TOK rules

How do we know what we know?
Fundamentals are studied
Questions fundamental things
Looking at the "big picture"
Looking at topics from a birds eye view
Take multiple perspectives into account
Critical thinking skills
NO specific (narrow) topics
NO summaries
Second-order questions
Support theories with empirical evidence (studies)
Question reliability, accuracy, and definitions
Broad perspectives
Broad application of knowledge questions
Apply TOK to Real Life Situations
Abstract topics
Evaluate sources, evidence, arguments, etc
Areas of Knowledge & Ways of Knowing
Claims of causality (x causes y)
Truth claims

Problems in human sciences

Oxford Dictionaries defines human as "relating to or characteristic of humankind". Then, it defines humankind as "Human beings considered collectively". This is a nice illustration of the first and main issue with using science on humans, which is that the term "human" is still not clearly defined and still changes. Of course, you can define "human" in that they belong to the Homo Sapiens species, however, it should not be ignored that even this was not accepted a couple of centuries ago.
Closely related to this is the issue that we still aren't entirely clear on what makes up a human - the composition of a human. Biology and its several subgenres are trying to figure that out, the smaller parts being left to chemistry. However, there are always new discoveries in the field. One previously thought part of the human is crossed out, it's replaced by another one. And let us not forget of the grand frienemy of science: religion. Naturally, the parts of humans that cannot yet be explained are attributed to the One Above, or the Soul.

Another limit that science just can't quite overcome is perspective. As the phrase goes, "one man's trash is another man's treasure". Someone with middle-class income in one country might be considered wealthy in another or borderline under-privileged in a third. Death for the hunted means life for the hunter. 

As everyone knows, everyone is different and special and beautiful in their own way and whatnot, which creates yet another problem for science. Because the aim of science is to create laws applicable to everyone and everything (such as gravity, everyone has gravity), this is made harder by the special sunflowers of this world, who get offended if they have something in common with someone else, or by those who advocate the difference. Of course it must be recognized that it's true that people, groups of people, and cultures are different in one way or another, but it should also be highlighted that on a grand scale of things (if we look from far enough), the differences are really minor and we actually have much more in common (there was this small German guy with a funny voice and a strange moustache once, who really wanted to emphasize the difference his nation had with others).

The last main problem in human science I will mention now is ethics. Science uses experiments. Experiments hurt their participants. Ethics try to intervene at these points and not let people hurt other people. They created very strict guidelines. Then someone discovered that if we can't hurt people but we have to experiment, we could hurt animals. And this is the story of how animal experiments were created. Of course they also have their own guidelines, but they aren't that strict. And besides, the media doesn't give animals as much attention anyways. Consequently, not as many people care about animals. And therefore, animals are harmed much more in the experiments than humans. But luckily, we have animal rights groups now. They will help. Hopefully.

Status Quo Bias

People generally do not like change or prefer to do nothing.
This leads to decision that guarantee that things will remain the same or change as little as possible.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
At least subconsciously we assume that another choice is inferior or would make things worse.

Examples:

• We like to stick to routines, political parties, favorite meals in restaurants, etc
• US still does not have universal healthcare, although big majorities support the idea, and when the Obama Administration started to act in that direction, ca half of all Americans now disapprove of the idea
• When offered a cheaper insurance company people still chose there previous one
• Same happened with retirement plans (both were real-life experiments in Pennsylvania, 1190)

Knowledge Questions

Good country index:
How do we choose which aspects of ranking something to take into account?
To what extent can we rely on numerical data?
How can we distinguish an accurate definition of "good"?
To what extent are human decisions reliable?
How can we decide which data to include in results?
Click here for the website

Bad historian:
To what extent should a person's own cultural background be considered a flaw in their view of history?

Happiness:Purpose (Human Science Article):
To what extent can a mental state be measured?
How can we distinguish an accurate definition of "happy"?
To what extent are scientific instruments reliable?

Was the TED Talk with Philip Zimbardo good?

