Philosophy Now Forum

Real men only think with their penises, so I guess women do think differently.

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote: I wonder that someone hasn't asked it before?

I'm sure there are tells in the choices we make, for example, were we to examine the purchases made for the last month or two... but in writing, in expressing ideas?

Last week, I heard that how the GCSE examination system changed the way it undertook marking. It attributed examinees with numbers, which is what is written on papers, instead of names, to identify those taking the exam. Examiners could not identify gender. Its been noticed that girls have consistently performed better since the change. Who'd have thought that?

Evidence?

It was said by an assistant head, at my son's school, at an official meeting. I think if you look back at my original post, it said, "Last week, I heard..." I think the fact it was said by someone with hands on experience, going back some twenty years, at a school of some repute, is enough for me, to get me wondering. I'm afraid I didn't ask for the assistant head's sources and to reiterate: I never stated it as a fact. If you're that interested, go find out for yourself.

As a matter of fact studies found the exact opposite i.e. NO evidence of bias. See what happens when you let your own bias cloud your thinking? And please, you most definitely did make it sound like a factual statement. You didn't even bother to look into it for yourself. I wonder if they teach critical think at that 'school of some repute'.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: [/b]
Evidence?

It was said by an assistant head, at my son's school, at an official meeting. I think if you look back at my original post, it said, "Last week, I heard..." I think the fact it was said by someone with hands on experience, going back some twenty years, at a school of some repute, is enough for me, to get me wondering. I'm afraid I didn't ask for the assistant head's sources and to reiterate: I never stated it as a fact. If you're that interested, go find out for yourself.

As a matter of fact studies found the exact opposite i.e. NO evidence of bias. See what happens when you let your own bias cloud your thinking? And please, you most definitely did make it sound like a factual statement. You didn't even bother to look into it for yourself. I wonder if they teach critical think at that 'school of some repute'.

As I said, and anyone with half a brain could see: I was just pondering over what was said by an experienced source. You're the one pontificating without providing any factual source whatsoever. Strikes me you just seem to want to pick a fight, without backing up what you say.

Whilst it would be interesting to see how you back up what you have provided as fact, I don't really care to hear what you have to say, if all that motivates you is your pugnaciousness. It's not enlightened. It obstructs thinking. It doesn't actually move anything forward.

So, if you fancy backing up your 'stated research', be my guest. Otherwise, f@ck off and let the rest of us engage in thinking without needing to suffer you appearing to use it as an excuse for personal attack.

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote: It was said by an assistant head, at my son's school, at an official meeting. I think if you look back at my original post, it said, "Last week, I heard..." I think the fact it was said by someone with hands on experience, going back some twenty years, at a school of some repute, is enough for me, to get me wondering. I'm afraid I didn't ask for the assistant head's sources and to reiterate: I never stated it as a fact. If you're that interested, go find out for yourself.

As a matter of fact studies found the exact opposite i.e. NO evidence of bias. See what happens when you let your own bias cloud your thinking? And please, you most definitely did make it sound like a factual statement. You didn't even bother to look into it for yourself. I wonder if they teach critical think at that 'school of some repute'.

As I said, and anyone with half a brain could see: I was just pondering over what was said by an experienced source. You're the one pontificating without providing any factual source whatsoever. Strikes me you just seem to want to pick a fight, without backing up what you say.

Whilst it would be interesting to see how you back up what you have provided as fact, I don't really care to hear what you have to say, if all that motivates you is your pugnaciousness. It's not enlightened. It obstructs thinking. It doesn't actually move anything forward.

So, if you fancy backing up your 'stated research', be my guest. Otherwise, f@ck off and let the rest of us engage in thinking without needing to suffer you appearing to use it as an excuse for personal attack.

It's just not acceptable, and often downright dangerous, to believe without question, simply because someone might be in a position of authority, or 'reputable'. You had no doubt at all that this person was correct. It didn't occur to you to question it.
''Sounds, at least at first glance, like pretty damning evidence for some sort of discrimination on the part of examiners. ''
See what I mean? This is exactly why critical thinking should be taught from the earliest age. It never will of course. Religion would die out. People would refuse to go to war..... All kinds of terrible things can happen when people start thinking.

ken wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:I think therefore I am... but am I a man or a woman?

