David Thompson
Subscribe

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad

« And We’re Back | Main | Sustenance »

July 21, 2014

Comments

Ten

Zero scientific basis for AGW.

By. The. Numbers.

Hal

Three pages.

I'll chime in with noting the presence of Minnow, and sidestep on the rest.

karen straughan

Welcome aboard. Help yourself to liquor and nibbles.

Holy SH!T, there's liquor here? How did I not find this place sooner?

As for our pal "minnow", I would ask him what exactly he wants? Climate sameness? Because that has never happened in the entire history of this planet.

My SO is an engineer with experience in the computer modelling of biochemical systems. The systems he was working with were tiny (micro- and nano-level, 90% of variables controlled and/or accounted for). The 10% that can't be controlled or known need to be constrained within the model through a set of assumptions and boundary conditions. Basically, "we're going to assume mytosis will occur at x cell divisions/hour, and that cells in a large colony will continue to behave as they did when they were isolated" because otherwise, you'd need a program so big it wouldn't fit on a supercomputer.

Misjudge a single boundary condition or assumption by +/- 5% and you've completely bunged up your results.

Can minnow even estimate the number of such assumptions that would have to be considered as if they were "knowns" when modelling something as complex as global climate? And as far as I know, the normal variations in solar radiation isn't even factored in (if it is, disregard this one sentence).

As far as I know, the climate is going to drastically and catastrophically cool in the next 100 years, or it could indeed drastically and catastrophically warm over the same period. I'll stick with my "fempocalypse" prognosis, because as far as I'm concerned, human nature and behavior is WAY easier to predict than the weather.

dicentra

When you say sex is irrelevant,

It's in the same category as race, dontchaknow, which is cosmetic, and sex is just about your plumbing.

Except that sexual dimorphism is caused by hormonal action, and hormones affect the brain in profound ways, beginning in utero and continuing until you're three weeks cold in the grave.

Male and female critters are different behaviorally because of hormonal activity on the brain. All males mammals are sexually aggressive and all female mammals are "nesters," as it were.

There's no reason to think that humans don't deal with the same differences. In which low-tech societies do the males NOT make war while the females stay home with the kids?

Our advanced imaging techniques show that male and female brains are patterned differently and that such differences begin only a few weeks into gestation. Even though there's plenty of variety within each sex, the patterning is still male or female.

I work in software development; men dominate this field. Know why? Because programming software requires that your brain patterning be somewhere on the Asperger's continuum, and that particular patterning occurs more frequently in males. Even those females who do programming and such are Aspies to one degree or another.

Race, on the other hand, concerns dermal pigmentation, facial structure, and hair texture.

None of which affects the brain.

There's no worse category error than likening sexual dimorphism to racial differences.

Why the Left insists on such dogma in the face of obvious, irrefutable evidence is beyond me.

¡Viva la difference!

dicentra

Can minnow even estimate the number of such assumptions that would have to be considered as if they were "knowns" when modelling something as complex as global climate?

This is what kills me with the models: in a chaotic system such as our climate, an accurate model would have to

— account for 100% of the factors that affect our climate

— describe with 100% precision HOW each factor affects the climate

— calculate with 100% accuracy the interactions and feedbacks among those factors

— predict 100% of the butterfly effects, wherein the high sensitivity to initial conditions means the tiniest change in early moments propagates ever bigger effects as time passes

Here's the thing: cloud formation isn't fully understood. Cosmic rays may play a role in their formation, which means that solar activity affects the climate in more ways than just brute radiation.

Just with this one lacuna you have to toss out the models as reliable. There are a ton more factors that I don't even know about.

Furthermore, the models don't recreate past weather accurately, which is proof positive that they don't model the climate accurately, and so any prediction of gloom and doom based on said models is poppycock.

They'd have more luck reading chicken entrails.

Minnow

When talking about things like social equality — BTW, when you use that term, what the heck do you mean? — it is by definition an aggregate term.


In terms of mechanical reasoning, the mean of the female curve is one standard deviation below the male mean. If the male mean is considered the minimum for a good mechanic, then few women qualify. Because of this difference, the individuals who become mechanics will be almost exclusively male.

Even if that were true nothing follows from it unless you are recruiting mechanics at random, and it tells us nothing about the equality of the sexes. Some men are better than others at, say, hair braiding, but those men are still equals in the social, moral, and political terms we are discussing. They just happen not to be the same. In any given situation, the best mechanic for a job may be the woman and not the man. This is true for everything.

When talking about things like social equality — BTW, when you use that term, what the heck do you mean? — it is by definition an aggregate term.

By social equality I mean they have the same standing in society, thee same freedoms and the same opportunities. So, a woman that likes to have lots of sex with different men should, for example, be treated no differently to a man who has those predelictions. Whether that man is physically stronger than her, or whether she can sing a higher top note than him, are irrelevant. Despite all their differences they are, or should be, equals.

Minnow

you made the fatal error of basing your bloviating ignorant pronouncements on your egotistical misunderstanding that you actually had some superior knowledge of the subject being discussed

No, I didn't assume I had superior knowledge, I assumed that all the international climate monitoring agencies and all the specialist climatologists in universities in every continent on the globe had specialist knowledge. Rather than James Delingpole, whose only qualification is that he writes a TV column for the Spectator.

Minnow

The only subject I've seen you provide some reference to which suggests some involvement in was that work on Shakespeare and even then you got the title wrong it seems.

My interest in Shakespeare is keen but amateur. I work in animal modelling for human disease, pharmocokinetics and toxicology, if you really want to know. I realise that will make me seem an obvious recruit to the white coat conspiracy to force everybody to believe in AGW.

Minnow

Male and female critters are different behaviorally because of hormonal activity on the brain.

Even if this is true and is interesting to epidemiologists, nothing follows from it in terms of policy because, as you yourself prove, the variance within the groups is as large as the variance across them.

Thornavis.

Minnow

Thanks for your response and no that doesn't make me think you are part of some white coat conspiracy, I don't believe in any such thing and can't imagine why you would think I do. Maybe you're just joking but given your tendency to make assumptions about the opinions and motives of others maybe not.