NO

• The slides had way too much text
• Because he was talking way too fast
• He did not explain the relevant studies thoroughly
• He did not make any pauses so that we can process the information
• He did not let the audience think when he paused questions
• He does not go into detail about the emotional scarring (the reason the experiment stopped)
• He gave too much raw data / unexplained information
• It lacks ecological validity:
• The participants knew they were taking part in an experiment
• The prisoners knew that the prison guards were also participants
• It was a relatively small sample (only a dozen per group)
• Only male participants
• Only from a particular area --› particular cultural background
• Only from a particular age group
• Participants were paid, so they had some incentive to stay

Ethical Dilemma of Recreational Drug Use

Guesses:

Deontologist:

It is bad because it is illegal in most countries

In a lot of cases, addiction causes human to abuse others, which is also illegal 

Utilitarian:

Some (soft) drugs should be legal, because they make the users happy when they are in a sad place

Soft drugs are similar to alcohol and cigarettes, which also calm people down thereby maximising happiness

However, their use should be strictly controlled, because they would otherwise harm others (or themselves)

Hard drugs should remain outlawed because it is relatively easy to OD

After research:

Deontologist:

• Drugs are bad and should, therefore, remain illegal
• What if everyone was doing it? e.g. doctor working under the influence of crystal meth
• We should work on creating an ideal environment for everyone
• Just because using drugs is convenient and would make you feel better it is not a good argument (Kant: "regulating our judgment upon a principle of convenience (i.e., on a system of eudaimonism), affords no ground of duty")
• Counterargument of same side: Every person has the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness

Utilitarian:

• Legalize!
• Police have more pressing issues to deal with
• More harmful drugs like nicotine and alcohol are legal for personal use
• It should be left up to the individual as a personal choice (they trust the person being knowledgeable and having good instinct in order to make good choices)
• Drugs such as marijuana have medical benefits
• In the case of marijuana: "Is it ethical to deny someone who has chronic pain a natural pain reliever with less harmful side effects? Most prescribed pain relievers contain acetaminophen, which can cause liver damage and failure. Then there are the other narcotics that are more susceptible to abuse and addiction."
• Lots of people get incarcerated for drug use nowadays, but this tears families apart (sometimes children are taken away) and ruins that person's chances at a better, happier future
• Money gained from taxing the use of drugs could be well spent by the government

Why I eat meat

• Protein is a necessary supplement for good health
• I do not find substitutes for meat tasty
• There is no strong evidence that avoiding meat is better for your health
• Just because you eat meat, does not mean that you advocate the abuse of animals
• Nowadays, most animals live in very good living conditions until they are butchered
• There are techniques nowadays with which minimal harm (damage) is inflicted on the animal before it is butchered
• Culturally and traditionally it is accepted to eat meat
• I am a gourmet and thereby I do not want to limit tasting good (at times exotic) food
• Biologically, humans were made to eat meat (their teeth were made that way)
• Finally, meat just tastes reeeaaaaaaally good

Relativism and Subjectivism

Relativism:
We should let cultures decide for themselves.
Pro: Cultures really are different from each other.
Cultures do have different values and principles.
Con: The definition of culture is not clear and is constantly changing.
Does not give ethical guidance for cultures on how to decide, it simply nullifies universal rules.

Subjectivism:
Every individual is free to do however they want as long as it does not hurt others.
Pro: Individuals really are different from each other.
Individuals do have different values and principles.
Con: Does not give ethical guidance for cultures on how to decide, it simply nullifies universal rules.

Nullifies obligations.

Repressed Memory Syndrome

We watched a TED Talk with Elizabeth Loftus (see below), a psychologist studying false memories. Memory is mostly repressed following a traumatic (extremely negative) event; nowadays it can be seen in victims of sexual abuse, physical abuse, or survivors of WW2. The event is so negative, that in order to subconsciously limit the consequences, the brain chooses to repress it.

On the other hand, false memories can easily be implanted, although it is highly unethical to do so (and in the work of psychotherapists, illegal, no matter if it would benefit the client). Numerous studies have been performed supporting both the negative consequences of implanting a negative memory and the positive consequences of implanting a positive memory. An instance of the latter was a study where a false memory was implanted into the participant involving the eating of asparagus having positive consequences; in a following outdoor picnic, the participant would tend to eat more of the vegetable. Loftus proposed that positive false memory implantation can be used both in pedagogy and therapy, such as the previous example being used on obese (overweight) children, thus making them eat more healthy, thereby reducing their risk of diabetes, heart failure, etc.

