Why are the men successful?

Post Reply New Topic

If I go cheap I try to find an on sale or not super expensive but decent bottle of hard liqour....I'd rather take some shots than drink a 30 pack of bud....besides I belive its a Lager and lagers make me fart like a cow so I don't particularly like them even the higher quality ones.

When it comes to liquor I will only drink tequila but when it comes to beer any beer will do the trick for me.

Well hey whatever works for you....as for tequila I do like the effects but the taste makes me wanna puke, even so on occasion I do a shot with chaser as my liking of the effects overrides my dislike of the taste. As for beer I am kinda picky I guess....and I don't actually belive a man is not a real man if he drinks weaker beers or lesser quality that was more of a joke. I just have a liking for strong dark ales,

I will probably be an ass and try that new Bud light platnum that supposedly tastes like top shelf beer.....so I can laugh at it. but hey thats just me I wont litterally judge someone on beer though sometimes it is one thing to read people by.

Tequila only makes me puke when I eat the worm.

Can't say I've ever tried the worm...but yeah I havn't puked from it, its just something about the taste gives me the urge to. But yeah if I take a shot of Skul Vodka I might puke.

I hate vodka it is so nasty

Oh I like a good vodka, but some of that cheaper crap might as well be rubbing alcohol.

Yes it tastes like it too.

not sure exactly what you mean by the reason not being biological. quite clearly the reason is structural.

Exactly.

A bit emotive, but yes.

Sure, man.

Actually, I can't think of any functional purpose in the bifurcation other than specific cases to which gender is directly relevant, and I can't really think of any. A man could even serve as a wet nurse with the help of hormonal treatment and acupuncture, and technology is getting to the point that we will eventually be able to implant a uterus and a functional set of ovaries in someone who was born male. It's the 21st Century, after all.

However, it's also a generalization to assume that discrimination or "cultural factors" account for all gender disparities. Prove it if that's your view. I have presented ample evidence that gonadal steroids actually pack a measurable wallop in respect to divergent vs. convergent thinking.

http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v28/n ... 0200a.html

"Estrogen impaired divergent thinking (p<0.01) and enhanced convergent thinking, motor perseveration, and memory for the initial word list (p<0.05 for all tests). In parallel, EEG dimensional complexity was reduced (p<0.05). Overall, these changes indicate an estrogen-induced shift from a 'divergent' towards a more 'convergent' mode of processing. However, overall less consistent, effects of testosterone were opposite to those of estrogen. It increased performance on some of the divergent thinking tasks (p<0.05), and tended to increase EEG dimensional complexity during divergent thinking."

Also, I actually presented scientific, factual support for the claim, "men are generally better at spatial reasoning." Hello, but it's a scientific fact, not just a political issue.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21295035

"Overall, the results indicate that testosterone can have positive activational effects on spatial learning and memory, but the duration of testosterone replacement and the nature of the spatial task modify these effects."

And that directly answers the question in the OP.

The side pushing for an "assumption-based method" is the side that is pushing to accuse any and all fields that are male-dominated of purposely preventing women from succeeding in those fields, based on the (bogus, disproven) theory that gender has no natural effect at all on ability or level of interest.

The effects of gonadal hormones explain tendencies. They don't explain the details of individual character. That actually does require first-hand observation. There is no easy method of getting an idea as to a person's abilities. The only way to evaluate a person's character or level of ability is to do it right in the first place, which is to actually GET TO KNOW that person and see what that person can do.

It's just really stupid to assume that discrimination or "cultural indoctrination" is the explanation for everything.

It is way more stupid to assume that a slight difference in spatial skills in relation not to gender but hormones (Because in case you didn't know, they are not the same thing), somehow debunks cultural and discrimination factors being at work, it shows a little impairment in reading conclusions from papers.

Specially because the shift of XX century has certainly given us enough reason to believe that it was at least a factor. As artists, engineers , doctors, scientists and all areas have their share of women participation, making it clear that brains are not at work.

Was the discussion not assumption-based? You seem to be the first one to actually put a link to a paper. You don't seem to understand the paper and you are still make the humongous assumption that spatial skills are a determining factor in success, but at least it's an improvement...

What you are trying to support is the thesis that "cultural factors" are the only possible or necessary explanation for the disparities, which you have failed to support whatsoever. I have soundly defeated your argument, and your failure to even contribute a jot or tiddle of data to back up your bogus claims is getting increasingly tiresome and mundane.

My entire point, beginning to end, is that you and others have invested far too much faith in the explanatory power of "cultural indoctrination," and that is the beginning and end of it. I have succeeded in demonstrating this position to the satisfaction of any reasonable person, which is a category that you don't appear to fall into. I am done. I am right, and you are wrong. I have proven my point amply, and you have contributed nothing whatsoever of substance to the discussion. I am fed up with the discussion in general, and I am done.

If it has a worm in it, it's not Tequila. Only cheap mezcal comes with a worm in it, and it's actually not a worm at all but a moth larva that only nest in maguey plants. It used to be a mark of authenticity, but now it's just marketing.

So your point is that you are misrepresenting everyone else's point? You must be proud.



Ha, no.

You are soo reasonable.




No, not impressed, sorry. Please misinterpret another paper's abstract and use your misinterpretation as proof that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Maybe if you do a hundred of times, it will look better.

You neglect to point out that this study was performed on a test group of post-menopausal women, whose levels of all gonadal steroids are, perforce, diminished.

This student does tell us about the specific impacts of estrogen and testosterone on subjects whose base levels of gonadal steroids are low--but it does not tell us anything about the interplay of the whole complex of gonadal steroids. Children have reduced levels of gonadal steroids--but this does not impact on the most crucial element of cognition: learning.

Furthermore, you have not demonstrated the linkage between the dosage levels used in the experiement from those that are typically found in adult men and women. If high doses of one or the other are being used, but only on an acute basis, this presents a different experimental environment than the ongoing levels of gonadal steroids that are observed in adult humans. If I pump you full of estrogen, that is going to have an impact on your cognition, to be sure. But when I do that, how will the levels of estrogen in your brain differ from the levels found in a typical, adult female?

The study proves that estrogen and testosterone have cognitive impacts. No argument there. But the link between their observable impacts and their actual function in a typical individual is not made out.



It does nothing of the kind.

Both testes and ovaries produce testosterone, after all. Typically, women have less testosterone in their bodies than men do--but it is not absent. So how much testosterone is enough to trigger this effect? Is more testosterone better? After all, earlier in the abstract of this article, the authors write:



So perhaps the smaller amounts present in women are enough to trigger similar cognitive improvements. Perhaps differences in performance are not related to gonadal steroid levels, but rather to structural anatomical differences that are dicatated by environmental factors in utero.

You seem to be taking narrow experimental findings and using them to support broad, general conjecture. Your time would be better spent focussing on what is proved in the subjects that interest you, rather than searching for confirmation of your own biases.