You ain't born a woman: you become one

>you ain't born a woman: you become one
Is she, dare I say it, right?

Other urls found in this thread:

bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7f84/8898be00e243a9c8748b453c1f3420292345.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9041858
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Yes.
There's been research that proves women and men are treated differently from birth, in how they are nursed, breastfeeded, raised, taught, taught to play, etc. We are trained to play these roles which we're given, what that implies varies from society to society and epoch to epoch.

It isn't an outright rejection of biology, Beauvoir realizes that the most radical difference between the sexes: the capacity to give birth, is what originally determined the position that each of these roles should occupy in society. But these positions, this infrastructure, is maintained by society, we aren't programmed from birth to act them, we're trained to do so.

No she is not, mostly genders arise from distinct biological differences. A sulky woman can always be nurtured with a sweet treat while a man will commit suicide. These things are biological as much as born out of socialization.

The answer is that you are born to be what you are. You might grow but you cannot grow out of what you physically are.

Do you ever get tired of being blatantly retarded?

What are some books that criticize feminism?

No, read Pinker and others like him.

These ideas are outdated.

Do you ever get tired of virtue signalling on an international message board?

Attack my character but factually I am more on the spot. Leave the verbal games and take a look at society, its not the way it is because its produced as such. There are more fundamental factors that drive it be the way it is.

ass

the noble qu'ran

positivists out

Labelists out. You know I'm mostly more right than wrong.

>you will never be simone's beard as she has sex with every child in france only to toss them your way when they get too old for her tastes

>strongly disagreeing with you is virtue signalling

Alright, I'm looking at society. I'm not seeing anything to support

>A sulky woman can always be nurtured with a sweet treat

or other lazy infantilizations

>mostly genders arise from distinct biological differences

yeah, but the mostly is a huge thing to note, and 'biological differences' in vague enough to allow for legitimate trans-people which go against the grain of your argument.

>You might grow but you cannot grow out of what you physically are.

The only things they 'physically are' is capable of pushing a baby out. Otherwise, they're people (and people actually do change)

yes, obviously, but this is barely even the beginning of gender consciousness, there has been literally 70 years of theory since The Second Sex

and just so we're all clear: people who spout the "hurr durr gender is biologically determined" have no idea about contemporary views on biology, and even less about contemporary interpretations of feminist philosophy

they just look at memes and masturbate joylessly and vote for whichever candidate is the fattest

Yes. Gender is mostly a social construct in spite of what pseudo scientists want to tell us.

>ugh open a book!
damn, you got me there

>There's been research that proves women and men are treated differently from birth, in how they are nursed, breastfeeded, raised, taught, taught to play, etc.
Don't think you'd need research to confirm that.

>virtue signalling
lmao at your life

I have a daughter and a son. Gang up all your researchers, whether they have a feminist bias it not: I know what I saw and I know what I keep seeing. Some women, at least, are born women, and the same goes for men.

Yes. But the reasons why we needed these formerly-healthy gender roles are disappearing. Things change.

Wombs are a social construct.

>No, read Pinker and others like him.
Pseudoscience.
>These ideas are outdated.
No, they are not, If anything they are even more prevalent.
Imagine being this much of a brainlet. Denying genders are socially constructed is like denying climate change. It's something you say to make sure everyone knows how illiterate you are.

Climate change is a myth, designed by the capitalists to drive the masses into forming new fields of consumption, marked as counter-consumptive to keep them ignorant.
No oecologist (an older term, a branch of axiology, as opposed to STEMsperg ecologists) worth their salt give a damn about that nonsense. We have much greater concerns.

>there's been research
Nice passive voice. Where is this research, now?

>hormones don't affect psychology

Biology can't be proven till we can prove our senses can be trusted, whether they're affected by illusions or manipulation or whether we exist in reality in which biology exists or whether Exists exists. Ten seconds from now maybe gravity will become gravy. Till we can prove this then any forms of thought is fair, and to prove it we must attain infinite knowledge, to no longer be human, to never have been human, to never become human.

Gravity will never become gravy as long as I am involved.

The same could be said for men, who were once boys, just as all women were once girls

Women should stay girls. Women are repulsive creatures.

Yeah but that won't stop me from fucking them

Because you're repulsive. If you find them attractive, then you must find all other repulsive beasts attractive as well.
Hell, most domesticated animals are more pleasant. So what, you settle for a large wild sow?

