Your goose being cooked is a bad thing though?

Idk if it came to fruition but they basically negotiated voting for this in return for not funding Trumps slush fund to pay out for Jan 6th insurrectionists. Which is… Something. I guess?

This seems like kind of the opposite for me.

The biggest change to my ADHD was when I got an autistic obsession with a sport, so I started excersizing, eating better and sleeping better.

The second paragraph would be entirely useless to me and woulntnwork as soon as it was more than 2 steps and involves writing

Bold of you to say that on lemmy of all places

You can also just get flash drives that are usb c. Even though I’m not a Mac guy, I thinks it’s been over 10 years since I’ve owned a computer (Inc phone) that doesn’t have usb c

deleted by creator

They will only give you a castle if you’re already wealthy, it’s a whole process to check you have existing assets. They’re not giving castles to random people with ordinary income.

I’m pleasantly surprised you accepted it. I guess I’m still used to other parts of the internet where people are a lot worse than they are here.

But yeah, through my other experiences I’ve learnt to not give someone evidence until they tell me what evidence they will actually accept, as it’s the best method to counter people moving goalpost. And you saying any sources I might have would be biased put me in that mode.

But hey, all’s well that ends well and no hard feelings dude. And I’m sorry for being a dick.

From what I’ve read theres a couple educated guesses people make but very little in terms of actual study on what causes the difference.

Yeah that’s fair, but I can’t think of many eSports where reaction times don’t st least play a part, and at the highest levels, even a small disadvantage can make a big difference. But it’s certainly not the only factor and sexism is probably a bigger problem

It’s for the cuck commentator to live cast for the other cucks on the sofa.

See thats exactly my point. You’ve already primed yourself to reject literally any study I can provide to you as “”“biased”“” or AI generated or some other lazy and bad faith argument in order to protect your worldview, without any actual reason or evidence to make that claim

But you did kinda, sorta say you could maybe, possibly change your mind if my sources somehow manage to pass your arbitrary standards for what you will accept. So ill give you some sources.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3198384/

This study is probably the one that would be hardest for you to make an argument of bias over, as its just a a fairly simple plotting/analysis of open data from the Beijing Olympics (that you could somewhat verify yourself if you wanted to put in the effort of finding the videos from the even and timing it yourself, although it wouldn’t be as accurate due to limits on frame rates) and its also good because its looking at elite athletes who have trained to have quick reaction times, so there isnt an argument about a random sample having bias towards men being more likely to engage in stimulus that would reduce their reaction times. It also has enough data to have a very high confidence interval for its findings.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1041608010001639

This study is a meta analysis that looks at a variety of metrics, including reaction times. It makes a point that while men have faster reaction times, women do better on some of the other metrics it looks at.

https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2010/04000/Gender_Influence_on_Response_Time_to_Sensory.10.aspx

This is the best laboratory conditions study I could find on the subject. Looking at the difference between audio and visual stimulus between men and women. Interestingly this one found that while men have faster movement and transit to stimulus for both audio and visual, the actual reaction times are only significantly lower for men in response to audio stimulus, while responses to visual stimulus was roughly equal (although this is the only study I found that came to this conclusion)

https://skeenapublishers.com/journal/ijeti/IJETI-04-00051.pdf

This one isnt presented as well as others (i dont like it doesnt have error bars for example) but its a large sample size (and also looks at age) and found women have ~8% slower reaction times when compared with men.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-16045-1

another well put together study with a good sample size, this time looking at driving behaviour, that like the others found women’s reaction times to be about 0.2s slower than men’s

and finally im just going to dump a bunch more studies here, that I havnt had the time or effort to read thoroughly, merely skim through, just to show that this particular topic has had dozens upon dozens of studies done over the years that all come to the same conclusion.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03208225 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-006-8869-6 https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/66 https://oro.open.ac.uk/87874/8/87874.pdf https://www.scribd.com/document/733475162/effect-of-gender-on-reaction-time-capstone https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=2689 https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/BF03208225.pdf https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22390656/

As you can see there is an absolute plethora of data showing men have faster reaction times than women. And I could not find a single study, even when using very biased wording, and looking at specifically feminist and anti-sexist sources, that showed women having faster or equal reaction times to men.

So given all of this data, and the fact that not a single study exists that even claims to disprove any of this data, the only reasonable conclusion is that men do in fact have faster reaction times than women. And in my personal opinion, if when presented with this evidence you chose to continue to deny it, then you are simply anti-science and care more about protecting your pre-existing worldview than any sort of abject reality.

I look forward to you either surprising me and changing your mind/admitting you were were wrong, or just doubling down yet again on being wrong.

Yes the burden of proof is on me. And as I’ve stated like 4 times now, I will happily give that proof if you will tell me that providing said proof will actually be productive and get you to change your mind.

And the fact that you again refuse to do so just means you are consciously aware of the fact that you’re not here arguing in good faith in any way shape or form.

You are stuck in a particuksr world view and you are so narrow-minded that anything that goes against it you will just reject it. Just like arguing with a flat earther or COVID truther or a terf.

If you want to deny that, just tell me you are willing to accept my sources and change your mind if I give them to you. It’s that simple. But unfortunately, we both know you won’t do that.

Im not, he’ll you could look it up yourself if you actually cared, but you clearly don’t,nhence why you dodged the question I asked you.

So why should I go through the effort of reading and reviewing these papers in order to provide them to you if you have no intention of engaging with me in good faith?

If you answer my question from my last comment I can give you half a dozen good sources, but i know it won’t make you change your mind.

If I gave you sources would it actually change your mind? Or would you just find arbitrary reasons to dismiss it outright?

I mean, that just sounds like you’re unwilling to accept information that goes against your worldview.

But there is actually a ton of research on this, not too sure what criteria you define for independent though, as all of it is published in journals. And from general population samples to elite sprinters at the Olympics.

The other interesting thing about it, is that some retrospective meta analysis shows the gap appears to be decreasing with one study speculating it’s because more women drive and play sports now compared to the 60s when the first studies looking at this happened.

And what exactly are you basing that on? Just that you dont like the results?

Removed by mod

You forget about silhouette of man with undercut and beard wearing glasses

Like I said, nothing strong enough that he could be convicted, but when a guy who goes to pedophilia themed parties says “I’m a pedophile”, even as a “joke” I’m going to just assume they’re a pedo, even if he calls out other pedos.

And it’s not like he’s such a genius and vital part of our culture that we need to find justification for him.

It’s only a Caesar salad if you cut open the bottle and pull the dressing out instead of squeezing it out.

Idk what this image is trying to convey