ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th January 2018, 06:04 PM   #921
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 64,451
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

Skip to 17 mins for the toy part
So it's the video that's the problem plus I didn't see the part about assigning gender to infants with ambiguous genitalia.

Skimming around in that video, it's not science, it's opinion with cherry picked science to support their premises. That's the problem with documentaries and popular science.

I'm not saying everything in the documentary is wrong, just that it is not something you would play for medical students. Take it as educational but with a grain of salt.

As for the gender preference in toys at very young ages, you'd be surprised at just how much socialization has already gone on by the age of 6 months or more. The way parents interact with those kids has something to do with it. By the time my son was three he thought a male wearing hospital scrubs was a doctor, not a nurse, as I was quite disturbed to find out. He didn't learn that from me.

This is a bit of a complex discussion to get into. Find me the reference in the video about testing gender in an infant with ambiguous genitalia and I'll look at that section.
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 14th January 2018 at 06:08 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 06:20 PM   #922
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,293
IIRC it said that it is *part* of their testing to determine gender.
pharphis is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 06:42 PM   #923
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,293
This is the researcher mentioned, first result on the topic not related or detailed enough to say anything. Could check related publications, though

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18311202

That said, why do you think it's cherry picked?
pharphis is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:31 AM   #924
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,631
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
[snip reference not related to the BBC]

The BBC case was yet another well documented case of an underpaid female.

So what the BBC offered to make it up once they were outed, it was obviously an issue for them as a public company. Why did they not act until they were outed?
In the case of Gracie, sorry, but I don't accept she was underpaid in relation to both Bowen and Sopel, simply because their roles do not have the same profile. I would happily say that I think that Sopel is over-paid, and should probably be on the same salary as Gracie, but Bowen deserves more simply because he's frequently reporting in the field in war zones (he previously suffered PTSD after his car was targeted by an IDF tank, killing two of his colleagues).

In a wider sense, I think you don't actually understand the nature of the BBC as a publicly-funded institution, and its place within both British society and the broadcast industry. For many years the BBC was more of a branch of the civil service, with a rigid salary structure for the vast majority of employees. In the 1960s and 1970s a TV director could find themselves working on a prestigious Shakespeare adaptation one more, or a soap opera or police procedural the next, with no difference in their basic salary. On-screen talent was always an exception, but remuneration was traditionally a lot lower than paid by commercial rivals. In fact, many actors used to say that they worked for the BBC for the prestige, and ITV for the money.

The recent publication of the top-earnings at the BBC had nothing to do with any known or suspected gender disparity, but rather pressure primarily from politicians and the anti-BBC press to know who was getting the most public money. This is also part of a much wider ongoing debate about "high" salaries elsewhere in the public sector, whether it's the NHS administration, GPs, etc.), education (schools and universities) or local councils.

Most of the above cited stories deal with extremes, though. The vast majority of public sector workers are paid relatively modestly, and moreover there is a high degree of pay transparency because pay grading structures are well-defined and known. I work in the public sector, and I know exactly what the the woman at the next desk will be earning, because we're on the same pay grade. More to the point, I know pretty much what everyone in the organisation is being paid because the pay grades they're on are not a secret. The public sector in the UK is in fact far far more transparent than the private sector, but the press does not wat to talk about the latter.

Returning to the BBC, the list of top-earners does not actually tell us very much, because it is comprised of people who - as I said previously - are simply not doing comparable work. There are massive disparities between roles, and the profiles of those roles. Tim Roth, for example, got the same for acting in a single one-off drama as does John McEnroe for tennis punditry. As it is, out of 104 people, 65 are men and 38 are women (there's one person in admin I can't determine), so that's a 63%/37% split.

Of course the most important statistic is also the most elusive - i.e. exactly how many men and women actually work for the BBC in all roles. The closest I could find is 2014 one report that three-quarters of news reporters and presenters were male. If the work force - or specific parts of it - are not an even 50/50 split, it's hardly surprising if the number of men earning above a certain arbitrary limit is greater than the number of women in the same earnings range, is it? OK, there is a debate to be had about exactly why those workforce disparities exist, but it's not the same as gender disparity in pay.

Last edited by Information Analyst; Yesterday at 07:34 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:27 AM   #925
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,965
It's not strictly relevant, but I did groan inwardly at this headline

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefa...Z8n#.hjr7MVeGm

I mean, it's not just 300 managers that applies to, it's literally every single person at the BBC. Or anywhere else, come to that.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:32 AM   #926
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,154
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Regardless, I brought up some data that he presented and you're throwing it away out of hand because you didn't like his previous work. Does that sound reasonable?
Yes. It's frankly not worth my time to go through anything presented by such a sloppy, tendentious and biased (with uncomfortable whiggish undertones) researcher.

