Why Arguing Between Feminists and MRAs is Sometimes So Dumb

A lot of the time, people cite studies to prove their points. Trouble is, there is a study for every statement. If you say “here’s a study that proves I’m right”, the opponent can go “Nuh-huh, here’s a study that shows I’m the one who’s right”.

One should not put all one’s faith into one study. The quest for truth about people’s psychology is found through lots of studies, which eventually will provide us with a big picture of how things really are. There are things to think about when looking at a study:

1)      Correlation doesn’t imply causation. Duh. That’s probably obvious. Correlation studies (f. ex.: a sexist attitude associated with loving bigger boobs on women) don’t establish causation. Hey, maybe loving bigger boobs causes a sexist attitude, or both things are caused by some hidden variable? The only way to establish causation is to conduct an experiment where all variables are kept fixed, except the one you suspect is the one responsible for causation.

2)      Is the study well-designed? To form a conclusion about the population, you need to pick a random sample from it, and measure whatever you want to measure.

3)      Even if the study is well-designed, there is always a small chance the results will be wrong due to chance (random error) alone. If the study was replicated with similar results, its validity is strengthened.

4)      Does the study (if it’s an experiment) have external validity? That means the degree to which the results can be generalized to other populations, settings and conditions. To figure that out, many studies on the same topic are often gathered and analyzed together. The resulting meta-analysis makes conclusions based on all of the studies it used.

5)      How does the study fit into the big picture of things? In short, do the results make any sense? Can they be possible, and are they probable, if what you know is true? Unfortunately we can’t overly rely on our personal experiences to answer those questions, as personal experiences are often self-selected and badly documented. I think one has to study psychology to get any good at judging studies and people’s statements about what is true for human nature, and what is not. One also has to at least take an elementary statistics course, to get a clue of what good studies are supposed to be like. Right now, I will even say that you can’t make that many reasonable conclusions about anything unless you study psychology properly. I recommend getting a few textbooks and studying them to get a bird’s view of the subject, before getting into details. I got these and they are very good:

1)      Psychology: The science of mind and behavior, N. Holt, A. Bremmer, E. Sutherland, M. Vliek, M. Passer, R. Smith, 2nd ed.

2)      Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, Moore, McCabe, Craig, 7th ed.

One major thing I noticed when studying psychology is how scientific it really is, and how terrible it makes Gender Studies look. Psychology takes into account EVERYTHING that creates our personality and behavior: biology, environment and our own thought processes.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Science&studies and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Why Arguing Between Feminists and MRAs is Sometimes So Dumb

  1. Emma the Emo says:

    Still, I would take seriously people with no education, who nontheless have a a great deal of experience with doing something specific. A skilled, but uneducated PUA might be worth listening to, as he knows how to get girls in specific countries and in specific settings. But I would take what he says about general human nature with a grain of salt.

  2. Feminists, women’s studies, large parts of sociology are under the spell of PC, political correctness.
    In Canada, lots of people flee to the US for speaking illegal thoughts

    Data about domestic violence, human nature, and also about crime, iq, race etc simply get falsified and data gets ignored.

    domestic violence

    read steven pinker “the blank slate” and compare it to feminist nonsense

    • bo jangles says:

      Warren Farrell knows the statistics better than the feminists do, He was actually on the board of NOW and left when he realized they were ginning the numbers.

  3. Ashley says:

    This is pretty useful advice for anyone who wants to use studies to prove their point. I’m also glad you made the point about education. Some are quick to ignore the opinion of someone else with a certain degree or from a certain school, or one with no education. There’s much more to look at than where or if they went to college and that piece of paper they obtained from it. Great post!

  4. Emma, as an MHRA I believe debating with feminists is dumb mainly because (gender) feminism is a faith position and utterly immune to rational challenging. Arguing with them takes up time and energy that would be better directed towards non-ideologues. That said, I’ll occasionally debate with them:

    1. Where there’s a decent-sized audience (TV or radio in particular) including people with an open mind, willing to listen to rational arguments; and/or
    2. Where it gives an opportunity to put links to websites, articles, studies etc.