However, examples of the negative consequences of false memories by far outweigh the positives. One of them was how Steve Titus, who was falsely accused of rape. The victim said he looked the most like her rapist out of the lineup, the false evidence was accepted by the judge, and the man was thrown in jail. He lost his job and his fiance. When the real rapist was then caught, Titus was released, however he could not get his previous life back, having lost these things. As it turned out, 300 people have been wrongfully imprisoned, two-thirds of which because of false memories by eye-witnesses. The question posed by Loftus was, what was the thought process of the victim going from "he looks the most like the rapist" to "he was the rapist"?

To what extent should emotions be considered in our understanding of intelligence?

I think that emotions are a very basic part of intelligence, and should therefore be fully considered next to other types of intelligence. By definition, intelligence is "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations" (Merriam-Webster), and as we use emotions in our everyday lives to understand situations, they are a part of intelligence.
Furthermore, just like other parts of Intelligence, EI can be measured reliably by tests. Similarily to IQ tests, where problems in Math and Analytical questions are posed, in EI tests, emotional problems are presented to the test-taker (e.g. identifying emotions). These tests have been developed by Dr Caruso, Mayer, and Dr Salovey. Also, IQ tests have been proven to be filled with flaws and consequently a faulty predictor of success, resulting in that EI tests might even be a better predictor of success.
Aditionally, Mayer argues that there is both popular acceptance and empirical evidence that EI broadens our understanding of "what it means to be smart" , of astuteness, acuteness, and therefore, of Intelligence. Studies have shown and it is becoming a part of common knowledge that there is a high degree of information processing going on in emotionally active people (popularly referred to as "romantics" and "highly sensitive".

To sum up, it has been proven that it is very important in success to be aware, identify, and be able to control emotions. In certain fields it is considered to be one of the most important skillsets. Up until this point however, only other parts of Intelligence were measured (IQ tests) and grown in school. Emotion was not measured and most traditional schools do not teach students how to deal with emotions (instead they teach how to deal with Mathematical problems, etc). It is time for a change. Intelligence has also been developed. We understand way more of intelligence than 100 years ago. The concept of what it means to be intelligent has changed over time, developed. Therefore, emotions should be considered in our understanding of intelligence.

Are emotions a part of Intelligence?

Definitions

For:
"the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations" 
(Merriam Webster 1. a (1))

Against:
"mental quality that consists of the abilities to learn from experience, ... understand and handle abstract concepts, and use knowledge to manipulate one’s environment."
(Brittanica)

Language, Emotion, and Reason Intertwine in the Mellish Motors Situation

Find examples from the Yale situation or the Mellish Motors situation that demonstrate how language, emotion and reason intertwine.


When a used car shop in New Annan, Canada, put up a sign saying "Women are like snowflakes. They can't drive." it sparked a storm of outrage and debates revolving around the sign. One side argued that the sign was misogynistic and not even funny. Others than called these people too PC (politically correct) and was only intended as a joke. It very quickly escalated into hate speech from and against both sides whilst the debate switched into a debate over Political Correctness.

The sign on the top right was the original one, the others were then put up as responses to the debate by the owner.

This debate on Facebook is a glowing example of the fallouts the sign caused. It started with someone (for the sake of simplicity I'll refer to him as "Poster") saying she is "disappointed with the number of male and female friends who don't see the harm in sexist "jokes" like the one on the Mellish Motors' sign, let alone its  ridiculous rebuttals." She went on to state how misogynistic the world nowadays is and compared her own "rebellion" to that of Rosa Parks' Bus Boycott.
Responder 1 was glad to point out the mistakes in her argument. First off, she has just compared herself to "the mother of the freedom movement" (this is what US Congress called Rosa Parks); it can be clearly seen how she let her emotion negatively affect her reason, as she let herself overexaggerate for the sake of simply having more arguments (more to say) and to get her point across to everyone. Responder 1 proceeded to bring in logical arguments for his own side (which is that the whole debate has gotten out of hand) and to point out that the original complainer (Ms. Ling) has already called a truce. He also used sarcasm, a very powerful linguistical tool for debates.
Then came Responder 2, who supported Poster and continued her arguments in a very dramatic way. She used several vulgar expressions, swore, and didn't have more than one real logical argument. To sum up: she let her anger cloud her judgment of how she should argue. Paraphrased, because of her heightened emotion, her language was affected in a negative way, which suggested she had bad skills of reason.

