in the same way that very tall people are ignored when you plan public or government buildings, religious outliers can be ignored when talking about laws or regulations. And in the same way biologists can ignore outliers when talking about a general model about sexes in mammals. We just have to be aware of that and check, if the detriment the outliers face is a burden they can take or it is a burden too great to carry. Coming back to the tall people, we have to check, if the burden to always duck at every door, is still ok or if we have to change our government buildings to have higher door frames. In my opinion this is the point that neither side understands.
even her in the netherlands where most doors in homes are around 6.5ft high i have some friends that bump their heads quite often. imagine then walking around in asia or something😂
I had a feeling when I saw this topic pop up on the line that you were going to make a patreon video about it and I'm so glad you did. I love getting a deeper dive and break down into topics like this. Thank you, Matt.
Never allow the causing of harm to people, to become a norm. Even in a full out war, never consider the harm which you cause the enemy, as something normal.
@@LukeSumIpsePatremTe No, set an ideal, while noting that you will never reach it. When traveling across the lands, aim for the mountain top that you see, but realise that when you reach its foot, you might just not need to climb to the top, or that you can't. There are many sayings expressing this. Don't confuse what is normal, with the norm. What happens often, is not "the norm". The norm is what we decide we want it to be. The norm is the mountain top. To muslims the norm is to pray five times a day. And they inforce it to make it normal. To christians the norm is to visit church each sunday. And they enforce it to make it normal. If you are content with calling violence the norm, just because violence is prevelent amongst humans, then you are not looking for a solution. Don't you think that violence is a problem that needs many solutions? But maybe you think that violence is a solution, in of itself? It can be, but what happens when everyone uses violence, just because it is normal to do so?
It's so important that you made that point, that when speaking ABOUT a certain group, you cannot argue that since they are outliers, they are irrelevant. Their relevance isn't in question when we're talking about THEM! Anyway, I just wanted to leave a long enough comment to boost the algo. Great video.
Although it's always possible to add up the data and divide by the number of data, not all distributions actually have a mean. The Cauchy distribution, for example.
@@donepearceIf you let f(x) be the p.d.f. of the Cauchy distribution, then the expected value is the limit as (a,b) goes to (-infinity, infinity) of the integral from a to b of xf(x). This limit does not exist because you get different answers depending on the sequence of (a,b)-values you choose. The limit is 0 along the line a=-b (this was probably your intuition), but the limit is nonzero along the line a=-2b, for instance.
In terms of human rights in democracies, there are no outliers. Everyone has equal rights according to the law. The question arises if we need to create new laws to adjust for "outliers". This is where people have objections. And we should not forget that the rights of one person stop at the point where the rights of another person begin. Defining the boundaries is not always easy.
Even your thing, “the rights of one person stop where the rights of another person begin” is overly simplistic. If two rights overlap - perhaps I want the right to speak to whomever I want and you want the right to avoid speaking to me - who gets priority? Someone isn’t gonna be getting rights. So the real ugly truth is that some rights should, will, and do trample on other rights.
@@Leith_Crowther My last sentence was added exactly to address what you mentioned. When rights overlap, the law needs to set boundaries, where we set the boundaries is the difficult question.
What we have is a war on nuance. Unfortunately I think evolution has conditioned us to make these generalizations and take mental shortcuts which result in the marginalization of people who are outliers, especially when related to sex and gender
This reminds me of a meme: A pie chart of the percentage of elements (atoms) in the universe, followed by a periodic table, denoting Hydrogen and Helium as "Elements" and everything else as "Mental Illnesses."
False equivalent. No wonder people think Christianity is the answer when all the gaythiests can talk about is the right of sexually abused children to be mentally disabled. Yes, it is child abuse to teach them that transgenderism is real.
While true, hydrogen and helium make up the bulk of what came out of the BB, there was also a bit of lithium. Which makes that mental illness comment even better.
Great description of these fundamentals of statistics. The geometric interpretation of 1-sigma is the point on the bell curve of maximum slope, and where the curvature changes from downward to upward.
Most things in real life are not normally distributed (i.e., like in the Bell Curve that you showed) and therefore the mean and standard deviation may not have any meaning or have a meaning that is not what a non-statistician can understand. For example, the income distribution among the population of the United States of America is far and away not normal, and believing it to be normal completely discards the 1% of the population that receives more than half of all of the income in the country. Similarly, the existence of trans, gay, or non-binary people does not follow any normal (I.e. Bell curve) distribution that I can think of. The importance of these groups is totally independent of any averages or ratios. People are people, and describing them with the known statistics is demeaning and obtuse.
@@luz_reyes_676 You can just understand that the pieces of statistics that are taught in schools are so oversimplified that all realistic use of them is useless or wrong. We are told to average out everything without studying first if the variables follow a known distribution or if we have enough data points to reach any useful conclusion, but the first thing that we find in every published article is an average of something, as if an average was always useful.
It's difficult to measure these things in fine detail, because they are subjective. You could ask people to tell you how gay they are on a scale of 1 - 100, but most people don't think of it in those terms. You are likely to get a lot of 1s from people who consider themselves straight, a lot of 100s from people who consider themselves gay, and a bunch around 50 who consider themselves bi. What distinguishes a 70 from an 80? It's hard to give examples. You might get clearer results from just 5 categories: Only attracted to opposite gender Prefer opposit gender No preference Prefer same gender Only attracted to same gender. The way you group the data might allow you to use a normal distribution. For instance, I would be interested to see the shape the data if you combined the exclusive categories, combined the Prefer categories and set them beside the no preference category. There might be a normal distribution of exclusivity of preference, and also a seperate binary switch that defines which direction any preference goes, that switch usually but not always aligned with sex.
@@TestTestGo Even with your five categories you are hopelessly oversimplifying a phenomenon that we cannot adequately understand, much less measure or categorize. Some kids know that they are somehow different from the others even before puberty and then become "gay" when one of their differences is same sex attraction and this is one of the reasons we know that gayness is more than a type of sexual attraction. When we apply statistics to areas where our understanding is so poor, we just add an aura of erudition with numbers where we just don't know much.
@andresvillarreal9271 but in face of a phenomenon that we don't fully understand, the way to gain an understanding is to apply science. We need to make hypotheses and test them. Chop the data up into different categories, compare them, count them. Try a different set of categories, until we find patterns that we can verify. Just declaring that it's hard doesn't get us anywhere, and the better we can understand how these things work the better equipped we are to solve problems like forming a consensus on how these things should be taught to children. In the absence of understanding these discussions just become shouting matches.
Actually, it would be perfect if people would think like that: "Even when there is just one - there is still value." The problem is that most people are afraid (or insecure) of the outliers, and also most people don't see value in the one outlier. Otherwise there wouldn't be wars, religions, races, sexes, politics, opinions, or any other such "boxes". In reality, the soldiers are "cannon meat", and the ouliers are the Generals, Presidents, Billionairs, etc.
There is one crowd I will never acknowledge: that lot wot puts pineapple on pizza. Sacrilege. You're killing all the Nonnas over in Italy with this. Think of the Nonnas. . .
