Agreed, like I tried to tell someone a while back that hostile architecture is fine because the bus stop benches are paid for by my tax dollars so I can sit there for the bus my tax dollars are buying so I can go to work and earn the money to pay those taxes. I don't mind paying for homeless shelters for them to sleep in or whatever but leave my bus seat alone you smelly failures.
No I mean this hamfisted character you're playing. world of women was actually competent at it, your poor imitation is just reminding me of how much we've lost.
“I walked down the street and, like, a little girl could have killed me. That’s how weak I was,” Ron told Dej during an interview. Extrapolating from this comment, Dej then suggested that Ron somehow views women en masse negatively.
Homeless men makes judgement based on who might be able to physically hurt them? Weird! Thanks God we have a solution for these men living in highly dangerous surroundings: they should become more emotional.
Tbh there nothing to understand besides "my non-stem education didn't work out so I splurged some government money that could be used to fix the homeless problem"
No. It's just research.
Homeless men hold traditional views of masculinity - not surprising that they aren't woke - even though they utterly fail at living up it: They aren't successful, married, providing for a family and so on.
You can argue that this is useless and shouldn't be funded, and I'm sure the author is an obnoxious fat cunt, but this is not evil commie prof bashing the homeless because she hates men.
this is not evil commie prof bashing the homeless because she hates men.
Did you RTFA? That's exactly what she does. Right after the "little girl" comment in the article, the author does it again (page 224):
Ron: So, I got on methadone, ok, I’m still on methadone and I’m at fifty-two
milligrams and I hate it because I have to go get it every day and I’m dependent
and it’s physically like, I feel like, uh, like, uh, menstruating, almost
[small laugh]. I’m sure that’s not what it feels like … Like my stomach is
just, like, crampy.
Using menstrual cramps, a sensation Ron has admittedly never felt, to
describe the side effects of methadone treatment is telling of Ron’s felt
masculinity status.
Or... and I know this sounds crazy... but this guy is feeling abdominal cramps the only similar thing he can think of is menstrual cramps.
No it's not, it's an examination of views on masculinity in homeless men.
The quoted passages are doing just that: Analyzing their understanding and performance of masculinity: The first guy doesn't consider crying an action appropriate for grown men, hence the little girl comparison, and the second guy is comparing his cramps to an exclusively female suffering. From both, the author draws conclusions about their perception of masculinity.
You can disagree with her conclusions, but this is actual research. Whether you like it or not.
The quoted passages from Julien and Doug are on the money:
Julien: Well remember, you know, I’m ashamed that I have problems.
Like, guys in our society are not supposed to have problems. They’re supposed
to be like an island.
Doug: I’m going to try and not get too emotional … If I get too emotional,
I cry, and guys, you know, don’t cry. Guys aren’t supposed
to cry
This is fine, Julien and Doug have explicitly stated how they view masculinity. "This is actual research," although with a tiny sample size that is heavily biased.
But the passage I quoted shows how insane the author is. She is projecting her views on Ron; that is not research. Comparing stomach cramps to menstrual cramps isn't "telling of Ron’s felt masculinity status." That passage is more telling of what kinds of conclusions the author wants to draw.
It's qualitative research, not empirical science, of course the "sample size" is tiny.
Research in this area doesn't only rely on what's explicitly stated though, and the passages you cited don't in any way show that the author is insane. That's a ridiculous thing to say. It's completely fine to draw conclusions from more layers of speech than just intended explicit meaning. In fact, people do so all the time in day to day life and more importantly you are doing it right now: You are assuming that she drew this conclusion because she is insane. I disagree with this conclusion, just like you disagree that one can make judgments about men's perception of masculinity by comparing their stomach cramps with menstrual pains.
You are assuming that she drew this conclusion because she is insane.
Yes, that was definitely not a figure of speech and I was making a clinical diagnosis, you retard. That last bit is also a reference to your karyotype.
It's completely fine to draw conclusions from more layers of speech than just intended explicit meaning.
Not really, unless you are willing to call your entire field bullshit. When I am doing "empirical science" (or "actual research" as we like to call it in the biz), I strive for clear outcomes, and not a biased sample of hobos willing to talk to me while I try to find innuendos everywhere.
Of course it was a figure of speech. Doesn't change the fact that you are drawing conclusions about her based on what's implicit in her speech.
She isn't doing empirical science though, and none is pretending she is. She examined how a group of people who failed at living up to certain goals still maintain a world view that values those goals. For this, there is no need for a "large and unbiased" sample size. Qualitative research has its uses, even though it doesn't give you empirical truths. But after all, actual science isn't some absolute standard that everything else has to aspire too.
I'm allowed to draw conclusions about her based on whats implicit in her speach because I'm shitPOSTING on Reddit while this bitch is doing ʇᴉɥsllnq "qualitative research." Also, I'm grasping at far fewer straws.
It's pretty clear that the main use of "qualitative research" is for people with agendas go get scholarly funding while returning their theoretical musings as some alternative to "empirical truths."
Ok, so you are admitting that she really is doing qualitative research then. You just think that qualitative research in general is bullshit, right? That's at least some progress.
Who said that this is supposed to be an alternative to empirical truths? It's something different from that.
By the way, why are the people who so vehemently call all qualitative research bullshit never educated about it in the slightest? I would never make such harsh judgements about topics I don't understand anything about.
I'm saying she's doing "qualitative research" with quotes; what she is doing doesn't qualify as qualitative research. I am educated about it, but us empiricists won the science wars.
No it doesn't. A completely unstructured interview where the author reads whatever she wants into the responses is complete bullshit. This type of sociological research is even worse than the ones which heavily abuse stats.
There are several ways it can work. This authors method is bullshit, and the fact that you are defending her shows how bullshit the field is. Good luck with your adjunct position.
This is bog-standard qualitative research: Interviewing people and analyzing their answers. Doesn't matter if a random layman like you with zero background knowledge of the topic thinks it's bullshit.
People with no education in my area regularly call my research useless bullshit too. Obviously, their opinion counts nothing.
Nah, I've seen good qualitative research, and this isn't it. When you read into Ron's responses the way the author did, it's bullshit. It's ok, if you claim that lay people simply can't understand your research and when have to rely on appeals to authority to claim why your research is important, expect to get your departments slashed. I'll be sitting here with my well-funded kind of "actual research"that had opportunities in industry. Note: I'm well aware that market research is a form of qualitative research, and it is done much more rigorously than this chapter.
It's impossible for you to judge whether this is good research or not because you don't understand any of the underlying concepts. The problem isn't that you can't understand them, it's that you are making no effort to educate yourself and instead just declare this research bullshit because her conclusions seem weird to you.
Similarly, the people telling me my research is bullshit because their juice cleansing blog told them vaccines cause cancer and I'm usually talking about scary sounding chemicals aren't making a good point: They are just ignorant.
It's ironic that you are talking about funding like it proves what's actual research. The OP has zero trouble getting funds for her work.
What kind of qualitative market research that's "more rigorous" than this are you talking about? Do you have any examples?
Blah blah I am so smart you are so dumb that's why I can't explain why this bad research is actually good
Nigga, if you can't explain to people what you are doing, then perhaps you don't understand your work as well as you think you do. What "underlying concepts" do I have to understand? A guy said that he was weaker than a little girl and compared stomach cramps to menstrual cramps. The author then took this to mean the guy had a negative view of females or his own masculinity. Explain to me why this is considered "good research." If I can explain p-hacking to my in-laws, you should be able to do this.
