Men and women are not the same.

[Timsup2nothin]

Ah. That page doesn't load for me.

But this would seem to indicate that it's a more interesting book than Gray's pot boiler.

I've never read it. As far as I recall.

But anyway. My feeling is that men and women don't actually think differently at all. Thought is just thought. And isn't particularly gendered, imo.

Which isn't quite the same as saying that some people are more concerned with status and others with negotiating networks. Or however Tannen puts it.

Thought is just thought, but how that thought gets communicated does vary greatly. As I have suggested, the biggest points I recall from her work is analysis of non verbal communication. The amount of information and context that is carried non verbally is huge, so the observation that in that regard males and females appear to have developed vastly different language is pretty significant.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But toy stores don't "talk" to individuals, they can't change their layout every time a new person comes in. The only people who can say something to an individual are parents and yeah, if parents do that that's silly. Each child is an individual, so good parents should show them all possibilities so they can choose for themselves. Nobody needs to be the average, but the average decides how a shop will look like.

Toy store employees talk to individuals, as do employees of other kinds of stores. Try going to a book store to find a science fiction or fantasy book as a gift, but the employees know little or nothing about those genres other than what they've heard on the mainstream news. They'd try to steer the customer to what mainstream stereotypes say boys/men or women/girls would like. I've witnessed customers trying to describe something and the employee doesn't have a clue what they're talking about so they just assume that males like spaceships and guns/military SF and females like unicorns and elves.

They should have given me a commission for steering the customer in the direction of the books they were really looking for (and bought)...


As for what the average shop looks like, stores periodically change their layouts. Sometimes it's to make way for a new department or new type of merchandise, but usually it's because they don't want customers to get too comfortable. They're counting on people buying more than they intended if they have to search for stuff.

That kind of thing tends to backfire with me, though. If I have to spend more than 5 minutes looking for what I went in for, I'm not only not in the mood to make impulse purchases, I'm increasingly in the mood to just walk out and go elsewhere.

This is why I do more and more shopping online. But even that can be a frustrating experience when the search function turns up crap that isn't remotely what I'm looking for.

 

[Ryika]

Toy store employees talk to individuals, as do employees of other kinds of stores. Try going to a book store to find a science fiction or fantasy book as a gift, but the employees know little or nothing about those genres other than what they've heard on the mainstream news. They'd try to steer the customer to what mainstream stereotypes say boys/men or women/girls would like. I've witnessed customers trying to describe something and the employee doesn't have a clue what they're talking about so they just assume that males like spaceships and guns/military SF and females like unicorns and elves.

They should have given me a commission for steering the customer in the direction of the books they were really looking for (and bought)...

But now you're changing topic. My post was about the layout of the shop, why there's a section that has toys that are generally associated with boys toys and a section with toys that are generally associated with girls toys.

females like unicorns and elves.

I do like elves too, btw:

Spoiler :

Link to video.

Hawt.

As for what the average shop looks like, stores periodically change their layouts. Sometimes it's to make way for a new department or new type of merchandise, but usually it's because they don't want customers to get too comfortable. They're counting on people buying more than they intended if they have to search for stuff.

Yeah, but the general rules stay the same. Sugar isn't suddenly being placed in the Vegetables-section.

That kind of thing tends to backfire with me, though. If I have to spend more than 5 minutes looking for what I went in for, I'm not only not in the mood to make impulse purchases, I'm increasingly in the mood to just walk out and go elsewhere.

This is why I do more and more shopping online. But even that can be a frustrating experience when the search function turns up crap that isn't remotely what I'm looking for.

Talk about being frustrated. The groceries store that I usually go shopping in has moved stuff around recently. They put sweets into the very back of the shop which I generally approve of but became really annoying when I had already started putting my stuff onto the counter and realized that I forgot that I wanted to buy me bar of chocolat so that I'd have something sweet for when I was going to continue watching game of thrones later that evening.

Normally the chocolat would have been only a few steps away from the counter, but now it's at the very end of the shop. Out of frustration I ended up emptying the bottom half of a 750g glass of Nutella that evening without noticing it. And it didn't even taste good.