You obviously do have scientific knowledge and that's a good thing but my point about the AGW hypothesis and its activist followers is political. I'm sure you would agree that science is not a neutral activity and that it is as subject to human failings and ambitions as any other discipline. I genuinely can't think of any other area of science however that has ever been subjected to the same level of capture by special interest groups and political motivations as climatology, I don't think it coincidental however that it was not a well known or fashionable science. That and the highly complex nature of the Earth's climate and the lack of long term records made it particularly vulnerable to appropriation in a political cause, there was a lot of uncertainty which could be exploited to suggest something unprecedented was occurring and it was all the fault of capitalism/greed/patriarchy etc. The same thing has happened to the humanities and arts which by their nature are far easier to misuse in this fashion. It's a tragedy for both science and the arts.

Minnow

Race, on the other hand, concerns dermal pigmentation, facial structure, and hair texture.

This used to be the view (amusingly some would describe it as the Politically Correct View) of race, but the science has moved on and it is now firmly understood that there are biologically meaningful categories of human race. See Nicholas Wade's A Troublesome Inheritance for a good layman's overview endorsed by Steven Pinker among others (I think Pinker can be credited with some knowledge of science for all he is no James Delingpole). Also notice how Wade immediately starts making daft and unsupportable prognostications about human history and society on the basis of the science apparently failing to understand the significance of in-group variance. Plus ca change and all that.

PJ

Perhaps Minnow can help me out here. I'm probably being a bit thick but I don't understand how consensus makes something true.

If it that were the case, then the sun would indeed orbit the earth and ill health would be caused by an imbalance of the four humours.

Less facetiously, the role that helicobacter pylori plays in gastric ulcers would never have been discovered. After all its discoverers were ridiculed by the mainstream who refused to listen or publish their findings because it went against the consensus.

I cannot see how consensus is a good thing in science. It means people aren't questioning and testing theories. But, as I said, perhaps someone can enlighten me.

BTW -if anyone wants to entertain themselves, they can read this brilliant article - http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html - where an actual climate scientist makes some superb predictions on the basis of his expertise

Minnow

Perhaps Minnow can help me out here. I'm probably being a bit thick but I don't understand how consensus makes something true.

It doesn't, but it is a useful heurisitc when dealing with extremely complex scieentific issues. There is always a very strong incentive in science to overturn the consensus (see your H. pylori) because that way Nobel Prizes lie, but if a very large number of researchers are reaching the same conclusions, this is a good reason to think that the truth is likely to be in that direction until something else comes along to disprove them. If we don't take this view we have generally no reason to accept any science over any thesis.

abacab

Would minnow accept the consensus of theologians regarding the existence of god, or that of homeopathists that water has memory and can cure disease?

Minnow

By the way, re the hilariously mistaken weather prediction about snowfall referred to by PJ, it is often brought up but thiis bit is always left out:

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

I bet that doesn't get many laughs in the boardroom at Gatwick.

Minnow

Would minnow accept the consensus of theologians regarding the existence of god

No, I have decided to accept the consensus view of all philosophers concerning the existence of god. I will happily change my mind if any new evidence shows up. Ditto homeopathy, I accept the scientific consensus on that, taking due consideration of the homeopathic disenters and being fully aware that James Delingpole may see that as yet another example of establishment conspiracy.

Do yuou accept the scientific consensus on homeopathy? Why? Isn't it obviously in the interest of scientists looking for grants and new hospital equipment to poho pooh the much cheaper homeopathic alternative?

Thornavis.

We've always tended to get caught out by snow in this country, the nature of our climate means that we never know what to expect from one week to the next it's nothing new. That is the sort of bet hedging statement of the bleeding obvious that deserves derision. It does have consequences though, my former employment was on the railway which at one time had snow ploughs stationed at various strategic points, some of which rarely saw heavy snowfalls. These were nearly all done away with, mostly on cost and operational grounds but also because it was assumed that climate change would render them totally redundant, an attitude brought about by listening to the Dr. Viner's of this world. A shortsighted policy as it has turned out.

Minnow

These were nearly all done away with, mostly on cost and operational grounds but also because it was assumed that climate change would render them totally redundant, an attitude brought about by listening to the Dr. Viner's of this world. A shortsighted policy as it has turned out.

They should have listened more carefully to Dr Viner's warning that there would still be heavy bouts of snowfall and they are likely to be underprepared. They were probably too busy consulting Jaames Delingpole.

Thornavis.

Sorry Minnow you've lost me there, is that another attempt at humour ? The ploughs, as I said, were abolished mostly on cost grounds but when this is queried one of the responses is to say that they won't be needed anyway, where did this idea come from, not from AGW sceptics certainly. There was a serious point there, which was climatalogists have too often let themselves be flattered by the media into making generalised statements about the future of the climate which then become wider memes, one such being that snow will be a thing of the past in Britain.

Minnow

But Dr Viner made no such claim, and I haven't seen any others making it. He said snow would be less frequent and we would underprepared. Soi far, he has been proved right, no? Isn't the real problem that the railways placed profit over social value in their planning? It's capitalism again.

abacab

So minnow does indeed not accept the consensus of the people who work in certain fields, and who are thus expert in those fields.

all the others are clearly denialists in the pay of big pharma and big atheism.

I wonder who pays him or her to deny the consensus of such experts?

Thornavis.

Isn't the real problem that the railways placed profit over social value in their planning? It's capitalism again.

Oh God please no ! I musn't be tempted. Social value you say, what's that when it's at home and why should railways have it in particular ?

He said snow would be less frequent and we would underprepared.

Less frequent than when ? it's always been unpredictable with the occasional very cold winter interspersed with mild ones and we're always underprepared because snowfall is erratic and the cost of retaining the necessary equipment and manpower to deal with it is high. It doesn't help when the idea gets about that we won't be having any snow in future years, which as I've said is an idea that has to come from somewhere and it's no use saying climatologists have been mis-quoted, if they weren't so ready to lend themselves to the agendas of climate change activists that would be a lot less likely to happen.

Minnow

Oh God please no ! I musn't be tempted. Social value you say, what's that when it's at home and why should railways have it in particular ?

It's the question of what would be of more value to the society served rather (in this instance) than the shareholders. Railways needn't operate on that principle, but when they don't, they sometimes do things like get rid of snow ploughs for short term profit. In other words, thee blame there was on the capitalist and not the scientist.