I think you might be homosexual breh

No, you are the homosexual. You fetishize the memes of 'consent' and 'equal grounds'.
There is no such thing as an attractive woman, only an attractive girl.

/pol/ would probably love Beauvoir if they read her without thinking "feminazi feminazi" just like /leftypol/ would hate her if they read her. Are there any other writers like this?

btw I prefer the phrasing "there are no ugly women; there are only lazy women" Gets the point across clearer.

No, /pol/ being crypto Mohammadians would still hate her. You're right though - modern leftists would hate her - she believed in the sex/gender distinction and thought the latter was socially determined whereas the former was biological.

>No, /pol/ being crypto Mohammadians would still hate her
what if we gave them the loli letters instead of her african shit?

feminism was needed for capitalism to implement postfordism

>Steven Pinker
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA
nice one brainlet

>pinker
Ass

>/leftypol/ would hate her if they read her.
Why? People on there generally don't do the whole gendered soul thing. Many of them would argue that females are spooked by society into being women, but that the same thing also goes for men.

Let me rephrase it:
>You aren't born a woman: people make you one

No. You don't magically acquire a pussy and an extra X chromosome during your life.

Besides, if you can become a woman, you can become a man. And if you can become a man, you have no reason to bullshit how men have it easier, because you can become one.

You are born a woman and with genes that code for some anatomical and personality-based characteristics that are associated with women and the society into which said woman is born further influences and instructs the woman to become more womanly in order to fit a social role.

>Besides, if you can become a woman, you can become a man. And if you can become a man, you have no reason to bullshit how men have it easier, because you can become one.
That's closer to her point. Half her point is that having "two X chromosomes won't make you no kind of lady", but it equally works for "having a dick doesn't make you man, manbabby".

Beauvoir isn't saying that your sex changes, she's saying you can be a failure at your gender role (or a success whatevs)

she wrote a lot of thank you for the twelve year old virgin notes, and thought women shouldn't be given the option of having kids because they would be lazy and not work if they had a get out clause like that. leftypol gets a bit annoyed when you tell them to get an abortion and a job.

She is just butthurt that she was born into the female sex. The best way to deal with those people is to just say: "Yeah, you have it worse and you're never gonna succeed. You mad?''
I regularly do this. Maybe that's why I have two friends only.

Why should I believe anything this cuckqueen said?

Nah, I don't think she's butthurt about being born female. She had a pretty sweet set up as a female, especially for the society she lived in.

What she really hated though were women who did have rights. She was French and at the time, a woman was considered covered by her father, and then her husband, and could only either briefly or through widowing or divorce become their own woman. Married French women only got the right to work with their husband's consent in 1965. Divorce was rare and most people were married.
But Beauvoir thought was just patriarchy and that, since French women seemed huffy, that at least French women might not stand for it much longer.
Then she went to an Islamic country under French law which allowed women to marry in Islamic traditions: meaning they kept their own property before and after marriage, could call for divorce without proving abuse, weren't considered their father's property or their husband's, could maintain their own business with nobody's consent, and generally had more rights than metropolitan French women.
And they seemed happy. Beauvoir keeps mentioning they all seem to be smiling and going about their business. So, obviously, she draws the conclusion that these women are way more into patriarchy than the women who can't work without their husband's consent, and that's why they're all smiling and not huffy, because they're so blind.

If she'd been born in a different department in France, she wouldn't have to avoid marriage with Sartre to keep her copyright on her philosophy, because the system she thought was worse than France because of making more happy women, would have counted that as personal property even within a marriage. Instead she got Sartre to pay for her upkeep and told other women they were selfish for marrying.

She's probs very happy she got tits and dat ass, because without those, she wouldn't get Sartre's money or to be huffy about it. If she'd been male and doing that, she might well have starved.

Yet she raped children frequently. Fucking disgusting hypocrite.

Having sex with fully aware 16 years old people isent rape.
And the age of concent should be abolished.

DEBATE ME

Simona Buvuar is a whore.

They were like 13. That's my favorite but I'm not able to advocate for a creepy cunt of a teacher luring young girls to her home just to have a chomo have their way with them. That is rape. Involving drugs and alcohol make it worse.

She's a disgusting whore and should have been outed alongside her filthy 'husband'. Both were terrible at everything they did and got away with it by being fucking awful at everything they did.

