/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4711217
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is pseudoscience. Stop using that. Get a real test, like 5 factor model.

>>4711807
Apparently u failed. At least, people on /sci/ do a bit better than people on /sci/.

>>4711728
I am very serious. It is u who shud get the lack of open-mindedness out of u.

http://www.spellingsociety.org/spelling/irregularities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_spelling_reform

It is kinda strange why people in general are so closed minded about any deviation from standard language, except when it is part of some popular meme they like. For instance, "l2", "cannot into", "an hero".

>>4711778
cont.

>You're the one politicizing the issue there.

It is necessarily political when u use words like "obsessing". Obviously, i'm not going to let that fly unchallenged. The issue is also in general necessarily political. It is part of modern academic left ideology that there is no human bio diversity. No races, or at least, no differences between them of any importance, or no significant differences. Same for sexes. Same for various subgroups like sexually atypical persons. Etc. etc. Same story always. No differences. Blank slate. (almost) Nothing is genetic.

Don't believe me? Watch the series. They interview alot of these 'gender researchers' (charlatans), and they are always factually wrong. Always. They never get it right.

Yes, i am annoyed, but i live in scandinavia where this ideology is rampant. For instance, due to alleged discrimination against women, universities can hire women professors for free (basically).

>>4711751
>He loosely introduces this one study by saying that boys get way more autism than girls,

Which fits perfectly with his theory of autism.

>but still, it seems like the guy is trying to push a point to me, obsessing over sex differences.
That's only my first time impression.

Researchers have to keep 'obsessing' about sex differences becus the academic left keeps denying them. Just as researchers have to keep 'obsessing' about racial differences, becus the academic left keeps denying them.

>Nah. What's good with researchers you can meet in real life is that they will dismiss which issues are debatable and which aren't.
>You may have questions over some concepts while being an outsider of the field, and professionals will tell you if it's a sensitive issue or if it's pretty recognized.
>And if you know the institution they come from, you'll have more trust in them.
>That's how it goes for me at least.

It is much easier to 'cheat' in verbal discussions with various rhetorical tricks, and there is pressure to perform immediately etc. These things are not true for written discussions. There is a good reason why religious apologetics (like William Lane Craig) like verbal discussions.

>Nah, I'm too lazy to watch videos because they usually take too much time to convey the same amount of information as texts.

I obviously agree with this, but most people feel the other way.

>That's a lot of papers to find and read. That's why reviews exist I believe.
>I'm not exactly at that point, because I don't really care that much for the actual results.

I gave u a review, then u thought it was a bad idea becus it was written by an individual scientist. I give u the other option, u think it takes too much time. What do u want me to do?

>>4711709
>This is barely related to autism, moreover...

False. Read about his autism theory. It is directly related to that.

>That's why conferences are interesting, you get to see some form of debate, with evidences of recent papers, and if you have some scholars in the audience, some more information on whether the debate is settled on the issue or not.

Verbal discussions are terrible. Stick to reading or watching, if too lazy to read. I presumed that u might be, hence why i suggested a film instead of a book first. /sci/ is full of lazy people.

If u're unsure whether a particular paper is bad or good, then.. read it.. Read follow-up research... Read similar research. Read the critics... It isn't that hard, it just requires some work on ur part.

Pinker's book is an excellent introduction to this. I'm sorry, but the case for human nature is overwhelming and pretty much only academic left people believe there is no such thing. U can try posting on /lit/ to see what such people are like, if u want. There is no room for rational disagreement with the available evidence.

Yes, i spent a lot of time researching this.

>>4711717
>Stop trying to justify this, there's no fucking excuse for not using birth control.

U are interpreting too much. I was simply answering his question in a descriptive way, not making any comments about justification or whatever.

TL;DR, u must l2discuss and avoid irrelevancies and not be presumptuous.

>>4711710
This analogy is obliviously bad. Abortion is possible and not that big of a deal.

Odds are also less than 1/100 for a pregnancy given OP's information.

>>4711713
Well, sort they, they can sometimes! :P But yes, it is a bad analogy.

Wth. It is extremely unlike that u made her pregnant if the information u gave is correct. I have done the same hundreds of times with no pregnancies.

I even a few times accidentally came inside girls, but nothing happened. The odds of a successful pregnancy is quite small.

It is not becus i'm infertile. I have been tested and my sperm quality/quantity is within normal range.

>>4711606
Dubious source u quote from.

>Rosalind Chait Barnett is a senior scientist at the Women's Studies Research Center at Brandeis University. Caryl Rivers is a professor of journalism at Boston University. They are the authors of Same Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children, and Our Jobs (Basic Books, 2004).

I wudn't trust a word such people write. Look up some of their claims. I chose an easy one.

>It has never been replicated, nor has it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, she reported.