The 'I' is not gendered.

ForCruxSake wrote:Clearly, I know what I am... but I'm left wondering what gender others have attributed to me?

You meant to say, I think I know what I am... unless of course you are already able to answer the question, Who am I?

I think it may have been clearer if I had said, "Clearly I know what sex AND gender I am." There being a difference. (One cannot argue with the sex they are born into, though gender might present a problem. A boy might feel himself to identify with girls,or vice versa, and an individual later choose to change sex.)

ken wrote:If you clearly already know what you are, then what are 'you' exactly? And, what is the thing exactly that makes you that?

Philosophy stew... Fills you, warms you, you just have to concoct it first!

ken wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:Many have addressed me as a man. Looking back at what I have written, I don't think I've been gender specific. Is it in the way I express myself? What I choose to talk about? What is it about me that makes me a man in the way I express myself to you?

There is nothing in the way you express that makes you a "man".

It is not what, or how, you express but rather what others place on what, and how, you express. People's previous experiences will influence how they choose to look at what is written. Generally people will not look from the truly open Mind at what is expressed, but rather they look only from preconceptions.

Good to know. People have presupposed that I'm a man and, even when I've brought up the fact I might not be, one of them has justified the thinking by suggesting that the likelihood on such a forum, where there is a prevalence of men, suggests, in the absence of its being stated, that I must be a man. This means little, if I'm not actually a man. No one even thought to clarify if I was, or not. A child would just ask. Adults just seem to know, when they don't actually know... and few ask. Things are just taken for granted. The onus is on me to correct it, if they address me incorrectly.

ken wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:Is there a gender specific way of expressing oneself?

No, unless of course it is obviously stipulated.

By whom? How? Why? Can you provide an example of what you mean?

ken wrote:Something else to ponder over, besides the physical sexual organs on the human body what other clearly defined thing makes a man a man and a woman a woman?

Learned habits? Watching how grown ups behave in a gender specific way, as a child, and seeking to emulate them? Watching how grown ups treat genders themselves? By two, children have learned to differentiate between the sexes. I'm assuming the rest is learned, too.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:''Sounds, at least at first glance, like pretty damning evidence for some sort of discrimination on the part of examiners. ''
See what I mean? This is exactly why critical thinking should be taught from the earliest age. It never will of course. Religion would die out. People would refuse to go to war..... All kinds of terrible things can happen when people start thinking.

Why are you quoting me? I'm supposed to look up the validity of everything anyone from another country tells me about their country?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: As a matter of fact studies found the exact opposite i.e. NO evidence of bias. See what happens when you let your own bias cloud your thinking? And please, you most definitely did make it sound like a factual statement. You didn't even bother to look into it for yourself. I wonder if they teach critical think at that 'school of some repute'.

As I said, and anyone with half a brain could see: I was just pondering over what was said by an experienced source. You're the one pontificating without providing any factual source whatsoever. Strikes me you just seem to want to pick a fight, without backing up what you say.

Whilst it would be interesting to see how you back up what you have provided as fact, I don't really care to hear what you have to say, if all that motivates you is your pugnaciousness. It's not enlightened. It obstructs thinking. It doesn't actually move anything forward.

So, if you fancy backing up your 'stated research', be my guest. Otherwise, f@ck off and let the rest of us engage in thinking without needing to suffer you appearing to use it as an excuse for personal attack.

It's just not acceptable, and often downright dangerous, to believe without question, simply because someone might be in a position of authority, or 'reputable'. You had no doubt at all that this person was correct. It didn't occur to you to question it.
''Sounds, at least at first glance, like pretty damning evidence for some sort of discrimination on the part of examiners. ''
See what I mean? This is exactly why critical thinking should be taught from the earliest age. It never will of course. Religion would die out. People would refuse to go to war..... All kinds of terrible things can happen when people start thinking.

Agreed. But people come here to discourse, too, using personal experience and their own personal narratives. That's just the way it is. It gets people thinking.

