Essay talk:Rational Wiki and Feminism: Failures of Rational Thought

Can I shuffle this over to essayspace? PacWalker 16:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry did I place it in the wrong spot? If so, go ahead :) Parogar (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Problems with your cited study
The study you refer to is a 2002 evo-psych study named Sex differences in response to children's toys in nonhuman primates (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus). It hasn't been accepted by a lot of people outside of evo-psych because it directly contradicts earlier findings (specifically, Sex differences in behavior among juvenile vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus), 1979 and the data conclusions appeared to have been done quite sloppily. I quote - I would like to note that this is a cognitive behavioral scientist saying this. Also, any study of sex differences in object preference for a given species should be designed with that species’ lifestyle – behaviors, including sex differences in activities; social structure - in mind. The objects were not randomly selected in that context. They were chosen because of claimed sex differences in human children’s toy preferences. They are selected as objects, not for color or size or other aspects – a ball or cooking pot could be any color, and none of these aspects is controlled for. It’s nothing short of amazing that they would suggest that the fact that vervets have no knowledge or understanding of these toys and showed some differences suggests innateness of alleged human preferences. This fact is what makes their experiment design so awfully done. --Castaigne (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It just seems like confirmation bias on a ridiculously flawed study. They put the toys in there for a whopping 5 minutes, into older social groups (where roles had been defined by the adults), and classified the toys as masculine and feminine based on what human adults would give human children.  A monkey doesn't know what a cop car (or a cop, or a car, or a book) is...let alone identify if it is a boy or girl toy.  Based on if they approached or touched it, not what they did with it (section 2.1).  They also did it with 88 monkey's where almost a quarter of the results seem to be thrown out (25 total) because it didn't fit.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * DING DING DING DING DING! And EmeraldCityWanderer receives the GRAND PRIZE! --Castaigne (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, I have won a prize to be more sad about humanity. Anyone should have been able to read this study, without confirmation bias, and picked out all the wacky stuff.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now then, the real science: how do you redesign the experiment to remove these flaws? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Humm, now that is interesting -
 * More exposure to the toys. Have a time so they can investigate the toys to see what they are, and more time so they can develop a preference.  At least 2-3 times so they will go to the toys they prefer.
 * Use toys that the sample group would play with normally. Books for monkeys, even for little human babies, are nonsensical.
 * Take out the adults from the equation. Adults tend to enforce societal norms expected of kids.
 * Change up colors to see if the toy or the colors are preferred.
 * Increase the sample size, ~140 gives a great statistical significance where 63 does not. If you need to throw out 25% of the results...say why and be sure to have more to get a significant sample.
 * Try them alone and in groups. Social pressure could be a factor from other kids depending on their age, as it is for humans.  Nothing punitive, just for 5-10 minutes if it doesn't stress that one out.
 * Feel free to add, but those would help the study tremendously. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Haven't you read Parogar's essay? It's peer-reviewed! And we aren't scientists! That means we can say nothing meaningful to criticize the study; all we can do as lowly non-scientists is to blindly, dogmatically accept the conclusion offerred to us by this peer-reviewed! *gasp* study. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * :-p -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Also
I haven't seen any of these "It could be used by MRAs so we need to ignore it." arguments. Care to link those to me? --Castaigne (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)