x
Click to expand

yodawgiheard

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:8/02/2013
Last Login:5/05/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#9336
Highest Content Rank:#8791
Highest Comment Rank:#9527
Content Thumbs: 33 total,  46 ,  13
Comment Thumbs: 423 total,  489 ,  66
Content Level Progress: 62.71% (37/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 133 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 134 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Subscribers:0
Content Views:3777
Total Comments Made:181
FJ Points:367

Funny Pictures

latest user's comments

#66 - First of all, samples do matter. If you're trying to make a sw…  [+] (1 new reply) 19 minutes ago on A world without female drivers 0
#70 - mayoroftownsville (7 minutes ago) [-]
Yes the sample sizes do matter. But different studies having different sample sizes is not a problem. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find even two studies on the same subject with the same sample size. That matters not a bit. What matters is the sample size of an individual study, not that all the studies in the literature be uniform. I'm this condescending everywhere.

You have no idea why that study was conducted, but that doesn't matter. Showing that there are certain situations in which women drive worse than men doesn't reflect the big picture, and the big picture is consistent across the board: Men are more likely to get into an accident, and that accident is more likely to be deadly. The study is interesting because it shows that the difference in danger level is not uniform, not because it shows that men are better drivers (it doesn't). When I say that the other studies take the whole data set, I mean that they aren't picking and choosing which accidents fit into their study. They are looking at every single accident from a certain place and time. The studies backing my view come from Australia, Scotland, and the United States. Saudi Arabia would be laughable because it is a special case in which women are not allowed to drive. You can't say any such thing about the three studied countries.
#58 - It's like you just can't accept the possibility that there's n…  [+] (1 new reply) 35 minutes ago on A world without female drivers 0
#68 - Ken M (9 minutes ago) [-]
#54 - So you read my article, then disregarded the study that didn't…  [+] (4 new replies) 47 minutes ago on A world without female drivers +1
#60 - mayoroftownsville (32 minutes ago) [-]
Also: How is it bad that the sources quote different studies? For starters, different studies having different sample sizes at different times has no effect whatsoever on their ability to be cited together. There is no rule that all the studies you cite have to be exactly the same. This is such a laughable point I have to think you meant something else and just worded it poorly. I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, please tell me you aren't really this stupid.

Furthermore, you seem not to understand why I mentioned that AAMI is an insurance company. It wasn't to discredit your source, it was to explain that I actually was selective in MY source. Those three are the ones I rejected - on the same bases that you did.

Finally, to respond to your most recent post: I am not saying your study is invalid or what have you. What I am saying is that the most important point and the one I started out making, that men are more dangerous drivers, is undisputed. Your study is fine for what it is, but it looks at a highly specific group of samples and ignores others. Every study that looks at the whole data set, bar none, finds that men get into accidents more often, and accidents involving men are more deadly. Sorry if that offends your balls or whatever.
#66 - yodawgiheard (19 minutes ago) [-]
First of all, samples do matter. If you're trying to make a sweeping statement like the one I was under the impression that we were debating, e.g "Men are worse drivers than Women", then there are certain steps you need to take with your samples, both in size and uniformity. If I were to publish a study saying that, in Saudi Arabia 100% of accidents involved men, therefore Men are worse drivers than women, I'd be laughed out of the room. By the same token, unless we think that all driving everywhere is exactly the same, I could've very well get a statistically significant sample using only Welsh drivers from February 2009. Please tell me you're only this condescending online.

And there's the rub. "The whole data set". The reason that the study that I found was even conducted was because the researchers felt that there was no such study that provided a satisfactory answer as to why, or even if the conventional reasoning that Men are "more dangerous" drivers is even true.
#70 - mayoroftownsville (7 minutes ago) [-]
Yes the sample sizes do matter. But different studies having different sample sizes is not a problem. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find even two studies on the same subject with the same sample size. That matters not a bit. What matters is the sample size of an individual study, not that all the studies in the literature be uniform. I'm this condescending everywhere.