Also, I really doubt OP has zero trouble getting funding. She is funded, but it doesn't take much to have an assistant professor position with no lab in this kind of field.
As far as market research, I can give two examples. One kind of famous one was when Dunkin Donuts was afraid of Krispy Kreme, and so conducted market research. During this, they actually discovered that Dunkin Donuts wasn't really competing with Krispy Kreme, but with Starbucks.
Another example is from my statistical consulting, which used similar methods. They conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with people about a particular product and competing products (I won't say what it was, but it was a kitchen appliance). Participants were asked easily quantified questions, such as yes-no opinions on products and rankings. They also asked participants to list competing products. Lastly they had a focus group where participants discussed this market category. The outcomes of this were analyzed in line with what Dan and Julien from the chapter. They tried to gauge how their product and brand stood in the market with these options.
I can explain my research to people that are willing to learn. Just because a flat-earther refuses to accept the earth is round doesn't make it wrong or means I don't understand it.
Well, how much do you know about how masculinity is defined, performed and perceived? Are you familiar with any academic literature regarding this topic? If not, why do you think you are qualified to say that an expert in this field is wrong to claim that a certain phrasing is indicative of certain views.
But yea, you don't have to be educated to see her conclusions make sense:
Crying isn't considered masculine by common standards. Homeless guy says it's something little girls do aka it's not masculine.
Is your argument honestly that you cannot say whether he considers crying appropriate and not shameful for him from that answer?
I don't know what actual research they did in the first case, and why do you think it was good research? You will have to get more concrete here.
The first part of your second case is standard quantitative market research. You can tell because you used the key word "quantify" here, it's really not Rocket Science.
Why do you think their interpretations of answers in the group discussion were "good research", whereas OP is "bad research"?
why do you think you are qualified to say that an expert in this field is wrong to claim that a certain phrasing is indicative of certain views.
Because I've dealt with many sociologists over the years who have put their agenda before the data. Don't pretend this shit doesn't exist.
Crying
That's not what I was talking about. The crying dude (Doug) flat out acknowledged that he didn't feel like a man. That part of the chapter was OK. Ron was in withdrawal and a gust of wind could knock him over. He said he was weaker than a little girl. He said methodone gave him cramps like menstrual cramps. This isn't a knock at his masculinity.
You can cry all you want about people not listening, but it is you who is doing it.
I acknowledged that the first part of the research I did was quantitative, hence why they hired me and why I said quantified for the first part. This is why I described the interviews as semi-structured. There were 3 components:
Basically a survey (quantitative)
Free-form response
The focus group
2 and #3 were qualitative. From #2 and #3, they tried to get a feel for what the survey questions from #1 might have missed. This would be fed into future surveys. They also tried to put it into context. If a company like Cuisinart is ranked above Breville in the survey, did the participants elaborate in some way or #2, or did the focus group shed any more light?
Why is this better? Because when someone said something like, "I like that the Kitchenaid comes in white," the interviewers didn't try to shoe-horn it into some tirade about race relations. They indicated that people like this color preference, and that maybe increasing color options is a way forward.
And my aunt has dealt with many doctors who put Big Pharma agenda before data and is in a perfect position to judge that.
Ah okay I mixed that up. So from Ron's answer it's not possible to tell whether he thinks being weak is inappropriate and shameful for a man like him?
And from his comparison of his cramps with menstrual pains you cannot draw the conclusion that he thinks he can judge what an exclusively female phenomenon feels like and is justified in using it in his speech (a manifestation of hegemonic masculinity)?
Your point sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
So qualitative market research is fine if it's tied to empirical research?
Having worked in pharma, your aunt isn't as crazy as you are implying. Here is a little phenomenon that happens: for whatever reason, doctors develop "favorite" medications. If you were to look at say, psychiatrists, and see what antidepressants they prescribe, you will see this phenomenon. For the most part they prescribe generics, but sometimes they really like a particular pharma presentation. If your doctor prescribes an expensive non-generic, you wouldn't be crazy to push back a little.
Ron's answer it's not possible to tell whether he thinks being weak is inappropriate and shameful for a man like him?
No. And not with the certainty it is presented in the paper.
And from his comparison of his cramps with menstrual pains you cannot draw the conclusion that he thinks he can judge what an exclusively female phenomenon feels like and is justified in using it in his speech (a manifestation of hegemonic masculinity)?
No. He even couches it - "I feel like, uh, like, uh, menstruating, almost
[small laugh]. I’m sure that’s not what it feels like … Like my stomach is
just, like, crampy." Considering how often woman complain of stomach cramps as a symptom of menstruation (like in every ad for a product used to address this), doesn't sound like hegemonic masculinity.
The author is full of shit, and the fact that you are circling the wagons defending her sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
So qualitative market research is fine if it's tied to empirical research?
I would say that strengthens it a great deal. Even without it, I wouldn't be so against this particular example were the interpretations not so insane. But the reaches this author is making are ridiculous, and your willingness to defend her are even more so.
Ok, so it's fine for my uneducated aunt to tell me researching vaccines is bullshit, got it.
To get this clear: Ron doesn't think being weak is inappropriate for a man and he doesn't think he can compare his cramps to menstrual pains? That's what you are arguing if you're against her conclusions.
The interpretations aren't insane.
People who are fine with her intetpretation: social scientists, experts in this field
People who aren't fine with them: people with no background in a relevant field (like you), right-wing blogs
Do you also want to argue that the world is flat and vaccines are evil? I'm used to it.
Hey, if you can't convince your anti-vax aunt, that's on you.
To get this clear: Ron doesn't think being weak is inappropriate for a man and he doesn't think he can compare his cramps to menstrual pains? That's what you are arguing if you're against her conclusions.
Those weren't her conclusions. I think you might be illiterate.
People who are fine with her intetpretation: social scientists, experts in this field
An appeal to authority, very convincing.
Do you also want to argue that the world is flat and vaccines are evil? I'm used to it.
You clearly haven't tried arguing with flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers. I can't convince my cat either that visiting the vet is good for her.
Yes, those are the opposite of her conclusions. If you actually knew what masculinity and hegemonic masculinity mean you'd see that.
Appealing to proper authority is a great argument. It should be convincing to laymen, but ignorant people like you would rather live in their feels>reals fantasy world.
Let's focus on this section, which I've quoted several times:
So, I got on methadone, ok, I’m still on methadone and I’m at fifty-two
milligrams and I hate it because I have to go get it every day and I’m dependent
and it’s physically like, I feel like, uh, like, uh, menstruating, almost
[small laugh]. I’m sure that’s not what it feels like … Like my stomach is
just, like, crampy.
Using menstrual cramps, a sensation Ron has admittedly never felt, to
describe the side effects of methadone treatment is telling of Ron’s felt
masculinity status. His addiction, depression, and homelessness statuses
interact to strip Ron of the qualities that project hegemonic masculinity,
and in so doing, leave him to draw upon the feminine subjectivity; however,
he does so with an air of shame.
This is an insane conclusion to draw. So no, this isn't about whether Ron "thinks he can compare his cramps to menstrual pains." It's about whether that is telling of his status as a man.
