Anyone here still think women are the most empathic gender?

[grim_reaper69]

They're all evil

 

[Zeekie]

It’s called being scared, like a twink would not ever confront a big guy to the face.
It’s logical, where’s the empathy?

Let's address the facts @Eltrē @Michelangelo @FutureSlayer

1. Women have brains that are better primed for emotional handling and pro-social behaviors (https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news...-on-a-theory-of-mind-test-across-57-countries) (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3330641/)
2. Women are kinder and less selfish than men (https://www.theguardian.com/science...nd-less-selfish-is-true-claim-neuroscientists)
3. Men are more impulsive and are the leading groups behind major crimes and atrocities. While you can suggest this is because women lack strength there have been neurological studies conducted that suggest otherwise, it is an inherent part of the male brain, and testosterone just makes it worse. Think for a second, do you think the sex that over 2x as likely to kill someone can be more empathetic?

Evidence, science and research aside, we can also look at social implications. There's this thing called the "women-are-wonderful" effect, it is a psychological phenomenon that ON AVERAGE makes women and men think that females have more positive behaviors than men (warmth, empathy, and morality).

The research and consensus contradict the idea that women are less empathetic than men, it doesn't matter how many convoluted theories you can come up to suggest otherwise, the body of proof is overwhelmingly strong, you can research this on your own, I'm not about to do that.

PLUS, LETS MAKE A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. If you have to vent about an emotional problem with a trusted person, who would you pick? A man or a woman? There, case closed, because I'm unsure you would pick a woman (even if they say otherwise), and even if you truly would prefer a man, is this what the majority of the population would do? Likely not, ask yourself why that is...

 

[Zeekie]

what did you get from it? i said the study showed females gave themselves a higher score than what they actually objectively scored. idk if its either their social role to make them think they are much more empathic or whatever, but its clearly not true, they are not as empathic as they think they are.

Yes, but I'm talking about research conducted to third parties, not self-assessments. i do not think women are hallmarks of morality and that they're all good, but it is just flawed to suggest that women are less empathetic than men on average, they have all the odds in their favor, we have all the odds against us. It is easier for a woman to turn out empathetic and moral that it is for a man

 

[FutureSlayer]

Let's address the facts @Eltrē @Michelangelo @FutureSlayer

1. Women have brains that are better primed for emotional handling and pro-social behaviors (https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news...-on-a-theory-of-mind-test-across-57-countries) (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3330641/)
2. Women are kinder and less selfish than men (https://www.theguardian.com/science...nd-less-selfish-is-true-claim-neuroscientists)
3. Men are more impulsive and are the leading groups behind major crimes and atrocities. While you can suggest this is because women lack strength there have been neurological studies conducted that suggest otherwise, it is an inherent part of the male brain, and testosterone just makes it worse. Think for a second, do you think the sex that over 2x as likely to kill someone can be more empathetic?

Evidence, science and research aside, we can also look at social implications. There's this thing called the "women-are-wonderful" effect, it is a psychological phenomenon that ON AVERAGE makes women and men think that females have more positive behaviors than men (warmth, empathy, and morality).

The research and consensus contradict the idea that women are less empathetic than men, it doesn't matter how many convoluted theories you can come up to suggest otherwise, the body of proof is overwhelmingly strong, you can research this on your own, I'm not about to do that.

PLUS, LETS MAKE A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. If you have to vent about an emotional problem with a trusted person, who would you pick? A man or a woman? There, case closed, because I'm unsure you would pick a woman (even if they say otherwise), and even if you truly would prefer a man, is this what the majority of the population would do? Likely not, ask yourself why that is...

You’re citing feminist JOURNALISM articles as proof, no need to investiagate further.
Also stating women are LESS self-selfish while they contribute nothing to science as guinea pigs/blood donors and such and live off welfare aids/gender quotas really makes my day lmao.
Regarding the venting part, It’s irrelevant and both have their downsides, the man may use it as a scapegoat to disparage you and see you as a less of a partner in achieving his goals and less suitable for life teamwork and the woman may see you as a less of a romantic partner because she can’t count on some easily breakable male figure.
tldr. Women ARE selfish on the whole, like every human being, if it weren’t the case they would protest for divorce-raped men aids as much as they do it for their feminist cause and venting to a female or a male is irrelevant and stupid.

