Reproducibility crisis in Science

[Coriolis]

[MENTION=20035]anticlimatic[/MENTION]

Research Suggests Male and Female Kid's Brains Respond to Technology Differently - InsideHook

That "responsible exploration" requires demonstrating how differences in physiology really are the cause of observed differences in behavior, preference, etc. I should not need to remind anyone here that correlation does not itself imply causality. There are many physiological differences among humans that are relatively inconsequential, e.g. hair color or handedness, at least until someone uses them as a pretext for imposing external constraints (witness attempts several decades ago to force lefties to use their right hands). The only thing on shakier ground than trying to explain behavior with physiology is using physiology as a pretext for constraining it.

I apologize. I didn't mean that to be objectively insulting- only I ordered just a single crouton, not the whole bowl.

That might explain it. I was under the mistaken assumption that you were interested in a balanced meal.

 

[anticlimatic]

That might explain it. I was under the mistaken assumption that you were interested in a balanced meal.

Touche.

 

[anticlimatic]

[MENTION=20035]anticlimatic[/MENTION] Research Suggests Male and Female Kid's Brains Respond to Technology Differently - InsideHook

Don't you think that thousands of years of human existence have "played out" the generalized differences between the sexes "responsibly" enough? Particularly when trends have been "reproduced" across multiple cultures and social systems? I feel like the left's efforts at rationalizing their social equity ideals without upending the hard sciences they so value is akin to opening the refrigerator for an easy snack for the 5th time and staring- as though if they just look long enough something other than pickles dipped in ketchup will jump out at them as the quick and easy snack they just know is in there.

 

[The Cat]

- - - Updated - - -

what a maroon.

 

[Jonny]

Don't you think that thousands of years of human existence have "played out" the generalized differences between the sexes "responsibly" enough? Particularly when trends have been "reproduced" across multiple cultures and social systems? I feel like the left's efforts at rationalizing their social equity ideals without upending the hard sciences they so value is akin to opening the refrigerator for an easy snack for the 5th time and staring- as though if they just look long enough something other than pickles dipped in ketchup will jump out at them as the quick and easy snack they just know is in there.

Thousands of years of human existence have also "played out" toward different outcomes for races, regions, etc. One cannot and should not necessarily infer from those outcomes some fundamental, innate differences between those groups, since exogenous factors are at play as well. What, specifically, do you think the left is trying to prove, and what's the known truth that runs counter to that? This is a genuine question, so please provide a few examples to help me understand.

Are there predominantly two biological sexes? Yes, this is well known and accepted. There are also derivatives of those two variants, biologically speaking. For instance: X, XXY, XYY, XXYY, etc.

Do certain characteristics differ between those two sexes, both in distribution and on the average? Yes, we have observed this and quantified it through multiple studies. For example:

Based on the distribution of heights, if we selected a man and woman at random from the population, there is an 84% chance the man would be taller.

The distribution of skeletal muscle mass above tells a similar story.

As does the distribution of ages of death. But notice that over time, the difference between the genders has shifted, almost as though there were deeply ingrained social customs/norms that also lead to men having a shorter lifespan.

As a society, we are well aware of the impact of the Y-chromosome on human development, hormone expression, etc. But our social customs/norms also have a profound impact on outcomes, and they can be pervasive and unrelenting.

But what of it? Who is trying to make you eat a pickle dipped in ketchup? What are they trying to make you eat?

If I may be blunt, It seems to me like you've propped up some straw-man in a cornfield and are proceeding to wave your fists at it and scream to anyone who will listen that it's trying to fight you.

