Toy choice preference innate?

[ArmorPierce]

In fact, he did. The context of your reply clearly was meant to put an unwarranted emphasis on that single study, which didn't say what you wanted it to say.

He did not, firstly. He challenged for me to provide a study that took other cultures into account, which I did. He continued to make strawman,s redherrings and misconstrued/lied about what I stated which I’ve since addressed.

In fact, upon further reading it seems that his main point, that I, the article and the researchers were wrong about calling the color ‘pinkish’ because pink is just a lighter tint of red, is wrong itself.

Links posted in response to Bakustra. Go ahead and read them. If you really want me to I'll post a reply with it specifically for you.

No, you didn't. You posted one link, to a the Guardian article. Then you posted a link to a short interpretative article about the study you like so much. Neither addressed the claim actually on table in this part of the discussion. You said, and I quote,

by statin(sic!) that assigned colors to babies used to be reversed (which isn't wholey(sic!) true as far as I know anyway).

I posted quotes from contemporary sources refuting your idiotic claim. Your links cannot be expected to refute anything in that regard. The assigned colors used to be reversed. It wasn't a one-on-one correspondence, but then again, the only one implying and soon probably claiming I said that would be you.

How does posting a quote of some magazine of suggesting pink for boys and blue for girls explain or prove anything? I did not deny that some baby males were adorned with pink while some females were blue, I did question how uniform it is and your own quote states that it wasn’t universal. Your quote backs up my questioning of it.

Have you ever heard of a non-sequitar?

Yes. When I heard of the expression, it was spelt correctly and properly applied, unlike your attempted use of the term. You claimed that the color assignment change "wasn't true as far as you knew." I corrected you. You now desperately try to shift the goalposts to make the argument about something else, while at that point in time it was really all about you being a massive twit.

You are a fucking liar you dipshit. Here is what I actually said

(which isn’t wholey true as far as I know anyway)

Your quote states

There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.

Great diversity of opinion meaning no universally uniform standard of assigned color.

The logic does not follow, what is this supposed to prove? Go ahead and explain how assigning a color to a boy or girl have anything to do with biological color preference dipshit. That said, just because some news paper or magazine articles say the rule is x doesn't mean that it was the universal followed approach. It even states it as much in the quote stating that there is a great diversity of opinion on the subject.

That is not the contention. I pointed toward it being a changeable rule, and you wanted this to have something to do with something I never actually said. You may continue your inept and impotent flailing about, but you really have no case.

You failed to address the question. This also weakens your argument if the rule changed so quickly over the course of a generation in that there is no biological influence in color preference.

No, of course it doesn't. I'm saying conventions are in a certain amount of flux, and not innately biological. You're the one assigning them status of fucking immutability. ArmorPierce, I'm being patient with you, but you really have to start applying thought to this, or you're not going to have much credibility left, assuming you had any in the first place.

You’re being patient with me? That’s rich, you’ve provided no counter study to back your belief but and instead relied on your gut feeling and ‘logic’.

No, it is not. One study, as has been pointed out, is insufficient for such wildly broad claims as you make. "Universal preference [..] across cultures". Wow. I'm almost impressed by the gall of it.

Want another study? http://blog.kissmetrics.com/gender-and-color/ It includes the first study that I linked to. Participants includes people from 22 different countries. Oh wait let me guess, still not enough. That study from 2003 jives with the findings from 07.

Besides, how old are babies when people just dress them in one color? less than 1? I've never seen a kid that can walk that the parents dress in one uniform color, but then again I'm not around that many kids.

Neonatal wards, little one. Hence the expression "under the pink blanket".[/quote]
okay

In other words, unrelated tripe that shows you clearly can't comprehend what I'm saying? To be expected, I suppose.

Random bullshit ranting and raving

This must be the slow class. The bolded part was not an argument, it's a historical datum. It has to be interpreted and used to say something other than itself in order to qualify as an argument. You're applying your inference to it and fighting that, which at best is sloppy and undercuts any attempt at real argument. At worst, it's an outright strawman.

Yeah you're clearly a dumb ass. If your post consists of nothing but merely a instigating one line "historical datum' in a thread that is discussing innate biological difference between the sexes and you're clearly posting for one side of the other (which you were as is shown by your post) you are either arguing or being a worthless trolling one liner poster.