Similarly, other men have expressed shame at no longer having strength, but was Ron expressed his surprise at being weak:
Like my lungs were so pathetic. I’ve never been scared, you know, people
say, women or whatever say, oh I’m scared of walking outside at night. Like,
I can’t imagine that, well I did. I walked down the street and, like, a little
girl could have killed me. That’s how weak I was. And I was actually scared.
I’m like, wow.
Where does he express that he feels it is inappropriate for a man to be weak? He acknowledged that women feel this way (and possibly other people or whatever), and that he suddenly empathized with a situation he couldn't imagine previously.
Appealing to proper authority is a great argument.
Did they teach you that in sociology class? This might be a great rhetorical trick, but it only defensible if both sides of an argument agree with the reliability of the authority. And unfortunately, sociologists like Dej are trying to shoehorn the data into whatever lens they have available. When all you have is a hegemonic masculinity hammer, everything looks like hegemonic masculinity nails.
Yup, can't convince people like her just like you can't convince an animal.
Her conclusion is perfectly valid. What's wrong about it? He clearly is drawing on feminine subjectivity. I'm more surprised that she didn't extract even more from his answers.
I didn't take any sociology classes, but logic courses would tell you the same. Your opinion on the authority doesn't matter. Just like your opinion that the earth is flat doesn't matter: Facts don't care about your feelings sweaty.
Sure, but I can explain chemo to a 5-year-old. You claim that to understand sociologist logic, I have to have some sort of arcane training, but that I should totally trust it. In other words, sounds like bullshit.
And one can explain this topic to a 5 year old. If the 5 year old tells you "no that's all bullshit poisoning your body is stupid" and won't accept your explanation then that's how it is.
Then do it. How does one go from "My stomach pains are kind of like what I imagine menstrual cramps feel like" to "This man's comparison of his pain to menstrual cramps shows he feels less masculine?"
Like I said, explaining things to a 5 year old who just puts his fingers in his ears and calls everything totally stupid is p fruitless.
Again this obsession with empirical evidence. That's not some gold standard for determining truths. This is not supposed to be empirical, it's qualitative research.
Shush bby lets not argue. You're totally right with your judgements about topics you don't know anything about. Now go play with your friends
If it doesn't use empirical evidence it's bullshit!
Common response by people who are ignorant of philosophy. But that's another bullshit field right? So lets ignore the countless philo profs who routinely laugh at people who share your point of view. They are evil commie bullshitters!
No, see, you have me wrong. Philosophy isn't bullshit. That is where logic comes from. But they connect their arguments. They don't "infer" things and claim it requires no justification.
Ok, so you don't think philosophy is bullshit, that's good. Then you should be concerned that your position (qualitative research is bullshit because it doesn't care about empirical evidence) wouldn't be taken serious by any philosopher.
And I doubt you could follow recently published philosophical arguments because you lack a ton of background education. You'd probably call some of it bullshit too.
Ah, more appeals to authority. I assure you, that is never logically valid. Philosophers would agree.
I recently posted a philosophical paper on the ethics of pandering in public schools. It was a rather straightforward and understandable read. I guess I've empirically proven you assertion false.
I'm not entirely against the notion of qualitative research. But as I've maintained, this chapter is a terrible example of it. There are too many people willing to accept arguments hinging on inference and authority.
Sure, it's not logically valid - like literally all arguments in common debates. But since you aren't educated in this field either you don't understand this fact.
Ok, I'm sure you will have fun with this examination of panexperientialist physicalism then. Or would you dismiss the claim that subatomic particles must posess conciousness as insane bullshit too?
Ooooh so you're entirely against "arguments hinging on inference". Therefore we should dismiss literally all arguments. Got it!
Sure, it's not logically valid - like literally all arguments in common debates.
I noted that it's a rhetorical trick, but we were talking about logic. You even mentioned that it is taught in logic classes, not debate classes.
Ok, I'm sure you will have fun with this examination of panexperientialist physicalism then. Or would you dismiss the claim that subatomic particles must posess conciousness as insane bullshit too?
I mean, without even reading it, yes. But if you purchase the article for me, I'd be happy to give it a go. Just going from the abstract, it seems that the paper cites it's sources and tries to make sensible jumps.
Ooooh so you're entirely against "arguments hinging on inference". Therefore we should dismiss literally all arguments.
I admit, bad choice of words. But you know we were talking about what this woman was inferring from an interview. It seems that you can Google dense philosophy papers, but seem to be more lost on the basics, such as the principle of charity or even basic logical fallacies.
It's not a rhetorical trick, it's a perfectly fine argument that you could encounter in a logic class.
Ok, so for this topic you are willing to read up on the background information, but not if evil leftie words like "hegemonic masculinity" are brought up. Feels>Reals again.
Yes, what she was inferring from an interview as opposed to what people are inferring from empirical data. Again: Not everything has to be empirical.
Oh trust me, I'm aware of more than the basics. You are not: You clearly don't know what validity means and are bringing up "logical fallacies" without properly understanding them.
You aren't educated in logic, therefore your comments on logic here are wrong. Please shout "Ad hominem!!!" now so I can laugh at your ignorance even more.
It's not a rhetorical trick, it's a perfectly fine argument that you could encounter in a logic class.
No it isn't you said it's a debate tactic, which is different from logic. I don't think you've taken a logic class.
Ok, so for this topic you are willing to read up on the background information, but not if evil leftie words like "hegemonic masculinity" are brought up.
I read what it was. The chapter even defines it twice. It just doesn't explain how comparing stomach cramps to menstrual ones means you feel feminine. You just keep yelling "feels>reals" and "hegemonic masculinity" without explaining shit but claiming I'm the 5 year old. Real excellent debater.
Yes, what she was inferring from an interview as opposed to what people are inferring from empirical data. Again: Not everything has to be empirical.
Sure, but her inference was bullshit and you have yet to justify it.
Oh trust me, I'm aware of more than the basics. You are not: You clearly don't know what validity means and are bringing up "logical fallacies" without properly understanding them.
Says the guy with repeated argent's from authority and confusing debate with logic. Ok 😂👍
You aren't educated in logic, therefore your comments on logic here are wrong.
I didn't say it's a debate tactic I said that nearly all arguments used in exchanges of arguments (debates) aren't logically valid. A logic class would teach you that these are good arguments anyway.
I've said multiple times that appealing to proper authority is a "perfectly fine argument", I never called it anything else, so don't put words in my mouth.
I'll illustrate it for you with an example:
All professional mathematicians agree that 0.99...=1
Therefore, 0.99...=1
Now, if you think this argument is fallacious, then you are claiming that this argument has little inductive strength (this is how informal inductive fallacies are usually defined). From this follows that you think it's likely that all professional mathematicians are wrong that 0.99...=1. Sounds stupid, doesn't it? Therefore it's not fallacious but a perfectly fine argument.
Her inference wasn't bullshit and your ignoring my explanations with "nuh uh you can't tell anything from that answer" shows your bias.
Yes, the guy who is arguing from authority is telling you that people pointing out fallacies on the internet are wrong 99% of the time.
I never confused "logic with debate", what the hell do you even mean by that.
Why don't you call out my ad hominem? I want to tell you that you are wrong again :>
You want me to give you something you can misidentify as a "straw man fallacy"? Then we got all of the big three fallacies redditors don't understand.
I didn't say it's a debate tactic I said that nearly all arguments used in exchanges of arguments (debates) aren't logically valid. A logic class would teach you that these are good arguments anyway.