I didn't have to question the teacher. She's a bloody good teacher, well respected and I've known her for three years. I have no reason to mistrust what she said on this matter. There was no personal investment in it, for her, or even the school. It was simply something she knew. Like Maths. It's part of what comes with the job for her, which is not an indisputable religion, into which she is trying to indoctrinate me, in the hope of overthrowing an evil empire! I think you 'protest too much'. My repeating what was said, as clearly stated heresay, was to open up discussion on the topic. It is not the evil you seem to imagine it to be. You are blowing this out of proportion for your own agenda.

I wish I could believe that agenda is a pure effort on your part to secure critical thinking on this forum, but you seem to spend a lot of time undermining critical thinking, by your bloody mindedness and side-swiping scraps, most of which derail discussions. You'll get the respect you deserve when you behave like you deserve it.

You've said all you have, to make a very grand point, and yet still failed to DISPROVE what I brought up in open discussion, with studies, you stated, showed the opposite. Clearly this is all about your agenda to disrupt and not what was being discussed.

This is car crash philosophy: it doesn't aid thinking, it obstructs thinking.

Unless you have something to add to the subject in the thread, go take your empty worth elsewhere.

A_Seagull wrote:Real men only think with their penises, so I guess women do think differently.

Define "real men", please.
More interestingly, could you define "unreal men", show how they differ from the genuine article, and tell us with which organ they think?
(I have a vested interest in the answer.)

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote: As I said, and anyone with half a brain could see: I was just pondering over what was said by an experienced source. You're the one pontificating without providing any factual source whatsoever. Strikes me you just seem to want to pick a fight, without backing up what you say.

Whilst it would be interesting to see how you back up what you have provided as fact, I don't really care to hear what you have to say, if all that motivates you is your pugnaciousness. It's not enlightened. It obstructs thinking. It doesn't actually move anything forward.

So, if you fancy backing up your 'stated research', be my guest. Otherwise, f@ck off and let the rest of us engage in thinking without needing to suffer you appearing to use it as an excuse for personal attack.

It's just not acceptable, and often downright dangerous, to believe without question, simply because someone might be in a position of authority, or 'reputable'. You had no doubt at all that this person was correct. It didn't occur to you to question it.
''Sounds, at least at first glance, like pretty damning evidence for some sort of discrimination on the part of examiners. ''
See what I mean? This is exactly why critical thinking should be taught from the earliest age. It never will of course. Religion would die out. People would refuse to go to war..... All kinds of terrible things can happen when people start thinking.

Agreed. But people come here to discourse, too, using personal experience and their own personal narratives. That's just the way it is. It gets people thinking.

I didn't have to question the teacher. She's a bloody good teacher, well respected and I've known her for three years. I have no reason to mistrust what she said on this matter. There was no personal investment in it, for her, or even the school. It was simply something she knew. Like Maths. It's part of what comes with the job for her, which is not an indisputable religion, into which she is trying to indoctrinate me, in the hope of overthrowing an evil empire! I think you 'protest too much'. My repeating what was said, as clearly stated heresay, was to open up discussion on the topic. It is not the evil you seem to imagine it to be. You are blowing this out of proportion for your own agenda.

I wish I could believe that agenda is a pure effort on your part to secure critical thinking on this forum, but you seem to spend a lot of time undermining critical thinking, by your bloody mindedness and side-swiping scraps, most of which derail discussions. You'll get the respect you deserve when you behave like you deserve it.

You've said all you have, to make a very grand point, and yet still failed to DISPROVE what I brought up in open discussion, with studies, you stated, showed the opposite. Clearly this is all about your agenda to disrupt and not what was being discussed.

This is car crash philosophy: it doesn't aid thinking, it obstructs thinking.

Unless you have something to add to the subject in the thread, go take your empty worth elsewhere.

