Gender Differences & the Scientific Method

[sunnykait]

Reply -

I'm no expert on this subject but I do think that people who have been married before and are now single have new rules to learn. When we are in our twenties its totally different. When we are in our forties and single its a completely different landscape and territory. Hopefully we are smarter, wiser, healthy and mentally/emotionally balanced people at the time. Unfortunately by the time people are in their forties or beyond, this may or may not be the case! Life happens and crisis is part of life. There are people who may not have been consistent with their personal growth issues. It is mandatory to know yourself well before entering into any relationship, much less the secondary marketplace of love and romance. If we know who we are than we know who and what we are compatible with. Knowing this will help to discern who is who and where and when. By nature, women will always have the edge on extra sensory perception. Men are also perceptive and need to utilize those skills in this particular arena.

If a man is not being authentic with who he is and what he wants, a desirable, intelligent woman will be able to detect it and find that it may not be something that she feels good about pursuing. I think that works both ways. In any case its best to always be extremely present when meeting new people especially, and know how to evaluate a situation within a short amount of time. If your in doubt next time perhaps it is best to give your warmest, classiest, intelligent entrance, leave room for HER to feel invited back if she wants to approach you again and then exit the room. Best of luck to you! -k


A

[Dixon]

...By nature, women will always have the edge on extra sensory perception...

I'll bet if you use your superior female extrasensory powers, you can divine what I think of that without my even having to say it.

A merely sensory male;
Dixon

[sunnykait]

ahhhh... Too bad my post was taken the wrong way, I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone.

Best regards -

[Clancy]

I'm curious, if you're willing to say, what was the right way your statement should have been taken? And, just for clarification, it was a specific statement, not the entire post Dixon was responding to.



ahhhh... Too bad my post was taken the wrong way, I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone.

Best regards -

[sunnykait]

*** Clancy:

Oh wow! Alright then... If you read the post you would see that I wrote that men were also capable of being perceptive and they truly are. I thought that any reference I made towards men I also included women.

Perhaps you guys are a little defensive on this one, rather than actually taking a little constructive observation under consideration? We all have to grow, no one is exempt. The fact that what I have written is receiving somewhat of a mild form of hostility is actually proof that there is resistance to some form of fear. I have alot of compassion for men, my father and brother are actually men... Please read the following and understand that it is written for the good of both genders:

People in general, regardless of gender who have grown and overcome personal struggle or limitation, have the frame of reference to be able to recognize these similar behaviors in other people. Thats not unusual, anyone is able to do that right? Women are somehow better at catalogueing this type of frame of reference. We are able to process these emotional files better and retrieve them faster than men. This is one of the reasons men have complained about women remembering what happened twenty years ago... Women remember and file it away for quick retrieval. We are excellent human processors of emotional sensory based information. Its just fact. Emotional sensory perception is not limited to crying and complaining. It is a heightened sense that is biologically imprinted within the female brain. Our sensory perception is naturally heightened because we are reproductively engineered to protect our children. We are the mother lioness. Because women are hormonal beings our emotional senses are naturally heightened. This heightened awareness allows us to be able to identify and recognize similar qualities or characteristics in other people quickly. Whether women are accurate or not depends on the personality of that individual. Whether women decide to attract or repel the other person(s) is their right to decide. This is why I say that men may be at a slight disadvantage. If men would like to take hormone supplements, grow breasts, have a menstrual cycle, utilize the part of the brain that is reserved for reproduction and child bearing (which by nature allows for this type of sensory advantage) , then by all means, give it your best shot! Women have a sensory advantage because we are able to give birth. This is why early cultures honored and revered women as Goddess. All men have mothers, all mothers are women. Men are supreme beings in their own right and have many gifts that also deserve to be honored and revered. We cannot be threatened by the gifts of the opposite sex. It serves to try to understand one another as we are biologically and emotionally wired differently. This requires the dedication in learning each others language without hostility.

It is possible that at some point in unrecorded history the power of the Goddess had somehow overwhelmed the male gender. It is possible that the male gender had at one point in time been oppressed. Anything is possible... The fact that there have been men who have repeatedly felt intimidated by women and retaliated through hostile and destructive behavior demonstrates a deeply suppressed, oppressive programming. We have to release these old mechanisms and let them go for good.

There is nothing more for me to add regarding this post. -k

[Clancy]

My question is in regard to the reference you made towards women, the one that didn't include men: "By nature, women will always have the edge on extra sensory perception".

I respectfully disagree. First, by definition, extrasensory perception isn't quantifiable, so obviously you can't make any definitive statements about it one way or the other.

Secondly, any generalized differences in attributes, skills or talents between the sexes are very slight. Yes, women have slightly more manual dexterity, slightly more ability to recognize faces, and are slightly more articulate than men, in general. Men are slightly better at math, logic and reading maps, but again, the differences are very slight, and this is the important part, the differences are averaged out over the population.

What that means is, there are millions of men who are more articulate than millions of women, there are millions of women who are better at math than millions of men and so on. IF we were able to quantify extrasensory perception, it's very likely that millions of men would be above average in extrasensory perception and millions of women would be below average, even though women might have a slight advantage overall.

I am put off by any generalized statements about the genders, especially those that are unquestioningly considered fact and that have the tendency to diminish half the population, male OR female.



Oh wow! Alright then... If you read the post you would see that I wrote that men were also capable of being perceptive and they truly are. I thought that any reference I made towards men I also included women.

["Mad" Miles]

Dude!

You wrote "extra sensory", people responded, then you go on about "sensory". Therein lies the difference. ESP ain't just "sensory."

Many silly arguments occur because the terms have not been defined by all the parties involved. How can people argue "rationally" when they're using different vocabulary?

The whole topic of what current science says about hard-wired differences between women and men has been adumbrated on Slate.com in "The Explainer" column over the last few years. It's easy to find.

"M"M

:argument: :dance:

P.S. Clancy we seem to have replied almost simultaneously (Ooooh!) I like your "law of averages" illustration/argument.

:thanks:

P.P.S. Man, I hate the smilie face, always have, animated smilies are amusing, but I think the best ironic use of the original smilie was its placement on outdoor trash cans in New Granada in the film "Over The Edge" (1979) that I watched last night. Matt Dillon's first role.