Dont ignore the 1% even if you're used to using generalities (big numbaz!) Ty, but it takes perspective to understand which sets are faulty and that 1% might happen to be the whole... heck, it could be a demographic or a set you have not even covered in your analysis :) "thinking outside of the box". As always, ty! (sadly only watched the first few minutes...I will watch the rest later)
You dismiss the outliers in sex for the same reason you dismiss the tall people when designing buildings. There are very few intersex people and special provision must be made for them when they do show up. But you don't consider them when desiging the rules for the norm. A bit like the old saying - hard cases make bad law. Gender is a very different matter. It is spectrum covering every possibility from one end to the other and every part of it must be accommodated. In social situations, gender is probably more relevant than sex - it defines how we interact with each other. In others, sex is more appropriate - like in sports or allocation of changing rooms.
So 'women's bathrooms' should say: only anatolomony chromosome genetically biologically female room? That's going to be very difficult to govern! I mean I suppose they could each have a 4 hour test of their complete bodily make-up BEFORE entering the bathroom, however I can't see that working out at all. Your idea is silly.
@@kimsland999 The problem here is that these are not places where friends gather. The people in here are strangers and quite rightly some people will not be comfortable with a member of the opposite sex being there. Differentiating by sex is the only proper way to handle this.
If we are going by your own concerns about outliers, then it doesn't apply to your argument. In statistics you only potentially remove outliers beyond 3 sigmas, which trans people are a part of. Also you would only remove outlies in design when it is not economically feasible to accommodate all. Matt makes a good example of not designing buildings for the outliers in height, instead making special accommodations for the specific instances. For your bathroom example, you bring up being uncomfortable with strangers. Many places just make gender neutral single bathrooms. You also bring up sex being more appropriate, but there are many trans people who present as a gender different than they were born, and so someone would see a person as a different gender than them in the bathroom and get uncomfortable. So again, your criteria fails. Maybe you should admit to what this really is about. Not accommodation, not forcing people to use a bathroom of their birth gender, but of being uncomfortable with this change and wanting to remove said group completely from society. As that would be the only solution that would work for your criteria, but you know gynecide is frowned upon, even in this sub group, so you try to couch your language. Maybe you don't consciously think this, but it would be the end result with the what the rhetoric escalates. Maybe you could realize that the only thing people care about in a public bathroom is relieving themselves as quickly as possible and not touching anything they can avoid. And when you get to that stage, maybe realize we are all people, and the superficial differences don't matter. Live and let live.
@@donepearceharassing people in bathrooms is it illegal regardless of your gender. I think harassment laws enough to govern all this bathroom nonsense, we don't need to segregate by who has what genital. It's not like a lesbian can't attack a woman anyway
Take care to not use certain terminology where it does not apply. Suppose 0.1% of people have the name Matt. That does not have anything to do with "Matt" being within x standard deviations from a supposed "mean name" in a "distribution" of names. That's nonsense. You can simply talk about percentages and still make your point. If you must go that way when discussing sex and gender, you need to point to what quantities you actually mean to apply these tools to. Be it testosterone concentration or even a made-up "gender score", idk.
What percentage of people think that a 13 year old shouldnt have the faintest concept of being transgender? I don't think it's a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
This is an overall pointless video. If you're using statistical analysis to deal with outliers you're doing it wrong. Those tools aren't for interpersonal interaction, they are for society organization, laws, general goals. Local communities can handle outliers in a functioning society. That's the most humane way to go, literally. You have human solution for humans who are around them. Local, loved ones, people in their life, their town, their school, their job. Decisions made by examining the dataset of 1 person, that outlier in their life. We should not expect the marginalize to not be marginalized. They are, by definitions, at the margins of statistics, and that's just a fact. Trying to make society work for the margins harms the majority of people, it's not cost effective, in terms of human suffering. You said it yourself: you get to ignore tall people when making buildings. Simply because everything has a diminishing return. It's not cost and resource effective. That doesn't mean tall people are "Worse" or "wrong", don't get rights in life, or can enter no buildings. It just means they have to handle their own size because buildings can't afford to do so. I am 206cm tall (6'9"). I don't expect to fit in tiny cars, so I try not to go in them... and I make choices that make sense for someone of my height. People around me who care about me understand I didn't choose being tall, and they help out if they can, when needed. Most of the time it's actually an advantage, so I am fine. I don't have to overthink about genetics, or mediums, or populations, or genes in my life. I live it, that's it. Society and building companies can ignore the outlier (tall people), this is why we focus on individual freedoms, so the small, local communities can course-correct for outliers without needing a law, or an absurd data analysis.
I don't think he did that. This video seemed to me against the notion of simplifying people (and all data really) to mere boxes or labels. Or at least the idea that when we *do* simplify things for practical reasons, we do not mistake the simplified model for being representative of the entire reality. It's about recognizing the limitations and effective ranges of labels so that we don't ignore relevant information, nor leave minority groups of people out of conversations about rights and justice and morality.
The universe follows mathematical laws. Math is conceptual. Concepts can only reside in the mind or minds as abstract ideas. The universe must have a mind. That's what I'm going to call the loaded word "God." These geometries are like looking into the mirror of what we really are. Fibonacci sequence, Phyllotaxis, Plutonic Solids, Golden Spiral/Metalic Spirals, Flower of Life, Golden Circles, Seed of Life, Mandelbrot Set, Tetractys, Tree of Life/Ankh, Tetragrammaton, Eye of Horus, Nine Code, Vortex Math, Solfeggio Frequencies, Cymatics/Chladni Patterns, Turing Patterns, Zero-point, Sonic Geometry, Music Geometry, I Ching/Yin Yang, Trion Re', E8, Hopf Vibration, Primer Fields, Sir/Shri Yantra, Merkabah, Magic Squares, Precession of the Equinoxes/Great Year, Yuga Cycles, Time Wave Zero... There's many cults to choose from in the control system. Once you recognize that the objective becomes escape cultism. Fundamentally, philosophy is the search for truth. The scientific method was born from philosophy and logic and is intertwined with philosophy and logic. The scientific method is our best route to truth. Belief/disbelief is philosophical suicide. Belief/disbelief based deductions end with belief/disbelief based organizations in the control system taking advantage. Belief/disbelief is a destroyer of logic, knowledge, and freedom. In that sense, belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control. Pseudoscience and religion are the main causes of humanities crisis in consciousness. I do my very best not to fall into the trap of belief/disbelief based deducting. I help others escape cultism. Pseudoscience is fake science masquerading as scientific. Transgenderism cultists are the most difficult. It's based on pseudoscience scientism nonsense with mental disorders at it's core. The religious people are easier to help than atheists because atheists believe they have escaped while still being stuck in belief/disbelief based deduction. OXFORD LANGUAGES Cult: relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. Religion as a whole certainty isn't a small group. There are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide. Trivial divisions in Christianity similar to Lutheran and Catholic division is one says the wine and cracker sacrament represents the blood and body, one says it literally is the blood and body. These become cults in the division. 7.8 billion world population Catholics = 1.378 billion Lutherans = 77 million Atheists = 500 million Transgender = 624 million Catholics are at about a ratio of 2 in 15. Still a relatively small group of people that have strange or sinister practices to me. New Atheist Cult allowed the Trans cult to begin. Extremely strange and sinister, in my opinion. Throughout my life, I grew up in the Southern Baptist cult. Married into Lutheran cult. A second marriage into the Catholic cult. Got recommended into 12 step cults by the VA. Dabbled in some New Age cult. Somewhere, I experienced an awakening to what I really am, what life is about, and where consciousness is after about a decade off the rat race wheel studying philosophy, science, engineering, and physics. The very first step in escaping cultism is recognizing cultism. Namaste. In Lak'ech Ala K'in. Tathata. Shivoham. Ashe. Tatvamasi.
