it is a thing that happens at large? She's not blaming anyone or putting the responsibility on anyone just because she's being forthright about her contradictory and, as she admits herself, hypocritical emotions.

Oh wait, I forgot. Bystander Effect is liberal propaganda. Duh.

edit: This has nothing to do with a certain type of mentality (people don't imagine themselves not helping in these scenarios), and the existence of firefighters and police is irrelevant. No one is saying that it is not in our human nature to want to help others. It's about group behavior and group psychology. Obviously there are always exceptions, and I assume (don't know for sure) that this phenomenon is more prevalent in urban, densely populated areas, especially since the more bystanders there are, the less likely people are to help (diffusion of responsibility).

The effect is real, but it is not comprehensive. Also, the effect is about delayed reaction, not total disintegration of reaction of all participants. In popular culture, the bystander effect is used to describe situations where somebody is not helped when they need help, but in research, it doesn't show that, at least not nearly to the degree that would be needed for the popular belief to be true.

Whenever we talk about these sorts of things, I point out that in a place like NYC, these types of effects should be expected. There are so many people and so many norms that reinforce lack of responsibility in big cities. Then there are rural areas, where one time my dad jumped out of his car and jumped over a fence because he saw a guy hitting a girl. In many places, people are taught to take responsibility when they can and help others. Big cities are not those places. The population difference may play a role, but honestly my money is on the extreme leftist norms that greatly discourage the incentive to help people when they probably need it. Rural America has been greatly affected by this sort of crap too. Now a whole lot more people than in the past do not try to help women being beaten by men because the law has become so ridiculous that those people can easily get in trouble.

I'm guilty of the bullshit too. If I'm driving on a freeway and a guy on the side of the road is waving his arms, I probably wouldn't immediately stop and if the freeway is busy I would become one of those "bystanders". But I'm a selfish cunt. My sister's husband would stop. Because he believes it's always right to help people who claim they need it. In fact, he probably thinks other people aren't going to stop because they're selfish cunts, so it's his duty to stop.

[aubreymcfate]

The effect is real, but it is not comprehensive. Also, the effect is about delayed reaction, not total disintegration of reaction of all participants. In popular culture, the bystander effect is used to describe situations where somebody is not helped when they need help, but in research, it doesn't show that, at least not nearly to the degree that would be needed for the popular belief to be true.

Whenever we talk about these sorts of things, I point out that in a place like NYC, these types of effects should be expected. There are so many people and so many norms that reinforce lack of responsibility in big cities. Then there are rural areas, where one time my dad jumped out of his car and jumped over a fence because he saw a guy hitting a girl. In many places, people are taught to take responsibility when they can and help others. Big cities are not those places. The population difference may play a role, but honestly my money is on the extreme leftist norms that greatly discourage the incentive to help people when they probably need it. Rural America has been greatly affected by this sort of crap too. Now a whole lot more people than in the past do not try to help women being beaten by men because the law has become so ridiculous that those people can easily get in trouble.

I'm guilty of the bullshit too. If I'm driving on a freeway and a guy on the side of the road is waving his arms, I probably wouldn't immediately stop and if the freeway is busy I would become one of those "bystanders". But I'm a selfish cunt. My sister's husband would stop. Because he believes it's always right to help people who claim they need it. In fact, he probably thinks other people aren't going to stop because they're selfish cunts, so it's his duty to stop.

That's not true. The effect is not about delayed reactions. The effect is about the inverse relationship between the number of bystanders and the probability of help.

http://psychology.about.com/od/socia...ndereffect.htm

The term bystander effect refers to the phenomenon in which the greater the number of people present, the less likely people are to help a person in distress.

When an emergency situation occurs, observers are more likely to take action if there are few or no other witnesses. Being part of a large crowd makes it so no single person has to take responsibility for an action (or inaction).

In a series of classic studies, researchers Bibb Latane and John Darley found that the amount of time it takes the participant to take action and seek help varies depending on how many other observers are in the room. In one experiment, subjects were placed in one of three treatment conditions: alone in a room, with two other participants or with two confederates who pretended to be normal participants.