 

[Michelangelo]

Let's address the facts @Eltrē @Michelangelo @FutureSlayer

1. Women have brains that are better primed for emotional handling and pro-social behaviors (https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news...-on-a-theory-of-mind-test-across-57-countries) (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3330641/)
2. Women are kinder and less selfish than men (https://www.theguardian.com/science...nd-less-selfish-is-true-claim-neuroscientists)
3. Men are more impulsive and are the leading groups behind major crimes and atrocities. While you can suggest this is because women lack strength there have been neurological studies conducted that suggest otherwise, it is an inherent part of the male brain, and testosterone just makes it worse. Think for a second, do you think the sex that over 2x as likely to kill someone can be more empathetic?

Evidence, science and research aside, we can also look at social implications. There's this thing called the "women-are-wonderful" effect, it is a psychological phenomenon that ON AVERAGE makes women and men think that females have more positive behaviors than men (warmth, empathy, and morality).

The research and consensus contradict the idea that women are less empathetic than men, it doesn't matter how many convoluted theories you can come up to suggest otherwise, the body of proof is overwhelmingly strong, you can research this on your own, I'm not about to do that.

PLUS, LETS MAKE A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. If you have to vent about an emotional problem with a trusted person, who would you pick? A man or a woman? There, case closed, because I'm unsure you would pick a woman (even if they say otherwise), and even if you truly would prefer a man, is this what the majority of the population would do? Likely not, ask yourself why that is...

some of what you suggested can be explained by primal biological instincts etc, if we wanna talk about studies there are a lot that dont show a relevant female superiority in showing empathy compared to men.
as suggested before:

I wouldn't extend this to a general term, but rather to their loved ones. Generally, their maternal instinct leads them to be more sensitive towards their loved ones; they are natural midwives with nurturing tendencies

they are leaving that role in society, at least here in the western world. today in the most recent times i think its clear that they dont show much more empathy compared to men, at all.

I agree, they're now masculinized and work, so it makes sense. They don't even have children anymore

once they started unironically chanting "kill all men" in the streets it showed they went way beyond than just getting a job and being independent. all the rest is virtue signaling as @Fusionxz mentioned

 

[Zeekie]

You’re citing feminist JOURNALISM articles as proof, no need to investiagate further.

Yeah cuz I wasn't about to cite PubMed over such a dumb fucking argument, regardless the article is based on some research published in a real scientific article, so what's your point here?

Also stating women are LESS self-selfish while they contribute nothing to science as guinea pigs/blood donors and such and live off welfare aids really makes my day lmao.
Regarding the venting part, It’s irrelevant and both have their downsides, the man may use it as a scapegoat to disparage you and see you as a less of a partner in achieving his goals and less suitable for life teamwork and the woman may see you as a less of a romantic partner because she can’t count on some easily breakable male figure.
tldr. Women ARE selfish on the whole, like every human being, if it weren’t the case they would protest for divorce-raped men aids as much as they do it for their feminist cause and venting to a female or a male is irrelevant and stupid.

See? You act so intellectually superior "Oh you didn't cite real science", "you're biased" or mentioning logical fallacies, but your argument isn't even based on any research, it's purely hypothetical/speculative AND VERY EMOTIONALLY HEAVY, you're not trying to determine which one is more empathetic, you're deliberately trying to bring women down.

And yeah, I'm not saying all women are good, or that they are SIGNIFICANTLY more good than men, but based on all the available data, the most balanced and objective take there is on the matter, it is to say that women are more empathetic than men. From a neurological standpoint, from a social standpoint, from an environmental one. I cannot cite any specifics on this, but I can promise you that on average, most women will turn out with better emotional intelligence and empathy than men

 

[Michelangelo]

tldr. Women ARE selfish on the whole, like every human being, if it weren’t the case they would protest for divorce-raped men aids as much as they do it for their feminist cause and venting to a female or a male is irrelevant and stupid.

especially this

 

[Zeekie]

View attachment 3921828

Yes, you are referencing the study YOU provided, that's only ONE piece of evidence, there are tons more that don't involve self-assessments, that suggest women are more empathetic.

some of what you suggested can be explained by primal biological instincts etc,

Yes, that is my point. Women have primal biological instincts that make empathy easier for them, that it is for us. So we agree that women have more empathy than men then?

if we wanna talk about studies there are a lot that dont show a relevant female superiority in showing empathy compared to men.
as suggested before:

Okay, what are these studies then that suggest otherwise?

 

[FutureSlayer]

Yeah cuz I wasn't about to cite PubMed over such a dumb fucking argument, regardless the article is based on some research published in a real scientific article, so what's your point here?