    You say:

    A lot of the time, people cite studies to prove their points. Trouble is, there is a study for every statement. If you say “here’s a study that proves I’m right”, the opponent can go “Nuh-huh, here’s a study that shows I’m the one who’s right”.”

    Now the point here is that decade after decade feminist ‘research’ has been demonstrated to be utterly fraudulent, form example with respect to the ‘gender pay gap’, rape and domestic violence. Let’s just take DV for a moment. 300+ studies show women to be at least as physically aggressive towards their intimate partners as men. 70% of uni-directional DV is female-on-male. The cohort in which DV occurs at the highest rates is lesbians. All these widely-reported facts fly in the face of ‘feminist theory’.

    In ‘Why Britain Hates Men: Exposing Feminism’ Swayne O’Pie outlines the ways in which feminist ‘research’ is fraudulent, and includes statements from feminist ‘academics’ who have been perfectly open that the whole POINT of feminist ‘research’ is to help develop cases for advantaging women at the expense of men. We’re about to publicly challenge two academics (one male, one female) concerning a study conducted using feminist ‘methodologies’.

    The topic of correlation/causation is of particular interest to Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com. For many years it was asserted that corporate financial performance would improve if there were more women on boards. People pointed to a number of studies showing correlation, and even thought eh studies always made it clear than causation could be neither concluded or implied from correlation, people pushing for more women on boards presented these papers as showing causation. C4MB has published details of five LONGITUDINAL studies (three from Norway, one apiece from the US and Germany) showing that when more women are appointed to boards, corporate performance declines. We believe it to be mainly an inexperience effect rather than a gender effect. Not one longitudinal study has ever backed up the thesis that more women on boards can be expected to improve corporate financial performance.

    Mike Buchanan

    JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
    (and the women who love them)

    http://j4mb.org.uk

  5. Liz says:

    Hm. Personally, I’m ecstatic when a person bothers to cite some study to support his or her views. At least studies can be discussed objectively on whatever merits. About 90 percent of the interactions in the internet are more like this:

  6. MawBTS says:

    I agree. Science is like morality and common sense, everyone thinks its on their side.

    If you agree with a study’s conclusions, then it’s a good study. If you don’t agree with them, then it’s flawed, or badly constructed, or funded by vested interests, or inapplicable, or a fluke/outlier. You can always find something wrong if you look hard enough.

    • emmatheemo says:

      It’s true – one must avoid this trap if one wants to get as close to the truth as possible. That’s why learning background info is useful – you can’t deny something when you know there is a lot of evidence for it.

      • “you can’t deny something when you know there is a lot of evidence for it.”

        You can if you’re a feminist. They deny mountains of factual information that conflicts with their narratives – on domestic violence, rape, and many other issues – and they rely on demonstrably flawed ‘studies’ by feminist ‘researchers’ who admit they’re ideologically driven to support feminist narratives. Anyone interested in learning about fraudulent feminist ‘research’ should read Swayne O’Pie’s ‘Why Britain Hates Men: Exposing Feminism’, available outside the UK in paperback and Kindle editions as ‘Exposing Feminism: The Thirty Years’ War Against Men’.

        And it’s not just feminists who might not deny something for which there’s a lot of evidence, but they continue as if that evidence doesn’t exist. Campaign for Merit in Business has publicised five longitudinal studies (three from Norway, one apiece from the US and Germany) showing that when female representation on corporate boards increases, financial performance declines. We’ve presented this evidence to House of Commons and House of Lords inquiries, and nobody challenged the quality of the evidence base. The impact on the government’s (and industry’s) policy direction? None.

        Mike Buchanan

        http://j4mb.org.uk

      • emmatheemo says:

        “and they rely on demonstrably flawed ‘studies’ by feminist ‘researchers’ who admit they’re ideologically driven to support feminist narratives.”

