IntenseDebate - Funkopolis

15 years ago @ Evolved and Rational - A question for my readers · 1 reply · +1 points

Okay, so I did some googling and found this paper: http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/PAID-char...

"Gender. A 2x2 ANOVA (superstition type x gender) revealed a highly significant main effect of gender: women tended to endorse both types of superstition to a greater extent than men .. Overall, positive superstitions were endorsed more than negative superstitions.... "

And a UK survey, originally from The Sun (so, uh, maybe not so scientific)
http://www.eauk.org/resources/info/statistics/ort...

Some of the results analysed by gender...
* Belief in ghosts - 30% of men, 38% of women
* Belief in contact with the dead - 24% of men, 40% of women
* Personal experience in fortune-telling, astrology, tarot cards and psychics/palm reading - 27% of men, 45% of women
* Belief in restless spirits - 30% of men, 43% of women
Reported in The Sun June 20th 2005

So maybe ER's premise has some weight to it. Anyone know of any research that points the other way?

15 years ago @ Evolved and Rational - A question for my readers · 0 replies · +1 points

Another idle notion (assuming the premise is actually true).... Women seem to bear the oppressive brunt of religion - curtailment of sexual/reproductive/everyotherkindof freedom and so on. So one could imagine it would be harder for a woman, after a lifetime of having sacrificed pretty much everything for her faith to admit it's all a load of bollocks. Cognitive dissonance kicks in hard - "If there's no God, I gave up ______ for nothing, so there MUST be God".

The flip side is, of course, that bearing the brunt of oppression would make the women first to shout out "this is a massive load of bollocks"... But, sigh, I suppose that's what stoning is for. Grr.

So we're back to dissonance. "If _I_ couldn't pick my husband/go to school/get a job, why should these kids get to? Naaah, God totally exists."

15 years ago @ Evolved and Rational - A question for my readers · 2 replies · +1 points

Skepticism is also helped a lot by scientific knowledge - something which our culture also pushes women away from... thank you "Math Is Hard" Barbie.... <kick>

Now that I think of it, most (if not all) of the big name Creationists are male - Ham, Hovind, Dembski, Behe. But when I think of the people leading the fight against creationism, I think of Eugenie Scott and Barbara Forrest right away.

(Yeah, I'm not ignoring Denyse O'Leary, I'm just.... ignoring her. For sanity's sake)

It's like asking "Why are so many atheists/skeptics liberals?" It may seem like an idea, when you think of conservative fundie bible-bashers, but there's a lot of Deepak Chopra-loving anti-vaccination nonsense spouted at the Huffington Post....

So, I think this might be a good example of the logical fallacy of begging the question... I may be wrong.

And if atheism/skepticism isn't split along gender, or politcal lines, then what? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say "Educational".... Any takers?

15 years ago @ Evolved and Rational - A question for my readers · 0 replies · +1 points

Is atheism/skepticism predominantly male? Or is theism/woo just predominantly female? <runs away>

Naaah, I dunno... I'm not sure if it's an actual phenomenon, or confirmation bias, or insufficient sampling...

Maybe it's a historical thing - in the prefeminist past when males held all the power/money, it would have been the males who would have had to develop the critical thinking skills necessary to stave off the predatory conmen....

Or perhaps there's an evolutionary advantage in women falling for stupid shit - there are some people who couldn't possibly breed without the help of a massive lapse of judgment on the part of some female...

We could probably dream up a trillion 'just-so' stories to explain a phenomenon that may not actually exist...

Hell, maybe the two sexes are equally predisposed to nonsense, but different kinds? For every insanely Catholic woman, there's a dude who thinks 9-11 was the work of aliens...

15 years ago @ Evolved and Rational - Another reason to love... · 0 replies · +1 points

Or necessary....

This idiot doesn't know what "hacking" even means. It's a creationist-like combination of ignorance, rudeness, and arrogance.

What a waste of bits...

15 years ago @ Evolved and Rational - Another reason to love... · 0 replies · +2 points

Comments like "Uou(sic) are no better than people who support terrorists and murderers. Go away and leave the internet, hacker scum!"? You're serious?

15 years ago @ Evolved and Rational - Another reason to love... · 2 replies · +2 points

You didn't "disagree" - read your first post. You accused her of crime, insulted her on her own blog, and told her to get off the internet.

Then you called a series of people smarter than you "stupid", and generally poked at a wasp's nest. Disagreeing with a position means presenting facts, not insults - drowning us with evidence, not wallowing in your own ignorance.

You reap what you sow.

15 years ago @ Evolved and Rational - Another reason to love... · 0 replies · +1 points

How does YOUR ignorance make ME stupid? How does YOUR inflammatory post make ME stupid?

15 years ago @ Evolved and Rational - Another reason to love... · 3 replies · +2 points

Nobody does. That's no excuse not to understand ANYTHING about it. Your ignorance doesn't ennoble you, or grant you any moral high ground.

All you've done is revealed that when you talk about computers, or hackers, or the internet, you don't know or understand what you're talking about, and your opinion will carry the zero weight it deserves.

You're boxing SO FAR above your weight with this crowd it's not even funny.

15 years ago @ Evolved and Rational - Another reason to love... · 7 replies · +2 points

That was Wikipedia, not CrimialHackerPedia.

COMMON KNOWLEDGE - YOU HAVE NONE

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with Funkopolis

People I'm following

Funkopolis