I have no issue with the idea that some differences exist between the temperament, social habits etc of men and women on average, that are "innate" (in the sense of being tied to the presence or absence of androgenic hormones etc). I do have issue with the idea that we can translate such differences into meaningful explanations for differences in carreer choice, because career choice is an elaborate social construction, and the way we choose to construct it affects the way it interacts with male-female (or any other) differences.

Needless to say, that's neither the beginnimg nor the end of the issues with the Google screed.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; Yesterday at 11:40 AM.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:28 PM   #927
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 4,397
Seriously, though, a ten-page memo? Just to share some unsolicited theories?

Can anyone say Adderall?
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:15 PM   #928
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 64,451
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
This is the researcher mentioned, first result on the topic not related or detailed enough to say anything. Could check related publications, though

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18311202

That said, why do you think it's cherry picked?
[if mods think this is too much of a sidetrack, my apologies, it's not intentional]

Let's keep two things from being conflated here. One is the video and one is your claim about what the video asserted:
Originally Posted by pharphis
They use these differences in toy preferences to determine sex for ambiguous-sex babies (yes, babies). This is explained in the Gender Equality Paradox documentary.
The video, like many of these documentaries, are produced for the commercial market. Sometimes they have very reliable science (like NOVA programs), sometimes they are outright garbage (like the pseudoscience programs one finds on Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, or psychic detectives). So degree of cherry picking varies but the bottom line, with a few exceptions, they are produced for the commercial market and should be taken with a grain of salt.

The beginning of that documentary starts out with non-scientific interviews with people, that's a big clue right there you are looking at infotainment, not research documentation. They go on to interview nurses? in a lunchroom asking them questions about gender and work choice.

INFOTAINMENT, not science and sadly people watching it think they are seeing valid research because they intersperse a couple segments of research like the babies' toy choices. It's all cherry picked to emphasize biological sex differences. Watch it with a grain of salt but go from there and look for actual well done research.


Now, back to determining gender by toy choice. I still didn't see that in the documentary because I'm not going to watch a 40 minute video to find the one thing you say is in there. I can see from what I did watch this was entertainment not a serious exploration of a topic.

So as to your links, I looked up the disorder in your link. Those are some very specific disorders that go well beyond ambiguous genitalia. 46, XY DSD; 46, XY female; XY female
Quote:
46, XY disorders are a group of different conditions including 46, XY complete gonadal dysgenesis (Swyer syndrome), 46 XY, partial gonadal dysgenesis (Denys-Drash syndrome, Frasier syndrome), ovotesticular DSD, testicular regression syndrome (vanishing testes syndrome) , Leydig cell aplaisa/hypoplasia, testosterone biosynthesis defects, POR gene abnormality, persistent Mullerian duct syndrome, 5 alpha-reductase type 2 deficiency and complete and partial androgen insensitivity syndromes.
Still not something you wait until the child is old enough and look at their toy choice to assign gender. I suggest you read more about the issues involved.
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; Yesterday at 04:17 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:18 PM   #929
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 64,451
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Seriously, though, a ten-page memo? Just to share some unsolicited theories?

Can anyone say Adderall?


I say, "an axe to grind."
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:21 PM   #930
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 64,451
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
It's not strictly relevant, but I did groan inwardly at this headline

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefa...Z8n#.hjr7MVeGm

I mean, it's not just 300 managers that applies to, it's literally every single person at the BBC. Or anywhere else, come to that.
Not sure what you are referring to there. Looks to me like someone has exposed people being overpaid on the taxpayer dime. Maybe I read it wrong?
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:27 PM   #931
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 64,451
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Yes. It's frankly not worth my time to go through anything presented by such a sloppy, tendentious and biased (with uncomfortable whiggish undertones) researcher.

I have no issue with the idea that some differences exist between the temperament, social habits etc of men and women on average, that are "innate" (in the sense of being tied to the presence or absence of androgenic hormones etc). I do have issue with the idea that we can translate such differences into meaningful explanations for differences in carreer choice, because career choice is an elaborate social construction, and the way we choose to construct it affects the way it interacts with male-female (or any other) differences.

Needless to say, that's neither the beginnimg nor the end of the issues with the Google screed.
Some very good points here and they echo what I've been saying: Yes, there are biological gender differences. No to the conclusions drawn that those differences explain or excuse gender inequality in the workplace. It's the old correlation not causation problem.

