Prolific "video games make you bad" researcher exposed as planning to refuse to publish his work if it doesn't show video game make you bad + mor

[Dwarvenhobble]

Why do you keep attempting to argue against things that people never say?

Yet people are presenting the research done by said professional as conservative or deliberately pushing said beliefs with faulty research. So people didn't say the specific words "Dr Verma is clearly a conservative who did bad research to push conservative world views" but it's hard not to see the implication being made by people in this thread lol.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

In more on topic new more research pulled after suspicions about poor research methods of faked results.

This time studies claiming cartoons caused increase violence in kids

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

 

[Avnger]

Yet people are presenting the research done by said professional as conservative or deliberately pushing said beliefs with faulty research. So people didn't say the specific words "Dr Verma is clearly a conservative who did bad research to push conservative world views" but it's hard not to see the implication being made by people in this thread lol.

So you're just arguing against what you want people to have said because it's easier than actually addressing their words?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So you're just arguing against what you want people to have said because it's easier than actually addressing their words?

Well their words have meaning and the meaning seems to be what I said.

I only need to see the title of that programme to know it's almost guaranteed to be colossal load of shit.

I can tell from the title that it is referring to a neuroscientific theory that is at best contentious and at worst trash.

It is almost as if one can be supportive of transgender rights and not support poorly evidenced and researched neuroscientific theories based on conservative views on gender as a simple duality.

Except what progressives are more strictly arguing in gender and neuroscience is "We don't really know". That happens to be the best overall summary, and bypasses the annoying habit of biasing theories with ill-conceived assumptions. That's not without accepting there are some frankly dubious progressive theories, but at least they aren't the watered-down continuations of 19th century prejudices.

Almost as if conservative parties & groups have a long history of condemning sexual/gender minorities, attempting to legally restrict their rights, or forcing them into repressive conversion therapies, based not on science but on theocratic bunkum.

You can really see how the narrative that was built up here part by part.

What point am I supposed the be addressing again? Points weren't made. Assertions based on no real evidence were made. I just addressed the assertions by asking people to google the good professor and have a look.

It's kinda funny people calling Dr Verma conservative when you see the good Doctor's twitter feed is very pro Biden Harris and calling Trump Bully in Chief lol.

 

[Silvanus]

You can really see how the narrative that was built up here part by part.

What point am I supposed the be addressing again? Points weren't made. Assertions based on no real evidence were made. I just addressed the assertions by asking people to google the good professor and have a look.

It's kinda funny people calling Dr Verma conservative when you see the good Doctor's twitter feed is very pro Biden Harris and calling Trump Bully in Chief lol.

Nobody called Dr. Verma a conservative, and you're the only person who brought her up.

I said that conservative groups had a history of condemning gender/sexual minorities, attempting to restrict their rights, or backing repressive conversion therapies. Which is entirely true, and has fuck-all to do with some Dr. Verma.

Address the points made; don't hallucinate an attack on some researcher only you've brought up.

 

[Agema]

It's kinda funny people calling Dr Verma conservative when you see the good Doctor's twitter feed is very pro Biden Harris and calling Trump Bully in Chief lol.

Yes. You might not have as long a memory as me, but we discussed this however many years ago when you first turned up on the forums. My opinions haven't changed since then.

It's not that I think Dr. Verma is a conservative, but a base assumption behind this line of thinking is an old one that as men and women apparently think differently, it must be explainable by brain differences, although thank goodness we're mostly way beyond people trying to prove women are more stupid than men because brains. At any rate, gender brain differences are a plausible hypothesis, except that it promotes research to identify supposed differences designed to "prove" what may be societally constructed assumptions, and also don't produce very convincing results. Yet nevertheless these specious results get overhyped and broadcast into the public sphere where people latch on to it to confirm their own prejudices. So all in all, I just find it a bit dispiriting.

 

[Houseman]

At any rate, gender brain differences are a plausible hypothesis, except that it promotes research to identify supposed differences designed to "prove" what may be societally constructed assumptions, and also don't produce very convincing results.

And if the science does "prove" those societally constructed assumptions, what does it matter where the idea came from? Science is science. The proof is the proof. It seems like you're dismissing the entire notion and all the science that results from because you seem to not like where the notion came from.

