Toy choice preference innate?

[Simon_Jester]

Though the cultural 'drive to temperance' is quite common; the ancient Greeks, who had almost nothing in common with the Puritans, had philosophers who advocated temperance and the renouncing of Earthly pleasures in order to concentrate on 'higher matters.' Likewise the ascetic tradition in India, and so on.

Not to debate you, but the ancient Greeks also had Bacchanalias, while India prior to the Mughals also developed the Kama Sutra. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out whether the abstentious tradition or the hedonistic traditions were generally more popular with the majority of people.

S'why I said "but this is nearly always a minority behavior in a given culture." Asceticism appeals to a small fraction of any given society, though it is usually honored and respected by more. There are many people who respect an ascetic monk, and who may contribute resources to supporting one, for each person willing to become one.

All this is a somewhat perverse behavior from an evolutionary standpoint, and it is a sign that nurture can overpower nature, but not a sign that it does so in the entire human species or anything.

[Bakustra]

wtf are you talking about pink an red? What does that have to do with anything with what did I say? Did I say that girls liked pink innately? Or did I say that abritarily assigning genders with a color has nothing to do with this study? hmmm? I never said Girls like pink because of biology. I stated they preferred pinkish tinted blue. That statement does nothing but affirm my position. Do continue with your strawman.

Scientific research has shown preference towards the pink spectrum of blue is preferred by females while solid blue is preferred by males in humans.

This was presented in the context of it being a biological, that is, innate preference. So, yes, you did say that women preferred pink innately, because of SCIENTIFIC FACT. Or, rather, 'pinkish-tinted blue', which is meaningless and the result of you not reading the fucking study. Get out until you can remember reading comprehension.

[Formless]

All this is a somewhat perverse behavior from an evolutionary standpoint, and it is a sign that nurture can overpower nature, but not a sign that it does so in the entire human species or anything.

There was also the suicide thing, which he responded to by posting yet another cliche`. In fact, depressed people are not more likely to commit suicide unless they are on an anti-depressant; whereas most suicides surprise the family and friends of the deceased out of a misplaced expectation that suicidal behavior usually stems from depression. I like to think of it as the "Shinji Ikari" effect, after the main character from Neon Genesis Evangelion who is depressed enough to contemplate suicide but has so little self esteem because of his depression that he can't summon the motivation to go through with it.

Plus, of course, there are phenomena like mass suicide and death cults where social pressure overcomes the survival instinct of whole communities at once. Interesting, that.

[ArmorPierce]

This was presented in the context of it being a biological, that is, innate preference. So, yes, you did say that women preferred pink innately, because of SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Point at where I stated that women preferred pink innately please. Please point where I state scientific fact. Until you are able to I suggest you stop posting. In case you didn't know, scientific research and scientific fact are not the same thing

Or, rather, 'pinkish-tinted blue', which is meaningless and the result of you not reading the fucking study. Get out until you can remember reading comprehension.

Oh look, you were unable to find where I stated it so no you change it from me saying pink to what I actually said. Are you always this clueless. It's sad.

I was actually recalling from memory from this article so I didn't quote it verbatim http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/sto ... d=10459014

Afterwards, Hurlbert and colleagues plotted the results along the colour spectrum and found that while men prefer blue, women gravitate towards the pinker end of the blue spectrum.

"When you add it together you get the colours they intrinsically like, you get bluish red, which is sort of lilac or pink," she said.

Derrr Look, it says exactly what I said! Now Moron, please tuck your tail between your legs and get out of my thread. People like you are why debating in this forum is often useless.

[Bakustra]

You posted a study that said it was a biological preference, you buffoon! I guess your idea of "debate" consists of a magical land where nobody ever contradicts you. But "pink end of the blue spectrum" is meaningless, and if you look at the links I posted, which incorporate the actual color bands they used in the study you posted, then you will see that the article got that very wrong indeed.

You see, the problem is that the study did not say what you thought it said, and it didn't really end up being that conclusive, so what you suggested, namely that women prefer pink because of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, and thus pointing out cultural changes was meaningless and implied to be ANTI-SCIENTIFIC.

[Eleas]

People like you are why debating in this forum is often useless.

Ah. I have wondered why you won't bother replying to my post. Mystery solved, I suppose.

[ArmorPierce]

You posted a study that said it was a biological preference, you buffoon! I guess your idea of "debate" consists of a magical land where nobody ever contradicts you. But "pink end of the blue spectrum" is meaningless, and if you look at the links I posted, which incorporate the actual color bands they used in the study you posted, then you will see that the article got that very wrong indeed.