Facebook Fight

Politically Correct: The notion of disabling people to say certain words/phrases because they might offend specific groups of people (e.g. a word/phrase might be racist, misogynistic, etc).

Mellish Motors politically incorrect sign:

Offensiveness rating (personal): 4

Friends Fallout about the sign

Emotions and Emotional Intelligence

Types of emotions:

• Anger
• Distress
• Joy
• Contempt
• Surprise
• Fear
• Disgust

Higher emotions:

• Shame
• Embarrassment
• Jealousy (fear of losing a human connection)
• Envy
• Love
• Pride
• Guilt

Emotional Intelligence, explained by the creator of the idea Daniel Goleman:

Pinker vs Spelke Debate

Personally, I am leaning towards the nurture side (Spelke's arguments). I think that most sex differences are due to society, culture, and nurturing. However, I agree with Pinker in that some differences are biological and therefore cannot be changed. Although in my opinion, there are only a few characteristics of a person that are biologically predetermined and cannot be changed: gender, ethnicity, nationality, name, age, certain diseases, and sexuality (although the latter is controversial). Spelke actually agreed in a few aspects with Pinker, in that she agreed that some sex differences are biological, and thus she actually proposed an answer to the Debate Question, unlike Pinker.

There are three types of positions that discuss sex differences. Extreme "nature" position: that males but not females have the talents and temperaments necessary for science. Extreme "nurture" position: that males and females are biologically indistinguishable, and all relevant sex differences are products of socialization and bias. Intermediate positions: that the difference is explainable by some combination of biological differences in average temperaments and talents interacting with socialization and bias.

Spelke argued that sex differences are mainly due to nurturing and society:

• Claims concerning sex differences should be evaluated by evidence. We agree that the mind is not a blank slate; there is such a thing as human nature.
• I think what caused this gap are social factors. There are no differences in science and mathematics between women and men. Men and women are not the same, and they don’t have identical cognitive profiles.
• Over the last months, there has been a popular argument that men have greater cognitive aptitude for science. The argument is that from birth, boys are interested in objects and mechanics, and girls are interested in people and emotions. However male and female infants are equally interested in objects. Male and female infants make the same inferences about object motion, at the same time in development. They learn the same things about object mechanics at the same time.
• Kids start manipulating objects to see if they can get a rectangular block into a circular hole. If you look at the rates at which boys and girls figure these things out, you don't find any differences. We see equal developmental paths.
• Male and female infants are both interested in objects and in people, and they learn about both.
• Animals don't do formal math or science, and neither did humans back in the Pleistocene.
• Five "core systems" at the foundations of mathematical reasoning.
• a system for representing small exact numbers of objects — the difference between one, two, and three. This system emerges in human infants at about five months of age, and it continues to be present in adults.
• a system for discriminating large, approximate numerical magnitudes — the difference between a set of about ten things and a set of about 20 things.system also emerges early in infancy, at four or five months, and continues to be present and functional in adults.
• the system of natural number concepts that we construct as children when we learn verbal counting.That construction takes place between about the ages of two and a half and four years.
• The predisposition to figure out the mechanics of the world sets boys on a path that makes them more likely to become scientists or mathematicians.
• People may have equal abilities to develop intuitive understanding of the physical world, but formal math and science don't build on these intuitions. Scientists use mathematics to come up with new characterizations of the world and new principles to explain its functioning. Maybe males have an edge in scientific reasoning because of their greater talent for mathematics.
• normal mathematics is not something we have evolved to do; it's a recent accomplishment
• We agree on free speech and free academic inquiry, claims concerning sex differences are empirical, genes matter, a humble role for science in society
• The first uniquely human foundation for numerical abilities is the system of natural number concepts that we construct as children when we learn verbal counting. That construction takes place between about the ages of two and a half and four years. The last two systems are first seen in children when they navigate. One system represents the geometry of the surrounding layout. The other system represents landmark objects.

WE think that Gender Stereotypes influence how males and females are perceived.

Parent’s describe their children as:

sons are big, strong and hardy at birth

12 months old: sons are predicted to perform better at locomotor tasks

6 y.o.: sons have more of a natural talent in Math

8 y.o.: sons are more talented in science

A study showed a video of a baby. Half were given male and half female names. Children with male names were more likely to be rated as strong, intelligent, and active;

those with female names were more likely to be rated as little, soft, and so forth.