Kind of like Creationists dismissing proof about the age of the world because atheists were doing the science.

What actual criticisms, based on the merits alone, do you have against this doctor's work?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Nobody called Dr. Verma a conservative, and you're the only person who brought her up.

I said that conservative groups had a history of condemning gender/sexual minorities, attempting to restrict their rights, or backing repressive conversion therapies. Which is entirely true, and has fuck-all to do with some Dr. Verma.

Address the points made; don't hallucinate an attack on some researcher only you've brought up.

No just that Dr Verma's research was trash / invalid and just working to confirm conservatives biases which is why the work was likely bad lol

Again the research I was referencing with included Dr Verma's was called Conservative by Gethsemani who I quoted saying it. It was also presented and 19th century prejudices by Agema so wouldn't those count as conserative views especially with Agema framing the views as not progressive?

I'm addressing the points and narrative made and no-one noticed I previously said this apparently.

Oh you mean the theory which is basically confirmed by Dr Verma's research which has formed some of the basis of the understanding of being trans. If there is no such differences then unfortunately it brings up the argument of if transitioning is really required which, I don't think will go down well.

Because you know you'd think "yeh Dr Verma's research confirms why transitioning makes sense and is required and works as a treatment" would be I dunno a decent point being made against conversion theory while if there is no difference why wouldn't it be possible to convert?

So yes I did already address the point you made which was mostly just a excuse to try and create a bias by bringing up conversion therapy and turning the tables.

Yes. You might not have as long a memory as me, but we discussed this however many years ago when you first turned up on the forums. My opinions haven't changed since then.

It's not that I think Dr. Verma is a conservative, but a base assumption behind this line of thinking is an old one that as men and women apparently think differently, it must be explainable by brain differences, although thank goodness we're mostly way beyond people trying to prove women are more stupid than men because brains. At any rate, gender brain differences are a plausible hypothesis, except that it promotes research to identify supposed differences designed to "prove" what may be societally constructed assumptions, and also don't produce very convincing results. Yet nevertheless these specious results get overhyped and broadcast into the public sphere where people latch on to it to confirm their own prejudices. So all in all, I just find it a bit dispiriting.

Except the research nor the program mentioned intelligence.........You might want to try addressing what it actually said.

Also again it has produced pretty convincing results and it has been shown if the differences are nurture they may have been differences since when the left the trees.

The nurture argument barely has any evidence on it's side at all most of which is circumstantial at best.

 

[Avnger]

And if the science does "prove" those societally constructed assumptions, what does it matter where the idea came from? Science is science. The proof is the proof.

Science produced by tobacco companies "proved" cigarettes were harmless. They presented proof of it in the form of health studies and statistical analysis.

Science produced by racists "proved" people of African ancestry were genetically inferior to people of European ancestry. They presented proof in the form of studies, statistical analysis, and skull measurements.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Science produced by tobacco companies "proved" cigarettes were harmless. They presented proof of it in the form of health studies and statistical analysis.

Science produced by racists "proved" people of African ancestry were genetically inferior to people of European ancestry. They presented proof in the form of studies, statistical analysis, and skull measurements.

So any evidence Dr Verma's research was funded by groups after the outcome she produced? Otherwise it's just speculation and aspersions

 

[Silvanus]

No just that Dr Verma's research was trash / invalid and just working to confirm conservatives biases which is why the work was likely bad lol

Again the research I was referencing with included Dr Verma's was called Conservative by Gethsemani who I quoted saying it. It was also presented and 19th century prejudices by Agema so wouldn't those count as conserative views especially with Agema framing the views as not progressive?

I'm addressing the points and narrative made and no-one noticed I previously said this apparently.

None of this has any relevance to the point I made, which has precisely fuck-all to do with this specific researcher you keep bringing up.

Conservative political parties and groups have a long and ignoble history of condemning sexual/gender minorities, and restricting their legal rights/ protections.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

None of this has any relevance to the point I made, which has precisely fuck-all to do with this specific researcher you keep bringing up.

Conservative political parties and groups have a long and ignoble history of condemning sexual/gender minorities, and restricting their legal rights/ protections.