She never said you shouldn't rape children. She literally signed a petition to make that legal. Which is one more petition than she signed to stop the death penalty or change those laws abridging women's rights.
She wrote a whole defense executing a guy because he was "choosing it for himself" by committing the crime and admitting guilt.

For her to be a hypocrite, she'd have to say children fucking is wrong, and she was very consistent about saying it was the bomb.

hey, her grasp of heidegger is better than sartre's, and her ass is pretty top tier.

though yeah, she was so pedo that the nazis fired her from teaching.

Since there's obviously no women on this thread, let me make it clear: yes, you are born a woman, the moment you get your first period. There are women without the mother instinct, sure, exceptions to the rule. But generally, woman just want to be mothers and wives taken care of.
I hate this inclusion of women into the work force. In my circle of family and friends, I know of absolutely no women who are happy because of their jobs. Maybe some school teachers and university professors. I do know a lot of unmarried/divorced women who sink into their careers (doctor/lawyer), cause it's a replacement for the family.
As I get older, the more I realize that being a good mother and wife is the only thing that will make mi life count. I'm 21 btw.

good lord what a beauty

Good girl.

>tfw no qt first wave gf to intellectually dominate you

Fucking weirdo...

Their instinctive emotional organizations are different. And those differences have parallels in non human animals. Human beings, like all biological organisms, are subject sex-specific environment pressures that, over the course of our natural history, shape our physical (as well as psychic) structures and capacities. Provided she isn't denying empirical facts, and telling us that men and women have different psyches only because they are "taught" by parents and other people, then she may be correct. I've honestly not read anything she's ever written. But it's pointless to be provocative when you are just plain wrong. Besides most women are androphilic, is that the product of social "training?" Are women "made" to feel aroused by men? If so, then how is it that lesbians find themselves aroused not to men, but to women? Presumably they underwent the same social training, were subject to the same social messages and expectations. And if gendered behavior and cognition is socially constructed, then are other distinct mental or behavioral conditions like autism, psychopathy, ADD, bipolar, etc. likewise the product of social conditioning?

yes a female is born as a girl and through physiological development becomes a woman.

LGBT community BTFO

True that, she literally wrote that boys become gay because they're jelly of the nice situation girls find themselves in

>Beauvoir
shiggy diggy doo

I just wanna tack onto this, how the fuck do people take people like de Beauvoir seriously? She literally just thinks of some semi-reasonable sounding explanation for a phenomenon then states it as fact.

How do you guys square the fact that as new born babies they choose different toys (girls generally preferring dolls etc) and their behavior becoming apparent super early on? Do you literally think testosterone plays no role in human behavior? Then how come men (and boys) with varying levels of testosterone have varying levels of aggression, risk-taking behavior etc etc.

>women should have rights
>children shouldn't though lmao especially female children because being consistent would mean I would have to stop being a disgusting pederast
>also consent is good and if a person wants to die they should, but raping children is also good because I'm a fucking pederast lmao
She's a disgusting hypocrite.

She's a fucking lake troll and both of them had the grasp of a damn high schooler.

masculinity is determined by dick size. Since females have no dicc they are have zero masculinity and should only be used as uterus utensils. this whole talk of 'socially-constructed gender roles is pure nonsense. let me ask, can you socially construct a penis or a vagina? no, only god can construct such devices. therefore gender is a construction of biology and genetics. you in the west are walking a dangerous path with your decadent notions. women thinking they are men and men thinking they are women, such a thing is prohibited in my country.

abridging rights does not mean giving rights, user

he's literally said
>women shouldn't have rights
and you've taken it as
>women should have rights

Are you a womens?

That kind of makes sense. She may be onto something.

No.
It's not a magical conspiracy that makes women on average more feminine, it's biology. We see difference in behavior between the sexes in newborns. The history of radical environmentalism has been one of "maybe it's because of some earlier intervention": it started with "it's probably during adolescence", then "it's probably during childhood", then "it's probably when they're toddlers", now it's basically "it's a few hours after you're born". It's insane, the only reason why this shit is taken seriously is because our society has an unfair, entirely ideological preference of nurture over nature. We see analogous sexual differences in behaviors among young monkeys and apes, is that socially constructed too?

Based Mohammedan.