You have no idea why that study was conducted, but that doesn't matter. Showing that there are certain situations in which women drive worse than men doesn't reflect the big picture, and the big picture is consistent across the board: Men are more likely to get into an accident, and that accident is more likely to be deadly. The study is interesting because it shows that the difference in danger level is not uniform, not because it shows that men are better drivers (it doesn't). When I say that the other studies take the whole data set, I mean that they aren't picking and choosing which accidents fit into their study. They are looking at every single accident from a certain place and time. The studies backing my view come from Australia, Scotland, and the United States. Saudi Arabia would be laughable because it is a special case in which women are not allowed to drive. You can't say any such thing about the three studied countries.
#55 - mayoroftownsville (46 minutes ago) [-]
Read my other comment. Your study was of 6 highly specific scenarios, not overall driving statistics.
#49 - I got a link too. You clicked on google link number 1 that sup…  [+] (9 new replies) 1 hour ago on A world without female drivers +2
#53 - mayoroftownsville (49 minutes ago) [-]
ns.umich.edu/Releases/2011/Jun11/sivakgenderstudy.pdf

Here's the original paper the article you linked was referring to. He studies six very specific two-vehicle crash scenarios, in five of which women are over-represented. Funny how your article forgot to mention that little tidbit of information, seeing as studies of overall accident statistics clearly show men driving more dangerously. Sorry, I guess you should have done your research.
#58 - yodawgiheard (35 minutes ago) [-]
It's like you just can't accept the possibility that there's not enough out there for a definitive answer. FFS, the REASON why the study limits its scope is because gender isn't something that's usually considered when dealing with crash statistics. And their conclusions hedge that way as well.

Consider that, in order to truly determine the statistical likelihood of men/women being better/worse drivers, insurance companies would have to keep track of fault. Why is this important, you ask, well we operate with a system that assigns damages based on predetermined insurance policies. Fault is not particularly important, what is important is the damages. It could be that the person in front of you is at fault for screeching on their brakes on the freeway without cause, causing you to run into them because you didn't have enough time to react. But, the end result is that the damages fall to you. It could be that there was no possible way to reasonably avoid an accident, but the damages fall onto one side or the other.

"Conclusions: The obtained pattern of results could be due to either differential gender exposure to the different scenarios,
differential gender capabilities to handle specific scenarios, or differential gender expectations of actions by other drivers
based on their gender. The current lack of information on gender exposure in different scenarios, scenario-specific driver
skills, and driver expectations based on other drivers’ gender prevents ruling out any of these possible explanations.
"

The last part is what you should focus on. It's "there isn't enough data for this to develop a causal relationship" part. I'm going to trust those words more than yours.
#68 - Ken M (9 minutes ago) [-]
#52 - mayoroftownsville (1 hour ago) [-]
From the article you linked:
"A 2004 study found almost the complete opposite, however. According to The Guardian, Scottish researchers said 94 percent of accidents causing death or bodily harm involved male drivers."

Also:
www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/86593/men-vs-women-who-are-the-best-drivers
www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/gender
www.rd.com/advice/relationships/are-men-better-drivers-than-women/

I actually chose google number 4 since AAMI is an actual insurance company. That one study is the only thing I've ever seen in all the listed articles supporting your view. In the end, one study is not even close to being a consensus, and based on the many other studies contradicting it, I would guess that the methodology was flawed, results skewed, or something else which would explain its status as the lone voice claiming men to be the better drivers.
#54 - yodawgiheard (47 minutes ago) [-]
So you read my article, then disregarded the study that didn't back you up? Nigga wut? It should be pretty clear to you that there's at the very least significant, reasonable academic debate surrounding who/what causes car crashes. I'm legitimately surprised you didn't also quote the SJW-like "societal pressures mean that Women don't know how to drive because men are dominant" crap that was ALSO in that same article.

AAMI is an insurance company, that's true. It has a vested interest in the insurance rates of male and female customers. That does not, however, somehow make them MORE reliable than academic studies. A corollary to this would be to disregard medical trials from Johns Hopkins and instead depending on the word of a pharmaceutical company about the effectiveness of a drug. BOTH sources can be viable and relevant, not just the one that happens to represent a private interest.

