Friday, 14 May 2010
Gender Stereotypes
6 Absurd Gender Stereotypes (That Science Says Are True)
Zoe Brain

http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2010/05/gender-stereotypes.html

Just remember that these are statistical; and that people have to be treated as individuals. Moreover, most "Gendered Behaviour" is a matter of social construction, which differs from time to time and place to place.

Most.

Not all. Some is biologically based.

-------------


6 Absurd Gender Stereotypes (That Science Says Are True)
By Susan H. May 10, 2010

http://www.cracked.com/article_18529_6-absurd-gender-stereotypes-that-science-says-are-true.html

If you've watched bad stand-up or beer commercials or listened to awful morning drive time radio DJs (Science has yet to prove the existence of any other type) you know about all of the supposed differences between men and women. The #1 topic of conversation among male hack comics is their nagging, chatter-box wives, and for hack females it's... well, vibrators. But their insensitive, slob of a husband is a very close second.

Well, it turns out there's a reason those comics and beer companies keep making those jokes. Many of the exciting advances in brain mapping and genetic research are proving that some of the oldest, most hackneyed gender-based stereotypes are totally true.

lol, amusing.  Seems I am a male.  Always good to have that confirmed. 

Gee!  Well -- a week after I started "E" I found out it was OK to stop to ask for directions!!  On the serious note, I have noticed that male body odor has a little different effect on me than it did pre estrogen, and thats even while I am in guy mode!!

Meh. If you read the actual scientific research that supposedly forms the basis for articles like this, you'll see there's a whole lot of nuance and uncertainty and individual variation. Even a halfway-decent pop-science article would be better. I'm not at all a fan of evo-psych - I think about 80% of the field is pseudoscientific garbage - but even the evo-psych treatments of gender differences, as ridiculous as they are, are slightly less stupid than this trash.

Jokes are cool, science is cool, but they don't mix very well.

Quote from: kyril on May 15, 2010, 10:24:52 AM
Meh. If you read the actual scientific research that supposedly forms the basis for articles like this, you'll see there's a whole lot of nuance and uncertainty and individual variation. Even a halfway-decent pop-science article would be better. I'm not at all a fan of evo-psych - I think about 80% of the field is pseudoscientific garbage - but even the evo-psych treatments of gender differences, as ridiculous as they are, are slightly less stupid than this trash.

Jokes are cool, science is cool, but they don't mix very well.

Ugh. I definitely agree that evo-psych is 80% complete garbage-- it is CONFIRMATORY, not EXPLORATORY research, which is bad science. Also, it has been used to justify SO much sexism by SO many internet armchair psychologists. See below:



Also, I'm pretty sure one of these days my head is going to explode when I read another gross misunderstanding or overgeneralization of a scientific finding. Especially when it's written by people who got the information off of some terrible news site and didn't look at ALL at the methodology of the studies involved (hint to those not in the field: this is the most important part).

Lol, I already read that. Why is there a Cracked article in the news section?

Because we live in an age where The Daily Show is better source of news then the news shows are, and the Onion isn't satire, it's just forecasting.