>tfw you will never be groomed as a young girl by Simone de Beauvoir to be Sartre's fucktoy.

>wanting to get raped by some googly-eyed french pseud

>he believes in climate change
woo boy

The problem is that if you wore pants you weren't a woman was the social construct of the time. Pretty sure when you put pants on a newborn, it does not make it male.
Likewise, back then when you put a dress on a newborn, it could be male or female, whereas now if you put your newborn in pink dresses people will assume it's a girl. Sometimes checking the infant's genitalia when you're not their doctor or parent gets misinterpretted as being a perve in some social constructs, so ymmv if you call the newborn in a pink dress a "he" and try to demonstrate it.

Have you read pic related? How do you explain the fact that the more gender-equal a society the more these distinctions manifest themselves?

>Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (N 17,637). On responses to the Big Five Inventory, women reported higher levels of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than did men across most nations. These findings converge with previous studies in which different Big Five measures and more limited samples of nations were used. Overall, higher levels of human development—including long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealth—were the main nation-level predictors of larger sex differences in personality. Changes in men’s personality traits appeared to be the primary cause of sex difference variation across cultures. It is proposed that heightened levels of sexual dimorphism result from personality traits of men and women being less constrained and more able to naturally diverge in developed nations. In less fortunate social and economic conditions, innate personality differences between men and women may be attenuated

bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf

How do you explain the fact that gender differences manifest themselves in infants as young as a week old?

>Evidence from research on older children and adults supports the masculinizing effects of prenatal testosterone on social and cognitive behavior (such as empathy, aggression, play styles and toy preferences, and spatial abilities; Collaer & Hines, 1995;
Hines, 2010). If infants have sex-linked dispositions that represent “seeds” of later behavior, then a reasonable hypothesis is
that male and female infants may differ in temperament, in sensitivity to social stimuli, and in cognitive processes that support
the development of the male advantage in spatial ability.

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7f84/8898be00e243a9c8748b453c1f3420292345.pdf

If men and women are born with identical capabilities, then why do we, on average, have different brains?

>The volume of the superior temporal cortex, expressed as a proportion of total cerebral volume, was significantly larger in females compared with males (17.8% increase; P = .04). This was accounted for by 1 section of the superior temporal cortex, the planum temporale, which was 29.8% larger in females (P = .04). In addition, the cortical volume fraction of the Broca area in females was 20.4% larger than in males (P = .05)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9041858

Fashion and behavioral expectations don't disprove inherent cognitive differences. If I was born in Japan i'd being speaking Japanese, not gibberish. That means that the brain structure that lead to me acquiring English is inherent, but the language itself it socially constructed. The problem with the blank slatists is that they think that the inherent structure doesn't exist, and that ALL differences arise from culture.

Do men and women, on average, have identical brains? Do hormones affect one's psychology? Do different bodies and different parental roles necessitate having a different relationship to your environment?

Too bad every animal in nature exhibits different behavior depending on sex. Or are humans not products of nature?

not to get into a debate but there's a lot of biological things which act as training for the second generation. the idea that it all develops without socialization doesn't work in animals either, because social animals often fail to thrive without being taught those social cues. it's like with language, there is a period in which you either were talked to and so can understand grammar or weren't socialized and will never be able to make a competent basic sentence, even if you learn some words.

things like holding female newborns to face the holder and holding male newborns to face away from the holder are necessary to make more neurotic females and less conscientious males. things like mothers holding babies with their nondominant hand indicating PPD and the impact that or lack of affect from the mother or father have on how the infant develops have immense repercussions on brain development.

they've done a lot of studies on animals about what happens when you don't give social animals social constructions, and what happens is that the biological constructions never develop.

pretending there's no effect from social learning on our brains is a massive misunderstanding of biology. you do have a different physiology if you grew up speaking chinese vs speaking russian vs speaking english, and it effects not just brain development but also the development of other structures which are affected by just which language you learn.

if all capabilities are inborn and not learnt, why do london cab drivers have larger "map reading" centres in their brains after receiving training than before, regardless of gender?

>holding a baby in different directions makes them susceptible to different psychopathologies as adults
You can't make this shit up

>if all capabilities are inborn and not learnt, why do london cab drivers have larger "map reading" centres in their brains after receiving training than before, regardless of gender?
Literally nobody is arguing that.