Less frequent than when ?

Less frequent than hitherto. Downward trend.

WTP

I wonder who pays him or her to deny the consensus of such experts?

The thought occurred to me this morning, given his mentioning Daripole in his reply to my post, which had nothing to do with Daripole as I have no idea who that is, that perhaps given the weakness, inaccuracies, incomprehension, and utter BS of his posts perhaps he actually is paid by the big Wall Street banks to discredit socialism by posting such.

Thornavis.

It's the question of what would be of more value to the society served rather (in this instance) than the shareholders. Railways needn't operate on that principle, but when they don't, they sometimes do things like get rid of snow ploughs for short term profit.

That doesn't answer the question of why railways should be seen as a public service rather than just another transport mode. If privately owned railways had been concerned solely with short term profit they would probably have never bothered with snowploughs in the first place, along with a lot of other things which improved their services to the public and enhanced long term growth. The ploughs didn't go for reasons of short term profit they went because times changed and it was felt that their overall cost couldn't be justified, something that all businesses have to consider surely ? BR did much the same thing and in fact the ploughs had already started to be discarded before privatisation. The supposed future lack of snow was another nail in their coffin.

Thornavis.

Less frequent than hitherto. Downward trend.

Less frequent than during the slow warming period after the end of the LIA ? Yes there may well be a downward trend from that but it is most likely just another cyclic variation during the present warm period, a period we may be moving out of for all we know.

Tim Newman

The Left can tolerate anything except dissent, particularly if it comes from someone who they think is their political property based on their pigmentation or genitalia.

Indeed. See also Condoleeza Rice.

Tim Newman

The attraction that leftist ideas hold for antisocial personalities is well documented, but I don't think Minnow would fall into the killing-people-if-he-had-half-a-chance category.

No, Minnow would be in the *first-up-against-the-wall "but I thought we were on the same si.." BANG!* deluded fool category.

PJ

Sorry Minnow but you are talking absolute rubbish. Viner doesn't just say that snow will become less frequent. His ACTUAL words were that snow will become "a very rare and exciting event".

In fact he goes on to qualify just how rare it will become by stating that children within a few years from 2000 would actually not know what snow is.

His further statement that snow may cause chaos some time around 2020 by no means excuses the sheer inaccuracy of his previous comments.

Jeff Guinn

[Minnow:] By social equality I mean [women] have the same standing in society, the same freedoms and the same opportunities.

Your definition of social equality is circular. In the West, women have equivalent freedoms. Therefore, they have the same opportunities (indeed, in many areas they have more freedom and opportunity.)

As for "standing in society," that phrase is a sure sign of how anti human the left is. The sexes are not the same. Evolution did not stop at the neckline. Except to progressives, where people are nothing more than blank slates which progressives can perfect.

Even if [the gender correlation with mechanical ability] were true nothing follows from it unless you are recruiting mechanics at random, and it tells us nothing about the equality of the sexes.

This is what follows: despite at least 40 years of ever growing legal equality, there remain a great many things women will not, or cannot, do. And there is this little knock-on effect called parity error. For all those occupations men in their millions must do because women won't or can't, there is a corresponding number of occupations women must do. If women will not become mechanics (over 97% male), then men cannot be 50% of grade school teachers. The numbers don't work.

That is what follows, not this: In any given situation, the best mechanic for a job may be the woman and not the man. This is true for everything. Society is the aggregate of all "any given situation". Summing all given situations, nearly always the best kindergarten teacher will be a woman, the best hair braider will not be a straight man, but the best mechanic will be. Reality bites.

No, I didn't assume I had superior knowledge, I assumed that all the international climate monitoring agencies and all the specialist climatologists in universities in every continent on the globe had specialist knowledge.

No, what you asserted is that Dr. Nurse (that was so much fun to type I had to do it three times) presented Delingpole with an analogy that was utter nonsense, and in at least a couple more ways than I mentioned.

It is indefensible, and I can't help but notice you haven't even tried. Just as I can't help but notice you can't think of any CAGW deductive consequences. You know what else doesn't have deductive consequences? Religion.

Here is another reason Nurse's invocation of "consensus" is bollocks. That link is to a website set up by the Dutch parliament to facilitate scientific discussions among climate experts. This particular discussion is about Arctic sea ice, touted as the ne plus ultra of climate change.

And the consensus is?

Or just go to the home page and look at a variety of topics. You will not find Dr. Nurse's mythical expert consensus anywhere.

… the variance within the groups is as large as the variance across them.

That is, statistically speaking, as empty a statement as I have heard in a long time. It is another pronunciamento. To pick just one example, the variance in speaking vocal pitch among women is about 20% greater than among men. There is also almost no overlap between men and women. My voice is very deep and resonant. From extensive first hand experience, I am certain that people respond very differently to a deep voice than one much higher pitched: deeper voices convey far more authority, like it or not. There is absolutely no female equivalent to James Earl Jones.

Sexes are not equal. And the inequality divorces "is" from progressives' baseless notion of "ought".

There are many more examples where that came from. So what the heck does your pronunciamento mean?

Henry

Oh, hello Karen Straughan :) Good to see ya! We've mentioned your videos here more than once.

I tend to differ with you about feminism being an ideology, though. It pretends it is an ideology sometimes (at other times it pretends it is an academic discipline, which is hilarious) - but there's not enough agreement amongst feminists on what the ideals are. They do however agree to play the women vs men game - against men. That's about it.

Minnow has pretty much convinced me (with the above comments) that he/she is here mostly here just to wind us up. It's Minnow's right to be here, of course, but sadly there's very little to learn from his arguments.

Tim Newman

What I could never figure out amongst all the hysteria about the ice caps melting and the sea levels rising is how there is not one instance of a shipping chart needing to update it's LAT to reflect that. You'd have thought the world's sailors and shipping companies, who have skin in the game, would be paying close attention to sea levels rising. Or perhaps they are?

dicentra

Me: Male and female critters are different behaviorally because of hormonal activity on the brain.

bitty fish: Even if this is true

It is true. You can 86 the equivocation.

and is interesting to epidemiologists

It has only academic interest? Quite a statement.

nothing follows from it in terms of policy

Nothing? Nothing at all? Now you're being absolute where you should equivocate. You also failed to provide examples of policies that ought or ought not be affected by sexual differences. Even though policies are not the topic of this thread.