That is about a Chahute in suburban America where the oppressed, bored teenagers mount a major rebellion against the "Grups". Loads of fun! And a very disturbing cautionary tale.

It's also illustrative of how little has changed for American teenagers in the last twenty-eight years. (Well, except now they have video games, cells, IM, Myspace, Youtube, etc.) But they're still neglected, abandoned, reviled, stereotyped (am I doing that here?) and generally left to their own devices without social support, spaces to call their own, and the recognition and respect of many adults.

People stereotype, if anything is hard-wired that seems to be one thing that is. Learning how not to do it is the beginning of maturity. And the way language works; by generalizing, categorizing and grouping specifics into larger artificial categories, may be part of the reason we keep at it.

[ThePhiant]

""Secondly, any generalized differences in attributes, skills or talents between the sexes are very slight. Yes, women have slightly more manual dexterity, slightly more ability to recognize faces, and are slightly more articulate than men, in general. Men are slightly better at math, logic and reading maps, but again, the differences are very slight, and this is the important part, the differences are averaged out over the population.""

Clancy those are some interesting "FACTS" ?!
WHICH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ARE YOU QUOTING FOR THOSE FACTS?

"I am put off by any generalized statements about the genders, especially those that are unquestioningly considered fact and that have the tendency to diminish half the population, male OR female."

disclaimer of the above?


Clany those are some interesting "FACTS" ?!

[Clancy]

Manual dexterity
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gender+difference+studies+manual+dexterity&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Recognizing faces
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gender+difference+studies+recognizing+faces&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Verbal skills
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gender+difference+studies+verbal+skill&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Math
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gender+difference+studies+math&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Logic
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gender+difference+studies+logic&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Map reading
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gender+difference+studies+reading+maps&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


Clancy those are some interesting "FACTS" ?!
WHICH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ARE YOU QUOTING FOR THOSE FACTS?

["Mad" Miles]

Dearest Gender Warriors,

Earlier this evening, in a private email exhange with sunnykait, she explained that when she wrote:

"By nature, women will always have the edge on extra sensory perception."

That by "extra" she meant "additional" or "more" not ESP. Unfortunately her subsequent argument with Clancy, Dixon and me seems to have driven her from this board.

At least I cannot find her under sunnykait in the Member List. That search was prompted when clicking on her Member Name did not open the menu for going to her Personal Profile. (Yes, I check those. I like to know who I'm writing to/with. Plus curiousity is my fundamental motivation in life.)

Her private reply, which I will not characterize or repeat in the name of privacy and respect, prompted an initial critical response from me. After more consideraton I archived my criticism. I only referred to obliquely in an otherwise friendly email where I answered a couple of her questions about my previous public post in this thread.

Part of my point being that email debates suck. There is no affect, demeanor or facial recognition possible. This leads to more hostility than a face to face encounter might. I have a vague recollection that something like forty percent? eighty percent? of the information exchanged in face to face communication is verbal/linguistic, the rest being facial and vocal expression/inflection, general appearance, body language, scent/pheromones, etc. Email has none of that, and smilies are a very limited substitute. (But they can be fun!)

Then there's the whole troll phenomena, and no I don't think anyone has acted as a troll here, yet it happens on the internet.

I try to be careful in what I write, even when I express vehement disagreement. I try to buffer it with humor and respectful expression, but some people are irony impaired.

(See? I can be indirectly hostile even when trying to be calm, conciliatory and inclusive! It's the story of my life.)

Arguments are good. They're how we figure out what we think. And how we change what we think.

Arguments are also painful. Someone is telling someone else they're wrong. And why they are wrong. Nobody likes being on the receiving end of that.

Except for a certain type of person, dare I say many of them male? People who enjoy arguments when they're made by clever, skilled and challenging opponents. Opponents who can take as well as they give.

There are many schools on this. Some view contestation as emotionally destructive and toxic, to be avoided as much as possible. Others like to argue just for its own sake. Others argue only when they think something important is at stake. Others won't argue because they don't see anything in it that makes it worth the effort. Others argue because, for whatever emotional/psychological reasons, it's what they do. And some of us fluctuate between all of these positions, depending on the circumstances.

Chaque'un son gout. To each their own taste.

Problems arise when people of different schools come together in the same place, and those different motivations, which are at intellectual and emotional cross purposes, collide.

Same as it ever was.

Cheers,

"Mad" Miles

Here's the expanation that I wrote to sunnykait for why I call myself "Mad"

(Please ignore this if you've read variations of it before. Although I think this is the most comprehensive version to date.)

also known as "Mad" Miles because I am a mad forwarder of political email to local lists for activists.

When I referred to myself as a "mad forwarder…" on waccobb.net someone, a woman, replied to me using the phrase "mad miles" and I liked it and took it as my own "nom de keyboard".
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
I also like the ambiguity between angry, insane and passionate (British connotation) which the term implies.
<o:p></o:p>
Everybody is insane, it's the ones who deny it that you've got to watch out for.
<o:p></o:p>
The world is in such a state that anyone who is not angry, is either ignoring reality, or incredibly naive, oblivious or in some other way, out of it.
<o:p></o:p>
I care about life on this planet in general and alleviating human suffering as much as possible, so I am "mad" for justice, truth and freedom.
<o:p></o:p>
Hope that explains my "nom de keyboard"




:burngrnbounce:

[pbrinton]

I won't quote it all in consideration of space and traffic. but I just wanted to say that if WACCO had a "best of" section I would nominate Miles's post. In fact, how about it, Barry? I can think of a bunch that I could nominate from different threads!

Patrick


Dearest Gender Warriors,



:burngrnbounce:

[ThePhiant]

Clancy,

I checked some of your links,
the first one uses 60 BOYS and 43 GIRLS
another one uses 12 BOYS and 12 GIRLS
is this a representation of the world we live in?
are you a BOY or a GIRL?




Manual dexterity
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gender+difference+studies+manual+dexterity&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Recognizing faces
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gender+difference+studies+recognizing+faces&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Verbal skills
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gender+difference+studies+verbal+skill&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Math
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gender+difference+studies+math&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Logic
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gender+difference+studies+logic&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Map reading
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gender+difference+studies+reading+maps&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Clancy]

Most involve adults, but yes, gender differences are studied in boys and girls too.