Gender roles are obviously biological. Just try to imagine a functioning society in which women go to war. It's retarded. It makes no sense.

they're not psychopathologies in the big five, they're spectra which aren't designed to detect pathological patterns.

there are many incidences of societies where that's common, though they are mostly historical. it's like saying because one of the tribes in the solomon islands practices constant homosexual rape along with heterosexual rape means they're genetically predisposed to having faces which indicate contempt and fear more often. they don't, they develop those from growing up in a society where rape is the social pasttime between head hunting the other tribes to extinction. their genetics didn't die out but the facial features and tattoos and rape and other shit died out along with the bisexuality. they're not notably genetically different to the tribes that practice pacific bartering in the area who maintain heterosexual relationships. neither are an argument for hetero or homo sexual sex being natural (despite what the tribes say) and neither are an indicator of genetic susceptibility to violence or rape, because they're pretty much the same gene pool. it doesn't mean if they land you with the headhunter raping everybody tribe that they'll respect your western gender role because after all they're human beings. you'll just get raped into fake crabmeat.

YEEEEEEESSSSSSSS

If inherent biological structures lead to differences in socialization, then that's distinct from saying that society itself is the origin of those differences in preferences. The truth would be that society is the expression of the genes of its population, not that those genes don't exist in the first place.

And even if one were to believe your narrative, does that mean that we should suppress the inherent biological structures that lead to gender distinctions in socialization just to create a society of gender-neutral people who'll be full of mental pathologies for not being socialized into the roles their hormonal makeup preferred them to socialized to? All this suppression will do is funnel masculine aggression (which is inherent; testosterone is not a social construct) into either useless hobbies like videogames, or destructive movements like the alt-right or antifa. The effects of social cues might decrease the older the child gets, but the effects of testosterone can only be suppressed medically.

/lgbt/ seems to think so.

the main problem with social constructionist theory is that acts as if all possible social constructs are equally as viable and we just happen to have picked this one when we could have picked any other. it's too heavily biased towards the idea that, aside from a few biological conditions (such as giving birth), the whole of human gender is essentially a performance and thus we could just perform anything else instead

and even if the social constructionist view is valid, there's also a "positive liberty" argument to be made in favour of current gender roles because being forced into being a "boy" or "girl" might be restrictive or oppressive but it's much less oppressive than choosing a role from the existential "anything" which most people can't handle

>Just try to imagine a functioning society in which women go to war.

I don't have to imagine it.

Anthropologists who talk about cultural differences often exaggerate those differences (or exoticize them) for ideological purposes. Often times they're just basic human psychological needs funneled in slightly different ways.

>the roles their hormonal makeup preferred them to socialized to

This is quite a statement. I hope you have some relevant research to back it up.

Trans men (women who become men) often experience huge differences in sexual arousal and levels of aggression after they start taking testosterone. A lot who were attracted to men or both become exclusively attracted to women, or their sexual cues change from being attracted to the partner for many different reasons to being attracted to people on purely physical grounds.

It's pretty well-established that our hormonal makeup affects our psychology, especially prenatally.

ekman laid the groundwork for affective neuroimaging following that line of work, we had to wait for the technology to back it up. it's not an out there in the wild theory. it's about as wild as the hypothesis lifting helps muscle growth.
the work that comes from is about affect recognition, so it means the contempt shown is universally understood as contempt, and those with good affect recognition can tell you from looking at a photograph of the different faces with or without affect not just what affect the face usually shows from muscle development etc, but can also tell which face comes from the "homosexual" society without being primed about either's sexuality.

as for exaggerating the solomon islands tendency for headhunting. it is proposed that interactions with the wider world led to them stepping up the head hunting on other tribes, but there's no doubt at all that those tribes are near extinction or thoroughly extinct where they didn't drop the practice and that happened over the course of about a century. it's not a sustainable phenomenon, but it certainly is a phenomenon without need for trumping up.

It's a subject i'm interested in but I've only just begun reading about it in earnest over the past couple months. My problem with a lot of the research in this area is that it clearly tiptoes around the ideological gender minefield created by the increasing influence of women in the humanities. Either people have to couch their findings in ideologically-correct hedging, or they subject the studies that confirm their findings to less rigorous testing than the ones that don't. It often looks like the conclusion is predetermined, and the job of the compilers is to only only cite the studies that confirm that conclusion.