See? You act so intellectually superior "Oh you didn't cite real science", "you're biased" or mentioning logical fallacies, but your argument isn't even based on any research, it's purely hypothetical/speculative AND VERY EMOTIONALLY HEAVY, you're not trying to determine which one is more empathetic, you're deliberately trying to bring women down.

And yeah, I'm not saying all women are good, or that they are SIGNIFICANTLY more good than men, but based on all the available data, the most balanced and objective take there is on the matter, it is to say that women are more empathetic than men. From a neurological standpoint, from a social standpoint, from an environmental one. I cannot cite any specifics on this, but I can promise you that on average, most women will turn out with better emotional intelligence and empathy than men

Don’t cite anything atp then if you don’t want to cite actual studies, I don’t get why googling women are more emphatic and sending me the first journalism links that popup would be doing any good to your argument lol
Regarding personal experience they may SEEM more emphatetic but, again, it’s because they can’t leverage their strength. Try and vent to a weak redditor about whatever you want and you’ll see they’ll pretty much coincide.

 

[Zeekie]

Don’t cite anything atp then if you don’t want to cite actual studies, I don’t get why googling women are more emphatic and sending me the first journalism links that popup would be doing any good to your argument lol

Dismissing a journalism article is stupid here, I'm at least citing something, what you providing other than speculation? And again, you're ignoring that that is an article published by Cambridge University based on research published on Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. But let's be real, let's say I did cite the original paper, would that change anything about your stance at all?

Regarding personal experience they may SEEM more emphatic but, again, it’s because they can’t leverage their strength. Try and vent to a weak redditor about whatever you want and you’ll see they’ll pretty much coincide.

This is speculation again, denying the research and providing your own faulty theory about it does not make you right at all. I ask, is this about proving men and women have equal empathy, or about bringing women down morally?

 

[Michelangelo]

Yeah cuz I wasn't about to cite PubMed over such a dumb fucking argument, regardless the article is based on some research published in a real scientific article, so what's your point here?


See? You act so intellectually superior "Oh you didn't cite real science", "you're biased" or mentioning logical fallacies, but your argument isn't even based on any research, it's purely hypothetical/speculative AND VERY EMOTIONALLY HEAVY, you're not trying to determine which one is more empathetic, you're deliberately trying to bring women down.

And yeah, I'm not saying all women are good, or that they are SIGNIFICANTLY more good than men, but based on all the available data, the most balanced and objective take there is on the matter, it is to say that women are more empathetic than men. From a neurological standpoint, from a social standpoint, from an environmental one. I cannot cite any specifics on this, but I can promise you that on average, most women will turn out with better emotional intelligence and empathy than men

biological thinking and behavior that basically amounts to a drop in the ocean today. you can go forward with the idea that they are emotionally superior, i can go on with the basic principle that humans are selfish and that most of them just virtue signal to benefit themselves.

either way most people on this forum should have already gotten the idea

 

[FutureSlayer]

Dismissing a journalism article is stupid here, I'm at least citing something, what you providing other than speculation? And again, you're ignoring that that is an article published by Cambridge University based on research published on Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. But let's be real, let's say I did cite the original paper, would that change anything about your stance at all?


This is speculation again, denying the research and providing your own faulty theory about it does not make you right at all. I ask, is this about proving men and women have equal empathy, or about bringing women down morally?

Not citing anything is better if your citations quality is subpar. Also you have to price in the fact that we live in a feminist society which push a particular agenda hence we cannot expect for the scientific community to address the thing objectively, that’s why I am not even bothering citing anything, this is the case for racial iq differences, trans woman-woman differences etc.
Since we cannot expect to investigate further with pure scientific facts and reviews we need to resort to our personal reasoning, mine points out how women are not really that emphatetic if we toss aside their verbalizations, they don’t make the biggest part in any kind of volunteer work such as blood donors, guinea pigs, MRA (while the opposite is a very wide phenomenon eg. male feminist activists).

Edit. regarding my personal gains from the matter, even If I had to gain somethinf which is not the case, it’s an appeal to consequences fallacy which is again not relevant, we are asking ourselves if there’s really that big of a psychological difference in sexes, considering the outcomes this may provide is biasing our reasoning itself. I would WANT women to really be that emphatetic as you describe them, we would then be able to ignore the redpill act alltogether and live peacefully, being sure our woman is a gem which would support us most of the time, but the rough reality simply does not match to me

 

[Zeekie]

biological thinking and behavior that basically amounts to a drop in the ocean today. you can go forward with the idea that they are emotionally superior, i can go on with the basic priciple that humans are selfish and that most of them just virtue signal to benefit themselves.

