The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NYT: Sex Difference Glass Isn't Half-Full, It's ... Half-Empty!
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the NYT Opinion page:

Can We Finally Stop Talking About ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ Brains?

Recent research is making it clearer than ever that the notion that sex determines the fundamentals of brain structure and behavior is a misconception.

By Daphna Joel and Cordelia Fine

Ms. Joel is a professor of psychology and neuroscience and Ms. Fine is a professor of history and the philosophy of science.

The trans folk are going to be mad.

 
Hide 103 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Can we stop talking about male and female brains, the continuing invasion of the US, immigrant costs and crime, social media and search monopolies, lack of any voter ID, invading countries but refusing to defend our own border, the gutting of our manufacturing base by China, Mexico and Germany? Can we just stop talking about all that and have everyone acknowledge their position in society – you on top as an “intellectual, you on bottom as a worthless relic of the racist past with no hope of a good job. But stop talking about it!

    And if you cannot stop talking about it, we will make you stop talking about it as soon as we are able.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    @Ibound1

    Jews have no business calling other people worthless relics of the past.

    Replies: @Ibound1

  2. Diverse…vibrant…the right side of history…

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Anon

    Mihalik's killers are Bantu, but the dueling crime syndicates he was fighting appear to be Coloured.

    You do have to give the latter credit for imaginative gang names. Hard Livings, Young Gifted Sexy Bastards, Ugly Americans, Mongrels, Funky Junky Boys...

  3. …not sure if this is a re-post or I messed up…

    Contradicting the headline, they found sex differences in male and female brains:

    In 2015, one of us, Daphna Joel, led an analysis of four large data sets of brain scans, and found that the sex differences you see overall between men’s and women’s brains

    but the difference weren’t “neat and consistent” for everyone:

    aren’t neatly and consistently seen in individual brains.

    So naturally they found personality differences between men and women:

    For example, in the data set on 4,860 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the variables on which young women and men[sic] differed the most included …[a whole buncha stuff]

    but the differences weren’t the same for everyone.

    The article’s logic is “men and women are the same height because some women are as tall as some men.”

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    @Flemur

    A comment in another thread about this NY Times article summed it up pretty well: it just commits a version of Lewontin's Fallacy for brain structure.

    Obviously Joel and Fine are some serious deep thinkers.

    Good enough for academic work, though.

    , @JimB
    @Flemur

    The partial absence of evidence is not evidence for partial absence.

    , @Dieter Kief
    @Flemur


    The article’s logic is “men and women are the same height because some women are as tall as some men.”
     
    Or one might labor on in the spirit of the times: Men and women are not of the same height at all, because we found in our studies that lots of men and women are not of the same height.

    - So - we all gotta beware not to be fooled by people who claim, that there'd be any kind of differences, since we've found none of them to be true for all the individuals tested. We, therefore, must be absolutely clear about the fact, that from a scientific standpoint you can't allow any doubts about the epistemic sameness which all of our data now allowed us to make clearer than ever.

    And so on and so forth and again from the beginning and - - ... - - it's like being in a circus, but without kids with glaring eyes and without a marching band in phantasy-uniforms and with no horses, no clowns and apes, and lions.
    All there is are a few middle-class types with their notebooks sitting in the ring, trying to imitate life by typing circus-descriptions, which can be read on giant screens in real time instead. - For hours and hours on end.
  4. The trans folk are going to be mad.

    You mean “angry”. They’ve always been mad!

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082696/mediaviewer/rm3946962944

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Reg Cæsar

    Austrian tranny and Eurovision winner Conchita Wurst has AIDs but says it's controlled with drugs. He wasn't going to admit it but a boyfriend threatened to go public first. Our moral superiors.

  5. @Flemur
    ...not sure if this is a re-post or I messed up...

    Contradicting the headline, they found sex differences in male and female brains:

    In 2015, one of us, Daphna Joel, led an analysis of four large data sets of brain scans, and found that the sex differences you see overall between men’s and women’s brains

    but the difference weren't "neat and consistent" for everyone:

    aren’t neatly and consistently seen in individual brains.

    So naturally they found personality differences between men and women:

    For example, in the data set on 4,860 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the variables on which young women and men[sic] differed the most included ...[a whole buncha stuff]

    but the differences weren't the same for everyone.

    The article's logic is "men and women are the same height because some women are as tall as some men."

    Replies: @candid_observer, @JimB, @Dieter Kief

    A comment in another thread about this NY Times article summed it up pretty well: it just commits a version of Lewontin’s Fallacy for brain structure.

    Obviously Joel and Fine are some serious deep thinkers.

    Good enough for academic work, though.

  6. Get educated

    I have no trouble believing that gender is a social construct. For I may be white but I’ve also had much contact with Native American First Nation Indians Indegenous Peopoe. Traditionally they had more than two genders and societal norms regarding the sexes were very different from the European/white ones. So gender as far as I believed has always been more culture oriented rather than biological. Just one of many other things the white Christians couldn’t wrap their head around. “Wait wait… your god is a WOMAN???” head explodes

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    @Tiny Duck

    I think you mean get indoctrinated, and no thanks, you are moronic enough all by yourself.

    , @tyrone
    @Tiny Duck

    Calling Indians "peopoe" is offensive tiny ,how ,how could you do such a thing?

    Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager

    , @Digital Samizdat
    @Tiny Duck

    Gender may be a social construct, but sex is biological. Let me make this simple for you, Tiny. There are two sexes: male and female: There are three 'genders': masculine, feminine and degenerate.

    Got it now?

    , @Peripatetic commenter
    @Tiny Duck


    I have no trouble believing that gender is a social construct.
     
    Actually, gender is a grammatical construct.

    Sex, on the other hand, is biological.

    That is, people with an X and a Y chromosome are male and usually have male characteristics, except for a very small number of individuals who have things like Androgen Insensitivity.

    Similarly, people with two X chromosomes (and without a Y chromosome to exclude the very tiny number of XXY individuals) are female and usually have female characteristics.

    There are tiny numbers of individuals with genetic abnormalities who can present with sexual characteristics different from what their genes would suggest.
  7. Cochran’s demolition of Cordelia Fine is a great read: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/old-t-rex/

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @The Z Blog


    Cochran’s demolition of Cordelia Fine is a great read:
     
    I followed the link and then had to double-check my clicking. I saw several of our best posters there. At first I thought deja vu. Then I realized it was vuja de. It was not already seen. The interior decorating was Industrial, but I am used to Minimalist. Nonetheless, the posts were still trenchant.

    The ensuing cognitive dissonance hurt my head.

    Z, I am not following your links after dark anymore. It is too scary.
  8. First, set up the straw man. “At its core is the persistent belief that men’s and women’s natures can be usefully and meaningfully carved into two categories or “natural kinds,” that are distinct, timeless, and deeply biologically grounded.”

    Then knock it down with a startling! conclusion that everyone already believed anyway, “This yields many types of brain and behavior, which neither fall into a “male” and a “female” type, nor line up tidily along a male-female continuum.”

    Say there are ten traits being examined, A–J. She seems to be saying that heretofore, stupid, privileged male analysts would say, “100% of men have brains that include traits A,B,C,D,E and 100% of women traits F,G,H,I,J.” (Of course no one really said this but why let that ruin a good fable?)

    Then with this, “In other words, humans generally don’t have brains with mostly or exclusively “female-typical” features or “male-typical” features.”, she and her cohorts seem to be saying that men may have F,B,H,D,J and women A,G,C,I,E or any random combination of these.

    But then she doubles back and says this, “Instead, what’s most common in both females and males are brains with “mosaics” of features, some of them more common in males and some more common in females.”

    Mosaics? What’s that but a collection of individual bits? So, are the individual bits A,B,C,D,E more common in men or not?

    “Not a single person had only feminine or only masculine scores on these variables. Rather, what was typical of both men and women (70 percent of them, to be exact) was a mosaic of feminine and masculine characteristics.”

    Okay folks, here comes the meat and potatoes! Just which traits made up the “feminine and masculine characteristics” and what were their distributions?

    Silence…..As usual with liberal papers, just when things get interesting (and difficult), they stop.

    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    @ThreeCranes


    First, set up the straw man. “At its core is the persistent belief that men’s and women’s natures can be usefully and meaningfully carved into two categories or “natural kinds,” that are distinct, timeless, and deeply biologically grounded.”
     
    That isn't a strawman nor false. Humans are driven by self interest. Men and women both want to have offspring but their biology is different. Hence men and women will have different natures that come from that.
    , @Anon
    @ThreeCranes

    I can't bring myself to read anything by Cordelia Fine, but in general what has been found about the brains of men and women is not that they are different in construction, but that the average value for traits is different for many or most traits, and that if you make a composite score for all traits, and there are many decisions you have to make in construction a composite based on weighting and ranging or traits, that the composite value will on average for a large sample be quite different for women than for men.

    What you end up with is the standard two bell curves with the right tail of one overlapping the left tail of the other. People in these overlaps may tend more to be trans, I suspect. And my suspicion is that although men and women may overlap considerably trait by trait, that in any rationally constructed composite trait gender score there is going to be little overlap. In fact, I would make that a test of whether the formula for compositing traits is valid or not.

    , @Rosie
    @ThreeCranes


    Okay folks, here comes the meat and potatoes! Just which traits made up the “feminine and masculine characteristics” and what were their distributions?

    Silence…..As usual with liberal papers, just when things get interesting (and difficult), they stop.
     