I see this when it comes to economics all the time. The studies that show a decrease in employment after a raise in the minimum wage are never cited, but the ones that show an opposite effect are cited all the time, even if the former studies are more sound and rigorous. It's created an environment where I can't trust anything that confirms a prominent ideological belief, only ones whose conclusions would be unwelcome to right-thinking people. Because with those studies I at least know that the researches worked harder to ensure the validity of their methods given how much of an ideological beat-down they're going to be subjected to.

>society decides to have compulsory enlistment for both males and females of age
>lose most combatants in a conflict
>society either dies or takes several generations to recover their population

People in this thread dismissed scientists like Pinker with his "evidence" and "clinical trials" because it conflicts with the "common sense" arguments of a French writer they like that died 30 years ago.
Having evidence that contradicts their feelings is not going to do anything other than increase their confidence that their feelings are right and evidence is just being mean and therefore should not be taken into account.

>My problem with a lot of the research in this area is that it clearly tiptoes around the ideological gender minefield created by the increasing influence of women in the humanities
Uh no. For things like this, there's not a lot of ideology, and when it does crop up, it tends to Nazi science more. It's not an SJW haven if you're reading most fMRI studies which come out. You get results like "sociopaths are highly empathetic individuals that's why they can always pick out the weakest of the herd" coming from even female scientists. It's prob closer to the pop spin you'd see in evo-psych articles and propaganda, but most people are only interested in something pro or anti SJW when they go to write newspaper or magazine articles about things.

We're massively off topic at this point but bringing in economics, there's one that would only get published as a pop article on stormpol. Humans enjoy their jobs most when they create or do something that they can see totally realized. Whether you're making a chair or cleaning houses, seeing a job well done makes us happier than being a factory line worker or lawyer where we can't see the fruit of our labour. The reason why we know this though is because the only time that people suddenly shifted in large enough numbers from menial work to becoming lawyers and industrialized is at the US civil rights movement, at which point black job satisfaction went down. It's been proven since that those kinds of job satisfaction hold across races, but "blacks less happy with non menial work" being the obvious title means that work got ignored until much smaller studies came up with the same thing in different contexts. People tend to ignore the origins of it even though they weren't racist, just because it would be interpreted as racist if you fill in the context of the sudden change in employment opportunities.

>tl;dr- read articles instead of newspapers or pop books where the bias comes in, i'm going to ignore you now because you're obviously babby tier and on the wrong board

>For things like this, there's not a lot of ideology
Complete nonsense. Are you seriously suggesting that Elizabeth Spelke and Simon Baron-Cohen's disagreement is purely methodological? That Spelke being a woman doesn't color her interpretation of data? Get real. These data aren't studied completely independent of a particular hypothesis. Studies that show that sociopaths are extremely empathetic are predicated on definitions of "sociopath" that can be subject to ideological influence.

That second paragraph isn't pertinent because i'm not from /pol/, but the attention a study receives can be due to a whole host of reasons. An interpretation where race is THE pertinent factor is one influenced by a particular ideological belief system that causes people to view the world through a progressive prism. The truth is often messier than what that prism is capable of projecting.

>read articles instead of newspapers or pop books where the bias comes in, i'm going to ignore you now because you're obviously babby tier and on the wrong board

Fuck you. I've gone deeper into this issue than the people pushing for social changes based on unscientific feminist philosophy have. If you wanna shit on me for this not being my particular area of expertise, how about going after the people in this thread who eschew a scientific explanation of human psychology entirely? The ones who rely solely on the language games of a mediocre French philosopher?

Look into Baron-Cohen's methodology on infant gaze and peer review. He's a great hypothesizer and he does some good shit, but he's a good argument against him for gender bias in reporting results. That's a fruitful error though, because it's led to a lot of good science on male female pupil reactivity differences which needs fleshing out.

>i'm not from /pol/
Sorry everyone for feeding the retarded tripfag, but you fucking idiot, I mean go post on for science. This is not about literature and you will probably have trouble reading more than magazines and dropping your biases.

>Look into Baron-Cohen's methodology on infant gaze and peer review
If his results were different the methodological controversy would be a nerdy argument among 3 people at Oxford, not something laymen like you would know about.

>Sorry everyone for feeding the retarded tripfag, but you fucking idiot, I mean go post on for science.
I didn't start this discussion. Argue with>This is not about literature
Take it up with OP, not me.