You've found 3 articles, of various repute, using different sample sizes at different times, and you end up with "hah, 3 > 1, that one study must be flawed"?

There's no consensus in the academic community, and the first link shows that there's likely no consensus among the insurance community either, which is basically the point. Nobody knows for certain.
#60 - mayoroftownsville (32 minutes ago) [-]
Also: How is it bad that the sources quote different studies? For starters, different studies having different sample sizes at different times has no effect whatsoever on their ability to be cited together. There is no rule that all the studies you cite have to be exactly the same. This is such a laughable point I have to think you meant something else and just worded it poorly. I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, please tell me you aren't really this stupid.

Furthermore, you seem not to understand why I mentioned that AAMI is an insurance company. It wasn't to discredit your source, it was to explain that I actually was selective in MY source. Those three are the ones I rejected - on the same bases that you did.

Finally, to respond to your most recent post: I am not saying your study is invalid or what have you. What I am saying is that the most important point and the one I started out making, that men are more dangerous drivers, is undisputed. Your study is fine for what it is, but it looks at a highly specific group of samples and ignores others. Every study that looks at the whole data set, bar none, finds that men get into accidents more often, and accidents involving men are more deadly. Sorry if that offends your balls or whatever.
#66 - yodawgiheard (19 minutes ago) [-]
First of all, samples do matter. If you're trying to make a sweeping statement like the one I was under the impression that we were debating, e.g "Men are worse drivers than Women", then there are certain steps you need to take with your samples, both in size and uniformity. If I were to publish a study saying that, in Saudi Arabia 100% of accidents involved men, therefore Men are worse drivers than women, I'd be laughed out of the room. By the same token, unless we think that all driving everywhere is exactly the same, I could've very well get a statistically significant sample using only Welsh drivers from February 2009. Please tell me you're only this condescending online.

And there's the rub. "The whole data set". The reason that the study that I found was even conducted was because the researchers felt that there was no such study that provided a satisfactory answer as to why, or even if the conventional reasoning that Men are "more dangerous" drivers is even true.
#70 - mayoroftownsville (7 minutes ago) [-]
Yes the sample sizes do matter. But different studies having different sample sizes is not a problem. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find even two studies on the same subject with the same sample size. That matters not a bit. What matters is the sample size of an individual study, not that all the studies in the literature be uniform. I'm this condescending everywhere.

You have no idea why that study was conducted, but that doesn't matter. Showing that there are certain situations in which women drive worse than men doesn't reflect the big picture, and the big picture is consistent across the board: Men are more likely to get into an accident, and that accident is more likely to be deadly. The study is interesting because it shows that the difference in danger level is not uniform, not because it shows that men are better drivers (it doesn't). When I say that the other studies take the whole data set, I mean that they aren't picking and choosing which accidents fit into their study. They are looking at every single accident from a certain place and time. The studies backing my view come from Australia, Scotland, and the United States. Saudi Arabia would be laughable because it is a special case in which women are not allowed to drive. You can't say any such thing about the three studied countries.
#55 - mayoroftownsville (46 minutes ago) [-]
Read my other comment. Your study was of 6 highly specific scenarios, not overall driving statistics.
#46 - I think you just **** on your own argument. Your link j…  [+] (11 new replies) 1 hour ago on A world without female drivers +5
#48 - mayoroftownsville (1 hour ago) [-]
The link explains that it MAY not be due to that. If the data has anything to say about it, that speculation is wrong.

www.aami.com.au/sites/default/files/fm/pdf/AAMI-Facts_MenWomen_08.pdf

In other words, yes it was. Bitch.
#49 - yodawgiheard (1 hour ago) [-]
I got a link too. You clicked on google link number 1 that supported your argument, and I did the same. Looks like there's more to the story, fuccboi.

www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/women_worse_drivers_more_crashes_than_men_less_driving.html
#53 - mayoroftownsville (49 minutes ago) [-]
ns.umich.edu/Releases/2011/Jun11/sivakgenderstudy.pdf

Here's the original paper the article you linked was referring to. He studies six very specific two-vehicle crash scenarios, in five of which women are over-represented. Funny how your article forgot to mention that little tidbit of information, seeing as studies of overall accident statistics clearly show men driving more dangerously. Sorry, I guess you should have done your research.
#58 - yodawgiheard (35 minutes ago) [-]
It's like you just can't accept the possibility that there's not enough out there for a definitive answer. FFS, the REASON why the study limits its scope is because gender isn't something that's usually considered when dealing with crash statistics. And their conclusions hedge that way as well.