Cult is when I don't understand something so it must be religious ideology! I'd love to know in great detail what the religious ideology or pseudoscience is that you think "transgenderism" involves. I'm sure it will be a 100% accurate representation of what trans people are and believe.
You’ve put the cart before the horse. Mathematical laws DESCRIBE how the universe operates. It doesn’t prescribe how it operates. So, no. You don’t need a mind with those concepts. It’s like trying to argue that America can’t exist without a map of America so the map must have always existed. 😅
@ryonalionthunder Nope. Physical laws precede physical presence. Mathematical laws precede physical laws. Mind precedes mathematics because math is conceptual. Concepts can only reside in mind or minds of humans as abstract ideas. The universe must have mind to follow mathematical laws. If something can occur in math, it can occur in the physical world. The mind of "God." Believing that sentient consciousness arises from a cold dead mechanical universe is similar to believing that a dust devil can go through an automobile junkyard and assemble a helicopter. In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other. The philosophy of search for truth is the study of reality, which seeks to understand the nature of truth and the ways to discover it. The Standard Conception of Philosophy, philosophy as it is understood and practiced, is and has been generally considered to be the search for truth. Thinking like a philosopher involves thinking critically about alternative possibilities. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline in the search for truth. Logic is a branch of philosophy that is based on certain fundamental principles like the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of sufficient reason. Fundamentally, philosophy is the search for truth. Our best route to truth is the scientific method. Scientific method was born from philosophy and logic and is intertwined with philosophy and logic. Four goals and three major steps of the scientific method is: description, explanation, prediction, and control through observation, experimentation, and peer review. In science, engineering, and physics, we use conceptual mathematical/geometrical representation to help describe, explain, predict, and control physical presences. Logistical order is: 1) Philosophy 2) Logic 3) Scientific method 4) Hypothesis 5) Theory 6) Axioms 7) Fact, empirically correct truth. Belief has great power. Just look at something like the Placebo effect. The flip side of the coin is that the only barrier to truth is believing you already have it or that truth is unobtainable. Belief/disbelief has absolutely no credence in the scientific method. A belief can be true or false. It’s an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, even if it's contrary to the scientific method. A hypothesis has an indication of truth that is not known to be true; a hypothesis is a justified belief that is backed up with some supporting evidence of the scientific method having at least observation. A theory in science is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method. A theory is a substantiated explanation for an occurrence that has come to a peer reviewed conclusion; a judgment or decision reached by scientific method with consistent repeatable observations/experiments. A theory still may not be empirically correct; a fact is empirically correct truth. Hypothesis and theory are search for factual truth through the scientific method. The only barriers to truth are believing you already have it, or that truth is unobtainable. Thinking stops were believing/disbelieving begins. There is no reason to believe/disbelieve. We can choose to be reasonable people, or unreasonable people. We don't have to believe/disbelieve in anything, believing/disbelieving is philosophical suicide. When we know something, it's not belief, hypothesis, or theory; it is fact, an empirically correct truth. Belief/disbelief based organizations have agendas in the control system. In that sense, belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control. EVIDENCE (1) whether the evidence has been subject to scientific testing and, if so, what methodology was used; (2) whether the evidence has been reviewed by peers or a scientific publication; (3)what is the known potential rate of error; (4) is the evidence generally accepted in the scientific community. Belief/disbelief is philosophical suicide. Belief/disbelief based deductions end with belief/disbelief based organizations in the control system taking advantage. Belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control, a destroyer of logic, knowledge, and freedom.
@Oblivion-VigasFirst We can all agree that there's only two sexes in nature, male and female, and a combination of both doesn't negate that. LGBTQ claims sex and gender are different. My question is, what is LGBTQ definition of gender? I've been called every name is the book by what may be the most disconnected sociopathic group that has ever walked the planet for that question. Gender ideology is pseudoscience nonsense. If there was evidence for gender ideology they would be able to define. Four goals and three major steps of the scientific method are: Description, explanation, prediction and control through observation, experimentation, and peer review. There's absolutely no evidence for a spectrum of genders. Gender dysphoria is listed in the DSM-5. In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other. The philosophy of search for truth is the study of reality, which seeks to understand the nature of truth and the ways to discover it. The Standard Conception of Philosophy, philosophy as it is understood and practiced, is and has been generally considered to be the search for truth. Thinking like a philosopher involves thinking critically about alternative possibilities. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline in the search for truth. Logic is a branch of philosophy that is based on certain fundamental principles like the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of sufficient reason. Fundamentally, philosophy is the search for truth. Our best route to truth is the scientific method. Scientific method was born from philosophy and logic and is intertwined with philosophy and logic. Four goals and three major steps of the scientific method is: description, explanation, prediction, and control through observation, experimentation, and peer review. In science, engineering, and physics, we use conceptual mathematical/geometrical representation to help describe, explain, predict, and control physical presences. Logistical order is: 1) Philosophy 2) Logic 3) Scientific method 4) Hypothesis 5) Theory 6) Axioms 7) Fact, empirically correct truth. Belief has great power. Just look at something like the Placebo effect. The flip side of the coin is that the only barrier to truth is believing you already have it or that truth is unobtainable. Belief/disbelief has absolutely no credence in the scientific method. A belief can be true or false. It’s an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, even if it's contrary to the scientific method. A hypothesis has an indication of truth that is not known to be true; a hypothesis is a justified belief that is backed up with some supporting evidence of the scientific method having at least observation. A theory in science is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method. A theory is a substantiated explanation for an occurrence that has come to a peer reviewed conclusion; a judgment or decision reached by scientific method with consistent repeatable observations/experiments. A theory still may not be empirically correct; a fact is empirically correct truth. Hypothesis and theory are search for factual truth through the scientific method. The only barriers to truth are believing you already have it, or that truth is unobtainable. Thinking stops were believing/disbelieving begins. There is no reason to believe/disbelieve. We can choose to be reasonable people, or unreasonable people. We don't have to believe/disbelieve in anything, believing/disbelieving is philosophical suicide. When we know something, it's not belief, hypothesis, or theory; it is fact, an empirically correct truth. Belief/disbelief based organizations have agendas in the control system. In that sense, belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control. EVIDENCE (1) whether the evidence has been subject to scientific testing and, if so, what methodology was used; (2) whether the evidence has been reviewed by peers or a scientific publication; (3)what is the known potential rate of error; (4) is the evidence generally accepted in the scientific community. Belief/disbelief is philosophical suicide. Belief/disbelief based deductions end with belief/disbelief based organizations in the control system taking advantage. Belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control, a destroyer of logic, knowledge, and freedom.
@@Oblivion-VigasFirstOXFORD LANGUAGES Cult: relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. Transgenderism is certainly a strange belief and practice to most of society.
The word bimodal gets thrown around a lot. If you must use it, you need to specify what the sex or gender related quantities you are implying are. Because sex and gender are not quantities but categories.
