[rhizome]

You're demanding hard conclusions where there aren't any. However, they can be said to exhibit a tendency where the chances aren't exactly 100%. It's the difference between correlation and causation, and correlation is not "meaningless."

[irahul]

> You're demanding hard conclusions where there aren't any.

I am demanding hard conclusions, failing which I am demanding you don't make any if you aren't sure(gender difference became apparent to me that day, gender segregation works etc).

> It's the difference between correlation and causation, and correlation is not "meaningless."

I didn't claim correlation is meaningless - I just claimed you are claiming correlation, and for fuck's sake, causation, when there isn't any.

Correlation is when 2 random variables aren't probabilisticaly independent. If you can cite me correlation between gender and behavioral traits when it comes to learning, and that study isn't some crackpot theory based on how I taught a ruby workshop, I am more than willing to be corrected.

[rhizome]

If you can cite me correlation between gender and behavioral traits when it comes to learning, and that study isn't some crackpot theory based on how I taught a ruby workshop,

This is where you're dishonest: You say you're looking for hard connections, yet any evidence is subject to a value judgement on your part. Tails I lose.

[irahul]

> This is where you're dishonest: You say you're looking for hard connections, yet any evidence is subject to a value judgement on your part. Tails I lose.

I am looking for correlation, as in the sense correlation is defined, or causation. I don't think correlation or causation is open to value judgement.

[rhizome]

I'm referring to your hanging judgement whether or not any supplied information is derived from "some crackpot theory."