Okay. In that case, if a response to Formless speculating on whether this would be an interesting avenue to explore is "a(sic!) instigating line" (because you don't get to put words in my mouth, presumably) means I'm a worthless trolling one line poster, then why don't you take it to a moderator? It does seem to be something they'd be interested in, doesn't it? I personally don't think it would go over too well, seeing as how I clearly contributed more to the discussion than you've done so far, but hope is a beautiful thing.

Whether or not it was a ‘historical datum’ it doesn’t matter. I was arguing the significance of the historical data in which it is used towards an argument which you apparently left there for no reason.

ArmorPierce, while you may think you're amusing, you're coming across as a raving child lashing out at random. Please compose yourself, decide your own hopefully consistent position, and address what's actually being said rather than your own fleeting fancies. Thank you.

That’s funny because you haven’t posted anything that actually backed your own claims outside of your own personal gut feelings and irrelevant historical data. Start putting up shutting up dipshit because your claims are backed up just by your gut feelings. Not to mention you LIED about what I stated.

[Eleas]

In fact, he did. The context of your reply clearly was meant to put an unwarranted emphasis on that single study, which didn't say what you wanted it to say.

He did not, firstly. He challenged for me to provide a study that took other cultures into account, which I did. He continued to make strawman,s redherrings and misconstrued/lied about what I stated which I’ve since addressed.

No. You made, as is increasingly obvious, arguments without actually enunciating them properly, and then got increasingly petulant and hostile when Bakustra didn't accept their validity by fiat. It is impossible to not misconstrue a lot of the things you say, because it's simply so much gibberish. But you know this already, I suspect. Otherwise, you wouldn't use it as a tactic, as we can see below.

Links posted in response to Bakustra. Go ahead and read them. If you really want me to I'll post a reply with it specifically for you.

No, you didn't. You posted one link, to a the Guardian article. Then you posted a link to a short interpretative article about the study you like so much. Neither addressed the claim actually on table in this part of the discussion. You said, and I quote,

by statin(sic!) that assigned colors to babies used to be reversed (which isn't wholey(sic!) true as far as I know anyway).

I posted quotes from contemporary sources refuting your idiotic claim. Your links cannot be expected to refute anything in that regard. The assigned colors used to be reversed. It wasn't a one-on-one correspondence, but then again, the only one implying and soon probably claiming I said that would be you.

How does posting a quote of some magazine of suggesting pink for boys and blue for girls explain or prove anything? I did not deny that some baby males were adorned with pink while some females were blue, I did question how uniform it is and your own quote states that it wasn’t universal. Your quote backs up my questioning of it.

Ah, that was quick. If you'll reread the post, you'll see I anticipated you trying to equate uniform = universal, in the vain hope that you wouldn't try to distort my position. Yet you took that step in the very next post. Good job.

To recap, my first statement regarding color preferences -- the one you pounced on for no reason -- still doesn't mean what you think it means. It was an aside to madd0ct0r, expressing genuine interest in how a historical datum would fit into things. In short, it was not an argument, and did not pretend to such. You pounced on it, distorted it by inferring statements and opinions into it, then claimed it was not "wholey true as far as I know anyway", a statement so muddled that I read it as conservatively as I could, in short as questioning the accuracy of that datum. I, of course, provide quotes backing up said datum. Then, you try to infer further things that aren't exactly clear. Why, when I try to explain to you that yes, the assignment of colors that today is considered universal hasn't always been so, do you bring up that it wasn't equally universal back then? Who knows. I've given up on trying to understand why you behave like an idiot, and can only deduce that you do.

Yes. When I heard of the expression, it was spelt correctly and properly applied, unlike your attempted use of the term. You claimed that the color assignment change "wasn't true as far as you knew." I corrected you. You now desperately try to shift the goalposts to make the argument about something else, while at that point in time it was really all about you being a massive twit.

You are a fucking liar you dipshit. Here is what I actually said

(which isn’t wholey true as far as I know anyway)

Which could mean the exact same thing, because of your massive inability to communicate. It is not my job to reach in through the several possible meanings and extract the correct one. Making yourself clear is your job, one you apparently have no interest in doing and so leave up to others, possibly so you can later attack them for not making the right choice.

Incidentally, I did not claim that this was an exact quote, which it could't be anyway because of the chosen pronoun. When I actually did quote you verbatim (which I did earlier) I even took the time to do it in formal notation, for fuck's sake.