In that case please explain to me how my friend end up being born with an uterus and testicle instead of ovaries? And on that note what's (her because that's how she identify as) sex and gender in your sets of believes?
@@landsgevaerThat is absolutely not true. Bimodality refers to overlapping Bell curves and does not state any information about the different variables which define biological sex, you realize?🤦🏻♀️
@@ryonalionthunder nope... nothing like that. It wasn't even a religious debate. It was about FBI statistics, which I cited, but they went against his ideology, so he dismissed them. He's just as biased, irrational and arrogant as the next guy when it comes to certain topics... he will also ban you from his FB if you simply disagree with him or just appear to disagree. He's a very sensitive snowflake.
@@modelsteamers671 nah, I think it was just because he is sensitive and is triggered easily which probably led to arguments. I doubt we'll ever get the full story.
@@BMFstudiosNYC yea, that's what I mean when I said he's a terrible debater. He too easily loses his temper and gets abusive to callers. I think the show is better without him.
The people who are 7'4" are not that tall because of their claims. We can whip out a tape measure and verify the tallness or shortness of people. When we are talking about sex, we can whip out whatever biological tool (a calibrated eyeball being a good one) to verify male or female. We don't categorize biological traits based on statements of self-identification -- unless that is the category being examined. A gay man is a man (an objectively verifiable biological fact) who enjoys the company of other men (a subjective matter of personal preference). A trans-woman is a man (an objectively verifiable biological fact) who prefers to think of himself as a woman or actually thinks he is a woman (a subjective matter of personal preference or delusion). The binary characteristic of sex is an objective fact of biology and is not influenced by subjective personal preference. When discussing biology, trans people are not outliers. When discussing psychology, they are. No one "denys" that transsexualism is real. The problem occurs when a small group of people (most of whom are not themselves trans) demand the rest of us participate, no matter how unwillingly, in their delusion, to pretend we can change objective reality to suit subjective desires.
Biologists would disagree with your perspective on what is objectively male or female. The genetic science of it shows that it is on a spectrum and can be very complex. You speak like a well-reasoned authority, but your ignorance of the science shows that you are just adding misinformation to the noise that is already out there. Nothing about this is about psychology, other than navigating social prejudices. Your eyes only show a generalization, not the fine details.
It always amuses me when the uneducated try to pretend they are experts on a subject, and you young man, are not an expert on anything. Maybe take a few more classes before you want to engage in this level of conversation.
@@Imthrashsfu Would they though? I've listened to a number of podcasts where biologists agreed that sex is binary. Do you have a link to some significant survey of biologists on their views about this?
@CutleryWonder the views that were presented in the video are objective, verifiable, biological facts, not opinions. What people choose to believe does not change the reality of what has already been discovered and confirmed.
Matt is secretly a righteous Muslim. He just doesn't want his audience to know. But I have been tutoring him in the Holy Quran and he is soon planning to make the hajj to Mecca. Look at his beard. He has the Muslim beard because he has accepted Allah as the one, true God. I welcome brother Matt under the umbrella of Islam.
Can we ALL STOP USING BINARY as a term... It is a STRAWMAN by continuously saying other "people" literally mean the term Sex is DIMORPHIC and we should be very clear in describing it that way. Anyone who says "binary" generally means DIMORPHIC so it is just semantics when we keep arguing about the word as if it was meant LITERALLY And before people complain... the language is designed to convey a meaning (unless it is a science journal etc) and we dont always waste time in prefacing everything we say with "the following statement is a generality and not meant to be taken literally. There are always exceptions to the rule but the following statement is intended to show a trend" and so people mistakenly just say "binary" when they really mean "dimorphic" You CANNOT say biological sex is a spectrum unless there is a ROUGHLY EQUAL distribution across that spectrum (like the colour spectrum). If you were to plot biological sex you would get approximately 49.5% at one end, 49.5% at the other end and a haphazard blip on the spectrum in various places with LARGE GAPS in between. That is NOT A SPECTRUM Even gender isn't a spectrum... it isn't like we genders of man, manlike, manish, maner, more manner, less manner, manwomaner, etc we have VERY DISTINCT BLOCKS spread out unevenly between historical definitions of "man" and "woman".... heck, I would even say that for gender it should be a TRIANGLE. Having a spectrum means a line between them with the half way mark indicating equally man and woman which completely ignores androgenous which BY DEFINITION is neither man or woman. So for gender it is more like a triangle with a large number concentrated at the man and woman ends and then clumps of numbers spread out arbitrarily across the rest of the surface of the triangle.
Why is that not a spectrum? Pure red laser light has a spectrum that has one "blip". Dimorphic may be a biological term; binary is commonly used as a statistical term, also called dichotomous or Bernoulli. Sex may be dimorphic, but the variable sex is binary then, statistically speaking. Just like the answer to a True/False question is a binary variable (but I would not call it dimorphic). Btw, language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
@@SansDeity I’ll tell you what’s really crap, Matt. You blocked me because I called you out on your nonsense and accused you of being a narcissistic bully. You silence people, mute them, and block them. You call people names, but when they do the same to you, you cry foul like a child. But the funny thing is, you’re not a child, Matt. You’re a full-grown adult who uses manipulative tactics to impose your will on others. You can’t do that to me, Matt, because I’m smarter and more self-aware. So, the next time you see an account telling you to stop being narcissistic, you should listen and self-reflect. Ask yourself, “Am I an intellectual or an intellectually dishonest person?
in the same way that very tall people are ignored when you plan public or government buildings, religious outliers can be ignored when talking about laws or regulations. And in the same way biologists can ignore outliers when talking about a general model about sexes in mammals.
We just have to be aware of that and check, if the detriment the outliers face is a burden they can take or it is a burden too great to carry. Coming back to the tall people, we have to check, if the burden to always duck at every door, is still ok or if we have to change our government buildings to have higher door frames.
In my opinion this is the point that neither side understands.
even her in the netherlands where most doors in homes are around 6.5ft high i have some friends that bump their heads quite often. imagine then walking around in asia or something😂
Here I was just out lying over here and now I feel attacked.
😂
valid point
Viewers of this channel unite!
Let's make a pack of outliers!
If you are a farmer, you are outstanding in your field.
@@nitehawk86 Don't be Mean, he's probably in the Median of his work.
I had a feeling when I saw this topic pop up on the line that you were going to make a patreon video about it and I'm so glad you did. I love getting a deeper dive and break down into topics like this. Thank you, Matt.
Never allow the causing of harm to people, to become a norm.
Even in a full out war, never consider the harm which you cause the enemy, as something normal.
Yeh. Nothing normal about war
In other words; lie to yourself
@@LukeSumIpsePatremTe No, set an ideal, while noting that you will never reach it.
When traveling across the lands, aim for the mountain top that you see, but realise that when you reach its foot, you might just not need to climb to the top, or that you can't.
There are many sayings expressing this.
Don't confuse what is normal, with the norm.
What happens often, is not "the norm".
The norm is what we decide we want it to be. The norm is the mountain top.
To muslims the norm is to pray five times a day. And they inforce it to make it normal.
To christians the norm is to visit church each sunday. And they enforce it to make it normal.
If you are content with calling violence the norm, just because violence is prevelent amongst humans, then you are not looking for a solution. Don't you think that violence is a problem that needs many solutions?