Restated: A logic class would teach that logically invalid arguments are good arguments. =><= Yes, that sounds like something you didn't just invent 🤣
Argument from authority only works if both parties respect the authority, and both parties accept that the authority is saying what you claim it says. However, it is defeasible, and doesn't actually prove anything; it's just a shorthand. When one of the parties contests the point, you can't just throw your hands up and claim the priests of X say it is thus, therefore it must be thus.
Either way, you keep trying to dodge the very simple quote. You went into one about crying, but you keep trying to talk about everything but the quote. Yes, qualitative research is a valid way of trying to gather knowledge. But this woman is trying to shoehorn everything into her hypothesis, which is bad research.
Of course a logic class teaches that good arguments don't have to be logically valid.
Maybe you should actually educate yourself on what validity means so you can stop embarassing yourself.
Here's an illustration for you:
The following is a logically valid argument:
Your phone is a banana.
All bananas are saltwater.
Therefore, your phone is saltwater.
And now an invalid argument:
According to our laws of physics, accelerating beyond the speed of light is impossible.
Therefore, it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light.
Which argument is good, which one is bad?
Argument from authority does not depend on whether you accept the authority. The example above doesn't care about whether you think the authorities are relevant or whether you doubt that the authorities are actually saying this. Facts stay facts, no matter what you think.
The argument will be less convincing to you, but I don't care about that. Good arguments can be unconvincing to ignorant people, while bad ones can be extremely convincing.
You haven't even made a good point as to why her conclusion is bullshit. Here's a kindergarten explanation for you:
Masculinity means being strong, dominant, healthy and so on.
The guy has bad stomach cramps. Stomach cramps make you feel not strong, not healthy etc. Thus, stomach cramps are stripping him off his masculinity: Can't feel masculine when you're huddled over in pain, especially combined with generally failing in life.
Furthermore, he compares his cramps to menstrual pains, thus drawing on feminine subjectivity.
Those are her two conclusions. What's wrong here?
Of course a logic class teaches that good arguments don't have to be logically valid.
Claims I need to be educated. Guy, your slatestarcodex education or whatever isn't real. Again, an argument that has logical structure but bad premises/axioms isn't a good argument. A bad argument which lead to a correct conclusion is also a bad argument. Claiming that stomach cramps are unmanly is a big reach and shows that the research is bullshit.
Mate, I just showed you that logical validity doesn't have much to do with whether an argument is good or not. Good arguments can be invamid. I even gave you a neat example, don't ignore it, just admit that you had no idea what you were talking about.
It's not a big reach. Strength and health are considered masculine. With stomach cramps, you don't feel very strong, healthy, virile, dominant and so on. Denying this makes you look biased and ignorant. By the way, you keep misrepresenting her arguments - because you don't really grasp them.
No, you presented two bad arguments, but one was easily fixed by adding "According to our current understanding of physics" to the beginning of the conclusion to make it logically valid and have sound premises (a good argument).
You aren't getting the problem with this research. If you've already accepted the author's hypothesis/conclusion, then sure, her interpretation makes sense. But it's circular. The inference bolsters the conclusion only if you already believe the conclusion.
I presented an alternative explanation: menstrual cramps are simply the most common kind of stomach cramps, hence the parallel. Most people would interpret Ron's statement that way. The author doesn't consider this alternate explanation at all, but that's because she's biased and accepted her hypothesis before she began her "research."
The second one is not a bad argument, just like my 0.99...=1 example isn't a bad argument. Your "fix" changes the conclusion to something else. The point was to argue that travelling faster than light is impossible. That's an opinion that every physicist holds, because our laws of physics literally make it impossible.
Stop trying to save face, you had no idea what logical validity means. You are saying that inductive arguments are always bad arguments. That's not only ridiculously stupid, but it would delegitimize the entirety of science.
Jesus Christ, how retarded are you? Who said anything about why he compares it to menstrual pains? Cramps make you not feel masculine - that's a fact - and he compares it to something exclusively female - that's a fact too. Good point from you though that the most common kind of cramps are feminine.
It's funny, you know you are wrong, so you keep nitpicking. When restated Dej's point as Ron feeling feminine; no - he feels unmasculine, which is totally different! Oh no, I used term "sound premises" when I was referring to "sound arguments" that are "logically valid and contain true premises." Simply by changing two words around from something I was recounting from memory, and what I wrote was practically from my PHIL101 textbook!
Cramps make you not feel masculine - that's a fact
No it isn't. That's an opinion that you hold if you believe a peculiar definition of masculinity. By your definition, stubbing your toe is unmasculine. Feeling sore and weak after working out is unmasculine.
he compares it to something exclusively female - that's a fact too
And why would that be relevant?
Who said anything about why he compares it to menstrual pains?
Because of the "why" behind the statement.
Here is an analogous argument guys might make. Dej has visits a Sigma Phi cookout. She interviews "Rob," a bro who has downed a case of beer and more food than he can remember. He is wobbly and may have puked, signs of unmasculinity. He rubs his stomach, calling it his "food baby." These are signs of Rob's masculinity.
So you enjoy embarassing yourself by showing how retarded you are?
Again you are ignoring my explanations as to why you are wrong:
You've argued that good arguments need to be logically valid (or now that I've educated you a bit you require soundness, that's fine too). From this follows that inductive inferences can never be good arguments. That's obviously retarded and you're only making that point because you have no idea what you are talking about.
If you still stand by that claim then that means the entirety of empirical sciences is based on bad arguments.
And yes, the fact that you keep mixing up and misusing basic phil101 terms shows that you're arguing about something you don't even have basic education in.
Yea, it's only true if you accept the academic definition of masculinity, dear god, who could have expected that.
Being strong and healthy is masculine. Do you agree? Good. Stomach cramps make you feel weak and not healthy, right? Exactly, therefore the cramps are stripping away his ability to appear masculine. It's really, really simple.
Furthermore, the most common example for cramps are - as you've said - feminine, and that's what he's drawing from. There is nothing masculine he could use here, further showing that it's not exactly bolstering his masculinity.
Yes, being in pain after stabbing your toe is unmasculine. It's not nearly as bad as being a homeless failure with stomach cramps, but the idea is the same.
And yes, you utter retard, not masculine is not the same as feminine. How do you function in daily life without general education?
There is no "inference of why" here. Actually, the explanation that menstrual pains are the most common kind of cramps - the explanation you've said she ignores - makes the most sense for her conclusion.
/r/drama users, being radical centrists, alternative between heaven and hell. That or they just get put in limbo, a place where they’re utterly starved of drama for all eternity.
According to her CV, she has been awarded at least $185,000 by the Canadian government to research homelessness since 2009, and she notes that this new study is an outgrowth of her previous research.
I think the Canadian government should get a refund. Nothing that sh'e doing is either preventing homelessness, getting people off the streets or assisting them and the wider public.
115 comments
1 BussyShillBot 2018-08-08
Ｅａｔ ｓｈｉｔ
Outlines:
I am a bot for posting Outline.com links. github / Contact for info or issues
1 WithoutAComma 2018-08-08
No u
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2018-08-08
They are. They stink and leave trash everywhere. I pay good money to live where I live and their existence is an eyesore.
1 friendlysoviet 2018-08-08
This but unironically.
1 4ntonvalley 2018-08-08
This but sarcastic
1 Gryzblyxx 2018-08-08
https://i.imgur.com/UYE0Jje.jpg
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-08-08
Lemme guess, San Francisco.