Interesting, that.

because, as you yourself prove,

A single data point proves nothing. For all you know, I'm an outlier among outliers.

the variance within the groups is as large as the variance across them.

Another whopper of an assertion. First, have you or anyone else measured the actual extent of the two types of variances and then compared them using objective measures? Second, are the differences among sexes different from the differences between them? If you have 1000 shades of red and 1000 shades of green, you still have two different colors. The palest green is still not the palest red. There is also no overlap between the two hues.

Examine a truckload of heterosexual couples and you'll find the same types of conflicts and expectations and assumptions that the couples must deal with, regardless of whether they're both Aspies or athletes. Differences of degree may occur, and a few role reversals, but the statistical correlations are strong enough to be considered factual.

dicentra

the science has moved on and it is now firmly understood that there are biologically meaningful categories of human race.

And those differences fall into what categories, exactly?

Ability to digest lactose? Immunity to sickle-cell anemia? Intestinal flora?

Do any of those differences inform how I ought to perceive or interact with someone from Africa or Asia? If they're all born into my same American culture, I don't need to take their ethnicity into account at all. I can use the same language, customs, and conventions. The only thing I might not do is ask an African to borrow her sunscreen. Because she probably doesn't use it.

However, when dealing with women or men, I do need to take their sex into account. Men are able to focus on one thing to the exclusion of all else, so when I need to speak to the male engineers, I sit next to their desks and wait until they're finished with what they're doing before asking a question; otherwise, they're liable to not hear what I've said. With women, I can just interrupt, because our attention always multitasks.

I also have to take care not to develop intimate relationships with the married men at work but with married women there's no need to keep a distance.

I don't walk into the men's room and would be aghast were a man to walk into the women's room. I'm not aghast when a woman I don't know walks into the women's room.

Real differences cause us to make adjustments; fake differences can be ignored.

dicentra

Railways needn't operate on that principle,

Cost-benefit analysis?

Their resources aren't infinite. But you go right on ahead and decide that "what's good for society" be the only criteria, other considerations be damned.

You've failed to inform us how you pay the rent. It's gotta be academia or another insulated corner of the public sector.

Otherwise, how could the bitty fish maintain the illusion that his policy preferences could be implemented just fine if the rest of us weren't a bunch of selfish old meanies.

dicentra

I assumed that all the international climate monitoring agencies and all the specialist climatologists in universities in every continent on the globe had specialist knowledge.

The possession of specialist knowledge doesn't preclude using that privileged position to tell the rest of us laymen that the sky will fall unless we give them heap big coin to fix it.

It's not unlike the Medieval priesthood having exclusive access to the scriptures while the populace had to settle for pictures on stained-glass windows. "Divine Right of Kings!" they insisted, even though YHWH comes out strongly against having kings at all, and then makes it pretty clear that he's not impressed by human power structures, he being able to upend them at will.

Those who attempted to translate the Bible into accessible languages were arrested and even executed. Allowing that specialist knowledge into the wild endangered their lock on Divine Authority.

So when "climate scientists" and their boosters insist that their detractors STFU or be jailed, that kinda gives the game away, dunnit?

Or perhaps you can explain why Michael Mann should be allowed to show his face in public after MM03?

Henry

Dicentra,

Minnow's ridiculous arguments about how "men and women are equal in every regard"...

He/she might be foolish enough to think that "every regard" includes numbers of spermatazoa or eggs, or levels of oestrogen/testosterone, but I doubt it. When feminists back down from this silliness, they try to take refuge in the idea that men and women are psychologically the same - that gender differences in behaviour are merely social constructs

As an antidote to such a position - this is one of the best papers I know about the neuroscience of gender differences. Worth a read

One interesting point is how men can getting similar results on certain types of intellectual tasks, by using quite different parts of the brain. So it's probable that male and female brains might be doing quite different things to get similar scores on some language/spatial reasoning tests

Minnow

Your definition of social equality is circular. In the West, women have equivalent freedoms. Therefore, they have the same opportunities (indeed, in many areas they have more freedom and opportunity.)

Woman want not simply equaluity before the law but an equality of opportunity and positive social equalities such as I described, the ability to lead similar sex lives to men without being shamed for it, as an example. That is not empty if you are a woman. You may think these conditions have already been achieved, but very few women will agree with you.

As for "standing in society," that phrase is a sure sign of how anti human the left is. The sexes are not the same. Evolution did not stop at the neckline. Except to progressives, where people are nothing more than blank slates which progressives can perfect.

They needn't be the same to be equals. Men are not the same either, there are huge differences between them, but they can still have equal standing.

This is what follows: despite at least 40 years of ever growing legal equality, there remain a great many things women will not, or cannot, do

This is just not true. Women can and will do every kind of work. The evidence is all around. There are still jobs dominated by men, but they needn't be.

Minnow

And those differences fall into what categories, exactly?

We do not yet know the extent, but it is very unlikely to be limited to physical differences.

And your black friends really should be using sunscreen, you know.

Minnow

I don't walk into the men's room and would be aghast were a man to walk into the women's room. I'm not aghast when a woman I don't know walks into the women's room.

You would need extra strong smelling salts if you worked where I do, toilets are mixed sex.

Minnow

To pick just one example, the variance in speaking vocal pitch among women is about 20% greater than among men. There is also almost no overlap between men and women.

This is a very odd statement, by the way. There is a very large overlap. Just take a listen to the late lamented Elaine Stritch for one example. There is a much larger vocal range among men, from Bass to Counter tenor, than between men and women. The in-group variance is larger than the cross group variance.

Jeff Guinn

This is a very odd statement, by the way. There is a very large overlap [in vocal pitch between men and women].

Nonsense. Bollocks. Wrong. Spoiler alert: you are going to lose track of the number of times "significant" is used in describing the difference between male and female voices.