Clancy,

I checked some of your links,
the first one uses 60 BOYS and 43 GIRLS
another one uses 12 BOYS and 12 GIRLS
is this a representation of the world we live in?
are you a BOY or a GIRL?

[pbrinton]

I am not clear what your point is here. The first link was to a page of Google hits on the terms "Gender difference studies manual dexterity" which listed some 22,000 hits. The very top one, as it happens, refers to a study on manual dexterity acquisition, so naturally the study is on children, since they are most likely to be in the acquisition phase. I do not know which was the second one you referred to, but surely 22,000 hits should yield quite a few ones appropriate to the discussion, no? And this is just the first of the references given.

You seem to imply that because you found a couple of inapproriate studies in the list, this somehow invalidates the entirety of the evidence presented. Surely we can come up with more subtantive debate than this?

Patrick Brinton


Clancy,

I checked some of your links,
the first one uses 60 BOYS and 43 GIRLS
another one uses 12 BOYS and 12 GIRLS
is this a representation of the world we live in?
are you a BOY or a GIRL?

[Clancy]

I think that's a gross mis-characterization. If you peruse my post history, you'll see that I've only been involved in a couple of debates.



Dear 'A', aka sunnykait (alas, there is no 'private reply' option available);

There seems to be a core of folks on this board (that, if you read here much, you will very quickly recognize) who enjoy 'debate', and will publicly pick apart almost anything anyone has to say if they can find an 'in', or any perceived 'chink in the armor'. This is not to rap those whom i reference...

[pbrinton]

I think perhaps this is something of an over-simplification. It seems to me that there are several different kinds of posters involved in these debates, and shades between. One could say that there is a fundamental split on what is often called Western or reductionist science. At one end of the scale are those (and I should hasten to say that the furthest extremes of these points of view are not neccessarily often expressed in this particular forum; most opinions fall somewhere along the scale between the extremities) who believe completely in science and consider anything that has not been or cannot be proven by the scientific method to be beneath their consideration. Then at the other extreme are those who, while often (even proudly) ignorant of the scientific viewpoint on any given subject, automatically and categorically reject anything that any scientist or scientific body has to say, and rely entirely on their own intuition (call ir what you will) for their truths.

Then there is the scale that one might call "debating styles". At one end of this scale are those who know and have studied logic and critical thinking, and rigidly apply the rules of those bodies of thought, and reject any statement that can be shown to contravene them (while sometimes neglecting to address the actual content.) At the other end of this scale we find those who simply regard a debate as an opportunity to score points, and also fail to address the content while picking on any opportunity to contradict what someone has said.

Fortunately we have a substantial number of participants who fall somewhere in the middle of both of these scales, who believe that science can and does serve us in many vital ways that we would certainly not want to give up (dentistry without anasthetic, anyone?), but is nontheless run by people with their own agendas, and it is wise to both listen to what science has to say, and examine the motives and assumptions behind its statements.

Similarly intuition has enormous value in alerting us to possibilies worth investigating (and most great scientific discoveries started off as brilliant intuitions) but unless it is verified by actual study and experimentation (where such a thing is possible) we cannot rely on the veracity of our intuitions. We may believe them completely ourselves, but to try to convince others or base public policy upon them is very unwise.

Then finally there is the scale between those who believe that every debate should be vigorously pursued down every (often blind) alley and hunted down and done to death, and those who find such pursuits a complete waste of time (and can often be quite verbose in saying so!).

Maybe if we all try to find a balance somewhere arounf the middle of each of these scales, it would improve the quality of our discourse.

Patrick Brinton


Dear 'A', aka sunnykait (alas, there is no 'private reply' option available);

There seems to be a core of folks on this board (that, if you read here much, you will very quickly recognize) who enjoy 'debate', and will publicly pick apart almost anything anyone has to say if they can find an 'in', or any perceived 'chink in the armor'. This is not to rap those whom i reference, it is merely to point out the pitfalls of any indirect communication-via-internet.
..

[Barry]

I won't quote it all in consideration of space and traffic. but I just wanted to say that if WACCO had a "best of" section I would nominate Miles's post. In fact, how about it, Barry? I can think of a bunch that I could nominate from different threads!I agree! And many of your eloquent posts would also be in the Best of Section, Patrick!

Best Of is actually already here! You can now rate threads! At the moment it's just on the Advanced interface (you can switch to the Advanced interface using the the dropdown box in the very bottom right corner of each page). I'll be making it available on the beginner interface as soon as I get a chance (I need help! More about that later...). This is a Supporting Member feature that is available to everybody until April 1st. Once 5 people have rated a thread the rating will appear on the thread list. Give it a try an rate this thread!

There will also be a Barry's Picks (as in Editor's Choice) section!

[ThePhiant]

I am not clear what your point is here. The first link was to a page of Google hits on the terms "Gender difference studies manual dexterity" which listed some 22,000 hits. The very top one, as it happens, refers to a study on manual dexterity acquisition, so naturally the study is on children, since they are most likely to be in the acquisition phase. I do not know which was the second one you referred to, but surely 22,000 hits should yield quite a few ones appropriate to the discussion, no? And this is just the first of the references given.

You seem to imply that because you found a couple of inapproriate studies in the list, this somehow invalidates the entirety of the evidence presented. Surely we can come up with more subtantive debate than this?

Patrick Brinton



Dear Patrick,

I never said that the studies were "inappropiate", I merely pointed out that the studies were done on children and only a few at that, not enough to make generalizations in scientific terms, and definitely not enough to be considered "evidence"of anything.
Clancy merely googled some keywords and posted the results, I checked several different topics and posted my results.
Now why you think that 22.000 hits creates some kind of substance to a topic is puzzling to me.
You do know that people are paid to produce hits on a site................
besides that, just because somebody checks out a site, doesn't mean it is
more important or valuable than it was before 22.000 hits

[Clancy]

I find your response puzzling to say the least. These subjects have been studied ad naseum for decades, mostly in women's studies programs across the nation, and you certainly can say it's evidence, and you certainly CAN make generalizations, as myriad meta analysis show. For instance;
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=meta+analysis+gender+difference+studies+math&btnG=Search


I never said that the studies were "inappropiate", I merely pointed out that the studies were done on children and only a few at that, not enough to make generalizations in scientific terms, and definitely not enough to be considered "evidence"of anything.
Clancy merely googled some keywords and posted the results, I checked several different topics and posted my results.
Now why you think that 22.000 hits creates some kind of substance to a topic is puzzling to me.
You do know that people are paid to produce hits on a site................
besides that, just because somebody checks out a site, doesn't mean it is
more important or valuable than it was before 22.000 hits

[fluteman]

I'm very sad to see the direction this thread has gone...I had hoped upon seeing the brave person who resurrected it after several months of forgotten-ness that if more of us shared our thoughts, that it would encourage some healthy discussions of communication between men and women. Being open and receptive to the fact that I'm putting myself out there, I too was a bit offended by some of the words about ESP, ES, Super Senses, etc. But some of the replies that came after by the original poster I found to be very intriguing, and I was eagerly looking forward to discussing things with her before the emotional deluge arrived.