 

[anticlimatic]

Thousands of years of human existence have also "played out" toward different outcomes for races, regions, etc. One cannot and should not necessarily infer from those outcomes some fundamental, innate differences between those groups, since exogenous factors are at play as well. What, specifically, do you think the left is trying to prove, and what's the known truth that runs counter to that? This is a genuine question, so please provide a few examples to help me understand. Are there predominantly two biological sexes? Yes, this is well known and accepted. There are also derivatives of those two variants, biologically speaking. For instance: X, XXY, XYY, XXYY, etc. Do certain characteristics differ between those two sexes, both in distribution and on the average? Yes, we have observed this and quantified it through multiple studies. For example: Based on the distribution of heights, if we selected a man and woman at random from the population, there is an 84% chance the man would be taller. The distribution of skeletal muscle mass above tells a similar story. As does the distribution of ages of death. But notice that over time, the difference between the genders has shifted, almost as though there were deeply ingrained social customs/norms that also lead to men having a shorter lifespan. As a society, we are well aware of the impact of the Y-chromosome on human development, hormone expression, etc. But our social customs/norms also have a profound impact on outcomes, and they can be pervasive and unrelenting. But what of it? Who is trying to make you eat a pickle dipped in ketchup? What are they trying to make you eat? If I may be blunt, It seems to me like you've propped up some straw-man in a cornfield and are proceeding to wave your fists at it and scream to anyone who will listen that it's trying to fight you.

Thousands of years of human existence have also "played out" toward different outcomes for races, regions, etc. One cannot and should not necessarily infer from those outcomes some fundamental, innate differences between those groups, since exogenous factors are at play as well. What, specifically, do you think the left is trying to prove, and what's the known truth that runs counter to that? This is a genuine question, so please provide a few examples to help me understand. Are there predominantly two biological sexes? Yes, this is well known and accepted. There are also derivatives of those two variants, biologically speaking. For instance: X, XXY, XYY, XXYY, etc. Do certain characteristics differ between those two sexes, both in distribution and on the average? Yes, we have observed this and quantified it through multiple studies. For example: Based on the distribution of heights, if we selected a man and woman at random from the population, there is an 84% chance the man would be taller. The distribution of skeletal muscle mass above tells a similar story. As does the distribution of ages of death. But notice that over time, the difference between the genders has shifted, almost as though there were deeply ingrained social customs/norms that also lead to men having a shorter lifespan. As a society, we are well aware of the impact of the Y-chromosome on human development, hormone expression, etc. But our social customs/norms also have a profound impact on outcomes, and they can be pervasive and unrelenting. But what of it? Who is trying to make you eat a pickle dipped in ketchup? What are they trying to make you eat? If I may be blunt, It seems to me like you've propped up some straw-man in a cornfield and are proceeding to wave your fists at it and scream to anyone who will listen that it's trying to fight you.

Thats a bit of a hyperbolic observation, Coriois is the only person I initiate discussions on this topic with- something that has gone back years. If you want to step in as her white knight, im happy to oblige you- your patience for statistical research has impressed me in the past.

To jump straight to the point, I think the goal of the left is an assertion of control that is impossible predicated on overvaluing nurture and undervaluing nature.

 

[ceecee]

To jump straight to the point, I think the goal of the left is an assertion of control that is impossible predicated on overvaluing nurture and undervaluing nature.

If it's impossible, what are you worried about?

 

[Jonny]

Thats a bit of a hyperbolic observation, Coriois is the only person I initiate discussions on this topic with- something that has gone back years. If you want to step in as her white knight, im happy to oblige you- your patience for statistical research has impressed me in the past.

To jump straight to the point, I think the goal of the left is an assertion of control that is impossible predicated on overvaluing nurture and undervaluing nature.

I assure you I have no interest in being anyone's white knight, other than yours. I'm just genuinely curious about where these assertions are coming from.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that the left wants a level of control over the world that is impossible given the natural constraints of the world. That's a clear enough assertion; testable.

I would say that it is the goal of all humans to exert a level of influence over their environment and circumstances to the extent they can. And, our ability to exert control only grows as we discover more about the nature of things. We are better in control of health outcomes than we once were, for instance, and have a proven track record of bending nature to our own will.

Do you have a specific example of this in action. That is, is there something that "the left" is trying to control for which there is clear evidence such a thing is outside of our purview? I just want one clear example so we can look at it together.