But maybe you think that violence is a solution, in of itself? It can be, but what happens when everyone uses violence, just because it is normal to do so?
I work with statistics and math for a living.
Outliers can also be informative of the underlying system/distribution.
Chris Langan vs. Matt Dillahunty.
I'd love to see this debate on god.
99% of atoms make up either hydrogen or helium. The 1% left that makes us, our Earth, our food... It's an outlier. Outliers can be important.
We are not important
when talking about specific statistics its always important to not forget the nuances
It's so important that you made that point, that when speaking ABOUT a certain group, you cannot argue that since they are outliers, they are irrelevant. Their relevance isn't in question when we're talking about THEM!
Anyway, I just wanted to leave a long enough comment to boost the algo. Great video.
Although it's always possible to add up the data and divide by the number of data, not all distributions actually have a mean. The Cauchy distribution, for example.
I would say that the mean of a Cauchy distribution is zero.
@@donepearce Sorry to be blunt, but you'd be wrong. Look it up.
@@donepearceIf you let f(x) be the p.d.f. of the Cauchy distribution, then the expected value is the limit as (a,b) goes to (-infinity, infinity) of the integral from a to b of xf(x). This limit does not exist because you get different answers depending on the sequence of (a,b)-values you choose. The limit is 0 along the line a=-b (this was probably your intuition), but the limit is nonzero along the line a=-2b, for instance.
@@SpiderWick12 Thanks. I made a far too simplistic reduction in giving my answer. I can add the word "sometimes".
In terms of human rights in democracies, there are no outliers. Everyone has equal rights according to the law. The question arises if we need to create new laws to adjust for "outliers". This is where people have objections. And we should not forget that the rights of one person stop at the point where the rights of another person begin. Defining the boundaries is not always easy.
Even your thing, “the rights of one person stop where the rights of another person begin” is overly simplistic. If two rights overlap - perhaps I want the right to speak to whomever I want and you want the right to avoid speaking to me - who gets priority? Someone isn’t gonna be getting rights. So the real ugly truth is that some rights should, will, and do trample on other rights.
@@Leith_Crowther My last sentence was added exactly to address what you mentioned. When rights overlap, the law needs to set boundaries, where we set the boundaries is the difficult question.
False under the law those who enforce it have special rules as do those who create the laws as do big contributors
What we have is a war on nuance. Unfortunately I think evolution has conditioned us to make these generalizations and take mental shortcuts which result in the marginalization of people who are outliers, especially when related to sex and gender
If Genesis 1:1 said, "In the beginning life created the atmosphere and the earth".....Would you be more inclined to believe it?
This reminds me of a meme:
A pie chart of the percentage of elements (atoms) in the universe, followed by a periodic table, denoting Hydrogen and Helium as "Elements" and everything else as "Mental Illnesses."
Memes are often deepitys.
False equivalent. No wonder people think Christianity is the answer when all the gaythiests can talk about is the right of sexually abused children to be mentally disabled. Yes, it is child abuse to teach them that transgenderism is real.
While true, hydrogen and helium make up the bulk of what came out of the BB, there was also a bit of lithium. Which makes that mental illness comment even better.
Great description of these fundamentals of statistics.
The geometric interpretation of 1-sigma is the point on the bell curve of maximum slope, and where the curvature changes from downward to upward.
I have a rather sinister appreciation for this video, ty
I find nothing particularly controversial about the content of this video........ it's well argued
Most things in real life are not normally distributed (i.e., like in the Bell Curve that you showed) and therefore the mean and standard deviation may not have any meaning or have a meaning that is not what a non-statistician can understand. For example, the income distribution among the population of the United States of America is far and away not normal, and believing it to be normal completely discards the 1% of the population that receives more than half of all of the income in the country.
Similarly, the existence of trans, gay, or non-binary people does not follow any normal (I.e. Bell curve) distribution that I can think of. The importance of these groups is totally independent of any averages or ratios. People are people, and describing them with the known statistics is demeaning and obtuse.
I dont think I follow your point.
@@luz_reyes_676 You can just understand that the pieces of statistics that are taught in schools are so oversimplified that all realistic use of them is useless or wrong. We are told to average out everything without studying first if the variables follow a known distribution or if we have enough data points to reach any useful conclusion, but the first thing that we find in every published article is an average of something, as if an average was always useful.
It's difficult to measure these things in fine detail, because they are subjective. You could ask people to tell you how gay they are on a scale of 1 - 100, but most people don't think of it in those terms. You are likely to get a lot of 1s from people who consider themselves straight, a lot of 100s from people who consider themselves gay, and a bunch around 50 who consider themselves bi. What distinguishes a 70 from an 80? It's hard to give examples.
You might get clearer results from just 5 categories:
Only attracted to opposite gender
Prefer opposit gender
No preference
Prefer same gender
Only attracted to same gender.
The way you group the data might allow you to use a normal distribution. For instance, I would be interested to see the shape the data if you combined the exclusive categories, combined the Prefer categories and set them beside the no preference category. There might be a normal distribution of exclusivity of preference, and also a seperate binary switch that defines which direction any preference goes, that switch usually but not always aligned with sex.
@@TestTestGo Even with your five categories you are hopelessly oversimplifying a phenomenon that we cannot adequately understand, much less measure or categorize. Some kids know that they are somehow different from the others even before puberty and then become "gay" when one of their differences is same sex attraction and this is one of the reasons we know that gayness is more than a type of sexual attraction. When we apply statistics to areas where our understanding is so poor, we just add an aura of erudition with numbers where we just don't know much.
@andresvillarreal9271 but in face of a phenomenon that we don't fully understand, the way to gain an understanding is to apply science. We need to make hypotheses and test them.
Chop the data up into different categories, compare them, count them. Try a different set of categories, until we find patterns that we can verify.
Just declaring that it's hard doesn't get us anywhere, and the better we can understand how these things work the better equipped we are to solve problems like forming a consensus on how these things should be taught to children. In the absence of understanding these discussions just become shouting matches.
Thanks again, Matt! I have some quibbles, but I'll keep em to myself.
Math is cool
Actually, it would be perfect if people would think like that: "Even when there is just one - there is still value."
The problem is that most people are afraid (or insecure) of the outliers, and also most people don't see value in the one outlier. Otherwise there wouldn't be wars, religions, races, sexes, politics, opinions, or any other such "boxes". In reality, the soldiers are "cannon meat", and the ouliers are the Generals, Presidents, Billionairs, etc.
There is one crowd I will never acknowledge: that lot wot puts pineapple on pizza. Sacrilege. You're killing all the Nonnas over in Italy with this. Think of the Nonnas. . .
My mode is meaner than the average.
But Edna Mode is the meanest of them all!
Fu*king amazing and info necessary video! Great job presenting this MD!
Dont ignore the 1% even if you're used to using generalities (big numbaz!) Ty, but it takes perspective to understand which sets are faulty and that 1% might happen to be the whole... heck, it could be a demographic or a set you have not even covered in your analysis :) "thinking outside of the box".
As always, ty! (sadly only watched the first few minutes...I will watch the rest later)
Our Founding Fathers wore makeup and dresses.
You sure grew that beard back quickly.
