Summary

In addition, you speak of emotional vulnerability, which you seem to attribute to my “mud slinging”

The mud slinging (as in the verbal insults) is attributed to emotional vulnerability and not the other way around.

Mud slinging and violence is actually a trait more commonly associated with high levels of testosterone. Meaning men are more prone to loss of emotional control due to aggitation. On average. Does this mean men in general are more emotionally vulnerable?

You are confusing volatility with vulnerability.  Testosterone may intensify escalation once provoked, but the “tipping point” is still a function of how fragile or strong their ego is.  More testosterone does not make men more “emotionally vulnerable”.

…Emotional vulnerability occurs in both sexes, in a variety of ways, where one type of emotional vulnerability is more probable to occur on one side of the sex

There is ONE kind of “emotional vulnerability” being addressed here.  As was said above, when someone’s self-esteem is fragile, and that esteem is tied to one’s argument, they will feel personally slighted when the argument is dismantled.

We are seven billion people on this planet, and not the only species around, and its consistently observed that these variations occur all the time. We also know why they occur.

As it was mentioned before, this is just another attempt to dismiss trends by claiming the existence of natural variation automatically negates predictive modeling.  When someone cannot safely guess the gender of an individual 99 times out of 100 when they have a beard… you still wouldn’t be correct.

Logics and semantics will only get you so far. I can tell you’re used to “being right” because you use these two attributes in the way you do, and you’re probably well aware of the fact that Aristotle was an insightful man with ideas that still apply today for this very reason.

Seriously? ROFL.

So, when one can prove something logically, and, explain that logic with precision and detail, it falls short of the task?  This is odd coming from someone who is relies on the efficacy of modern neurology.  Should one be inventing new words or expanding on Boolean here?

The difference between you and Aristotle, however, is that he lived in an age where such knowledge did not exist. You live in an age where this knowledge not only exists, but is publically available for all. And you can’t be bothered to read up on it before you discuss any given topic.

One is mistaking the acumen of applying knowledge with the act of merely demonstrating the breadth of one’s ingested information. People often attempt to intimidate others with credentials and domain familiarity. Do you really think that you are the ONLY person that has delved into the science behind all of this (merely because others do not attempt to lord their knowledge over others)?

You talk of observations in nature, seemingly oblivious to the fact that these observations in fact do not support your idea, but are consistent with what I’m trying to explain. And if I were to guess your reaction on that, I’d say you are likely to ignore the evidence, and not reanimate your ideas based on newly obtained information. This makes your ideas about the sexes your own personal religion. It’s based on belief, not evidence. And no amount of semantics is going to change that.

The ways in which your theory has clearly not been demonstrated in reality have been explained in detail.  I have gone to a reasonable amount of effort to explain how you misconstrue probability and statistics to fit your case.  You may claim that those who don’t follow your beliefs to be following a “personal religion”.  However, being that it is really just you that creates these theories and justifies them with selective cognition of science, I have confidence that the audience at large will not be in agreement with you.  Your theories fail because they are based on fallacy.

Details

…I, in your Mud

Bella Said:

In addition, you speak of emotional vulnerability, which you seem to attribute to my “mud slinging”.

Answer:
Interestingly you have the cause and effect reversed.  The mud slinging (as in the verbal insults) is attributed to emotional vulnerability and not the other way around.  This seems trivial, but it is not.

…Skipping a “Beating”

Bella Said:

Mud slinging and violence is actually a trait more commonly associated with high levels of testosterone. Meaning men are more prone to loss of emotional control due to aggitation. On average. Does this mean men in general are more emotionally vulnerable?

Answer:

You are confusing volatility with vulnerability.

While an elevated amount of testosterone can increase aggression, the activation of the desire to intentionally injure others (whether it be via words online, or via fists in real life) is a function of one’s self-image (as in self-esteem) and how easily that is shattered.

Testosterone may intensify escalation once provoked, but the “tipping point” is still a function of how fragile or strong their ego is.  If an adversary’s action is not perceived as a threat to one’s self-esteem, then the retaliatory action is not taken. The predilection to violence is not the issue.  It’s whether or not one feels “hurt”.

Hence no.  More testosterone does not make men more “emotionally vulnerable”.

The emotional vulnerability referenced here is all about how personally attached one becomes to a discussion.  When one cannot distinguish between one’s argument and one’s self-image it betrays some emotional vulnerability.  We see this when people personally attack others once their arguments are dismantled before their peers.