This isn't about what humans are, it's about the differences between two distinct groups of humans. Also, are you really suggesting that thousands of women, in different parts of the world, have been consistently plotting for years to provide similar outcomes when it comes to research on their emotional abilities? You're stretching things too much. Isn't it easier to just admit that maybe, just maybe, women are more empathetic than men?

And again, we're not talking about poll-based research where people rank themselves, we're speaking about testing done by an external unbiased party to assessment things related to the topic. You cannot "virtue signal" your way out of peer-reviewed and properly conducted research

either way most people on this forum should have already gotten the idea

Yes, because involuntary celibates will offer a very balanced and unbiased opinions on women, that obviously disregard scientific research, am I right?

 

[Zeekie]

Not citing anything is better if your citations quality is subpar. Also you have to price in the fact that we live in a feminist society which push a particular agenda hence we cannot expect for the scientific community to address the thing objectively, that’s why I am not even bothering citing anything, this is the case for racial iq differences, trans woman-woman differences etc.

It is so incredibly insane to me that you prefer to suggest that the research is flawed before admitting you're wrong. Yes, science can sometimes be biased, but we've been observing these phenomenons since as late as the 90s.

Since we cannot expect to investigate further with pure scientific facts and reviews

YES WE CAN, AND WE HAVE ACTUALLY, you're just choosing to dismiss it because it doesn't say what YOU want it to say.

 

[FutureSlayer]

It is so incredibly insane to me that you prefer to suggest that the research is flawed before admitting you're wrong. Yes, science can sometimes be biased, but we've been observing these phenomenons since as late as the 90s.


YES WE CAN, AND WE HAVE ACTUALLY, you're just choosing to dismiss it because it doesn't say what YOU want it to say.

We can’t, science is made with a plurality of ideas, if a particular stance is bashed upon without even investigating we’re clearly standing on a bottleneck

 

[Michelangelo]

Yes, because involuntary celibates will offer a very balanced and unbiased opinions on women, that obviously disregard scientific research, am I right?

you quite literally said females talk behind your back not to hurt your feelings, that sounded pretty guillable

Okay, let's get incel rhetoric and women hating takes aside, if they do it covertly, isn't that a direct act of empathy? Avoiding hurting you directly or confrontation?

this is what you think empathy looks like.

you think none of these people on this forum ever got psychologically abused by a woman because they are incels?

 

[Michelangelo]

that obviously disregard scientific research, am I right?

as stated on the post, there are studies that dont show relevant female superiority on showing empathy. im not going to sit here searching again, what i saw was enough for me.
lets let you have it then: females are more empathic than males, by like some imaginary points, maybe, and even then they still show themselves basically as selfish as men. great

 

[FutureSlayer]

Also, are you really suggesting that thousands of women, in different parts of the world, have been consistently plotting for years to provide similar outcomes when it comes to research on their emotional abilities? You're stretching things too much. Isn't it easier to just admit that maybe, just maybe, women are more empathetic than men?

similar physical characteristics, less strength, child bearing vulnerability made them APPEAR more emphatetic all over the world, do I really have to cite you how they treated manly women in the past eg. witch hunt?

A redditor is not plotting to be vulnerable and emphatetic and coordinating himself with all the other cucks around the world, they simply act that way because their physical characteristics allow them to and bash them if they dare to pass their comfort zone, that’s the same for women

 

[Zeekie]

you quite literally said females talk behind your back not to hurt your feelings, that sounded pretty guillable

That's a strawman and an actual ad hominem I never said women talk behind your back to not hurt your feelings, but that the act of talking behind your back is inherently more empathetic than the alternatives. Also the fact that I'm guillable or not is highly opinionated, and even if I was, that does not contradict objective research.

this is what you think empathy looks like.

you think none of these people on this forum ever got psychologically abused by a woman?

No, I do not think most people on this forum ever got psychologically abused by a woman, because most people in this forum have never had the opportunity of ever interacting with one beyond a platonic relationship The worst that likely happened to the average .org user is getting called ugly, and even then is that relevant to the argument?

This is not about whether women are all good people, because if we go to those extremes we can start to talk about how most cases of emotional or psychological abused are by men to women, not the other way around. The fact that women have ever psychologically abused anyone says nothing about whether women are more empathetic than men or not.

That's like having a white guy rob you once and concluding that all white people will rob you. That's a crazy generalization and doesn't answer the fundamental question if we were to be asking "Who robs more black or white people" because if we look at the statistics, black people rob more on average, even if some white guy ever robbed anyone in history. THIS IS LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME SITUATION, but I'm unsure you would agree with this discussion, right?

