Sexual objectification

[dagobaking]

29 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

To be fair here, I'm sure you never see these harems banding together to defend any of those smaller males, though they do sometimes watch with a lot of interest. (Often they seem completely disinterested, as well. I believe I saw a lioness interfere in a fight like this, briefly, a single time, but I had the impression it was more like "stop that, someone's getting seriously hurt," and then she went back to her business. The smaller male left. Of course, lionesses are by nature highly aggressive.) On top of that, they could easily choose to leave with the defeated males, but I have yet to see that happen.

I think they stay in a territory because it's not easy to leave and find new sources of water and prey. The defeated males sometimes die when they leave.

29 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Sometimes your choice is made for you because you chose to allow it to happen. The interesting question remains: how often does this happen because it was the better choice? Are we going to condemn those cases?

I don't think that lions have a language that could facilitate a group rebellion to save a specific small male because one of them likes him.

 

Better for who? The winning male probably sees it as better. But, if given a choice, maybe the females would cause a different outcome that they prefer.

[dagobaking]

2 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Oh, please do explain to me how you're going to measure this data using your totally scientific "let's just ask people" method. I'll even be so kind as to give you an example: In your "study," subject 12 says "I was SOOO aroused." Subject 15 says "I was TOTALLY aroused." Which person was more aroused? Alternatively: Which one was lying?

lol

 

I already covered that.

 

But, lets go over again.

 

If your brain-scan study says that a woman scored very low arousal. But, when asked, they say that they were hornier than they ever felt in their life. Do you seriously think that its scientific or even logical to conclude that they just don't know that they aren't aroused RATHER than concluding that there could be some other effect that is not being captured by the measurement?

 

[Corsayr]

1 hour ago, 2dk2c said:

I never get stuff on these forums, is this a heated "Significant Discussion" or a slow day

on the Ponderosa?

I'd go with "a slow day at the Ponderosa" being the most likely here.  

[SexDwarf2250]

24 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

lol

 

I already covered that.

 

But, lets go over again.

 

If your brain-scan study says that a woman scored very low arousal. But, when asked, they say that they were hornier than they ever felt in their life. Do you seriously think that its scientific or even logical to conclude that they just don't know that they aren't aroused RATHER than concluding that there could be some other effect that is not being captured by the measurement?

 

I wouldn't want to answer that question, either. But yes, it is entirely logical to conclude that at that moment these women were not fully in touch with the different aspects of their arousal, and that arousal in women happens in different ways than men. This is demonstrated in other areas too, such as rape orgasm and the resulting body betrayal issues those women's psychologists have to deal with. (Specifically the internal conflicts that arise out of their confusion of why their body could be aroused to the point of orgasms when their mental state was completely unaware of any arousal.)

 

I guess you're going to tell me that these women must be lying about their orgasms? "Obviously they said they weren't aroused, so clearly they're lying about orgasming." If it's any consolation, apparently they're as confused as you are.

 

Additionally, you're completely ignoring the subconscious versus the conscious. People aren't even consciously aware of all of their mental processes, let alone the phsyical, and thus it would be impossible for them to give you accurate answers, even if they wanted to. That being said, they did ask these people questions, like you say we should. That's just not all they did, which is the very reason why we know there is a discrepancy not just within one gender's systems of arousal, but from one gender to the other.

 

The scientific conclusion to draw from your question is: (as was the topic of the earlier discussion): arousal in men and arousal in women is fundamentally different - in part because this phenomenon seems to only occur with women. Men's arousal and their awareness of their various systems of arousal is strictly in sync from study to study. When men honestly say "I am/am not aroused" their various systems of arousal all mirror their statement. This is not the case with women.

[Corsayr]

10 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

such as rape orgasm and the resulting body betrayal issues those women's psychologists have to deal with.

Those poor psychologist

 

There are no serious scientists that will tell you we can deduce what someone is feeling by scanning their brain. Your assertions on brain scanned evidence of arousal is pure speculation. 

