Sexism Test - Eliminating Bias

[ValiantSalvatore]

I wanted to post this, simply to contemplate bias and I sort of guilt tripped myself, I sometimes feel double-standards and question myself and at the end I am often the beign less biased. I hope this can serve more as a contemplation tool, the dating section of this forum is partially a mess, so more women can feel inclined to share their worldview and also biases. Which is interesting otherwise life would be boring at times if not for the opposite sex/gender lol. 

Well.... for any doubters, maybe I should at one point proclaim I am a ray ray saint, I dunno how I can score so low with my level of humour at times. Feel free to doubt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism

[Kshantivadin]

22 minutes ago, Ulax said:

@Jacob Morres I meant that the way the test is setup is based on a certain worldview. The creators have designated certain answers to be indicative of 'hostile sexism', and that link is based on a certain worldview, imo.

True and funny. 

[Ulax]

17 minutes ago, ValiantSalvatore said:

I wanted to post this, simply to contemplate bias and I sort of guilt tripped myself, I sometimes feel double-standards and question myself and at the end I am often the beign less biased. I hope this can serve more as a contemplation tool, the dating section of this forum is partially a mess, so more women can feel inclined to share their worldview and also biases. Which is interesting otherwise life would be boring at times if not for the opposite sex/gender lol. 

Well.... for any doubters, maybe I should at one point proclaim I am a ray ray saint, I dunno how I can score so low with my level of humour at times. Feel free to doubt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism

@ValiantSalvatore Oh intriguing. I didn't realise that ambivalent sexism was actually a formal theory. 

 

[ValiantSalvatore]

@Ulax Me neither I am unsure what concludes a formal theory, as must stuff is constructed and I am not a scientist, so I never created a theory from scratch etc. Nor did I do "proper science". I checked some papers about this, I prefer to use Wiki even if it's incentivized to use Google Scholar usually and I had to read a few papers now for a machine learning course, and without the how to of anything, I was not really able to make sense of them also it's so much I am unsure how one human can consume this even in a team. 

I dunno most paper reading failed in implementation and the implementers read a few papers apparently and solved some issues effectively that is the irony of it somehow.

Although reading the theory gave rise to plenty of ideas, doing stuff from scratch legit yielded the best results, I am not a big fan of bias. So yeah was interested to see and share a somewhat deeper opinon.

From Wiki your question regarding to emeralds statement & comment.

Quote

Benevolent sexism, because of its seemingly positive evaluations and implicit attributions, is likely to hinder a woman's confidence and performance. The researchers showed that, in a typical team working environment, hostile sexism as well as benevolent sexism had consequences for the participant's performance. Masser and Abrams (2004) highlighted the fact that previous research has shown that benevolent sexism can have detrimental effects on a woman's performance evaluation if that woman violates social norms associated with certain sexist attitudes.[30] Their study showed that hostile sexism, but not benevolent sexism, hurt women's evaluations and recommendations for promotion.

I've listend to an Blinkist talking about similar things for minorities in graduate programms, and they found after they underwent the programm the differences simply diminished in performance. 

Anyway that is that. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by ValiantSalvatore

[Ulax]

9 minutes ago, ValiantSalvatore said:

@Ulax Me neither I am unsure what concludes a formal theory, as must stuff is constructed and I am not a scientist, so I never created a theory from scratch etc. Nor did I do "proper science". I checked some papers about this, I prefer to use Wiki even if it's incentivized to use Google Scholar usually and I had to read a few papers now for a machine learning course, and without the how to of anything, I was not really able to make sense of them also it's so much I am unsure how one human can consume this even in a team. 

I dunno most paper reading failed in implementation and the implementers read a few papers apparently and solved some issues effectively that is the irony of it somehow.

Although reading the theory gave rise to plenty of ideas, doing stuff from scratch legit yielded the best results, I am not a big fan of bias. So yeah was interested to see and share a somewhat deeper opinon.

From Wiki your question regarding to emeralds statement & comment.

I've listend to an Blinkist talking about similar things for minorities in graduate programms, and they found after they underwent the programm the differences simply diminished in performance. 

Anyway that is that. 

@ValiantSalvatore I call it a 'formal theory' but I use the term loosely. I just used the category based on my intuition. 

I'm not sure I understand the rest of your comment though unfortunately

[ValiantSalvatore]

8 minutes ago, Ulax said:

I call it a 'formal theory' but I use the term loosely. I just used the category based on my intuition. 

I'm not sure I understand the rest of your comment though unfortunately

Actually it's my fault I did not read it carefully I thought it was about what happens when benevolent sexism occures, yet the question was if all benevolent sexism should be avoided. 

That is my fault. I did not think that deeply and was more focused on personal synthesis of information I acquired. I would personally eliminate bias as much as possible, makes more room for genuient innocent type of convos and interactions, usually more fun and raw. I miss these interactions and also dating and proper social circle.  

[Ulax]

@ValiantSalvatore Fairs man. I respect the introspection.

[ValiantSalvatore]

@Ulax Same to you! I respect the openness to inquiry.

[Ulax]

@ValiantSalvatore Thanks bro *Brofists*

[ValiantSalvatore]

??????

[something_else]

I got 20% benevolent and 0% hostile.

IMO the worldview that the researchers have is that there is no difference at all between men and women, which is the main criticism I have. There are subtle differences and pointing that out is not really sexism.

