Isolated = “far away from the average”, “exceptional”. In both of these cases, you are downplaying the possibility of it manifesting again, or it being costantly manifested as a widespread phenomenon, as instead reports suggest. My argument [that you downplay the common denominator and the fact it is a negative widespread phenomenon] is legit without the need to consider the term ‘random’.
Secondly, one guy reporting on what his colleagues experience on one campus, or indeed even a few campuses, does not change the fact that against the vein of the entire higher education scene, these can be considered isolated incidents not indicative of the entire domain.
Except that this is false. If I weren’t preparing myself for a party and had the permission to provide useful links aside from youtube, I could actually prove that many people (in many campuses) report these experiences. I won’t leave without pointing at anything however: in the Weinstein’s video I linked above, the professor argues that the politically correct attitude is widespread in many universities. Needless to say, he is making a case in a tribunal, where lies are persecuted. While it is up for debate if ‘pc culture’ has a positive influx or not on society (Weinstein in the video is claiming that it has a negative effect on society) the fact that it is widespread is not up for grabs, or debate.
I just linked you a tribunal speech in which the speaker claims that the phenomenon is widespread. You know, maybe I’m pointing at the obvious, but in tribunals lying is a crime, henceforth his claims aren’t as likely to be false as you make them out to be. Tomorrow I can link further informations but yes, indeed, there are ongoing studies about the ‘pc culture’ and there is a consistent group of individuals which believes that the ‘pc culture’ is harming society. Jordan Peterson has become a widely known figure because of this.
You’re also asking me to provide evidence of my claims, but so far I’ve seen nothing from you.
I’ll reply quickly.
You can make the case that in countries in which women have acquired an high degree of indipendence and self-determination, still exhibit the same personality traits - and are still inclined to apply more for ‘care’ studies rather than ‘systemic’ studies.
While the study has received criticism (the idea of opposing system building vs empathy is controversial) such a difference in cognitive preferences has been spotted in humans of all cultures, children, and even chimpazees.
These studies also aren’t made exclusively by evil white males, by the way. They were likely inspired by pioneers such as Carol Gilligan arguing that male’s morality is “logical and individualistic” while female’s one is focused on the “care perspective”.
BTW these studies regarding genders and their career path choices have been done over and again since the 90’s with thousands of peer reviews on them in multiple countries and cultures and they all follow the same pattern, even when they literally went in with an assumption that as the countries get more egalitarian, the more likely women and men are to pursue different career paths- But this turned out to be the complete opposite.
It’s quite obvious that there’s a very specific type of audience Kermit Daddy Peterson is tailoring his preaching towards. It’s also obvious that that this “consistent group of individuals” has a very significant overlap with various far-right fringe weirdos, which, once again, should kinda make you ponder, doesn’t it?
“More specifically, research suggests that four of the Big Five –namely Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness- reliably describe personality differences in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. However, some evidence suggests that Openness may not be a fundamental, stable part of childhood personality.”
Shiner R, Caspi A (January 2003). “Personality differences in childhood and adolescence: measurement, development, and consequences”. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines . 44 (1): 2–32. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00101. PMID12553411.
Markey PM, Markey CN, Tinsley BJ (April 2004). “Children’s behavioral manifestations of the five-factor model of personality”. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin . 30 (4): 423–32. doi:10.1177/0146167203261886. PMID15070472.
Halverson CF, Kohnstamm GA, Martin RP, eds. (1994). The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kohnstamm GA, Halverson Jr CF, Mervielde I, Havill VL, eds. (1998). Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five? . Psychology Press.
Eh, or maybe you could try to be more scientific in your line of thought, and consider that to be taken seriously and sound smart, you want to avoid using memes and speak like a 14 y/o.
I disagree with the idea that his speech is far right, although to some extent he represents and advocates for traditional values.
This thread has got to the point where I feel I’d be better off looking for epic discussions such as these on a Notorious Mongolian Pottery Appreciation website.
This doesn’t get at what I was asking at all. It just explains what the “Big Five” are.
The paper you cited does not say conclusively whether the gender differences between men and women - as they pertain to the “Big Five” - are due to biology or social constructs. The only part of the paper that explicitly mentions this, is when the authors point out that the controversy exists and cites papers that delve into both sides of the debate.
If you wanna say that the gender differences are due to biology, this is not the paper to cite in your defence.