What's happened here is the main reason why I normally remain a lurker on this forum...instead of some interesting, stimulating and positive (conscious?) conversation, we have another wordy philosophical debate that says much but tells little at the same time.

Can we not say more with less?

[Juggledude]

Can we not say more with less?

Probably

- Royce

[Clancy]

May I suggest that you go ahead and discuss what intrigues you instead of focusing on what you don't like? In that way, you'll have a far greater chance of getting what you want out of this forum, and we'll get the benefit of your contribution to the conversation.


Being open and receptive to the fact that I'm putting myself out there, I too was a bit offended by some of the words about ESP, ES, Super Senses, etc. But some of the replies that came after by the original poster I found to be very intriguing, and I was eagerly looking forward to discussing things with her before the emotional deluge arrived.

[ThePhiant]

dearest Clancy,

as you probably know, any study or data can be used to prove anybody's point. bunching a number of study's together and coming to a conclusion is always subjective. having said that my main point is that generalizations however subject-ive they may be, don't mean a thing in the real world.
your partner in life or at work is more than likely the opposite of what those studies are telling you.
just because your studies say you are just as good at math as boys, that doesn't imply that YOU are good at math
in the real world we are dealing with individuals, not statistics.
talk about YOUR experience,



I find your response puzzling to say the least. These subjects have been studied ad naseum for decades, mostly in women's studies programs across the nation, and you certainly can say it's evidence, and you certainly CAN make generalizations, as myriad meta analysis show. For instance;
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=meta+analysis+gender+difference+studies+math&btnG=Search

[Clancy]

That's not what the studies say. They say, consistantly, that men are slightly better at math than women. But only slightly, and only when you average the entire population, which was my point in the first place. OBVIOUSLY, many individual women are better at math than many individual men.

And the same would probably hold for ESP, if it COULD be studied, any difference between the genders would probably be slight, when averaged out across the entire population, and some men would be ESP genuises, while some women would be dumb as tree stumps in the ESP department, and vice versa.


just because your studies say you are just as good at math as boys, that doesn't imply that YOU are good at math
in the real world we are dealing with individuals, not statistics.
talk about YOUR experience,

[pbrinton]

dearest Clancy,

as you probably know, any study or data can be used to prove anybody's point. bunching a number of study's together and coming to a conclusion is always subjective. having said that my main point is that generalizations however subject-ive they may be, don't mean a thing in the real world.
your partner in life or at work is more than likely the opposite of what those studies are telling you.
just because your studies say you are just as good at math as boys, that doesn't imply that YOU are good at math
in the real world we are dealing with individuals, not statistics.
talk about YOUR experience,

Now wait a minute here. You may have your own views about the value of scientific study, but what you say is simply not true. Studies cannot legitimately be used to support any point of view, and they are certainly not subjective. In fact studies are very carefully designed to be objective, and where this is not possible, this fact is pointed out. A properly presented study includes an estimate of confidence; the authors' estimate of likelihood that their conclusions are correct. Science includes in its procedures mechanisms for the discovery of error, and acknowledges that some error will always be present.

And what exactly do you mean by the "real world?" Is your world any more real than that of thousands of dedicated and hard-working scientists (plus, of course, the normal admixture of charlatans, thieves and cheats; a minority in this as in most pursuits)? To say that generalizations mean nothing is wrong; they are valuable evidence, and to simply dismiss them as valueless is a waste of a precious resource, knowledge. Certainly a study incompletely reported can be used to support a point of view contrary to its true meaning, but this is true of any piece of infomation. It is up to the consumer to decide what is good information and what is bad. Go and read the underlying data and make up you own mind.

As for the contention that "your partner in life or at work is more than likely the opposite of what those studies are telling you": since the precise purpose of studies is estimating likelihoods, by definition you cannot be more likely to contravene the generalization than follow it.

Patrick Brinton

[ThePhiant]

since when is a study' objective????????????
do you mean to say that studies are chosen at random?????????
studies are chosen to prove or disprove something, and the way to go about is to test certain variables that are CHOSEN not objectively but subjectively. just like the 11 blind men studying an elephant. they can and want to see only what is in front of them, subjectively.
antioxidants were supposed to be a lifesaver, turns out they actually can shorten someones life.
which scientist do you believe????

oh and by the way, thanks for letting me know that you know what is true,and wrong.
and I guess that must mean you are RIGHT!


Now wait a minute here. You may have your own views about the value of scientific study, but what you say is simply not true. Studies cannot legitimately be used to support any point of view, and they are certainly not subjective. In fact studies are very carefully designed to be objective, and where this is not possible, this fact is pointed out. A properly presented study includes an estimate of confidence; the authors' estimate of likelihood that their conclusions are correct. Science includes in its procedures mechanisms for the discovery of error, and acknowledges that some error will always be present.

And what exactly do you mean by the "real world?" Is your world any more real than that of thousands of dedicated and hard-working scientists (plus, of course, the normal admixture of charlatans, thieves and cheats; a minority in this as in most pursuits)? To say that generalizations mean nothing is wrong; they are valuable evidence, and to simply dismiss them as valueless is a waste of a precious resource, knowledge. Certainly a study incompletely reported can be used to support a point of view contrary to its true meaning, but this is true of any piece of infomation. It is up to the consumer to decide what is good information and what is bad. Go and read the underlying data and make up you own mind.