For American English speakers, overall formant frequencies also appear to be globally higher for women. Similar statistical tests were performed again. Contrary to French speakers, a significant gender effect was found for F1 (F(1,102)=364.857, p<0.0001). There is a large interaction between factors “speaker’s gender” and “vowel” for this formant. Individual one-factor ANOVAs show a very large and significant cross-gender difference for open vowel [ӕ](F(1,34)=236.665, p<0.0001) and smaller but significant differences for [i:] (F(1,34)=92.298, p<0.0001) and [u:] (F(1,34)=62.373, p<0.001). Regarding the second formant (F2), there is a highly significant gender effect (F(1,102)=98.541, p<0.0001) and a low, albeit significant, interaction between “speaker’s gender” and “vowel” (F(2,102)=5.002, p<0.01). Nonetheless, separated ANOVAs show that male-female differences remain constantly strong among vowels [i:] (F(1,34)=54.372 ; p<0.0001), [ӕ] (F(1,34)=132.237 ; p<0.0001) and [u:] (F(1,34)=23.207 ; p<0.0001). Finally, the ANOVA performed on F3 data shows a very significant overall gender effect (F(1,102)=290.178, p<0.0001), with an important interaction between factors “speaker’s gender” and “vowel” (F(2,102)=18.578, p<0.0001). Individual one-factor ANOVAs reveal that cross-gender difference for F3 is greater for close vowels [i:] (F(1,34)=132.54, p<0.0001) and [u:] (F(1,34)=135.443, p<0.0001) than for [ӕ] (F(1,34)=50.129, p<0.0001).

Emphasis added, because the tendency towards pronunciamentos (great word, that, when talking to a progressive) is very strong in you.

And that's just one paragraph.

There is almost no overlap between the fundamental frequencies of male and female voices. Almost all men have voices lower than almost all women.

And this Women's Issues article contradicts both you and itself; oddly, the authors are completely deaf to the deafeningly obvious. (Just as I bet you are.)

Pro tip: If you are citing a specific example as a contradiction of a statistical phenomena, then you all you have done is find the exception that proves the rule.

Jeff Guinn

Women want not simply equality before the law but an equality of opportunity and positive social equalities such as I described, the ability to lead similar sex lives to men without being shamed for it, as an example.

Shenanigans, again.

This is a perfect example of question begging. Why is it a positive social equality that women be judged no more harshly for promiscuity than men? Wouldn't it be a far more positive social equality for men to be judged as harshly as women?

Then there is the sentence construction without which progressives would be nearly speechless: passive voice. Shamed by whom?

Jeff Guinn

This is just not true. Women can and will do every kind of work. The evidence is all around.

Then cite some.

There are still jobs dominated by men, but they needn't be.

In the complete absence of barriers to women, along with women's continued glaring absence, reality says otherwise.

In that list of "non-traditional" occupations, which contains actual evidence, just those that have less than 10% female participation comprise more than 16 million workers in the US.

Not one of them is off limits to women. Women aren't doing these things because they won't, or can't.

Oh, BTW, when you type "dominated by men" you really meant to say "predominantly male".

Henry

The in-group variance is larger than the cross group variance

..which is in itself a difference.

Also I used to work in epidemiology. Minnow hasn't the slightest idea what he's talking about. He means biologists and/or neuroscientists

Ignore. Waste of time.

Minnow

There is almost no overlap between the fundamental frequencies of male and female voices. Almost all men have voices lower than almost all women.

Yes, but not all. there is an overlap. So nothing follows from this observation for any particular male or female. And why should we consider people who speak at a higher or lower pitch to be inferior or superior to other people any way?

Minnow

This is a perfect example of question begging. Why is it a positive social equality that women be judged no more harshly for promiscuity than men? Wouldn't it be a far more positive social equality for men to be judged as harshly as women?

No, that would constitute an increase in freedom. Women want the same freedoms as men, including in this important area of life.

Then cite some.

It would be much quicker to cite some examples of jobs that women are incapable of doing. I can't think of any, but you claim there are many, so over to you.

In the complete absence of barriers to women, along with women's continued glaring absence, reality says otherwise.

If we accept the complete absence of barriers. It seems to me obvious that barriers persist and I have never met a woman who didn't believe there were such barriers.

David

[ Quietly fixes avalanche of italics. ]

Minnow

..which is in itself a difference.

But nobody is disputing there are differences, only whether women can be said to be the inferior sex (or vice versa) in any meaningful sense.

Minnow

Thanks re italics. Must concentrate harder. It seems men really can't multi-task.

David

I feel I should mention that in order to deter spam the comment threads automatically close after one month. Or 10,000 comments, whichever comes first.

Minnow

If we hit the 10,000 will there be a certificate?

David

There will be cake.

Minnow

Yeah, always cake tomorrow

David

There are scurrilous rumours regarding the non-existence of said cake. Do not listen to those rumours. Believe in the cake.

Minnow

Weeeell, I dunno, they make a good case.

Jeff Guinn

But nobody is disputing there are differences, only whether women can be said to be the inferior sex (or vice versa) in any meaningful sense.

Who has said anything about inferiority?

Minnow

Who has said anything about inferiority?

If you mean are not merely using 'unequal' as a synomym for 'different' you must be implying inferiority or superiority.

Hal

Hmmm. Amongst the cascade of cream pies being thrown at moving targets, would this and assorted be cake?

Ever since “Trojan Horse” broke, the apologists have been claiming it's all a racist fabrication.

. . . .

Those voices have fallen silent now. As Peter Clarke’s horrifying report reveals, the real bigotry, bullying and lies were from several of the staff and governors of the Trojan Horse schools. The private messages of Razwan Faraz, deputy head at Nansen and one of the key plot ringleaders, attacking gay people as “satanic animals,” make clear that the media’s only failing was to understate the depth and virulence of the forces involved.

Minnow

Some scarily leftish ideas being expressed by Gilligan in that article:

But no school run by someone who believes, as Mr Faraz believes, that women’s “perpetual role” is “serving men” can be a good school.

What on earth else are women for? PC gone made, I say.

Jeff Guinn

If you mean are not merely using 'unequal' as a synomym for 'different' you must be implying inferiority or superiority.