    They don't think anything more needs to be said. So long as sex differences are not absolute, they believe it is a moral imperative to ignore them altogether. I don't agree with this position, but I don't think it's indefensible. The problem is that they open the door by demanding equal representation in everything, unless women outperform men, in which case it's just fine. Obviously, you can't reasonably expect men to just "stop talking about" that.
  9. The New York Times article begins with some incredibly incompetent scientific theorizing:

    “In 17th and 18th century Europe, the rise of egalitarian ideals created the need for a scientific account of women’s inferior status. Thus was born gender biological complementarity..”

    Scientific dummies wrote that sentence – they have no conception of scientific analysis. It is clearly not how the theory of biological complementarity came into existence. It was not developed as a conspiracy to oppress women. Rather, people of both genders noticed the average differences in male and female behavior and over time developed a theory to explain it. This article provides an alternative, politically-motivated nonsense explanation, claiming that the theory of gender biological complementarity was created to oppress women. Their claim is worthless trash but politically opportunistic.

    Shameful, trash-can theorizing spouted by supposed scientists to support their political aims.

  10. @Flemur
    ...not sure if this is a re-post or I messed up...

    Contradicting the headline, they found sex differences in male and female brains:

    In 2015, one of us, Daphna Joel, led an analysis of four large data sets of brain scans, and found that the sex differences you see overall between men’s and women’s brains

    but the difference weren't "neat and consistent" for everyone:

    aren’t neatly and consistently seen in individual brains.

    So naturally they found personality differences between men and women:

    For example, in the data set on 4,860 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the variables on which young women and men[sic] differed the most included ...[a whole buncha stuff]

    but the differences weren't the same for everyone.

    The article's logic is "men and women are the same height because some women are as tall as some men."

    Replies: @candid_observer, @JimB, @Dieter Kief

    The partial absence of evidence is not evidence for partial absence.

  11. @Flemur
    ...not sure if this is a re-post or I messed up...

    Contradicting the headline, they found sex differences in male and female brains:

    In 2015, one of us, Daphna Joel, led an analysis of four large data sets of brain scans, and found that the sex differences you see overall between men’s and women’s brains

    but the difference weren't "neat and consistent" for everyone:

    aren’t neatly and consistently seen in individual brains.

    So naturally they found personality differences between men and women:

    For example, in the data set on 4,860 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the variables on which young women and men[sic] differed the most included ...[a whole buncha stuff]

    but the differences weren't the same for everyone.

    The article's logic is "men and women are the same height because some women are as tall as some men."

    Replies: @candid_observer, @JimB, @Dieter Kief

    The article’s logic is “men and women are the same height because some women are as tall as some men.”

    Or one might labor on in the spirit of the times: Men and women are not of the same height at all, because we found in our studies that lots of men and women are not of the same height.

    – So – we all gotta beware not to be fooled by people who claim, that there’d be any kind of differences, since we’ve found none of them to be true for all the individuals tested. We, therefore, must be absolutely clear about the fact, that from a scientific standpoint you can’t allow any doubts about the epistemic sameness which all of our data now allowed us to make clearer than ever.

    And so on and so forth and again from the beginning and – – … – – it’s like being in a circus, but without kids with glaring eyes and without a marching band in phantasy-uniforms and with no horses, no clowns and apes, and lions.
    All there is are a few middle-class types with their notebooks sitting in the ring, trying to imitate life by typing circus-descriptions, which can be read on giant screens in real time instead. – For hours and hours on end.

  12. Professors Joel and Fine:

    “Psychology and neuroscience” = soft. (Unless I’m wrong, don’t let the word neuroscience throw you off, especially when it is combined with psychology.)

    “History and the philosophy of science” = soft.

    Conclusion: two more jackasses with words.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Oh, I'm so scared, because YOUR politics are based on mathematical logic and rigorous scientific experimentation. Everyone know the problems with America are caused by SOFT ideas like religion, morality, and especially history. If only sound theoretical physicists like Stephen Hawking or Sheldon Cooper were in control, everything would be just great!

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    , @anon
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The problem isn't psych per se, but what it's defined to be nowadays. When psych was a bunch German and Dutch dudes with beards doing psychophysics, and Skinnerians freaking out rats, the findings were solid and still stand today. But once Freudianism and then social psychology were allowed to subvert psych, a lot of folks with the gift of gab and no mathematical chops could spout Viennese and Frankfurter nonsense and get away with it because they had each other's back. It's as though astrology became a dominant branch of physics and a bunch of silly women with a gift of BSing people were now "physicists".

    The findings on IQ, and race and sex differences are clear in psych, and folks like Pinker know it. These are usually the biggest "side" effects in studies interested in something else. But even he can't say it openly. He was there for the Larry Summers show trial, defending his statements in fact, and things are now much worse. What the Summers show trial was about is demanding, in effect, that silly women with no math chops be allowed to become physics and math professors, not just psych and sociology and "history of science" professors.

    Also, while physics is still "hard", many physicists are as daft as children once they get off their subject into fuzzier topics like climate change or politics. In some sense, their spouting off on such topics is more dangerous because they're taken more seriously as physicists.

    , @Joe Schmoe
    @Buzz Mohawk




    Conclusion: two more jackasses with words.
     
    jennys, but still asses nonetheless
  13. Most normal women–even college educated–don’t believe this sort of nonsense.

    But the true believers do. And now–in “elite” circles like the NYT or Google, etc.–the men can no longer speak up and tell these girls that their rantings are utterly idiotic, because doing so would be “sexist” and will get them into trouble.

    We see more and more of this emperor has no clothes stuff because we are no longer allowed to criticize Jews, blacks, women, homos, now trannys!

    When the productive, intelligent men–the patriarchs–of the nation’s core ethny are no longer firmly in authority … the nation is headed into the dustbin and lunacy stalks the land.

    • Disagree: Rosie
    • Replies: @anonymous
    @AnotherDad

    This is your comment number 3, 753 to which this response is addressed...

    I have not read them all, but I have no reason, from the ones I have read, to think that you have anything in common with the sort of people who are honestly productive and truly, deeply intelligent. Trust me, I can tell:
    I know all about the people who deserve the gratitude of others.

    As far as I can tell, you are just full of criticism of others, targeting here and there in sort of a gay way, the Freddy Mercury of the commentariat. You would probably be just as happy targeting people from a liberal or a commie point of view, but you latched onto the point of view you have without any deep philosophical understanding.

    Or maybe I am wrong.

    Tell me how, just once, you did something brave. Something really brave, not just "giving a dirty look to a cop that everybody noticed".
    Tell me a single discovery you made in an intellectual sphere that nobody had made before, not just "I was a favorite student of a guy who was a friend of a Nobel Prize winner."


    If you can't do that, you are the degenerate person in every conversation, however high an opinion you might have of yourself.
    And I am doing you a favor by telling you that you should be a man, not a whiner, that you should spend your time achieving things, not nagging others, irregardless of whether your nagging makes you happy and proud.
    You can do it!

  14. “by Daphna Joel and Cordelia Fine”

    No further questions, your honor.

    • Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    "“by Daphna Joel and Cordelia Fine”

    No further questions, your honor."

    Ha!

  15. @Tiny Duck
    Get educated

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_uEXzqW43c

    I have no trouble believing that gender is a social construct. For I may be white but I've also had much contact with Native American First Nation Indians Indegenous Peopoe. Traditionally they had more than two genders and societal norms regarding the sexes were very different from the European/white ones. So gender as far as I believed has always been more culture oriented rather than biological. Just one of many other things the white Christians couldn't wrap their head around. "Wait wait... your god is a WOMAN???" head explodes

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @tyrone, @Digital Samizdat, @Peripatetic commenter

    I think you mean get indoctrinated, and no thanks, you are moronic enough all by yourself.

  16. In Western culture there used to be certain taboo topics which were not supposed to be discussed publicly at all. For decades, the Left whined and cried about this – WHY can’t we mention that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were gay (not that they really were)? Finally they triumphed and nothing was off limits for discussion.

    But now, the Left controls our institutions and so, instead of continuing the tradition of free discussion that they insisted upon when they were clawing their way into power, they demand of the rest of us that we STOP talking.

    In addition to male and female differences, we are also instructed to stop talking about:

    Immigration:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/26/populists-immigration-orban-salvini-law-eu-elections

    Race:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bb7k6

    Climate Change:

    https://pangea.stanford.edu/news/perspective-lets-stop-talking-about-climate-change

    Etc.

    Can we “finally stop talking about” anything that the Left doesn’t want you talk about? No, we can’t, you totalitarian babies. Free and open debate is a prerequisite for a democratic society.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    @Jack D

    Well put.

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Jack D

    Good point. When they tell you "it's time to stop questioning/talking about X," that's exactly when you had better start questioning X!

    , @anon
    @Jack D

    Whatever happened to that trite "let's have a conversation about X" line?

    Replies: @cliff arroyo

  17. From the paper linked by YetAnotherAnon in the immediately-prior thread: “Models using components of brain gray matter volume and concentration were able to differentiate between males and females with greater than 93% generalizable accuracy.”

    NYT: Sex Difference Glass Isn’t 93% Full, It’s … 7% Empty!”

    [Note to Cordelia Fine: I deduced “7% Empty” by subtracting 0.93 from 1, and then converting to percentages.]

  18. No

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Desiderius

    Yes

    Replies: @Desiderius

  19. @Desiderius
    No

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Yes

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Dieter Kief

    You can stop talking about it if you want.

