(January 19, 2016 at 4:26 am)Irrational Wrote:(January 19, 2016 at 4:21 am)pool the great Wrote: Forgive me for asking, but why exactly is the scientific proof that a relatively higher testosterone in an average male body is the causation for aggressive, competitive and other related characteristics not enough to convince you that it is not because of social conditioning that males are aggressive, competitive etc but because of their inherent nature? Is that a logical fallacy I see?
Because you can't make such a confident conclusion by providing just one example. Not to mention that studies have shown the opposite of what you're mainly arguing.
Here's an article for you to check out:
http://www.apa.org/research/action/difference.aspx
And studies have shown that tall men have a higher IQ.
Other studies have shown that the fart of women are relatively more smelly than fart of men on average. So what exactly is your point?
Do you have any source to show that there is no difference between men and women?
Would you like to see me make a confident conclusion though just one example? Here you go:
2+2 = 4.
My conclusion: Two positive numbers added together gives another positive number. Or do you conclude that my conclusion is obviously wrong because I provided only 1 example? *sigh* It doesn't matter the number of evidence that is presented, what matters is credibility. *sigh*
