Posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2005, at 18:47:53
In reply to Re: gender differences » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 26, 2005, at 18:23:14
> I dunno. I think studying other species might be actually more informative. Because they don't cover up their actions with words and rationalizations.
So long as the words and rationalisations isn't what interests us...
> And I'm not talking about things where language matters. Or intellect.Ok. Fair enough then.
Though... Language is intimately connected with out ability to conceptualise. To think. But our emotional responses... Well... It can go thoughts -> emotional responses. But it can also go emotional responses -> action. In the latter kind of case the similarities between human and animal behaviour might be remarkable because we are acting from the similar regions from the brain... So... Our 'reactions' are probably very similar to the 'reactions' of animals.(I'm not disagreeing with you - thats the point)
>I'm talking about the important stuff, where we're more alike than different IMHO. But scientists differ on even that. Of course, scientists once said that "lower" life forms couldn't feel pain.
Yes. With respect to the giving and taking back of minds that is right. Thats one of the things... Only things with minds get to feel pain. When you take a mind away from animals that means that you believe that animals don't have feelings. Descartes (and others before him who did not grant animals minds) thought that while animals clearly has a noxious stimulus -> withdrawal response they did not have a noxious stimulus -> PAIN -> withdrawal response mechanism. Animals don't feel pain. So it is ok to treat them as a mere means to our ends...
Of course we give a lot to animals in recent times... Who knows whether it is because we are more enlightened or whether the pendulum will swing back in future years. I like to think we are more enlightened...
> I'm talking about particular situations that arise from unique moderator/poster dynamics. I fear that statistics aren't going to help. Because you'd have to break down the male posters into dominant and nondominant, and style of dominance. And you'd have to break down the females into nondominant, dominant traditionally feminine, nondominant nontraditionally feminine.You need to define typically masculine and feminine behaviours in such a way that we can categorise peoples posts as exemplifying those characteristics. A mammoth task, yup.
> It would require a person familiar with such things to do a detailed study of Admin history, and come up with a not terribly scientific conclusion. Which, truth to tell is my favorite sort of study.
:-)
I have sympathy...> I still say that as long as Dr. Bob is aware of the possibility, I've done my work.
Um... The possibility of what? Sorry... Little lost again...
With respect to the stats idea...
The thought was that you could figure out whether males or females were more likely to be blocked. Maybe there aren't gender differences there. Or maybe there are. If there were gender differences there then you would need to think about WHY there are gender differences...The 2X 3X blocking system might help a little if you consider 3X to be lashing out at other posters and 2X to be more of an issue with Bob / the rules.
I would predict...
Females: 3X
Males: 2XBut I might be wrong...
Even if that was the case working out the significance of that finding might be tricky... But... IMO that is the fun bit...
Now.
I'm going back to work :-)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:525223
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/533892.html