    We won’t.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  20. @Tiny Duck
    Get educated

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_uEXzqW43c

    I have no trouble believing that gender is a social construct. For I may be white but I've also had much contact with Native American First Nation Indians Indegenous Peopoe. Traditionally they had more than two genders and societal norms regarding the sexes were very different from the European/white ones. So gender as far as I believed has always been more culture oriented rather than biological. Just one of many other things the white Christians couldn't wrap their head around. "Wait wait... your god is a WOMAN???" head explodes

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @tyrone, @Digital Samizdat, @Peripatetic commenter

    Calling Indians “peopoe” is offensive tiny ,how ,how could you do such a thing?

    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager
    @tyrone

    Pewor t00 teh peopoe!

  21. Who’s talking about brains?…..it’s the bits at the other end……the area of concern

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @tyrone


    Who’s talking about brains?…..it’s the bits at the other end……the area of concern
     
    Yeah, but those bits still work pretty well. It's their brains that are messed up.

    Replies: @Rosie

  22. @Jack D
    In Western culture there used to be certain taboo topics which were not supposed to be discussed publicly at all. For decades, the Left whined and cried about this - WHY can't we mention that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were gay (not that they really were)? Finally they triumphed and nothing was off limits for discussion.

    But now, the Left controls our institutions and so, instead of continuing the tradition of free discussion that they insisted upon when they were clawing their way into power, they demand of the rest of us that we STOP talking.

    In addition to male and female differences, we are also instructed to stop talking about:

    Immigration:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/26/populists-immigration-orban-salvini-law-eu-elections

    Race:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bb7k6

    Climate Change:

    https://pangea.stanford.edu/news/perspective-lets-stop-talking-about-climate-change

    Etc.

    Can we "finally stop talking about" anything that the Left doesn't want you talk about? No, we can't, you totalitarian babies. Free and open debate is a prerequisite for a democratic society.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Hypnotoad666, @anon

    Well put.

  23. This is as good a time as any to mention that Heather MacDonald was a guest this weekend on Mark Levin’s TV show. Her new book is called The Diversity Delusion. She describes things perfectly here in the first part of that show.

  24. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "by Daphna Joel and Cordelia Fine"

    No further questions, your honor.

    Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky

    ““by Daphna Joel and Cordelia Fine”

    No further questions, your honor.”

    Ha!

  25. You bring up trans folks, who’s members seem to be disproportionately on the autism spectrum. The article goes on to talk about the issue:

    Indeed, a recent study found that males with autism spectrum disorder had an atypical combination of “female-like” and “male-like” brain activity patterns.

    The article links to study that goes in to further depth, and disputes the “extreme male brain” theory and advocates the “Gender Incoherence” Model.

    Specifically, the Extreme Male Brain (EMB) model predicts that ASD is associated with enhanced brain maleness in both males and females with ASD (i.e., a shift-towards-maleness). In contrast, the Gender Incoherence (GI) model predicts a shift-towards-maleness in females, yet a shift-towards-femaleness in males with ASD.

    Given the rise of the trans folks, The Gender Incoherence model probably is closer to the truth.

  26. @Reg Cæsar

    The trans folk are going to be mad.
     
    You mean "angry". They've always been mad!


    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082696/mediaviewer/rm3946962944

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Austrian tranny and Eurovision winner Conchita Wurst has AIDs but says it’s controlled with drugs. He wasn’t going to admit it but a boyfriend threatened to go public first. Our moral superiors.

  27. @Tiny Duck
    Get educated

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_uEXzqW43c

    I have no trouble believing that gender is a social construct. For I may be white but I've also had much contact with Native American First Nation Indians Indegenous Peopoe. Traditionally they had more than two genders and societal norms regarding the sexes were very different from the European/white ones. So gender as far as I believed has always been more culture oriented rather than biological. Just one of many other things the white Christians couldn't wrap their head around. "Wait wait... your god is a WOMAN???" head explodes

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @tyrone, @Digital Samizdat, @Peripatetic commenter

    Gender may be a social construct, but sex is biological. Let me make this simple for you, Tiny. There are two sexes: male and female: There are three ‘genders’: masculine, feminine and degenerate.

    Got it now?

  28. The male/female brain trait thing is just another example of the age-old debate between “lumpers and splitters.”

    It could trigger a useful discussion about when it is useful to recognize general differences. But mostly, as in this dumbed-down NYT article, it’s just semantics based on the author’s personal and political agenda.

    If you are an under-employed commentator or pseudo-intellectual, you can always fill up your word quota and seem smart by endlessly pointing out: “You know, not every individual in Category X is identical. Sometimes there is overlap with Category Y.”

  29. From the study…

    “In 2015, one of us, Daphna Joel, led an analysis of four large data sets of brain scans, and found that the sex differences you see overall between men’s and women’s brains aren’t neatly and consistently seen in individual brains. In other words, humans generally don’t have brains with mostly or exclusively “female-typical” features or “male-typical” features. Instead, what’s most common in both females and males are brains with “mosaics” of features, some of them more common in males and some more common in females.”

    Sounds like some psychological appropriation is being employed here. So “female-typical” or “male-typical” is the other than proper term…says two female scientists (or should I put it in quotes). The correct phrase, according to their research, is “mosaic of features”. So, if I get the logic right, we assume XXX1, XXX2, and XXX3 are “mosaics”, with one of these three pairs as being “more common” in either a male or a female? Seems to me this study needs further investigation.

    Also from the study…

    “The key point here is that although there are sex differences in brain and behavior, when you move away from group-level differences in single features and focus at the level of the individual brain or person, you find that the differences, regardless of their origins, usually “mix up” rather than “add up.”

    OK, so what is the HbD response to their position?

  30. @Jack D
    In Western culture there used to be certain taboo topics which were not supposed to be discussed publicly at all. For decades, the Left whined and cried about this - WHY can't we mention that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were gay (not that they really were)? Finally they triumphed and nothing was off limits for discussion.

    But now, the Left controls our institutions and so, instead of continuing the tradition of free discussion that they insisted upon when they were clawing their way into power, they demand of the rest of us that we STOP talking.

    In addition to male and female differences, we are also instructed to stop talking about:

    Immigration:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/26/populists-immigration-orban-salvini-law-eu-elections

    Race:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bb7k6

    Climate Change:

    https://pangea.stanford.edu/news/perspective-lets-stop-talking-about-climate-change

    Etc.

    Can we "finally stop talking about" anything that the Left doesn't want you talk about? No, we can't, you totalitarian babies. Free and open debate is a prerequisite for a democratic society.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Hypnotoad666, @anon

    Good point. When they tell you “it’s time to stop questioning/talking about X,” that’s exactly when you had better start questioning X!

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  31. @ThreeCranes
    First, set up the straw man. “At its core is the persistent belief that men’s and women’s natures can be usefully and meaningfully carved into two categories or “natural kinds,” that are distinct, timeless, and deeply biologically grounded.”

    Then knock it down with a startling! conclusion that everyone already believed anyway, “This yields many types of brain and behavior, which neither fall into a “male” and a “female” type, nor line up tidily along a male-female continuum.”

    Say there are ten traits being examined, A--J. She seems to be saying that heretofore, stupid, privileged male analysts would say, “100% of men have brains that include traits A,B,C,D,E and 100% of women traits F,G,H,I,J.” (Of course no one really said this but why let that ruin a good fable?)

    Then with this, “In other words, humans generally don’t have brains with mostly or exclusively “female-typical” features or “male-typical” features.”, she and her cohorts seem to be saying that men may have F,B,H,D,J and women A,G,C,I,E or any random combination of these.

    But then she doubles back and says this, “Instead, what’s most common in both females and males are brains with “mosaics” of features, some of them more common in males and some more common in females.”

    Mosaics? What’s that but a collection of individual bits? So, are the individual bits A,B,C,D,E more common in men or not?

    “Not a single person had only feminine or only masculine scores on these variables. Rather, what was typical of both men and women (70 percent of them, to be exact) was a mosaic of feminine and masculine characteristics.”

    Okay folks, here comes the meat and potatoes! Just which traits made up the “feminine and masculine characteristics” and what were their distributions?

    Silence.....As usual with liberal papers, just when things get interesting (and difficult), they stop.

    Replies: @Samuel Skinner, @Anon, @Rosie

    First, set up the straw man. “At its core is the persistent belief that men’s and women’s natures can be usefully and meaningfully carved into two categories or “natural kinds,” that are distinct, timeless, and deeply biologically grounded.”

    That isn’t a strawman nor false. Humans are driven by self interest. Men and women both want to have offspring but their biology is different. Hence men and women will have different natures that come from that.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  32. Men are able to reason logically. Women let their emotionally opinions cloud their thinking. As evidence, just look at articles by men and women on this subject.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    @Roger

    The ability/tendency to think rationally is a matter of degree, like most human traits. Those most prone are pretty rare, and overwhelmingly male. Generally speaking, men have a significant edge in this department, but the average fellow is no rational thinker.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  33. Can we stop thinking? Gosh!

  34. I don’t really get angry at the narrative anymore. I just view it an artwork of irrationality.

    There are no differences between male and female brains. But if you feel like the opposite sex (although there is no difference between male and female behavior (except men have always oppressed women)), you probably have the brain of the opposite sex. In that case it is necessary to transition into the body of the opposite sex, even though there is nothing male or female about penises or vaginas and either sex can have either body. No behavior is genetically determined, except homosexuality, which means beings with brains of one sex(which is impossible) having a preference for other beings with brains of the same sex(which is impossible), both having whatever body. Or, it means a penisbody or vaginabody having a preference for another penisbody or vaginabody (which are indistinguishable) both with generic genderless brains.

    How is this not beautiful?