The scientist that was part of the study is the one that stated that. If she worded technically incorrect it does not matter. Quite frankly I don't even know what you are arguing about, yes it was towards redish blue or bluish red which is a pinkish color which honestly doesn't matter. It seems to me you are arguing over the semantics, you might as well be arguing about proper grammer or spelling.

You see, the problem is that the study did not say what you thought it said, and it didn't really end up being that conclusive, so what you suggested, namely that women prefer pink because of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, and thus pointing out cultural changes was meaningless and implied to be ANTI-SCIENTIFIC.

I still fail to see where I suggested that for one. My point was never a about pink being the preference anyway, the point was that females had different innate preference from males that stays through time and random changing cultural value.

It doesn't matter if it was redish blue or pinkish blue or whatever it was that you are arguing about. Your continued argument about it is purely a red herring. And far from conclusive? Perhaps not conclusive by itself but do you have any studies conducted in the same way with differing results? Or perhaps a study taking into account blue as the main universal preferred color?

[ArmorPierce]

Matter of fact, evidence of color preference difference in primates can be construed as additional indirect evidence in favor of humans (as such stated in the previous page about those monkeys).

[Bakustra]

ArmorPierce, you're a fucking liar, pretending that you never said innate and then casually admitting it. But let me put it to you this way: "bluish red" is not pink. I'm going to reach back to the primeval depths of kindergarten and point out that "bluish red" is in fact a color we call purple, or morado, or violet, or lila, or indeed in a number of other languages. But what was in the actual study that I posted and read was that they studied using the whole spectrum and concluded that saturation and lightness were irrelevant. Pink is a light shade of red- it is distinguished based on lightness, which is irrelevant genderwise according to that study. In other words, even if we ignore the other criticisms I pointed out, it (the study- can't overstrain your brain here) still would not explain why pink as opposed to scarlet or burgundy, or blue as opposed to cyan or navy! Get it?

[ArmorPierce]

ArmorPierce, you're a fucking liar, pretending that you never said innate and then casually admitting it.

Dipshit, I was talking about the color pink, I never stated that females innately liked the color pink.

But let me put it to you this way: "bluish red" is not pink. I'm going to reach back to the primeval depths of kindergarten and point out that "bluish red" is in fact a color we call purple, or morado, or violet, or lila, or indeed in a number of other languages. But what was in the actual study that I posted and read was that they studied using the whole spectrum and concluded that saturation and lightness were irrelevant. Pink is a light shade of red- it is distinguished based on lightness, which is irrelevant genderwise according to that study.

It's really irrelevant to my argument. Whether it was a pinkish blue or a redish blue is not the crux of my argument. The researcher herself stated that it was a sort of pink color. The point of my argument is innate color preference difference between the sexes that goes through time and culture.

In other words, even if we ignore the other criticisms I pointed out, it (the study- can't overstrain your brain here) still would not explain why pink as opposed to scarlet or burgundy, or blue as opposed to cyan or navy! Get it?

What?

Anyway I can't believe the main point of your entire tirade has been about what the color is technically called which has little or nothing to do with my main point which did nothing for the discussion but derail it. I honestly was confused what you were arguing about because I was foolish to believe that you wouldn't go off on a pointless tangent that did not really matter. Are you really that pathetic?

[ArmorPierce]

A
preference for red or reddish pink has been proposed to elicit female behaviors to infants that
enhance infant survival, such as contact (Higley, Hopkins, Hirsch, Marra, & Suomi, 1987).
The hypothesis that reddish pink or red may be a cue signaling opportunities for nurturance
and thus eliciting female responsiveness could explain our finding of greater female contact
with both the doll (with a pink face) and the pot (colored red).

What about black babies. They don't durn red or pink. Methinks this is ethnocentrism rearing its ugly head

[Bakustra]

It matters, you idiot, because it's co-opted to force women into pre-existing gender roles despite the actual study, which you still have not read the data from, not supporting pink as compared to redder colors in general. In other words, yes it matters that it's not actually pink, because it's conflating a variety of things together and jumping to sexist conclusions based on a proposed, possibly culture-dependent preference for redder colors.

PS: color preferences being innate in general is still disputed by the data, as there are significant differences across the two cultures in the study.

PPS: Are you going to answer any of Eleas' points within the next decade?