 

[rav3n]

[MENTION=20035]anticlimatic[/MENTION]

Research Suggests Male and Female Kid's Brains Respond to Technology Differently - InsideHook

As a female who's enjoyed gaming since she can remember, while there's likely correlation between genders due to socialization and potentially genetics, the human brain is a mosaic of 'male' and 'female' traits. One of my greatest pleasures in gaming is to massacre bragging trash talkers.

 

[Jaguar]

Can someone do a thread split and title it: "Obsession with gender"?

Thanks.

 

[anticlimatic]

I assure you I have no interest in being anyone's white knight, other than yours. I'm just genuinely curious about where these assertions are coming from.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that the left wants a level of control over the world that is impossible given the natural constraints of the world. That's a clear enough assertion; testable.

I would say that it is the goal of all humans to exert a level of influence over their environment and circumstances to the extent they can. And, our ability to exert control only grows as we discover more about the nature of things. We are better in control of health outcomes than we once were, for instance, and have a proven track record of bending nature to our own will.

Do you have a specific example of this in action. That is, is there something that "the left" is trying to control for which there is clear evidence such a thing is outside of our purview? I just want one clear example so we can look at it together.

I'd rephrase it slightly- I think the left first wants people to have a level of control over themselves despite their natures (which is difficult enough, as anyone who has ever tried to change themselves for the better can attest), then they want those people to do the things they want- namely, to generate an equitable playing field in all areas. Every other woman must willingly sign up for a life in STEM fields, and every other man must willingly sign up for a life in stay-at-home parenting or whatever. Until said goal is reached, Hollywood at least believes they can 'prime the pump' by producing fictions that match this vision despite nobody but outliers relating to them. Although it's a system that I consider often, there aren't many specifics I can say that interest or affect me- other than the very petty one of a severe lack of new art and entertainment that people, including myself, can relate to and enjoy. Disappointing as it might be to a statistician like yourself, most of my thoughts on this matter are more abstract.

I simply feel that nature is ultimately more influential that nurture, and that the left's primary goal on the subject- to generate the ability in people to have control over themselves and then organically divide themselves 50/50 across every category makes no sense. Help me out.

If it's impossible, what are you worried about?

Other generations besides the millennials (who it's sadly too late for) becoming more like you for trying.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Jonny]

I'd rephrase it slightly- I think the left first wants people to have a level of control over themselves despite their natures (which is difficult enough, as anyone who has ever tried to change themselves for the better can attest), then they want those people to do the things they want- namely, to generate an equitable playing field in all areas. Every other woman must willingly sign up for a life in STEM fields, and every other man must willingly sign up for a life in stay-at-home parenting or whatever. Until said goal is reached, Hollywood at least believes they can 'prime the pump' by producing fictions that match this vision despite nobody but outliers relating to them. Although it's a system that I consider often, there aren't many specifics I can say that interest or affect me- other than the very petty one of a severe lack of new art and entertainment that people, including myself, can relate to and enjoy. Disappointing as it might be to a statistician like yourself, most of my thoughts on this matter are more abstract.

I simply feel that nature is ultimately more influential that nurture, and that the left's primary goal on the subject- to generate the ability in people to have control over themselves and then organically divide themselves 50/50 across every category makes no sense. Help me out.

• I think the left first wants people to have a level of control over themselves despite their natures
• they want those people to do the things they want- namely, to generate an equitable playing field in all areas
• Every other woman must willingly sign up for a life in STEM fields
• every other man must willingly sign up for a life in stay-at-home parenting or whatever
• Until said goal is reached, Hollywood at least believes they can 'prime the pump' by producing fictions that match this vision despite nobody but outliers relating to them
• severe lack of new art and entertainment that people, including myself, can relate to and enjoy

I can see why anyone would feel that what "the left" is proposing, as you see it, is insanity. I think where we differ is that I don't think that's what "the left" is proposing at all. This is part of the reason why I wanted specific examples from you, because then we could discuss something concrete, something provable/disprovable.