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2018-08-08
Eww no
1 aqouta 2018-08-08
Agreed, like I tried to tell someone a while back that hostile architecture is fine because the bus stop benches are paid for by my tax dollars so I can sit there for the bus my tax dollars are buying so I can go to work and earn the money to pay those taxes. I don't mind paying for homeless shelters for them to sleep in or whatever but leave my bus seat alone you smelly failures.
1 sweetyellowknees 2018-08-08
Even worse when they live in your house.
1 roumaru_sama 2018-08-08
Oh too right wing, you classist /s
1 MooseHeckler 2018-08-08
Mayocide now!
1 SnapshillBot 2018-08-08
Providing a Safe Space™ from SRD since 2009!
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Womens-Warrior 2018-08-08
Homeless men are disgusting and should be killed. That way we would be able to focus on getting homeless women back on their feet
1 WithoutAComma 2018-08-08
I wish you were better at this.
1 Womens-Warrior 2018-08-08
Like homeless men don't commit vast number or rapes. As a woman I can never feel safe when they're littered around waiting to strike
1 WithoutAComma 2018-08-08
No I mean this hamfisted character you're playing. world of women was actually competent at it, your poor imitation is just reminding me of how much we've lost.
1 Womens-Warrior 2018-08-08
I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK. EITHER BE NICE OR FUCK OFF I'M NOT DOING THIS FOR ANY OF YOU PEOPLE
1 insert-usr-name 2018-08-08
If you do "this" for me I'll give you a month's supply of cat food. What do you say?
1 insert-usr-name 2018-08-08
If you do "this" for me I'll give you a month's supply of cat food. What do you say?
1 insert-usr-name 2018-08-08
If you do "this" for me I'll give you a month's supply of cat food. What do you say?
1 Morgoff 2018-08-08
I believe in you.
1 Womens-Warrior 2018-08-08
Thank you for believing me. What I'm saying is factual. It's in the DNA of men to rape, they've been doing it since they were cavemen
1 Fishofthetunavariety 2018-08-08
Sounds like someone needs a little bit of cave-dick.
1 insert-usr-name 2018-08-08
This would solve the problem.
1 cleverseneca 2018-08-08
Aww are the actual veterans cutting into your panhandling profits again?
1 Womens-Warrior 2018-08-08
I'M NOT WOMEN-WARRIORS. IF THIS IS ABOUT HER. I DON'T DO DRUGS
1 cleverseneca 2018-08-08
You people all look the same.
1 AddictedReddit 2018-08-08
Someone really needs to get back to doing the dishes.
1 aqouta 2018-08-08
You banned me for your sub you meany
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-08-08
1 gemininature 2018-08-08
Girls RULE, homeless men with dementia and syphilis DROOL
1 PierligBouloven 2018-08-08
Homeless men makes judgement based on who might be able to physically hurt them? Weird! Thanks God we have a solution for these men living in highly dangerous surroundings: they should become more emotional.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Reeeing about fringe Academic research you don't understand truly is peak American """journalism"""".
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-08-08
I know, but it's fun to mock it.
1 Sojir 2018-08-08
Tbh there nothing to understand besides "my non-stem education didn't work out so I splurged some government money that could be used to fix the homeless problem"
1 ImJustaBagofHammers 2018-08-08
Fucking bigots getting robbed by women.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
I remember when this picture was making the rounds.
1 Yiin 2018-08-08
Peak patriarchy
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-08-08
>implying men are people
100% of homeless people are women.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Difference is that this pic is actually retarded.
1 tron_funkin_blow 2018-08-08
and this story isn't?
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
No. It's just research.
Homeless men hold traditional views of masculinity - not surprising that they aren't woke - even though they utterly fail at living up it: They aren't successful, married, providing for a family and so on.
You can argue that this is useless and shouldn't be funded, and I'm sure the author is an obnoxious fat cunt, but this is not evil commie prof bashing the homeless because she hates men.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Did you RTFA? That's exactly what she does. Right after the "little girl" comment in the article, the author does it again (page 224):
Or... and I know this sounds crazy... but this guy is feeling abdominal cramps the only similar thing he can think of is menstrual cramps.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
No it's not, it's an examination of views on masculinity in homeless men.
The quoted passages are doing just that: Analyzing their understanding and performance of masculinity: The first guy doesn't consider crying an action appropriate for grown men, hence the little girl comparison, and the second guy is comparing his cramps to an exclusively female suffering. From both, the author draws conclusions about their perception of masculinity.
You can disagree with her conclusions, but this is actual research. Whether you like it or not.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
The quoted passages from Julien and Doug are on the money:
This is fine, Julien and Doug have explicitly stated how they view masculinity. "This is actual research," although with a tiny sample size that is heavily biased.
But the passage I quoted shows how insane the author is. She is projecting her views on Ron; that is not research. Comparing stomach cramps to menstrual cramps isn't "telling of Ron’s felt masculinity status." That passage is more telling of what kinds of conclusions the author wants to draw.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
It's qualitative research, not empirical science, of course the "sample size" is tiny.
Research in this area doesn't only rely on what's explicitly stated though, and the passages you cited don't in any way show that the author is insane. That's a ridiculous thing to say. It's completely fine to draw conclusions from more layers of speech than just intended explicit meaning. In fact, people do so all the time in day to day life and more importantly you are doing it right now: You are assuming that she drew this conclusion because she is insane. I disagree with this conclusion, just like you disagree that one can make judgments about men's perception of masculinity by comparing their stomach cramps with menstrual pains.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Yes, that was definitely not a figure of speech and I was making a clinical diagnosis, you retard. That last bit is also a reference to your karyotype.
Not really, unless you are willing to call your entire field bullshit. When I am doing "empirical science" (or "actual research" as we like to call it in the biz), I strive for clear outcomes, and not a biased sample of hobos willing to talk to me while I try to find innuendos everywhere.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Of course it was a figure of speech. Doesn't change the fact that you are drawing conclusions about her based on what's implicit in her speech.
She isn't doing empirical science though, and none is pretending she is. She examined how a group of people who failed at living up to certain goals still maintain a world view that values those goals. For this, there is no need for a "large and unbiased" sample size. Qualitative research has its uses, even though it doesn't give you empirical truths. But after all, actual science isn't some absolute standard that everything else has to aspire too.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
I'm allowed to draw conclusions about her based on whats implicit in her speach because I'm shitPOSTING on Reddit while this bitch is doing ʇᴉɥsllnq "qualitative research." Also, I'm grasping at far fewer straws.
It's pretty clear that the main use of "qualitative research" is for people with agendas go get scholarly funding while returning their theoretical musings as some alternative to "empirical truths."
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Ok, so you are admitting that she really is doing qualitative research then. You just think that qualitative research in general is bullshit, right? That's at least some progress.
Who said that this is supposed to be an alternative to empirical truths? It's something different from that.
By the way, why are the people who so vehemently call all qualitative research bullshit never educated about it in the slightest? I would never make such harsh judgements about topics I don't understand anything about.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
I'm saying she's doing "qualitative research" with quotes; what she is doing doesn't qualify as qualitative research. I am educated about it, but us empiricists won the science wars.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Of course it does.
