or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › 21st century women can be difficult
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

21st century women can be difficult - Page 19

post #271 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by yachtie View Post
Neither of these posts are convincing. Nice snark on the second, must be taking lessons from Fuuma. Sorry a website "article" with no links to the "studies" and no recitation of the form of meta-analysis done to the data does not leave me (not would it leave anyone with a good basis in statistics)with any sense of certitude regarding the results. Please note that 40 studies need more than 13 cites. Point being none of your posts have answered my questions. Therefore, I'll have to assume that you don't have an answer. Best of luck.


holy crap, the declaring victory as you run out the door tactic.

anyways, here is the article, clearly cited in the references. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The Gender Similarities Hypothesis. American Psychologist, Vol. 60, No. 6
post #272 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by yachtie View Post
Neither of these posts are convincing. Nice snark on the second, must be taking lessons from Fuuma. Sorry a website "article" with no links to the "studies" and no recitation of the form of meta-analysis done to the data does not leave me (not would it leave anyone with a good basis in statistics)with any sense of certitude regarding the results. Please note that 40 studies need more than 13 cites. Point being none of your posts have answered my questions. Therefore, I'll have to assume that you don't have an answer. Best of luck.
As has been pointed out, the information on the website is drawn from an article by Janet Shibley Hyde called "The Gender Similarities Hypothesis". An article that appears to be held in high regard by people in the humanities. I actually read the whole thing yesterday, and it was quite an interesting read. My main problem with it is that some of the studies Hyde makes use of, in my eyes, seem too unreliable to draw any good conclusions from. E.g.:

In an important experiment, Lightdale and Prentice (1994) demonstrated the importance of gender roles and social context in creating or erasing the purportedly robust gender difference in aggression. Lightdale and Prentice used the technique of deindividuation to produce a situation that removed the influence of gender roles. Deindividuation refers to a state in which the person has lost his or her individual identity; that is, the person has become anonymous. Under such conditions, people should feel no obli-gation to conform to social norms such as gender roles. Half of the participants, who were college students, were assigned to an individuated condition by having them sit close to the experimenter, identify themselves by name, wear large name tags, and answer personal questions. Participants in the deindividuation condition sat far from the experimenter, wore no name tags, and were simply told to wait. All participants were also told that the experiment required information from only half of the participants, whose behavior would be monitored, and that the other half would remain anonymous. Participants then played an interactive video game in which they first defended and then attacked by dropping bombs. The number of bombs dropped was the measure of aggressive behavior. The results indicated that in the individuated condition, men dropped significantly more bombs (M = 31.1) than women did (M = 26.8). In the deindividuated condition, however, there were no significant gender differences and, in fact, women dropped somewhat more bombs (M = 41.1) than men (M = 36.8). In short, the significant gender difference in aggression disappeared when gender norms were removed.

(One of the questionable things about the study cited above is that nothing at all was made of the fact that all of its participants were Princeton undergrads. It seems to me that this would be a very strange sample of individuals from which to draw conclusions about the population at large.)
post #273 of 278
..
post #274 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. White View Post
Ugh! What an awful, unreadable direction this thread has taken!

WTF is this stuff about "early feminism?" Jeez! Use a search engine or something, will ya? Feminism circa 1970 was about bored rich women wanting bigger allowances so they faked interest in working women's wages, bored rich women wanting more abortion clinics so they faked interest in poor women getting the government to pay for abortions, bored rich women faking being men to other bored rich women, so they faked interest in politics so there'd be more lesbian coffeehouses to hook up at (local NOW offices held lesbian coffeehouses every week on some weekday around noon -- which attracted about half the active members and most of the hard-core feminists FYI), etc.

troll
post #275 of 278
Its actually kinda rare for a troll to call somebody a troll
post #276 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deluks917 View Post
Its actually kinda rare for a troll to call somebody a troll

I have never heard of it happening, ever.
post #277 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivar View Post
As has been pointed out, the information on the website is drawn from an article by Janet Shibley Hyde called "The Gender Similarities Hypothesis". An article that appears to be held in high regard by people in the humanities. I actually read the whole thing yesterday, and it was quite an interesting read. My main problem with it is that some of the studies Hyde makes use of, in my eyes, seem too unreliable to draw any good conclusions from. E.g.:

In an important experiment, Lightdale and Prentice (1994) demonstrated the importance of gender roles and social context in creating or erasing the purportedly robust gender difference in aggression. Lightdale and Prentice used the technique of deindividuation to produce a situation that removed the influence of gender roles. Deindividuation refers to a state in which the person has lost his or her individual identity; that is, the person has become anonymous. Under such conditions, people should feel no obli-gation to conform to social norms such as gender roles. Half of the participants, who were college students, were assigned to an individuated condition by having them sit close to the experimenter, identify themselves by name, wear large name tags, and answer personal questions. Participants in the deindividuation condition sat far from the experimenter, wore no name tags, and were simply told to wait. All participants were also told that the experiment required information from only half of the participants, whose behavior would be monitored, and that the other half would remain anonymous. Participants then played an interactive video game in which they first defended and then attacked by dropping bombs. The number of bombs dropped was the measure of aggressive behavior.

The results indicated that in the individuated condition, men dropped significantly more bombs (M = 31.1) than women did (M = 26.8). In the deindividuated condition, however, there were no significant gender differences and, in fact, women dropped somewhat more bombs (M = 41.1) than men (M = 36.8). In short, the significant gender difference in aggression disappeared when gender norms were removed.

(One of the questionable things about the study cited above is that nothing at all was made of the fact that all of its participants were Princeton undergrads. It seems to me that this would be a very strange sample of individuals from which to draw conclusions about the population at large.)
That's my general probelm with meta-analytical compilations, particularly this one. Humanities people, as you say, love 'em. In the hard sciences all kinds of hay would be made about unreliability of sample etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hannahmontana View Post
I have never heard of it happening, ever.
First time for everything.
post #278 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by yachtie View Post
That's my general probelm with meta-analytical compilations, particularly this one. Humanities people, as you say, love 'em. In the hard sciences all kinds of hay would be made about unreliability of sample etc.



First time for everything.

snort. you didn't even bother to read the study. phony.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › 21st century women can be difficult