 

[astrallite]

Well the special ed one is actually pretty easy to explain. Has to do with chromosomes and how they're passed down. Since men at XY, having a recessive gene in the X chromosome means that male is going to express the recessive trait more often. Women have XX, so they would need to have both inhibit the recessive trait to express it. That is to say that not every handicap relies on the sex chromosomes, but but enough do that I bet it would cause the (supposed) overrepresentation.

That being said, you're using pretty weak logic there. What does homeless people and special ed students have to do with intelligence in the first place? Homelessness has literally nothing to do with education; there is so many unrelated factors that can go into causing someone to go homeless (like for example, social attitudes towards LGBT people might make me go homeless this summer ) that frankly it's kind of insulting to even imply that. And not everyone who is special needs is dumb. I don't want to play too much into the savant stereotype, but there are pretty damn smart autistic people. Not to mention people with severe physical handicaps, like Hawking, which fall under special needs but certainly aren't mentally handicapped.

Secondly, let's assume everything you said is biologically true in re to distributation of IQ. So what? Ignoring the issue that IQ isn't the catch all to determine intelligence as some people think it is, that still doesn't change that society itself is still largely pretty sexist, and pushes in favor of men over women in academia. Even if we are to accept your theory that men have a greater potentional to be smarter than women, that has little to do with employment standards in the real world. It's not like employers go around and measure every candidates' IQ scores, and pick whoever has the highest with no other factors being taken to consideration. If a specific woman X and specific man Y are compared together, and X has a higher IQ, in real life that still likely means Y will have greater oppritunities than X will simply because Y is Y and X is X.

Of course given that tone of the post I doubt you really want to engage in a conversation, but hey I guess this is more for the lurkers and myself.

Since you dismiss this well-published and considerably peer reviewed scientific research on IQ distributions (and accepted as fact and non-controversial in the scientific community), as merely "my theory", you must believe women are superior to men then?

If the male IQ distribution above the mean can be completely discarded due to sexism, but male IQ distribution below the mean is completely valid, in which you have similarly high ratios of male-to-female of low IQ, then men must be genetically inferior to women in your world.

 

[Omega124]

Since you dismiss this well-published and considerably peer reviewed scientific research on IQ distributions (and accepted as fact and non-controversial in the scientific community), as merely "my theory", you must believe women are superior to men then?

(Btw the more you push your theory is "well published" and "considerably peer reviewed", and don't actually provide the studies that say such, the less I actually believe you.)

If the male IQ distribution above the mean can be completely discarded due to sexism, but male IQ distribution below the mean is completely valid, in which you have similarly high ratios of male-to-female of low IQ, then men must be genetically inferior to women in your world.

Again

Address my actual points or don't respond. I'm not going to go down and be your straw woman.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But now you're changing topic. My post was about the layout of the shop, why there's a section that has toys that are generally associated with boys toys and a section with toys that are generally associated with girls toys.

Imagine a scenario: You have a gift to buy for someone (birthday/Christmas/whatever). That person has described the sort of thing he/she wants, but hasn't been 100% specific, or maybe you want to surprise the person and just have a general idea of what you're looking for. You go into the store but can't find it because the layout is confusing and the thing you're looking for isn't something that instantly screams BOY or GIRL.

So you ask an employee and it turns out that they're completely clueless (I've run into people like that in other stores, too). Are Shrinky Dinks a boy's toy or a girl's toy? They were originally marketed for girls (and I wish I could find the one I originally had 30+ years ago but years of searching on eBay and other sites have come up with nothing), but in recent years some kits have had themes that would be traditionally associated with boys (monsters, superheroes, space battles, bugs, etc.). Where are you going to find these kits?

Are they in the craft department? Are they in the girls' toy department? Would the spaceship and superhero kits be found in the boys' toy department? Would the clerk know what the hell a Shrinky Dink even is? (I once encountered a clerk in a craft store who had never heard of metallic crochet thread and tried to tell me they'd never ever sold it, even though that's where I'd been buying it for years to use as trim for my 3D needlepoint projects; I'd asked about it because they'd changed the store layout and I couldn't find anything)

Yeah, but the general rules stay the same. Sugar isn't suddenly being placed in the Vegetables-section.