As for the contention that "your partner in life or at work is more than likely the opposite of what those studies are telling you": since the precise purpose of studies is estimating likelihoods, by definition you cannot be more likely to contravene the generalization than follow it.

Patrick Brinton

[pbrinton]

I will respond, not because I hope to persuade you of anything, but because I think it is important to supply the contrary point of view for others who might be reading this.

Scientific studies, in order to claim that designation, must conform to certain criteria. Among them are the requirements that both the initial assumptions and the methodology used are incorporated as part of the report. These results are studied by others, who are free to critique them.

Yes, many studies are commissioned by interested parties hoping to prove something, but this does not always succeed; many studies go the other way. Yes, this often results in the suppression of those particular studies, and that is unfortunate, but is part and parcel of the capitalist system. I do not believe that there is a significant number of studies that are falsified for financial gain. Scientific hoaxes have certainly happened, but generally in important cases a lot of scrutiny is brought to bear, and it is hard to sustain a lie. There is a great deal of rivalry in science, and there are a great many scientists who are genuinely motivated by a search for verifiable and useful truths. They are constantly checking each others' work in hopes of finding errors.

So it would seem extreme to simply reject all scientific studies categorically as unreliable. In a previous post you commented that "bunching a number of study's together and coming to a conclusion is always subjective", but i would submit that the more studies agree on a subject the more likely they can be relied on. One study might be a good indicator, especially if its methodology passes scrutiny; five studies that show similar results show a strong likelihood of truth.

Let's face it; studies are like hamburgers and television sets and cars; some are very good and some are very bad. Most are in the acceptable range. Unlike hamburgers and television sets and cars, however, the way they are constructed can be examined by the user because the map is part of the product.

This, as I see it, is the case for the defense of science; no doubt there are other points that would be helpful, but someone else will have to supply them.

Patrick Brinton




since when is a study' objective????????????
do you mean to say that studies are chosen at random?????????
studies are chosen to prove or disprove something, and the way to go about is to test certain variables that are CHOSEN not objectively but subjectively. just like the 11 blind men studying an elephant. they can and want to see only what is in front of them, subjectively.
antioxidants were supposed to be a lifesaver, turns out they actually can shorten someones life.
which scientist do you believe????

oh and by the way, thanks for letting me know that you know what is true,and wrong.
and I guess that must mean you are RIGHT!

[Dixon]

I will respond, not because I hope to persuade you of anything...

Patrick

It's good that you recognize that it's probably hopeless to try persuading ThePhiant of anything she/he doesn't want to see. His/her consistent use of laughably fallacious logic, such as generalizing from a too-small sample (2!) of non-representative studies, and dismissing all research as invalid while asserting his/her unsystematic judgment as superior, reveals someone who is unwilling and/or unable to be reasonable.

I've been in a zillion such frustrating dialogues, and I just wanna give you props for reasoning properly in good faith. Don't let anyone's pernicious defenses bring you down.

Love and reason;

Dixon

[ThePhiant]

dearest Patrick,

unfortunately you are not supplying the the contrary point but actualy, you are extrapolating my point that science is not as reliable as it pertains to be. Good science, bad science?
Science is only as good as the next studie who proves otherwise.
case in point; antioxidents!
btw; I have neither hamburgers, nor tv's nor cars in my life to examine





I will respond, not because I hope to persuade you of anything, but because I think it is important to supply the contrary point of view for others who might be reading this.

Scientific studies, in order to claim that designation, must conform to certain criteria. Among them are the requirements that both the initial assumptions and the methodology used are incorporated as part of the report. These results are studied by others, who are free to critique them.

Yes, many studies are commissioned by interested parties hoping to prove something, but this does not always succeed; many studies go the other way. Yes, this often results in the suppression of those particular studies, and that is unfortunate, but is part and parcel of the capitalist system. I do not believe that there is a significant number of studies that are falsified for financial gain. Scientific hoaxes have certainly happened, but generally in important cases a lot of scrutiny is brought to bear, and it is hard to sustain a lie. There is a great deal of rivalry in science, and there are a great many scientists who are genuinely motivated by a search for verifiable and useful truths. They are constantly checking each others' work in hopes of finding errors.

So it would seem extreme to simply reject all scientific studies categorically as unreliable. In a previous post you commented that "bunching a number of study's together and coming to a conclusion is always subjective", but i would submit that the more studies agree on a subject the more likely they can be relied on. One study might be a good indicator, especially if its methodology passes scrutiny; five studies that show similar results show a strong likelihood of truth.

Let's face it; studies are like hamburgers and television sets and cars; some are very good and some are very bad. Most are in the acceptable range. Unlike hamburgers and television sets and cars, however, the way they are constructed can be examined by the user because the map is part of the product.

This, as I see it, is the case for the defense of science; no doubt there are other points that would be helpful, but someone else will have to supply them.

Patrick Brinton

[ThePhiant]

my dearest Dixie,

for a self declared deity you are awfully judgemental.
no compassion at your age???



Patrick

It's good that you recognize that it's probably hopeless to try persuading ThePhiant of anything she/he doesn't want to see. His/her consistent use of laughably fallacious logic, such as generalizing from a too-small sample (2!) of non-representative studies, and dismissing all research as invalid while asserting his/her unsystematic judgment as superior, reveals someone who is unwilling and/or unable to be reasonable.

I've been in a zillion such frustrating dialogues, and I just wanna give you props for reasoning properly in good faith. Don't let anyone's pernicious defenses bring you down.

Love and reason;

Dixon

[Clancy]

If you don't believe scientific studies have any validity, next time a doctor tells you you need antibiotics or your life is at risk you might as well save the expense and just take aspirin, since both have been studied thoroughly by people trying to prove something.


dearest Patrick,

unfortunately you are not supplying the the contrary point but actualy, you are extrapolating my point that science is not as reliable as it pertains to be. Good science, bad science?
Science is only as good as the next studie who proves otherwise.
case in point; antioxidents!
btw; I have neither hamburgers, nor tv's nor cars in my life to examine

[pbrinton]

Well, as I said, I had no ambition to persuade you from your views; I can see that you twist whatever input you receive to feed your preconceptions. If I am correctly understanding your somewhat idiosyncratic way of using words (extrapolating, pertains?) then once again you state the exact opposite of the case. Since scientific studies include estimates of the likelihood of error, scientific studies are in fact pretty much as reliable as they claim to be!