It was published in Infant Behavior and Development, 2001, 23, 113-118. This is a peer-reviewed academic journal.
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/infant-behavior-and-development/

They also give the impression that it was his study, but he wasn't the only author nor was he the lead author.

If u read the actual paper (it is on Google), u can see tons of references to other previous, similar research. This is not some one piece of stand-alone, one or nothing paper.

If u look at his Wikipedia page, u can see that he has done lots of other similar research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baron-Cohen

-

I googled around randomly and found more supporting research, tho not quite exact replications.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638302000954
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638302000942
even holds for other monkeys
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513802001071

etc. etc. etc. Read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, to learn more about the modern denial of human nature.

>>4711283
>>4711286
These are good posts.

>>4711502
This guy cannot into understanding human nature.

>>4711499
There are english subtitles.

If u're really that curious, just google it. The studies are not obscure, they are well known.

Use this:

http://www.random-science-tools.com/maths/normal-distribution.htm

>>4711343
I did not imply any such thing. If u think i did, then u don't understand statistics, specifically correlation. Things can correlate at values between -1, 0 and 1. Intelligence and brain size is such a case. Most cases are.

>>4711387
Yes, but better yet: just watch this docu series:

http://genusnytt.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/se-hjernevask-avsloja-genusmyterna/

It's a norwegian series about the denial of human nature in sociology depts etc. Password is "hjernevask".

Many such studies are mentioned in those 7 films. If u want specific sources, google the authors names.

>>4710472
Brain size measured with brain scans correlate with measured IQ at ~0.40. 0.44 when adjusted for reliability.

Citation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/

Males have larger brains, also when adjusting for body size. They average about 100 g more brain. It wud be odd if this had no effect on intelligence.

It is somewhat true that IQ tests have traditionally been equalized for the genders, in that subtests that gave a large advantage to one sex was removed as 'biased'. Anyway, what matters is the g-factor. Recent studies confirm that men have a higher average g. The distribution pattern seems to be the same, not different as previously thought.

Citation: Males have greater g: Sex differences in general mental ability from100,000 17- to 18-year-olds on the Scholastic Assessment Test
Douglas N. Jackson, J. Philippe Rushton
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2006%20Intell%20Jackson%20&%20Rushton.pdf

>>4710212
No, this is completely wrong. There are no reverse sex role societies. Even finding societies with polyandry is almost impossible and only exist with very specific conditions.

I will bet that the thing about German history is wrong too.

>This needs to be abolished, like the above poster said, give them legos and shit as a child.

Even babies show the preference patterns that we see today. 1 day old babies! It is not a societal thing. It is natural.

This modern denial of human nature really is dumb.

>>4711262
>'Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with"'

It is not also known as "paradoxical thinking".

>>4710948
Never seen this before. But clearly, it is either a troll or plain dumb. I feel like clarifying things for whoever might be in doubt, which is obviously not the anti-science academic left dude.

1) Pinker is pretty cool guy, eh, doesn't afraid of PC academic left.
2) ?
3) This is correct, in that women prefer men that are good at gathering resources.
4) Yes, many things can be traced back to our evolutionary environment.
5) True.
6) Guessing this means a lack of cross-culturally studies? There have been plenty of those.
7) ?
8) No.
9) No.
10) Men prefer younger females. Symmetricalness is a sign of health, so yes to that too.
11) Has nothing to do with EP.
12) EP claims no such thing.
13) ..
14) Breasts are remarkable as secondary sexual characteristics in humans. They are much larger in humans than in our nearest relatives.
15) No.
16) Have never heard of this claim.
17) No EP claims that. This called is called appeal to nature.
18) Men are better at it, and sexually atypical women are better at it, and sexually atypical males are worse at it.
19) No idea what this is about.
20) True, pretty much all geniuses are and have been men.
21) Yes, important stuff.
22) Averages are surprisingly important in fysical attractiveness of faces.
23) ? I seem to recall studies that showed that the sexes talk equally much during a day.
24) Possibly. There is a book about this. It is interesting, altho i haven't read it.
25) No problem. There is a human nature just as there is a chimp nature, and a good nature. Such things are possible to study, hence EP for studying human nature.

>>4710917
While this seems reasonable. There is evidence that women have adaptions for short-term mating. See Evolutionary Psychology (David M Buss) for refs.

>>4710809
In fact, many of the species (particularly birds) that have long been thought of to be monogamous, have turned out, one after another, not to be so. Scientists sterilized the males in the couples, but the females continued to lay fertilized eggs.

Polyamory: 1
Monogamy: 0

Only one of those are 'bullshit'. It is also small g, not large G. g just means general intelligence, the general factor that emerges if one does a factor analysis of any collection of cognitively demanding test.

Humans generally do not restrict themselves to monogamy, or rather i shud say, monoamory (one love). Humans are naturally moderately polyamorous.

>>4710104
>I am not denying the importance of intelligence, but I do believe it isn't everything.

What does this even mean?