Well, no, you're shockingly uneducated and that comment further proves it. We truly need some mandatory general education for stem lords.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
No it doesn't. A completely unstructured interview where the author reads whatever she wants into the responses is complete bullshit. This type of sociological research is even worse than the ones which heavily abuse stats.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
That's literally how qualitative research works though, retard.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
There are several ways it can work. This authors method is bullshit, and the fact that you are defending her shows how bullshit the field is. Good luck with your adjunct position.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
This is bog-standard qualitative research: Interviewing people and analyzing their answers. Doesn't matter if a random layman like you with zero background knowledge of the topic thinks it's bullshit.
People with no education in my area regularly call my research useless bullshit too. Obviously, their opinion counts nothing.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Nah, I've seen good qualitative research, and this isn't it. When you read into Ron's responses the way the author did, it's bullshit. It's ok, if you claim that lay people simply can't understand your research and when have to rely on appeals to authority to claim why your research is important, expect to get your departments slashed. I'll be sitting here with my well-funded kind of "actual research"that had opportunities in industry. Note: I'm well aware that market research is a form of qualitative research, and it is done much more rigorously than this chapter.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
It's impossible for you to judge whether this is good research or not because you don't understand any of the underlying concepts. The problem isn't that you can't understand them, it's that you are making no effort to educate yourself and instead just declare this research bullshit because her conclusions seem weird to you.
Similarly, the people telling me my research is bullshit because their juice cleansing blog told them vaccines cause cancer and I'm usually talking about scary sounding chemicals aren't making a good point: They are just ignorant.
It's ironic that you are talking about funding like it proves what's actual research. The OP has zero trouble getting funds for her work.
What kind of qualitative market research that's "more rigorous" than this are you talking about? Do you have any examples?
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Nigga, if you can't explain to people what you are doing, then perhaps you don't understand your work as well as you think you do. What "underlying concepts" do I have to understand? A guy said that he was weaker than a little girl and compared stomach cramps to menstrual cramps. The author then took this to mean the guy had a negative view of females or his own masculinity. Explain to me why this is considered "good research." If I can explain p-hacking to my in-laws, you should be able to do this.
Also, I really doubt OP has zero trouble getting funding. She is funded, but it doesn't take much to have an assistant professor position with no lab in this kind of field.
As far as market research, I can give two examples. One kind of famous one was when Dunkin Donuts was afraid of Krispy Kreme, and so conducted market research. During this, they actually discovered that Dunkin Donuts wasn't really competing with Krispy Kreme, but with Starbucks.
Another example is from my statistical consulting, which used similar methods. They conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with people about a particular product and competing products (I won't say what it was, but it was a kitchen appliance). Participants were asked easily quantified questions, such as yes-no opinions on products and rankings. They also asked participants to list competing products. Lastly they had a focus group where participants discussed this market category. The outcomes of this were analyzed in line with what Dan and Julien from the chapter. They tried to gauge how their product and brand stood in the market with these options.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
I can explain my research to people that are willing to learn. Just because a flat-earther refuses to accept the earth is round doesn't make it wrong or means I don't understand it.
Well, how much do you know about how masculinity is defined, performed and perceived? Are you familiar with any academic literature regarding this topic? If not, why do you think you are qualified to say that an expert in this field is wrong to claim that a certain phrasing is indicative of certain views.
But yea, you don't have to be educated to see her conclusions make sense:
Crying isn't considered masculine by common standards. Homeless guy says it's something little girls do aka it's not masculine.
Is your argument honestly that you cannot say whether he considers crying appropriate and not shameful for him from that answer?
I don't know what actual research they did in the first case, and why do you think it was good research? You will have to get more concrete here.
The first part of your second case is standard quantitative market research. You can tell because you used the key word "quantify" here, it's really not Rocket Science.
Why do you think their interpretations of answers in the group discussion were "good research", whereas OP is "bad research"?
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Because I've dealt with many sociologists over the years who have put their agenda before the data. Don't pretend this shit doesn't exist.
That's not what I was talking about. The crying dude (Doug) flat out acknowledged that he didn't feel like a man. That part of the chapter was OK. Ron was in withdrawal and a gust of wind could knock him over. He said he was weaker than a little girl. He said methodone gave him cramps like menstrual cramps. This isn't a knock at his masculinity.
You can cry all you want about people not listening, but it is you who is doing it.
I acknowledged that the first part of the research I did was quantitative, hence why they hired me and why I said quantified for the first part. This is why I described the interviews as semi-structured. There were 3 components:
2 and #3 were qualitative. From #2 and #3, they tried to get a feel for what the survey questions from #1 might have missed. This would be fed into future surveys. They also tried to put it into context. If a company like Cuisinart is ranked above Breville in the survey, did the participants elaborate in some way or #2, or did the focus group shed any more light?
Why is this better? Because when someone said something like, "I like that the Kitchenaid comes in white," the interviewers didn't try to shoe-horn it into some tirade about race relations. They indicated that people like this color preference, and that maybe increasing color options is a way forward.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
And my aunt has dealt with many doctors who put Big Pharma agenda before data and is in a perfect position to judge that.
Ah okay I mixed that up. So from Ron's answer it's not possible to tell whether he thinks being weak is inappropriate and shameful for a man like him?
And from his comparison of his cramps with menstrual pains you cannot draw the conclusion that he thinks he can judge what an exclusively female phenomenon feels like and is justified in using it in his speech (a manifestation of hegemonic masculinity)?
Your point sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
So qualitative market research is fine if it's tied to empirical research?
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Having worked in pharma, your aunt isn't as crazy as you are implying. Here is a little phenomenon that happens: for whatever reason, doctors develop "favorite" medications. If you were to look at say, psychiatrists, and see what antidepressants they prescribe, you will see this phenomenon. For the most part they prescribe generics, but sometimes they really like a particular pharma presentation. If your doctor prescribes an expensive non-generic, you wouldn't be crazy to push back a little.
No. And not with the certainty it is presented in the paper.
No. He even couches it - "I feel like, uh, like, uh, menstruating, almost [small laugh]. I’m sure that’s not what it feels like … Like my stomach is just, like, crampy." Considering how often woman complain of stomach cramps as a symptom of menstruation (like in every ad for a product used to address this), doesn't sound like hegemonic masculinity.
The author is full of shit, and the fact that you are circling the wagons defending her sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
I would say that strengthens it a great deal. Even without it, I wouldn't be so against this particular example were the interpretations not so insane. But the reaches this author is making are ridiculous, and your willingness to defend her are even more so.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Ok, so it's fine for my uneducated aunt to tell me researching vaccines is bullshit, got it.
To get this clear: Ron doesn't think being weak is inappropriate for a man and he doesn't think he can compare his cramps to menstrual pains? That's what you are arguing if you're against her conclusions.
The interpretations aren't insane.
People who are fine with her intetpretation: social scientists, experts in this field
People who aren't fine with them: people with no background in a relevant field (like you), right-wing blogs
Do you also want to argue that the world is flat and vaccines are evil? I'm used to it.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Hey, if you can't convince your anti-vax aunt, that's on you.
Those weren't her conclusions. I think you might be illiterate.
An appeal to authority, very convincing.
You clearly aren't very convincing.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
You clearly haven't tried arguing with flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers. I can't convince my cat either that visiting the vet is good for her.
Yes, those are the opposite of her conclusions. If you actually knew what masculinity and hegemonic masculinity mean you'd see that.