        True, they do often admit their research is there to make politicians do something. I guess this kind of statement is acceptable to those who think it’s necessary to change the world, but it makes it less credible. People who are very into their ideology (not just feminists, yes) also often admit they don’t like certain type of truth to be propagated.

  7. Emma The Emo – you are super hot. Seriously. Most of your your readers would totally fuck you, and have babies with you. You really are hot.

    On the other hand, if you aren’t getting to it – expect our attention to fade. Either make some hot beautiful smart redheaded babies – or don’t. You have, like, two years. Then, well, lol. You’ll be another post-30 divorced whore and no one will give a shit.

    I hate to put this burden on you, but you’re just teasing us now. Get to it, sweetheart. Our people live or die depending on your choice. You wanted it, you got it.

    Are you up to it? I say no.

    So, are your parents still happily married? If not, we need a reform.

    Use that babymaker, sweetheart. Otherwise, well …

    • emmatheemo says:

      No, my parents are not still married. And since I’m not too familiar with Russian laws anymore, I can’t comment on whether they need a reform or not.

      Thanks for calling me hot, very few people think that. It means a lot.

      • Eric says:

        Emma:
        If your looks are considered ‘average’ in Norway, I think I might plan to vacation in Oslo next year LOL. You would be a ‘standout’ among American women and probably be able to get a modeling job if you wanted one over here.

        It’s gotten so bad in the US that the only marriage demographic that’s rising is between American men and foreign-born women; and the census has indicated that trend for the past 30 years!

    • Firepower says:

      Smooth and very original.
      Still, it’s not “looks” that are important when pumping out litters, but intellect.

      Whites have plenty of dumb Jolies, (barbara feldons) and Mileys clogging the drain of the Gene Pool. iirc, emma is easily distracted, that stemming from the characteristic lugubriousness of russian genes nurtured by a nordic country.

  8. I literally do not believe for one second that Emma doesn’t know she is sexy.

    Wow. Never thought I’d see so many ‘beta orbiters’ on this thread 😉

    Ahh, what the heck. Everyone gets one free pass from manginaville. Emma, you are cute and sexy and if Eivind doesn’t put a baby in you it will almost be a crime (unless you two don’t want a kid or two).

    As for the subject of this post, I’m with Mike. When it makes sense and might advance male interests then debating feminists is ok. Most of the time, however, it is pointless.

  9. fuck I can’t help it, the pale skin and red hair makes me hot.

    Yeah, your articles are very interesting, good for you that you don’t buy into the lesbian feminist bullshit from the 70s.

    You use that picture which is hot as fuck, so I will comment on it. If that is your real picture, you are hot as fuck and I totally want to fuck you. Hell, I would impregnate you.

    Time is ticking, sweetheart. Either marry that boy you “lost it” to and make some hot white babies … or … come fuck me.

    Money back guarantee 🙂

  10. Miss Emma,

    My sincerest apologies for Faggotpower trolling your blog, it’s my fault. He’s been obsessed with me for months since I dumped his lame ass blog.

    Just ignore him, he’ll go away.

  11. Yup says:

    Correlation doesn’t imply causation is the biggest thing the manosphere fail to realize when they build their graphs to prove their theory. Like this one right here.

    http://www.justfourguys.com/marriage-rates-plummet-projection-of-never-married-rates-to-2017/

    Women are less likely to marry in their 30’s than their 20’s. This automatically conclude that all women have the ability to marry in their 20’s and they should do so before it’s too late. No other variable taken into account like a percentage of them being lesbians, don’t want to marry, have a personality problem that prevent them from finding someone, maybe men are dating more non-white women, shy and afraid to date, etc ,etc…

    Of course no one can possibly take in every possible variable but some people just don’t even try to!!!

  12. Pingback: Why Arguing Between Feminists and MRAs is Somet...

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s