  35. This ain’t the Washington Square Park I used to walk thru.

    Truly escape from the body snatcher’s stuff…

    • Replies: @Svigor
    @yiappy

    Lol she got the first question right but it was all downhill from there.

    Holy shit what a bimbo.

  36. Tragically for the New York Times, there isn’t a soul left alive who doesn’t believe that every word out of their rotten mouths (or those of the “scientists” who “study” such differences) is political spin for an agenda rather than truth or news.

  37. @Jack D
    In Western culture there used to be certain taboo topics which were not supposed to be discussed publicly at all. For decades, the Left whined and cried about this - WHY can't we mention that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were gay (not that they really were)? Finally they triumphed and nothing was off limits for discussion.

    But now, the Left controls our institutions and so, instead of continuing the tradition of free discussion that they insisted upon when they were clawing their way into power, they demand of the rest of us that we STOP talking.

    In addition to male and female differences, we are also instructed to stop talking about:

    Immigration:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/26/populists-immigration-orban-salvini-law-eu-elections

    Race:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bb7k6

    Climate Change:

    https://pangea.stanford.edu/news/perspective-lets-stop-talking-about-climate-change

    Etc.

    Can we "finally stop talking about" anything that the Left doesn't want you talk about? No, we can't, you totalitarian babies. Free and open debate is a prerequisite for a democratic society.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Hypnotoad666, @anon

    Whatever happened to that trite “let’s have a conversation about X” line?

    • Replies: @cliff arroyo
    @anon

    Honest conversations about X tend to not go according to SJW plan, so they want to shut conversation down.
    Of course "conversation" in the SJW context actually meant: "Let me lecture you awhile and I'll let you acknowledge my superiority...."

  38. All I know is when what’s left of humanity crawls out of there underground shelters after the giant meteor hit’s. Once again we will have Men and Women, boys and girls. There won’t be much time or energy for anything else.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  39. OT

    The oppressed CEO of Apple made a stunning and brave speech as he received an award for his courage from the ADL. At the end, everyone clapped!

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/apple-ceo-tim-cook-says-hate-has-no-place-on-tech-platforms-at-adl.html

    • LOL: L Woods
    • Replies: @Ibound1
    @reiner Tor

    Really - does Apple check who is speaking on their phones and who is texting messages over their messaging systems and what their users are saying and writing?
    That is the only platform I am aware that Apple has.

    If they are listening in I sure would like to know.

    , @J.Ross
    @reiner Tor

    This guy is the clearest illustration in tech that if you have absolutely no idea how to do your job and are burning your own brand to the ground, you can distract people with lazily messianic talk.
    Google is scum but they know exactly what they're doing.
    Here is a $3,000 laptop that doesn't work unless you have an extra freezer to keep it in.
    https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5b50c91b7dd02417008b488a-2560-1280.jpg

    , @Simon Tugmutton
    @reiner Tor

    Well done, Timmy! Your sanctimony alienated 50% of your customers right there!

    From what I read, Apple is showing the first signs of disintegration at the edges. Only a plutocratic cretin would spring for a Mac these days (not to mention the eye-watering charges for RAM upgrades and the almost obligatory "accessories" you need to access, for example, legacy USB devices). The hardware may be shiny but under the hood it's pretty meh. They're up against some impressive new offerings from Huawei, Dell, Lenovo and HP, all of which are much, much better value.

    All over the web you see complaints and mutterings about Apple's greed and attitude towards customers, so I'm not alone ... this MacBook I'm typing on is the last Apple computer I shall ever buy. Indeed I have already bought a Thinkpad to replace it.

    As for the iPhone, analysts reacted with a concerted breaking of wind when Apple said it would no longer report unit sales; third-party suppliers are reporting reduced orders for components; and it seems sales are declining. Apple have overstepped the mark. They may still be a behemoth, but look what happened to IBM.

    If Cook wants to turn his company into a personal vanity project, I expect quite a few shareholders will have other ideas, not least about the best place to invest their money.

    Replies: @Jack D

  40. @Ibound1
    Can we stop talking about male and female brains, the continuing invasion of the US, immigrant costs and crime, social media and search monopolies, lack of any voter ID, invading countries but refusing to defend our own border, the gutting of our manufacturing base by China, Mexico and Germany? Can we just stop talking about all that and have everyone acknowledge their position in society - you on top as an "intellectual, you on bottom as a worthless relic of the racist past with no hope of a good job. But stop talking about it!

    And if you cannot stop talking about it, we will make you stop talking about it as soon as we are able.

    Replies: @advancedatheist

    Jews have no business calling other people worthless relics of the past.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Ibound1
    @advancedatheist

    You do realize that was satire right?
    That was me putting words into the mouth of The NY Times.

  41. @tyrone
    Who's talking about brains?…..it's the bits at the other end……the area of concern

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Who’s talking about brains?…..it’s the bits at the other end……the area of concern

    Yeah, but those bits still work pretty well. It’s their brains that are messed up.

    • Agree: L Woods
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @AnotherDad


    Yeah, but those bits still work pretty well. It’s their brains that are messed up.
     
    You said above that you're "not allowed to criticize women." Well, evidently you are here, though "your brains are messed up" doesn't really give us much to work with, nor much reason to try or even care.
  42. @Tiny Duck
    Get educated

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_uEXzqW43c

    I have no trouble believing that gender is a social construct. For I may be white but I've also had much contact with Native American First Nation Indians Indegenous Peopoe. Traditionally they had more than two genders and societal norms regarding the sexes were very different from the European/white ones. So gender as far as I believed has always been more culture oriented rather than biological. Just one of many other things the white Christians couldn't wrap their head around. "Wait wait... your god is a WOMAN???" head explodes

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @tyrone, @Digital Samizdat, @Peripatetic commenter

    I have no trouble believing that gender is a social construct.

    Actually, gender is a grammatical construct.

    Sex, on the other hand, is biological.

    That is, people with an X and a Y chromosome are male and usually have male characteristics, except for a very small number of individuals who have things like Androgen Insensitivity.

    Similarly, people with two X chromosomes (and without a Y chromosome to exclude the very tiny number of XXY individuals) are female and usually have female characteristics.

    There are tiny numbers of individuals with genetic abnormalities who can present with sexual characteristics different from what their genes would suggest.

  43. Anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Professors Joel and Fine:

    "Psychology and neuroscience" = soft. (Unless I'm wrong, don't let the word neuroscience throw you off, especially when it is combined with psychology.)

    "History and the philosophy of science" = soft.


    Conclusion: two more jackasses with words.

    Replies: @Anon, @anon, @Joe Schmoe

    Oh, I’m so scared, because YOUR politics are based on mathematical logic and rigorous scientific experimentation. Everyone know the problems with America are caused by SOFT ideas like religion, morality, and especially history. If only sound theoretical physicists like Stephen Hawking or Sheldon Cooper were in control, everything would be just great!

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Anon

    Male and female are scientific facts, not political arguments; whereas religion, morality and history can be debated and do enter into politics.

    You see, just as with the sexes, some things are hard and some things are soft. What matters is knowing which is which.

  44. @reiner Tor
    OT

    The oppressed CEO of Apple made a stunning and brave speech as he received an award for his courage from the ADL. At the end, everyone clapped!

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/apple-ceo-tim-cook-says-hate-has-no-place-on-tech-platforms-at-adl.html

    Replies: @Ibound1, @J.Ross, @Simon Tugmutton

    Really – does Apple check who is speaking on their phones and who is texting messages over their messaging systems and what their users are saying and writing?
    That is the only platform I am aware that Apple has.

    If they are listening in I sure would like to know.

  45. @reiner Tor
    OT

    The oppressed CEO of Apple made a stunning and brave speech as he received an award for his courage from the ADL. At the end, everyone clapped!

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/apple-ceo-tim-cook-says-hate-has-no-place-on-tech-platforms-at-adl.html

    Replies: @Ibound1, @J.Ross, @Simon Tugmutton

    This guy is the clearest illustration in tech that if you have absolutely no idea how to do your job and are burning your own brand to the ground, you can distract people with lazily messianic talk.
    Google is scum but they know exactly what they’re doing.
    Here is a $3,000 laptop that doesn’t work unless you have an extra freezer to keep it in.

  46. First of all the sad part as many of you have stated is that the NY Times editors failed to realize that these authors contradict themselves in their analysis. This is scary but predictable from what’s left of the Times. I believe both are Jewish and all of you should realize the surname Fine is the same as one of the Three Stooges, Larry Fine! The constant mantra of the Jews whether it’s science or politics.

    Knuc ..knuc just add another—Cordelia Fine and make it the Four Stooges. Knuc Knuc……hummmmmmm,,

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  47. QUESTION: Doesn’t this new “supportive of trans” thing now make it hateful to have ever liked or watched “Silence of the Lambs”?

    I mean, I . . . can’t . . . even . . .

    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
    @Tim

    Not if you have been identifying with Buffalo Bill the whole time.

  48. Austrian tranny and Eurovision winner Conchita Wurst

    That sounds like the dish to avoid at a German-Mexican restaurant run by the Ronstadt or Fox (Fuchs) family. At least wash it down with copious amounts of cerveza and/0r tequila.

    • Replies: @Dtbb
    @Reg Cæsar

    Did you hear about the new restaurant chain that combines mexican and soul food? It will be called "Nacho Mama's".

    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Reg Cæsar

    Mexican beer is German beer with worse water.