Consider that, in order to truly determine the statistical likelihood of men/women being better/worse drivers, insurance companies would have to keep track of fault. Why is this important, you ask, well we operate with a system that assigns damages based on predetermined insurance policies. Fault is not particularly important, what is important is the damages. It could be that the person in front of you is at fault for screeching on their brakes on the freeway without cause, causing you to run into them because you didn't have enough time to react. But, the end result is that the damages fall to you. It could be that there was no possible way to reasonably avoid an accident, but the damages fall onto one side or the other.

"Conclusions: The obtained pattern of results could be due to either differential gender exposure to the different scenarios,
differential gender capabilities to handle specific scenarios, or differential gender expectations of actions by other drivers
based on their gender. The current lack of information on gender exposure in different scenarios, scenario-specific driver
skills, and driver expectations based on other drivers’ gender prevents ruling out any of these possible explanations.
"

The last part is what you should focus on. It's "there isn't enough data for this to develop a causal relationship" part. I'm going to trust those words more than yours.
#68 - Ken M (9 minutes ago) [-]
#52 - mayoroftownsville (1 hour ago) [-]
From the article you linked:
"A 2004 study found almost the complete opposite, however. According to The Guardian, Scottish researchers said 94 percent of accidents causing death or bodily harm involved male drivers."

Also:
www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/86593/men-vs-women-who-are-the-best-drivers
www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/gender
www.rd.com/advice/relationships/are-men-better-drivers-than-women/

I actually chose google number 4 since AAMI is an actual insurance company. That one study is the only thing I've ever seen in all the listed articles supporting your view. In the end, one study is not even close to being a consensus, and based on the many other studies contradicting it, I would guess that the methodology was flawed, results skewed, or something else which would explain its status as the lone voice claiming men to be the better drivers.
#54 - yodawgiheard (47 minutes ago) [-]
So you read my article, then disregarded the study that didn't back you up? Nigga wut? It should be pretty clear to you that there's at the very least significant, reasonable academic debate surrounding who/what causes car crashes. I'm legitimately surprised you didn't also quote the SJW-like "societal pressures mean that Women don't know how to drive because men are dominant" crap that was ALSO in that same article.

AAMI is an insurance company, that's true. It has a vested interest in the insurance rates of male and female customers. That does not, however, somehow make them MORE reliable than academic studies. A corollary to this would be to disregard medical trials from Johns Hopkins and instead depending on the word of a pharmaceutical company about the effectiveness of a drug. BOTH sources can be viable and relevant, not just the one that happens to represent a private interest.

You've found 3 articles, of various repute, using different sample sizes at different times, and you end up with "hah, 3 > 1, that one study must be flawed"?

There's no consensus in the academic community, and the first link shows that there's likely no consensus among the insurance community either, which is basically the point. Nobody knows for certain.
#60 - mayoroftownsville (32 minutes ago) [-]
Also: How is it bad that the sources quote different studies? For starters, different studies having different sample sizes at different times has no effect whatsoever on their ability to be cited together. There is no rule that all the studies you cite have to be exactly the same. This is such a laughable point I have to think you meant something else and just worded it poorly. I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, please tell me you aren't really this stupid.

Furthermore, you seem not to understand why I mentioned that AAMI is an insurance company. It wasn't to discredit your source, it was to explain that I actually was selective in MY source. Those three are the ones I rejected - on the same bases that you did.