You dismiss the outliers in sex for the same reason you dismiss the tall people when designing buildings. There are very few intersex people and special provision must be made for them when they do show up. But you don't consider them when desiging the rules for the norm. A bit like the old saying - hard cases make bad law. Gender is a very different matter. It is spectrum covering every possibility from one end to the other and every part of it must be accommodated. In social situations, gender is probably more relevant than sex - it defines how we interact with each other. In others, sex is more appropriate - like in sports or allocation of changing rooms.
So 'women's bathrooms' should say: only anatolomony chromosome genetically biologically female room?
That's going to be very difficult to govern! I mean I suppose they could each have a 4 hour test of their complete bodily make-up BEFORE entering the bathroom, however I can't see that working out at all.
Your idea is silly.
@@kimsland999 The problem here is that these are not places where friends gather. The people in here are strangers and quite rightly some people will not be comfortable with a member of the opposite sex being there. Differentiating by sex is the only proper way to handle this.
If we are going by your own concerns about outliers, then it doesn't apply to your argument. In statistics you only potentially remove outliers beyond 3 sigmas, which trans people are a part of. Also you would only remove outlies in design when it is not economically feasible to accommodate all. Matt makes a good example of not designing buildings for the outliers in height, instead making special accommodations for the specific instances. For your bathroom example, you bring up being uncomfortable with strangers. Many places just make gender neutral single bathrooms. You also bring up sex being more appropriate, but there are many trans people who present as a gender different than they were born, and so someone would see a person as a different gender than them in the bathroom and get uncomfortable. So again, your criteria fails.
Maybe you should admit to what this really is about. Not accommodation, not forcing people to use a bathroom of their birth gender, but of being uncomfortable with this change and wanting to remove said group completely from society. As that would be the only solution that would work for your criteria, but you know gynecide is frowned upon, even in this sub group, so you try to couch your language.
Maybe you don't consciously think this, but it would be the end result with the what the rhetoric escalates.
Maybe you could realize that the only thing people care about in a public bathroom is relieving themselves as quickly as possible and not touching anything they can avoid. And when you get to that stage, maybe realize we are all people, and the superficial differences don't matter. Live and let live.
@SilortheBlade the moment I saw that you were telling me what I thought, I stopped reading. Sorry, but I'm not putting up with that.
@@donepearceharassing people in bathrooms is it illegal regardless of your gender. I think harassment laws enough to govern all this bathroom nonsense, we don't need to segregate by who has what genital. It's not like a lesbian can't attack a woman anyway
I'm a Sigma Male... I'm within 1 sigma of the mean intelligence and height.
I wont mention if I am above or below. :)
Take care to not use certain terminology where it does not apply. Suppose 0.1% of people have the name Matt. That does not have anything to do with "Matt" being within x standard deviations from a supposed "mean name" in a "distribution" of names. That's nonsense. You can simply talk about percentages and still make your point. If you must go that way when discussing sex and gender, you need to point to what quantities you actually mean to apply these tools to. Be it testosterone concentration or even a made-up "gender score", idk.
What percentage of people think that a 13 year old shouldnt have the faintest concept of being transgender? I don't think it's a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
Who gives a f*ck what the population thinks about whether a fact of reality should be a fact of reality?
Wow, 19 seconds after posting i got to watch, might be the quickest i have ever watched something
What is this, amateur hour?
I'm joking. We all got better things to do than watching for notifications.
@jorionedwards I just happened to be finishing watching another video
I think "FIRST!" Is the appropriate response. 😏
I like to watch...
God is love and religion is war! The holy spirit I have absord
God doesn't exist, there is no evidence for him. Does that mean that love doesn't exist too, since "god is love"?
Will you debate again?
what the sigma
This is an overall pointless video. If you're using statistical analysis to deal with outliers you're doing it wrong. Those tools aren't for interpersonal interaction, they are for society organization, laws, general goals. Local communities can handle outliers in a functioning society. That's the most humane way to go, literally. You have human solution for humans who are around them. Local, loved ones, people in their life, their town, their school, their job. Decisions made by examining the dataset of 1 person, that outlier in their life. We should not expect the marginalize to not be marginalized. They are, by definitions, at the margins of statistics, and that's just a fact. Trying to make society work for the margins harms the majority of people, it's not cost effective, in terms of human suffering.
You said it yourself: you get to ignore tall people when making buildings. Simply because everything has a diminishing return. It's not cost and resource effective. That doesn't mean tall people are "Worse" or "wrong", don't get rights in life, or can enter no buildings. It just means they have to handle their own size because buildings can't afford to do so.
I am 206cm tall (6'9"). I don't expect to fit in tiny cars, so I try not to go in them... and I make choices that make sense for someone of my height. People around me who care about me understand I didn't choose being tall, and they help out if they can, when needed. Most of the time it's actually an advantage, so I am fine. I don't have to overthink about genetics, or mediums, or populations, or genes in my life. I live it, that's it.
Society and building companies can ignore the outlier (tall people), this is why we focus on individual freedoms, so the small, local communities can course-correct for outliers without needing a law, or an absurd data analysis.
Tell me you completely missed the point of the video without actually telling me you completely missed the point of the video
If your ‘comment’ is this long, perhaps you should making a video?
The length of the criticism doesn't always aid to the validity of the criticism.
art galleries hang paintings based on local averages.
We should not use labels or put people in boxes, yet all you did in this video was exactly that.
Oxymoronic moronic. 🤣😂 He also complains about free speech being violated, yet he participates in censorship. 😮
did you even watch the video?
I don't think he did that. This video seemed to me against the notion of simplifying people (and all data really) to mere boxes or labels. Or at least the idea that when we *do* simplify things for practical reasons, we do not mistake the simplified model for being representative of the entire reality. It's about recognizing the limitations and effective ranges of labels so that we don't ignore relevant information, nor leave minority groups of people out of conversations about rights and justice and morality.
Lmfao what? Bot vibes..
Someone missed the point
The universe follows mathematical laws. Math is conceptual. Concepts can only reside in the mind or minds as abstract ideas. The universe must have a mind. That's what I'm going to call the loaded word "God."
These geometries are like looking into the mirror of what we really are. Fibonacci sequence, Phyllotaxis, Plutonic Solids, Golden Spiral/Metalic Spirals, Flower of Life, Golden Circles, Seed of Life, Mandelbrot Set, Tetractys, Tree of Life/Ankh, Tetragrammaton, Eye of Horus, Nine Code, Vortex Math, Solfeggio Frequencies, Cymatics/Chladni Patterns, Turing Patterns, Zero-point, Sonic Geometry, Music Geometry, I Ching/Yin Yang, Trion Re', E8, Hopf Vibration, Primer Fields, Sir/Shri Yantra, Merkabah, Magic Squares, Precession of the Equinoxes/Great Year, Yuga Cycles, Time Wave Zero...
There's many cults to choose from in the control system. Once you recognize that the objective becomes escape cultism. Fundamentally, philosophy is the search for truth. The scientific method was born from philosophy and logic and is intertwined with philosophy and logic. The scientific method is our best route to truth. Belief/disbelief is philosophical suicide. Belief/disbelief based deductions end with belief/disbelief based organizations in the control system taking advantage. Belief/disbelief is a destroyer of logic, knowledge, and freedom. In that sense, belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control.