  49. It’s curious how often “recent research” intervenes to forbid any discussion on themes where liberals are being proven wrong.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  50. I am unclear what to make of an article when the content contradicts the stated headline. Clearly based on the articles own commentary — there are differences among most (interesting that is not quantified) male and female brains. There’s a reason this is an oped.

    Here’s the deconstruction model in practice in short they said male and female brains are different — however, they are not so different to matter — contrary to all of the data.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/men-women-brains-difference-1.3473154

    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/brain-chemistry-and-sex-differences-are-male-and-female-brains-really-varied-100441.html

    http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-female-and-male-brains

    I noticed they don’t say anything about brain chemistry.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1971

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2013/dec/04/male-female-brains-real-differences

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
  51. So, there is no there there for the trannies to tran to?

    VERY Zen!

  52. @Reg Cæsar

    Austrian tranny and Eurovision winner Conchita Wurst...
     
    That sounds like the dish to avoid at a German-Mexican restaurant run by the Ronstadt or Fox (Fuchs) family. At least wash it down with copious amounts of cerveza and/0r tequila.

    Replies: @Dtbb, @MikeatMikedotMike

    Did you hear about the new restaurant chain that combines mexican and soul food? It will be called “Nacho Mama’s”.

  53. Anon[330] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes
    First, set up the straw man. “At its core is the persistent belief that men’s and women’s natures can be usefully and meaningfully carved into two categories or “natural kinds,” that are distinct, timeless, and deeply biologically grounded.”

    Then knock it down with a startling! conclusion that everyone already believed anyway, “This yields many types of brain and behavior, which neither fall into a “male” and a “female” type, nor line up tidily along a male-female continuum.”

    Say there are ten traits being examined, A--J. She seems to be saying that heretofore, stupid, privileged male analysts would say, “100% of men have brains that include traits A,B,C,D,E and 100% of women traits F,G,H,I,J.” (Of course no one really said this but why let that ruin a good fable?)

    Then with this, “In other words, humans generally don’t have brains with mostly or exclusively “female-typical” features or “male-typical” features.”, she and her cohorts seem to be saying that men may have F,B,H,D,J and women A,G,C,I,E or any random combination of these.

    But then she doubles back and says this, “Instead, what’s most common in both females and males are brains with “mosaics” of features, some of them more common in males and some more common in females.”

    Mosaics? What’s that but a collection of individual bits? So, are the individual bits A,B,C,D,E more common in men or not?

    “Not a single person had only feminine or only masculine scores on these variables. Rather, what was typical of both men and women (70 percent of them, to be exact) was a mosaic of feminine and masculine characteristics.”

    Okay folks, here comes the meat and potatoes! Just which traits made up the “feminine and masculine characteristics” and what were their distributions?

    Silence.....As usual with liberal papers, just when things get interesting (and difficult), they stop.

    Replies: @Samuel Skinner, @Anon, @Rosie

    I can’t bring myself to read anything by Cordelia Fine, but in general what has been found about the brains of men and women is not that they are different in construction, but that the average value for traits is different for many or most traits, and that if you make a composite score for all traits, and there are many decisions you have to make in construction a composite based on weighting and ranging or traits, that the composite value will on average for a large sample be quite different for women than for men.

    What you end up with is the standard two bell curves with the right tail of one overlapping the left tail of the other. People in these overlaps may tend more to be trans, I suspect. And my suspicion is that although men and women may overlap considerably trait by trait, that in any rationally constructed composite trait gender score there is going to be little overlap. In fact, I would make that a test of whether the formula for compositing traits is valid or not.

  54. Feminists are the only real opposition to trans folk (actually transwomen) in the Humanities.

  55. So men and women don’t differ — except that on average, they do. Blacks are just as intelligent and capable of coping with freedom as other groups — except that on average, they’re not. Diversity is an asset — except that it never is. The Russians interfered with our election — except that they didn’t. Israel is our ally — except that it isn’t. Global warming isn’t happening — except that it is. The police discriminate against blacks — except that they don’t. It never ends.

    When are we going to waste so much time on trying to prove that two and two make five because we would prefer it if they did? It’s hard enough to settle on a response to these issues if the truth is admitted. It’s utterly fucking hopeless if half the membership insists on clinging to patent falsehoods.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational, Svigor
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Colin Wright

    "It’s utterly f---- hopeless if half the membership insists on clinging to patent falsehoods."

    You, of all people, ought to know. Yet, when you look in the mirror, you turn away. Really need to be more honest with yourself.

  56. “Why else would organizations offer confidence workshops for women, rather than modesty training for men?”

    Lots of reasons that have little to do with sex differences. Confidence helps in many situations. Modesty is easy, and does not require a workshop to learn.

  57. @The Z Blog
    Cochran's demolition of Cordelia Fine is a great read: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/old-t-rex/

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Cochran’s demolition of Cordelia Fine is a great read:

    I followed the link and then had to double-check my clicking. I saw several of our best posters there. At first I thought deja vu. Then I realized it was vuja de. It was not already seen. The interior decorating was Industrial, but I am used to Minimalist. Nonetheless, the posts were still trenchant.

    The ensuing cognitive dissonance hurt my head.

    Z, I am not following your links after dark anymore. It is too scary.

  58. @Reg Cæsar

    Austrian tranny and Eurovision winner Conchita Wurst...
     
    That sounds like the dish to avoid at a German-Mexican restaurant run by the Ronstadt or Fox (Fuchs) family. At least wash it down with copious amounts of cerveza and/0r tequila.

    Replies: @Dtbb, @MikeatMikedotMike

    Mexican beer is German beer with worse water.

  59. Ve haf vays of making you not talk.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  60. @AnotherDad
    @tyrone


    Who’s talking about brains?…..it’s the bits at the other end……the area of concern
     
    Yeah, but those bits still work pretty well. It's their brains that are messed up.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Yeah, but those bits still work pretty well. It’s their brains that are messed up.

    You said above that you’re “not allowed to criticize women.” Well, evidently you are here, though “your brains are messed up” doesn’t really give us much to work with, nor much reason to try or even care.

  61. @ThreeCranes
    First, set up the straw man. “At its core is the persistent belief that men’s and women’s natures can be usefully and meaningfully carved into two categories or “natural kinds,” that are distinct, timeless, and deeply biologically grounded.”

    Then knock it down with a startling! conclusion that everyone already believed anyway, “This yields many types of brain and behavior, which neither fall into a “male” and a “female” type, nor line up tidily along a male-female continuum.”

    Say there are ten traits being examined, A--J. She seems to be saying that heretofore, stupid, privileged male analysts would say, “100% of men have brains that include traits A,B,C,D,E and 100% of women traits F,G,H,I,J.” (Of course no one really said this but why let that ruin a good fable?)

    Then with this, “In other words, humans generally don’t have brains with mostly or exclusively “female-typical” features or “male-typical” features.”, she and her cohorts seem to be saying that men may have F,B,H,D,J and women A,G,C,I,E or any random combination of these.

    But then she doubles back and says this, “Instead, what’s most common in both females and males are brains with “mosaics” of features, some of them more common in males and some more common in females.”

    Mosaics? What’s that but a collection of individual bits? So, are the individual bits A,B,C,D,E more common in men or not?

    “Not a single person had only feminine or only masculine scores on these variables. Rather, what was typical of both men and women (70 percent of them, to be exact) was a mosaic of feminine and masculine characteristics.”

    Okay folks, here comes the meat and potatoes! Just which traits made up the “feminine and masculine characteristics” and what were their distributions?

    Silence.....As usual with liberal papers, just when things get interesting (and difficult), they stop.

    Replies: @Samuel Skinner, @Anon, @Rosie

    Okay folks, here comes the meat and potatoes! Just which traits made up the “feminine and masculine characteristics” and what were their distributions?

    Silence…..As usual with liberal papers, just when things get interesting (and difficult), they stop.

    They don’t think anything more needs to be said. So long as sex differences are not absolute, they believe it is a moral imperative to ignore them altogether. I don’t agree with this position, but I don’t think it’s indefensible. The problem is that they open the door by demanding equal representation in everything, unless women outperform men, in which case it’s just fine. Obviously, you can’t reasonably expect men to just “stop talking about” that.

  62. “Recent research is making it clearer than ever that the notion that sex determines the fundamentals of brain structure and behavior is a misconception.”

    “The trans folk are going to be mad.”

    Why would trannies be mad? The quoted sentence seems to reflect their basic agenda:

    Everybody is just a human from a natural perspective.

    Genitals and hormones don’t affect the brain/mind or anything else.

    Just be and act as “female” or “male” as you wanna be, there is no objective reality that says different.

  63. You said above that you’re “not allowed to criticize women.” Well, evidently you are here, though “your brains are messed up” doesn’t really give us much to work with, nor much reason to try or even care.

    Context.

    It was a quick quip, and i admit the context isn’t clear. But my reference was to Cordelia Fine and Daphna Joel–or gals like them–who’ve gone off the deep end with their ideology and causing them to hew to a sexual dogma that is, well, just stupid. If you want to take it personally …

    As to “criticize women”, the context in that comment was clear. I’m asserting that a male NYT editor or Google exec can no longer–safely–call bullshit on girls peddling this ridiculous nonsense. Obviously what people can do in some “dark corner of the internet” is different. At least if you’re retired and your employer can’t fire you.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @AnotherDad


    As to “criticize women”, the context in that comment was clear. I’m asserting that a male NYT editor or Google exec can no longer–safely–call bullshit on girls peddling this ridiculous nonsense.
     
    Well, that may be true. It's worth considering what can be done about that.