 

 

[SexDwarf2250]

13 minutes ago, Corsayr said:

Those poor psychologist

 

There are no serious scientists that will tell you we can deduce what someone is feeling by scanning their brain. Your assertions on brain scanned evidence of arousal is pure speculation. 

First of all, you may be mis-informed. But more importantly, many of the tests measured physical indicators of arousal, such as blood flow being directed to the genital areas, something we are not necessarily conscious of. I'm pretty sure I never said they did all this just by scanning brains, but we definitely understand the unique neural patterns behind arousal, to the point that even the dead could get off. Your assertion that all this is "pure speculation" is a little harder to explain.

[dagobaking]

11 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

You could answer my question first, you know.

I did. I pointed out that information from a human being about their experience can indicate whether or not a physical measurement during their experience is even relevant.

 

How do you record that? Pencil. Computer. Audio recorder...

11 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

 

And yes, it is entirely logical to conclude that at that moment these women were not fully in touch with the different aspects of their arousal, and that arousal in women happens in different ways than men.

That's like saying that because women can't have a boner they can't be as aroused as men.

11 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Additionally, you're completely ignoring the subconscious versus the conscious. People aren't even consciously aware of all of their mental processes, let alone the phsyical, and thus it would be impossible for them to give you accurate answers, even if they wanted to.

And brain-scans are a layer further removed! A person can tell you what they are consciously aware of experiencing. A brain-scan merely tells you what another person thinks might indicate an experience.

11 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

That being said, they did ask these people questions, like you say we should.

So they are ridiculous fools like me that waste their time with things that can't be measured?

11 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

The scientific conclusion to draw from your question is: (as was the topic of the earlier discussion): arousal in men and arousal in women is fundamentally different - because this phenomenon seems to only occur with women. Men's arousal and their awareness of their various systems of arousal is strictly in sync from study to study. When men honestly say "I am/am not aroused" their various systems of arousal all mirror their statement. This is not the case with women.

I never argued that they are the same.

 

Your statement that I quoted suggested that women are not turned on by seeing attractive men. I just pointed out that you shouldn't be surprised when women respond to that by saying, "hm. hasn't been my experience!"

 

The idea that brain-scans show that they just don't know that they aren't aroused by seeing these men is frankly a ridiculous side-track. Yeah. Ok. They aren't aroused by measurement in some limited way. But, ARE aroused by the measurement of whether or not they want to take steps to have sex with a person. I think the measurement I'm going by there is the more relevant one.

[dagobaking]

11 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

But more importantly, many of the tests measured physical indicators of arousal, such as blood flow being directed to the genital areas, something we are not necessarily conscious of.

You don't see any issue with this measurement considering that one gender has an organ that gets filled up with way more blood than the other?

[GrimReaper]

1 hour ago, Jazzman said:

No. that's just wrong. Laying famines aside, the hunter provided only food for his family, not for his clan (that's the striking difference b/t an egalitarian and a communist society). His share (!) in the collective hunt was equal to that of all other hunters in the clan. The food surplus of the single is to be understood as the visible proof of being capable of feeding a partner and the offspring. And it took no village or cave as a whole to raise a child. In absence of males on the hunt whose responsibility might it have been, hmm? That of the mothers. The initiation rites for boys took place first after puberty, not before. Until then future hunters served as gatherers like their mothers, the old folk and crippled relatives...

 

The age and gender distribution of bones found in hunter-gatherer caves shows only few women, kids and old folks, more adult males but almost always a striking peak for young males around the age of 18. That must have been their first or second season as hunters and warriors (in raids and feuds). In Vietnam the average age of the combat soldier was nineteen... some things don't change.

 

And I subscribe to your point of view that civilizing progress has as a great many downsides we just tend to place under a taboo.

Pretty sure that the nuclear family isn't a pre-historic concept. Monogamy isn't, either. Probably because it's easy enough to form an identity with a tribe of maybe a few dozen people give or take than it is with a couple of hundred or thousand people forming a bigger community. Technological advances have always brought some problems with them and it isn't really that far fetched to say that many early civilizations probably struggled with the surplus of people after the agricultural revolution. Especially considering that crime and corruption in general are parasitic behaviours that need a moderately healthy host to survive. A thief in a group of 12 has a much harder time doing his thing than in a group of 1000, for obvious reasons.