As the participants sat filling out questionnaires, smoke began to fill the room. When participants were alone, 75% reported the smoke to the experimenters. In contrast, just 38% of participants in a room with two other people reported the smoke. In the final group, the two confederates in the experiment noted the smoke and then ignored it, which resulted in only 10% of the participants reporting the smoke.

Additional experiments by Latane and Rodin (1969) found that while 70 percent would help a woman in distress when they were the only witness, only about 40 percent offered assistance when other people were also present.

My main point here is that this woman's article is not a "load of dogshit."

[spoonitnow]

Anything out of that woman's mouth is a load of dogshit, and so is her whole fucking career.

[spoonitnow]

I wouldn't help her either.

[aubreymcfate]

I didn't realize you were so familiar with the Washington Post's art director, who's written one article ever, to say something like that. Interesting. You must have some really strong opinions about art.

[spoonitnow]

I didn't realize you were so familiar with the Washington Post's art director, who's written one article ever, to say something like that. Interesting. You must have some really strong opinions about art.

"Art director" is about the biggest load of bullshit job you could ever come up with.

[spoonitnow]

A Canadian lab collected a ton of data to model how people walk based on GENDER and other items: http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Demos/BMLwalker.html

[aubreymcfate]

rapelang????

[wufwugy]

That's not true. The effect is not about delayed reactions. The effect is about the inverse relationship between the number of bystanders and the probability of help.

http://psychology.about.com/od/socia...ndereffect.htm



My main point here is that this woman's article is not a "load of dogshit."

The effect is delayed reaction as well as a lower percentage of participants having reactions. This is not how the bystander effect is used in popular culture. People say that the bystander effect explains situations where there are lots of participants yet no reactants, but the studies don't show this. In fact, the more people there are, the higher the probability of somebody reacting even though the percentage of participants who react is lower. Even if a hundred people report smoke at a rate of 10%, the amount of reports are much higher than just two people reporting smoke at a rate of 90%.

The popular notion of bystander effect doesn't apply to the article in the first place since one lady did try to help her. She just did so weakly. I said the article is dogshit for reasons other than the fact that when lots of people witness things, lots of people don't do things. That said, maybe my point that her article is dogshit is wrong, because she does say that people didn't help because of their own fear, which is the first part of my point. What I hate is leaving it at that. The fear is a product of the culture. She lives in a culture where people are taught the last thing they should do is help others in violent situations. This is a stark contrast to many other cultures, where people are taught the most important thing they can do is help victims of violence. So when she says she wouldn't have helped either, it looks to me like a justification that people should be irresponsible and weakness is the norm.

[wufwugy]

I dislike the examples used to demonstrate bystander effect, like the Genovese one. It's something with similarities, but it's not a study and it doesn't show the same thing the studies show. The Genovese situation shows that when people have very little clue what's going on, they act like they have very little clue what's going on. The popular notion of the bystander effect is the claim that if all those people were standing near her and watching, they would still do nothing. The studies of the bystander effect do not show this.

When a bystander says "I didn't want to get involved", their internal dialogue wasn't affected by the other factors that involved lots of bystanders like "somebody else may be better equipped". In a culture that doesn't discourage help so much, a lot more people would probably help.

[spoonitnow]

Hey if you want to get a real fucking kick out of what happens when you put a woman in charge, read this ridiculous shit: http://www.businessinsider.com/maris...xcerpt-2014-12

[JKDS]

Interesting Point:

The Law often contains provisions that mimic morals. For example, you are often given more time (or pay more $$) if you assault a 'vulnerable victim'. (Pregnant lady, old person, etc).

In spite of this, there arnt US laws that require a bystander to act. In any way. Some people in certain professions must act (doctors, officers, etc), but ordinary folk are allowed to pull up a chair...eat some popcorn...and just watch the show if they wanted to.

Its interesting to me, because the law expects us to act like honorable, reasonable people a lot. But even if a thousand people witnessed an assault, none of them are required to so much as call the police.