Where did I use "unequal"? (Spoiler alert: nowhere)

You have just scored an own goal, BTW. No, that would constitute an increase in freedom goes straight, without justification, from different to inferior. This is a classic example of collectivist thinking: that people acting per their own preferences aren't free, that one kind of reaction is more "free" than another; that it is in women's interests to prefer men's judgment free promiscuity to judging women's promiscuity; that women themselves aren't doing the judging; that people shouldn't be free to judge.

Within one sentence, you have reached a half dozen conclusions, all without a single argument. You traffic in pronunciamentos that contradict themselves before they even get their shoes tied.

Another pro-tip: instead of saying what people have said, quote them. Every time I get in a debate with collectivists, whether here, or at Crooked Timber (for another example) invariably collectivists interpose what they have decided I said upon what I actually said.

This is a puzzler. In my experience, non-collectivists never do this.

Minnow

Where did I use "unequal"? (Spoiler alert: nowhere)

It is implied when you deny 'equality'. If you are now conceding that women and men are equals, we can put that one to bed. Wish you could have got round to it sooner.

that one kind of reaction is more "free" than another; that it is in women's interests to prefer men's judgment free promiscuity to judging women's promiscuity

It is in women's interest to be free to choose for themselves. Without choice, what is freedom?

WTP

Jeff, if I might help. The Clueless One ("One"...as if) is referencing this:

Sexes are not equal. And the inequality divorces "is" from progressives' baseless notion of "ought"

I was going to comment to the effect that if bicycles are not equal to boomerangs, which is superior/inferior? then erased it. Cause i'm trying to stop this. Must...get...help...

Minnow

I was going to comment to the effect that if bicycles are not equal to boomerangs, which is superior/inferior? then erased it. Cause i'm trying to stop this. Must...get...help...

See above, I have made it clear many times so UI assume Jeff and others agree that we are not using 'unequal' in the sense of 'different'. Because then we just come to the banal conclusion that all humans are unequal.

dicentra

the ability to lead similar sex lives to men without being shamed for it, as an example.

The ability to be libertine sluts without shame?

Dood. The fact that men are able to be libertine sluts without shame is not something to aspire to. It's what makes them pigs.

'Twere better that men bridle their passions instead of thinking with their crotches.

However, if you don't know already that the reproductive strategy of the male is to inseminate as many females as possible, and that the female reproductive strategy is to mate with the alpha male — behavior rooted 100% in unchangeable biological reality — then I don't know what to do for you.

dicentra

You would need extra strong smelling salts if you worked where I do, toilets are mixed sex.

I was RIGHT!

You work in academia.

dicentra

only whether women can be said to be the inferior sex

On what planet is this still being disputed? Surely not in the enlightened West.

But continuing to champion a position no one opposes anymore is Yet Another Hallmark of the left. In race relations it's always 1963; in the battle of the sexes, it's no later than the Stone Age.

dicentra

invariably collectivists interpose what they have decided I said upon what I actually said.

This is a puzzler. In my experience, non-collectivists never do this.

If you're not already a regular reader of proteinwisdom.com, you should give it a look. Jeff has spent more than a decade explaining the incoherent linguistic assumptions that underpin the phenomenon you describe.

Within one sentence, you have reached a half dozen conclusions, all without a single argument. You traffic in pronunciamentos that contradict themselves before they even get their shoes tied.

I used to wonder if Minnow weren't David in drag, wherein he plays the devil's advocate as an intellectual exercise.

But then if that were the case, Minnow's arguments would be a lot more cogent and intelligible, not to mention wittier.

So, no. Minnow, alas, is the real thing.

David

I used to wonder if Minnow weren’t David in drag, wherein he plays the devil’s advocate as an intellectual exercise.

And do twice the legwork? Are you high?

Hal

And do twice the legwork? Are you high?

Twice?

Set up a good [someone else needs to state coding particulars here] script that starts with a previous post and then scrambles to generate output . . . mebbe with an occasional sprinkling of pre-seeded websites and references from them . . .

Sort of like the pomo generator only pulling from the blog instead . . . .

The coding has a bit of work involved, but the use becomes trivial.

WTP

I once used the old Dilbert site's mission statement generator to populate some required BS blurb for my self-review. Kept clicking until a statement popped up that I could modify to fit an individual instead of a corporation. My boss was impressed with the result as it made him look good in some meeting. He was even more impressed when I told him how "efficiently" I came up with it.

Henry

But nobody is disputing there are differences, only whether women can be said to be the inferior sex (or vice versa) in any meaningful sense

You said earlier and I must quote once again, that "men and women are equal in every regard". Which is a different statement - and clearly false.

Many people would like to think that the sexes are exactly equal in intellectual tasks. You yourself seem to be so enamoured of a (horribly vague) notion of 'equality' that you think science must show that men & women are equal.

What if it doesn't for many tasks? Is the science then wrong because it didn't come up with the currently ideologically correct picture?

Fortunately the sexes seem to complement each other in that they are good at different tasks. There's no need to think either are inferior (that would be awkward!). But this still isn't enough for Steinem et all, so they insist the science must be wrong. Because it doesn't suit them personally

dicentra

It would be much quicker to cite some examples of jobs that women are incapable of doing. I can't think of any, but you claim there are many, so over to you.

Dunno about "incapable" in an absolute sense but "No way José" jobs are featured on Mike Rowe's Dirty Jobs.

Hal

The coding has a bit of work involved, but the use becomes trivial.

---and even the manual version wouldn't be that difficult. You're going for responding material as a result, not responding accuracy . . .

Hal

Dunno about "incapable" in an absolute sense but "No way José" jobs are featured on Mike Rowe's Dirty Jobs.

. . . . noting the distinct difference between incapable and No way José . . . where I am extremely capable of babysitting hipsters---one either fires 'em, or one arranges that they will learn to either auto correct and improve or voluntarily quit, i.e. they fire themselves--- . . . but given the level of effort required to set up the perfect autocorrect forcing mechanism, by this point, for me that pretty much automatically slides into NWJ . . . .

dicentra

I have never met a woman who didn't believe there were such barriers.

Probative of exactly nothing, starting with the fact that the women you know are elitist intellectuals who must vociferously express that article of faith lest they get their eyes clawed out.