    OTOH, I'm not convinced that the "male NYT editor or Google exec" sees it as "nonsense. It seems to me that exactly the set that is pushing this, though of course I'm on the outside looking in and therefore acan only speculate.
  64. @AnotherDad

    You said above that you’re “not allowed to criticize women.” Well, evidently you are here, though “your brains are messed up” doesn’t really give us much to work with, nor much reason to try or even care.
     
    Context.

    It was a quick quip, and i admit the context isn't clear. But my reference was to Cordelia Fine and Daphna Joel--or gals like them--who've gone off the deep end with their ideology and causing them to hew to a sexual dogma that is, well, just stupid. If you want to take it personally ...

    As to "criticize women", the context in that comment was clear. I'm asserting that a male NYT editor or Google exec can no longer--safely--call bullshit on girls peddling this ridiculous nonsense. Obviously what people can do in some "dark corner of the internet" is different. At least if you're retired and your employer can't fire you.

    Replies: @Rosie

    As to “criticize women”, the context in that comment was clear. I’m asserting that a male NYT editor or Google exec can no longer–safely–call bullshit on girls peddling this ridiculous nonsense.

    Well, that may be true. It’s worth considering what can be done about that.

    OTOH, I’m not convinced that the “male NYT editor or Google exec” sees it as “nonsense. It seems to me that exactly the set that is pushing this, though of course I’m on the outside looking in and therefore acan only speculate.

  65. anonymous[161] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    Most normal women--even college educated--don't believe this sort of nonsense.

    But the true believers do. And now--in "elite" circles like the NYT or Google, etc.--the men can no longer speak up and tell these girls that their rantings are utterly idiotic, because doing so would be "sexist" and will get them into trouble.

    We see more and more of this emperor has no clothes stuff because we are no longer allowed to criticize Jews, blacks, women, homos, now trannys!

    When the productive, intelligent men--the patriarchs--of the nation's core ethny are no longer firmly in authority ... the nation is headed into the dustbin and lunacy stalks the land.

    Replies: @anonymous

    This is your comment number 3, 753 to which this response is addressed…

    I have not read them all, but I have no reason, from the ones I have read, to think that you have anything in common with the sort of people who are honestly productive and truly, deeply intelligent. Trust me, I can tell:
    I know all about the people who deserve the gratitude of others.

    As far as I can tell, you are just full of criticism of others, targeting here and there in sort of a gay way, the Freddy Mercury of the commentariat. You would probably be just as happy targeting people from a liberal or a commie point of view, but you latched onto the point of view you have without any deep philosophical understanding.

    Or maybe I am wrong.

    Tell me how, just once, you did something brave. Something really brave, not just “giving a dirty look to a cop that everybody noticed”.
    Tell me a single discovery you made in an intellectual sphere that nobody had made before, not just “I was a favorite student of a guy who was a friend of a Nobel Prize winner.”

    If you can’t do that, you are the degenerate person in every conversation, however high an opinion you might have of yourself.
    And I am doing you a favor by telling you that you should be a man, not a whiner, that you should spend your time achieving things, not nagging others, irregardless of whether your nagging makes you happy and proud.
    You can do it!

  66. @tyrone
    @Tiny Duck

    Calling Indians "peopoe" is offensive tiny ,how ,how could you do such a thing?

    Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager

    Pewor t00 teh peopoe!

  67. (((Joel))) (((Fine)))

    Just a guess. Check my work.

  68. Never. Males and Females are different. Pick a physical fight with me next week, pick the time, I will be there.

  69. Can We Finally Stop Talking About ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ Brains?

    Who’s ‘we’, chuckle buddies? You can stop prattling any old time now.

  70. @Roger
    Men are able to reason logically. Women let their emotionally opinions cloud their thinking. As evidence, just look at articles by men and women on this subject.

    Replies: @Svigor

    The ability/tendency to think rationally is a matter of degree, like most human traits. Those most prone are pretty rare, and overwhelmingly male. Generally speaking, men have a significant edge in this department, but the average fellow is no rational thinker.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Svigor

    Brain, n.: an apparatus with which we think we think.

  71. @yiappy
    This ain't the Washington Square Park I used to walk thru.

    Truly escape from the body snatcher's stuff...

    https://youtu.be/312sbdaZVUo?t=34

    Replies: @Svigor

    Lol she got the first question right but it was all downhill from there.

    Holy shit what a bimbo.

  72. Then the low-T bix noods come in and White Knight for Snow Princess. Classic.

    “Ma’am would you like my seat?”
    “Oh how dare you are you saying I’m old?”
    “Fine go fuck yourself you old hag.”

    STG that’s me.

  73. Anon[204] • Disclaimer says:SHOW COMMENT
    December 4, 2018 at 3:29 pm GMT

    Tiny Duck says:SHOW COMMENT
    December 4, 2018 at 4:14 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Corvinus says:SHOW COMMENT
    December 4, 2018 at 9:01 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:SHOW COMMENT
    December 4, 2018 at 10:01 pm GMT

    Anon[144] • Disclaimer says:SHOW COMMENT
    December 4, 2018 at 10:24 pm GMT

    anon[166] • Disclaimer says:SHOW COMMENT
    December 4, 2018 at 10:38 pm GMT

    Anon[192] • Disclaimer says:SHOW COMMENT
    December 4, 2018 at 11:28 pm GMT • 100 Words

    EliteCommInc. says:SHOW COMMENT
    December 5, 2018 at 12:15 am GMT • 100 Words

    Anon[330] • Disclaimer says:SHOW COMMENT
    December 5, 2018 at 12:40 am GMT • 200 Words

    Anon[121] • Disclaimer says:SHOW COMMENT
    December 5, 2018 at 1:24 am GMT

    Anon[121] • Disclaimer says:SHOW COMMENT
    December 5, 2018 at 1:32 am GMT

    LOL. So much better. Thanks Ron!

  74. @Tim
    QUESTION: Doesn't this new "supportive of trans" thing now make it hateful to have ever liked or watched "Silence of the Lambs"?

    I mean, I . . . can't . . . even . . .

    Replies: @oddsbodkins

    Not if you have been identifying with Buffalo Bill the whole time.

  75. @Anon
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Oh, I'm so scared, because YOUR politics are based on mathematical logic and rigorous scientific experimentation. Everyone know the problems with America are caused by SOFT ideas like religion, morality, and especially history. If only sound theoretical physicists like Stephen Hawking or Sheldon Cooper were in control, everything would be just great!

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Male and female are scientific facts, not political arguments; whereas religion, morality and history can be debated and do enter into politics.

    You see, just as with the sexes, some things are hard and some things are soft. What matters is knowing which is which.

  76. @anon
    @Jack D

    Whatever happened to that trite "let's have a conversation about X" line?

    Replies: @cliff arroyo

    Honest conversations about X tend to not go according to SJW plan, so they want to shut conversation down.
    Of course “conversation” in the SJW context actually meant: “Let me lecture you awhile and I’ll let you acknowledge my superiority….”

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  77. • Replies: @L Woods
    @PiltdownMan

    Lol. Funny, but it does remind one of just how farcical the concept of "gender equality" really is. White men have somehow become utterly convinced not only that women are equal, but that they must be equal, as if by some cosmic law. Whenever a conservative concedes some way in which women are "different" (read: inferior), he compulsively and immediately rushes to find another dimension in which they are supposedly superior to an ostensibly equal and opposite degree. It'd be laughable if it weren't so stultifying.

  78. @Svigor
    @Roger

    The ability/tendency to think rationally is a matter of degree, like most human traits. Those most prone are pretty rare, and overwhelmingly male. Generally speaking, men have a significant edge in this department, but the average fellow is no rational thinker.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Brain, n.: an apparatus with which we think we think.

    • Troll: renfro
  79. @Colin Wright
    So men and women don't differ -- except that on average, they do. Blacks are just as intelligent and capable of coping with freedom as other groups -- except that on average, they're not. Diversity is an asset -- except that it never is. The Russians interfered with our election -- except that they didn't. Israel is our ally -- except that it isn't. Global warming isn't happening -- except that it is. The police discriminate against blacks -- except that they don't. It never ends.

    When are we going to waste so much time on trying to prove that two and two make five because we would prefer it if they did? It's hard enough to settle on a response to these issues if the truth is admitted. It's utterly fucking hopeless if half the membership insists on clinging to patent falsehoods.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “It’s utterly f—- hopeless if half the membership insists on clinging to patent falsehoods.”

    You, of all people, ought to know. Yet, when you look in the mirror, you turn away. Really need to be more honest with yourself.

  80. @advancedatheist
    @Ibound1

    Jews have no business calling other people worthless relics of the past.

    Replies: @Ibound1

    You do realize that was satire right?
    That was me putting words into the mouth of The NY Times.

  81. anon[271] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Professors Joel and Fine:

    "Psychology and neuroscience" = soft. (Unless I'm wrong, don't let the word neuroscience throw you off, especially when it is combined with psychology.)

    "History and the philosophy of science" = soft.


    Conclusion: two more jackasses with words.

    Replies: @Anon, @anon, @Joe Schmoe

    The problem isn’t psych per se, but what it’s defined to be nowadays. When psych was a bunch German and Dutch dudes with beards doing psychophysics, and Skinnerians freaking out rats, the findings were solid and still stand today. But once Freudianism and then social psychology were allowed to subvert psych, a lot of folks with the gift of gab and no mathematical chops could spout Viennese and Frankfurter nonsense and get away with it because they had each other’s back. It’s as though astrology became a dominant branch of physics and a bunch of silly women with a gift of BSing people were now “physicists”.