 

[FutureSlayer]

That's a strawman and an actual ad hominem I never said women talk behind your back to not hurt your feelings, but that the act of talking behind your back is inherently more empathetic than the alternatives. Also the fact that I'm guillable or not is highly opinionated, and even if I was, that does not contradict objective research.

No, I do not think most people on this forum ever got psychologically abused by a woman, because most people in this forum have never had the opportunity of ever interacting with one beyond a platonic relationship The worst that likely happened to the average .org user is getting called ugly, and even then is that relevant to the argument?

This is not about whether women are all good people, because if we go to those extremes we can start to talk about how most cases of emotional or psychological abused are by men to women, not the other way around. The fact that women have ever psychologically abused anyone says nothing about whether women are more empathetic than men or not.

That's like having a white guy rob you once and concluding that all white people will rob you. That's a crazy generalization and doesn't answer the fundamental question if we were to be asking "Who robs more black or white people" because if we look at the statistics, black people rob more on average, even if some white guy ever robbed anyone in history. THIS IS LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME SITUATION, but I'm unsure you would agree with this discussion, right?

Let’s look at women in high power positions, not subjected to the low strength idea.
Do they really seem more emphatetic to you? Maria Antoinette, Giorgia Meloni, Le pen etc. I don’t see a difference in any kind of way at those levels

 

[Zeekie]

We can’t, science is made with a plurality of ideas, if a particular stance is bashed upon without even investigating we’re clearly standing on a bottleneck

1. Do you agree the fact that women have stronger areas of their brain related to emotions and social behavior inadvertently contributes to better outcomes of empathy and pro-social behavior? (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002839321200125X)
2. How can you effectively deny that in assessments meant to determine traits related to emotional intelligence, women tended to score better than men? Is this a "pure scientific fact" that cannot be affected by any kind of bias (provided that the researches in the study didn't explicitly manipulate the data, but that's just falling into conspiracy theory and convenient dismissal of evidence)?

 

[FutureSlayer]

1. Do you agree the fact that women have stronger areas of their brain related to emotions and social behavior inadvertently contributes to better outcomes of empathy and pro-social behavior? (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002839321200125X)
2. How can you effectively deny that in assessments meant to determine traits related to emotional intelligence, women tended to score better than men? Is this a "pure scientific fact" that cannot be affected by any kind of bias (provided that the researches in the study didn't explicitly manipulate the data, but that's just falling into conspiracy theory and convenient dismissal of evidence)?

Emotional stimuli doesn’t equal emphaty by the way, it’s self serving as I stated prior, low iq people resort to emotions and higher iq people resort to a belief set

 

[Zeekie]

Let’s look at women in high power positions, not subjected to the low strength idea.
Do they really seem more emphatetic to you? Maria Antoinette, Giorgia Meloni, Le pen etc. I don’t see a difference in any kind of way at those levels

That's a subjective, an opinion. But even then, does the fact that women in power "not seem empathetic" evidence that men are equally or more empathetic as women? I don't think so.

We're asking who's more empathetic than the other, not which one is weaker or if one has ever caused harmed to someone else.

 

[FutureSlayer]

That's a subjective, an opinion. But even then, does the fact that women in power "not seem empathetic" evidence that men are equally or more empathetic as women? I don't think so.

We're asking who's more empathetic than the other, not which one is weaker or if one has ever caused harmed to someone else.

To me, high strenght = low emphaty verbalisation and empathy itself doesn’t exist, every action is self serving regardless of gender

 

[Zeekie]

Emotional stimuli doesn’t equal emphaty by the way, it’s self serving as I stated prior, low iq people resort to emotions and higher iq people resort to a belief set

Forget it, let's call it quits, we're going to get nowhere

 

[FutureSlayer]

Forget it, let's call it quits, we're going to get nowhere

View attachment 3921925

You’re straight forward impling a slave to its senses is more emphatetic than a logical person, that’s not true. Empathy (which is not what you believe is in my pov) arises from eg. priests and nuns (because they believe in a paradise and personal gratification btw); it does not arise from being emotional. People that sacrificed themself were for the most part people believing in a political/religious ideal, not people whining because they saw a poor man on the street

 

[Zeekie]

You’re straight forward impling a slave to its senses is more emphatetic than a logical person, that’s not true. Empathy (which is not what you believe is in my pov) arises from eg. priests and nuns (because they believe in a paradise and personal gratification btw); it does not arise from being emotional. People that sacrificed themself were for the most part people believing in a political/religious ideal, not people whining because they saw a poor man on the street

Empathy is a very real thing, every action a living creature ultimately take is selfish and a form of self-preservation, but that does it invalidate it. Empathy isn't something we can effectively measure, but it is still a very well-defined social construct, it is wrong to suggest it "doesn't exist", otherwise we wouldn't be even talking about it, it is a real human concept.

But whatever dude, you're operating on a let's call it "philosophical perspective", intuition and a refusal to believe the research, personally I do not care about logic or philosophy claim if science disagree. Given that there's a body of evidence robust enough of course, what a single study claims means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but when those conclusions are repeated consistently, by different teams and in different periods of time, that should say something regardless of what your internal logic says.

Therefore, we simply won't find common ground. This argument achieves nothing other than feeding our egos anyway

 

[FutureSlayer]

Empathy is a very real thing, every action a living creature ultimately take is selfish and a form of self-preservation, but that does it invalidate it. Empathy isn't something we can effectively measure, but it is still a very well-defined social construct, it is wrong to suggest it "doesn't exist", otherwise we wouldn't be even talking about it, it is a real human concept.

But whatever dude, you're operating on a let's call it "philosophical perspective", intuition and a refusal to believe the research, personally I do not care about logic or philosophy claim if science disagree. Given that there's a body of evidence robust enough of course, what a single study claims means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but when those conclusions are repeated consistently, by different teams and in different periods of time, that should say something regardless of what your internal logic says.

Therefore, we simply won't find common ground. This argument achieves nothing other than feeding our egos anyway

I don’t even think anybody is financing a research in this regard, I did not even look at it, I don’t see why they would

 

[Michelangelo]

That's a strawman and an actual ad hominem I never said women talk behind your back to not hurt your feelings, but that the act of talking behind your back is inherently more empathetic than the alternatives.

literally they dont do it because they feel empathy for you, or because they feel more empathy for you, its literally just how they behave. there are even feminist journals articles on how to psychologically abuse your partner and they do it exactly in this way. this is exremely guillable, to think its better to do it in the back for whatever reason, instead of doing it openly and being confrontational. what would you think it would happen if they started doing it in front of you? they already know the answer; thats why they do it their way.

No, I do not think most people on this forum ever got psychologically abused by a woman, because most people in this forum have never had the opportunity of ever interacting with one beyond a platonic relationship The worst that likely happened to the average .org user is getting called ugly, and even then is that relevant to the argument?

guess who is supposed to be empathic, but openly says men under a certain height arent men? btw i already know a few of people who got psychologically abused by a woman on here, and i would dare they are quite a lot actually. yeah, is women picking on men because they are ugly not an argument on how they dont show themselves empathy if they dont benefit from it in any way? cause a woman shaming a man for the height and his dick size usually never happens, because they are very empathic.

 

[Zeekie]

I did not even look at it

Yes, I noticed.

 

[FutureSlayer]

Yes, I noticed.

Do I really have to make a review and interpolate thousands of articles for free? That’s not possible and you know it

 

[Zeekie]

guess who is supposed to be empathic, but openly says men under a certain height arent men? btw i already know a few of people who got psychologically abused by a woman on here, and i would dare they are quite a lot actually. yeah, is women picking on men because they are ugly not an argument on how they dont show themselves empathy if they dont benefit from it in any way? cause a woman shaming a man for the height and his dick size usually never happens, because they are very empathic.

Dude, good job on proving my point. This isn't about who's more empathetic, this is about you raging because you're an incel and you have a hard time with women

And again, THE FACT THAT WOMEN CAN BE ASSHOLES DOES NOT MEAN THEY HAVE MORE EMPATHY THAN US, you can two people in a room and both of them could have done horrible things, but one can still regard as "more empathic" than the other given that there's enough evidence to suggest it, no matter what their actions were.

 

[chrishell]

Their empathy is deeper but more contingent

 

[Zeekie]

Do I really have to make a review and interpolate thousands of articles for free? That’s not possible and you know it

But you're asking the same out of me, and even worse, shaming me for doing the bare minimum by (truthfully) poorly citing some research, that's really better than nothing. And miles above outright ignoring the research or rejecting inconvenient evidence because it contradicts a personal belief and labeling it as "feminist propaganda", that is an ad hominem attack and a conspiracy theory fallacy. Legitimate scientific research undergoes peer review precisely to minimize bias.