Pseudoscience and religion are the main causes of humanities crisis in consciousness. I do my very best not to fall into the trap of belief/disbelief based deducting. I help others escape cultism. Pseudoscience is fake science masquerading as scientific. Transgenderism cultists are the most difficult. It's based on pseudoscience scientism nonsense with mental disorders at it's core. The religious people are easier to help than atheists because atheists believe they have escaped while still being stuck in belief/disbelief based deduction.
OXFORD LANGUAGES
Cult: relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
Religion as a whole certainty isn't a small group. There are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide. Trivial divisions in Christianity similar to Lutheran and Catholic division is one says the wine and cracker sacrament represents the blood and body, one says it literally is the blood and body. These become cults in the division.
7.8 billion world population
Catholics = 1.378 billion
Lutherans = 77 million
Atheists = 500 million
Transgender = 624 million
Catholics are at about a ratio of 2 in 15. Still a relatively small group of people that have strange or sinister practices to me. New Atheist Cult allowed the Trans cult to begin. Extremely strange and sinister, in my opinion.
Throughout my life, I grew up in the Southern Baptist cult. Married into Lutheran cult. A second marriage into the Catholic cult. Got recommended into 12 step cults by the VA. Dabbled in some New Age cult. Somewhere, I experienced an awakening to what I really am, what life is about, and where consciousness is after about a decade off the rat race wheel studying philosophy, science, engineering, and physics. The very first step in escaping cultism is recognizing cultism.
Namaste. In Lak'ech Ala K'in. Tathata. Shivoham. Ashe. Tatvamasi.
Cult is when I don't understand something so it must be religious ideology!
I'd love to know in great detail what the religious ideology or pseudoscience is that you think "transgenderism" involves.
I'm sure it will be a 100% accurate representation of what trans people are and believe.
You’ve put the cart before the horse.
Mathematical laws DESCRIBE how the universe operates. It doesn’t prescribe how it operates.
So, no. You don’t need a mind with those concepts. It’s like trying to argue that America can’t exist without a map of America so the map must have always existed. 😅
@ryonalionthunder Nope. Physical laws precede physical presence. Mathematical laws precede physical laws. Mind precedes mathematics because math is conceptual. Concepts can only reside in mind or minds of humans as abstract ideas. The universe must have mind to follow mathematical laws. If something can occur in math, it can occur in the physical world. The mind of "God." Believing that sentient consciousness arises from a cold dead mechanical universe is similar to believing that a dust devil can go through an automobile junkyard and assemble a helicopter.
In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other. The philosophy of search for truth is the study of reality, which seeks to understand the nature of truth and the ways to discover it. The Standard Conception of Philosophy, philosophy as it is understood and practiced, is and has been generally considered to be the search for truth. Thinking like a philosopher involves thinking critically about alternative possibilities. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline in the search for truth. Logic is a branch of philosophy that is based on certain fundamental principles like the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of sufficient reason. Fundamentally, philosophy is the search for truth. Our best route to truth is the scientific method. Scientific method was born from philosophy and logic and is intertwined with philosophy and logic. Four goals and three major steps of the scientific method is: description, explanation, prediction, and control through observation, experimentation, and peer review. In science, engineering, and physics, we use conceptual mathematical/geometrical representation to help describe, explain, predict, and control physical presences.
Logistical order is:
1) Philosophy
2) Logic
3) Scientific method
4) Hypothesis
5) Theory
6) Axioms
7) Fact, empirically correct truth.
Belief has great power. Just look at something like the Placebo effect. The flip side of the coin is that the only barrier to truth is believing you already have it or that truth is unobtainable. Belief/disbelief has absolutely no credence in the scientific method. A belief can be true or false. It’s an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, even if it's contrary to the scientific method. A hypothesis has an indication of truth that is not known to be true; a hypothesis is a justified belief that is backed up with some supporting evidence of the scientific method having at least observation. A theory in science is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method. A theory is a substantiated explanation for an occurrence that has come to a peer reviewed conclusion; a judgment or decision reached by scientific method with consistent repeatable observations/experiments. A theory still may not be empirically correct; a fact is empirically correct truth. Hypothesis and theory are search for factual truth through the scientific method. The only barriers to truth are believing you already have it, or that truth is unobtainable. Thinking stops were believing/disbelieving begins. There is no reason to believe/disbelieve. We can choose to be reasonable people, or unreasonable people. We don't have to believe/disbelieve in anything, believing/disbelieving is philosophical suicide. When we know something, it's not belief, hypothesis, or theory; it is fact, an empirically correct truth. Belief/disbelief based organizations have agendas in the control system. In that sense, belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control.
EVIDENCE
(1) whether the evidence has been subject to scientific testing and, if so, what methodology was used; (2) whether the evidence has been reviewed by peers or a scientific publication; (3)what is the known potential rate of error; (4) is the evidence generally accepted in the scientific community.
Belief/disbelief is philosophical suicide. Belief/disbelief based deductions end with belief/disbelief based organizations in the control system taking advantage. Belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control, a destroyer of logic, knowledge, and freedom.
@Oblivion-VigasFirst We can all agree that there's only two sexes in nature, male and female, and a combination of both doesn't negate that. LGBTQ claims sex and gender are different. My question is, what is LGBTQ definition of gender? I've been called every name is the book by what may be the most disconnected sociopathic group that has ever walked the planet for that question. Gender ideology is pseudoscience nonsense. If there was evidence for gender ideology they would be able to define. Four goals and three major steps of the scientific method are: Description, explanation, prediction and control through observation, experimentation, and peer review. There's absolutely no evidence for a spectrum of genders. Gender dysphoria is listed in the DSM-5.
In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other. The philosophy of search for truth is the study of reality, which seeks to understand the nature of truth and the ways to discover it. The Standard Conception of Philosophy, philosophy as it is understood and practiced, is and has been generally considered to be the search for truth. Thinking like a philosopher involves thinking critically about alternative possibilities. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline in the search for truth. Logic is a branch of philosophy that is based on certain fundamental principles like the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of sufficient reason. Fundamentally, philosophy is the search for truth. Our best route to truth is the scientific method. Scientific method was born from philosophy and logic and is intertwined with philosophy and logic. Four goals and three major steps of the scientific method is: description, explanation, prediction, and control through observation, experimentation, and peer review. In science, engineering, and physics, we use conceptual mathematical/geometrical representation to help describe, explain, predict, and control physical presences.
Logistical order is:
1) Philosophy
2) Logic
3) Scientific method
4) Hypothesis
5) Theory
6) Axioms
7) Fact, empirically correct truth.
Belief has great power. Just look at something like the Placebo effect. The flip side of the coin is that the only barrier to truth is believing you already have it or that truth is unobtainable. Belief/disbelief has absolutely no credence in the scientific method. A belief can be true or false. It’s an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, even if it's contrary to the scientific method. A hypothesis has an indication of truth that is not known to be true; a hypothesis is a justified belief that is backed up with some supporting evidence of the scientific method having at least observation. A theory in science is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method. A theory is a substantiated explanation for an occurrence that has come to a peer reviewed conclusion; a judgment or decision reached by scientific method with consistent repeatable observations/experiments. A theory still may not be empirically correct; a fact is empirically correct truth. Hypothesis and theory are search for factual truth through the scientific method. The only barriers to truth are believing you already have it, or that truth is unobtainable. Thinking stops were believing/disbelieving begins. There is no reason to believe/disbelieve. We can choose to be reasonable people, or unreasonable people. We don't have to believe/disbelieve in anything, believing/disbelieving is philosophical suicide. When we know something, it's not belief, hypothesis, or theory; it is fact, an empirically correct truth. Belief/disbelief based organizations have agendas in the control system. In that sense, belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control.
