I've spent a little time with your studies and agree that it's in interesting question, and worthy of study. I'll do some research and see what else is out there. I do have some concerns though.
The Represent Women study is being put forth by a group that exists to advocate and work for getting increasing numbers of women elected which maybe positions them as a group with something to gain by providing research to support their position. Similar to Drs who do studies for tobacco companies. I'm not suggesting that the research is wrong, or flawed. I'm suggesting that it would be irresponsible to ignore the fact that they potentially benefit from certain conclusions.
The Wilson center report links to a number of studies that show mixed results and that at least one of the studies they cite is about "perceived" corruption rather than actual corruption.
The PsyPost references a small sample size study which concluded that it's not testosterone per se that is a problem, but that "those with higher testosterone levels for their gender tended to become more narcissistic and corrupt when put in a position of power.". Indicating that bot men and women with higher than normal testosterone "tend to become more narcissistic and corrupt".
This is not in any way to automatically negate the thesis. I think it's an interesting concept and worthy of study for multiple reasons. But so far, it looks like you might have established some degree of correlation, but not causation.
This is more than likely the only response I'll make here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Frankly, I came to similar conclusions. Since I'm no expert, however, what the hell do I know, right?
What is far more likely, as regards Dan, is that he is keen on the conclusions...never mind the caveats conceded by the researchers themselves...being absolutely true and thus, these studies justify voting according to gender as opposed to merit. Sure...Dan will bristle at the very suggestion. "You can tell I don't mean that because I never said it", is surely how he'll respond. But as we know he believes it's time to ensure accurate representation, he can't truly expect anyone to believe otherwise.
One of the most glaring flaws in the entire concept is the alleged biological cause behind the "problem" of men in power. It is that very issue that unfortunately makes men the better choice, given all other things being equal. Risk aversion is a big deal in a leader. We don't want one who is afraid to take risks when doing so is required by the desperation of the situation.
But beyond that, women will succumb to corruption (that is, those who are susceptible to temptation) if it seems unlikely they will get caught. That's what the studies my links over at Dan's more than suggest. Said another way, they are no less likely simply because they are women. They will simply avail themselves of whatever they can get under differing conditions. It almost makes them the worse choice right there. If a woman is convinced she can't be caught, she'll do business. Men, it would seem, assume they won't get caught, while women require assurances. The latter doesn't mean we're better off unless they're constantly monitored by incorruptible watchdogs.
Here's another point one of my links brought forth: Women are no less likely to take bribes, but they are less likely to do anything for it. Does that not sound less honorable than taking a bribe in a quid pro quo arrangement? Indeed, I'd say it makes them more corrupt.
Notable also is how Dan demands again that one jumps through hoops in order to comment on his links. He again proves my point with regard to how highly he regards his "experts". As I said, I'm not good enough to read the studies and voice my opinions about what I've read. I'm required to only respond with opposing data. But that would require that mature people find that whole argument a worthwhile endeavor. As it stands, there's nothing available that justifies taking these studies into account with regard to whether or not we move to increase the female population in the political arena. And when one considers the likes of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Kathleen Sebilius, Corrine Brown, Laura Richardson to name just some, it's difficult to take the studies as worth the time of day. I also provided a list of corrupt women politicians from my state, most of whom are Chicago politicians (which shouldn't surprise anyone).
I agree that the studies are fascinating, but they provoke more questions than they answer. For example, I've seen references to countries making great efforts to put more women as traffic cops, as they are allegedly less likely to take bribes. But are they more honest, or are they more power mad...similar to short male cops, the only cops with whom I've ever had troubles. More likely it's that fear of detection issue mentioned earlier.
I think there are a couple of issues inherent in this topic.
The first is how one looks at "studies" and what level of credibility one gives to studies. I've found that peoples acceptance of studies goes down as the danger to tightly held beliefs goes up I just saw something that talks about how virtually every prominent medical group that has studied marijuana use has concluded that it's harmful. Yet I'd be willing to bet that the "legalize weed" crowd won't give much credence to those studies. Just like certain folx rebel when actual medical evidence of certain sexual acts is brought to the table. Or in the case of the much maligned cigarette companies. I get it, it's not necessarily a partisan thing, it's just a part of the conversation. I'm also not going down the road of the amount of fraudulent studies that have gotten published.
