Overweight cats, the new method of strength exercises!
Advertisement
by Western Vale Confederacy » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:24 am
by Lanoraie II » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:27 am
Kubra wrote:Sure, men have some in-built aggressivities. And? What does that tell us of masculinities?Lanoraie II wrote:
Alright.
That's all fine and dandy, but there's a biological end to this as well. The study conveniently tiptoes around the role that hormones and chemicals in the brain play in human development and evolution. It's not a coincidence that most of human history in most parts of the world, men were the ones going out hunting, fishing, and fighting while women cooked, cleaned, and took care of the kids, just like nearly all mammals. Non-mammals, too. It's not a coincidence that women with significantly higher levels of testosterone have increased aggression and higher sex drives. Of course there are cultural, social, and contextual norms, but there are a few nigh-universal consistencies for what being a man means.
As for interjecting politics, it happens much more than you think. In fact, it happens all the time. There are evil people out there willing to manipulate and lie to achieve their goals and they are everywhere. Years ago you could open up a psychological journal and see all kinds of biases that you still see to this day, except they're typically different biases--namely, against men, especially white, heterosexual men.
And no, not everything is a social construct. Language is an evolutionary expression that we use to communicate ideas, names, thoughts, and insults. Clapping at a concert may be a social construct (clapping itself is possibly a biological instinct when people feel an extensive excitement or energy inside of them), but chemistry is not. It simply isn't. The words we use and methods to explore chemistry may be, but carbon isn't a construct. Only the name is.
For a psychologist you're pretty rude. I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about, and the buzzphrase "social construct" has a somewhat different meaning than Social Constructivism. Also, there are people who argue that everything is instinctual and not socially based.
Come now, of all folks I've asked about the deadlift, you're one of the few that could answer, and you ain't even a guy. The fellows have their ideas, positive ones, of masculinity or masculinities, but it is difficult to peg concrete expression.
Language as a concept? Sure, why not? But uh, english? I mean, you'd think an evolutionary expression would be a little more efficient, like those german fellows.
by Kubra » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:27 am
I mean, irregular loads are a good way of building stablizers before tackling heavy loads, if that's what's got one at a plateau.
by Imperialisium » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:27 am
Social Constructivism is the theory that Human development is socially based. Now unless you are saying that Human's being social is abnormal then I think it is fair to assume you had no idea what you were formulating your opinion on.
For a psychologist you're pretty rude. I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about, and the buzzphrase "social construct" has a somewhat different meaning than Social Constructivism. Also, there are people who argue that everything is instinctual and not socially based.
by Kubra » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:33 am
perhaps not, but we can acknowledge the figure of the british dandy, the spanish caudillo, and the australian tourist (ya'll know the type) as expressing masculinity, but in ways that are quite disparate. Hence, masculinities. I'm gonna take the aussie over the caudillo any day, he might throw a punch but he probably won't kill me. Aggression and preening is simply a drive, its expression does not necessarily have unifying characteristics beyond a basic drive.Lanoraie II wrote:Kubra wrote: Sure, men have some in-built aggressivities. And? What does that tell us of masculinities?
Come now, of all folks I've asked about the deadlift, you're one of the few that could answer, and you ain't even a guy. The fellows have their ideas, positive ones, of masculinity or masculinities, but it is difficult to peg concrete expression.
Language as a concept? Sure, why not? But uh, english? I mean, you'd think an evolutionary expression would be a little more efficient, like those german fellows.
Oh I really hate how we can't just quote the most recent post....Anyway, that tells us that the social aspect of what it means to be masculine is partially nature, partially nurture, and it's a common hard-left claim to say that it's all nurture. As for efficiency in evolution...those two things don't always go hand-in-hand, ala deer having absolute garbage eyesight.
by Lanoraie II » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:44 am
Imperialisium wrote:Social Constructivism is the theory that Human development is socially based. Now unless you are saying that Human's being social is abnormal then I think it is fair to assume you had no idea what you were formulating your opinion on.
For a psychologist you're pretty rude. I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about, and the buzzphrase "social construct" has a somewhat different meaning than Social Constructivism. Also, there are people who argue that everything is instinctual and not socially based.
My apologies if I offended you. I did not think it'd be rude to point out an obvious fact. A good Psychologist doesn't pander to avoid upsetting someone. Which is why seeing a Psychologist for therapeutic or psychiatric reasons can often be a hard thing to do simply for the reason we will often say things that an individual does not want to hear.
