CharonY

And how does any of this connect with the claims in OP? To give an example, all you are saying that men are more aggressive. You are omitting two important questions. The first is how does it connect to your initial hypothesis. You claimed, for example that men just laugh things off, whereas women get upset. Is it because men are inherently more aggressive? How does that follow. In other words, does this trait actually have any tractable impact on what you experience to be gender differences? The second aspect is even assuming the difference is significant. How is distribution? Are all men more aggressive than all women? Or is there an overlap? How large is it? Note that the second aspect is really less important. Rather, you should figure out whether a perceived difference in behaviour is really linked to biology or is it just that you select a biologicak difference and then try to use it to explain all differences you see (whilst neglecting the arguably larger impact of societal behaviour modulation). Edit: crossposted with MigL who made my second point much clearer.

Why should they? You are implying there are important differences, so why not outline them? That way we can take a look at the literature and see whether you are correct. How, for example, do any of your examples correlate with hormones and which ones in particular? The overall point you should be thinking about is whether the differences you perceive are indeed connected to biological mechanisms or not. Just because there is different biology, it does not mean that it has a meaningful difference in the aspects you are looking at. It is not to say that there may not be differences, but the question then is also how large are these differences (especially psychological ones) and how much do cultural aspects magnify or minimize them. What, in other words, is the effect size?

! Moderator Note I will reiterate swansont's note above, since it was missed. Even though this is in the Lounge, I'm going to request that first-time posters stay away. If you are joining just to advertise your YouTube Channel, your links will be removed. We are not here to advertise for you. IOW, you can link to other peoples' youtube channels. If you're new, we aren't going to bother verifying if there's a question about who owns it. We will just disappear the post

! Moderator Note Posts discussing a history forum have been split as there is already a thread discussing it.

Sure, I just wanted to note that it should not have any bearing on the trial itself, based on the defendant's claim.

Well, his claim was that was a misfire. But even then (and I understand that parts of the USA have really silly laws in that respect), a warning shot after someone (a kid no less) who is running away? What would the warning be that is not already conveyed by a guy running after you with a shotgun? agreed.

Most research is supportive of the latter as a factor. i.e. mate selection. Often it is contrasted with erect chimp penis sizes, which are close to human sizes (genitalia display also plays a role). There is also the hypothesis that higher promiscuity could play a role.

It may indicate that one may need a different type of doctor.

... I mean, it has to be satire, right?

It's "Trottel" . But still gives hits.

While we are at it, they also come in 60 g as well as 360g. There are also 35g ones and the individual triangles (but no idea about the weight. Already consumed those). Aside from pit vipers, some members of the pythons and boas, also detect IR, but at lower sensitivity.

I don't think that the US media system is such as huge exception as you might think. In Germany in the 90s and now some of the biggest drivers of public resentments were /are tabloids. What we see in modern times is a bit more of fragmentation. I.e. in the 90s the view of refugees was universally worse in Germany with mainstream media being far more critical than now. However, there is a strong push not only from traditional conservative media, as you might expect, but also from other sources, predominantly social media. And I think that part is different to before and it is not endemic to the US.

To be fair, folks are making it far too easy. Remember the war in former Yugoslavia? Folks were losing their minds about refugees back then, too. Politicians were quick to ride that wave of animosity, as they do today.

I'll just leave this one here. https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/nazis-russell-walker-arthur-jones-republicans-illinois-north-carolina-virginia

So here is an interesting spin on the persecution of gun owners. Apparently law enforcement (including the FBI) have a racially divided approach. Historically, this is a known phenomenon. Folks were suddenly for gun control when Black Panther activists decided to make use of their 2nd Amendment rights. More recently law enforcement still seems to hold that view: Now, this is not just a note without consequences: Articles 1, 2 and 3. Strangely, the voices shouting for freedom of expression and the 2nd Amendment keep quiet for certain folks.