[Simon_Jester]

All this is a somewhat perverse behavior from an evolutionary standpoint, and it is a sign that nurture can overpower nature, but not a sign that it does so in the entire human species or anything.

There was also the suicide thing, which he responded to by posting yet another cliche`. In fact, depressed people are not more likely to commit suicide unless they are on an anti-depressant; whereas most suicides surprise the family and friends of the deceased out of a misplaced expectation that suicidal behavior usually stems from depression.

Excuse me, but that sounds like one hell of a big question about which way the correlation points.

You'd expect there to be five categories of people:

-People who are not depressed.
-People who are seriously depressed, but not diagnosed.
-People who are seriously depressed, and are diagnosed.

People who are depressed and diagnosed will, in this day and age, probably be on anti-depressant meds. Now, let us consider which groups are most likely to commit suicide.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that being depressed makes you more likely to kill yourself, and that being on anti-depressants makes a depressed person less likely to kill yourself.

If so, we expect to see the following:
-People who are depressed, and are not diagnosed, kill themselves often. Let's say the suicide rate among such people is 5X.
-People who are depressed, but have been diagnosed, and are therefore on anti-depressants, kill themselves less often. Let's say the rate among such people is 2X.
-People who are not depressed rarely kill themselves. Let's say the rate among such people is X.

Consider how this would look from a statistical standpoint. People who have been diagnosed with depression, and are therefore on anti-depressants, kill themselves at rate 2X: much lower than the rate among undiagnosed people not on medication, but much higher than the average for the population.

So, what if you haven't been diagnosed, and therefore aren't on anti-depressants? If you don't have depression at all, your probability of suicide is low: X. But if you do have it, and it just hasn't been diagnosed (which is why you're not on medication), then your rate is 5X.

But if there are, say, 10 people without severe depression (with a suicide rate of X) for every one person with undiagnosed severe depression (with a suicide rate of 5X), then the average rate of suicides among the whole population is going to be (10+5)/(100+10)=1.36X.

To a statistician, this will look like:

"People on anti-depressants have a suicide rate of 2X. People not on anti-depressants have a suicide rate of 1.36X."

At which point Formless says "ah-HA! This means anti-depressants make you more likely to kill yourself!"

...

Of course, you can ask "but what about people diagnosed with depression but not on medication?" Well, we'd expect those people to not need medication to control their symptoms- i.e. their depression is probably less severe. In which case it's no wonder their suicide rate is low, closer to the general population's rate. They might raise the rate of suicides among 'people not on anti-depressants.' But they won't raise the rate enough to overcome the difference between 1.36X and 2X.

Now, maybe the study you're citing, Formless, had a way of avoiding this problem. If so, I'll thank you to tell me what it was.

Plus, of course, there are phenomena like mass suicide and death cults where social pressure overcomes the survival instinct of whole communities at once. Interesting, that.

True. We could equally well make a similar argument for lemmings.

You may say "Ah-ha! But lemmings don't commit mass suicide, that's a myth!"

And I would reply "Which is my point. While lemmings occasionally manage to get themselves killed accidentally in large numbers (not thousands, but perhaps tens) as part of a mass migration, they do not exhibit suicidal behavior on a large scale, even while doing risky things that will get some of them killed for reasons of their own."

The behavior of small groups that self-select for extreme behavior (cults, associations of like-minded fetishists) cannot be taken as representative of the species as a whole. One self-mutilating animal doesn't prove anything about the behavior of the species in general; neither does one self-mutilating human.

[Formless]

Simon... ... first of all, that anti-depressants have suicide as a major side effect is a well known fact, not a conclusion on my part. The FDA requires manufacturers to put warning labels on anti-depressants about suicidal thoughts and behavior, so if you have a problem with that take it up with them.

Consider the major theory why anti-depressants have this effect: anti-depressants lessen the symptoms of depression. Among those is a lack of motivation, a tendency to mope around and wallow in self pity. Those same symptoms, while certainly not good things, can also serve as mental blocks to doing harm to oneself. Also, the main difference between clinical depression and regular depression is that clinical depression doesn't go away over time like it should. Besides the potential to skew diagnosis towards false positives (and I won't go into detail about the tendency for drug companies to push their products-- that's a discussion for another time), it also means that otherwise mentally normal people go through that experience, with all the risks that implies. And make no mistake, I do agree that depression is a risk factor for suicide but I also take issue with the claim that only the mentally ill kill themselves, and that suicide can thus be summarily dismissed. It is simply false.