[GrimReaper]

12 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

You don't see any issue with this measurement considering that one gender has an organ that gets filled up with way more blood than the other?

It's not the amount of blood that's measured. Which would be pretty inaccurate anyway.

[dagobaking]

3 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

It's not the amount of blood that's measured. Which would be pretty inaccurate anyway.

It doesn't matter if its not the amount. Its an entirely different organ that needs blood to function in different ways. Every aspect of how the body transports blood there during arousal would be effected.

[SexDwarf2250]

26 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

I did. I pointed out that information from a human being about their experience can indicate whether or not a physical measurement during their experience is even relevant.

 

How do you record that? Pencil. Computer. Audio recorder...

But I didn't ask how you would record it, I asked how you would measure it, so we can establish any kind of meaningful comparison.

 

26 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

That's like saying that because women can't have a boner they can't be as aroused as men.

 

It's more like saying that women and men are different not only on the outside, but, unsurprisingly, on the inside as well.

 

26 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

And brain-scans are a layer further removed! A person can tell you what they are consciously aware of experiencing. A brain-scan merely tells you what another person thinks might indicate an experience.

 

Actually, brain scans can measure activity in areas that are responsible for emotions, regardless of whether those areas are connected to the conscious part of the mind or not.

 

26 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

So they are ridiculous fools like me that waste their time with things that can't be measured?

 

No, they are finding out to what degree people's surface mental processes reflect the physical arousal their body is experiencing.

 

26 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Your statement that I quoted suggested that women are not turned on by seeing attractive men. I just pointed out that you shouldn't be surprised when women respond to that by saying, "hm. hasn't been my experience!"

I'm not surprised by that, my response is that anecdotal evidence can only compare your experiences to your own experiences. It is possible for me to, more or less, accurately say "I feel like I am mentally more aroused now than I was 20 minutes ago."

 

However, in order to see how much arousal impact a movie has on two different people you need to establish a scale. Only then can you say (to make up a random example) "it appears this movie caused 10% increase in pupil dilation of person  A, 20% less in person B and 90% more in person C." Without this, people will be unaware of lesser changes, and in a few cases, females may even be unable to report greater changes.

 

24 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

You don't see any issue with this measurement considering that one gender has an organ that gets filled up with way more blood than the other?

Every issue may be complex and need consideration. However, both male and females experience greater blood flow to the genitals and engorgement during arousal and so it can be adjusted for and measured.

[Corsayr]

23 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

you may be mis-informed.

They used ACTORS gave them an emotion to mimic, and told them to bring themselves to that emotion, then measured that. 

 

Cool study bro

 

23 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

understand

From section 2 of this study. Labeled "Analysis of Quality" 

 

Spoiler

2. Analysis of Quality
________________________________________

The article was published in the general science magazine 'Discover' magazine and the prevalence of simplified concepts, condensed findings and accessible language suggests thats its target readership is the general public. Although it lacks the technical detail and subject expertise of a journal article, it does accomplish in providing a context and conveying many nuanced neuroscience concepts in understandable terms without over simplifying them. This allows a non-proffesional reader to engage in the article without having to have any prior knowledge. The title 'Where does sex live in the brain? From top to bottom' is perhaps a slight sensationalism (there is nothing in the article that comes close to a coherent answer as to where sex 'lives' in the brain), however the body of the article is not as ambitious as the title, and tends to remain objective. Hence the neuroscientific quality of Zimmer article is very much reliant on the merit of the studies which he refers to. The studies he refers to are all well substantiated and reputable, however he has selected a rather narrow range of studies and failed to include a large body of work in his article. This is failure of acknowledgment is perhaps due to practical constraints (i.e. not having enough time or space to adequately summarise the entire body of neuroscientific inquiry into sex and sexual desire).

