Same as you. It costs $11 to read that thing and I assure you, nobody has read it (except maybe now that I said it out of spite). It looky like every other pop-psy study out there, many of which have been discredited over the years - at least the ones that people actually bothered with. It's unscientific trash designed to support broad generalizations and preconceptions. The entire field is known for making stuff up in a manner that is consistent with the cultural background and expectations of the study's authors.
The crux of the matter is that these studies are supposed to show how certain behaviors are biologically hardwired into humans, when in fact the vast spectrum of human behavior and perception is frighteningly flexible and subject to the change of cultural and personal values over time. Many people, including pop-psy researchers, have a vested interest in showing that our behavior is preprogrammed by nature. In fact, the prescription of what's natural has been used as a justification for laws and rules for many hundred years now, so it's kind of a tradition.
Any study of human behavior, especially if gender roles are concerned, needs to cite specifically the cultural context and timeframe the observations were made in. Advertising people know this. That's why they use different strategies in different countries, and it's also the main reason why advertising premises change over time.
I have no opinion about this guy one way or the other.
Even brilliant people can make mistakes, and even brilliant scientists can be victims of their own preconceptions. I'm not trying to trash his life's work, I'm having serious doubts about the premises and results of this study specifically.
As I said many times in this thread: I called the study's conclusions into question, not the author.
> The only fallacies are coming from your posts, not from the article in question... :\
After fighting you guys for the last our without one single person agreeing with me, I'm inclined to say you're right. I should probably stop posting now. It wasn't my intention to upset anyone. I'm sorry.
Don't be sorry. You haven't hurt anyone's feelings (and if you have, they were too fragile to survive long on HN). It's fine to defend your arguments and later realise you're wrong. That doesn't make you a lesser person - on the contrary, you're someone who now knows one more thing. That's good. If HN can do that more often, that's good.
While the authority may not necessarily be wrong, the appeal itself is vulnerable to being issued for fallacious reasons, namely if it is made to prevent critical reasoning about the original hypothesis. The idea that authorities are infallible is a trap. Nothing should be beyond scrutiny.
Same as you. It costs $11 to read that thing and I assure you, nobody has read it (except maybe now that I said it out of spite). It looky like every other pop-psy study out there, many of which have been discredited over the years - at least the ones that people actually bothered with. It's unscientific trash designed to support broad generalizations and preconceptions. The entire field is known for making stuff up in a manner that is consistent with the cultural background and expectations of the study's authors.
The crux of the matter is that these studies are supposed to show how certain behaviors are biologically hardwired into humans, when in fact the vast spectrum of human behavior and perception is frighteningly flexible and subject to the change of cultural and personal values over time. Many people, including pop-psy researchers, have a vested interest in showing that our behavior is preprogrammed by nature. In fact, the prescription of what's natural has been used as a justification for laws and rules for many hundred years now, so it's kind of a tradition.
Any study of human behavior, especially if gender roles are concerned, needs to cite specifically the cultural context and timeframe the observations were made in. Advertising people know this. That's why they use different strategies in different countries, and it's also the main reason why advertising premises change over time.