When is a sex offender not a sex offender?

[cabinetman]

What is it that you think is not true? Your post says that you think it's not true that people believe there is no physiological strength difference. Is that what you meant, or did you mean that it's not a lot of people that believe that there is no strength difference?

Since my statement needs to be clarified, people know there is a physiological strength difference. You could prove this out easily. Just stand on a street corner and ask passers-by what they think. My statement would infer that not a lot (your terms) of people (you could be in this group) believe there is no physiological strength difference.

I simply reported published research. The research shows that there is no INHERENT physiological strength difference.

If I thought it would be worthwhile, I would post numerous research results to show that there is INHERENT physiological strength differences.

Put another way, male infants are no stronger at birth than female infants. Differences in strength develop primarily as a result of differences in activity and environment.

We should check the research on embryonic physiological strength differences. There's probably a study on whether male fetuses can kick harder than female. You should check that out and report the findings.

This thread has shown that "a lot" of people hold views that conflict with the research. "A lot" is a vague term, which is why I chose it - I don't have hard numbers to say how many people believe that women are weaker than men. My subjective opinion is that it is "a lot", but that's just my opinion.

Yes, I agree completely that "a lot" is a vague term. Why should we be concerned with specificity.
.

[cgallery]

Sorry, I made no reference to religious beliefs, stated or implied.

Oh boy. Well, perhaps you object to the research on a non-religious moral basis. But I think that is splitting hairs as far as this site's prime directive goes. Here are your words again:

Be aware that there is something of a "political agenda" in certain corners of the scientific world, among some researchers. There are those who wish to show that behavioral aspects are not a result of environment or learning but rather "innate". If that could be shown, then a logical extension of that work could support the assertion that sexual orientation has genetic rather than environmental origins. Reaching that conclusion is of great interest to certain segments of the research community. To date, most research supports that essentially all behaviors such as orientation are learned rather than innate.

Did you read the post? Did you read the papers?

I read the abstracts. Only the first paper was applicable, and it was clearly a win in my column (showing greater strength in males over females). The other papers did not apply to the discussion at hand.

So I have to wonder, did YOU read the papers?

Seems to be your standard response to change the topic or go off on a tangent when faced with "overwhelming evidence" that conflicts with your opinions

I have no "horse to ride" in this "race", other than objective science. Reality is what it is, truth is what it is. My task as a scientist is to discern and report that truth, regardless of whether it coincides with my opinions or not. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not.

There is a reason scientists use the terms observation and theories, rather than facts and "truth".

You can't object to your perceived motivation behind the research on the one hand, and then claim that you don't have a horse in the race on the other. To do so is disingenuous at best.

[cabinetman]

I have no "horse to ride" in this "race", other than objective science. Reality is what it is, truth is what it is. My task as a scientist is to discern and report that truth, regardless of whether it coincides with my opinions or not. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not.

There is a reason scientists use the terms observation and theories, rather than facts and "truth".

I'm appreciating your objectivity in this discussion, you being a "scientist". May I take that to mean you have studied the physiological differences in medical school? Excuse my forgetfulness, I can't remember if you are a doctor or not.
.

[Alex Franke]

I heard somewhere that women have stronger muscles pound for pound (or a higher tolerance to pain while the muscles are being used), but that men have more pounds of them. I've seen absolutely no scientific evidence of this, but regardless it's what I tend to believe.

I tried to be scientific about some of the other physiological differences that I've noticed over the years, but then for some reason I started having kids, so I had to put that research on the back burner.

[cgallery]

I'm appreciating your objectivity in this discussion, you being a "scientist". May I take that to mean you have studied the physiological differences in medical school? Excuse my forgetfulness, I can't remember if you are a doctor or not.
.

Careers claimed so far by Woodturner:

(1) Professional woodcarver.
(2) Attorney
(3) Electrical Engineer
(4) Professor of some sort
(5) Scientist of some sort

am I missing any?

[woodturner]

Since my statement needs to be clarified, people know there is a physiological strength difference. You could prove this out easily.

