JRBids
Senior Member.
and it would never occur to me to debunk sugar in PSLs cause everyone knows they arent literally toxic, or we'd all be poisoned already.
Kinda like CHEMTRAILS? But that fact escapes the devotees.
and it would never occur to me to debunk sugar in PSLs cause everyone knows they arent literally toxic, or we'd all be poisoned already.
No. Most of us are different creatures.
i dont know how other women feel, but the only 'sexist' (kinda) thing that stands out to me in discussing such issues is: What makes men think we need their help? It seems the question men are asking is "what can we do to get more women into the 'elite' scepticism circle".Now back to our only borderline sexist discussion......
A debunk from a woman would carry as much weight as one from a man (given the same quality of accuracy and clearness). It would be absurd and irrational in the extreme to reject information depending on the gender of the communicator and no self-respecting critical thinker would ever do that.It's not like men really listen to us anyway (be honest).
Personally i dont care how many sceptic women there are. I care how many women are READING the sceptic sites and/or at least talking amongst themselves about these issues.
That's a somewhat idealized view of reality. Not only are most people not very good critical thinkers, but even the good ones have varying degrees of gender preconceptions.A debunk from a woman would carry as much weight as one from a man (given the same quality of accuracy and clearness). It would be absurd and irrational in the extreme to reject information depending on the gender of the communicator and no self-respecting critical thinker would ever do that.
i saw this last night..speaking of critical thinkingThat's a somewhat idealized view of reality. Not only are most people not very good critical thinkers, but even the good ones have varying degrees of gender preconceptions.
Female-named hurricanes kill more than male hurricanes because people dont respect them.
People don't take hurricanes as seriously if they have a feminine name and the consequences are deadly, finds a new groundbreaking study. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...because-people-dont-respect-them-study-finds/
Metabunk men are better than most in that regards. Actually Metabunk men are better than most in many regards. But Metabunk is not typical, IMO.A debunk from a woman would carry as much weight as one from a man (given the same quality of accuracy and clearness). It would be absurd and irrational in the extreme to reject information depending on the gender of the communicator and no self-respecting critical thinker would ever do that.
One (the right brain) is visual and processes information in an intuitive and simultaneous way, looking first at the whole picture then the details. The other (the left brain) is verbal and processes information in an analytical and sequential way, looking first at the pieces then putting them together to get the whole. Sperry was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1981.
It seems about 2/3 male reading here at Metabunk.
"clearness" is an interesting word. So basically, as long as we write and express and think like men
My question is "why do you need more women?" It's not like men really listen to us anyway (be honest).
no i'm not toying with you. Many times what is perfectly clear to me, seems to be completely lost on some members.Clarity is an essential component in any debunk and a basic cognitive function, certainly not something I would imagine is gender exclusive. If it is then I seriously have to re-evaluate my ideas of gender equality.
I'm not sure if you're just toying with me or not.
For ex.. with young children aged say 4-6 first learnign to do multiple piece puzzles. When you do puzzles with them there is a noticeable difference between boys and girls. girls 'primarily' look for the picture/the color. Boys... i dont know what their brains are doing because it makes no sense, but it works fine as far as putting the puzzle together.. i think boys maybe look at the SHAPE of the piece more than the picture printed on it. Geek little boys esp this is very noticeable. They are excellant with the straight edges, which girls typically have quite some trouble with and they seem completely oblivious to the actual picture even when the color is right there in front of their face! Its cute. and weird. But i think it a matter of left brain vs right brain dominance.
Just out of curiosity, how do you track these figures? Also, is anything known about the age breakdown of members here?Some interesting Metabunk gender stats:
More men, and they tend to be significantly more likely to click on another page.
Here's age stats:
Older people pay more attention.
Looks like my most interested audience is males aged 45-54. Which is me.
Just out of curiosity, how do you track these figures? Also, is anything known about the age breakdown of members here?
That's quite interesting - I had been under the impression that susceptibility to CT belief is a feature of youth, and further that reluctance to challenge one's beliefs is a feature of age. Perhaps I'm wrong on both counts?Looks like my most interested audience is males aged 45-54. Which is me.
There's no info on the age of members, but suspect it tends a bit older.
That's quite interesting - I had been under the impression that susceptibility to CT belief is a feature of youth, and further that reluctance to challenge one's beliefs is a feature of age. Perhaps I'm wrong on both counts?
Touché, but not entering any gender is itself sort of a 'gender neutral' option, isn't it?I can't recall if it was an option signing up but a gender neutral option should certainly be included. Especially if you want to be open to 'everyone' going into the future. Lifes probably been tougher for such folk so may automatically veer to the side they feel more accepted.
I can't recall if it was an option signing up but a gender neutral option should certainly be included. Especially if you want to be open to 'everyone' going into the future. Lifes probably been tougher for such folk so may automatically veer to the side they feel more accepted.