 

[FutureSlayer]

But you're asking the same out of me, and even worse, shaming me for doing the bare minimum by (truthfully) poorly citing some research, that's really better than nothing. And miles above outright ignoring the research or rejecting inconvenient evidence because it contradicts a personal belief and labeling it as "feminist propaganda", that is an ad hominem attack and a conspiracy theory fallacy. Legitimate scientific research undergoes peer review precisely to minimize bias.

Citing one article doesn’t mean anything, read our conversation again, I never asked you to post scientific proof exactly because I know there’s articles in both the sides and no real reviews made by the scientific community. I did not label them as feminist propaganda because I don’t like what they imply, I did because it’s the setup of our current civilization, prioritizing equality hence making inequality stances extremely difficult to be studied or proven scientifically, may them be between sexes, races or whatever

 

[Michelangelo]

Dude, good job on proving my point. This isn't about who's more empathetic, this is about you raging because you're an incel and you have a hard time with women

And again, THE FACT THAT WOMEN CAN BE ASSHOLES DOES NOT MEAN THEY HAVE MORE EMPATHY THAN US, you can two people in a room and both of them could have done horrible things, but one can still regard as "more empathic" than the other given that there's enough evidence to suggest it, no matter what their actions were.

biological thinking and behavior that basically amounts to a drop in the ocean today. you can go forward with the idea that they are emotionally superior, i can go on with the basic principle that humans are selfish and that most of them just virtue signal to benefit themselves.

either way most people on this forum should have already gotten the idea

also my point wasnt to show that man are more empathic either, just that women arent as empathic as society think they are

as stated on the post, there are studies that dont show relevant female superiority on showing empathy. im not going to sit here searching again, what i saw was enough for me.
lets let you have it then: females are more empathic than males, by like some imaginary points, maybe, and even then they still show themselves basically as selfish as men. great

talking to yourself atp. "you are an incel ruh ruh muh muh" bruh

 

[Zeekie]

talking to yourself atp. "you are an incel ruh ruh muh muh" bruh

Yes, because your argument isn't about providing evidence for women being less or just as empathic as men, keywords being "just as" this is about comparing the two, you haven't done that. Your whole """argument""" is just a barrage of biased and personal attack to women, that's incel behavior and you know it.

 

[Dorsal_]

They're all evil

lmaoo so real bro only if you’re hmtn+ with appeal will shawties even remotely care

 

[Michelangelo]

Yes, because your argument isn't about providing evidence for women being less or just as empathic as men, keywords being "just as" this is about comparing the two, you haven't done that. Your whole """argument""" is just a barrage of biased and personal attack to women, that's incel behavior and you know it.

nope, there are still studies that didnt show women to be more empathic than man in some cases which YOU wont accept. some biologicals insticts behind there but thats about it, im not trying to demonize them either, just that they are more likely to be on men's level (as it is showed in the studies), especially if we take out social roles etc like they are doing to themselves, it appears very clearly in feminism too

 

[autistic_tendencies]

absolutely not, if they did want to hurt you as much as possible they would absolutely do it psychologically, especially because thats the only way a female can do it towards a male, as she couldnt in any way physically hurt a man in most cases

Also foids never do anything directly what kinda bs is this

 

[Zeekie]

Citing one article doesn’t mean anything

I'm pretty sure I cited like 5 sources from scientific journal and ONE JOURNALISM ARTICLE which is based on scientific research anyway, you're trying to hard to hold onto the only thing that can discredit me but even at that you're failing.

, read our conversation again, I never asked you to post scientific proof exactly because I know there’s articles in both the sides and no real reviews made by the scientific community.

You never asked for it, but when I provided it on my own (because by the way, this whole conversation stems from poll-based research on the topic, not just opinions) you pushed back by dismissing it as a journalism article (and ignoring my other sources btw). Also, so far I haven't been able to find any article suggesting otherwise, I haven't done deep research but I did scroll through PubMed a bit, and all of the adjacent research is either unrelated, comes to neutral conclusions or positive conclusions on my stance, nothing negative/to support yours.

So you're speaking about ghost articles here. And yeah, there may not be any systematic review on the topic, but there's still enough research to tip the scale in favor of one perspective, when there's no evidence, we have to work with what we have, don't you agree?

I did not label them as feminist propaganda because I don’t like what they imply, I did because it’s the setup of our current civilization, prioritizing equality hence making inequality stances extremely difficult to be studied or proven scientifically, may them be between sexes, races or whatever

It is right to question whether a study may be biased or have a conflict of interests, but whole rejection of findings (especially when consistent across numerous studies and methodologies) because it contradicts a pre-existing belief is not a scientific approach, you're making it effectively making it impossible for any evidence to count if it doesn't align with that narrative.

