Divergence in opinions men and women hold

[Bootstrap]

Boot, I feel that whenever any actual data is presented that doesn’t agree with your presupposed positions, you find a way to either attack the source, attack the methodology, or attack the person.

It’s not a data driven, facts based approach.

I don't think your feelings are data. That's the point.

Look at this thread: again and again, I keep pointing out what the data actually say. You don't engage with that. Instead, you use the same rhetoric you have used in other threads. Including the line you give above. Do you really feel this is what presenting data looks like?

The data do not support your claims. No matter how much rhetoric you throw at it. If I got the data wrong, show me where. If not ... perhaps you could admit the places where your claims are not supported by the data? If you want to practice a data-driven, facts-based approach, show that by what you do, not by proclaiming that you have done so.

Because data is something I do engage with. And I respect people whose opinions depend on what the data say.

[JohnH]

I did engage with the data. You decided to simply ignore an obvious trend in the data, which was indeed a conclusion the people running the survey found too.

When I choose not to agree with your conclusions, you then tell me I’m not engaging with the data.

[Bootstrap]

I did engage with the data. You decided to simply ignore an obvious trend in the data, which was indeed a conclusion the people running the survey found too.

Please be specific. What is that "obvious trend in the data", what data points to it, and where did the people who conducted the survey say they found it. Direct quotes please. I have read the findings and looked at the data. So far, I have not seen the "obvious trend" that you claim is there.

Also, here are some posts where I took the time to look at the data in detail, finding that your claims do not match the data. You did not respond by addressing the data, your responses left that part out. If I got anything wrong about the data, please say what I got wrong. I think that's what a data-based conversation looks like:

• https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 77#p303677
• https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 81#p303781
• https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 81#p303781

And on the flip side - I think some of these things flatly contradict claims you have made. Admitting that or showing where I got it wrong would be more helpful than insisting that you are engaging with the data. That's what engaging with the data looks like.

[JohnH]

Also, here are some posts where I took the time to look at the data in detail, finding that your claims do not match the data. You did not respond by addressing the data, your responses left that part out. If I got anything wrong about the data, please say what I got wrong. I think that's what a data-based conversation looks like:

I eventually responded with a summary of the data with the "don't know" part broken out so it was easier to see. (I had an error where I flipped around the male and female responses, which ken_sylvania helpfully pointed out).

And on the flip side - I think some of these things flatly contradict claims you have made. Admitting that or showing where I got it wrong would be more helpful than insisting that you are engaging with the data. That's what engaging with the data looks like.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I feel your approach in most of these conversations is to simply make claims that I don't think the data supports. It's not a useful discussion. For example, in this discussion, you just keep focusing on the "don't know". I said I wanted to only talk about the survey results where people say they do know. Those results still supported my original assertion.

Then you said that the survey doesn't have enough information because it doesn't break down in detail whether or not something thinks they know. I get tired of these kind of epistemological traps; if you really think surveys are worthless and can't convey any useful information, let's just start with that.

If you'd like, we can start a fresh thread where I'll share the relevant data and we can go from there. Or we can continue to make this some kind of battle of egos, where you try to make the case that you are some impartial, pure, data-driven person and I am almost like some kind of base animal, driven only by his emotions and unable to read or understand numbers. I don't think that's helpful for you, me, or the rest of the forum's readers.

[Bootstrap]

And on the flip side - I think some of these things flatly contradict claims you have made. Admitting that or showing where I got it wrong would be more helpful than insisting that you are engaging with the data. That's what engaging with the data looks like.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I feel your approach in most of these conversations is to simply make claims that I don't think the data supports.

I think the links in my post point to posts that go way beyond that, citing the data directly after carefully looking at all of the questions and responses and what the authors said. I think I have also responded to the claims you make about the data in some detail.

At this point I think we are going in circles. No point in making more claims about what the other person is doing. If you want to engage in the data, I think those posts are a good place to start, you never responded to their substance.

So I'll drop out until it becomes a conversation that engages with the data.

You can share the relevant data here or in another thread. Responding to my data-driven posts would also be helpful.

[ohio jones]

(I had an error where I flipped around the male and female responses, which ken_sylvania helpfully pointed out).

Could you please repost that with the correction?

[Bootstrap]

If you'd like, we can start a fresh thread where I'll share the relevant data and we can go from there. Or we can continue to make this some kind of battle of egos, where you try to make the case that you are some impartial, pure, data-driven person and I am almost like some kind of base animal, driven only by his emotions and unable to read or understand numbers. I don't think that's helpful for you, me, or the rest of the forum's readers.

I have read through this thread, and I want to respond to the above. It's easy to do exactly what you suggest by turning to the data and discussing the data, carefully looking at what it does and does not say, and letting the data rule.

Making it about ego or how we want people to perceive us is exactly the wrong direction, period. Making up stories about things I never said, putting those words in my mouth as though they were my words is exactly the wrong direction. I never made any of the claims about me or about you that you state above. And ... this is not a way of turning attention to the data. It is the opposite.

For instance ... in response the following, you never responded to the basic facts.

1. I pointed to the questions and results on the survey. Do you agree that it did not ask the question you claim it answered?
2. The results say 31% of the women responded the way that you think "half of the public" responded. Who is this "half the public", and how are you adding up the numbers?
3. Do you believe that answers to questions about scientific matters on political opinion polls actually tell you what people do or do not understand if you ask them in another context? Have you read up on this? There's a lot of data to draw from.

If we have half of the voting public who thinks nuclear power plants are going to contribute to CO2-caused climate change, that's a pretty big problem, isn't it?

But nothing in the data for this poll supports that claim. If you are going to argue for the importance of science, you could start by admitting that instead of repeating the claim. It's hard to have any conversation about data if the data doesn't change the conversation.

The question they were asked is this:

Do you think nuclear energy produces low or no carbon emissions?

Two things that are wrong with your claim:

1. The poll did not even have an option for saying nuclear plants contribute to CO2-caused climate change or saying they are a major contributor. Yet you claim that's what these women said.
2. 31% percent of women answered "no" to the question. That's a lot less than half. 31% of women answered "yes". The largest percent said they don't know.

You also generalize from one question in a flurry of opinion questions about one topic to voting behavior in general about all topics, saying that women don't understand how the world works and that's a problem when they vote. That's a big leap. And not justified in the data.

Those are the kinds of things that point toward the data. And it's really easy to look at a post and ask if it turns attention toward the data or toward something else.