<snip>

That is not the contention. I pointed toward it being a changeable rule, and you wanted this to have something to do with something I never actually said. You may continue your inept and impotent flailing about, but you really have no case.

You failed to address the question. This also weakens your argument if the rule changed so quickly over the course of a generation in that there is no biological influence in color preference.

ArmorPierce, stop trying to wiggle. Read what I wrote and when you've done so, try responding in an honest manner. No obfuscations. No strawmen or poisoning the well or any other of your well-worn tricks. Just... try to debate.

No, of course it doesn't. I'm saying conventions are in a certain amount of flux, and not innately biological. You're the one assigning them status of fucking immutability. ArmorPierce, I'm being patient with you, but you really have to start applying thought to this, or you're not going to have much credibility left, assuming you had any in the first place.

You’re being patient with me? That’s rich, you’ve provided no counter study to back your belief but and instead relied on your gut feeling and ‘logic’.

It was you who attacked a question I put to madd0ct0r and pretended it was an argument. You now want me to provide a study on... what? You don't actually say. Perhaps I'm meant to figure that out, too.

No, it is not. One study, as has been pointed out, is insufficient for such wildly broad claims as you make. "Universal preference [..] across cultures". Wow. I'm almost impressed by the gall of it.

Want another study? http://blog.kissmetrics.com/gender-and-color/ It includes the first study that I linked to. Participants includes people from 22 different countries. Oh wait let me guess, still not enough. That study from 2003 jives with the findings from 07.

Fair enough, that's fine. I was attacking your sweeping terms and absolutist thinking, after all. I'm perfectly fine with you mentioning stuff like "indications" and "causal connections" and "according to two studies". Words like "innate" and "universal" are not to be bandied about lightly, but you toss them out at the drop of a hat.

In other words, unrelated tripe that shows you clearly can't comprehend what I'm saying? To be expected, I suppose.

Random bullshit ranting and raving

At least you admit to it. That's a good first step.

Whether or not it was a ‘historical datum’ it doesn’t matter. I was arguing the significance of the historical data in which it is used towards an argument which you apparently left there for no reason.

In other words, you took my remark to madd0ct0r, imagined an argument it could be fitted into, attributed it to me, and attacked that. A nice enough variant of strawman, just. Like. I. Said.

ArmorPierce, while you may think you're amusing, you're coming across as a raving child lashing out at random. Please compose yourself, decide your own hopefully consistent position, and address what's actually being said rather than your own fleeting fancies. Thank you.

That’s funny because you haven’t posted anything that actually backed your own claims outside of your own personal gut feelings and irrelevant historical data. Start putting up shutting up dipshit because your claims are backed up just by your gut feelings. Not to mention you LIED about what I stated.

Not really. In all honesty, your statement could have meant any number of things, because it was sorta mualdaed already kinda liek. Please debate the preceding statement with an eye to everything it could possibly mean, and remember, if you don't pick my favored interpretation, you're a fucking liar and a troll.

Wow. So that's what it feels like to be you. Must be lonely.

[Spoonist]

@Akhlut and Formless

You don't have a debate/discussion you just have a series of misunderstandings.

Want another study? http://blog.kissmetrics.com/gender-and-color/ It includes the first study that I linked to. Participants includes people from 22 different countries. Oh wait let me guess, still not enough. That study from 2003 jives with the findings from 07.

Sorry but no it doesn't.
First off, its not a study. Kissmetrics is a webarticle for design people. But maybe you were just unclear and meant that the webarticle referenced a new study?
If so it didn't take me more than two minutes of googling to find both which simply shows that you are lying about it being hard to find.

http://www.joehallock.com/edu/COM498/index.html
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/ful ... 07)01559-X

Both show that both males and females prefer blue, with the major gender difference being that males prefer blue more often than females and that females vary more than males in their preferences. Neither show any preference for pink. The 03 one show that some older females selected PURPLE as their favorite. The 07 one show that while young UK females prefer blue they differ from their male counterparts in that they also like red.

So please clarify which study you are refering to and what significance you think it shows because so far all you have shown are duds in the context of your discussion with Eleas.

