[Grange]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speak...ifferently

Quote:

Women react more intensely to negative images than men, a difference that can be seen even when looking at their brains, a new study finds.

Researchers from University of Basel, whose study will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Neuroscience, found that women rated positive and negative images as more emotionally stimulating than men did, and that their brains were more active than men's when viewing negative pictures.

Such findings seem to support a common perception that women are more emotionally sensitive than men "and provides evidence for gender differences on the neural level," said lead author Annette Milnik of the University of Basel.

None of this will shock RVF members. Not posting the rest because this is the kind of thing that should get clicks.

Of course, towards the end they had to throw in "Researchers don't know why women's brains were more active than men's when looking at negative images, and whether it's a question of an innate quality or one that's the result of social conditioning." But "social conditioning" can't completely rewire the brain.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

"Researchers don't know why women's brains were more active than men's when looking at negative images, and whether it's a question of an innate quality or one that's the result of social conditioning."

Another way to write this sentence would be:

"Researchers ARE TOO AFRAID TO SAY why women's brains were more active than men's when looking at negative images, BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE JOBS AND NOT END UP FIRED LIKE THE PRESIDENT OF HARVARD AND OTHERS."

[Grange]

(01-25-2015 05:10 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

"Researchers don't know why women's brains were more active than men's when looking at negative images, and whether it's a question of an innate quality or one that's the result of social conditioning."

Another way to write this sentence would be:

"Researchers ARE TOO AFRAID TO SAY why women's brains were more active than men's when looking at negative images, BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE JOBS AND NOT END UP FIRED LIKE THE PRESIDENT OF HARVARD AND OTHERS."

The left always claims to "fucking love science" but I think innate differences between male and female brains are the consensus within these fields and it's the left who is silencing that consensus. You can't win with some people.

[Libertas]

The left silenced the science behind the bell curve two decades ago. This is just another example. They won't let anything that contradicts their postmodern social constructivist theories go ahead on its face.

They use science as a smokescreen to conceal their intentions. Law 3.

One thing we really need to do is detach the left from science. For some reason they have taken up the mantle of being the pro-science crowd. The right unfortunately bears a lot of the blame for this with their creationist nonsense and other such things, so that makes them an easy target.

The left does not support science. They only support it when it works within the confines of their equalist religion. Everything they accuse the right of doing with science they do as well, they are only much better at concealing it.

[DrewP]

Do these people also believe society conditions women to be shorter, have boobs and vaginas, have wider hips, store fat more uniformly, have higher pitched voices, have a tougher time building muscle, hit puberty earlier, and be able to give birth?

[DrewP]

(01-25-2015 06:12 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

The left silenced the science behind the bell curve two decades ago. This is just another example. They won't let anything that contradicts their postmodern social constructivist theories go ahead on its face.

They use science as a smokescreen to conceal their intentions. Law 3.

One thing we really need to do is detach the left from science. For some reason they have taken up the mantle of being the pro-science crowd. The right unfortunately bears a lot of the blame for this with their creationist nonsense and other such things, so that makes them an easy target.

The left does not support science. They only support it when it works within the confines of their equalist religion. Everything they accuse the right of doing with science they do as well, they are only much better at concealing it.

I would even go a step further. The left is far MORE anti-science than the right. The difference is that the right at least allows their ascientific nonsense to be challenged. They want creationism and evolution taught side by side in schools, which is a little on the ridiculous side, but they're not trying to silence evolutionary theory. Same with global warming- they're questioning stuff that's pretty much settled science, but they're not trying to suppress it.

Contrast that with how the left behaves regarding scientific findings that contradict their "equalist religion" as you nicely put it. They do everything in their power to destroy the lives of people who cite statistics/findings they don't like. I think most people on here know about Larry Summers; can you picture a person losing his job at an ostensibly non-political organization for suggesting that the planet is gradually warming?

The left has seized such a frightening level of control over people's minds that I feel dirty just for considering that there may be innate cognitive differences between racial groups. There is, of course, nothing objectively unreasonable about such a belief, but leftists go so far out of their way to demonize and destroy its believers that I'm afraid to have these thoughts even cross my mind. That, my friends, is textbook suppression.

td;dr- Conservatives deny, leftists deny AND suppress.

[RouteBackwards]

(01-25-2015 05:10 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

"Researchers don't know why women's brains were more active than men's when looking at negative images, and whether it's a question of an innate quality or one that's the result of social conditioning."

Another way to write this sentence would be:

"Researchers ARE TOO AFRAID TO SAY why women's brains were more active than men's when looking at negative images, BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE JOBS AND NOT END UP FIRED LIKE THE PRESIDENT OF HARVARD AND OTHERS."