 

The author does not present any information as his own but instead tends to simply relay the findings from published neuroscientific studies. As with many emerging fields within neuroscience there is much uncertainity and the author does well not purvey a false sense of absolutism or certainty, instead he hedges his language with caution (e.g. 'may indicate', 'perhaps means', 'suspects that') and is careful to disclaim any data or conclusions as conclusive (e.g. 'we still have a lot to learn about sex', 'many details of how it unfolds still quite obscure'). Furthermore, the eclectic structure of Zimmer's article does well to emphasise that the research on this topic is coming from different perspectives and from different labs, and that perhaps contrary to public belief scientific progress is a rather steady and fragmented process. Zimmer fails to draw any 'unified' conclusions about 'where sex is in the brain', however perhaps this incoherence is ultimately a reflection on the state of the neuroscience in relation to sexual desire, rather than on the quality of his authorship.
 

 

 

23 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

even the dead could get off.

This is about orgasm. It is simply not in the scope of the discussion. Arousal is not orgasm. 

 

 

Do you even read any of this before you linkit?

[SexDwarf2250]

2 minutes ago, Corsayr said:

They used ACTORS gave them an emotion to mimic, and told them to bring themselves to that emotion, then measured that. 

 

Cool study bro

 

From section 2 of this study. Labeled "Analysis of Quality" 

 

This is about orgasm. It is simply not in the scope of the discussion. Arousal is not orgasm. 

 

Do you even read any of this before you linkit?

 

Are you saying actors are incapable of human feelings?

 

And you're going to interpret a generic disclaimer as confession to lies? "Cool story bro."

"Although it lacks the technical detail and subject expertise of a journal article, it does accomplish in providing a context and conveying many nuanced neuroscience concepts in understandable terms without over simplifying them."

Apparently it didn't simplify enough.

 

Next you're going to tell us that orgasm is not related to arousal? Do you even think before you post?

[Corsayr]

5 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Next you're going to tell us that orgasm is not related to arousal? Do you even think before you post?

Actually, you said orgasm isn't related to arousal in you rape scenario rant earlier. I have said no such of a thing. Measuring orgasm is a lot easier than arousal because orgasm is a physiological response, not a neurological one. They are different so you can't use a study based on the physiological event to extrapolate the ability to use the same measurements on a neurological event. 

 

6 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Are you saying actors are incapable of human feelings?

The study had them simulate that emotion. You'd have to be a very good actor to do that in such a way as to accurately trigger the same neuro-pathways that the genuine emotion does. Most actors use rehearsed tools to simulate emotions, not the actual emotions.

 

8 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

"Although it lacks the technical detail and subject expertise of a journal article, it does accomplish in providing a context and conveying many nuanced neuroscience concepts in understandable terms without over simplifying them."

Apparently it didn't simplify enough.

Section 2 of that article is the 3rd party review of the content of the article. The most damning part is 

 

"however perhaps this incoherence is ultimately a reflection on the state of the neuroscience in relation to sexual desire"

 

The expert that reviewed the paper is saying that neuroscience is not capable of coherently measuring sexual desire, and I agree with that assessment. 

 

 

[dagobaking]

24 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

But I didn't ask how you would record it, I asked how you would measure it, so we can establish any kind of meaningful comparison.

Not all interview intake needs to be used for comparisons. But, if that is needed, there are techniques for that (conforming answers to scales, etc.). Probably the same techniques used by the study you've brought up.

24 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

It's more like saying that women and men are different not only on the outside, but, unsurprisingly, on the inside as well.

I don't disagree with that. But, then it raises the obvious question: If arousal is that different between genders, how would you ever know that any measurement escapes translation problems between two different systems?

 

You're basically saying that men and women are apples and oranges when it comes to arousal. Except when it comes time to measure arousal. Then you can just use the same test for each.

24 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

No, they are finding out to what degree people's surface mental processes reflect the physical arousal their body is experiencing.

My goodness. How did they measure that?!

24 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

I'm not surprised by that, my response is that anecdotal evidence can only compare your experiences to your own experiences. It is possible for me to, more or less, accurately say "I feel like I am mentally more aroused now than I was 20 minutes ago."