And with gender issues in society, including the work setting, you have to be meticulous ruling in and out all the other variables before you can start declaring women are less qualified to work in STEM fields or any of those other things asserted in the memo.
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:15 PM   #932
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,942
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Actually, I don't think there is actual consensus among experts.
(See http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07...d-differences/)
How would we know?

I'm not throwing that out as an expression - it's a core skeptical mechanism.

There's always going to be that clump of idiots with diplomas that give any profession a bad name... no subject matter has 100% consensus. So when I say consensus, I mean by the clear majority of qualified experts.

Just as an example, when I was cleaning toilets in a hospital, one of my coworkers was a PhD in astrophysics. He was also a biblical literalist and creationist, and believed the universe was 6,000 years old. The Sisters who hired him had him on tours, because he was proof that there was no scientific consensus on the age of the universe. His audiences didn't understand that he's an embarrassment to the field. He's certainly not introducing himself this way.

So when amateurs like you and I google us up some facts, how do we know we're not cherry picking some cranks because their outsider view just happens to match our prejudice?

Whenever I'm involved in a scientific debate with a crank, they always have evidence piled up to the rafters. How do we know its status vis a vis mainstream publishers vs prolific crackpots?
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by blutoski; Yesterday at 05:16 PM.
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:17 PM   #933
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 64,451
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
IIRC it said that it is *part* of their testing to determine gender.
You still haven't said where on the video that statement is.
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:20 PM   #934
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,942
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That makes no sense. Does pain and hunger depend on social context? Does testosterone?
I was not sure if you were joking, because those are good examples of subjective phenomena, and in the latter case, endocrine properties that vary with social influence.

Even the act of measuring the length of a line on a piece of paper is socially influenced.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:38 PM   #935
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,154
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I was not sure if you were joking, because those are good examples of subjective phenomena, and in the latter case, endocrine properties that vary with social influence.

Even the act of measuring the length of a line on a piece of paper is socially influenced.
Yep. Reality may not be socially constructed, but social reality is constructed, as the PoMo adage goes.

Interaction with social context is an integral part of human behaviour. Very few things can be isolated from it in any meaningful sense.

I'm always amused by whiggish types like Pinker suggesting those who emphasize nurture over nature do so as some kind of comforting defense mechanism, when what he does is write tendentious stuff that provides comfort to whigs who might otherwise be disturbed by the contradictions of modernity. "Don't worry, modernity is great, these inequalities are an inherent part of humanity and we are less violent than ever! No need for complexity, folks!"

I wouldn't quite call his writings apologetics for "Western Civilization", but they're not more than one or two degrees removed from it.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; Yesterday at 05:41 PM.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:50 PM   #936
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,293
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You still haven't said where on the video that statement is.
17:37 is what I'm referring to.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
[if mods think this is too much of a sidetrack, my apologies, it's not intentional]

Let's keep two things from being conflated here. One is the video and one is your claim about what the video asserted:

The video, like many of these documentaries, are produced for the commercial market. Sometimes they have very reliable science (like NOVA programs), sometimes they are outright garbage (like the pseudoscience programs one finds on Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, or psychic detectives). So degree of cherry picking varies but the bottom line, with a few exceptions, they are produced for the commercial market and should be taken with a grain of salt.

The beginning of that documentary starts out with non-scientific interviews with people, that's a big clue right there you are looking at infotainment, not research documentation. They go on to interview nurses? in a lunchroom asking them questions about gender and work choice.

INFOTAINMENT, not science and sadly people watching it think they are seeing valid research because they intersperse a couple segments of research like the babies' toy choices. It's all cherry picked to emphasize biological sex differences. Watch it with a grain of salt but go from there and look for actual well done research.


Now, back to determining gender by toy choice. I still didn't see that in the documentary because I'm not going to watch a 40 minute video to find the one thing you say is in there. I can see from what I did watch this was entertainment not a serious exploration of a topic.

So as to your links, I looked up the disorder in your link. Those are some very specific disorders that go well beyond ambiguous genitalia. 46, XY DSD; 46, XY female; XY female

Still not something you wait until the child is old enough and look at their toy choice to assign gender. I suggest you read more about the issues involved.
Fair enough.
pharphis is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:53 PM   #937
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,293
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Some very good points here and they echo what I've been saying: Yes, there are biological gender differences. No to the conclusions drawn that those differences explain or excuse gender inequality in the workplace. It's the old correlation not causation problem.

And with gender issues in society, including the work setting, you have to be meticulous ruling in and out all the other variables before you can start declaring women are less qualified to work in STEM fields or any of those other things asserted in the memo.
Damore didn't say that it was all due to biological gender differences. Again, he said these differences "may, in part explain...".