Everyone runs into barriers of one type or another. Straight white cis-males run into "barriers" for being:

Bald
Short
Fat
Inarticulate
Dorky
Muscle-bound
Weedy
Bland
Clumsy
Old
Ginger

When the bigotry is strong enough to keep a woman down it will keep us all down. Same with all other "oppressed" subgroups.

The West has got this opportunity thing down to a freaking science. On to Waziristan, if it's that important to you.

Civilis

Everyone runs into barriers of one type or another. Straight white cis-males run into "barriers" for being:

[List snipped to save space]

I looked at that list and went 'that's me... and that... and that...'. I think I missed muscle-bound, old, and ginger. Having one or two of those can be worked around (see Patrick Stewart for the first entry on the list), but having multiples is for all practical purposes insurmountable.

But the inverse is more important. It may be possible to find a woman with upper body strength comparable to that of an above-average man, or endurance comparable to an above-average man. It's a lot more difficult to find a woman with strength and endurance (and pain tolerance and reflexes and...) and all the things we expect in an elite rough field job. A female Olympic weightlifter can lift enough to pass that part of a military physical, but is unlikely to have the distance running skills.

To put it in reverse, there are a handful of physical competitions where women have an advantage; it's one of the reasons women's gymnastics and figure skating gets more attention than men's. There are a handful of men smaller and lighter than the average female gymnast, yet I wouldn't expect, say, Verne Troyer or Peter Dinklage to be able to compete with a female gymnast because it's not just size but also flexibility and strength. You need to win the genetic lottery at all three to have a chance.

Civilis

It would be much quicker to cite some examples of jobs that women are incapable of doing. I can't think of any, but you claim there are many, so over to you.

And that's the language trick. Because there might theoretically be one woman in a million or a billion capable of doing a job that a thousand times as many men can do, we have to assume that women in general are physically equal to men when it comes to employment.

Of course, I can think of a job women are incapable of doing: Sperm donor. (And men are incapable of being Surrogate Mothers). Would Olympic Medalist in, say, the Men's 100m dash also qualify?

dicentra

The male body is built for brute strength; the female body for endurance (famines, long-distance journeys, hard winters, surviving infancy).

Which type of strength is more important? Neither; they're complementary and to a degree mutually exclusive.

Feminist efforts to desegregate The Citadel (military school) have forced them to "dumb down" the qualifications for women, who might be able to finish the 10-mile-hike but not as fast as the men. The first female inductees washed out because they couldn't keep up.

There's a reason women don't compete with men in sports: women aren't built for the same physical tasks. Our very hip angle prevents us from running/swimming as fast as men, not to mention the sheer muscle mass that testosterone provokes.

Women tend to be better at pattern recognition and fine motor skills whereas men are better with gross motor skills and spatial orientation.

Turns out women are also better as test pilots because our lower center of gravity helps us endure the Gs better than men. And men are better at dirty jobs because they're less easily grossed out. (I happily swapped out a radiator from my old car but kept running back into the house to wash off the gritty greasy ewwww stuff.)

However, for most occupations in this modern, cubicle world, employers should be able to hire whomever fills the bill without considering sex ratios. If women happen to prefer some types of employment and men others, who the hell cares, as long as there are no artificial barriers to doing what you're good at.

Jeff Guinn

[Minnow:] If you are now conceding that women and men are equals, we can put that one to bed.

I said quite a way up that men and women are legally equal; although to be quite accurate, women are somewhat more equal than men.

I also said quite clearly that legal equality, without coercion, will not lead to this social equality unicorn you keep trotting out.

It beggars belief that we are having to belabor the glaringly obvious so, but here goes again. Men and women are radically different, they are not blank slates, and the differences lead to ineradicable inequality.

That Women's Issues article I pointed you to above, which I am quite certain you didn't look at, because you avoid evidence the way vampires avoid the sun, completely contradicted itself and you by the time it reached the second page. Since you won't look at it, I'll summarize here.

Problem: in voice acting; something like four time as many men are employed as women because #waronwymyn.

Page two. The authors do surveys.

Trigger alert: since this paragraph contains evidence, collectivists will likely find it disturbing. The authors played recordings of passages read by men, and by women. Listeners, both male and female found, by large margins, that male voices convey more authority. That's the way it is which is miles away from your ought. The difference is innate, beyond the reach of re-education camps. Both men and women find deep male voices far more authoritative than much higher female voices. Because patriarchy, I guess.

Yes, but not all. There is an overlap [in male and female fundamental frequencies].

Would you please do us all a favor? In the future, when you make a pronouncement like this, back it up with something other than your assurances, since they are far too often dead wrong. On just this subject alone you have many times asserted something that is simply not true.

Your "overlap" is way out at the tail end of the Hz distributions, which leaves you only with exceptions that by their very rarity prove the general rule. Yes, I'm sure some women have deeper voices than effeminate men, and everyone this side of a twee five year old girl has a voice deeper than Michael Jackson's was, but that is no help to you at all.

Fairness be damned, deep, resonant, voiced men will always be able to convey more authority than women. Low frequencies penetrate far more efficiently than high. It matters, a lot, in ways that make a complete mockery out of "social equality"..

Ineradicable difference. Unequal effect. Extensive knock-on consequences. Therefore, according to the article, #waronwymyn! To everyone else except collectivists, #realitybites.

It is in women's interest to be free to choose for themselves. Without choice, what is freedom?

I don't think I've read anything so anodyne AND vacuous in so few words. You assert — again without a shred of evidence — that women in general want the same freedom to be promiscuous without criticism as men, and that this is somehow positive. In other words, you wish to suppress the freedom of people to judge others' conduct. I hope this isn't a news flash to you, but women are far more judgmental, particularly of other women, in this regard.

If we accept the complete absence of barriers. It seems to me obvious that barriers persist and I have never met a woman who didn't believe there were such barriers.

My profession, well remunerated at the upper ranks, has rocketed from 0% female to 3% female in forty years. To be more accurate, it rocketed to 3% in about 20 years, and has scarcely changed since. That is despite the fact that companies compete to hire any woman that even meets minimum qualifications.

There are no barriers other than aptitude and motivation to women. Yet they avoid it in droves.