Finally, to respond to your most recent post: I am not saying your study is invalid or what have you. What I am saying is that the most important point and the one I started out making, that men are more dangerous drivers, is undisputed. Your study is fine for what it is, but it looks at a highly specific group of samples and ignores others. Every study that looks at the whole data set, bar none, finds that men get into accidents more often, and accidents involving men are more deadly. Sorry if that offends your balls or whatever.
#66 - yodawgiheard (19 minutes ago) [-]
First of all, samples do matter. If you're trying to make a sweeping statement like the one I was under the impression that we were debating, e.g "Men are worse drivers than Women", then there are certain steps you need to take with your samples, both in size and uniformity. If I were to publish a study saying that, in Saudi Arabia 100% of accidents involved men, therefore Men are worse drivers than women, I'd be laughed out of the room. By the same token, unless we think that all driving everywhere is exactly the same, I could've very well get a statistically significant sample using only Welsh drivers from February 2009. Please tell me you're only this condescending online.

And there's the rub. "The whole data set". The reason that the study that I found was even conducted was because the researchers felt that there was no such study that provided a satisfactory answer as to why, or even if the conventional reasoning that Men are "more dangerous" drivers is even true.
#70 - mayoroftownsville (7 minutes ago) [-]
Yes the sample sizes do matter. But different studies having different sample sizes is not a problem. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find even two studies on the same subject with the same sample size. That matters not a bit. What matters is the sample size of an individual study, not that all the studies in the literature be uniform. I'm this condescending everywhere.

You have no idea why that study was conducted, but that doesn't matter. Showing that there are certain situations in which women drive worse than men doesn't reflect the big picture, and the big picture is consistent across the board: Men are more likely to get into an accident, and that accident is more likely to be deadly. The study is interesting because it shows that the difference in danger level is not uniform, not because it shows that men are better drivers (it doesn't). When I say that the other studies take the whole data set, I mean that they aren't picking and choosing which accidents fit into their study. They are looking at every single accident from a certain place and time. The studies backing my view come from Australia, Scotland, and the United States. Saudi Arabia would be laughable because it is a special case in which women are not allowed to drive. You can't say any such thing about the three studied countries.
#55 - mayoroftownsville (46 minutes ago) [-]
Read my other comment. Your study was of 6 highly specific scenarios, not overall driving statistics.
#347 - Probably a smart move by that guy. 4 hours ago on Unarmed teen shot by police 0
#345 - Oh, sorry. I didn't know that that's how names work here. I ho…  [+] (2 new replies) 4 hours ago on Unarmed teen shot by police 0
User avatar #346 - factual (4 hours ago) [-]
yea someone does, that account's inactive though
#347 - yodawgiheard (4 hours ago) [-]
Probably a smart move by that guy.
#343 - It's a fact that has no bearing on why, when, how, or where, h…  [+] (4 new replies) 4 hours ago on Unarmed teen shot by police 0
User avatar #344 - factual (4 hours ago) [-]
I don't give a crap lol.

You just mentioned me
#345 - yodawgiheard (4 hours ago) [-]
Oh, sorry. I didn't know that that's how names work here. I hope someone doesn't have a username like "the", or something!
User avatar #346 - factual (4 hours ago) [-]
yea someone does, that account's inactive though
#347 - yodawgiheard (4 hours ago) [-]
Probably a smart move by that guy.
#13 - Oh **** , the banter is strong with this one. 05/03/2015 on Kitchen Nightmares -3
#331 - One thing with your post that I take issue with: &quo…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/03/2015 on Unarmed teen shot by police 0
User avatar #342 - factual (5 hours ago) [-]
it's a fact
#343 - yodawgiheard (4 hours ago) [-]
It's a fact that has no bearing on why, when, how, or where, he was shot. It's a fact that serves no purpose other than a thinly-veiled attempt to get more clicks from readers who will be ensnared with an emotional tagline.
User avatar #344 - factual (4 hours ago) [-]
I don't give a crap lol.

You just mentioned me
#345 - yodawgiheard (4 hours ago) [-]
Oh, sorry. I didn't know that that's how names work here. I hope someone doesn't have a username like "the", or something!
User avatar #346 - factual (4 hours ago) [-]
yea someone does, that account's inactive though
#347 - yodawgiheard (4 hours ago) [-]
Probably a smart move by that guy.
[ 181 Total ]

Comments(0):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)