Secondly, I have no idea why you would think I am arguing for what the majority of human beings will or will not be made to do by social/cultural effects. I am arguing with this fatalistic myth that biological programming is inviolate and cannot be overcome by anything. Or, as Akhlut put it, that "culture modifies behavior, it doesn't create it wholecloth." Mass suicide is an example, an extreme one to be sure but also valid for the point I am trying to prove. Just like you use asceticism as an example of the same point.

[ArmorPierce]

Now I'm home so I can do some research

It matters, you idiot, because it's co-opted to force women into pre-existing gender roles despite the actual study, which you still have not read the data from, not supporting pink as compared to redder colors in general. In other words, yes it matters that it's not actually pink, because it's conflating a variety of things together and jumping to sexist conclusions based on a proposed, possibly culture-dependent preference for redder colors.

Dumb ass, this is a completely separate issue. It has no bearing on my argument of males and females having different innate color preferences. I don't give a shit if it's redish blue or pinkish blue or whatever color you want to call it. Do you know the definition of red herring dumb ass? I suspect not because throughout all your posts you've been lying and misquoting me.

Hypothesis of the researchers: s

‘reddish’ contrasts further shifts her peak towards the reddish region of the hue circle: girls' preference for pink may have evolved on top of a natural, universal preference for blue.

For all your ranting of it not being pink the researchers have no problem calling it a pinkish color. Why don't you argue with them dipshit?

since there are significant differences between Chinese immigrant and native British Caucausian women in their color preferences.

There is not a significant difference between chine women and british women towards their preference towards these colors what are you talking about?

What it shows is that women don't prefer "pink", since lightness and saturation are not biased gender-wise, and that is what makes pink pink.

Since we are quoting from wikipedia (not directed at you) 'Although pink is roughly considered just as a tint of red,[3][4] in fact most variations of pink lie between red, white and magenta colors. This means that the pink's hue is somewhat between red and magenta.'

If wikipedia is to be believed you're full of shit.

Apparently the scientists conducting the research are not the only ones that would consider it a pinkish color. It also would mean that you are wrong. As I said, not that it really mattered since it was never the point of my argument but you seem to have a vested interest in it.

PS: color preferences being innate in general is still disputed by the data, as there are significant differences across the two cultures in the study.

PPS: Are you going to answer any of Eleas' points within the next decade?

Are you a statistician? The researchers found that the Chinese results still lied within their limits to base their conclusion off of and state that they believe to be a biological factor. That said, I would like to see more foreigners.

As for answering any of Eleas points, why don't you mind your own fucking business. If you must know, it's called having a life, obviously a concept that you are not familiar with if you are going to be crying why I haven't responded yet within a few hours. You know doing stuff normal people do like go to work, socialize etc.

[ArmorPierce]

As Bakustra rightly points out, no, it has not.

He has done no such thing.

Really. If it isn't true, then please provide evidence to that effect other than your own gut feeling. I'll go first, admittedly with second-hand sources.

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.

If you like the color note on the little one's garments, use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, if you are a follower of convention.

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.

The current pink for girls and blue for boys wasn't uniform until the 1950's.

Now. You were saying?[/quote]

Have you ever heard of a non-sequitar? 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.

Not that I advanced that argument in this thread until you did just now, but you're still talking rubbish. Children love to identify with things. Give a boy (just at the age when identification as a boy has begun) a toy, anything, and it's even odds he'll either play with it until it breaks or throw it away in a tantrum because it's a girl thing! Now, have a significant portion of the clothes he's been given since he was little be blue. Let, say, twenty percent of all plastic things intended for Boys be in that same color. Do the same to other kids around him, unless they're Girls, in case they get everything in pink instead. Forbid this color for the boy, because he just won't like it and whatnot.

If that's the case why isn't pink still for boys, eh? Seems to contradict your prior statement of the colors reversing in preference. Regardless, as I've already posted, there is a universal preference for blue from both boys and girls with girls preferring pinkish blue and it is across cultures so it's a moot point. 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.

Fuck, all you need to condition college-aged kids to kill each other is to split them in two groups, forbid contact between them, and treat them differently. Since babies in many cases pick up things far quicker than adolescents, it's hardly inconceivable that they would sooner or later latch on to the fact that one color is considered better for them than the other.

same as above

So to make it clear with you, the reason I oppose said argument (of color assignment used to be reversed) is that 1. It doesn't matter what colors we assigned for abritary reason, thus the argument is a strawman 2. scientific research opposes the argument that you are making.