Maybe you are confusing the studies themselves with the way they are used by people who do not necessarily even understand them, and are all too often willing to omit whatever parts do not suit their arguments.

I know it can be confusing when studies show that something that has been previously thought to be useful also has dangers under some circumstances (antioxidants, for instance). That is where clear thought and judgement come in; my own observation is that pretty much everything in life has a medicinal dose and a toxic dose, and it is up to the consumer to determine from the information provided what those doses are.

Making sense of these kinds of complex issues, where conflicting evidence needs to be properly weighed and evaluated, is greatly facilitated by the use of critical thinking skills. Critical thinking was developed for exactly this purpose; to provide a tool for examining controversial questions and coming to the conclusions that are best supported by the available evidence. Crtical thinking does not tell you the answer, any more than a good sharp knife makes you a good cook. If the evidence in fact supports your point of view, then you can use critical thinking to establish that fact. As it is, even though you may in fact be correct about some of your conclusions, your ways of arguing them, and your insistance on making statements that are at the very least highly misleading, do more to conceal that possibility than to reveal it.

I think at this point that I have said pretty much everything I have to say on the subject, and for me at least this discussion is reaching its toxic dose!

Patrick Brinton
(who prefers not to be addressed as "dearest" by those he is not acquainted with, and whose views he vehemently disagrees with.)


dearest Patrick,

unfortunately you are not supplying the the contrary point but actualy, you are extrapolating my point that science is not as reliable as it pertains to be. Good science, bad science?
Science is only as good as the next studie who proves otherwise.
case in point; antioxidents!
btw; I have neither hamburgers, nor tv's nor cars in my life to examine

[Zeno Swijtink]

ThePhiant, aka Lul DeGrote (Dutch for "Large Prick") will be forever Defiant. Great screen. I love it.

:):




If you don't believe scientific studies have any validity, next time a doctor tells you you need antibiotics or your life is at risk you might as well save the expense and just take aspirin, since both have been studied thoroughly by people trying to prove something.

[ThePhiant]

Dear Patrick,



"As it is, even though you may in fact be correct about some of your conclusions, your ways of arguing them, and your insistance on making statements that are at the very least highly misleading, do more to conceal that possibility than to reveal it."

this is quite a sentence, Patrick, but what are you refering to?
making vague but convoluted accusations is merely character assassination. get to the point!


"Yes, many studies are commissioned by interested parties hoping to prove something, but this does not always succeed; many studies go the other way. Yes, this often results in the suppression of those particular studies, and that is unfortunate, but is part and parcel of the capitalist system. I do not believe that there is a significant number of studies that are falsified for financial gain. Scientific hoaxes have certainly happened, but generally in important cases a lot of scrutiny is brought to bear, and it is hard to sustain a lie. There is a great deal of rivalry in science, and there are a great many scientists who are genuinely motivated by a search for verifiable and useful truths. They are constantly checking each others' work in hopes of finding errors."

these are YOUR WORDS, Patrick,
not mine!
this is how YOU see science!
I merely have stated that science is not objective.
you opened up a whole new world for me, they are looking at each others work for errors? like Spy vs Spy?


as I have stated before and you have confirmed people are "too often willing to omit whatever parts do not suit their arguments."









Well, as I said, I had no ambition to persuade you from your views; I can see that you twist whatever input you receive to feed your preconceptions. If I am correctly understanding your somewhat idiosyncratic way of using words (extrapolating, pertains?) then once again you state the exact opposite of the case. Since scientific studies include estimates of the likelihood of error, scientific studies are in fact pretty much as reliable as they claim to be!

Maybe you are confusing the studies themselves with the way they are used by people who do not necessarily even understand them, and are all too often willing to omit whatever parts do not suit their arguments.

I know it can be confusing when studies show that something that has been previously thought to be useful also has dangers under some circumstances (antioxidants, for instance). That is where clear thought and judgement come in; my own observation is that pretty much everything in life has a medicinal dose and a toxic dose, and it is up to the consumer to determine from the information provided what those doses are.

Making sense of these kinds of complex issues, where conflicting evidence needs to be properly weighed and evaluated, is greatly facilitated by the use of critical thinking skills. Critical thinking was developed for exactly this purpose; to provide a tool for examining controversial questions and coming to the conclusions that are best supported by the available evidence. Crtical thinking does not tell you the answer, any more than a good sharp knife makes you a good cook. If the evidence in fact supports your point of view, then you can use critical thinking to establish that fact. As it is, even though you may in fact be correct about some of your conclusions, your ways of arguing them, and your insistance on making statements that are at the very least highly misleading, do more to conceal that possibility than to reveal it.

I think at this point that I have said pretty much everything I have to say on the subject, and for me at least this discussion is reaching its toxic dose!

Patrick Brinton
(who prefers not to be addressed as "dearest" by those he is not acquainted with, and whose views he vehemently disagrees with.)

[Juggledude]

these are YOUR WORDS, Patrick,
not mine!
this is how YOU see science!
I merely have stated that science is not objective.
you opened up a whole new world for me, they are looking at each others work for errors? like Spy vs Spy?


as I have stated before and you have confirmed people are "too often willing to omit whatever parts do not suit their arguments."

de Phiant, (french translation)

You seem to be taking the paved route to hell, here, quoting peoples words which do not support your professed point in order to (assumedly?) support your point, and then omitting whatever parts do not suit your arguments, even while quoting and demonizing that very action!

Are you being intentionally argumentative and perverse, or does your brain actually work this way?

Truly curious,

Royce

:evg:

[pbrinton]

My own thoughts exactly. I rest my case.

Patrick Brinton


de Phiant, (french translation)

You seem to be taking the paved route to hell, here, quoting peoples words which do not support your professed point in order to (assumedly?) support your point, and then omitting whatever parts do not suit your arguments, even while quoting and demonizing that very action!

Are you being intentionally argumentative and perverse, or does your brain actually work this way?

Truly curious,

Royce

:evg:

[ThePhiant]

well. well. well.
looks like some boys got their knickers in a twist
(hope your founding member didn't get hurt)

so I guess I have to spell it out for you and Patrick, I was hoping that with all your collective critical thinking skills it would be obvious what I was alluding to. Alas.