[aubreymcfate]

Interesting Point:

The Law often contains provisions that mimic morals. For example, you are often given more time (or pay more $$) if you assault a 'vulnerable victim'. (Pregnant lady, old person, etc).

In spite of this, there arnt US laws that require a bystander to act. In any way. Some people in certain professions must act (doctors, officers, etc), but ordinary folk are allowed to pull up a chair...eat some popcorn...and just watch the show if they wanted to.

Its interesting to me, because the law expects us to act like honorable, reasonable people a lot. But even if a thousand people witnessed an assault, none of them are required to so much as call the police.

That is interesting. I don't know much about this sort of thing but what that says to me is that the law is more concerned with actions that have already been committed, rather than mandating morally correct responses.

But really, is there no law that would incriminate someone who simply watched someone else die and had all the faculties and resources to save them?

Makes one think of that Breaking Bad scene, with Walter and Jesse's girlfriend (I forget her name). Is that technically not a criminal act?

[spoonitnow]

That is interesting. I don't know much about this sort of thing but what that says to me is that the law is more concerned with actions that have already been committed, rather than mandating morally correct responses.

But really, is there no law that would incriminate someone who simply watched someone else die and had all the faculties and resources to save them?

Makes one think of that Breaking Bad scene, with Walter and Jesse's girlfriend (I forget her name). Is that technically not a criminal act?

Breaking and entering? *trollface*

I think it's fine that the law doesn't compel people to interfere to stop crime. I think having that pressure there would push people into doing a lot of stupid shit when they aren't actually witnessing a crime, and it makes it too easy to set up a he said-she said to get a third party in trouble.

Quick example since I'm hating on female former CEOs who sucked at their job, if Marissa Mayer was on my nuts, I could smack her around and then say that Ellen Pao was standing there watching the whole time and did nothing, but it would really be a plot between Mayer and myself to get Pao in trouble.

Let's say that I walk in on a man and a woman having rough sex. Under that system, I would have to jump the guy because he might be raping her. If he is raping her and I just walk away, then I'm opening myself up to be fucked in court, so the incentives line up in a way that it makes more sense to jump into what they're doing.

tl;dr - It doesn't work.

[aubreymcfate]

I don't think it's a bad thing that there's no law to enforce people to intervene either. Actually I'm realizing now that the examples I cited are significantly different than what's actually being discussed. The Breaking Bad scene involves someone watching someone else die of asphyxiation without getting medical help. That's different than witnessing a crime.

[wufwugy]

Hey if you want to get a real fucking kick out of what happens when you put a woman in charge, read this ridiculous shit: http://www.businessinsider.com/maris...xcerpt-2014-12

good read but has nothing to do with her gender. most of the failures similar to hers come from men. it sounds more like maybe she has been propelled by her gender and perhaps tries to use "the woman's touch" or whatever since that's probably encouraged. but that doesn't make her problem her gender, it makes the problem being having the wrong person in charge.

[JKDS]

The breaking bad thing is a whole different thing. You gotta help people when youre the one who put them in peril. Like, you can't go around locking the doors to burning buildings with people inside. Or throw a person who can't swim into a pool. I vaguely remember Walt having some part in the girls death...so he's in trouble for not acting to prevent it.

There's also things like...parents have to act to save their children, and things like that. But for strangers on a bus minding their own business, they can just watch and enjoy the show.

[aubreymcfate]

The breaking bad thing is a whole different thing. You gotta help people when youre the one who put them in peril. Like, you can't go around locking the doors to burning buildings with people inside. Or throw a person who can't swim into a pool. I vaguely remember Walt having some part in the girls death...so he's in trouble for not acting to prevent it.

There's also things like...parents have to act to save their children, and things like that. But for strangers on a bus minding their own business, they can just watch and enjoy the show.

Walt didn't do anything to cause it. She started choking on her own vomit while passed out from the heroin. The position she was in made it so that she would def choke if someone didn't turn her over.

edit: He did have a part in her death, for sure, but the role he played is the doing nothing part, which is what we're discussing. He watched and enjoyed the show, lol.