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.

[/quote]

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.

[Simon_Jester]

Simon... ... first of all, that anti-depressants have suicide as a major side effect is a well known fact, not a conclusion on my part. The FDA requires manufacturers to put warning labels on anti-depressants about suicidal thoughts and behavior, so if you have a problem with that take it up with them.

Consider the major theory why anti-depressants have this effect: anti-depressants lessen the symptoms of depression. Among those is a lack of motivation, a tendency to mope around and wallow in self pity. Those same symptoms, while certainly not good things, can also serve as mental blocks to doing harm to oneself. Also, the main difference between clinical depression and regular depression is that clinical depression doesn't go away over time like it should. Besides the potential to skew diagnosis towards false positives (and I won't go into detail about the tendency for drug companies to push their products-- that's a discussion for another time), it also means that otherwise mentally normal people go through that experience, with all the risks that implies. And make no mistake, I do agree that depression is a risk factor for suicide but I also take issue with the claim that only the mentally ill kill themselves, and that suicide can thus be summarily dismissed. It is simply false.

Did I not say that the suicide rate among the mentally healthy population is some number X? My point is that if we lump undiagnosed depressives in with the non-ill population, it looks like anti-depressants make things worse when they may be making things better than 'no anti-depressants.'

Have there been studies which effectively controlled for the level of diagnosed depression? Probably- do you know of any?

Secondly, I have no idea why you would think I am arguing for what the majority of human beings will or will not be made to do by social/cultural effects. I am arguing with this fatalistic myth that biological programming is inviolate and cannot be overcome by anything. Or, as Akhlut put it, that "culture modifies behavior, it doesn't create it wholecloth." Mass suicide is an example, an extreme one to be sure but also valid for the point I am trying to prove. Just like you use asceticism as an example of the same point.

...Who, exactly, said "that biological programming is inviolate and cannot be overcome by anything?"

Animals in the wild will sometimes engage in self-destructive behavior. This is usually a sign of extreme stress, possibly illness (need not be mental), or a perverse biological incentive that can 'go too far' and drive them to do things that make very little sense from a Darwinian perspective, as a corollary to some behavior that is strongly selected for.

Thing is, biology defines what we want, in broad terms. We want food, shelter, sex, the approval of our fellow beings, and so on. Details of the circumstances we find ourselves in determine how to get those things. Details of individual people's operation determines what priorities they set and how far they go to get particular things. But with a handful of exceptions who can be reasonably dismissed as the fringe (if not actively ill, still anomalies not representative of a general rule), people still want the same things- just in greatly differing degrees.

[Formless]

Did I not say that the suicide rate among the mentally healthy population is some number X? My point is that if we lump undiagnosed depressives in with the non-ill population, it looks like anti-depressants make things worse when they may be making things better than 'no anti-depressants.'

Have there been studies which effectively controlled for the level of diagnosed depression? Probably- do you know of any?

Like I said, take it up with the FDA. Their expert opinion against yours: who do you think I'm going to side with? Do you expect that I'm just going to assume they made such a simple methodological mistake before requiring almost a whole class of drugs have a black label warning? Maybe they did, but I highly doubt it.

...Who, exactly, said "that biological programming is inviolate and cannot be overcome by anything?"

Jesus christ, Simon.

Biology is not a hard limit on what culture can and cannot make us do, even in those areas where it does make things more difficult.

So difficult as to make it nearly impossible. Notice that most cultures embrace a lot of biological drives instead of rejecting them. Even among Puritans, who hated sex officially, mostly gossiped about it and certainly weren't afraid to actually do the deed.

Nearly impossible... might as well be impossible the way he talks about it and in the context he talks about it. There is a certain dishonesty in trying to create the appearance of being reasonable or moderate in an argument when in practice that pretense doesn't hold up. This is the same person who responded to the claim that medicine is a cultural artifact by giving a wholly valid (if a bit incomplete) bio-psychological description of culture rather than concede the bleeding obvious. I am not the type to give people the benefit of the doubt when they pull shit like that.

Thing is, biology defines what we want, in broad terms.

In practical terms, not quite so much. The general argument is fine, I agree with it, but remember just one thing. We live in a quite different environment than our ancestors, and that brings with it all sorts of things (literally things ofttimes) that our ancestors would have never encountered. To echo Eleas, Grok never heard of this thing called "car". Nor has Grok heard of "employment benefits" or "health insurance". And this just small list of things Grok never heard of.