You do rabbit on rather hysterically don't you. You are your typical first-two-or-three and last-two-or-three (words not sentences) poster. Your butt-hurt factor is always way out of proportion to any 'butt-hurting' that was supposedly done to you. That woman obviously didn't KNOW, because it wasn't true. How about YOU run along dear. Yet again you have made a complete ass of yourself.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:I wish I could believe that (your) agenda is a pure effort on your part to secure critical thinking on this forum, but you seem to spend a lot of time undermining critical thinking, by your bloody mindedness and side-swiping scraps, most of which derail discussions. You'll get the respect you deserve when you behave like you deserve it.

You've said all you have, to make a very grand point, and yet still failed to DISPROVE what I brought up in open discussion, with studies, you stated, showed the opposite. Clearly this is all about your agenda to disrupt and not what was being discussed.

This is car crash philosophy: it doesn't aid thinking, it obstructs thinking.

Unless you have something to add to the subject in the thread, go take your empty worth elsewhere.

You do rabbit on rather hysterically don't you. You are your typical first-two-or-three and last-two-or-three (words not sentences) poster. Your butt-hurt factor is always way out of proportion to any 'butt-hurting' that was supposedly done to you. That woman obviously didn't KNOW, because it wasn't true. How about YOU run along dear. Yet again you have made a complete ass of yourself.

And this is relevant to critical thinking or the subject under discussion, how?

This is, however, great proof... of how useless you, and your agenda, are to constructive thought!

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:I wish I could believe that (your) agenda is a pure effort on your part to secure critical thinking on this forum, but you seem to spend a lot of time undermining critical thinking, by your bloody mindedness and side-swiping scraps, most of which derail discussions. You'll get the respect you deserve when you behave like you deserve it.

You've said all you have, to make a very grand point, and yet still failed to DISPROVE what I brought up in open discussion, with studies, you stated, showed the opposite. Clearly this is all about your agenda to disrupt and not what was being discussed.

This is car crash philosophy: it doesn't aid thinking, it obstructs thinking.

Unless you have something to add to the subject in the thread, go take your empty worth elsewhere.

You do rabbit on rather hysterically don't you. You are your typical first-two-or-three and last-two-or-three (words not sentences) poster. Your butt-hurt factor is always way out of proportion to any 'butt-hurting' that was supposedly done to you. That woman obviously didn't KNOW, because it wasn't true. How about YOU run along dear. Yet again you have made a complete ass of yourself.

And this is relevant to critical thinking or the subject under discussion, how?

This is, however, great proof... of how useless you, and your agenda, are to constructive thought!

Oh right. Questioning is always a bad idea. If you want to put around bullshit claims as fact then you had better have the evidence to back it up (and 'a teacher from a 'school of good repute' told me so' doesn't cut it). You are a joke.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: You do rabbit on rather hysterically don't you. You are your typical first-two-or-three and last-two-or-three (words not sentences) poster. Your butt-hurt factor is always way out of proportion to any 'butt-hurting' that was supposedly done to you. That woman obviously didn't KNOW, because it wasn't true. How about YOU run along dear. Yet again you have made a complete ass of yourself.

And this is relevant to critical thinking or the subject under discussion, how?

This is, however, great proof... of how useless you, and your agenda, are to constructive thought!

Oh right. Questioning is always a bad idea. If you want to put around bullshit claims as fact then you had better have the evidence to back it up (and 'a teacher from a 'school of good repute' told me so' doesn't cut it). You are a joke.

You call what you are doing "questioning"? That's laughable.

You turned up spoiling for a fight, picked up on an interesting thought, turned it into a statement of fact, and then started railing about how it was a statement of fact. That's not questioning. That's ranting and bullying.

You repeating, several times, how you interpreted what I said, does not change what was said, nor how it was said. You are the online equivalent of a six year old girl who jumps up and down, screaming the same thing, over and over again, at a conversations end. (Your usual go to stance.)

You have contributed little to subject of the thread and haven't even managed to support your own very 'concrete' claim:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:As a matter of fact studies found the exact opposite i.e. NO evidence of bias.

with a mere whiff of any study, preferring to have a meltdown over what I said casually. If it upsets you so much, you've said your piece, now bog off. Why stay to rant and repeat?

(I really ought to stop now. People might think I've been influenced by the way you think. I wouldn't want anyone to think I'd adopted your School of Thought, on the Olympus of Bullshit.)