Appealing to proper authority is a great argument. It should be convincing to laymen, but ignorant people like you would rather live in their feels>reals fantasy world.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Oh, so your aunt is a cat.
Let's focus on this section, which I've quoted several times:
This is an insane conclusion to draw. So no, this isn't about whether Ron "thinks he can compare his cramps to menstrual pains." It's about whether that is telling of his status as a man.
Similarly, other men have expressed shame at no longer having strength, but was Ron expressed his surprise at being weak:
Where does he express that he feels it is inappropriate for a man to be weak? He acknowledged that women feel this way (and possibly other people or whatever), and that he suddenly empathized with a situation he couldn't imagine previously.
Did they teach you that in sociology class? This might be a great rhetorical trick, but it only defensible if both sides of an argument agree with the reliability of the authority. And unfortunately, sociologists like Dej are trying to shoehorn the data into whatever lens they have available. When all you have is a hegemonic masculinity hammer, everything looks like hegemonic masculinity nails.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Yup, can't convince people like her just like you can't convince an animal.
Her conclusion is perfectly valid. What's wrong about it? He clearly is drawing on feminine subjectivity. I'm more surprised that she didn't extract even more from his answers.
I didn't take any sociology classes, but logic courses would tell you the same. Your opinion on the authority doesn't matter. Just like your opinion that the earth is flat doesn't matter: Facts don't care about your feelings sweaty.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Exactly. And Ron didn't say the things she is trying to milk from his statements.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
That's the point. He doesn't say them, they are implicit.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
That's only implicit if you are an "evil commie prof bashing the homeless because she hates men."
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Sounds just as insane as "we can fight cancer by poisoning you" :>
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Sure, but I can explain chemo to a 5-year-old. You claim that to understand sociologist logic, I have to have some sort of arcane training, but that I should totally trust it. In other words, sounds like bullshit.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
And one can explain this topic to a 5 year old. If the 5 year old tells you "no that's all bullshit poisoning your body is stupid" and won't accept your explanation then that's how it is.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Then do it. How does one go from "My stomach pains are kind of like what I imagine menstrual cramps feel like" to "This man's comparison of his pain to menstrual cramps shows he feels less masculine?"
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Like I said, explaining things to a 5 year old who just puts his fingers in his ears and calls everything totally stupid is p fruitless.
Again this obsession with empirical evidence. That's not some gold standard for determining truths. This is not supposed to be empirical, it's qualitative research.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
You haven't explained it though. You just keep saying that it's a reasonable inference without justification.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Shush bby lets not argue. You're totally right with your judgements about topics you don't know anything about. Now go play with your friends
Common response by people who are ignorant of philosophy. But that's another bullshit field right? So lets ignore the countless philo profs who routinely laugh at people who share your point of view. They are evil commie bullshitters!
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
No, see, you have me wrong. Philosophy isn't bullshit. That is where logic comes from. But they connect their arguments. They don't "infer" things and claim it requires no justification.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Ok, so you don't think philosophy is bullshit, that's good. Then you should be concerned that your position (qualitative research is bullshit because it doesn't care about empirical evidence) wouldn't be taken serious by any philosopher.
And I doubt you could follow recently published philosophical arguments because you lack a ton of background education. You'd probably call some of it bullshit too.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Ah, more appeals to authority. I assure you, that is never logically valid. Philosophers would agree.
I recently posted a philosophical paper on the ethics of pandering in public schools. It was a rather straightforward and understandable read. I guess I've empirically proven you assertion false.
I'm not entirely against the notion of qualitative research. But as I've maintained, this chapter is a terrible example of it. There are too many people willing to accept arguments hinging on inference and authority.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Sure, it's not logically valid - like literally all arguments in common debates. But since you aren't educated in this field either you don't understand this fact.
Ok, I'm sure you will have fun with this examination of panexperientialist physicalism then. Or would you dismiss the claim that subatomic particles must posess conciousness as insane bullshit too?
Ooooh so you're entirely against "arguments hinging on inference". Therefore we should dismiss literally all arguments. Got it!
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
I noted that it's a rhetorical trick, but we were talking about logic. You even mentioned that it is taught in logic classes, not debate classes.
I mean, without even reading it, yes. But if you purchase the article for me, I'd be happy to give it a go. Just going from the abstract, it seems that the paper cites it's sources and tries to make sensible jumps.
I admit, bad choice of words. But you know we were talking about what this woman was inferring from an interview. It seems that you can Google dense philosophy papers, but seem to be more lost on the basics, such as the principle of charity or even basic logical fallacies.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
It's not a rhetorical trick, it's a perfectly fine argument that you could encounter in a logic class.
Ok, so for this topic you are willing to read up on the background information, but not if evil leftie words like "hegemonic masculinity" are brought up. Feels>Reals again.
Yes, what she was inferring from an interview as opposed to what people are inferring from empirical data. Again: Not everything has to be empirical.
Oh trust me, I'm aware of more than the basics. You are not: You clearly don't know what validity means and are bringing up "logical fallacies" without properly understanding them.
You aren't educated in logic, therefore your comments on logic here are wrong. Please shout "Ad hominem!!!" now so I can laugh at your ignorance even more.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
No it isn't you said it's a debate tactic, which is different from logic. I don't think you've taken a logic class.
I read what it was. The chapter even defines it twice. It just doesn't explain how comparing stomach cramps to menstrual ones means you feel feminine. You just keep yelling "feels>reals" and "hegemonic masculinity" without explaining shit but claiming I'm the 5 year old. Real excellent debater.
Sure, but her inference was bullshit and you have yet to justify it.
Says the guy with repeated argent's from authority and confusing debate with logic. Ok 😂👍
That follows. My sides.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
I didn't say it's a debate tactic I said that nearly all arguments used in exchanges of arguments (debates) aren't logically valid. A logic class would teach you that these are good arguments anyway.
I've said multiple times that appealing to proper authority is a "perfectly fine argument", I never called it anything else, so don't put words in my mouth.
I'll illustrate it for you with an example:
Her inference wasn't bullshit and your ignoring my explanations with "nuh uh you can't tell anything from that answer" shows your bias.
Yes, the guy who is arguing from authority is telling you that people pointing out fallacies on the internet are wrong 99% of the time.
I never confused "logic with debate", what the hell do you even mean by that.
Why don't you call out my ad hominem? I want to tell you that you are wrong again :>
You want me to give you something you can misidentify as a "straw man fallacy"? Then we got all of the big three fallacies redditors don't understand.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Restated: A logic class would teach that logically invalid arguments are good arguments. =><= Yes, that sounds like something you didn't just invent 🤣
Argument from authority only works if both parties respect the authority, and both parties accept that the authority is saying what you claim it says. However, it is defeasible, and doesn't actually prove anything; it's just a shorthand. When one of the parties contests the point, you can't just throw your hands up and claim the priests of X say it is thus, therefore it must be thus.
Either way, you keep trying to dodge the very simple quote. You went into one about crying, but you keep trying to talk about everything but the quote. Yes, qualitative research is a valid way of trying to gather knowledge. But this woman is trying to shoehorn everything into her hypothesis, which is bad research.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Of course a logic class teaches that good arguments don't have to be logically valid.
Maybe you should actually educate yourself on what validity means so you can stop embarassing yourself.
Here's an illustration for you:
The following is a logically valid argument:
And now an invalid argument:
Which argument is good, which one is bad?