    The findings on IQ, and race and sex differences are clear in psych, and folks like Pinker know it. These are usually the biggest “side” effects in studies interested in something else. But even he can’t say it openly. He was there for the Larry Summers show trial, defending his statements in fact, and things are now much worse. What the Summers show trial was about is demanding, in effect, that silly women with no math chops be allowed to become physics and math professors, not just psych and sociology and “history of science” professors.

    Also, while physics is still “hard”, many physicists are as daft as children once they get off their subject into fuzzier topics like climate change or politics. In some sense, their spouting off on such topics is more dangerous because they’re taken more seriously as physicists.

  82. “Having a conversation” (being lectured at) is so 2016. In 2018, you should shut just shut up (“finally stop talking”) and accept my Leftist views as dogma. Anyway, “It’s not my job to educate you about X” . Using persuasion and rational argument is such hard work/ emotional labor. Someone should be paying me for this. Why do all SJW’s run in the same groove?

    https://medium.com/@schmutzie/why-it-is-not-my-responsibility-as-a-marginalized-individual-to-educate-you-about-my-experience-915b4ec08efd

    https://medium.com/@classylore/on-terms-its-not-my-job-to-educate-you-1bace85ddd74

    https://www.feministcurrent.com/2013/10/10/feminists-are-not-responsible-for-educating-men/

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  83. @reiner Tor
    OT

    The oppressed CEO of Apple made a stunning and brave speech as he received an award for his courage from the ADL. At the end, everyone clapped!

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/apple-ceo-tim-cook-says-hate-has-no-place-on-tech-platforms-at-adl.html

    Replies: @Ibound1, @J.Ross, @Simon Tugmutton

    Well done, Timmy! Your sanctimony alienated 50% of your customers right there!

    From what I read, Apple is showing the first signs of disintegration at the edges. Only a plutocratic cretin would spring for a Mac these days (not to mention the eye-watering charges for RAM upgrades and the almost obligatory “accessories” you need to access, for example, legacy USB devices). The hardware may be shiny but under the hood it’s pretty meh. They’re up against some impressive new offerings from Huawei, Dell, Lenovo and HP, all of which are much, much better value.

    All over the web you see complaints and mutterings about Apple’s greed and attitude towards customers, so I’m not alone … this MacBook I’m typing on is the last Apple computer I shall ever buy. Indeed I have already bought a Thinkpad to replace it.

    As for the iPhone, analysts reacted with a concerted breaking of wind when Apple said it would no longer report unit sales; third-party suppliers are reporting reduced orders for components; and it seems sales are declining. Apple have overstepped the mark. They may still be a behemoth, but look what happened to IBM.

    If Cook wants to turn his company into a personal vanity project, I expect quite a few shareholders will have other ideas, not least about the best place to invest their money.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Simon Tugmutton


    Only a plutocratic cretin would spring for a Mac these days
     
    "These days" began in 2006 when Apple started using Intel hardware. Ever since then, a Mac is just another PC onto which a different operating system has been installed. If for some reason you really like the Mac OS better than Windows (or Linux) then there's really not much to stop you from installing High Sierra on any other machine, if you are technically adept. But, that's Catch-22, because if you are technically adept you probably don't want the Mac OS.

    So why do a certain % of computer buyers (and not just plutocratic cretins) keep springing for Apple's overpriced junk? Because they offer it up in a certain slickly integrated package of hardware and software that doesn't require you do actually know much about computers. They want an appliance and are not interested in what is under the hood and they are willing to pay for the experience that they want. This is not a large segment but it is a pretty steady one. I don't think it is going away (and Mac is only maybe 10% of Apple's revenue so they really don't care that much even if it did).

    Replies: @jim jones, @anon, @dfordoom

  84. That whole “Can we finally stop talking about…..” line could usefully be employed in any number of everyday life situations:

    Can we finally stop talking about……

    …….my drinking problem.

    …….the money I owe you.

    …….that time I slept with my secretary.

    …….the proceeds of that charity fundraiser that I embezzled.

    …….etc.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Mr. Anon


    …….that time I slept with my secretary.
     
    Leftists use that line in such situations also. Remember "Move On"? This is exactly what we were supposed to "move on" from.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  85. L Woods says:
    @PiltdownMan
    https://youtu.be/Doz5w2W-jAY

    Replies: @L Woods

    Lol. Funny, but it does remind one of just how farcical the concept of “gender equality” really is. White men have somehow become utterly convinced not only that women are equal, but that they must be equal, as if by some cosmic law. Whenever a conservative concedes some way in which women are “different” (read: inferior), he compulsively and immediately rushes to find another dimension in which they are supposedly superior to an ostensibly equal and opposite degree. It’d be laughable if it weren’t so stultifying.

  86. @Simon Tugmutton
    @reiner Tor

    Well done, Timmy! Your sanctimony alienated 50% of your customers right there!

    From what I read, Apple is showing the first signs of disintegration at the edges. Only a plutocratic cretin would spring for a Mac these days (not to mention the eye-watering charges for RAM upgrades and the almost obligatory "accessories" you need to access, for example, legacy USB devices). The hardware may be shiny but under the hood it's pretty meh. They're up against some impressive new offerings from Huawei, Dell, Lenovo and HP, all of which are much, much better value.

    All over the web you see complaints and mutterings about Apple's greed and attitude towards customers, so I'm not alone ... this MacBook I'm typing on is the last Apple computer I shall ever buy. Indeed I have already bought a Thinkpad to replace it.

    As for the iPhone, analysts reacted with a concerted breaking of wind when Apple said it would no longer report unit sales; third-party suppliers are reporting reduced orders for components; and it seems sales are declining. Apple have overstepped the mark. They may still be a behemoth, but look what happened to IBM.

    If Cook wants to turn his company into a personal vanity project, I expect quite a few shareholders will have other ideas, not least about the best place to invest their money.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Only a plutocratic cretin would spring for a Mac these days

    “These days” began in 2006 when Apple started using Intel hardware. Ever since then, a Mac is just another PC onto which a different operating system has been installed. If for some reason you really like the Mac OS better than Windows (or Linux) then there’s really not much to stop you from installing High Sierra on any other machine, if you are technically adept. But, that’s Catch-22, because if you are technically adept you probably don’t want the Mac OS.

    So why do a certain % of computer buyers (and not just plutocratic cretins) keep springing for Apple’s overpriced junk? Because they offer it up in a certain slickly integrated package of hardware and software that doesn’t require you do actually know much about computers. They want an appliance and are not interested in what is under the hood and they are willing to pay for the experience that they want. This is not a large segment but it is a pretty steady one. I don’t think it is going away (and Mac is only maybe 10% of Apple’s revenue so they really don’t care that much even if it did).

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @jim jones
    @Jack D

    I have always said that only women buy Apple products. I built a Hackintosh once, just for fun, and then never used the damn thimg because I found OSX so irritating.

    Replies: @anon

    , @anon
    @Jack D

    As I said in a previous comment, one reason technical people (scientists/programmers) buy it is because runs a version of Unix underneath. Another is that it has some nice features (e.g., the best touchpad) and a lot people who buy Macs are not price-sensitive (i.e., they buy them with institutional funds). But Cook has ruined the new Mac laptops so I expect their market share to drop to the hard core fanbois and novice users. At least that's what I'm hearing from current, technical Mac laptop users.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @dfordoom
    @Jack D


    So why do a certain % of computer buyers (and not just plutocratic cretins) keep springing for Apple’s overpriced junk? Because they offer it up in a certain slickly integrated package of hardware and software that doesn’t require you do actually know much about computers. They want an appliance and are not interested in what is under the hood and they are willing to pay for the experience that they want.
     
    Yes. That would be me. I don't give a damn what's under the hood.

    The fact is that a computer is an appliance. If you buy a refrigerator you don't expect to have to understand the technical details of how it works. You just expect the damned thing to work. That's how computers should be. The idea that computers are something that should be for tech geeks who love the fact that it takes endless tinkering to keep them running is so 1970s.

    Don't get me wrong. Apple is a toxic company consumed by greed and messianic megalomania and I despise them. But their idea that a computer should be just like any other appliance is correct.
  87. @Mr. Anon
    That whole "Can we finally stop talking about....." line could usefully be employed in any number of everyday life situations:

    Can we finally stop talking about......

    .......my drinking problem.

    .......the money I owe you.

    .......that time I slept with my secretary.

    .......the proceeds of that charity fundraiser that I embezzled.

    .......etc.

    Replies: @Jack D

    …….that time I slept with my secretary.

    Leftists use that line in such situations also. Remember “Move On”? This is exactly what we were supposed to “move on” from.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    Leftists use that line in such situations also. Remember “Move On”? This is exactly what we were supposed to “move on” from.
     
    Oh, but move on from their missteps. Our own will live on forever. Ask Justice Kavanaugh. And Justice Thomas, if he's nearby.
  88. @Jack D
    @Simon Tugmutton


    Only a plutocratic cretin would spring for a Mac these days
     
    "These days" began in 2006 when Apple started using Intel hardware. Ever since then, a Mac is just another PC onto which a different operating system has been installed. If for some reason you really like the Mac OS better than Windows (or Linux) then there's really not much to stop you from installing High Sierra on any other machine, if you are technically adept. But, that's Catch-22, because if you are technically adept you probably don't want the Mac OS.

    So why do a certain % of computer buyers (and not just plutocratic cretins) keep springing for Apple's overpriced junk? Because they offer it up in a certain slickly integrated package of hardware and software that doesn't require you do actually know much about computers. They want an appliance and are not interested in what is under the hood and they are willing to pay for the experience that they want. This is not a large segment but it is a pretty steady one. I don't think it is going away (and Mac is only maybe 10% of Apple's revenue so they really don't care that much even if it did).