Parents perceptions of children's behavior and emotions will influence their actions towards those children. This influence will occur even if parents are determined to treat their sons and daughters alike.

Resumes:

For the great candidate, there was no effect of gender labeling on these judgments. This supports Pinker that there is little open discrimination in universities.

However

In the average successful resume there were differences. The male were rated as having higher research productivity and more teaching experience. These psychologists, Steve's and my colleagues, looked at the same number of publications and thought, "good productivity" when the name was male, and "less good productivity" when the name was female. In answer to the question would they hire the candidate, 70% said yes for the male, 45% for the female. To sum up, the male would get hired and the female would not.

Effects:

First, and most obviously, biased perceptions produce discrimination: When a group of equally qualified men and women are evaluated for jobs, more of the men will get those jobs if they are perceived to be more qualified. Second, if people are rational, more men than women will put themselves forward into the academic competition, because men will see that they've got a better chance for success. Academic jobs will be more attractive to men because they face better odds, will get more resources, and so forth.

Four effects of discrimination and discouragement:

Biased perceptions by fellow scientists will weed out some talented women directly

Unequal opportunities will deter some talented women from attempting careers in science.

Biased perceptions earlier in life will deter some talented girls from studying science.

4. The gender gap on science facilities will  lead some students to view high-level science as a man's world.

• hard to discern what gender is better at certain things (e.g. which gender is more spatially or object oriented)(which sex is better at science or math)

SAT is a good example which aims to test abilities and knowledge (however, it is almost impossible to test which gender does best on certain sections, females do some problems well, which males can do others well)

• “Research from the intersecting fields of cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, and cognitive development provide evidence for five "core systems" at the foundations of mathematical reasoning.” Five systems: representing small exact numbers of objects, discriminating large, approximate numerical magnitudes, natural number concepts that we construct as children when we learn verbal counting, the geometry of the surrounding layout, landmark objects

• there are no sex differences in primary abilities for mathematics
• at older ages women tend to have advantages in verbal fluency, rapid mathematical calculations and memory for the spatial positions of objects, whilst men have advantages in areas such as verbal analogies, rapid mathematical reasoning and memory for layout geometry, mental rotation.  
• hard to pick the jobs in which to conduct research in and determine which areas males and females master

Pinker argued that sex differences are mainly due to biology (e.g. genetics):

Liz has said that there is "not a shred of evidence" for the biological factor, that "the evidence against there being an advantage for males in intrinsic aptitude is so overwhelming that it is hard for me to see how one can make a case at this point on the other side," and that "it seems to me as conclusive as any finding I know of in science."But I don't think that in any of them I would say there is "not a shred of evidence" for the other side, even if I think that the evidence favors one side.

1. By proving my point, I quoted a book called Sex Differences in Cognitive Ability by Diane Halpern, a well known psychologists -(“Socialization practices are undoubtedly important, but there is also good evidence that biological sex differences play a role in establishing and maintaining cognitive sex differences”)
2. So the differences between the sexes are part of the human condition.  Sex is a problem in biology and sexual reproduction goes back years. I recognize that there is a theory namely Bob Trivers' theory of differential parental investment, which makes highly specific predictions about when you should expect sex differences and what they should look like. I also state that if we want to change this, we have to understand where the source of sex difference comes from. So, differences between the sexes are part of the human condition.

Casper and Lorinc:

1. “there is a crucial conceptual difference between difference and discrimination”

Therefore it is social influence, since women are discriminated at workplaces

2. Biological Similarities to support discrimination:

-General intelligence is at similar levels

-Similar Cognitions

- However there are gender differences, both have their talents men are better at throwing, whilst women are more dexterous. Men are better at mentally rotating shapes; women are better at visual memory. Men are better at mathematical solvings whilst women are better at mathematical calculations.

- (there are statistical differences in what men and women value differently) There are some things in life that the females rated higher than males, such as the ability to have a part-time career for a limited time in one's life; living close to parents and relatives; having a meaningful spiritual life; and having strong friendships

- Men prioritize having lots of money; inventing or creating something; having a full-time career; and being successful in one's line of work.

• Different jobs appeal to different genders, men want to work with things, whilst woman want to work with people. (working with people might be the director of a community service organization. The occupation that fits best with “things” are chemists, mathematicians, computer programs and biologists.

3. Further on, according to studies women are biologically equal:

-Talented

-Encouraged in math and sciences

-Have equal achievements

-Satisfied

-However, due to evolutionary /Biological dispositions, “men, on average, are more likely to chase status at the expense of their families;”

• For spatial ability, the advantage goes to women, but in "mental rotation,"spatial perception," and "spatial visualization" the advantage goes to men.

4. Biological influences could apply, through risk taking.

-Evolutionary, as Pinker states, that women are less risk takers, just due to their gender

-In a large meta-analysis involving 150 studies and 100,000 participants, in 14 out of 16 categories of risk-taking, men were overrepresented.

• Which is why they could be employed in more higher positions.

Idan:

-Effectiveness of aptitude tests (people in science careers are in the 90th percentile for SAT math)

-In a science paper by Novell and Hedges, it was found that in 35 out of 37 tests, the male variance for test results was higher than that of the female variance

-IQ in Scotland, females predominate in the middle, and men slightly predominate at both extremes.

-In nature vs. nurture, one is not completely responsible for male dominance in work, but we try to prove that biology is greater than zero

-levels of sex hormones, difference in brain size and shapes

-in all cultures, greater involvement of women in child care, and men in competitiveness

-To analyze Personality, a cross-national survey was conducted which had consistent results across the different age groups for personality difference in genders.

- Diane Halpern analyzed results for cognitive tests across ten nations and concluded that the majority of the results showed cross cultural consistency between genders

-Despite feminist movements, very little change in personal life interests were seen for both genders

-sex differences seen in other mammals (among baby vervet monkeys, males prefer to play with trucks and females with other toys)

-sex differences in early childhood, (newborn baby boys prefer looking at an object, while newborn baby girls at a face)

-Boys grown up as girls from an early age, showed 'boyish' behaviour

-No difference between way boys and girls are treated by parents and treated

-prenatal sex hormones affect people's behaviour, girls with male hormones prenatally had 'boyish' traits

• with X chromosomes, people who have only x chromosomes showed that if the x chromosome came from the mom, they acted more like girls, and if they got it from the father, then they were less social and more technical (boyish traits)

Gloria Steinem- "there are very few jobs that actually require a penis or a vagina, and all the other jobs should be open to both sexes."

Here is a video of the whole debate (in Harvard), 2-hours long:

Personality and Gender

Big Five of personality:

• Neuroticism
• Agreeableness
• Extraversion (Outgoingness)
• Openness to Experience
• Conscientiousness (Reliability)

We did a Harvard study of gender association to words (click here to test it out for yourself).

Gender: Culture or Genes?

Arguments for Culture	Arguments for Genetics
make up skirts, dresses high heels soldiers religious jobs hair length colors nail polish use in media caregiver	beard moustache breastfeeding body hair giving birth strength speed agility body structure maturity hormones

People who want the Culture side to "win" are usually feminists, activists, or liberals.

People who want the Genetics side to "win" are usually scientists or conservatives.

This is one part of a massive and on-going debate in Psychology called the "Nature vs Nurture Debate". In summary, the question is the following: What parts of the human behaviour can be taught and what parts are caused by biology?

This video explains it quite well:

Where the causes are cultural, it can be changed.

Where the causes are biological, some would say they are "stereotypes".

Religious people are usually against Genetics, as this would refute the belief that God created everything (including thoughts).

Gender Differences in Proffesions

All of the findings in this post are based on this video:

To sum up, the study was done by a Norwegian comedian, who asked professionals (psychologists and doctors) from Los Angeles, Cambridge, and Norway about their views on gender inequality in the workplace and it's origins.

The answers could be put in 2 groups:

• Group A: The origins of gender roles are mainly biological and/or evolutionary. Lippa (2009) proves this theory: he has created a survey regarding this topic in which people from over 50 countries took part, the results show clear cross-cultural differences between men and women. 
• Group B: Gender roles are created by society and/or culture - people make them, therefore they can be changed. This opinion is gaining popularity nowadays, according to one of the psychologists it is a generally accepted fact nowadays that there are no differences between the brains of men and women.