He didn't say less qualified. And he didn't say "all due to biology".

He is in fact suggesting the second highlighted point but with regards to things like discrimination and sociology, as well.
pharphis is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:23 PM   #938
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 64,451
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
Damore didn't say that it was all due to biological gender differences. Again, he said these differences "may, in part explain...".

He didn't say less qualified. And he didn't say "all due to biology".

He is in fact suggesting the second highlighted point but with regards to things like discrimination and sociology, as well.
And the evidence we currently have says he was wrong.

It's BS, like Trump saying "some are good people" when talking about NeoNazis. Just because you couch your BS in "some" doesn't disguise the message that is clear to everyone else.
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:32 PM   #939
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,293
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
And the evidence we currently have says he was wrong.

It's BS, like Trump saying "some are good people" when talking about NeoNazis. Just because you couch your BS in "some" doesn't disguise the message that is clear to everyone else.
I don't believe this has been justified. That is a very high burden and it even seems to disagree with your earlier admission that there are biological differences. To be clear: In order to fully disprove Damore, you need to prove that biological differences play NO role in this.

Have you ever addressed the gender equality paradox (more freedom = more likely to fit into traditional gender roles)? I think a few tried to address this back in august but all I've seen from you is "the research is wrong"

edit: I think we already had about 10 pages of "nuh-uh" in this thread in Aug.

Last edited by pharphis; Yesterday at 08:53 PM.
pharphis is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:34 PM   #940
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,293
and you keep claiming to be able to read his mind.

I have to wonder... do you just throw out all of evo psychology?
pharphis is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:56 PM   #941
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 64,451
I agree to disagree. Imagine that.
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:39 AM   #942
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,985
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Seriously, though, a ten-page memo? Just to share some unsolicited theories?

Can anyone say Adderall?
-Think job preferences are partly explained by sex
-Do not back up assertion with evidence: 'Reactionary bigot'
-Do back up assertion with ample evidence: 'Autistic'
__________________
Kanye Oprah for president!
Eddie Dane is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:00 AM   #943
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,114
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I agree to disagree. Imagine that.
At this point I think that's the best way to go.

It seems to me that most of the arguments have been made. At this point we can all go back and try to reassess our own viewpoints and consider if we have made mistakes or let our biases influence us away from a real understanding (I will try to do this), but I doubt we'll make much more progress in convincing each other.

I certainly have my baises. I try not to base my opinions on them, but they probably do influence me. For instance I spend my time in two different worlds, one which is female dominated and one which is male dominated. In yoga (which I'm involved in seven days/week) I estimate that more than 90% of the people are women and there is a certain type of environment that exists within that social context. On the other hand in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu it probably skews with the same proportions the other way, and there is a very different social environment there. This difference could certainly be down to nurture, to social construction, etc. But being exposed to that difference probably gives me biases when assessing these issues. It's also probably true that Chinese culture has stronger gender roles than in the west and while I'm not Chinese I've been living here and spending time within this culture for 12 years now and that might have led to other biases as well. Most of the women I date, for instance, express tastes about gender roles that again could certainly be down to nurture, but which do reinforce my subconscious biases.

As I said I try to look beyond all that and I do think that I'm assessing what evidence I see from reason rather than emotion. I also think that understanding one's biases is the first step in seeing beyond them, but I recognise that they are there and perhaps I'm being unduly influenced by them.

That's all just probably more about me than anyone is really interested in, but I thought I'd say it anyway.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:39 AM   #944
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,154
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
At this point I think that's the best way to go.

It seems to me that most of the arguments have been made. At this point we can all go back and try to reassess our own viewpoints and consider if we have made mistakes or let our biases influence us away from a real understanding (I will try to do this), but I doubt we'll make much more progress in convincing each other.

I certainly have my baises. I try not to base my opinions on them, but they probably do influence me. For instance I spend my time in two different worlds, one which is female dominated and one which is male dominated. In yoga (which I'm involved in seven days/week) I estimate that more than 90% of the people are women and there is a certain type of environment that exists within that social context. On the other hand in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu it probably skews with the same proportions the other way, and there is a very different social environment there. This difference could certainly be down to nurture, to social construction, etc. But being exposed to that difference probably gives me biases when assessing these issues. It's also probably true that Chinese culture has stronger gender roles than in the west and while I'm not Chinese I've been living here and spending time within this culture for 12 years now and that might have led to other biases as well. Most of the women I date, for instance, express tastes about gender roles that again could certainly be down to nurture, but which do reinforce my subconscious biases.