You said no-one claimed it was conservative.

I addressed that point showing yes some-one did.

You brought up conversion therapy.

I pointed out how Dr Verma's research is the basis of more research basically saying "No conversion therapy won't help people we can't change these things with chemicals or condition only transition them helps because it makes it so their body is more in line with their neurology".

As for calling me to address a point about said groups condemning or restricting legal rights.......... that has 0 relevance or connection to the topic so there was little reason for me to address it, it seemed like a mostly pointless angle to your point designed little more than to try and play to biases to present anything deemed conservative leaning (I.E. What was claimed about Dr Verma's research) to be leading to or part of an oppressive act.

If You'd bothered with the video I linked you'd see the overall research present the idea of People having somewhat different aptitude at different tasks based on the gender of the person importantly WITH SOME TASKS MEN FARE WORSE AT. So the video I presented and the research within it should have already been enough of a counter point to your point about condemning and restricting etc.

 

[Silvanus]

You said no-one claimed it was conservative.

I addressed that point showing yes some-one did.

I said nobody in this thread called Dr. Verma a conservative. Because you're the only person who brought her up.

You brought up conversion therapy.

I pointed out how Dr Verma's research is the basis of more research basically saying "No conversion therapy won't help people we can't change these things with chemicals or condition only transition them helps because it makes it so their body is more in line with their neurology".

...Which puts Dr. Verma very much at odds with the conservative parties/ groups I'm talking about.

As for calling me to address a point about said groups condemning or restricting legal rights.......... that has 0 relevance or connection to the topic so there was little reason for me to address it, it seemed like a mostly pointless angle to your point designed little more than to try and play to biases to present anything deemed conservative leaning (I.E. What was claimed about Dr Verma's research) to be leading to or part of an oppressive act.

It's directly relevant to the point I originally made. Houseman implied that people on this forum were ideologically inconsistent in condemning conservative neuroscientific theories but not "progressive" ones. My direct response was perfectly relevant to that point: that conservative parties and groups have tended to be censorious and repressive. Houseman's the one who originally brought up "conservative" and "progressive"; it's pretty directly relevant for me to bring in the history that self-described "conservative" groups have.

You're the one who then chose to address me at this point.

 

[Houseman]

Houseman implied that people on this forum were ideologically inconsistent in condemning conservative neuroscientific theories but not "progressive" ones. My direct response was perfectly relevant to that point: that conservative parties and groups have tended to be censorious and repressive. Houseman's the one who originally brought up "conservative" and "progressive"; it's pretty directly relevant for me to bring in the history that self-described "conservative" groups have.

I implied that people were ideologically inconsistent in condemning conservative neuroscientific theories but not "progressive" ones because I saw people condemning science on the basis of "that sounds like something a conservative would say, so it's wrong!"

You and everyone else saying "well, they deserve it" doesn't absolve you of guilt, but rather confirms it. You're prejudiced, and, as a result, already decided that the science is wrong (and that the science is conservative) without even looking at it.

Even Nazis made scientific breakthroughs. The point is to accept the science or else you're a hypocrite, no better than a covid-denier or an anti-masker. You can't tell us to accept the science when you won't.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I said nobody in this thread called Dr. Verma a conservative. Because you're the only person who brought her up.

Yet her research formed part of the video I posted.

Tell me how could some-one have called her something without her being brought up?

The research (part of it was hers) was frame as conservative research by others who I quoted..........

...Which puts Dr. Verma very much at odds with the conservative parties/ groups I'm talking about.

Yes so bringing them up isn't relevant at all................All it did was add to a building narrative and attempt to push a biased view of the research to those not willing to look at what was said.

It's directly relevant to the point I originally made. Houseman implied that people on this forum were ideologically inconsistent in condemning conservative neuroscientific theories but not "progressive" ones. My direct response was perfectly relevant to that point: that conservative parties and groups have tended to be censorious and repressive. Houseman's the one who originally brought up "conservative" and "progressive"; it's pretty directly relevant for me to bring in the history that self-described "conservative" groups have.

You're the one who then chose to address me at this point.