That is not the only issue, though it is part of source evaluation. The bigger one, I think, is that with social media we get more access to all the weird stuff individuals may (or may not) believe. As such it is possible to find at least one person to say the darndest things. While that is utterly inconsequential as such the sheer emotional impact of such sillyness elevates them above information of actual relevance. It is like celebrity worship on steroids, where inconsequential things are elevated. And then some folks take it seriously and spread it even further. It is utter distraction and we see that they are eventually weaponized by folks with an agenda. It creates an alternate reality where internet memes are treated as real or of relevance. Note that this is not something new, celebrity cults have been around for some time and they have slowly eroding the power of real reporting. Yet, the scope and weaponization seems to have kicked up a notch. It leads to a lot of problems, including utter disruption of public discourse, as we now cannot even agree on the same facts. In addition it also dilutes the conversation when folks who are or could be in position power say stupid things.

Today I learned that there are folks out there who spread random stuff without any level of source analysis. Also, apparently random youtube videos are a source of learning now (which goes back to point one).

Just to make sure, it was not supposed to be a criticism, When one starts off learning something completely new, everything may seem new and weird. But usually it takes some deeper knowledge to figure out what differences are relevant and which are superficial. My comment on immersion was aimed at a priori assumptions about interpretation of cultural norms without actually understanding them. There are concepts that I feel are overrated or misunderstood (the concept of "face" for example). It does not mean that it is wrong to be sensitive (especially at the beginning). Rather, what I meant is that one should not come with strong preconceptions and use those instead of what the interaction with the folks actually tells you ("no I am pretty sure that you are offended by this, I read it in a book"), if that makes sense. As a silly example, I remember from my time in Poland ,that it was impressed upon us that stirring ones teacup loudly was offensive and we have to take great care not to do that (without further explanation). Only to find out that no one really cared about it unless you are kind of obnoxiously playing around with it. Edit: the context of the interactions are also relevant of course. Meeting someone's parents-in-law in a different country would require a different approach than interacting with co-workers or student, for example...

I would always be careful with those stereotypes, even if they are positive. These assumptions often lead to some kind of unconscious assumptions, which may not be harmful, but generally are not useful, either. Specifically one could easily argue that the Eastern area covers a wide range of diverse cultures and from that alone one can deduce that the viewpoints are likely to be vastly different. In addition, while certain philosophical viewpoints may be more dominant, their effect on the individual are going to be coloured by individual experiences. As an example, in the West it is undeniable that Christian teachings have a massive effect on Western history, philosophy and culture. But how it manifests is very diverse, ranging from literal adherence to a vague recognition. It is a lesson that I learned from teaching students from very different backgrounds, trying to be sensitive to cultures does not work well usually, since unless one is immersed in it, much will be based on these types of stereotypes. From self-observation I realized that I thereby assume the students from other backgrounds to be, well, different which did not help the teaching process at all. While one can be cognizant of differences, commonly agreeing to some ground rules based on individual preferences rather than assumed cultural ones were far more helpful in establishing a good mentor relationship. This is not to say that there are no differences, especially when one starts to discusses worldviews (or philosophy). But on most specific, narrow topics or events (as the description of a park for example) the context will be more relevant than the cultural background.

I am not sure. If existing it is at best a highly subtle difference and probably more on a linguistic than a perspective level. If you talk to Asians or Europeans regarding their observations there is generally no difference in their recounting if they explain their observation and their position in it, at least if both speak e.g. English. However, if you are talking about general philosophy, then yes, there is a difference in perspective with regard to nature. That, however, does not necessarily translate down to individual behaviour.

It is getting off-topic, so I will quickly answer to that question based on my understanding and leave it that. From what I read the convention is to have an open contest (i.e. primary) and only after the candidate is chosen do they exert control over the DNC. Yet, in Clinton's case she secured significant influence even before. Since I am not familiar with the rules the respective parties made up, it may been an actual violation. Yet, quite a few democrats saw it at least as a breach of the spirit of the process.

And perhaps the tiny issue that it would be foreign interference with elections and involve actually breaking laws rather than internal rules of an organization. Also there is this:

Yet another article. Mostly a rehash of other points, but a decent read.

Interestingly I have only ever heard two variations, one with a harder tso (in Germany) and a softer so in the US. Maybe it is area or field dependent?

That should not be the argument. Rather, one should apply means to reduce overall gun-related incidences rather than focusing on specific measures addressing i.e. mass or gun shootings (which both are relatively low incidence in relation to overall gun deaths). Because the latter leads to rather silly suggestions such as "hardening" schools (and presumably other areas such as cinemas and concerts) by adding more guns to the mix.