Argument from authority does not depend on whether you accept the authority. The example above doesn't care about whether you think the authorities are relevant or whether you doubt that the authorities are actually saying this. Facts stay facts, no matter what you think.
The argument will be less convincing to you, but I don't care about that. Good arguments can be unconvincing to ignorant people, while bad ones can be extremely convincing.
You haven't even made a good point as to why her conclusion is bullshit. Here's a kindergarten explanation for you:
Masculinity means being strong, dominant, healthy and so on.
The guy has bad stomach cramps. Stomach cramps make you feel not strong, not healthy etc. Thus, stomach cramps are stripping him off his masculinity: Can't feel masculine when you're huddled over in pain, especially combined with generally failing in life.
Furthermore, he compares his cramps to menstrual pains, thus drawing on feminine subjectivity.
Those are her two conclusions. What's wrong here?
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Claims I need to be educated. Guy, your slatestarcodex education or whatever isn't real. Again, an argument that has logical structure but bad premises/axioms isn't a good argument. A bad argument which lead to a correct conclusion is also a bad argument. Claiming that stomach cramps are unmanly is a big reach and shows that the research is bullshit.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Mate, I just showed you that logical validity doesn't have much to do with whether an argument is good or not. Good arguments can be invamid. I even gave you a neat example, don't ignore it, just admit that you had no idea what you were talking about.
It's not a big reach. Strength and health are considered masculine. With stomach cramps, you don't feel very strong, healthy, virile, dominant and so on. Denying this makes you look biased and ignorant. By the way, you keep misrepresenting her arguments - because you don't really grasp them.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
No, you presented two bad arguments, but one was easily fixed by adding "According to our current understanding of physics" to the beginning of the conclusion to make it logically valid and have sound premises (a good argument).
You aren't getting the problem with this research. If you've already accepted the author's hypothesis/conclusion, then sure, her interpretation makes sense. But it's circular. The inference bolsters the conclusion only if you already believe the conclusion.
I presented an alternative explanation: menstrual cramps are simply the most common kind of stomach cramps, hence the parallel. Most people would interpret Ron's statement that way. The author doesn't consider this alternate explanation at all, but that's because she's biased and accepted her hypothesis before she began her "research."
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
The second one is not a bad argument, just like my 0.99...=1 example isn't a bad argument. Your "fix" changes the conclusion to something else. The point was to argue that travelling faster than light is impossible. That's an opinion that every physicist holds, because our laws of physics literally make it impossible.
Stop trying to save face, you had no idea what logical validity means. You are saying that inductive arguments are always bad arguments. That's not only ridiculously stupid, but it would delegitimize the entirety of science.
Jesus Christ, how retarded are you? Who said anything about why he compares it to menstrual pains? Cramps make you not feel masculine - that's a fact - and he compares it to something exclusively female - that's a fact too. Good point from you though that the most common kind of cramps are feminine.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Because I like to. Look at these epic sperg outs.
It's funny, you know you are wrong, so you keep nitpicking. When restated Dej's point as Ron feeling feminine; no - he feels unmasculine, which is totally different! Oh no, I used term "sound premises" when I was referring to "sound arguments" that are "logically valid and contain true premises." Simply by changing two words around from something I was recounting from memory, and what I wrote was practically from my PHIL101 textbook!
No it isn't. That's an opinion that you hold if you believe a peculiar definition of masculinity. By your definition, stubbing your toe is unmasculine. Feeling sore and weak after working out is unmasculine.
And why would that be relevant?
Because of the "why" behind the statement.
Here is an analogous argument guys might make. Dej has visits a Sigma Phi cookout. She interviews "Rob," a bro who has downed a case of beer and more food than he can remember. He is wobbly and may have puked, signs of unmasculinity. He rubs his stomach, calling it his "food baby." These are signs of Rob's masculinity.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
So you enjoy embarassing yourself by showing how retarded you are?
Again you are ignoring my explanations as to why you are wrong:
You've argued that good arguments need to be logically valid (or now that I've educated you a bit you require soundness, that's fine too). From this follows that inductive inferences can never be good arguments. That's obviously retarded and you're only making that point because you have no idea what you are talking about.
If you still stand by that claim then that means the entirety of empirical sciences is based on bad arguments. And yes, the fact that you keep mixing up and misusing basic phil101 terms shows that you're arguing about something you don't even have basic education in.
Yea, it's only true if you accept the academic definition of masculinity, dear god, who could have expected that.
Being strong and healthy is masculine. Do you agree? Good. Stomach cramps make you feel weak and not healthy, right? Exactly, therefore the cramps are stripping away his ability to appear masculine. It's really, really simple.
Furthermore, the most common example for cramps are - as you've said - feminine, and that's what he's drawing from. There is nothing masculine he could use here, further showing that it's not exactly bolstering his masculinity.
Yes, being in pain after stabbing your toe is unmasculine. It's not nearly as bad as being a homeless failure with stomach cramps, but the idea is the same.
And yes, you utter retard, not masculine is not the same as feminine. How do you function in daily life without general education?
There is no "inference of why" here. Actually, the explanation that menstrual pains are the most common kind of cramps - the explanation you've said she ignores - makes the most sense for her conclusion.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
I just reread this - no logic courses teach "Appealing to proper authority is a great argument."
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Not explicitly, but their teachers would agree with my point.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-08-08
Lies.
1 Ylajali_2002 2018-08-08
imagine having male privilege and still fucking up so much you end up homeless. it's honestly impossible to have sympathy for these people.
1 AliceBowie1 2018-08-08
"Imagining" doesn't sound like something you do very often...
1 VidiotGamer 2018-08-08
https://www.wikihow.com/Tell-if-Someone-Is-Being-Sarcastic
1 Morgoff 2018-08-08
I had to check to see if it was satire. That's where we are.
1 The_Reason_Trump_Won 2018-08-08
1 insert-usr-name 2018-08-08
50k in highly valuable karma points for nothing. You mad genius you.
1 funerary_planet 2018-08-08
I'm pretty sure reddit karma counts as negative on the scoresheets used by most afterlifes
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2018-08-08
One may hope.
1 allwordsaredust 2018-08-08
Depends on what subreddits its earned.
/r/drama users, being radical centrists, alternative between heaven and hell. That or they just get put in limbo, a place where they’re utterly starved of drama for all eternity.
1 [deleted] 2018-08-08
[removed]
1 parameciidae 2018-08-08
"PJ Media"
😂🤣
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2018-08-08
Wtf, I love feminism now.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
Shocker.
1 lua_x_ia 2018-08-08
Research on any people requires informed consent. Research on the directors of Fortune 100 companies requires informed consent.
1 Snowayne2 2018-08-08
There's no reason to doubt she got consent just because she didn't answer a mail from some random "academia is evil commie nonsense" blogger.
1 sweetyellowknees 2018-08-08
😂😂😂😂
1 Yiin 2018-08-08
You could probably put a natgeo logo on that footage. Talk about divorcing yourself from the subject matter.
1 VidiotGamer 2018-08-08
I'm starting to get pretty sick of living in a world where editorials on Pajamas Media make sense.
Get your act together shitlibs.
1 Tony49UK 2018-08-08
I think the Canadian government should get a refund. Nothing that sh'e doing is either preventing homelessness, getting people off the streets or assisting them and the wider public.
1 aMinaL4hyre 2018-08-08
So her doctorate research is roasting homeless dudes in her book?
Irony, the research project.