As I said I try to look beyond all that and I do think that I'm assessing what evidence I see from reason rather than emotion. I also think that understanding one's biases is the first step in seeing beyond them, but I recognise that they are there and perhaps I'm being unduly influenced by them.

That's all just probably more about me than anyone is really interested in, but I thought I'd say it anyway.
The lines can get very fuzzy. Human society is ultimately a product of human nature. Some gender roles do seem to re-occur - the idea of the Father as "Master of the House" is probably the most universal social norm I can think of (in settled societies, at any rate). You only need to look at the vocabulary of a wide variety of languages to see how many words for "lord", "master", etc are related to words for "father" or "husband". So in that sense you could call patriarchy an "innate" part of humanity, as it seems to arise naturally. On the other hand, when we compare masculinity norms (which are of course integral to patriarchy) across cultures, they vary hugely. So even though a patriarchal society may arise "naturally", that doesn't mean it's the only way to run society - it seems incidental, rather than essential, to human cohanitation.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:46 AM   #945
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,965
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Not sure what you are referring to there. Looks to me like someone has exposed people being overpaid on the taxpayer dime. Maybe I read it wrong?
The headline I object to is: "As Many As 300 Managers At BBC News Earn Up To £77,000 Or More, According To A Leaked Document"

In fact, every single person in the entire world earns "up to £77,000 or more", as "up to" includes any figure below £77,000, and "or more" includes any figure above it.

It was just the headline that annoyed me, really.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:53 AM   #946
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,631
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
It's not strictly relevant, but I did groan inwardly at this headline

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefa...Z8n#.hjr7MVeGm

I mean, it's not just 300 managers that applies to, it's literally every single person at the BBC. Or anywhere else, come to that.
People working in television earn reasonable salaries - shock, horror!
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:06 AM   #947
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,631
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Not sure what you are referring to there. Looks to me like someone has exposed people being overpaid on the taxpayer dime. Maybe I read it wrong?
Define "overpaid." £50-77k isn't huge in media terms, especially not for those based in London. There's no point in paying staff buttons, because they'll lose out on the best to commercial rivals. "Managers" is a highly misleading description, because a lot of the sample job titles listed are editorial and production staff, not managers in the sense that most people will understand the term. The BBC also employs almost 21,000 people, so the fact that 1.4% of them are in this salary bracket tells us is virtually nothing.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:14 AM   #948
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,965
The thing that I object to is the fact that the salary bracket defined in the headline applies to 100% of staff at the BBC, not 1.4%.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:19 AM   #949
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,631
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
The thing that I object to is the fact that the salary bracket defined in the headline applies to 100% of staff at the BBC, not 1.4%.
OK, it's poorly-worded, but the article makes clear they're talking about the £50-77k bracket. It's a good example of an anti-BBC story though. Where's the equivalent article saying who earns similar at ITV, or Channel 4, or Buzzfeed, for that matter?
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:21 AM   #950
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 69,110
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I was not sure if you were joking, because those are good examples of subjective phenomena, and in the latter case, endocrine properties that vary with social influence.

Even the act of measuring the length of a line on a piece of paper is socially influenced.
I have no idea what you're talking about. If I hit you on the jaw, the pain is not social. Of course social cues play a role but the neural signal of pain is biological.

This is getting ridiculous. I shouldn't have to explain all this.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか


Last edited by Argumemnon; Today at 04:33 AM.
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:28 AM   #951
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,965
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
OK, it's poorly-worded, but the article makes clear they're talking about the £50-77k bracket. It's a good example of an anti-BBC story though. Where's the article saying who earns similar at ITV, or channel 4, or Buzzfeed, for that matter?
They could have just said "over £50,000" then.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:32 AM   #952
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,645
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post


I say, "an axe to grind."
But everyone loves social darwinism being shared at work.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:12 AM   #953
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,154
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I have no idea what you're talking about. If I hit you on the jaw, the pain is not social. Of course social cues play a role but the neural signal of pain is biological.

This is getting ridiculous. I shouldn't have to explain all this.
The neural signals from the point of impact may not be, but the way people respond to pain is HEAVILY socially conditioned. Whether the latter is reflected in detectable CNS activity I do not know.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:16 AM   #954
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 69,110
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
The neural signals from the point of impact may not be, but the way people respond to pain is HEAVILY socially conditioned. Whether the latter is reflected in detectable CNS activity I do not know.
Well in that case let me clarify what I said: yes, responses to stimuli may be very heavily influenced by social mores and experience. But that doesn't mean that the underlying biology doesn't have quite a bit of influence. In fact, it's the bedrock of what we build social conditioning on in the first place.

But re-reading your original post on this, I might have misread what you meant.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.