People have been sent to the electric chair based on witness testimony.

 

It can be a lot more substantial than you suggest. I can either pay attention to many years of life hearing women express arousal to visual cues. Or, I can extrapolate from wikipedia that all of those women were just delusional.

24 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Every issue may be complex and need consideration. However, both male and females experience greater blood flow to the genitals and engorgement during arousal and so it can be adjusted for and measured.

This is a simplistic comparison. Blood flow may be less consequential to feeling aroused for one gender. It's incredibly complicated. For example, the blood flow by itself causes a boner which exposes more skin area to touching, even in your own pants. So, its kind of an amplifier effect. Women don't have the same thing. They may have other factors that men can't understand or feel.

10 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

"Although it lacks the technical detail and subject expertise of a journal article, it does accomplish in providing a context and conveying many nuanced neuroscience concepts in understandable terms without over simplifying them."

Apparently it didn't simplify enough.

I don't know. Seems like those highlighted words are saying nearly exactly what I've been arguing in my last 5 posts. That studies like those should not be interpreted as demonstrating any kind of rule.

[SexDwarf2250]

12 minutes ago, Corsayr said:

Actually, you said orgasm isn't related to arousal in you rape scenario rant earlier. 

No, orgasm wasn't related to those women's mental awareness of their arousal. In no way does that imply orgasm is unrelated to arousal. 

 

12 minutes ago, Corsayr said:

Most actors use rehearsed tools to simulate emotions, not the actual emotions.

And you're going to define the difference between emotions from simulated memories as opposed to emotions from "actual" events for me, yes?

 

12 minutes ago, Corsayr said:

The expert that reviewed the paper is saying that neuroscience is not capable of coherently measuring sexual desire, and I agree with that assessment. 

Actually, all it states is basically that the question in the title "'Where does sex live in the brain?" is an oversimplification and there are still many questions to answer. Nowhere does it claim anything he says is incorrect. In fact, it confirms that "the studies he refers to are all well substantiated and reputable."

[dagobaking]

4 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Actually, all it states is basically that the question in the title "'Where does sex live in the brain?" is an oversimplification and there are still many questions to answer. Nowhere does it claim anything he says is incorrect. In fact, it confirms that "the studies he refers to are all well substantiated and reputable."

The point they make is that what is being claimed is extremely limited in nature toward understanding the subject.

 

As I pointed out before, trends and evidence are not a rule.

[Corsayr]

7 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

No, orgasm wasn't related to those women's mental awareness of their arousal. In no way does that imply orgasm is unrelated to arousal. 

 

And you're going to define the difference between emotions from simulated memories as opposed to emotions from "actual" events for me, yes?

 

Actually, all it states is basically that the question in the title "'Where does sex live in the brain?" is an oversimplification and there are still many questions to answer. Nowhere does it claim anything he says is incorrect. In fact, it confirms that "the studies he refers to are all well substantiated and reputable."

Obviously, you are not even paying attention to anything being said, and seem to only want to argue for the sake argument. So I am ending this now before the mods need to step in.

 

Have a great day. 

[SexDwarf2250]

4 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Not all interview intake needs to be used for comparisons. But, if that is needed, there are techniques for that (conforming answers to scales, etc.). Probably the same techniques used by the study you've brought up.

So you are saying that you would ask them "on a scale of 1 to 10, how wet is your vagina right now?"

 

5 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

You're basically saying that men and women are apples and oranges when it comes to arousal. Except when it comes time to measure arousal. Then you can just use the same test for each.

Would you say that long distance runners and jet engines are apples and oranges when it comes to how they generate speed and how much they generate? Does that imply we need two types of speed to measure?

 

12 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

It can be a lot more substantial than you suggest. I can either pay attention to many years of life hearing women express arousal to visual cues. Or, I can extrapolate from wikipedia that all of those women were just delusional.

So let me get this straight. Women say stuff after they see stuff. And you think this happens based on how aroused seeing it makes them?