Vulnera-disability

…Bella Said:

And this should be needless to say: Emotional vulnerability occurs in both sexes, in a variety of ways, where one type of emotional vulnerability is more probable to occur on one side of the sex than the other. But again, these are only probabilities, and does in no way mean that all men are equal, or inequal to all women.

Answer:
Please.  Even simple men like myself are aware of deflective tactics.  It is needless to say because it is really irrelevant.

There is ONE kind of “emotional vulnerability” being addressed here.  As was said above, when someone’s self-esteem is fragile, and that esteem is tied to one’s argument, they will feel personally slighted when the argument is dismantled.

We witness this when people attempt to hide this from themselves, by falliciously claiming universal variation implies essentially gender agnostic results (which it apparently isn’t).

…Probability ad nauseam

Bella Said:

We are seven billion people on this planet, and not the only species around, and its consistently observed that these variations occur all the time. We also know why they occur.

Answer:
As it was mentioned before, this is just another attempt to dismiss trends by claiming the existence of natural variation automatically negates predictive modeling.  When someone cannot safely guess the gender of an individual 99 times out of 100 when they have a beard… you still wouldn’t be correct.

…Logic is Dead, Long live Randomness

Bella Said:

Logics and semantics will only get you so far. I can tell you’re used to “being right” because you use these two attributes in the way you do, and you’re probably well aware of the fact that Aristotle was an insightful man with ideas that still apply today for this very reason.

However. Logics and semantics alone, without knowledge for the topic you’re discussing, especially if its a complex scientific topic, will bring you to a dead end. This is also true of aristotle, who believed the world consisted of four elements. Which of course is not true at all, but he lacked the knowledge we have today of the chemical elements, and as such his conclusions were wrong.

Answer:
Seriously? ROFL.

So, when one can prove something logically, and, explain that logic with precision and detail, it falls short of the task?  This is odd coming from someone who is relies on the efficacy of modern neurology.  Should one be inventing new words or expanding on Boolean here?

Whether I am used to being right is moot and beyond the scope of this discussion.  Whether or not the argument presented is comprehensively correct is the goal. Being objective and supporting what holds water is the best way to “being right”.  It shouldn’t be too hard to get used to.

Aristotle’s view of the world?  If the model of the physical world doesn’t explain a phenomenon, that doesn’t mean the phenomenon isn’t happening.  It just means that the model is inadequate.  His observations were likely still correct.  Applying selective cognition, or relying on a plea to ignorance (“there’s too much variation to know for sure”) is more in line with “wrong” conclusions.

In any case, you are merely trying to cast dispersions by suggesting that your opposition is mired in archaic thinking.  Remember that part about attempting to “injure those who disagree with you”?

…Following the Reader

Bella said:

The difference between you and Aristotle, however, is that he lived in an age where such knowledge did not exist. You live in an age where this knowledge not only exists, but is publically available for all. And you can’t be bothered to read up on it before you discuss any given topic.

Answer:

One is mistaking the acumen of applying knowledge with the act of merely demonstrating the breadth of one’s ingested information.

People often attempt to intimidate others with credentials and domain familiarity (the best description I could think of for having read a lot on a topic, so forgive the choice of words).  This is usually done when their theories aren’t really valid (as in the your theory’s case).  The concept of Occam’s Razor applies here.  Your ideas fall short with the simplest tests.  No foray into the science will counter that failure.

Do you really think that you are the ONLY person that has delved into the science behind all of this (merely because others do not attempt to lord their knowledge over others)?

…Hitting denial on the head

Bella said:

You talk of observations in nature, seemingly oblivious to the fact that these observations in fact do not support your idea, but are consistent with what I’m trying to explain. And if I were to guess your reaction on that, I’d say you are likely to ignore the evidence, and not reanimate your ideas based on newly obtained information. This makes your ideas about the sexes your own personal religion. It’s based on belief, not evidence. And no amount of semantics is going to change that.

 

Answer:
LOL.  This is just too rich!

The ways in which your theory has clearly not been demonstrated in reality have been explained in detail.  I have gone to a reasonable amount of effort to explain how you misconstrue probability and statistics to fit your case.  The record shows that you have summarily ignored these exhibits and now you are projecting this behaviour onto your opposition!

It is common for zealots to do this.  You may claim that those who don’t follow your beliefs to be following a “personal religion”.  However, being that it is really just you that creates these theories and justifies them with selective cognition of science, I have confidence that the audience at large will not be in agreement with you.

Semantics?

You are merely trying to dismiss the dismantling of your biased view as only a result of clever literature.  This isn’t the case.  The theories fail because they are based on fallacy.