You're right, we should be focusing on if you were born like this or raised this way

Haha so you are dragging in salt from another completely unrelated thread, whilst complaining about people tarding up threads.

Of course your summary of that debate utterly wiffs the discussion which had nothing to do with me refusing X about disney.

Just completely off topic in everyway **** posting by you.

Bravo, you set the example I should obviously follow.

I'm having trouble figuring out the closest way to pack spheres that are eight dimensional. And it bothers me that the smartest man in the last 100 years, John von Neumann, said that he proved that there can exist no "hidden variables" in quantum theory. Who can I look up that could settle these questions for me?

what gender are the spheres?

Cubes being ghosted out of the discussion.

Standard.

Maryna Viazovska and that's not really what Von Neumann proved; he showed that you can't simultaneously believe in hidden variables, quantum mechanics and a set of reasonable sounding assumptions about locality and determinism.

There's Roland Omnes in Paris, but be aware he's 91, so don't hang about.

Now reading that Grete Hermann's refutation might have had a problem. Should have realized that given she was a girl.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10...4-024-0970-3_7

Nature sets the bounds, especially at the extremes. Which is exactly what you would anticipate with a normal distribution. You are never going to have a human society where 90% of violent crime is committed by females IMO.

And I would push back a little bit and say they are probably less malleable than you suspect, not that nurture is nothing. I just suspect that over the last 200,000 years or so there would be a lot more variation in how humans have socially organized and assigned gender roles if we really were that malleable at the species level.

Regardless, it would take A LOT of conditioning to push humans upstream as opposed to down, IMO. It is maybe possible to use very early and extreme intervention to engineer a society where the majority of engineers were women and the majority of nursery teachers were men; but I doubt anyone would decide the juice was worth the squeeze. Whereas if you took a laissez faire approach and did no intervention and let the market play out, the majority of engineers would be men and nursery teachers women IMO.

I should note this is all dependent on keeping sex hormones natural. It would probably be fairly effective and easy to modify sex hormones to achieve extremely radical desired results if one was predisposed.

This is absolutely unbelievable. I said the effect size was small. It is.

You then quote the statistics at me to try and prove the point, and anyone with an ounce of understanding would know those numbers (small beta, CI close to zero, p value close to .05) all indicate a small effect that only just reaches statistical significance.

However, the best part of all this is you spent your whole Saturday arguing with anyone who would listen about a topic you clearly know hardly anything about.

Don't ever change, OAFK.

This is an important observation. For example, women with abnormally high T levels (e.g., CAH), exhibit all kinds of male typical behaviour, including male toy preferences.

So you are going to dispute the authors of your own cite now?

Yes those numbers are small in a vacuum, but Im going to take the significance of their effect directly from the experts and not a random on the internet.

Obviously nothing from you on how the forced choice methodology skews the results and obviously nothing about how even that methodology found no preference in 5 month year olds.

FWIW I had to work from home yesterday and was sat in front of my computer, and I am very capable multi tasker.

But yea carry on with the silly childish ad hominems just like RR, its all either of you have left at this point.

The intellectually honest and rational way to approach the cite provided by razor.

1: There are two possible vectors for child preference for toys. Received or innate. (which of course can have varying degree of influence and mixed influence)

Yes or No = Yes.

2: The cited study (and the studies aggregated) make zero attempt to demonstrate for effect of those vectors in outcomes and merely provides a quantitative conclusion on the degree of preference.

Yes or No = Yes.

3. Therefore the conclusion that the study shows an innate preference is simply the reader projecting his bias towards a particular vector onto the quantitative outcome of the meta study.

Yes or No = Yes.

you're a clown ted

QFT.

Obviously nothing left in the tank in terms of honest reasonable debate.

Are you reading the authors saying "significantly" in the following sentence to signify that it's a large or meaningful effect?

"The size of the gender difference in preference for boy-related toys increased significantly with child age."

Because that word just means that the effect has reached statistical significance, which says absolutely nothing about the magnitude of the effect. Statistical significance means that it seems like a real effect and not just randomness amongst the sample.

If you went through O.A.K.s posts and just replaced the topic of gender with climate change, his argument would sound pretty much the same as a climate change denier. How can you ever prove that climate change is manmade without fully exploring every other possible alternative to exhaustion? You really can't, so there is no valid argument supporting climate change being man made.

Game over. I win, you lose. Scoreboard.

This is complete utter nonsense though and is just a semantic tactic to try and claim one conclusion, e.g. the preferences are innate is on the same level as climate change, when the work cited does nothing to establish this in any way shape or form.

Its basically you just showing your bias for making an absolute assumption on a merely quantative conclusion.

Also climate change science does a great job of actually factoring for and discounting other inputs, that is not attempted in anyway in the cite we are discussing.

X and Y can be reasons why children prefer a given toy.

All you are doing is claiming its X, when the work we are discussing does nothing to establish its X or even claim its X.

That is so important, the meta study never makes the concrete claim that preferences are innate.

That is simply a conclusion projected onto the study by posters itt.

Which is the big differance with this issue and climate change, because climate change science makes concrete claims in this regard.

You are simply operating from a stance of pure assumption.

So from your extensive personal research you are satisfied climate change experts have done their homework and biologists have not. And it is purely coincidental that your findings align perfectly with your predetermined ideological beliefs.

Fair enough

What beliefs? What beliefs do you think I have expressed?

All I have pointed out is that if a study shows boy prefer trucks and girls prefer dolls it shows just that, it does not explain why those preferences exist.

The main study we are discussing itself makes zero claims to why those preferences exist.

They do say however:

Do you think they would say that if they thought their study was conclusive proof of innate preferences? Of course not.

The only people expressing beliefs are the ones projecting their beliefs onto why these preferences exist.

How is this so hard that you are led to making complete wiffs of posts that having nothing to do with my argument?

The real problem here is unlike some I have actually taken the time to read the research in question.

It's almost like the mountains of robust, reproducible, multifaceted and interdisciplinary data in climate science put it in a completely different category than child gender toy preference science.

I am never going to call a singular person them, they, their. Of course they are free to address themselves as they wish but I am not playing that game. Its like playing got you the bigot version which is stupid in itself. When we change the meaning of words they become meaningless. Language needs to be precise to be understood and more importantly to not be misunderstood.

If I call someone him/her and they say I prefer they/them/ pronouns then I will just call them by their name to avoid offense.

Are there people actually demanding that folks call certain people a bunch of dumb **** or is this just some right wing freak out?

All the whiny culture war brainwashed right wingers are posting anything but the facts that Trump is being dismantled in real time through the 1/6 hearings by parroting themes seen on Tucker Carlson.

See also: the Cancel Culture thread, and you will see the stray Hunter Biden laptop story pop up now and again.

There's Russian disinfo in several of these threads on a regular basis, imagine the Facebook feed of a scared old Reagan groupie in his 70s.

It really is happening and its perverse. Its a bridge too far for many people that would be potential allies to the Lbgtq.