 

15 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

It's incredibly complicated. For example, the blood flow by itself causes a boner which exposes more skin area to touching, even in your own pants.

This will probably be my favorite comment of the evening. 

 

10 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

My goodness. How did they measure that?!

Step 1: Do the pupils dilate, and does blood flow to the genitals increase? Step 2: Did they say it turned them on? Step 3: Does what they say match with their body's reaction?

 

11 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

People have been sent to the electric chair based on witness testimony.

Yes, and science has exonerated the innocent.

[dagobaking]

2 hours ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

So you are saying that you would ask them "on a scale of 1 to 10, how wet is your vagina right now?"

If I were conducting the study, I would take some time to evaluate the circumstances and goals and develop an appropriate intake strategy.

 

I suggest googling the subject if you are genuinely interested in learning more about how its done.

2 hours ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

 

Would you say that long distance runners and jet engines are apples and oranges when it comes to how they generate speed and how much they generate? Does that imply we need two types of speed to measure?

A more apt analogy would be you trying to predict the exact speed of both parties based only on their proximity to the equator.

2 hours ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

 

So let me get this straight. Women say stuff after they see stuff. And you think this happens based on how aroused seeing it makes them?

Yes. I think that women speaking for themselves repeatedly over years can be taken at face value. I don't think there is a conspiracy theory among women to pretend about this.

2 hours ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

 

This will probably be my favorite comment of the evening. 

Sometimes the most obvious things elude people.

2 hours ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

 

Step 1: Do the pupils dilate, and does blood flow to the genitals increase? Step 2: Did they say it turned them on? Step 3: Does what they say match with their body's reaction?

lol

 

You're still not going to acknowledge that your previous heckle applies exactly the same to this approach?

 

"What if they say it TOTALLY turns them on?" What does that mean?!

2 hours ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Yes, and science has exonerated the innocent.

Which is completely irrelevant to the point that society and even the scientist conducting the study that you cited agree that the meaning of these studies are very limited and should include interviewing participants.

[SexDwarf2250]

56 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Yes. I think that women speaking for themselves repeatedly over years can be taken at face value. I don't think there is a conspiracy theory among women to pretend about this.

You're essentially suggesting that the best way to study, for example, heart rates and blood pressure could be "let's talk to people while they're doing sports."

I wonder why modern doctors haven't learned this wisdom? Instead of looking at patients, examining them and taking x-rays, they could just ask them what sort of virus or bacteria they think they've contracted. It would be a healthcare revolution! Everything can happen by phone, even by email.

56 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Which is completely irrelevant to the point that society and even the scientist conducting the study that you cited agree that the meaning of these studies are very limited and should include interviewing participants.

They are measuring indicators that people aren't even consciously aware of all the time, so for a large part, asking them would be not only a waste of time but counter-productive. However, they did ask them where they saw it would be relevant or of interest, which is probably very limited for reasons that should be obvious. The disclaimer you are talking about is not one of the studies I cited to support my point, but rather it was a non-published opinion piece referencing an article explaining some of the basics underlying the connection between the brain and arousal.

56 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

A more apt analogy would be you trying to predict the exact speed of both parties based only on their proximity to the equator.

I don't think so. By the way, you are aware that speed is based entirely on proximity over time, or?

56 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Sometimes the most obvious things elude people.

Yes, sometimes it's a lot more, too.

56 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

You're still not going to acknowledge that your previous heckle applies exactly the same to this approach?

 

"What if they say it TOTALLY turns them on?" What does that mean?!

Sigh. No, the heckle applies to the idea that you can accurately measure biometrics people aren't even necessarily aware of by just asking them how they feel about it. You're the oracle who thinks we can solve calculus problems by polling washerwomen, why don't you tell me exactly what it means? And if a second says the same thing, do you even know if it means the same thing? The value of self-reporting isn't always nothing, but even when it's not, in many instances it is pretty darn close if you want meaningful results.

56 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Which is completely irrelevant to the point that society and even the scientist conducting the study that you cited agree that the meaning of these studies are very limited and should include interviewing participants.