I mostly agree, but I wouldn't quite put it that way - I find that when I argue with my friends, who are mostly university students, I find a lot of reluctance to concede even when it's clear that they have no counter-argument - these arguments often end with blank stares and begrudging 'Really?'s. But I have also found that sometimes they will re-examine their opinions (I've converted a handful of initially conservative friends into moderate-centrist types and at least one into a social-democrat!) whereas I cannot recall ever having made an older person change her mind. (Given my political and philosophical positions, it's almost inevitable that I find at least one significant area of disagreement with everyone I discuss these topics with.)With young people, the problem is not reluctance to change their beliefs, it's the willingness to believe everything they read and hear.
it's their willingness (wanting) to believe more 'fantastical' things, anti-establishment things. "The Man is bad" (in America "The Man" is mostly cops but also gov and parents to an extent).I mostly agree, but I wouldn't quite put it that way - I find that when I argue with my friends, who are mostly university students, I find a lot of reluctance to concede even when it's clear that they have no counter-argument
Currently the options are:
With the default being "unspecified". About 80% of the people who registered this year picked a gender. I suspect many who did not simply missed the option.
Theres no easy way to add options there anyway, I could remove it entirely - but then it's optional, and not something I think people pay attention to.
um... ew. (youre obviously not Americana gentlemans club
'lack' is probably insensitiveTouché, but not entering any gender is itself sort of a 'gender neutral' option, isn't it?
The way I see it, there are two genders, and some people fit into 'male', some into 'female', and some into neither - ie 'neutral' is the lack of a gender, not a gender in and of itself (I hope this isn't an insensitive position!). Perhaps you see it differently?
That's a somewhat idealized view of reality. Not only are most people not very good critical thinkers, but even the good ones have varying degrees of gender preconceptions.
Come on, everybody knows that to do a jigsaw most efficiently you first find all the straight edges! What kind of fuzzy female brain looks at the pretty colours?
There are many gender differences in psychology and neurology, some of which are genetic (wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psychology).
That said, I think there's no reason to assume that any humans - male or female - are really all that good at critical thinking. Homo sapiens evolved to swing clubs, build huts and inspire each other to bash skulls; the job description doesn't include rumination on The Meaning of Life, The Universe and Everything and I see no reason to think that the applicants are capable of such. However, the job does involve self-deception (possibly as a mechanism to better deceive others, according to the great evolutionary psychologist Robert Trivers), and given that we now have a lot of evidence that self-deception is a major part of the way we think about almost anything, it seems unreasonable to assume that our critical thinking ever is truly free of distortion.
(Edit - Furthermore, self-deception makes a mockery of even our attempts at appraisal of our critical thinking.)
it's their willingness (wanting) to believe more 'fantastical' things, anti-establishment things. "The Man is bad" (in America "The Man" is mostly cops but also gov and parents to an extent).
They also still like "stories", vampires and zombies and the evil queen becomes the evil government. Her henchmen become cops.
It's not a condemnation on young people. at all! It's just how development works. Their database of experience is still small and they are still outgrowing "a story before bed".
That's just a developmental thing, and is perfectly normal.
Also..."parents (adults) are stupid and old fashioned neanderthals". Non-Conformity IS a major part of what that phase of development is all about. That's why every young generation find physical ways to non-conform too. My generation was putting 6 earrings in each ear and dying your hair pink, then came tribal tattoos and such, then they started sticking jewelry in their faces, now they stretch out their earlobes and wear funny hats.
If they believed everything they hear, they would listen to [responsible, no-fun] adults who give them advice! But by and large, they don't.
Calvinball does seem to be a largely male phenomenon, based on an exhaustive survey of the set "all the kids on the playground that are in earshot as I work". I have noted several particularly fluid rule sets used this summer, all in all-male or heavily male-dominated groups.I used to write book indexes, mostly psych, sociology books, and one interesting thing I read was that when little girls and little boys play, girls usually insisted on sticking to the rules, while boys changed the rules to suit the flow of the game.
Calvinball does seem to be a largely male phenomenon, based on an exhaustive survey of the set "all the kids on the playground that are in earshot as I work". I have noted several particularly fluid rule sets used this summer, all in all-male or heavily male-dominated groups.
However, I'm not sure this is not also based on societal roles. Men are certainly encouraged to suit the world to themselves, while women, even successful women, more often suit themselves to the world. Cf. female execs needing to exhibit 'male' traits to advance.
? you study kids on playgrounds for a living?based on an exhaustive survey of the set "all the kids on the playground that are in earshot as I work".
I think primarily they are just 'coping mechanisms'. Transference. Like many many adults do. The only difference i see vs. 'mainstream adults', is an elevated level of distrust in humanity (which is kinda hard to argue with!) and insecurity/fear.I think there are a lot of older conspiracy believers who still believe in "stories" and don't trust anyone. I think many of the believers are cases of arrested development.
Many loners choose to be so because they find relationships distracting.I would think people who don't have close relationships would tend to be loners and might be loners because they don't trust which might make it a vicious circle that would be unsettling.
Park district horticulturist. Same difference.? you study kids on playgrounds for a living?