Sometimes it is, if the display people or someone else decides it's something that could be used for an ingredient in a recipe. It's amazing what weird kinds of chips started popping up in the produce department in the store where I do most of my grocery shopping. Want fancy potato or other kinds of chips at that store? They won't be next to the Old Dutch or Lays. They'll be on display stands in the produce section.

Regular sugar wouldn't turn up there, but if it was some new kind or if they were trying to push a new product and included a recipe with it, they might have some of the ingredients right there, conveniently at hand for the shopper to pick up.

Talk about being frustrated. The groceries store that I usually go shopping in has moved stuff around recently. They put sweets into the very back of the shop which I generally approve of but became really annoying when I had already started putting my stuff onto the counter and realized that I forgot that I wanted to buy me bar of chocolat so that I'd have something sweet for when I was going to continue watching game of thrones later that evening.

Normally the chocolat would have been only a few steps away from the counter, but now it's at the very end of the shop. Out of frustration I ended up emptying the bottom half of a 750g glass of Nutella that evening without noticing it. And it didn't even taste good.

Seems a bit odd to put an obvious impulse-buy item at the back of the store. Some companies are trying this in an effort to get people to be more health-conscious about their snacks, but most stores understand that they get sales from people waiting in line especially if they have cranky kids who will make a scene if Mom doesn't toss that chocolate bar, Kinder Surprise, or hard candy in with the rest of the stuff.

As for me, I wait until my store has a sale on (every so often they have a 10/10 sale - ten items for $10) and I stock up. I've got 10 Caramilk bars in my pantry right now, for when I just have to have a bit of chocolate. We're heading into the warm time of year now and it'll take longer to get through them, since chocolate isn't my usual preference for junk food in spring/summer.

 

[Ryika]

Imagine a scenario: You have a gift to buy for someone (birthday/Christmas/whatever). That person has described the sort of thing he/she wants, but hasn't been 100% specific, or maybe you want to surprise the person and just have a general idea of what you're looking for. You go into the store but can't find it because the layout is confusing and the thing you're looking for isn't something that instantly screams BOY or GIRL.

So you ask an employee and it turns out that they're completely clueless (I've run into people like that in other stores, too). Are Shrinky Dinks a boy's toy or a girl's toy? They were originally marketed for girls (and I wish I could find the one I originally had 30+ years ago but years of searching on eBay and other sites have come up with nothing), but in recent years some kits have had themes that would be traditionally associated with boys (monsters, superheroes, space battles, bugs, etc.). Where are you going to find these kits?

Are they in the craft department? Are they in the girls' toy department? Would the spaceship and superhero kits be found in the boys' toy department? Would the clerk know what the hell a Shrinky Dink even is? (I once encountered a clerk in a craft store who had never heard of metallic crochet thread and tried to tell me they'd never ever sold it, even though that's where I'd been buying it for years to use as trim for my 3D needlepoint projects; I'd asked about it because they'd changed the store layout and I couldn't find anything)

You're once again writing a lot that doesn't really have any connection to the actual issue on hand. How would an individual case about a product that doesn't quite fit into either category change anything about averages? How would not having boys/girls sections help make it easier to find stuff? If anything, not having the "That's probably in the boys section."-identifier would make it even harder to find stuff.

And on top of that... I don't even think shops around here are really split into only boys and girls sections anyway. There's usually a somewhat neutral area in the middle and the more boyish toys (such as toy cars) are found to the left and the typical girlish toys (such as barbies) are found in the right side of the shop.

Sometimes it is, if the display people or someone else decides it's something that could be used for an ingredient in a recipe. It's amazing what weird kinds of chips started popping up in the produce department in the store where I do most of my grocery shopping. Want fancy potato or other kinds of chips at that store? They won't be next to the Old Dutch or Lays. They'll be on display stands in the produce section.