[Devin]

2 minutes ago, something_else said:

IMO the worldview that the researchers have is that there is no difference at all between men and women, which is the main criticism I have. There are subtle differences and pointing that out is not really sexism.

 

Those are sexist biases though. Like what differences are you referring to? Some women are stronger than some men, some men are more emotional. I think the lynch pin with their bias on bias is that we are bred toward the stereotypical traits, we could obviously breed women to be the physically stronger and taller gender, etc.

[something_else]

4 minutes ago, Devin said:

Those are sexist biases though. Like what differences are you referring to? Some women are stronger than some men, some men are more emotional. I think the lynch pin with their bias on bias is that we are bred toward the stereotypical traits, we could obviously breed women to be the physically stronger and taller gender, etc.

If there were no differences between men and women, there would have been no point for two different biological sexes to evolve.

The degree of difference is what’s up for debate. The differences are on a spectrum, so some women will be stronger than men for example, but on average men are physically stronger because of natural hormones that average biological men have more of.

It gets very fuzzy when it comes to mental traits though because the human brain is so flexible. That’s where sexism has a tendency to arise and become problematic.

[Devin]

31 minutes ago, something_else said:

If there were no differences between men and women, there would have been no point for two different biological sexes to evolve.

The degree of difference is what’s up for debate. The differences are on a spectrum, so some women will be stronger than men for example, but on average men are physically stronger because of natural hormones that average biological men have more of.

It gets very fuzzy when it comes to mental traits though because the human brain is so flexible. That’s where sexism has a tendency to arise and become problematic.

There's no insinuation that there are not any differences, they're called male and female because of that difference, one gestates one doesn't, that's the only non biased difference though that is not a generalization(bias).

[ValiantSalvatore]

Overall without getting into internet discussions, the assumptions are made based on internalized attitudes as far as I can tell, we are miles a way from a super-holistic study from 10 different fields analyzing one sector in big picture style. Having Ken Wilbers 4 quadrant model in mind helps to re-frame the idea that the test is just there as a reflection tool. At best study sexology to contemplate difference in male and female behaviour on the pure biological level as well as have an idea of it. These are all different topics and themes, and it's rare to see an interdisciplinary approach. Sex at dawn is still a pretty eye-opening book about this, I had only one date who'd be willing to discuss sex that deeply, I am looking for women similar to this, who enjoy sex and are willing to explore most dates have mostly been sorta survival like, so far besides 3 that had more depth. I mean even Owen Cook has a dirty sneaky level of awarness of knowledge behind this.

There are differences although they accumulated in attitudes and predisposition without any presumptions there simply is no bias, even when the dynamic is different. It's interesting to study these, although without a high-level of non-judgement and development these topics are close to impossible to talk about I meet although a couple of women who were super open, it just did not fit logistic wise. It's more like a deep dive into reality and masculine feminie polarities I really love this when going out I sort of miss it. 

I was personally curious about if there is a tool to reflect on the issue of sexism besides reading endless "hot quick articles" and something slightly more deeper. I would look at it holistically, I dunno I just don't think feminism is a good topic for dating, it might be in a relationship as a concern for social causes and historical impacts and just sheer interest and curiosity. I gave it a go for online-dating and meet a super manipulaitve women even though I legit have concerns and enjoy to talk about the topic, it's just not really my kind of tea currently. I dunno I did not like the feeling of rigidity of talking about it, and me feeling guilty without doing anything etc. So I just stay clear from toxic vibes in that regard, I dated and meet more integrated women so to speak, who did not need to lash out and attack. Most are also not like this. Maybe 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Approximately. 

I am sometimes unsure how far I can trust PUA advice, as I struggle beign sexually with women and legit just consent already worked for me, so I am curious how far I can build the sex life of my dreams in terms of also "awareness and consciouness" and not only more "traditional spiritual" ideas. Even though I am not against it, I just don't want someone traditional ever.

Edited February 18, 2023 by ValiantSalvatore

[Raze]

Unsurprisingly a lot of the “hostile sexism” choices are simply true.

[spiritual memes]

oof 39% hostile and 21% benevolent.

To be fair I answered as brutally as I see myself agreeing with.

[something_else]

5 hours ago, Raze said:

Unsurprisingly a lot of the “hostile sexism” choices are simply true.

Like which ones? The benevolent sexism ones are easier to argue truth for. The hostile sexism ones are the ones that if you are finding yourself agreeing with them consistently you might have some shit to work out…..

 

[something_else]

18 hours ago, Devin said:

There's no insinuation that there are not any differences, they're called male and female because of that difference, one gestates one doesn't, that's the only non biased difference though that is not a generalization(bias).

Its hard to argue that men being on average physically stronger than women is a bias. Or that men are taller on average is a bias. The gestation isn’t the only clear cut difference.

It’s when you get into the territory psychological differences that everyone has a different opinion and someone’s bias comes into play a lot more.

Edited February 19, 2023 by something_else

[Emerald]

16 hours ago, Ulax said:

@Emerald Would you say, in your current opinion, that all 'benevolent sexism' ought to be avoided?

Yes. It’s very unhelpful… and often patronizing.

It tends to cement a patriarchal narrative, and puts women up on a pedestal within that narrative.

But there’s no real power there.

And it creates this polarization where women are either viewed as angels or demons… and totally negates the basic humanity that is there.