What is more clear to me is that you feel marginalized and uncomfortable with the social trends. I'll freely admit, I'm sometimes uncomfortable too. For instance, my knee-jerk reaction to the over-the-top-obvious prevalence of female superheros in Avengers: Endgame was to cringe...and I wasn't alone:

THAT Female Characters Scene In Avengers: Endgame May Have Been Clunky, But Here's What It Means For Marvel's Future | Grazia

But, I think the truth is, it has less to do with the idea of a female superhero and more to do with the execution. After all, if we can believe that someone like Superman exists, can't we also believe that a woman could have the same abilities? And maybe, just maybe, the magnitude of those abilities doesn't follow the same supposedly fundamental laws of the X and Y chromosomes? The writers just did a piss-poor job of it. It doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means as a society we're still learning how to do it. It's ok to be uncomfortable sometimes.

I think the goal of "the left" is to ensure that, to the extent possible, the individual is allowed to pursue his or her own ambitions without artificial social constructs, other than those protecting the rights of others, dictating their form. At one time, no woman aspired to be an astronaut or President; things have changed. They don't want to force women into STEM, but they want to fight against prevailing social norms that impose artificial barriers to entry.

 

[anticlimatic]

• I think the left first wants people to have a level of control over themselves despite their natures
• they want those people to do the things they want- namely, to generate an equitable playing field in all areas
• Every other woman must willingly sign up for a life in STEM fields
• every other man must willingly sign up for a life in stay-at-home parenting or whatever
• Until said goal is reached, Hollywood at least believes they can 'prime the pump' by producing fictions that match this vision despite nobody but outliers relating to them
• severe lack of new art and entertainment that people, including myself, can relate to and enjoy

I can see why anyone would feel that what "the left" is proposing, as you see it, is insanity. I think where we differ is that I don't think that's what "the left" is proposing at all. This is part of the reason why I wanted specific examples from you, because then we could discuss something concrete, something provable/disprovable.

What is more clear to me is that you feel marginalized and uncomfortable with the social trends. I'll freely admit, I'm sometimes uncomfortable too. For instance, my knee-jerk reaction to the over-the-top-obvious prevalence of female superheros in Avengers: Endgame was to cringe...and I wasn't alone:

THAT Female Characters Scene In Avengers: Endgame May Have Been Clunky, But Here's What It Means For Marvel's Future | Grazia

But, I think the truth is, it has less to do with the idea of a female superhero and more to do with the execution. After all, if we can believe that someone like Superman exists, can't we also believe that a woman could have the same abilities? And maybe, just maybe, the magnitude of those abilities doesn't follow the same supposedly fundamental laws of the X and Y chromosomes? The writers just did a piss-poor job of it. It doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means as a society we're still learning how to do it. It's ok to be uncomfortable sometimes.

I think the goal of "the left" is to ensure that, to the extent possible, the individual is allowed to pursue his or her own ambitions without artificial social constructs, other than those protecting the rights of others, dictating their form. At one time, no woman aspired to be an astronaut or President; things have changed. They don't want to force women into STEM, but they want to fight against prevailing social norms that impose artificial barriers to entry.

If the left is what you say it is here, then I'm on board 100%. I'm not sure if I feel marginalized by society. Maybe. I don't really have any complaints about my life personally, other than I wish there were better movies and more interesting scientific developments to read about.
What are some barriers left that are preventing people from being happy- from discovering what they are good at and enjoy, and allowing/encouraging them to pursue and sharpen those skills?

 

[The Cat]

 

[Jonny]

If the left is what you say it is here, then I'm on board 100%. I'm not sure if I feel marginalized by society. Maybe. I don't really have any complaints about my life personally, other than I wish there were better movies and more interesting scientific developments to read about.
What are some barriers left that are preventing people from being happy- from discovering what they are good at and enjoy, and allowing/encouraging them to pursue and sharpen those skills?

Suppose you, a man, wanted to be a nanny/childcare provider while going to college. Would you feel comfortable looking for work in that area? Conversely, suppose you and your partner were looking for someone to provide child care services. You look on craigslist, and see a college-age man and college-age woman offering their services. Who would you pick? My girlfriend was a nanny during college, and it was an awesome gig.