Social Construct is not a buzz phrase. It does have a scientific meaning that predates the informal lingo often thrown around today and is directly related to the theory of Social Constructivism.
People can argue whatever they wish. I'm not arguing people's opinions. I'm arguing for the facts. I can tell you factually that everything is not instinctively based. Someone can believe such, more power to them, they have a right to their opinion. But opinions are not facts. Instincts are grounded in social and environmental learning. Genetics does play a part but it is at most 50% of the part. The other half or more comes from a person's social and environmental situation that often overrides the genes.
For example there is a gene that makes one predisposed to murder. It is dubbed the Warrior Gene by scientists. But having it does not mean you'll kill someone. The vast majority of people who have it never kill anyone and this statistically correlates to their social pressures giving environmental stimuli to the brain.
by Lanoraie II » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:46 am
Kubra wrote:perhaps not, but we can acknowledge the figure of the british dandy, the spanish caudillo, and the australian tourist (ya'll know the type) as expressing masculinity, but in ways that are quite disparate. Hence, masculinities. I'm gonna take the aussie over the caudillo any day, he might throw a punch but he probably won't kill me. Aggression and preening is simply a drive, its expression does not necessarily have unifying characteristics beyond a basic drive.Lanoraie II wrote:
Oh I really hate how we can't just quote the most recent post....Anyway, that tells us that the social aspect of what it means to be masculine is partially nature, partially nurture, and it's a common hard-left claim to say that it's all nurture. As for efficiency in evolution...those two things don't always go hand-in-hand, ala deer having absolute garbage eyesight.
Deer can see way better at night that we can, and would be otherwise quite adapted, were it not for us and our pesky arrows.
by Lamoni » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:51 am
ShakaZuli wrote:Yes, the best would be to castrate western whites. This will heal them from pathological masculinity. There is enough masculine minorities and they could just take the place of whites.
Licana on the M-21A2 MBT: "Well, it is one of the most badass tanks on NS."
Vortiaganica: Lamoni I understand fully, of course. The two (Lamoni & Lyras) are more inseparable than the Clinton family and politics.
Triplebaconation: Lamoni commands a quiet respect that carries its own authority. He is the Mandela of NS.
by Imperialisium » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:53 am
Lanoraie II wrote:Imperialisium wrote:
My apologies if I offended you. I did not think it'd be rude to point out an obvious fact. A good Psychologist doesn't pander to avoid upsetting someone. Which is why seeing a Psychologist for therapeutic or psychiatric reasons can often be a hard thing to do simply for the reason we will often say things that an individual does not want to hear.
Social Construct is not a buzz phrase. It does have a scientific meaning that predates the informal lingo often thrown around today and is directly related to the theory of Social Constructivism.
People can argue whatever they wish. I'm not arguing people's opinions. I'm arguing for the facts. I can tell you factually that everything is not instinctively based. Someone can believe such, more power to them, they have a right to their opinion. But opinions are not facts. Instincts are grounded in social and environmental learning. Genetics does play a part but it is at most 50% of the part. The other half or more comes from a person's social and environmental situation that often overrides the genes.
For example there is a gene that makes one predisposed to murder. It is dubbed the Warrior Gene by scientists. But having it does not mean you'll kill someone. The vast majority of people who have it never kill anyone and this statistically correlates to their social pressures giving environmental stimuli to the brain.
I'm arguing for the facts too, which is why I was pointing out the bias that OP also picked up on, and why I'm so annoyed by all these crap studies that make headlines, and when you read how it was carried out (and sometimes who funded it), you can't believe people will read the headline and fall for it. 50% is more than enough reason to include the genetic in their study.
I was mostly unfamiliar of the theory of Social Constructivism vs the informal lingo. I am a scientistin trainingbut my work is in the forest measuring trees and collecting samples of bear fur, far away from the human sciences. I'd also like to point out that facts are not always facts and may, in fact, (hehe) be wrong. Not arguing in defense of flat-earthers though. Sometimes you just have to take them to the top of Mt. Everest and point at the curvature of the land before they get it.
by Kubra » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:56 am
Hey, at least it hasn't been a moose. That shit's deadly.Lanoraie II wrote:Kubra wrote: perhaps not, but we can acknowledge the figure of the british dandy, the spanish caudillo, and the australian tourist (ya'll know the type) as expressing masculinity, but in ways that are quite disparate. Hence, masculinities. I'm gonna take the aussie over the caudillo any day, he might throw a punch but he probably won't kill me. Aggression and preening is simply a drive, its expression does not necessarily have unifying characteristics beyond a basic drive.
