Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Gender own group preference

Page 2 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Closet Genious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2017
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,225
Location: Sweden

15 Jul 2017, 9:26 am

Aaron Rhodes wrote:
Quote:
I don't think a sample size of 1 million people is required to get interesting and useful data.


And yet 204 college students are enough to base their theory on the behavior of all mankind? And do you know how reliable the Implicit Association Test really is? I would hope that when you read that article that you at least did some research on their methods. It hardly provides interesting or useful data if it is based on a faulty study.

Yes, the behavior you have described does still exist, but you should be careful about making those generalizations. From what it sounds like, you're saying that all men and all women act in the way you have described, which certainly isn't true. You're basically making very broad generalizations of both gender groups and providing unreliable 'proof' of your claim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is against the WP rules, so I would suggest either rephrasing your statements, or find a more reliable source to back up your claims.


That is not the only thing I base my beliefs on. My 23 years of living on this planet has provided me with more than enough evidence, and of course there are lots of other sources of data on this aswell.
I don't buy that I should be careful about generalizing, at a core instinctual level, humans aren't really as individualistic as they would like to believe(ime).

I don't, and I never will care about "rules", especially not rules that are nonsensical.



Aaron Rhodes
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 17 Jun 2017
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 152

15 Jul 2017, 12:57 pm

Again, your own personal experience does not dictate that all men around the world act in that manner. Yes, it's obvious that those are men's base instincts, but that does not mean that every male on the planet acts on those instincts. That's a very distinct fact that you seem to be overlooking, simply because your experiences influence your little personal agenda. And since when are rules that protect groups against generalized claims nonsensical? Your claim is that men are automatically against their own gender group because they have those base instincts, which in my opinion sounds like a clear stereotype. You haven't really been doing much to help your argument.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

15 Jul 2017, 5:42 pm

My 56 years on this planet has informed me that men and women, usually, do not act upon their base instincts.

Rather, rational thought is used, which frequently informs us that basing actions upon base instincts will ensure a short life, and are otherwise not in our best interest.



Closet Genious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2017
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,225
Location: Sweden

16 Jul 2017, 10:19 am

Aaron Rhodes wrote:
Again, your own personal experience does not dictate that all men around the world act in that manner. Yes, it's obvious that those are men's base instincts, but that does not mean that every male on the planet acts on those instincts. That's a very distinct fact that you seem to be overlooking, simply because your experiences influence your little personal agenda. And since when are rules that protect groups against generalized claims nonsensical? Your claim is that men are automatically against their own gender group because they have those base instincts, which in my opinion sounds like a clear stereotype. You haven't really been doing much to help your argument.


That is true, and I will grant you that I haven't done much to support my arguement. The litterature I've read, and the arguements I've heard, based around evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, has gotten me to place where this just seems like common sense to me. I guess I just can't be bothered to explain it properly, because it would be too time consuming and most people are naturally opposed to these ideas. I also have to admit that there are people much smarter than me who would be able to convey it much better anyways.

If you won't buy the premise, that's totally fine.


I have to say though, instincts shape behaviour subconsciously, so you can't just say "I don't act on my instincs". To a certain extent we all do, so to my knowledge, that is not a distinct "fact" at all.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

16 Jul 2017, 10:47 am

Evolutionary psychology seemed like a swamp of confirmation bias with very little research to back up some of its many claims. I grilled my psych professors pretty hard about it, and they couldn't come back with much.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Closet Genious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2017
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,225
Location: Sweden

16 Jul 2017, 10:58 am

jrjones9933 wrote:
Evolutionary psychology seemed like a swamp of confirmation bias with very little research to back up some of its many claims. I grilled my psych professors pretty hard about it, and they couldn't come back with much.


I've heard alot of criticism of it, and of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Personally I have yet to find a better alternative to explain human behavior, and I find it alot more reliable and sensical than other opposing ideas, such as the idea of social and cultural constructs.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,051
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

16 Jul 2017, 11:10 am

jrjones9933 wrote:
Evolutionary psychology seemed like a swamp of confirmation bias with very little research to back up some of its many claims. I grilled my psych professors pretty hard about it, and they couldn't come back with much.


and do you find psychiatry and regular psychology more reliable and scientific?



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

16 Jul 2017, 12:01 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Evolutionary psychology seemed like a swamp of confirmation bias with very little research to back up some of its many claims. I grilled my psych professors pretty hard about it, and they couldn't come back with much.


and do you find psychiatry and regular psychology more reliable and scientific?

Social Psychology has an extensive basis in research. A scandal involving fake data about a decade ago, and a massive replication project about 4 years ago led to much higher standards. They faced up to problems with the research. The science reporting on this topic still needs work.

Just scan a few random recent articles on Evolutionary and Social Psychology. The former will have more speculation and fewer citations of experiments. Since you can't expect people to conduct randomized trials of evolution in humans, you can't expect a 1-1 comparison, but the measurement overturns a lot of common sense.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Spyoon
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2016
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 106

16 Jul 2017, 1:28 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
[...]Evolutionary psychology seemed like a swamp of confirmation bias with very little research to back up some of its many claims. [...]

I second that. For evolutionary psychology to start being something more that a leisure activity , we first need a precise genetic tie to psychological traits,which we still lack, for better or for worse.
jrjones9933 wrote:
A scandal involving fake data about a decade ago, and a massive replication project about 4 years ago led to much higher standards. They faced up to problems with the research.

Where can I read more about that?


_________________
not diagnosed
sorry for butchering the english language and obsessively re-editing my posts.


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,051
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

16 Jul 2017, 1:41 pm

I still don't understand why Psychiatry is more valid than Evolutionary psychology.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,051
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

16 Jul 2017, 1:43 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Evolutionary psychology seemed like a swamp of confirmation bias with very little research to back up some of its many claims. I grilled my psych professors pretty hard about it, and they couldn't come back with much.


and do you find psychiatry and regular psychology more reliable and scientific?

Social Psychology has an extensive basis in research. A scandal involving fake data about a decade ago, and a massive replication project about 4 years ago led to much higher standards. They faced up to problems with the research. The science reporting on this topic still needs work.

Just scan a few random recent articles on Evolutionary and Social Psychology. The former will have more speculation and fewer citations of experiments. Since you can't expect people to conduct randomized trials of evolution in humans, you can't expect a 1-1 comparison, but the measurement overturns a lot of common sense.



ummm.....not very convinced, but ok

What about Psychiatry??



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,051
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

16 Jul 2017, 1:44 pm

Spyoon wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
[...]Evolutionary psychology seemed like a swamp of confirmation bias with very little research to back up some of its many claims. [...]

I second that. For evolutionary psychology to start being something more that a leisure activity , we first need a precise genetic tie to psychological traits,which we still lack, for better or for worse.
jrjones9933 wrote:
A scandal involving fake data about a decade ago, and a massive replication project about 4 years ago led to much higher standards. They faced up to problems with the research.

Where can I read more about that?


And Psychiatry is more valid and true? Answer me, Aspies.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

16 Jul 2017, 2:15 pm

Psychiatry doesn't put its best foot forward as far as therapy to patients is concerned. They frequently just medicate people, and ignore the rest.

Fellow patients and support staff are frequently the best "therapists in a mental hospital setting.



Spyoon
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2016
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 106

16 Jul 2017, 2:23 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
And Psychiatry is more valid and true? Answer me, Aspies.

Kind of, it depends on what psychiatrists claim and what evidence they base their theories on. :mrgreen:
Generally they do have a plethora of methods for measuring biochemical and physiological data. And then they can apply statistical tools to evaluate their findings. I am sadly biased against the field myself , especially when it comes to identifying disorders and therapies.


_________________
not diagnosed
sorry for butchering the english language and obsessively re-editing my posts.


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

16 Jul 2017, 2:31 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Just scan a few random recent articles on Evolutionary and Social Psychology. The former will have more speculation and fewer citations of experiments. Since you can't expect people to conduct randomized trials of evolution in humans, you can't expect a 1-1 comparison, but the measurement overturns a lot of common sense.



ummm.....not very convinced, but ok

What about Psychiatry??

I don't know if my homework assignment ;-) will convince you, but it's a start.

Psychiatry has a lot of research support for the effectiveness of their drugs in a particular context. I think they need to consider context more deeply, in general, but many individual psychiatrists do so.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,051
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

16 Jul 2017, 2:42 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Just scan a few random recent articles on Evolutionary and Social Psychology. The former will have more speculation and fewer citations of experiments. Since you can't expect people to conduct randomized trials of evolution in humans, you can't expect a 1-1 comparison, but the measurement overturns a lot of common sense.



ummm.....not very convinced, but ok

What about Psychiatry??

I don't know if my homework assignment ;-) will convince you, but it's a start.

Psychiatry has a lot of research support for the effectiveness of their drugs in a particular context. I think they need to consider context more deeply, in general, but many individual psychiatrists do so.


Spyoon wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
And Psychiatry is more valid and true? Answer me, Aspies.

Kind of, it depends on what psychiatrists claim and what evidence they base their theories on. :mrgreen:
Generally they do have a plethora of methods for measuring biochemical and physiological data. And then they can apply statistical tools to evaluate their findings. I am sadly biased against the field myself , especially when it comes to identifying disorders and therapies.



Dudes, are you aware that.... ASPERGER SYNDROME, is just a Psychiatric diagnosis and has no existence at all in medical diagnosis references? Because AS has no clear biological definition for its molecular mechanism (ie. the exact location of mutation, the exact missing chromosome part....etc) like Down Syndrome or Williams syndrome.

Rett Syndrome for example was a Psychiatric diagnosis in DSM, but it was removed from DSM and 'evolved' to a medical diagnosis after research proving its molecular mechanism. No diagnosis can coexist on both, it's either this or that.

But so far, no research could determine that for AS; there's still no organic test (ie. blood test) proving the existence of AS in a person; its diagnosis is all based on behavior.

So questioning Psychiatry would really lead to questioning AS as well, if Psychiatry is a lie then AS is possibly a lie or simply a social construct; therefore we are all might be living a lie here and the whole WP is based on...a fictional idea.

Quote:
I don't know if my homework assignment ;-) will convince you, but it's a start.

Psychiatry has a lot of research support for the effectiveness of their drugs in a particular context. I think they need to consider context more deeply, in general, but many individual psychiatrists do so.


Actually Psychiatry is the most controversial field out of the three, even more controversial than evolutionary psychology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment