Jump to content

Miser

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-9 Poor

About Miser

  • Rank
    Meson

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Psychology

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Below are articles which discusses the different results of brain changes due to sexual activity in animals: (respectively) down regulation of androgen receptors, up regulation of estrogen receptors and the release of dopamine blocking opioids. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23707935 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17239879 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11844571 How well do you think these animal subjects serve in elucidating the relationship in humans between ejaculation and brain changes? In addition, do we know what these androgen receptors and estrogen receptors in t
  2. That's not what I mean. Objectivity is in nature subjective. After all, man is the measure of all things. But don't take this too far, there are truths that are more comprehensive and precise than others. Like that of a statistically significant finding being much more reliable than the mere opinion of an individual. Yet, this doesn't mean the individual's opinions are completely useless. I don't want to get into that right now. We're straying again. Its implicit in any experiment the necessity of the double-blind condition. I didn't ignore it, if I did I must have thought it a redundant c
  3. Aren't you also arguing with a signpost then. Like I said, beyond the scope. And I will argue successfully, I wouldn't make claims that have no basis. You definitely seemed to have made the consideration. And that's not the point. Now you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing, and not to get at any higher truths.
  4. I would argue that subjective is objective, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion
  5. That's very big of you. I appreciate that. As of now, I rely on the subjective judgment of say 10 objective judges that is to be watching the experiment through a camera in another room. They are to judge the masculinity/femininity of the experimental subject on a 1-10 point scale. The subject would then proceed to conducting a series of tasks which would elicit complaining. See #47 48 The average judgment of the 10 would serve as the independent variable, As Ringer pointed out, this is not perfect, but it is my provisional attempt, and, dare I say, more congruent with the current
  6. And so I did. I responded to every concern possible. I have clarified how Masculinity and Femininity could be objectively recorded in the scientific literature via objective judges and then some. What you don't find clear about, please state them. I don't rather care that I am wrong, what concerns me is how unsatisfying your counter-arguments are. Granted, some are right and I have done my best to address them. And how have I been wrong? He oversimplified my claim to say that I've perceived every statement you've made is an attack. This is not the case. The ad hominem that I see were r
  7. By oversimplifying my position, you've committed the straw man fallacy. There's no question about it. And you shouldn't be stubborn. Uh huh, like you weren't the one who also diverted the topic. Your holier than thou atttude is undeserved. Leave the discussion, how much have you contributed? Good riddance
  8. Nice try what? What am I trying? And I did try to clarify it for you. You should read the following post. I emphasized that the discussion is in nature subjective. Look to the above to find my provisional definition. If it doesn't satisfy you, as it doesn't me, provide me a better one. That's in no way a diversion from the topic nor is it essentially hostile. Good approach! That's definitely not a straw-person argument to what I have said. You've shown how definitely a classy gentleman you are.
  9. That's true. It is thus why its important to rely on the good judgement of the individual to discern good articles from bad ones. Wikipedia provides information, but it is too broad in scope. To find specialized knowledge, it is best to use PT. Admittedly though, some make claims without reference and that can be annoying. That article in particular is probably the result of his intuitive reasoning. Maybe that means little among hard scientists but it is still quite important to acknowledge. To digress a bit, I would say we have to separate the effects of 'the phonetic improvement from pho
  10. Now here's someone who knows how to handle people. The man-flu, and the following comparisons to women were not relevant to the discussion. Whether women complain more was never part of the topic. Perhaps I shouldn't be so critical. After-all, it was an attempt to attach relevant research to the dialogue. Fair enough. Though fundamentally, I disagree to the claim that Wikipedia is better than Psychology Today as a scientific source. Both try to be a scientific as possible. Depending on the article, appropriate reference may or may not be found. But people's ideas are the people t
  11. First, I'd like to thank you for your friendlier tone. I disagree. Psychology Today tends to have good references. Ones without it I would overlook as being poorly cited. Whether Psychology Today is a good source largely depends on the discernment of the reader. The wikipedia article that he cited, notably that of the Man Flu, was reported by the 'Daily mail', 'The Daily Telegraph' and 'BBC World service'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_flu Are these good sources? You decide. This discussion isn't in nature a scientific one. I merely wanted to survey reactions of the viewers. The
  12. Response to post #19 First, you seem to fallaciously believe that somehow wikipedia links are superior to Psychology Today articles (which are articles written by psychologists based on the frontier of psychological research. The tangent that you went on makes no sense to me. What I said in passing, you analyzed. Not everything spoken in a sentence deserve equal weight in thought. Sure it can be operationally defined, and thanks for flexing your intellectual muscles for me - I get it -, but it was nonetheless irrelevant to the topic. So, skipping your analysis which is filled with
  13. So, for the last time, I'm not here to make claims. I want to get a discussion rolling. Why don't you provide me with a possible quantification of masculinity and femininity? And nothing I said have been baseless. The offense was, and has been, started by you. I merely reciprocated.
  14. I was giving one proposition to inspire other similar propositions, meanwhile, it was never central to the topic of discussion. The standards by which one judge a person to be feminine is many - how they dress, speak, and walk. There is simply no time to go into all that, nor is this the discussion to do it in. Yet you keep on asking for the impossible, like what specific ratio would be characterized as male. Do you expect me to do that calculation by normalizing the entire population of the world and then giving you a medium. Absurd! Because I've been exposed enough to your way of arguing
  15. It's meant to excavate people's ideas, not get fixated on semantics. Its difficult for minds overly concerned with quantifying operant definitions for experimental subjects that bogs the conversation down. Its not meant as helping my claim but a personal attack. I'm just reciprocating the same kindness you've shown me. It is not arbitrary, categories almost always fall into a normal curve. The continuum is supposed to be on a gradient, from 1 - 10. Why don't you give me a fat to muscle ratio that would be a satisfying medium for the entire population of the world? It is a fruit
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.