Deer can see way better at night that we can, and would be otherwise quite adapted, were it not for us and our pesky arrows.
That's true, they can, but I see many, many, MANY deer wandering around in daytime and it's like...why. Why did you evolve this way? Why must you run AT my car? Why must you lay down in the middle of my lane after I creep towards and honk at you? Why are you the way that you are?
You're right about all you said.
by Zapato » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:19 am
Lanoraie II wrote:Just did a quick scan of it. So this is why people don't consider psychology to be a real science. This is blatant propaganda with a bunch of psychobabble stuffed in, plain and simple. Here's the real science: Men are genetically predisposed to act in a certain way. Male hormones aren't just placebo, they have a real effect on how men exist on this Earth. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Men evolved to be women's protectors, companions, and needed muscle. And you will find that most men in the world want to be exactly that. Traditional masculinity is not inherently wrong, and to say otherwise is to fib. Actual psychologists should study human behavior without bias and ignore this publication for the propagating garbage it is.
by Costa Fierro » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:01 am
Page wrote:Psychology cannot be divorced from politics.
by Western Vale Confederacy » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:33 am
by The Huskar Social Union » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:34 am
by Esternial » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:40 am
by Imperializt Russia » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:48 am
Tahar Joblis wrote:For a pointed example on the quality of the science, microaggression research is extremely weak from a scientific perspective.
I conclude with 18 suggestions for advancing the scientific status of the MRP, recommend abandonment of
the term “microaggression,” and call for a moratorium on microaggression training programs and publicly distributed
microaggression lists pending research to address the MRP’s scientific limitations.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Alvecia » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:00 am
Esternial wrote:Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
I wouldn't say that it is a pseudoscience, but existing biases taint it like blood on a pristine white T-shirt.
As I see it, psychology lacks sufficient objective measurement, which to me makes it a pseudoscience.
But I'm sure plenty of psychologist also use some tools used by psychiatrists and "drift" between both fields.
by Ostroeuropa » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:06 am
Costa Fierro wrote:Major-Tom wrote:Masculinity and toxic masculinity are two different things.
In practice. In theory toxic masculinity as a term is vague. Somewhat ironically, I could ask 100 self-professed feminists to give me examples of what toxic masculinity is or how they'd define it, and I'd get 100 different answers.
The reality is that toxic masculinity means whatever the person using the term wants it to mean. That way behaviour that doesn't benefit women could be considered as toxic masculinity, or social issues that men bring up that feminism has a significant impact on could be argued away as toxic masculinity. It's like patriarchy; a vague, meaningless term that allows feminists to do whatever they want with it.I understand the need to critique the toxic, harmful mindsets sometimes associated with males who are suppressed emotionally and are sort of stunted in some regards, but this paper is heavy-handed.
That's the way it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be heavy handed because how else can you control half the population if not through convincing them that their problems are their own?
by LiberNovusAmericae » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:32 am
by Ostroeuropa » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:35 am
Vassenor wrote:
So let's see examples of this bias in the text.
Although privilege has not applied to all
boys and men in equal measure, in the
aggregate, males experience a greater
degree of social and economic power than
girls and women
When working with boys and men, psychologists can address issues of privilege
and power related to sexism in a developmentally appropriate way to help them
obtain the knowledge, attitudes, and skills
to be effective allies
PRIVILEGE
Privilege refers to unearned sources of social status, power, and
institutionalized advantage experienced by individuals by virtue of
their culturally valued and dominant social identities (e.g., White,
Christian, male, and middle/upper class; McIntosh, 2008).
Indeed, boys and men are overrepresented in a variety of
psychological and social problems. For example, boys are disproportionately represented among schoolchildren with learning difficulties (e.g., lower standardized test scores)
Other investigations have identified
systemic gender bias toward adult men in psychotherapy (Mahalik
et al., 2012) and in other helping services such as domestic abuse
shelters (Douglas & Hines, 2011). Broader societal factors, such as
the stigma of seeking psychological help, also negatively impact
men’s help-seeking behaviors and the subsequent delivery of psy-
4 APA | Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men
chological services (Hammer et al., 2013; Mackenzie, Gekoski, &
Knox, 2006; Mahalik et al., 2012).