Small engine mechanics are almost universally male. Why?

dicentra

Yes, I'm sure some women have deeper voices than effeminate men,

In my brother's erstwhile barbershop quartet, they introduced their high tenor as "the only one of us who cannot sing lower than his wife."

Still an outlier.

I prefer to listen to male voices, too, because high-pitched women's voices grate on my nerves. I also dislike violin concertos (all of which are "Concerto for the E String") and soprano arias.

Sound frequencies affect us differently. The tinny beep of a cell phone will never soothe as well as a cello sonata.

Damned, unenlightened physics. Why can't it get with the program?

Minnow

My profession, well remunerated at the upper ranks, has rocketed from 0% female to 3% female in forty years. To be more accurate, it rocketed to 3% in about 20 years, and has scarcely changed since. That is despite the fact that companies compete to hire any woman that even meets minimum qualifications.

Or it could be that your profession is still largely populated with men like you who hold primitive attitudes about female workers that make it an uncomfortable place for them to be. This takes a while to change, but as the dinosaurs drop out, the mammals will slowly rise.

Minnow

Sound frequencies affect us differently. The tinny beep of a cell phone will never soothe as well as a cello sonata.Damned, unenlightened physics. Why can't it get with the program?

As so often Dicentra, you mistake your personal preferences for laws of nature. Some of us find Callas singing Casta Diva as soothing as music can be.

Tim Newman

The professions women choose to enter are largely determined by the courses they choose to do at university. Women are well represented in process engineering departments in the oil industry, but barely at all in the mechanical and civil departments who sit right next door. Why? Because for some reason, women prefer to study chemical engineering (the starting point to being a process engineer) than mechanical engineering. The faculties are run in the same manner, yet women prefer to do chemical engineering over mechanical engineering by a factor of around 5-10.

Or maybe the patriarchy is brutally shoving women into chemical engineering and erecting enormous barriers to keep them out off mechanical?

Tim Newman

Dicentra:

Sound frequencies affect us differently.

Minnow:

Dicentra, you mistake your personal preferences for laws of nature. Some of us find Callas singing Casta Diva as soothing as music can be.

Me:

What is it about the left and their inability to read?

Minnow

Tim, it is your failure to read. Dicentra meant that sound frequencies cause different effects in us, low ones being soothing. Or , at least, that is what she wrote.

Minnow

Or maybe the patriarchy is brutally shoving women into chemical engineering and erecting enormous barriers to keep them out off mechanical?

Maybe it is, let's see how things pan out. It was only the day before yesterday that it was evident that women were unfit to work as doctors or lawyers after all. I suspect that the lovely chaps in mechanical engineering do not make the department as welcoming for the ladies as they might. We will see.

Tim Newman

I suspect that the lovely chaps in mechanical engineering do not make the department as welcoming for the ladies as they might.

But the same chaps - for there is a great deal of cross-over - make the chemical engineering department welcoming for ladies? I've read Nigerian 419 emails that are more convincing than this.

God forbid it might simply be the case that women, in general, prefer to study chemical engineering over mechanical. No, the nefarious patriarchy and misogynist mechanical engineers must always be at work.

Tim Newman

Dicentra meant that sound frequencies cause different effects in us, low ones being soothing.

In which case she's also right. There is a reason why warning sirens are always designed with a high-pitch.

Minnow

In which case she's also right. There is a reason why warning sirens are always designed with a high-pitch.

It is because they are easier to hear especially over distance. But you will notice modern alarms have variable pitch.

Minnow

God forbid it might simply be the case that women, in general, prefer to study chemical engineering over mechanical.

It might be, but it is too early to tell. This thread shows that there is still a lot of anti-woman prejudice in some professions and it seems implausible to me that that has had no effect. After all, women have only very recently forced themselves in any numbers into the professions at all. Remember how Jews just seemed attracted to money lending, lacking, apparently the inclination for nobler pursuits? Until they didn't. Something changed.

Tim Newman

It might be, but it is too early to tell.

Actually, you have no idea how long this phenomenon has been observed, as today is the first time you'd ever have heard of it. You've just pulled the "it's too early to tell" response out of your arse because it is the only way you can stick to your dogma of the nefarious patriarchy keeping the sistas down.

Tim Newman

It is because they are easier to hear especially over distance.

Bullshit. Factory hooters and fog-horns are not high-pitched, precisely because they want to convey a different message.

But you will notice modern alarms have variable pitch.

Modern alarms? How quaint. Let that be your little secret.

Minnow

Actually, you have no idea how long this phenomenon has been observed, as today is the first time you'd ever have heard of it. You've just pulled the "it's too early to tell" response out of your arse because it is the only way you can stick to your dogma of the nefarious patriarchy keeping the sistas down.

I know, as you probably do, that women have been making a concerted attempt to break down professional barriers for the last fifty or so of the 5,000 or so years of human history. They have been amazingly successful in some areas, but progress has been slower in others. However, as someone who can still remember when the idea of a female surgeon was either a bit funny or a bit sexy, always worth a double take on the TV, I am confident things will change even in the more neanderthal corners of the professions. Too early to tell for sure though. The fight has only just started.

Tim Newman

I know, as you probably do, that women have been making a concerted attempt...

*guff*

...Too early to tell for sure though. The fight has only just started.

Bzzzzt!!! Repetition!!

NEXT!

Minnow

Modern alarms? How quaint. Let that be your little secret.

?

Minnow

*guff*

You hadn't noticed? Well, perhaps you should peek outside of you cave a little more often. You might like it out here.

Tim Newman

You hadn't noticed?

Erm, it was *me* who pointed out to *you* the prevalence of female process engineers in the oil industry. Up until then, you were blissfully unaware. You hadn't noticed.

Minnow

I was unaware, and I am glad that you have after all noticed the triumphs of feminism in recent years. It is another datum to demonstrate that there are no careers that women are unfit for. I am sure the outward ripples will continue even into the workshop. After all, there were no shortage of women engineers, mechanics, or mechanical engineers in the 40s, and that was from a standing start, as it were.

Tim Newman

I was unaware, and I am glad that you have after all noticed the triumphs of feminism in recent years.

And I'm glad you've finally admitted the oppressive patriarchy was a figment of your imagination all along! Drinks all round!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon-co-uk-logo
Amazon Link

Blogroll