Regular sugar wouldn't turn up there, but if it was some new kind or if they were trying to push a new product and included a recipe with it, they might have some of the ingredients right there, conveniently at hand for the shopper to pick up.

Seems a bit odd to put an obvious impulse-buy item at the back of the store. Some companies are trying this in an effort to get people to be more health-conscious about their snacks, but most stores understand that they get sales from people waiting in line especially if they have cranky kids who will make a scene if Mom doesn't toss that chocolate bar, Kinder Surprise, or hard candy in with the rest of the stuff.

As for me, I wait until my store has a sale on (every so often they have a 10/10 sale - ten items for $10) and I stock up. I've got 10 Caramilk bars in my pantry right now, for when I just have to have a bit of chocolate. We're heading into the warm time of year now and it'll take longer to get through them, since chocolate isn't my usual preference for junk food in spring/summer.

Not really sure about their idea behind that. The company that owns the shop has recently changed so maybe they haven't quite finished their final layout yet, but for now bureau utilities is what is kept near the counters. I don't think that's quite the stuff that people want to grab when they're heading for the exit.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You're once again writing a lot that doesn't really have any connection to the actual issue on hand. How would an individual case about a product that doesn't quite fit into either category change anything about averages? How would not having boys/girls sections help make it easier to find stuff? If anything, not having the "That's probably in the boys section."-identifier would make it even harder to find stuff.

Some time ago I made it very plain that I do NOT "speak math." I'm not fluent in statistics. So my posts will include personal experience and hypothetical scenarios.

If that sort of post is something that frustrates you, you have my permission not to reply.

You keep putting odd interpretations on my posts, trying to make out that I said things I actually didn't say. Where did I say that stores should do away with having boys'/girls' sections? I never said that.

And on top of that... I don't even think shops around here are really split into only boys and girls sections anyway. There's usually a somewhat neutral area in the middle and the more boyish toys (such as toy cars) are found to the left and the typical girlish toys (such as barbies) are found in the right side of the shop.

Isn't that how most stores are now? They don't have huge signs that say BOYS and GIRLS with a dividing line between them. At least that's not how it is here.

Not that I've spent a lot of time in toy stores in recent decades. I bought some Lego about 30 years ago and one or two things since. My grandmother used to collect Barbies, so I've looked around for some of those occasionally.

Nowadays, if I want something that would normally be found in a toy department, that's what eBay or other online shopping is for. I think the last time I bought a toy, it was either some Angry Bird thing from a seasonal kiosk in the mall, or a huge plush smiley face from an end-of-the-aisle discount bin at the grocery store.

If you consider plush animals to be toys, I got a penguin last week from The Penguin Place (website that sells penguin-related stuff). Unlike the rest of my penguin collection, this one is pink and white, with flowers on it. So I guess it would be considered a girl's toy.

 

[Bootstoots]

Since you dismiss this well-published and considerably peer reviewed scientific research on IQ distributions (and accepted as fact and non-controversial in the scientific community), as merely "my theory", you must believe women are superior to men then?

If the male IQ distribution above the mean can be completely discarded due to sexism, but male IQ distribution below the mean is completely valid, in which you have similarly high ratios of male-to-female of low IQ, then men must be genetically inferior to women in your world.

I believe what she's saying is that even a woman with a given high IQ (let's say 145) faces hurdles that a man with an IQ of 145 does not face. There will be fewer women with IQ 145 than men with that IQ assuming the standard deviation of IQ actually is smaller for them, which I believe is reasonably well-established, but what is being considered is the conditional probability of, say, going into certain STEM fields given a certain IQ.

This actually makes me wonder: are there any studies that look at this directly? I suspect that women actually are underrepresented even by this metric in physics, computer science, and engineering, but likely not in either biology or chemistry. They'll probably also be underrepresented in more powerful positions in politics and business, although IQ is probably not quite as important there as in STEM. This is just my suspicion though - anyone who knows of studies should post them.

 

[Ryika]

Some time ago I made it very plain that I do NOT "speak math." I'm not fluent in statistics. So my posts will include personal experience and hypothetical scenarios.

