[ninavizz]

Evangelical Christians have these kind of argument tactics down to a science—how to convince anybody through peer-group research w/in communities of scientists intent on "proving" banalities that socialization more often overcomes—and separately, that feed more limiting stereotypes than they benifit anybody or further productive research.

I am a mechanic and a gearhead. A former motorcycle racer, with a pixie physique. An ice hockey player, and a robotics hobbiest. Your praised research has shaped society to present me and others like me with far more barriers, than it has presented to anyone, benefits with any kind.

Hence: my assertion that your evangelism of this research as anything positive. Share some Eugenics research, why not?

Social consequences from non-scientific interpretstions of scientific work, are more often than not dangerous. Leave the science to the scientists, and be a human engaged with other humans as we choose to co-exist.

[Pyxl101]

I am skeptical of your claim that sharing scientific research or interpreting science is more harmful than good. Please provide justification. I do not think that being ignorant leaves anyone better off. Scientists in general do not make social policy. Every person who votes and participates in our democracy makes social policy, to some extent - even if only city council, school board, etc. Some understanding of an issue is better than none, even if their understanding is worse than a scientist's. The right correction in these situations is more knowledge, not less. Today's college students have as much or more knowledge and understanding of their fields as expert scientists did only a few centuries ago. We have to start somewhere.

Research into sex differences has yielded real benefits. Research into differences in life expectancy, bone density, heart disease, etc., have helped a lot of people. Some issues are largely gender-specific, like breast cancer, and better understanding the nature of sex differences can yield crucial insight into treatments.

Research is also gradually gaining a scientific understanding of the cognitive differences between men and women at higher levels of behavior. See "Foetal testosterone and the child systemizing quotient" (European Journal of Endocrinology, 2006). Paraphrased:

> A growing body of evidence suggests that, on average, males spontaneously "systemize" to a greater degree than do females. "Systemizing" is a cognitive process defined by the drive to analyze or construct systems. Our study explored foetal testosterone (fT) levels as a candidate biological factor influencing sex differences in systemizing. Males (mean 27.79) tested significantly higher than females (mean 22.59) on systemizing quotient, confirming that boys systemize to a greater extent than girls. This study suggests that the levels of fT are a biological factor influencing cognitive sex differences and lends support to the empathizing–systemizing theory of sex differences.

http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2006_Auyeung_fT&...

This same research also offers insight into medical conditions. The authors discuss the application to understanding autism:

> Individuals with [autism] score higher than normal males on the [systemizing quotient], who in turn score higher than normal females. Baron-Cohen has described autism as an extreme manifestation of some sexually dimorphic traits. The extreme male brain (EMB) theory of autism is an extension of the [empathizing-systemizing] model of sex differences and proposes that individuals with ASC are impaired in empathizing and are at least average or superior in systemizing relative to their mental age.

In other words, better understanding of fetal testosterone may give us insight into the causes of autism, which hopefully will some day lead to early detection and prevention. Autism is four times more common in men than women, by the way. I could also see this research having applications to education, specifically in the type of learning material and activities that might be most effective for male and female students.

The science I'm presenting is not fringe. You'll find a good deal of it in a typical college psychology textbook. "Leave science for the scientists" is a point of view with poor respect for human intelligence. Like the majority of autistics, the majority of scientists are also men. I think women, and people in general, ought to think about these issues critically. Psychology, especially social psychology and evolutionary psychology and similar fields, lend themselves well to at least a degree of "pop" analysis and understanding. The subject of these fields is the human condition, with which we all have experience. A person off the street will not have the necessary experience with control theory to understand a paper about robotics. By comparison, one does not need a doctorate in psychology to grasp the implications of, for example, the famous Stanford Prison Experiment.

[Pyxl101]

Also, I really don't think this matters — because in my opinion ideas should stand or fall on their own merit; and anyway I am not posing new ideas or presenting results of my own, just summarizing ideas presented by others — but since you brought up the issue of "leave science for the scientists", I will mention that I am a scientist by education and a senior scientist by job title. I consequently do not feel deterred by "leave science for the scientists".

If you dabble in robotics as a hobby then you know that it's possible to gain a lot of understanding as a layperson, even in a challenging multi-disciplinary field like robotics is. Certain fields can be accessible, and in my opinion psychology is one of the most accessible. A casual reader may not have a nuanced understanding, or an idea of how to apply the result to other areas, but they will have some understanding, a mental hook for further knowledge.

Laypeople can dabble effectively in scientific analysis. For example, take a look at "Why movies look weird at 48fps, and games are better at 60fps": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8793346 . Insightful content written in a science-focused style. Author is a software engineer in the video games industry.

[ninavizz]

Research has context. Individuals as backseat-scholars, often times miss this context. Conducting and looking-to research studies for a living, I know this well.

Not a conversation I think is worth wasting time or energy on, when a beautiful day and so many other things are just bigger priorities. Macro point: efforts to qualify "normal" in specified groups w/in sociology, are dangerous. Especially for young people on the shit end of that 'normal' stick (in this case, women) the damage far outweighs any possible benefits that you or others could reap from the research.

Black people are dumber than white people, per their DNA—haven't you heard? So claimed the scientist who stole another's work to claim the Nobel (and by coincidence, a woman who'd died years previously was the OG scientist—not verified until years later): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/james-watson-profi...

Stay away from seeking to validate divisive science that normalizes bad social behavior. It benefits nobody, outside of other scientists seeking such studies as chain-links in more socially beneficial work.

Ethics matter. Live it, breathe it, or please exit the entrepreneur and/or science communities.