I said studies are subjective
Patrick says;

"Yes, many studies are commissioned by interested parties hoping to prove something, but this does not always succeed; many studies go the other way. Yes, this often results in the suppression of those particular studies, and that is unfortunate, but is part and parcel of the capitalist system."
ThePhiant said;

"as you probably know, any study or data can be used to prove anybody's point. bunching a number of study's together and coming to a conclusion is always subjective. having said that my main point is that generalizations however subject-ive they may be, don't mean a thing in the real world.
your partner in life or at work is more than likely the opposite of what those studies are telling you."
; .
Patrick says;
"Making sense of these kinds of complex issues, where conflicting evidence needs to be properly weighed and evaluated, is greatly facilitated by the use of critical thinking skills. Critical thinking was developed for exactly this purpose; to provide a tool for examining controversial questions and coming to the conclusions that are best supported by the available evidence."


now as for you dude (american version)
I printed a whole paragraph of unedited ambivalence from Patrick,to show that PB is actually saying the same as me namely that there are so many suspect variables that it is hard to take a study at face value.
and that it takes a healthy dose of critical thinking to get to the truth of it all. ( even though I am not allowed to use critical thinking on PB's words)
you on the other hand cherry picked, some irrelevant passage just to be provocative and question my mental constitution.

Ms Wacco told me to be nice,
so love and kisses to you from

Lulu


de Phiant, (french translation)

You seem to be taking the paved route to hell, here, quoting peoples words which do not support your professed point in order to (assumedly?) support your point, and then omitting whatever parts do not suit your arguments, even while quoting and demonizing that very action!

Are you being intentionally argumentative and perverse, or does your brain actually work this way?

Truly curious,

Royce

:evg:

[Juggledude]

Lulu,

Welcome out from behind the screen of anonymity! and a warm welcome at that, I'll see your love and kisses, and raise you a hug.

I appreciate your concept regarding the application of critical thinking to the myriad of studies and the sometimes unscrupulous light in which they are presented. However, I believe your antagonistic tone is exacerbating the miscommunication, as opposed to allowing the light of reason to fall upon the similarities in the thought processes.

These similarities, that you both agree studies can be used to support polarized viewpoints, and that it takes great care and possibly skill to personally evaluate the truth of any given matter, are important. And, quite obviously, agreed upon. What I'm getting from an overview of this debate is that there seems to be difference in the assumed preponderance of technique.

PB et. al seem to be saying that while studies done in accord with proper scientific method admittedly have their foibles, they are, by and large, (and due to the peer review and built in checks and balances) accurate representations of an objective reality. As such, they are a useful tool.

You seem to be saying that more oft than not, studies are used to foster and promote a particular agenda, and as such, are not a useful tool.

Does seem accurate to you?

As far as "cherry picking some irrelevant passage", I quoted 72.5 % of the original words in your post. Are you implying that 72.5% of your words are irrelevant? And while I can see how my words could be construed as provacative, your assumption of my intent is incorrect. My intent was to express curiosity, to draw out more information, with the ultimate goal of understanding and through understanding, reach accord.

Leaving us with your statement regarding my questioning of your mental constitution. It is your mental process I was questioning, and this type of assumptive behavior is exactly what I reference above as "antagonistic tone"

I believe we would all be well served to remind ourselves of the dangers inherent in online discourse, and remember that an extra layer or three of psychic 'skin' is necessary here, as we don't have the benefit of the subtle exchange of energy which can smooth the pathways of a similar conversation in person.

With knickers neither twisted nor tented,

Royce



well. well. well.
looks like some boys got their knickers in a twist
(hope your founding member didn't get hurt)

so I guess I have to spell it out for you and Patrick, I was hoping that with all your collective critical thinking skills it would be obvious what I was alluding to. Alas.

I said studies are subjective
Patrick says;

"Yes, many studies are commissioned by interested parties hoping to prove something, but this does not always succeed; many studies go the other way. Yes, this often results in the suppression of those particular studies, and that is unfortunate, but is part and parcel of the capitalist system."
ThePhiant said;

"as you probably know, any study or data can be used to prove anybody's point. bunching a number of study's together and coming to a conclusion is always subjective. having said that my main point is that generalizations however subject-ive they may be, don't mean a thing in the real world.
your partner in life or at work is more than likely the opposite of what those studies are telling you."
; .
Patrick says;
"Making sense of these kinds of complex issues, where conflicting evidence needs to be properly weighed and evaluated, is greatly facilitated by the use of critical thinking skills. Critical thinking was developed for exactly this purpose; to provide a tool for examining controversial questions and coming to the conclusions that are best supported by the available evidence."


now as for you dude (american version)
I printed a whole paragraph of unedited ambivalence from Patrick,to show that PB is actually saying the same as me namely that there are so many suspect variables that it is hard to take a study at face value.
and that it takes a healthy dose of critical thinking to get to the truth of it all. ( even though I am not allowed to use critical thinking on PB's words)
you on the other hand cherry picked, some irrelevant passage just to be provocative and question my mental constitution.

Ms Wacco told me to be nice,
so love and kisses to you from

Lulu

[pbrinton]

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'—Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass.

I think I have beaten my head against this particular wall for long enough; I will just go for a nice long walk and enjoy the green sky and the pink grass.

Wake me up when sanity returns.

Patrick



well. well. well.
looks like some boys got their knickers in a twist
(hope your founding member didn't get hurt)

so I guess I have to spell it out for you and Patrick, I was hoping that with all your collective critical thinking skills it would be obvious what I was alluding to. Alas.

I said studies are subjective
Patrick says;

"Yes, many studies are commissioned by interested parties hoping to prove something, but this does not always succeed; many studies go the other way. Yes, this often results in the suppression of those particular studies, and that is unfortunate, but is part and parcel of the capitalist system."
ThePhiant said;

"as you probably know, any study or data can be used to prove anybody's point. bunching a number of study's together and coming to a conclusion is always subjective. having said that my main point is that generalizations however subject-ive they may be, don't mean a thing in the real world.
your partner in life or at work is more than likely the opposite of what those studies are telling you."
; .
Patrick says;
"Making sense of these kinds of complex issues, where conflicting evidence needs to be properly weighed and evaluated, is greatly facilitated by the use of critical thinking skills. Critical thinking was developed for exactly this purpose; to provide a tool for examining controversial questions and coming to the conclusions that are best supported by the available evidence."


now as for you dude (american version)
I printed a whole paragraph of unedited ambivalence from Patrick,to show that PB is actually saying the same as me namely that there are so many suspect variables that it is hard to take a study at face value.
and that it takes a healthy dose of critical thinking to get to the truth of it all. ( even though I am not allowed to use critical thinking on PB's words)
you on the other hand cherry picked, some irrelevant passage just to be provocative and question my mental constitution.