Sexism exists as a byproduct, reinforcer, and justification of male privilege.
men use violence and control in relationships as a way of maintaining sexist
beliefs and dominance over women (e.g.,
the Duluth Model; Pence & Paymar, 1993).
Childhood physical and/or sexual abuse victimization has
been found to be a significant precursor
to aggressive behavior in boys and men
(Jennings, Piquero, & Reingle, 2012; Tyler,
Johnson, & Brownridge, 2008). O
Rationale
A disparity exists between the occurrence
and severity of men’s mental health problems and the disproportionately low number of men served by psychological services (Englar-Carlson, 2014). It has been
suggested that many men do not seek psychological help because services are not in
alignment with masculine cultural norms
that equate asking for assistance for psychological and emotional concerns with
shame and weakness (Addis & Mahalik,
2003). An understanding of gender norms
when designing services for boys and men
may lead to greater participation among
this population (Mahalik et al., 2012).
by Tahar Joblis » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:36 am
Autarkheia wrote:My understanding is that radfems by definition want to abolish gender itself. But point taken.Tahar Joblis wrote:It's not Valerie Solanas radfem, but it is no less radfem than, say, Robin Morgan. It's not TERFy, but it's definitely in the camp of "culture [patriarchy] oppresses women and privileges men, we need to enact cultural reform upon masculinity, et cetera."Of course. And that is especially true of social psychology. That's why I would advocate reading this with skepticism.With good research.
There's a reason psychology has a replication crisis. There's a lot of bad research out there (including in particular plenty coming out of gender studies, in my unfortunately extensive experience).Fair enough. I don't recognize any of those names myself, because social psychology is not my area of interest within psychology.Note O'Neil is one of the authors on that paper. Plenty of these citations are to the authors, citation team, and their collaborators, which is not unusual in any event, but would help explain why a particularly weak citation got attached to the claim.
I recognize Lisak's name, and not in a good way. I've talked about the problems with a few of his papers here on NSG from time to time.
However, citation quantity is no guarantee of citation quality. That wasn't a cherry-picked citation. That was literally just the first citation I pulled out looking for what they were citing on their recommendation that men be trained to become aware of their purported male privilege. There are many weak papers out there that can be cited for all kinds of "facts," and perhaps more importantly, a lot of good research that's gotten squeezed out that really would be helpful to put in a set of guidelines somewhere.
Just as some of the things they're saying in the guidelines are true, some of the citations are to perfectly good science... just generally not the ones attached to the mainly ideological stuff I'm objecting to.
EDIT: Mind you, I should add that "write the paper and then have people dig up citations to support what you want to say," while typical practice in some fields, is not really how you come up with a good synthesis of what the research in the field says is good clinical practice.
There will be some who will dismiss all the research this paper is based on because they don't like the conclusions. It would be ridiculous to expect someone to go through all the cited research and pick out which papers are good and which are bad, and besides that's something only someone with specialized training can do. I just meant I doubt all the research is crap.
There are a lot of shitty journals who will accept any paper without even reading it. That's not new. Hypatia is notorious for its low standards. We can't draw conclusions about the broader state of gender studies because two people pranked some probably low-impact journals with shitposts. We also can't assume psychology has been overtaken by SJWs because one paper used words like "privilege".LiberNovusAmericae wrote:"Research" conducted by gender studies academia doesn't have a good peer review system. With that being said, it appears that same kind of ideology is being used in this new era of psychology, because their terms are used throughout sections of this paper.
by Thermodolia » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:43 am
Alvecia wrote:Esternial wrote:As I see it, psychology lacks sufficient objective measurement, which to me makes it a pseudoscience.
But I'm sure plenty of psychologist also use some tools used by psychiatrists and "drift" between both fields.
I think going as far as to call it a pseudoscience is a bit far. A term that includes fields that practice literal magic doesn't quite fit. Sure it's not as hard as the other sciences, but to delegitimise it as a field altogether is too much.
It's not like you can't gleam actual provable hypothesese from analysing human behaviour.
Though in fairness, I was getting psychiatrists and psychologists mixed up earlier
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: American Legionaries, Deblar, Elejamie, Emotional Support Crocodile, Gallia-, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Google [Bot], Hidrandia, Hurdergaryp, Paddy O Fernature, Parouty, Tinhampton, Tungstan, Uvolla
Advertisement