PS
Also note that neither study-methodology eliminates culture like was implied earlier.
There are no cat scans and no methodology to correct if people just "think" that their preference is true. (If you wonder why I mention that just remember that a study showed that their selection of male homophobes were more likely to get an erection from gay porn than non-homophobes. So what you say you prefer and what you actually prefer differs. Same thing with cola-soft drinks etc.)
DS

Edit: also the biological imperative would be to wear whatever the other sex prefer, not to wear it yourself.

[DudeGuyMan]

Borderline necromancy, but this thread is still hanging out around the middle of the first page so I don't think I'm due for a mod-spanking.

Oh, for fucks sake... this board needs to stop abusing the word tribalism because it has lost all meaning at this point. (increases bullshit pop-psych cliche` count to five) Anthropological evidence suggests that in fact, nomadic humans living in tribal conditions both then and now were/are not warlike savages that never interbred. Early humans even interbred with Neaderthals, a completely different (sub)species! This stereotype contradicts known facts and would have quickly led to inbreeding too boot, making it Grade A bullshit. Like everything else that's come out of your mouth so far.

Thanks for this completely irrelevant rant about the word tribalism. They do divide up, and they do have the occasional war even if they're not as warlike as... you think... someone thinks they are. What an odd response this was. It did manage to ignore most of what was quoted in favor of harping on about one word and what some other people who aren't me think about it. Good job.

There were a couple more pithy responses that had nothing to do with anything as well, but I'm clipping those for brevity.

Any biologist will tell you that rape is a fringe strategy as far as reproduction is concerned, and murder as stated is not as common among humans still living the "primitive" life as people like to make it out to be, simple fact.

As common as WHAT people like to make it out to be? Who the hell are you having this argument about primitive societies with?

"Men are more aggressive/violent than women, you can tell this by looking at every human society anyone can think of."
"No way, it's just cultural! You probably think the same thing about murder!"
"Well... yeah. Wait, you don't? So you think the existence of murder is just some odd cultural thing? Could the right culture cause humans to never commit murder?"
"Murder as stated is not as common among humans still living the "primitive" life as people like to make it out to be!"

The fuck does that have to do with anything? Blow it out your ass. This whole post of yours was one big non-response arguing with some nonexistent person over how 'savage' tribal societies are or are not.

But the point is, your "evidence" is based on non-existent logic, trying to pass off an un-analyzed assertion ("this is seen in every culture [that I know of]!") and through the magic of ignorance thinking you've proven something. You haven't, because you have not even begun to explain the link between the data and the conclusions you draw from it.

Here you go trying to paint "Behavior X is seen in human beings regardless of what culture they belong to, so X is probably not culture-specific behavior!" as some sort of crazy moon-logic requiring some unspecified sort of analysis, whereas your own hysterical made-up shit below is supposed to be self-evident.

The religion bit was particularly important there, champ, because you might notice that every human culture around today has its superstitious or religious beliefs, yet we know for a fact that these are cultural phenomena that transmit rather effectively from society to society, bypassing biology and yet altering behavior everywhere they go. Yet somehow we're immune to gender socialization... coughbullshitcough.

Hahaha, yeah, this rambling bullshit is great. "Well religion, therefore we're not immune to gender socialization!" Which doesn't mean jack shit, since no one ever claimed human beings are immune to gender socialization.

So, wait? I'm supposed to read that bullshit and just assume that "men being more aggressive/violent than women" is the most successful cultural meme of all-time and spread everywhere in the entire world and otherwise wouldn't exist? Because you say so? All because we're not 100% immune to gender socialization?

Yeah THAT'S a rock-solid bit of sociological theory there, Professor. No additional analysis required there, no sir.

Violence is aggression, agression is not violence.

Aggression and violence were enough the same thing for you to write them as "aggression/violence" when you first got here. Then you realized after a few posts that the entire human history of violence was going to fuck you, so we started hearing this song and dance about how girls calling each other bitches behind their backs is also aggression.

[Formless]

And once again, without fail, you miss the points raised by a mile with regards to tribalism and racism not equaling the same thing, and religion being evidence that cultural artifacts MUST be ruled out before making claims about human nature, etc.. And you lie about the fact that evidence HAS been presented in support of my position (first page, second response to you: read it asshole). And you fail to provide any evidence of your own about human history, evolution, or any other claim you think to make. And you failed to address Eleas four pages after she called bullshit as well. And yet you expect that one month later I will be any more impressed by your Wall of Ignorance than I was before. In short:

Welcome to the world of science where "common sense" isn't good enough. Seriously? Fuck off. That is all I have to say to an idiotic sack of shit like you.