And Houseman was commenting on what was going on relating to what I'd pointed out.............The quote chain leads back to the quote from Gethsemani. Houseman wasn't the one to bring up partisan positions here just point out it was being brought up and how it appeared. In context in this thread I mentioned that certain people claiming to be progressives were pushing the idea there was no difference between men and women beyond genitals and chromosomes. Thus Houseman was right, the debate was being framed as conservative vs progressive and seemingly a rejecting of Dr Verma's research by Geth and possibly others too because it was deemed conservative..........

Is there's an ideological inconsistency? YES because saying peoples feelings and valid then rejecting science saying "Yes here's why they're valid" does seem hugely inconsistent especially for the side often claiming to be all for Science and facts rejecting the Science supporting things because it's non consistent with the present "progressive" dogma claims.......Bringing up history just seems to be trying to be a gotcha on Houseman when that history isn't repeating here it's weirdly being flipped on it's head with a different side not believing their beliefs (Which have the least evidence supporting them out of the two hypothesis) could be wrong.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Dude, your reading comprehension sucks.
1. I never brought up Verma
2. I specifically referred to the general theory that men's and women's brains are different, which is a broader theory even outside radiology and neurology and has very its roots in 19th century perceptions about men and women.

Verma can be whatever they want, it doesn't change the fact that their research is used as justification for peddling shoddy theories.

No but we were talking about the research stuff I'd posted a video of which included Verma's stuff.
The topic thread had seen me bring up Dr Verma already.

So you were plucking some random research none of us know of or have seen or was posted here out of the air rather than addressing anything about what was being posted? The research thing I posted is what Agema was referring to, Specter Von Baren replied to him them you replied to Specter. So are you really saying you just plucked an imagined piece of research out of thin air that no-one can argue against because it's a strawman position you fully control just to try and play on peoples biases and throw aspersions? Because honestly that's likely worse than simply thinking Dr Verma's research was conservative lol. Also rather a Weasel Words strategy to pull considering the train of discussion was about the research posted including Dr Verma's at the time of your reply.

If you'd watched the video the argument over differences is solved, what causes them is the question. Hell Women's brains are smaller (Before I get shouting, your I phone is more powerful than the room sized computers that sent man to the moon so size doesn't mean much, efficiency does and considering the more modern version of women evolved before men as such women have a fair bit of extra time on the evolutionary scale ahead of man)

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Do you usually do this? Like, if you hear someone in the grocery store say something like "I don't like bananas", do you immediately jump at them and go "that's ideologically inconsistent! Why are you not condemning apples too?!". Just curious, or is it just that you've currently got a hate boner for me and just take any opportunity to trash me a little extra? If so: <3

The theory is shoddy, it is based on conservative ideas about the sexes. Hence I called it out. If someone was to bring out a terrible progressive theory I'd call it shoddy too. Bad science is bad science whenever politics leads its assumptions.

It's being found that even on a cellular level having two X chromosomes vs XY chromosomes can make a difference to function ad operations of cells.

Every Cell Has a Sex: X and Y and the Future of Health Care

Dr. David C. Page discusses the origin of the X and Y chromosomes and what it means for the future of health care at Grand Rounds, sponsored by the Women’s

medicine.yale.edu

The medical research gender gap: how excluding women from clinical trials is hurting our health

When it comes to health research, large gender gaps limit how much we know about the difference between women’s health and men’s

www.theguardian.com

Women also metabolize drugs differently than men. Yet fewer than 45% of animal studies on anxiety and depression use female lab animals.

So is it a shoddy theory to suggest brains might have some differences which could mean men are worse at some things?

 

[Trunkage]

It's being found that even on a cellular level having two X chromosomes vs XY chromosomes can make a difference to function ad operations of cells.

Every Cell Has a Sex: X and Y and the Future of Health Care

Dr. David C. Page discusses the origin of the X and Y chromosomes and what it means for the future of health care at Grand Rounds, sponsored by the Women’s

medicine.yale.edu

The medical research gender gap: how excluding women from clinical trials is hurting our health

When it comes to health research, large gender gaps limit how much we know about the difference between women’s health and men’s

www.theguardian.com

So is it a shoddy theory to suggest brains might have some differences which could mean men are worse at some things?

Do you think people here are arguing that men and women are exactly the same?