In 1970, 2.7% of all registered nurses were men. Now, that number is 12%. However, 65% of all paramedics are men. The average paramedic makes less than half the average RN. Hospital Porters/Orderlies (they assist medical staff) are predominately male (90%+) and make even less. I suspect the lack of male nurses has less to do with the field being inherently undesirable, and more to do with social constructs.

Similar social pressures exist in other occupations/hobbies/etc. They are present from birth and are pervasive. At one time, computer programming was women's work, and then it was the work of nerdy men, and now it's the work of the same types of men and boys who might have found themselves on Wall Street in the 1980's. Groups of people can fundamentally shape the culture of industries and consequently shape societal perception of those industries.

To the extent that those pressures are to the detriment of the individual (and to logic and reason) they should be questioned.

 

[anticlimatic]

Suppose you, a man, wanted to be a nanny/childcare provider while going to college. Would you feel comfortable looking for work in that area? Conversely, suppose you and your partner were looking for someone to provide child care services. You look on craigslist, and see a college-age man and college-age woman offering their services. Who would you pick? My girlfriend was a nanny during college, and it was an awesome gig.

In 1970, 2.7% of all registered nurses were men. Now, that number is 12%. However, 65% of all paramedics are men. The average paramedic makes less than half the average RN. Hospital Porters/Orderlies (they assist medical staff) are predominately male (90%+) and make even less. I suspect the lack of male nurses has less to do with the field being inherently undesirable, and more to do with social constructs.

Similar social pressures exist in other occupations/hobbies/etc. They are present from birth and are pervasive. At one time, computer programming was women's work, and then it was the work of nerdy men, and now it's the work of the same types of men and boys who might have found themselves on Wall Street in the 1980's. Groups of people can fundamentally shape the culture of industries and consequently shape societal perception of those industries.

To the extent that those pressures are to the detriment of the individual (and to logic and reason) they should be questioned.

I'd hire a man over a woman as a childcare provider if he seemed the most gentle and compassionate of the candidates- I'm not sure who wouldn't, and I come from a family of nurses both male and female. My cousin just wrapped up nursing school after being in the marines, and he had no barrier to interest or entry. I see the stigma you're suggesting for both, but it feels like more of the strawman than what I was shouting at- like something kind of archaic that fizzled out in the 90s. Either that or my right-leaning area of the country is more progressive than they care to admit, so maybe it's just not something I can see.

More examples?

 

[Jonny]

I'd hire a man over a woman as a childcare provider if he seemed the most gentle and compassionate of the candidates- I'm not sure who wouldn't, and I come from a family of nurses both male and female. My cousin just wrapped up nursing school after being in the marines, and he had no barrier to interest or entry. I see the stigma you're suggesting for both, but it feels like more of the strawman than what I was shouting at- like something kind of archaic that fizzled out in the 90s. Either that or my right-leaning area of the country is more progressive than they care to admit, so maybe it's just not something I can see.

More examples?

Would you please provide me with specific examples of what “the left” is doing first? We need to have a good faith discussion.

Also, while that’s great for you and your family, why do you suppose only 12% of nurses are men? You managed to give me anecdotal examples but didn’t give me any indication you understood my point. It’d be like if I told you vaccines help reduce deaths, cited some statistics, and then you mention a cousin who didn’t get vaccinated and lived.

 

[The Cat]

 

[anticlimatic]

Would you please provide me with specific examples of what “the left” is doing first? We need to have a good faith discussion.

Also, while that’s great for you and your family, why do you suppose only 12% of nurses are men? You managed to give me anecdotal examples but didn’t give me any indication you understood my point. It’d be like if I told you vaccines help reduce deaths, cited some statistics, and then you mention a cousin who didn’t get vaccinated and lived.

Let me take another shot at a response worthy of your time.