[Spoonist]

I'm not going to join in on your shitfest here but out of curiosity I have to ask:
@Formless
Is your position that the last 1000 years of recorded history with human males being more violent than human females can mostly be attributed to culture?
If so to which degree, as in how many % in your estimate would be due to nurture vs nature? (In this case culture vs biology).
100% ?
90% ?
75% ?

Or is your position simply that since we can not do studies on human nature without the inclusion of culture there is no telling which is which and what is what?

[DudeGuyMan]

And once again, without fail, you miss the points raised by a mile with regards to tribalism and racism not equaling the same thing,

Is that what that totally random bullshit about how primitive societies are less violent (than some mysterious, non-posting people believe they are) was supposed to mean? Because it looked like you totally ignoring the concepts of racism/nationalism/everything else referenced in order to rant against some barely-coherent strawman regarding tribalism.

"Do you think racism is inherent to human beings?"
"The urge to divide up and turn against each other certainly is, whether it comes out as racism, tribalism, nationalism, etc."
"Tribal societies are less violent than someone else somewhere thought they were!"
"Okay?"
"I just proved racism and tribalism don't come from the same place!"

WTF?

and religion being evidence that cultural artifacts MUST be ruled out before making claims about human nature, etc..

And since there's no behavior which (in your book at least) couldn't secretly be a cultural meme that has achieved 100% penetration of the human species, no one can ever claim anything! Whee!

Why don't you just make another shrill self-congratulatory post about how nobody is smart enough to understand how your random horseshit totally addresses anything? It won't fool anyone, but flexing your precious little social-reject internet nerdrage attitude will probably help reclaim another piece of your soul lost when some kid rammed your head into the toilet in high school.

[Formless]

Is your position that the last 1000 years of recorded history with human males being more violent than human females can mostly be attributed to culture?
If so to which degree, as in how many % in your estimate would be due to nurture vs nature? (In this case culture vs biology).
100% ?
90% ?
75% ?

It is my position that the question you are asking is the wrong one to ask. You can't simply give a neat little number to quantify how much of our nature is evolved and how much of it is picked up through upbringing; psychology just isn't that simple. You need to know how these factors effect human psychology, and ask questions like "how has nature effected our basic impulses and how does culture effect our thinking towards them?" And then on top of that there is the question of how cognition/intelligence/reasoning ability fits into this. The argument that someone with a smaller body would rationally want to look for other ways of acting out aggressive impulses rather than choosing violence is an example of this third (and largely ignored) factor. I would have just as much fervor for putting down extreme Behaviorists except that Behaviorism no longer has the sheer dominance in psychology it once had. But good question, since that's probably the number one thing you need to know before getting into the nature vs nurture debate.

Or is your position simply that since we can not do studies on human nature without the inclusion of culture there is no telling which is which and what is what?

Oh, no, you can do studies on it once you know what exactly you are studying (see above). I just hate fools like dudegu lamenametroll that don't even bother and I'm guessing wouldn't understand the methodology of such studies if you tried explaining it to them. They have their worldview already set, and they don't want to admit ever being wrong.

[example of troll logic] I mean, look at how many men Brown People are in prison for violent crime! Men Brown People must be inherently more prone to violent crime then women White People! It can't possible be a cultural artifact owing to systemic racism and historical economic oppression. Look at the small anatomical differences between brown people and white people! And brown people have such a history of TRIBAL VIOLENCE, am I right folks? Did you know that extreme melanism in cat species is correlated with higher levels of aggression? SCIENTIFIC PROOF SEXISM RACISM IS JUSTIFIED. [/example of troll logic]

Now you see why this kind of thing pisses me off?

WTF?

If you would stop humping that strawgoat, you would have noticed the part where I pointed out interbreeding among human tribes and even neadertals as evidence against hard divisions between human groups. If you have to resort to lying, you have no case. As for the rest of your post, I quote two people:

While personal incredulity may arguably be your best argument ITT, it's still not what I'd call a solid one.

DudeGuyMan, argue the TOPIC, not the person. If you have anything constructive to add to this discussion, speak up. Otherwise, take yourself elsewhere.

Now fuck off already you worthless shrimpdick little troll.

[Spoonist]

@Formless
In that case your are laying it on waaay to thick. Your posts come across as much more culture oriented than your stated position.