While I am not shocked by these findings, there is still potential social conditioning could lead to neuronal differences in response if conditioned long enough. In other words, it'll be nearly impossible to determine what causes what unless we were to take two children girls and raise them differently and then scan their brains and compare differences.

[Old Fritz]

(01-25-2015 05:10 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

"Researchers don't know why women's brains were more active than men's when looking at negative images, and whether it's a question of an innate quality or one that's the result of social conditioning."

Another way to write this sentence would be:

"Researchers ARE TOO AFRAID TO SAY why women's brains were more active than men's when looking at negative images, BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE JOBS AND NOT END UP FIRED LIKE THE PRESIDENT OF HARVARD AND OTHERS."

The president of Harvard said something like this?

[TheWastelander]

I'll take a guess as to why men aren't as emotional: because we had to fight and kill shit and breaking down in tears would've gotten everyone in the tribe killed.

In the modern age women claim to get PTSD from having mean things said to them online.

Men get PTSD from getting blown up and watching their close friends die.

[CactusCat589]

(01-25-2015 07:11 PM)Old Fritz Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 05:10 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

"Researchers don't know why women's brains were more active than men's when looking at negative images, and whether it's a question of an innate quality or one that's the result of social conditioning."

Another way to write this sentence would be:

"Researchers ARE TOO AFRAID TO SAY why women's brains were more active than men's when looking at negative images, BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE JOBS AND NOT END UP FIRED LIKE THE PRESIDENT OF HARVARD AND OTHERS."

The president of Harvard said something like this?

Larry Summers said something along the lines of "Women are underrepresented in fields like science and engineering and founding companies because not many of them are in the high end of the bell curve."

[Dr. Howard]

(01-25-2015 06:43 PM)DrewP Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 06:12 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

The left silenced the science behind the bell curve two decades ago. This is just another example. They won't let anything that contradicts their postmodern social constructivist theories go ahead on its face.

They use science as a smokescreen to conceal their intentions. Law 3.

One thing we really need to do is detach the left from science. For some reason they have taken up the mantle of being the pro-science crowd. The right unfortunately bears a lot of the blame for this with their creationist nonsense and other such things, so that makes them an easy target.

The left does not support science. They only support it when it works within the confines of their equalist religion. Everything they accuse the right of doing with science they do as well, they are only much better at concealing it.

I would even go a step further. The left is far MORE anti-science than the right. The difference is that the right at least allows their ascientific nonsense to be challenged. They want creationism and evolution taught side by side in schools, which is a little on the ridiculous side, but they're not trying to silence evolutionary theory. Same with global warming- they're questioning stuff that's pretty much settled science, but they're not trying to suppress it.

Contrast that with how the left behaves regarding scientific findings that contradict their "equalist religion" as you nicely put it. They do everything in their power to destroy the lives of people who cite statistics/findings they don't like. I think most people on here know about Larry Summers; can you picture a person losing his job at an ostensibly non-political organization for suggesting that the planet is gradually warming?

The left has seized such a frightening level of control over people's minds that I feel dirty just for considering that there may be innate cognitive differences between racial groups. There is, of course, nothing objectively unreasonable about such a belief, but leftists go so far out of their way to demonize and destroy its believers that I'm afraid to have these thoughts even cross my mind. That, my friends, is textbook suppression.

td;dr- Conservatives deny, leftists deny AND suppress.

I'd have to agree. When was the last time a scientist was strung up or fired for studying jesus or publishing a result like "jesus may have just been a regular man or not existed at all".

[DrewP]

(01-25-2015 08:07 PM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 07:11 PM)Old Fritz Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 05:10 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

"Researchers don't know why women's brains were more active than men's when looking at negative images, and whether it's a question of an innate quality or one that's the result of social conditioning."

Another way to write this sentence would be:

"Researchers ARE TOO AFRAID TO SAY why women's brains were more active than men's when looking at negative images, BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE JOBS AND NOT END UP FIRED LIKE THE PRESIDENT OF HARVARD AND OTHERS."

The president of Harvard said something like this?

Larry Summers said something along the lines of "Women are underrepresented in fields like science and engineering and founding companies because not many of them are in the high end of the bell curve."