Ms Wacco told me to be nice,
so love and kisses to you from

Lulu

[saysni]

[this post was posted several days earlier. I reposted it by mistake -Barry]

Dear 'A', aka sunnykait (alas, there is no 'private reply' option available);

There seems to be a core of folks on this board (that, if you read here much, you will very quickly recognize) who enjoy 'debate', and will publicly pick apart almost anything anyone has to say if they can find an 'in', or any perceived 'chink in the armor'. This is not to rap those whom i reference, it is merely to point out the pitfalls of any indirect communication-via-internet.
To wit please read the following quote (sage advise) i copied from a previous wacco posting (unannotated, uncredited, and completely without the author's permission because, frankly, i did not note the source):

Part of the limit and inadequacy of email [and website] correspondence is that it does not allow for rapid reciprocity and the expression of nuanced emotional response. It is not the same as conversation where visual and aural cues allow a participant to adjust content and delivery style. This leads to emotional conflicts when people feel slighted.
But if one is to use this medium, one must recognize that this problem is an inherent part of the process and [one ought] do ones best to avoid reacting, knowing that the other participants aren't in the same room with you adjusting their behavior to accomodate yours. This goes both ways and from what I've seen over the last seventeen years it is an unavoidable part of this medium.

Wise words.

Many thanks to the o.p.'s and well wishes to all,
-Stuart


*** Clancy:
Perhaps you guys are a little defensive on this one, rather than actually taking a little constructive observation under consideration? We all have to grow, no one is exempt. The fact that what I have written is receiving somewhat of a mild form of hostility is actually proof that there is resistance to some form of fear. I have alot of compassion for men, my father and brother are actually men... Please read the following and understand that it is written for the good of both genders..

[ThePhiant]

look what happens when you are in a hurry, things get lost .
for those of you, who missed my notations
one more time


Lulu,

Welcome out from behind the screen of anonymity! and a warm welcome at that, I'll see your love and kisses, and raise you a hug.
dude, I was never hiding, I didn't realize you were looking for me

I appreciate your concept regarding the application of critical thinking to the myriad of studies and the sometimes unscrupulous light in which they are presented. However, I believe your antagonistic tone is exacerbating the miscommunication, as opposed to allowing the light of reason to fall upon the similarities in the thought processes.
dude, YOUR post was antagonistic and provocative on purpose, by playing reasonable now, you are only exposing your self as being Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. (Jekyll was also in denial of his actions)

These similarities, that you both agree studies can be used to support polarized viewpoints, and that it takes great care and possibly skill to personally evaluate the truth of any given matter, are important. And, quite obviously, agreed upon. What I'm getting from an overview of this debate is that there seems to be difference in the assumed preponderance of technique.

PB et. al seem to be saying that while studies done in accord with proper scientific method admittedly have their foibles, they are, by and large, (and due to the peer review and built in checks and balances) accurate representations of an objective reality. As such, they are a useful tool.

You seem to be saying that more oft than not, studies are used to foster and promote a particular agenda, and as such, are not a useful tool.

Does seem accurate to you? I am saying they are a circumspect tool, and don't necessary apply to you or I as an individual. reread my first posts

As far as "cherry picking some irrelevant passage", I quoted 72.5 % of the original words in your post. Are you implying that 72.5% of your words are irrelevant? this is a highly misleading way to represent me. 72,5%? did you count all my words?
my word choice here was a little confusing. what I meant, is that my words become irrelevant, by you leaving out the quote.

And while I can see how my words could be construed as provacative, your assumption of my intent is incorrect.
your words were not just provocative, but antagonistic and with a purpose to draw me out! did you succeed?

My intent was to express curiosity, to draw out more information, with the ultimate goal of understanding and through understanding, reach accord.

Leaving us with your statement regarding my questioning of your mental constitution. It is your mental process I was questioning, and this type of assumptive behavior is exactly what I reference above as "antagonistic tone" I think you are in denial, just because you are playing Mr NiceGuy right now, that doesn't change your 1st post.
compare your 2 posts and you will see that they have a different tone.
and you can apply your own platitude to it;"this type of assumptive behavior is exactly what I reference above as "antagonistic tone"

I believe we would all be well served to remind ourselves of the dangers inherent in online discourse, and remember that an extra layer or three of psychic 'skin' is necessary here, as we don't have the benefit of the subtle exchange of energy which can smooth the pathways of a similar conversation in person. Oh yes, but then what would we do with our computers?


With knickers neither twisted nor tented,
Have you tried Viagra?
or are you just juggling your balls, dude

your Lulu

Royce

[ThePhiant]

patrick, does that mean you are talking to the little people?



'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'—Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass.

I think I have beaten my head against this particular wall for long enough; I will just go for a nice long walk and enjoy the green sky and the pink grass.

Wake me up when sanity returns.

Patrick

[nicofrog]

It's amazing how people can have time to sit and type discuss on computer just reading 40% of it(No I did NOT Count the words) is more than I can fit in.
ah The INTELLECT how we flex it like a muscle.There are some people who LIVE for debate to be right and wrong is bigger than love itself!
GENDER DIFFERENCE IS AN ILLUSION WE CREATE TO KEEP US APART
Just like so many other isms. religions etc. miss or mister De Phiant
just loves to lock wits and befuddle everyone with a seemingly NEW viewpoint that is as old as anarchy.
My vote on kicking her ,him, or it off is why bother,if something is off the wall, responding to it is like throwing gasoline on a fire you want to put out.
Want to be hurt and outraged and bitter about society? just imagine being a hermaphrodite for awhile.Want to stop a fight? leave the bar.
Love ya all my dear parents were argumentaholics. I'm a reconciliateaholic.
Nico