The second is the current free for all around the concept of gender.
The first is the problem encountered in responding to "studies" put forth by Dan. Now, he's come right out and demanding that one's opinion is worthless without the support of studies to the contrary. There are two separate issues here:
1. The notion that one must be an "expert" in a given field in order to dare put forth a critique on a favored study. I cited the example of studies of lesbian parenting that relied on incredibly small sample sizes...like, a dozen subjects or thereabouts...or self-reporting or subjects not representative of the total population, etc. To put forth such studies as sacrosanct and unassailable is clearly defense of one's biases, not a defense of the questionable methodologies. Take the first example. Dan's insistence that "experts" must be respected regardless of the quality of their work...in this case, surveying just a few people in order to support a premise rather than a great many...is ludicrous. I don't need a PhD in order to see a problem with taking conclusions drawn from such weak research as above reproach. It's clear that the objections have nothing to do with the conclusions as how "experts" arrived at them. It's very similar to Dan's "opinions" on matters of Scripture for which he offers no Scriptural evidence to support holding them at all, much less putting them forth as equally valid to any other.
2. Conversely, on what basis does Dan regard these studies of his as worthy of respect? Clearly it is on the basis of the conclusions the studies claim are validated by the research. One might as well dispense with the trouble of doing the research in the first place with that attitude. Dan and his butt wart, feo, simply dig the conclusions and because they do, the research is golden.
All this clearly demonstrates that it isn't a matter of lacking contradictory studies from other "experts in their fields"...no, he'd reject them out of hand..., it's that one dares to disagree at all and to any extent. And it's ironic given his lame claim that we might disagree because of hurt feelings!!! Good gosh! That's why he won't give the floor to objections and critiques!! And criticism that threatens the premise removes from his quiver an arrow for defense of his position. Attack the criticism by attacking the one criticizing as unqualified and no need exists for a true defense.
Dan has an agenda, and he relies on "experts" that confirm his biases...never mind the quality of the "expert" or their work. Because they have a degree of some kind and you don't, their word is sacrosanct and yours is crap. A very convenient way to stifle dissent.
I pointed out reasons to take all of the studies he cited with a grain of salt and he didn’t have anything to respond. In one case, he’s blatantly misrepresented the summary of the study, but he’ll likely not be concerned by that niggling little triviality.
Uh oh! You said "niggling". Clearly you're a brutalizing racist. Ya think ya know a guy!
It’s interesting that a commenter at Dan’s just made the claim that there is a “male bio chemistry”.
It’s good to see people being adamant about the presence of “male bio chemistry”.
I believe "biochemistry" is one word. This may refer to biochemistry specific to males, which, without having gone over there yet to read what was posted doesn't necessarily sound like they typical leftist babbling. Biochemistry has to do with chemical processes within the body, and I wouldn't doubt that there are differences in such between the genders. There would have to be, I would think. The question then would be what this particular commentator meant by the term.
Now I'm going to go over there and see for myself.
Despite my typo. The point is that if there is specific biochemistry that is “male”, then that would seem to undercut the entire “gender fluidity” position that seems so prevalent.
Indeed. Either it's inate or it isn't.
The only thing that is truly fluid is the leftist narrative about human sexuality. It's whatever they need it to be at any given moment.
One thing to consider, if you’re down with the naturalistic, Darwinistic, scientism that pervades certain parts of society. If in most of the animal kingdom the mother is the more protective and prone to violence to protect her offspring, why are human women different in their capacities? Also, what’s wrong with our society that we’ve managed to turn off that protective mechanism in our women?
It still exists, but it certainly seems stifled. The most absurd aspect of this particular debate (and isn't it always absurd when it's a premise put forth by the left?), is how the diaper-wetting is so immediate at the mere suggestion of commonly known and understood understandings of the difference between the two genders...both physically as well as psychologically. The troll wants to pretend that acknowledgement amounts to some misogynistic trait of which I am unaware and can't see in myself. But then, he's always woefully moronic in his psycho-analyses.
When pointing out fact is "oppressive", we've got a real problem in our culture.
Post a Comment