EVIDENCE
(1) whether the evidence has been subject to scientific testing and, if so, what methodology was used; (2) whether the evidence has been reviewed by peers or a scientific publication; (3)what is the known potential rate of error; (4) is the evidence generally accepted in the scientific community.
Belief/disbelief is philosophical suicide. Belief/disbelief based deductions end with belief/disbelief based organizations in the control system taking advantage. Belief/disbelief is psychological pathogen mind control, a destroyer of logic, knowledge, and freedom.
@@Oblivion-VigasFirstOXFORD LANGUAGES
Cult: relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
Transgenderism is certainly a strange belief and practice to most of society.
Sex and gender are bimodale
You treat sex and gender as continuous variables then, you realize?
The word bimodal gets thrown around a lot. If you must use it, you need to specify what the sex or gender related quantities you are implying are. Because sex and gender are not quantities but categories.
In that case please explain to me how my friend end up being born with an uterus and testicle instead of ovaries? And on that note what's (her because that's how she identify as) sex and gender in your sets of believes?
@@landsgevaerThat is absolutely not true. Bimodality refers to overlapping Bell curves and does not state any information about the different variables which define biological sex, you realize?🤦🏻♀️
I had a mini-debate with Matt over email a few years back and he totally dismissed and ignored the outliers in my statistical evidence 🤔😆
Well did you try to claim the outliers were supernatural?
It's not wonder the Atheist Experience got rid of him. The guy is a terrible debater.
@@ryonalionthunder nope... nothing like that. It wasn't even a religious debate. It was about FBI statistics, which I cited, but they went against his ideology, so he dismissed them. He's just as biased, irrational and arrogant as the next guy when it comes to certain topics... he will also ban you from his FB if you simply disagree with him or just appear to disagree. He's a very sensitive snowflake.
@@modelsteamers671 nah, I think it was just because he is sensitive and is triggered easily which probably led to arguments. I doubt we'll ever get the full story.
@@BMFstudiosNYC yea, that's what I mean when I said he's a terrible debater. He too easily loses his temper and gets abusive to callers. I think the show is better without him.
The people who are 7'4" are not that tall because of their claims. We can whip out a tape measure and verify the tallness or shortness of people. When we are talking about sex, we can whip out whatever biological tool (a calibrated eyeball being a good one) to verify male or female. We don't categorize biological traits based on statements of self-identification -- unless that is the category being examined. A gay man is a man (an objectively verifiable biological fact) who enjoys the company of other men (a subjective matter of personal preference). A trans-woman is a man (an objectively verifiable biological fact) who prefers to think of himself as a woman or actually thinks he is a woman (a subjective matter of personal preference or delusion). The binary characteristic of sex is an objective fact of biology and is not influenced by subjective personal preference. When discussing biology, trans people are not outliers. When discussing psychology, they are.
No one "denys" that transsexualism is real. The problem occurs when a small group of people (most of whom are not themselves trans) demand the rest of us participate, no matter how unwillingly, in their delusion, to pretend we can change objective reality to suit subjective desires.
Biologists would disagree with your perspective on what is objectively male or female. The genetic science of it shows that it is on a spectrum and can be very complex. You speak like a well-reasoned authority, but your ignorance of the science shows that you are just adding misinformation to the noise that is already out there. Nothing about this is about psychology, other than navigating social prejudices. Your eyes only show a generalization, not the fine details.
It always amuses me when the uneducated try to pretend they are experts on a subject, and you young man, are not an expert on anything.
Maybe take a few more classes before you want to engage in this level of conversation.
@@Imthrashsfu Would they though? I've listened to a number of podcasts where biologists agreed that sex is binary. Do you have a link to some significant survey of biologists on their views about this?
@CutleryWonder the views that were presented in the video are objective, verifiable, biological facts, not opinions. What people choose to believe does not change the reality of what has already been discovered and confirmed.
@@Imthrashsfu I'll take that as a no.
Matt is secretly a righteous Muslim. He just doesn't want his audience to know. But I have been tutoring him in the Holy Quran and he is soon planning to make the hajj to Mecca. Look at his beard. He has the Muslim beard because he has accepted Allah as the one, true God.
I welcome brother Matt under the umbrella of Islam.
Nice bait.
mashallah brother. the infidel finally sees the light
@@maxdougherty3429 Internet is haram. Allah is watching you using the internet..
Which version of Islam? And how do you know?
Oh it's a joke.
@@kimsland999
Shiite Islam. He's found the one, true faith
Can we ALL STOP USING BINARY as a term... It is a STRAWMAN by continuously saying other "people" literally mean the term
Sex is DIMORPHIC and we should be very clear in describing it that way. Anyone who says "binary" generally means DIMORPHIC so it is just semantics when we keep arguing about the word as if it was meant LITERALLY
And before people complain... the language is designed to convey a meaning (unless it is a science journal etc) and we dont always waste time in prefacing everything we say with "the following statement is a generality and not meant to be taken literally. There are always exceptions to the rule but the following statement is intended to show a trend" and so people mistakenly just say "binary" when they really mean "dimorphic"
You CANNOT say biological sex is a spectrum unless there is a ROUGHLY EQUAL distribution across that spectrum (like the colour spectrum). If you were to plot biological sex you would get approximately 49.5% at one end, 49.5% at the other end and a haphazard blip on the spectrum in various places with LARGE GAPS in between. That is NOT A SPECTRUM
Even gender isn't a spectrum... it isn't like we genders of man, manlike, manish, maner, more manner, less manner, manwomaner, etc we have VERY DISTINCT BLOCKS spread out unevenly between historical definitions of "man" and "woman".... heck, I would even say that for gender it should be a TRIANGLE. Having a spectrum means a line between them with the half way mark indicating equally man and woman which completely ignores androgenous which BY DEFINITION is neither man or woman. So for gender it is more like a triangle with a large number concentrated at the man and woman ends and then clumps of numbers spread out arbitrarily across the rest of the surface of the triangle.
Why is that not a spectrum? Pure red laser light has a spectrum that has one "blip".
Dimorphic may be a biological term; binary is commonly used as a statistical term, also called dichotomous or Bernoulli. Sex may be dimorphic, but the variable sex is binary then, statistically speaking. Just like the answer to a True/False question is a binary variable (but I would not call it dimorphic).
Btw, language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
@enigmaticaljedi6808 what utter crap
@@SansDeity I’ll tell you what’s really crap, Matt. You blocked me because I called you out on your nonsense and accused you of being a narcissistic bully. You silence people, mute them, and block them. You call people names, but when they do the same to you, you cry foul like a child.
But the funny thing is, you’re not a child, Matt. You’re a full-grown adult who uses manipulative tactics to impose your will on others. You can’t do that to me, Matt, because I’m smarter and more self-aware.
So, the next time you see an account telling you to stop being narcissistic, you should listen and self-reflect. Ask yourself, “Am I an intellectual or an intellectually dishonest person?