OK, I will stipulate that you believe you could demonstrate that many people hold the opinion that men are stronger than women.

If I thought it would be worthwhile, I would post numerous research results to show that there is INHERENT physiological strength differences.

I see you could not find any research results to support that conclusion, either.

[woodturner]

Well, perhaps you object to the research on a non-religious moral basis.

You are still completely off base. As I said, some researchers have a subjective motivation to reach certain conclusions. Actually, one might argue that all researchers have such a motivation to some degree. The problem, however, arises when a researcher allows their bias to influence their objectivity.

I read the abstracts. Only the first paper was applicable

If you didn't see the relevance, that suggests you didn't understand the paper. That's one of the challenges in trying to have these kinds of discussions with those not trained in research.

You can't object to your perceived motivation behind the research on the one hand, and then claim that you don't have a horse in the race on the other. To do so is disingenuous at best.

Your misperception doesn't have anything to do with the objectivity of my motivation. You seem to be trying to make some kind of point, but it is not at all clear what it is.

[woodturner]

I'm appreciating your objectivity in this discussion, you being a "scientist". May I take that to mean you have studied the physiological differences in medical school? Excuse my forgetfulness, I can't remember if you are a doctor or not.
.

I am a Ph.D, not an M.D. An M.D. is an applied degree, not a research degree, so research into physiology is not something an M.D. would study in school.

[woodturner]

(1) Professional woodcarver.
(2) Attorney
(3) Electrical Engineer
(4) Professor of some sort
(5) Scientist of some sort

Thanks for the compliment and acknowledging my professional achievement. However, you have enhanced my qualifications just a bit. Specifically, as stated previously, I have not kept up my registration to practice law. In addition, by definition engineers are scientists - so the Electrical Engineer, Professor of EE, and research scientist are really kind of the same thing.

I forgot what your qualifications are. Care to remind us?

[cgallery]

Thanks for the compliment and acknowledging my professional achievement. However, you have enhanced my qualifications just a bit. Specifically, as stated previously, I have not kept up my registration to practice law. In addition, by definition engineers are scientists - so the Electrical Engineer, Professor of EE, and research scientist are really kind of the same thing.

I forgot what your qualifications are. Care to remind us?

Never finished college. Was working toward a a degree (economics) when I started my own business (in '88). Been doing that ever since.

So you're a professor of EE? Care to share with us the school at which you teach?

[Alex Franke]

Not this this has anything to do with sex offenders (gosh, I certainly hope not!), but I have a friend who has a EE B.S., M.S., an MBA, plus an aerospace engineering Ph.D., and a J.D. (Chicago, I think). On the side he has a business writing cool web-based software.

I'll ask him to arm wrestle my wife the next time I see him. That should settle the strength issue once and for all.

(Y'all realize that you've gone completely off topic, don't you? )

[cabinetman]

I'll ask him to arm wrestle my wife the next time I see him. That should settle the strength issue once and for all.

Alex,

All woodturner is saying is that he would likely be a dead even match for your wife.

I haven't met one yet, and don't know any, but if I came across a woman that was that superior to me physically, I'd make tracks to avoid her, and fast. They probably do exist...somewhere. Could be a faction of them in a commune somewhere in Russia. I did see a female weightlifter once that was huge, I mean extra large for a human being. Now that one has possibilities. I wondered how good she would be arm wrestling.
.

[cgallery]

(Y'all realize that you've gone completely off topic, don't you? )

I was baited.

[woodturner]

I haven't met one yet, and don't know any, but if I came across a woman that was that superior to me physically, .

For the most part, strength is a result of effort. Any woman who is willing to do more training than a similar man can become stronger.

If we are truly talking "physically", though, as a man I would argue that all or nearly all women are physically more attractive than any man.

[woodturner]

Care to share with us the school at which you teach?

Unfortunately, it's unsafe to share too much specific information on a forum. It is a top tier engineering school, a school most people would know.