His exact words that got him into hot water:

Quote:

The second thing that I think one has to recognize is present is what I would call the combination of, and here, I'm focusing on something that would seek to answer the question of why is the pattern different in science and engineering, and why is the representation even lower and more problematic in science and engineering than it is in other fields. And here, you can get a fair distance, it seems to me, looking at a relatively simple hypothesis. It does appear that on many, many different human attributes—height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability—there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means—which can be debated—there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined. If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top twenty-five research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it's not even talking about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it's talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out. I did a very crude calculation, which I'm sure was wrong and certainly was unsubtle, twenty different ways. I looked at the Xie and Shauman paper-looked at the book, rather-looked at the evidence on the sex ratios in the top 5% of twelfth graders. If you look at those-they're all over the map, depends on which test, whether it's math, or science, and so forth, but 50% women, one woman for every two men, would be a high-end estimate from their estimates. From that, you can back out a difference in the implied standard deviations that works out to be about 20%. And from that, you can work out the difference out several standard deviations. If you do that calculation—and I have no reason to think that it couldn't be refined in a hundred ways—you get five to one, at the high end. Now, it's pointed out by one of the papers at this conference that these tests are not a very good measure and are not highly predictive with respect to people's ability to do that. And that's absolutely right. But I don't think that resolves the issue at all. Because if my reading of the data is right—it's something people can argue about—that there are some systematic differences in variability in different populations, then whatever the set of attributes are that are precisely defined to correlate with being an aeronautical engineer at MIT or being a chemist at Berkeley, those are probably different in their standard deviations as well. So my sense is that the unfortunate truth—I would far prefer to believe something else, because it would be easier to address what is surely a serious social problem if something else were true—is that the combination of the high-powered job hypothesis and the differing variances probably explains a fair amount of this problem.

He's being totally objective and citing something that's perfectly valid, statistically speaking. I think it just went over the heads of the SJWs. Rarely are they quantitatively-oriented, meaning they can't grasp the concept of statistical variance, or of two offset but overlapping bell curves. And instead of letting smarter people discuss these relatively complex issues, they force their hopelessly uninformed opinions on everyone.

[Michael P]

(01-25-2015 06:25 PM)DrewP Wrote:  

Do these people also believe society conditions women to be shorter, have boobs and vaginas, have wider hips, store fat more uniformly, have higher pitched voices, have a tougher time building muscle, hit puberty earlier, and be able to give birth?

I does me sorrow to say that a profesor at the best known university in Romania, and a "journalist" tells students:

"Scientist have proven that gender is a social construct. But now they are working on proving that sex is a social construct".

One cannot argue with someone that far gone.

[Daedmo]

(01-25-2015 06:07 PM)Grange Wrote:  

The left always claims to "fucking love science" but I think innate differences between male and female brains are the consensus within these fields and it's the left who is silencing that consensus. You can't win with some people.

I noticed that "I fucking love science" site and immediately knew it was leftist horse shit. The "mind blowing" scientific type articles are interspersed with that sickly leftist/humanist propaganda that is designed to make a woman go all misty-eyed and gooey. I thought to myself no man could be responsible for crap like this.

I went to Google and sure enough: Elise Andrew (born 1989) is a British blogger, and a science communicator. She is the founder and maintainer of the Facebook page "I fucking love science" (IFLS), a page on popular science that will feature as a television show in late 2014.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elise_Andrew

Here's how the media portrays her: Makes her look like Eisenstein right? You wouldn't think her qualifications are blogging and "communicating".


On the left we have Watson & Crick, a pair of real scientists who actually discovered the DNA molecular structure. On the right we have Elise Andrew, social media attention whore pretending to be a scientist.


Looks like she slammed into the wall at 26!

[kbell]

Breaking news, the sky is blue. Why did they spend money on this, it seems like common sense.

[Daedmo]

(01-25-2015 06:12 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

The left silenced the science behind the bell curve two decades ago. This is just another example. They won't let anything that contradicts their postmodern social constructivist theories go ahead on its face.

They use science as a smokescreen to conceal their intentions. Law 3.

One thing we really need to do is detach the left from science. For some reason they have taken up the mantle of being the pro-science crowd. The right unfortunately bears a lot of the blame for this with their creationist nonsense and other such things, so that makes them an easy target.

The left does not support science. They only support it when it works within the confines of their equalist religion. Everything they accuse the right of doing with science they do as well, they are only much better at concealing it.

They've taken over the humanities and now they're moving on to science.

Leftist science is about identifying a political or social goal, then inventing a problem that would require a solution that would advance that goal. That's environmentalism in a nutshell.

Global Warming is the biggest scientific fraud in history, but because it's all about wealth redistribution, blaming capitalism, sending money to international organizations and having global binding treaties the left unquestionably support it.

I also find it amusing that the left sneer at creationists and support Darwinian theories of evolution while at the same time insisting that human populations that have been separate for tens of thousands of years are identical in every conceivable way. When it comes to race leftists are the creationists.

[Daedmo]

(01-25-2015 11:18 PM)kbell Wrote:  

Breaking news, the sky is blue. Why did they spend money on this, it seems like common sense.

Reminds me of the study a few years ago that amazingly discovered men enjoy looking at shapely women's tits and asses.