It's difficult to provide specific examples of what the left is 'doing' exactly, as the left is less to me an entity that does things and more a system of ideas that people subscribe to. On this particular point (gender and profession), I can only offer up what aspects of this system I perceive to the best of my abilities, my contentions to these ideas, and the reasoning for my contentions. So far you've refuted my perception that the left is seeking to artificially force gender equity across the board professionally through top-down means, and is instead only interested in removing legitimate barriers to entry for all positions regardless of gender. So far here we are agreed, I think, and I was hoping to find a barrier we could both recognize as such and agree on.

I can agree that there has at some point in american history (up to and including today for the sake of argument) been a social stigma against men becoming nurses because of the inherit femininity required for the position- an inheritance I will defend with reasoning shortly- and I can wholeheartedly agree that a man who has the rare natural constitution to become a nurse should not be shamed for what he is or blocked from fulfilling his potential in the field, not just for his own good but for the sake of the society that will benefit from his care. Where I come into disagreement with the left, or at least what I perceive from the left based on their language, is how much people's decisions are based on vague allusions to public shaming and other less explicit barriers, or simply their natural preferences that are informed largely by their biologically imbued strengths. I feel like the left believes people are much less independent than they actually are- more sheep than individuals- and that since they just do what anyone tells them to do, telling them to do something else is the remedy. I do not agree with this fundamental, and the consequential approach. At best it simply won't work to satisfaction, and at worst it can generate a blow-back of Donald Trump proportions.

Here is my reasoning for why I think nursing is an inherently feminine profession, which I think accounts for a large reason (arguably not the entire reason) of why the male representation in that field is 12%. This is a good subject for me because nursing is something I know intimately, so I can lean on some empirical data- which is the only data I'm any good at working with. I would say the three primary strengths required to succeed at nursing are as follows:

1) Stamina (12 hour shifts of moderate physical exertion)

The study from the University of Columbia asked seventeen participants – nine women and eight men – to flex one foot two hundred times as quickly as they possibly could.

The results showed that while the men appeared to be stronger and faster, they became fatigued a lot quicker than women.

One author of the study, Professor Brian Dalton, said: ‘We’ve known for some time that women are less fatigable than men during isometric muscle tests – static exercises where joints don’t move, such as holding a weight – but we wanted to find out if that’s true during more dynamic and practical everyday movements.

He explained that while the test was only carried out using participants feet, the stamina theory applies to the whole body.

‘We know from previous research that for events like ultra-trail running, males may complete them faster but females are considerably less tired by the end,’ he continued.

2) Verbal memory (for numbers like blood pressure, etc and drug names)

Researchers at the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden performed a meta-analysis of 617 studies of episodic memory conducted between 1973 and 2013, which included more than 1.2 million participants.

“Generally, women perform better when it comes to remembering verbal information, such as words, sentences, texts, and objects, but also the location of objects, and movies,” said Agneta Herlitz, professor of psychology at the Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, and leader of the research group. “Men can better recall abstract images and remember their way back from one location to another. Furthermore, there is a female advantage when it comes to remembering faces and with sensory memories, such as smells.”

3) Interpersonal communication skills/teamwork/empathy (for working both with patients and other hospital personnel- and dealing with the politics therein)

Mercadillo and his colleagues describe an experiment featuring 12 women and 12 men. As the participants viewed a series of 100 photographs, their brains were scanned using fMRI technology. Every second image was one that evoked compassion (according to previous research). Examples included sad human faces, war scenes and depictions of famine.

“No gender differences were observed in the frequency of reported compassionate experiences,” the researchers report. However, what was happening in the participants’ brain told a different story. As the compassion-evoking photos were viewed, activity was observed in two areas of the brain — the thalamus and the putamen, part of the basal ganglia — in women but not in men.

“Also, women showed a greater activation in the cerebellum, a structure governing fine movement control that is also involved in judgment, selective attention and affective experiences,” they report. “The cerebellum may play a role in the decision to execute helping actions.”

I assume people listen to themselves and know what kinds of things they would like or not like on an instinctual gut-level, and from that I don't see why it's statistically unreasonable for women to dramatically dominate that field.

I myself work in the building trades, with an even greater margin between male and female representation. Why do you think that is?