[Simon_Jester]

...Who, exactly, said "that biological programming is inviolate and cannot be overcome by anything?"

Jesus christ, Simon.

Biology is not a hard limit on what culture can and cannot make us do, even in those areas where it does make things more difficult.

So difficult as to make it nearly impossible. Notice that most cultures embrace a lot of biological drives instead of rejecting them. Even among Puritans, who hated sex officially, mostly gossiped about it and certainly weren't afraid to actually do the deed.

Nearly impossible... might as well be impossible the way he talks about it and in the context he talks about it. There is a certain dishonesty in trying to create the appearance of being reasonable or moderate in an argument when in practice that pretense doesn't hold up. This is the same person who responded to the claim that medicine is a cultural artifact by giving a wholly valid (if a bit incomplete) bio-psychological description of culture rather than concede the bleeding obvious. I am not the type to give people the benefit of the doubt when they pull shit like that.

For you to describe "So difficult as to make it nearly impossible" (for, say, an entire culture to reject basic human drives like the sex drive, the example his next damn sentence suggested) as equivalent to "biological programming is inviolate and cannot be overcome by anything" is so fundamentally dishonest that it defies any attempt to argue with it.

The two have such different connotations.

[Formless]

Question: have you actually bothered reading this exchange before acting like you know everything? I mean, seriously, I thought you had better reading comprehension than that, Simon, and an ability to comprehend context. This is not that fucking hard.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, I read it. It strikes me that you are trying desperately to pick a fight with a strawman version of Akhlut. If he says 'biology affects,' you read 'biology determines' and then flip your shit about how that's impossible. If he says 'biological imperatives still matter' you read 'biological imperatives are IRON LAW' and flip your shit about that too.

It's a farce, an almost self-parodic version of the kind of crappy, childish arguments that keep coming back to contaminate threads like this over and over and over, choking out any intelligent conversation on the subject because people get distracted and waste their time bickering with you.

[Eleas]

He has done no such thing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not that I advanced that argument in this thread until you did just now, but you're still talking rubbish. Children love to identify with things. Give a boy (just at the age when identification as a boy has begun) a toy, anything, and it's even odds he'll either play with it until it breaks or throw it away in a tantrum because it's a girl thing! Now, have a significant portion of the clothes he's been given since he was little be blue. Let, say, twenty percent of all plastic things intended for Boys be in that same color. Do the same to other kids around him, unless they're Girls, in case they get everything in pink instead. Forbid this color for the boy, because he just won't like it and whatnot.

If that's the case why isn't pink still for boys, eh? Seems to contradict your prior statement of the colors reversing in 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.

Regardless, as I've already posted, there is a universal preference for blue from both boys and girls with girls preferring pinkish blue and it is across cultures so it's a moot point.

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.

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".

same as above

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

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.

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.

[Formless]

Yes, I read it. It strikes me that you are trying desperately to pick a fight with a strawman version of Akhlut. If he says 'biology affects,' you read 'biology determines' and then flip your shit about how that's impossible. If he says 'biological imperatives still matter' you read 'biological imperatives are IRON LAW' and flip your shit about that too.

It's a farce, an almost self-parodic version of the kind of crappy, childish arguments that keep coming back to contaminate threads like this over and over and over, choking out any intelligent conversation on the subject because people get distracted and waste their time bickering with you.

If you actually bother to examine his behavior you will notice that every goddamn time a counterexample is brought up he waves his hands and pretends it either doesn't exist or doesn't count because apparently everyone who manages to resist the urge to fuck or manages to commit suicide is mental and not decisions perfectly ordinary human beings have successfully committed themselves to. It is not strawmanning to read between the lines, asswipe. People don't always directly state what they are clearly thinking, who could have imagined that?

[Simon_Jester]

Formless, what Akhlut is "clearly thinking" seems to be clear only to you. It doesn't seem to be there to me- at least, I don't see any sign that he's thinking what you say he's thinking.

[Formless]

Except that whole post where he dismissed every example of cultural artifacts I brought up with handwaves and conjecture ("religion is co-opted reverence for important people") rather than conceding even one single point. I know you aren't this dense-- am I wrong? I would rather not think you are being deliberately obtuse since this is only, what, the third time I've had to explain to you how I came to this conclusion? At a certain point, you have to decide whether someone is using words like "tends to" as an honest concession or as a pretense so they can continue talking crap. He is talking crap.