Posted on 04/16/2018 11:19:00 AM PDT by sevinufnine
You are assuming the curves are equal for both sexes with the only difference being where the curve occurs on the y axis. Prove the assumption.
It shouldn’t be that hard give your half-vast understanding of basic science. And for someone who is claiming not to evade, dissimulate, or waffle, I can’t seem to find anything in your responses that either answer my question, or explain why the question is inapplicable.
The basic shape of the curves will be the same because of the mathematical process of creating the curve but the standard deviations will differ and the scales. You haven't really asked any questions though you keep berating me for not answering.
The first point in any discussion is to define the terms. You do not do so and you do not accept standard definitions when I offer them. I can do no more, the facts and arguments have already been laid out for you.
I can not even fathom what you think this argument is about. I have not suggested men/women are better than each other nor that they are equal. I have only suggested that I evaluate as individuals rather than generalizing by sex and have provided a thesis supporting my point of view. In all of your writings I have no idea what your point of view is other than that you like to argue, attack, belittle and trash talk.
https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/normal-curve-31
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/11/human-traits-are-distributed-along-bell.html
In acknowledging the existence of human nature, you must further acknowledge that "nature" may indeed differ in character and magnitude when comparing men and women.
This may be the problem in a nutshell. There is no single quality called human nature. "Human Nature", as I have said, it the result of the interplay of many traits and is bounded by the best & the worst of human activity.
Saying that this "human nature" is something that can be measured in aggregate and is different in men & women in character & magnitude is asinine. Human nature does not have a character or magnitude axis because it is a totality. That is why I talked about facets of human nature or traits.
EXACTLY.
And as I stated earlier, it is possible that what is a blip on one curve is a spike on the other (i.e. a vanishingly small behavior for one sex may be practiced by an overwhelming majority of the other, so unless you are denying that possibility, how are you plotting it?)
As far as I can tell, your mental model inappropriately varies the rise and run for one curve as opposed to the other in order to make them functionally identical.
What you are being berated for is avoiding demonstrating the validity of your "oversimplification and error" assertion. That you've attempted to camouflage what is assumption and speculation on your part with inadequate models and supercilious pedantry is icing on the cake.
Far from it. It's what you have to disprove in order for your assertions to have any validity. But you know that don't you, hence your retreat into incredulity.
Rather, it is asinine to assert one can not enjoy a high degree of confidence in the physically aggressive response of one sex as opposed to a more oblique aggressive response from the other, given sufficient provocation.
blip on one curve is a spike
Non Sequitur, the rise over the run is related to slope. Normal curves are evaluated based on the area under the curve.
So we are to ignore your conflating multifactorial human nature with human nature as an indefinable something that is a discrete unit that can be measured?
Even here your illogical approach betrays you. What of the beta male & the amazon or for that matter the female marine? I know who I’d rather have in the foxhole alongside me.
Needed to fix tagline.
Am I mistaken, or aren’t YOU the guy that officiously introduced the “mystery curve” with undefined axes and units of measure? Now you want to say the values are “indefinable,” but you’re not dodging, avoiding, or dissimulating.
Further, your assumption of my ignorance keeps causing you to miss the point. Unfortunately, those assumption seem to be pretty consistent with those of an elementary student insisting you can’t have equations with “letters” in them. You may know the basics, you just don’t know how they’re used.
Finally, I have to conclude from your irrelevant hypothetical that you’re perfectly comfortable writing legislation and policy with statistical outliers as your rule for behavior.
Now THAT is asinine.
So I’ll ask yet again. If you acknowledge there is a real thing called “human nature,” by what unfalsifiable knowledge of that nature can you claim to know it effects in men and women are roughly equal in magnitude and intensity, particularly when empirical knowledge flies in the face of such a proposition?
Sorry. Please see tagline.
Particularly when you don't know how, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.