[spoonitnow]

good read but has nothing to do with her gender. most of the failures similar to hers come from men. it sounds more like maybe she has been propelled by her gender and perhaps tries to use "the woman's touch" or whatever since that's probably encouraged. but that doesn't make her problem her gender, it makes the problem being having the wrong person in charge.

How many men have decided to read a children's book in front of thousands of employees when they were getting grilled about how their fucked up managerial policy?

[wufwugy]

How many men have decided to read a children's book in front of thousands of employees when they were getting grilled about how their fucked up managerial policy?

It is likely that she chose to do that because she has been receiving encouragement to give "the woman's touch" for most of her career. This is a problem of the culture encouraging the wrong thing. Her doing the wrong thing is more a product of being bad for the job, not her gender. Accusing her of reading a children's book because she's a woman is no different logic than accusing a rapist of raping because he's a man.

The real issue here appears that she is not qualified and is using techniques that somebody who knew what they were doing would not.

[OngBonga]

Women should stick to discovering radiation and whatnot.

[OngBonga]

And before spoon chimes in with "name another brilliant woman", I'd say Debbie Harry has done more for humankind than Stephen Hawking. Who gives a fuck about black holes and the radiation they emit? Hawking pales into obscurity when compared to the likes of Debbie Harry. One word... Atomic.

Then there's Maria Sharapova. Granted, all she can do is hit tennis balls and look good, but that's a lot more important than anything any man has ever done. What did Mandella ever do? He stirred up some shit and then went to jail. Well done. Sharapova won Wimbledon aged 16, whilst looking fucking amazing in the process. Those legs. Did Mandella have nice legs? No he fucking didn't.

Women are loads better than men.

[JKDS]

Walt didn't do anything to cause it. She started choking on her own vomit while passed out from the heroin. The position she was in made it so that she would def choke if someone didn't turn her over.

edit: He did have a part in her death, for sure, but the role he played is the doing nothing part, which is what we're discussing. He watched and enjoyed the show, lol.

I think I'm remembering a "behind the scenes" thing then. I remember the director discussing various alternatives for that scene, and some were pretty Damn evil.

[spoonitnow]

And before spoon chimes in with "name another brilliant woman", I'd say Debbie Harry has done more for humankind than Stephen Hawking. Who gives a fuck about black holes and the radiation they emit? Hawking pales into obscurity when compared to the likes of Debbie Harry. One word... Atomic.

Then there's Maria Sharapova. Granted, all she can do is hit tennis balls and look good, but that's a lot more important than anything any man has ever done. What did Mandella ever do? He stirred up some shit and then went to jail. Well done. Sharapova won Wimbledon aged 16, whilst looking fucking amazing in the process. Those legs. Did Mandella have nice legs? No he fucking didn't.

Women are loads better than men.

Also see: Poe's Law.

[OngBonga]

So I looked at Poe's Law to see what the fuck you were talking about.

The lack of body language in internet conversations means that even when it's really obvious that I'm not being serious, I shouldn't be surprised if someone takes me serious unless I put a sideways smile at the end to say "only kidding folks".

Personally, I'd rather someone think I'm being serious when I'm not. It amuses me more.

[spoonitnow]

So I looked at Poe's Law to see what the fuck you were talking about.

The lack of body language in internet conversations means that even when it's really obvious that I'm not being serious, I shouldn't be surprised if someone takes me serious unless I put a sideways smile at the end to say "only kidding folks".

Personally, I'd rather someone think I'm being serious when I'm not. It amuses me more.

It doesn't surprise me that you'd need to look that up. It also doesn't surprise me that you're amused by pretending to think something on the Internet.

[OngBonga]

Because everyone should know Poe's law.

Yes, I'm easily amused. That's a good thing, surely?

[spoonitnow]

[JKDS]

Jared Leto's Joker is going to be absolutely awful, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a twat.