Claiming objective scientific study of inequality is "difficult" due to a "feminist setup" (or any other) isn't a good critique. It's just a convenient excuse to ignore data that challenges your biases. Actual science works to mitigate bias using objective methods, regardless of the topic. Don't you think researchers are smart enough to understand and try to mitigate bias? That's a fundamental part of empirical research

 

[Michelangelo]

Also foids never do anything directly what kinda bs is this

i live with them and i know exactly why, they dont stand open confrontations. they do it constantly too, as they think i couldnt hear them lol

 

[Zeekie]

nope, there are still studies that didnt show women to be more empathic than man in some cases which YOU wont accept.

Which you have yet to cite, what is this supposed research? I'd be actually glad to read it.

some biologicals insticts behind there but thats about it

So you're agreeing with me that women have a predisposition for empathy?

Im not trying to demonize them either, just that they are more likely to be on men's level (as it is showed in the studies), especially if we take out social roles etc like they are doing to themselves, it appears very clearly in feminism too

Funny how the guy not trying to demonize them just gave a very long and detailed rant about how women are so horrible for "attacking a man's height and dick", but sure. Your stance here is purely hypothetical, you're suggesting something is true, not providing evidence for it.

 

[Michelangelo]

So you're agreeing with me that women have a predisposition for empathy?

already addressed it multiple times

Funny how the guy not trying to demonize them just gave a very long and detailed rant about how women are so horrible for "attacking a man's height and dick", but sure. Your stance here is purely hypothetical, you're suggesting something is true, not providing evidence for it.

such as? not like i simply tried to put them at the same level of men, that would be incel behavior right?

 

[Zeekie]

already addressed it multiple times

such as? not like i simply tried to put them at the same level of men, that would be incel behavior right?

Ey, don't be a smartass and ignore it, cite the research you were talking about lol.

You're not trying to put women and men on the same level by citing research, polls, avoiding bias or explaining widely recognized psychology or beliefs, you're trying to do it by using personal attacks and misogynistic remarks typical of someone who bears inherent resentment toward women... an incel.

So far you have been unable to provide any evidence to support your point, or deny mine. As it stands: Relative differences between genders exist and have been documented, empathy is real, measurable to some degree, and scientific evidence suggests women on average show more empathy than men.

Research shows women score higher on affective empathy, while men and women score relatively the same on cognitive empathy, therefore the scales are tilted in favor of women. How is any of this wrong? Scientifically, women show a small but consistent average advantage in empathy.

 

[Michelangelo]

Ey, don't be a smartass and ignore it, cite the research you were talking about lol.

You're not trying to put women and men on the same level by citing research, polls, avoiding bias or explaining widely recognized psychology or beliefs, you're trying to do it by using personal attacks and misogynistic remarks typical of someone who bears inherent resentment toward women... an incel.

So far you have been unable to provide any evidence to support your point, or deny mine. As it stands: Relative differences between genders exist and have been documented, empathy is real, measurable to some degree, and scientific evidence suggests women on average show more empathy than men

Making objective observations and claim that women arent more emphatic than men, especially in certain cases = incel behavior .

You can search the studies yourself, as you can see from the original post, they shouldnt be hard to find

 

[Zeekie]

Making objective observations and claim that women arent more emphatic than men, especially in certain cases = incel behavior .

Oh so now it's in "certain cases", are we moving the goalpost? Whatever, it's not the fact that you're making "observations", it's the way you put it and your inherently sexist tone and obvious intentions.

You can search the studies yourself, as you can see from the original post, they shouldnt be hard to find

I have, and guess what I found... NADA BABY! It appears to me that you just larped to sound you know what you're saying and prayed that some obscure research out there would validate what you said without even checking yourself, like if the research was going to manifest itself into existence

 

[Michelangelo]

Oh so now it's in "certain cases", are we moving the goalpost? Whatever, it's not the fact that you're making "observations", it's the way you put it and your inherently sexist tone and obvious intentions.

Already addressed it and the such cases

I have, and guess what I found... NADA BABY! It appears to me that you just larped to sound you know what you're saying and prayed that some obscure research out there would validate what you said without even checking yourself, like if the research was going to manifest itself into existence

Literally one second of chatGPT, talking to a wall rn

 

[Michelangelo]

Already addressed it and the such cases

View attachment 3922071
Literally one second of chatGPT, talking to a wall rn

Go on and ask him, i wont lose more time

 

[Zeekie]

Already addressed it and the such cases

View attachment 3922071
Literally one second of chatGPT, talking to a wall rn