    Replies: @jim jones, @anon, @dfordoom

    I have always said that only women buy Apple products. I built a Hackintosh once, just for fun, and then never used the damn thimg because I found OSX so irritating.

    • Replies: @anon
    @jim jones

    That's nonsense. The majority of people I know that use a Mac are highly technical, think MIT EE/CS PhDs. At conferences, probably 90% of people have Mac laptops. The reason is not some mythical ease of use, but that it is a Unix machine underneath without issues associated with having a Linux laptop. And I am no Mac fanboi. I was never a fan of Jobs, and hate what Cook's been doing, with Macs and politically. The elimination of ports, the stupid new 'features', dongles for everything, donations to ADL, ugh...

    Replies: @Jack D

  89. @Buzz Mohawk
    Professors Joel and Fine:

    "Psychology and neuroscience" = soft. (Unless I'm wrong, don't let the word neuroscience throw you off, especially when it is combined with psychology.)

    "History and the philosophy of science" = soft.


    Conclusion: two more jackasses with words.

    Replies: @Anon, @anon, @Joe Schmoe

    Conclusion: two more jackasses with words.

    jennys, but still asses nonetheless

  90. @Anon
    Diverse...vibrant...the right side of history...

    https://twitter.com/GvanOnselen/status/1069606731389517824

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Mihalik’s killers are Bantu, but the dueling crime syndicates he was fighting appear to be Coloured.

    You do have to give the latter credit for imaginative gang names. Hard Livings, Young Gifted Sexy Bastards, Ugly Americans, Mongrels, Funky Junky Boys…

  91. @Jack D
    @Mr. Anon


    …….that time I slept with my secretary.
     
    Leftists use that line in such situations also. Remember "Move On"? This is exactly what we were supposed to "move on" from.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Leftists use that line in such situations also. Remember “Move On”? This is exactly what we were supposed to “move on” from.

    Oh, but move on from their missteps. Our own will live on forever. Ask Justice Kavanaugh. And Justice Thomas, if he’s nearby.

  92. anon[238] • Disclaimer says:
    @jim jones
    @Jack D

    I have always said that only women buy Apple products. I built a Hackintosh once, just for fun, and then never used the damn thimg because I found OSX so irritating.

    Replies: @anon

    That’s nonsense. The majority of people I know that use a Mac are highly technical, think MIT EE/CS PhDs. At conferences, probably 90% of people have Mac laptops. The reason is not some mythical ease of use, but that it is a Unix machine underneath without issues associated with having a Linux laptop. And I am no Mac fanboi. I was never a fan of Jobs, and hate what Cook’s been doing, with Macs and politically. The elimination of ports, the stupid new ‘features’, dongles for everything, donations to ADL, ugh…

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @anon

    At conferences, probably 90% of people have Mac laptops.

    Citation? I think that's vastly overestimated. Even given that people are not paying with their own $ and are not price sensitive, a lot of people don't want Macs. Lack of expandability (even adding memory or changing disks) , inability to replace the battery, etc..


    The reason is not some mythical ease of use, but that it is a Unix machine underneath without issues associated with having a Linux laptop.

    What issues? If you have a PhD in EE from MIT I think you should be able to figure out how to install Ubuntu.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

  93. anon[774] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @Simon Tugmutton


    Only a plutocratic cretin would spring for a Mac these days
     
    "These days" began in 2006 when Apple started using Intel hardware. Ever since then, a Mac is just another PC onto which a different operating system has been installed. If for some reason you really like the Mac OS better than Windows (or Linux) then there's really not much to stop you from installing High Sierra on any other machine, if you are technically adept. But, that's Catch-22, because if you are technically adept you probably don't want the Mac OS.

    So why do a certain % of computer buyers (and not just plutocratic cretins) keep springing for Apple's overpriced junk? Because they offer it up in a certain slickly integrated package of hardware and software that doesn't require you do actually know much about computers. They want an appliance and are not interested in what is under the hood and they are willing to pay for the experience that they want. This is not a large segment but it is a pretty steady one. I don't think it is going away (and Mac is only maybe 10% of Apple's revenue so they really don't care that much even if it did).

    Replies: @jim jones, @anon, @dfordoom

    As I said in a previous comment, one reason technical people (scientists/programmers) buy it is because runs a version of Unix underneath. Another is that it has some nice features (e.g., the best touchpad) and a lot people who buy Macs are not price-sensitive (i.e., they buy them with institutional funds). But Cook has ruined the new Mac laptops so I expect their market share to drop to the hard core fanbois and novice users. At least that’s what I’m hearing from current, technical Mac laptop users.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @anon


    one reason technical people (scientists/programmers) buy it is because runs a version of Unix underneath.
     
    Then why not just run Linux itself?
  94. @Dieter Kief
    @Desiderius

    Yes

    Replies: @Desiderius

    You can stop talking about it if you want.

    We won’t.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Desiderius

    Yes

  95. @anon
    @Jack D

    As I said in a previous comment, one reason technical people (scientists/programmers) buy it is because runs a version of Unix underneath. Another is that it has some nice features (e.g., the best touchpad) and a lot people who buy Macs are not price-sensitive (i.e., they buy them with institutional funds). But Cook has ruined the new Mac laptops so I expect their market share to drop to the hard core fanbois and novice users. At least that's what I'm hearing from current, technical Mac laptop users.

    Replies: @Jack D

    one reason technical people (scientists/programmers) buy it is because runs a version of Unix underneath.

    Then why not just run Linux itself?

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  96. @anon
    @jim jones

    That's nonsense. The majority of people I know that use a Mac are highly technical, think MIT EE/CS PhDs. At conferences, probably 90% of people have Mac laptops. The reason is not some mythical ease of use, but that it is a Unix machine underneath without issues associated with having a Linux laptop. And I am no Mac fanboi. I was never a fan of Jobs, and hate what Cook's been doing, with Macs and politically. The elimination of ports, the stupid new 'features', dongles for everything, donations to ADL, ugh...

    Replies: @Jack D

    At conferences, probably 90% of people have Mac laptops.

    Citation? I think that’s vastly overestimated. Even given that people are not paying with their own $ and are not price sensitive, a lot of people don’t want Macs. Lack of expandability (even adding memory or changing disks) , inability to replace the battery, etc..

    The reason is not some mythical ease of use, but that it is a Unix machine underneath without issues associated with having a Linux laptop.

    What issues? If you have a PhD in EE from MIT I think you should be able to figure out how to install Ubuntu.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @Jack D


    What issues? If you have a PhD in EE from MIT I think you should be able to figure out how to install Ubuntu.
     
    I'm a little puzzled, too. Ubuntu and Windows dual boot machines should help Unix fans span the gap in commercial software availability without having to pay the Apple premium. No need for Macs.
  97. @Jack D
    @anon

    At conferences, probably 90% of people have Mac laptops.

    Citation? I think that's vastly overestimated. Even given that people are not paying with their own $ and are not price sensitive, a lot of people don't want Macs. Lack of expandability (even adding memory or changing disks) , inability to replace the battery, etc..


    The reason is not some mythical ease of use, but that it is a Unix machine underneath without issues associated with having a Linux laptop.

    What issues? If you have a PhD in EE from MIT I think you should be able to figure out how to install Ubuntu.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

    What issues? If you have a PhD in EE from MIT I think you should be able to figure out how to install Ubuntu.

    I’m a little puzzled, too. Ubuntu and Windows dual boot machines should help Unix fans span the gap in commercial software availability without having to pay the Apple premium. No need for Macs.

  98. @Jack D
    @Simon Tugmutton


    Only a plutocratic cretin would spring for a Mac these days
     
    "These days" began in 2006 when Apple started using Intel hardware. Ever since then, a Mac is just another PC onto which a different operating system has been installed. If for some reason you really like the Mac OS better than Windows (or Linux) then there's really not much to stop you from installing High Sierra on any other machine, if you are technically adept. But, that's Catch-22, because if you are technically adept you probably don't want the Mac OS.

    So why do a certain % of computer buyers (and not just plutocratic cretins) keep springing for Apple's overpriced junk? Because they offer it up in a certain slickly integrated package of hardware and software that doesn't require you do actually know much about computers. They want an appliance and are not interested in what is under the hood and they are willing to pay for the experience that they want. This is not a large segment but it is a pretty steady one. I don't think it is going away (and Mac is only maybe 10% of Apple's revenue so they really don't care that much even if it did).

    Replies: @jim jones, @anon, @dfordoom

    So why do a certain % of computer buyers (and not just plutocratic cretins) keep springing for Apple’s overpriced junk? Because they offer it up in a certain slickly integrated package of hardware and software that doesn’t require you do actually know much about computers. They want an appliance and are not interested in what is under the hood and they are willing to pay for the experience that they want.

    Yes. That would be me. I don’t give a damn what’s under the hood.

    The fact is that a computer is an appliance. If you buy a refrigerator you don’t expect to have to understand the technical details of how it works. You just expect the damned thing to work. That’s how computers should be. The idea that computers are something that should be for tech geeks who love the fact that it takes endless tinkering to keep them running is so 1970s.

    Don’t get me wrong. Apple is a toxic company consumed by greed and messianic megalomania and I despise them. But their idea that a computer should be just like any other appliance is correct.

  99. @Desiderius
    @Dieter Kief

    You can stop talking about it if you want.

    We won’t.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Yes

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS