Women are better hunter, science suggests

[Natasha Tori Maru]

This debate is like arguing why your arm is better than your leg

[Alexop]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But I was being serious. Women are probably better at those tasks if you organize everyone on a bell curve.

I can agree.

[Alexop]

12 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This debate is like arguing why your arm is better than your leg

I understand. But it also is a very important subject. We need to understand it as society if we want to fix it. I personally don't discuss it just to inflate my manly ego, I just see again and again how dysfunctional we are because we don't get it. I also live in Sweden, which makes it 2x worse.

I am women too, I am everything. I see society as my body. My arms are good at some stuff, my legs at other stuff. We have to debunk people who come and present studies that claim we can run well on our arms too if we really want. 

I am sure you would've like to see better men around. Men who are confident, responsible, fun, but also safe and cozy. This is what I want to see. What I see here in Sweden, is a bunch of boring scared boys who are making women choose to have children alone.

Edited 2 hours ago by Alexop

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Alexop oh I think the topic is a good one for discussion - it just easily turns into weighting how important one trait is vs another. How much each sex has of each trait. Then people's personal bias and opinion on what is "masculine" "feminine" gets slapped in with reasoning that research doesn't support. 

It's when it gets into these mirky waters and bias infects it all that I tune out and find little value remaining.

I dislike where it typically goes, not the topic itself 😊

[oOo]

11 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@oOo I don’t know what your saying? We’ve largely contested the article have you read any of the responses? Am I wrong?

@Thought Art yes, I read the objections. My point is that a headline can mislead people who disagree with it, too.

If a journalist announces that physicists have abolished gravity, replying “Scientists are idiots, my mug still hits the floor” rejects the conclusion while faithfully accepting the journalist’s account of the physicists.

The journalist still supplied the story, the reader just added an angry soundtrack.

That’s the distinction I’m making about replies that move from this article to dismissing science itself, so rejecting what the research supposedly established isn’t the same as checking what it actually established.

The researchers arguments deserve scrutiny too. I’d just give them the courtesy of being criticised for something they actually argued.

Otherwise, the attempt to expose science as a religion begins by accepting a journalist’s account on faith @Alexop.

This is a circus thread, I'd prefer to call it that rather than being another example of "sycophantic cesspool" as I have previously diagnosed.

I'm waiting for the next act, one thing I've always admired personally are the acrobatics of many circus acts; truly Olympic first class some of them. I swear some of the gentlemen here would rival in word salad acrobatics; its an impressive display, and as far as I can see it as long as you take it all as an act, no body digitally gets hurt.