If that sort of post is something that frustrates you, you have my permission not to reply.

Don't worry, it does not frustrate me. I actually enjoy talking about them, but they do not mean much as evidence.

You keep putting odd interpretations on my posts, trying to make out that I said things I actually didn't say. Where did I say that stores should do away with having boys'/girls' sections? I never said that.

We both seem to be guilty of that then, because I did not claim that you said that. Some people however did say that in earlier posts in this thread, which is why I brought it back to that.

Isn't that how most stores are now? They don't have huge signs that say BOYS and GIRLS with a dividing line between them. At least that's not how it is here.

It's not like that here either, and I'm actually in toy shops relatively often (meaning 3-4 times a year ), buying birthday presents for my cousins. One can clearly see where the gendered sections are, but that's because of the toys, not so much because of the layout. Maybe it's separated more clearly in the USA, but here in Germany there's no blue-pink-divide.

If you consider plush animals to be toys, I got a penguin last week from The Penguin Place (website that sells penguin-related stuff). Unlike the rest of my penguin collection, this one is pink and white, with flowers on it. So I guess it would be considered a girl's toy.

Why would you buy a pink and white penguin with flowers on it? That's so disturbing. ;_;

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe what she's saying is that even a woman with a given high IQ (let's say 145) faces hurdles that a man with an IQ of 145 does not face.

Like getting preferential treatment to meet quotas?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Don't worry, it does not frustrate me. I actually enjoy talking about them, but they do not mean much as evidence.

Ever consider that there are times when I'm just here for conversation and not a war of statistics?

It's not like that here either, and I'm actually in toy shops relatively often (meaning 3-4 times a year ), buying birthday presents for my cousins. One can clearly see where the gendered sections are, but that's because of the toys, not so much because of the layout. Maybe it's separated more clearly in the USA, but here in Germany there's no blue-pink-divide.

I don't live in the U.S.

Why would you buy a pink and white penguin with flowers on it? That's so disturbing. ;_;

I thought it was cute at the time. But when I got it out of the box, I realized that there was no way it was going to sit with my other penguins. They're all more natural-looking. So this colorful one is going to keep company with my other stuffed animals.

Hopefully my next penguin purchase will be an Adelie. Apparently they did have plush Adelies in stock a couple of years ago, but I must have missed seeing that.

 

[Ryika]

Ever consider that there are times when I'm just here for conversation and not a war of statistics?

Isn't it always a bit of both? I try to have the conversation while keeping it in perspective of the original argument. Maybe I'm doing a bad job at that and come across as trying to diminish the conversation as a whole. If so I apologize, it's certainly not my intention.

I don't live in the U.S.

I know, but I assume the people who are talking about more strict division between boys and girls parts of toy shops probably are.

I thought it was cute at the time. But when I got it out of the box, I realized that there was no way it was going to sit with my other penguins. They're all more natural-looking. So this colorful one is going to keep company with my other stuffed animals.

Hopefully my next penguin purchase will be an Adelie. Apparently they did have plush Adelies in stock a couple of years ago, but I must have missed seeing that.

If that question is allowed: Is there any special reason for why you chose to collect penguins, or did you just like the way they look?

 

[Lohrenswald]

So like

women and men are different

but most people who try to emphasise that are seeking to in general be jerks and halting any sort of change

 

[astrallite]

I believe what she's saying is that even a woman with a given high IQ (let's say 145) faces hurdles that a man with an IQ of 145 does not face. There will be fewer women with IQ 145 than men with that IQ assuming the standard deviation of IQ actually is smaller for them, which I believe is reasonably well-established, but what is being considered is the conditional probability of, say, going into certain STEM fields given a certain IQ.

How do you quantify these hurdles? Recent studies showed that women in STEM fields have a 2-to-1 (or higher) chance of being hired over men of equal qualifications. And HR departments and school administrators tend to heavily favor women over men over any administrative complants regarding workplace behavior.

How bad are these hurdles that impede women of equal qualifications compared to the impedements that males already face, and how much more of a weight should society tip in women's favor to even out these (so-far) unquantified hurdles? And the question is (if these hurdles are merely the outcome of lifestyle choices), philosophically, how much should the government make the private sector reduce their own profits to subsidize these lifestyle choices?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If that question is allowed: Is there any special reason for why you chose to collect penguins, or did you just like the way they look?

It goes back to 1979, when I had a choice of term assignment for my Grade 12 biology class. I could either do labwork (aka dissection) or a term paper. Since I abhor dissecting innocent animals for no good reason (in my opinion, a grade on a report card is not a good enough reason), I chose to do a term paper. And after pondering a few topics, I chose penguins.

I found them to be very interesting, and have liked them ever since. Some time later I started collecting penguin-themed things, but preferred to stay away from the cutesy stuff like penguins and igloos (they're not native to the northern hemisphere). The only exceptions I've made are a collection of animated penguin smileys that are into sports, and this latest plush penguin.

I don't just collect plush ones, though. I've got ceramic figurines, crystal ones, some are in the form of jewelry, some are bookmarks, and so on. I used to have a gorgeous set of ceramic penguin bookends, but they didn't survive the move to my first apartment. They were the first things in my penguin collection.

Here's the one I just bought (yeah, it's even more pink in RL and my immediate thought when I opened the box was "what was I thinking?"):

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Right I think we need a new thread to showcase your penguin collection now.

 

[Omega124]

Right I think we need a new thread to showcase your penguin collection now.

Agreed. Much more interesting and it would have a defined topic.

 

[Borachio]

Thought is just thought, but how that thought gets communicated does vary greatly. As I have suggested, the biggest points I recall from her work is analysis of non verbal communication. The amount of information and context that is carried non verbally is huge, so the observation that in that regard males and females appear to have developed vastly different language is pretty significant.

Well, OK.

But the fact that you yourself have found it relatively easy (I presume) to adopt so-called female verbal and non-verbal mannerisms kind of undermines the position that such things as gendered communication exist at all. Doesn't it?

Just because the norm is to unconsciously adopt the socially conditioned language of one gender, or the other, doesn't mean much to me as regards the question of whether men and women think differently.

In brief, men and women may "think" differently but there's absolutely no reason why they should. And once they're aware that there can be a difference, I rather think they won't, if it suits them not to.

There is something in the notion that males can be more interested in scoring points and females more interested in finding out how each other is feeling. And I guess you could extend it as far as a PhD thesis (which has been done). But many PhD theses have been built on even more flimsy grounds.

(Not that I particularly want to poo-poo PhD theses. I've just typed myself into a corner on this one.)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, OK.

But the fact that you yourself have found it relatively easy (I presume) to adopt so-called female verbal and non-verbal mannerisms kind of undermines the position that such things as gendered communication exist at all. Doesn't it?

Well, this may be playing into my own arrogance...

I've studied the subject of non verbal communication extensively. I've also pursued "self awareness" more than almost any other human I have ever met. As a result I've never failed to be the top salesman in any sales force I have been a part of, among other things.

And even with all that I didn't say it was easy to do, just that it got good results. Running a constant filter on body language was actually bloody hard to sustain, even for short periods.

 

[Atticus]

That's the problem with any argument in your post, really. You're focusing on the outliers instead of the large majority of people. I agree that every individual should be allowed to be or do whatever they want and we should support this by becoming more open to individuals who don't fit "the norm" - as long as it's actually them and not their parents deciding what their children are allowed to want.

That does not mean that we now suddenly have to put the boys' and girls' section together when that would only benefit a few people and be a negative thing for many people.

Wheelchair people are outliers. Still there's ramps for them.

Also, you can't really say how common it would be that kids played with the "other gender's" toys if they weren't directed to the opposite.

Sorting toys to girls' and boys' section isn't really that negative thing. It isn't that hard to spot toy cars from the shelf. Or in a bigger market they could have a separate shelf for the toy cars and one for dolls etc. Similarly I have never found it difficult to navigate through the library even though they haven't put the books in the separate men's and women's sections.