Gary Childress wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:''Sounds, at least at first glance, like pretty damning evidence for some sort of discrimination on the part of examiners. ''
See what I mean? This is exactly why critical thinking should be taught from the earliest age. It never will of course. Religion would die out. People would refuse to go to war..... All kinds of terrible things can happen when people start thinking.

Why are you quoting me? I'm supposed to look up the validity of everything anyone from another country tells me about their country?

Gary, I may be overstepping the mark, but you dignify this woman's need to rant by stepping in to defend a position that doesn't really need defending.

She came to fight. Not to discuss. It's me she's after, which is apparent from her first post. It seems she decides who she does, and doesn't like, and then attempts to insert herself into threads by manufacturing a challenge. It's rare that she actually advances a subject with any kind of constructive thinking,

To quote her, "See what happens when you let your own bias cloud your thinking?". Seems to me her hatred of individuals supercedes her love of philosophy, She's better off ignored. Possibly as a general rule.

Apologies if I've overstepped a mark with you.

ForCruxSake wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:''Sounds, at least at first glance, like pretty damning evidence for some sort of discrimination on the part of examiners. ''
See what I mean? This is exactly why critical thinking should be taught from the earliest age. It never will of course. Religion would die out. People would refuse to go to war..... All kinds of terrible things can happen when people start thinking.

Why are you quoting me? I'm supposed to look up the validity of everything anyone from another country tells me about their country?

Gary, I may be overstepping the mark, but you dignify this woman's need to rant by stepping in to defend a position that doesn't really need defending.

She came to fight. Not to discuss. It's me she's after, which is apparent from her first post. It seems she decides who she does, and doesn't like, and then attempts to insert herself into threads by manufacturing a challenge. It's rare that she actually advances a subject with any kind of constructive thinking,

To quote her, "See what happens when you let your own bias cloud your thinking?". Seems to me her hatred of individuals supercedes her love of philosophy, She's better off ignored. Possibly as a general rule.

Apologies if I've overstepped a mark with you.

So... stupid AND manipulative. Anyone can go back and find who initiated negative contact. I forget which thread it was. As for this one, you did sort of ask for it. In fact, you literally asked for it, in an OP written by you, about you, asking what we think of you. I'm not 'after' anyone. I take every post on its own merits. If you write rubbish I will point it out. You come across as a conceited and overly-sensitive woman/man who seems to think that your 'orders' mean squat on here. Unless you are Rick in disguise then you actually have no power to order anyone to do anything on here. Every time someone disagrees with you ('goes after you' in your delusional state of mind) you order them to leave the forum. It's quite amusing really.

ForCruxSake wrote:
So, if you fancy backing up your 'stated research', be my guest. Otherwise, f@ck off and let the rest of us engage in thinking without needing to suffer you appearing to use it as an excuse for personal attack.

Education-line Home Page
What's in a name?
Experiments with blind marking in A level Examinations
Jo-Anne Baird
Research and Statistics Group
The Associated Examining Board
Stag Hill House
Guildford
Surrey
GU2 5XJ

jbaird@aeb.org.uk

This paper has been accepted for publication in Educational Research and is due to appear in the Winter 1998 issue (Volume 40 Number 3) © NFER, Slough, Publisher Routledge. It appears in Education-line by permission of the National Foundation for Education Research

Summary

A level results have a substantial impact upon candidates' futures and it is crucial that the results are as fair as possible. Candidates' names appear on examination scripts and some have suggested that this could produce bias in the marking. Introduction of blind marking in A level examinations would be unwieldy and costly. Two experiments on blind marking were carried out: in A level Chemistry and A level English Literature. In each study, presentation (and not the content) of 30 scripts was varied. Eight Chemistry A level examiners and sixteen English Literature A level examiners took part in the studies. Scripts were presented as blind or non-blind, with a male or female name and with 'male' or 'female' handwriting. The studies addressed the issue of possible gender bias in marking and investigated whether blind marking could overcome gender bias. It was concluded that bias was not present in the marking and therefore no support was found for the introduction of blind marking in A levels.

The full results are easy enough to find.