Science is not the justice system, in the first place, and what people say about their body - even totally honest people - does not determine how biology works. Also, the scientists that conducted the studies I cited said no such thing. Please read the materials more carefully. I cited 4 studies. Afterwards, I linked an unrelated review of an article that described some of the basics of sexuality and the brain to help familiarize people with the concepts. The reviewers of the article made a cautious disclaimer about the article, while stating that the studies it cited were sound. None of this was directly related to the studies or the scientists who conducted the previous studies that I cited in making my original points.

[dagobaking]

2 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

You're essentially suggesting that the best way to study, for example, how the heart pumps blood could be "let's talk to people while they're doing sports."

No. Apples and oranges. The best way to study something depends on what the something is.

 

Arousal is something that someone has some conscious awareness of and their experience can be described.

2 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

They are measuring indicators that people aren't even consciously aware of all the time, so for a large part, asking them would be not only a waste of time but counter-productive.

Which is your personal opinion. Not a scientific standard.

2 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

The disclaimer you are talking about is not in reference to any of the studies I cited to support the original point, but rather a paper explaining some of the basics underlying the connection between the brain and arousal.

Right. In other words, making a point about the usefulness of studies on the subject. That they reveal limited understanding about it.

2 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

You are aware that speed is based entirely on proximity over time, or?

lol

 

You are aware that proximity to the equator would be of no mathematical help toward knowing speed without also knowing direction, or?

2 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Sigh. No, the heckle applies to the idea that you can accurately measure biometrics people aren't even necessarily aware of by just asking them how they feel about it. You're the oracle who thinks we can solve calculus problems by polling washerwomen, why don't you tell me exactly what it means?

Do I really need to quote what the heckle was?

2 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Science is not the justice system, in the first place, and what people say about their body - even totally honest people - does not determine how biology works.

The point is that witness testimony is held as valuable in both the justice system AND in science regarding many subjects.

 

That is not to say that other data cant also be insightful, valuable and even contradictory to witness testimony.

 

You are the only one who is determined to exclude an obviously relevant part of the data, for the convenience of the argument you started with.

[SexDwarf2250]

26 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Arousal is something that someone has some conscious awareness of and their experience can be described.

Science disagrees. I can even refute it in your sleep: How do you explain waking up with a boner and no conscious awareness of having been aroused?

 

26 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Right. In other words, making a point about the usefulness of studies on the subject. That they reveal limited understanding about it.

It was an opinion about an article, and I linked it for familiarization with the topic. The studies I cited on the other hand are conducted by scientists who backed it with research to support them. 

 

26 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

You are aware that proximity to the equator would be of no mathematical help toward knowing speed without also knowing direction, or?

You are aware that you said "their proximity to the equator and nothing else?" I don't need their proximity to anything else. Maybe grammar more carefully?

 

26 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

The point is that witness testimony is held as valuable in both the justice system AND in science regarding many subjects.

Do you actually think the legal system gives value to anything in science?

[dagobaking]

50 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Science disagrees. I can even refute it in your sleep: How do you explain waking up with a boner and no conscious awareness of having been aroused?

lol. what?

 

I can assure you that I am consciously aware of having been aroused when I wake up with a boner.

Quote

It was an opinion about an article, and I linked it for familiarization with the topic. The studies I cited on the other hand are conducted by scientists who backed it with research to support them. 

They back their research for its limited scope. You are expanding the meaning of it beyond that.

Quote

You are aware that you said "their proximity to the equator and nothing else?" I don't need their proximity to anything else. Maybe grammar more carefully?

Eh. I think you need to go to bed man.

 

You DO need something else to calculate speed. Proximity to the equator over time would not account for the relative direction the runner or airplane is going. Otherwise, an airplane would read as going slower than a jogger if it were flying parallel to the equator and the runner perpendicular.

Quote

Do you actually think the legal system gives value to anything in science?

Did you not just write above that "science has exonerated the innocent"?

 

It's been fun. But, get some rest!