×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Data Mining Reveals the Emotional Differences In Emails From Men and Women

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the men-are-from-yahoo,-women-are-from-outlook dept.

Communications 100

KentuckyFC writes "Sentiment analysis relies on vast databases of common words which are marked as positive, negative or neutral and associated with one of the eight fundamental emotions: joy, trust, fear, surprise, sadness, discuss, anger and anticipation. It is then a straightforward matter to search Tweets, novels and even fairy tales to see what emotions appear. Now, researchers have carried out the first large-scale study of sentiment in workplace emails. They examined the emotions associated with words in over 30,000 emails and analyzed the emotional differences between messages sent by men and women. It turns out that women use more cheerful words in emails than men, that men use more fear words, especially when communicating with other men, and that both men and women are far more likely to use anticipation words when emailing a member of the opposite sex. The same researchers say they are developing a Google app that will allow users to track their own emotions towards the people they correspond with in Gmail. And they plan to make a public call for volunteers willing to share their data for research purposes."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

100 comments

scary shit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45036849)

how about the emotions of users raped by the nsa by having all their shit on gmail services and infected with their bad karma?

First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45036855)

First emotion

Re:First (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037211)

I second that emotion.
--Smokey

Other findings (5, Funny)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 6 months ago | (#45036881)

1) Men's emails are 90% more likely to include the word "balls" than women's.
2) Men are 74% less likely to ever email someone a link to an Oprah Magazine story.
3) No man has ever used the phrase "K, Luv Ya!" in an email, ever.

Re:Other findings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037175)

> 3) No man has ever used the phrase "K, Luv Ya!" in an email, ever.
Except when discussing the phrase itself.

Re:Other findings (1)

nucrash (549705) | about 6 months ago | (#45037517)

Until today. K, Luv Ya!

Re:Other findings (4, Funny)

bondsbw (888959) | about 6 months ago | (#45037579)

In other news, today we found out that at least 0.00007% of Slashdot users believe that discussion comments are email.

Re:Other findings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45039075)

Or perhaps he just assumed /. has reached Letts' Law: All programs evolve until they can send email.

"fear" words et al (3, Interesting)

ESRB (974125) | about 6 months ago | (#45037487)

Even the journal article linked to by the blog seems to be scant on details. I was hoping there'd at least be a few appendices on these things, but no such luck. Anyone know exactly what "joy words," "fear words," et al are?

Thanks in advance.

Re:"fear" words et al (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 6 months ago | (#45037627)

I think you have asked an insightful question here. TFA says only:

...the new science of sentiment analysis ... relies on the creation of vast databases in which words are marked as either positive or negative and associated with one of the eight fundamental emotions...

It's the content of that database that critically determines whether the findings of the textual analysis are any good. That database could be very carefully constructed by a transparent and rigorous process, with extensive validation against external sources. Or it could have been populated by a chimpanzee with a dart board. We don't know.

Data scientists -- and journalists reporting on their work -- would do well to remember the old programmer's adage: "Garbage in, garbage out."

Re:"fear" words et al (3, Informative)

waddleman (1230926) | about 6 months ago | (#45038511)

From the research paper:

The lexicon has entries for about 24,200 word–sense pairs. The information from different senses of a word is combined by taking the union of all emotions associated with the different senses of the word. This resulted in a word-level emotion association lexicon for about 14,200 word types. These files are together referred to as the NRC Emotion Lexicon version 0.92.

Re:"fear" words et al (1)

Deep Esophagus (686515) | about 6 months ago | (#45038655)

So, they could accurately differentiate the emotions conveyed by "I love you" vs. "I would love to wring your neck"? And can they detect sarcasm? Oh, that's a real useful invention...

Re:Other findings (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about 6 months ago | (#45039053)

Utter bollocks, gay men are not 26% of the population and even then most of them have more sense than that...

Discuss? (2)

i_ate_god (899684) | about 6 months ago | (#45036977)

I'm not sure I ever felt discussing, though since I'm discussing it, I guess... I am discussed.

Re:Discuss? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037023)

I get extremely disgusted when people confuse discuss and disgust. One is an emotion. One is what women always do. One is an emotion you can see on women's faces when they look towards a slashdot user.

Re:Discuss? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037193)

Fuck women!

Re:Discuss? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037321)

I fully intend to some day.

Re:Discuss? (2)

tsprig (167046) | about 6 months ago | (#45037233)

I get extremely disgusted when people confuse discuss and disgust. One is an emotion. One is what women always do. One is an emotion you can see on women's faces when they look towards a slashdot user.

That's three you discussing swine!

Re:Discuss? (-1, Troll)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 6 months ago | (#45037091)

Wait until NOW and the Feminazi Organization of America get a hold of this study. They can tear it apart explaining how women aren't any more emotional or irrational than men. (It's been scientifically shown that the emotion and reason centers of the brain override each other--using logic numbs emotion, and emotional reactions numb logic)

Re:Discuss? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037411)

There's no such thing as the "Feminazi Organization of America."

I know it's hard to break an addiction to Republican alternate-reality, but you really need to get clean if you want to stop sounding like Rush Limbaugh.

This is Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45039297)

No room for your facts here. Only propaganda.

Garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45036989)

Where are "snark" and "sarcasm" found on the emotions list?

The Internet suggests those should be 90% of the total.

google app probably not needed (1)

ClassicASP (1791116) | about 6 months ago | (#45037029)

i think people probably already have a good idea about what they actually think about the other people that they email back and forth with. a google app is just going to tell people things that they already know about themselves.

Re:google app probably not needed (1)

MatthewCCNA (1405885) | about 6 months ago | (#45037057)

a google app is just going to tell people things that they already know about themselves.

That app will do well, anything to parrots ourselves back to us will have mass appeal.

Re:google app probably not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037121)

So what? People buy stupid astrology, self-help books, etc. etc. all the time. Nothing wrong with taking a few chumps for a ride.
 
Captcha: rebuking

Re:google app probably not needed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037333)

i think people probably already have a good idea about what they actually think about the other people that they email back and forth with. a google app is just going to tell people things that they already know about themselves.

One might be surprized. At one point my daughter pointed out to me that I was falling in love with somebody even before I was aware of it myself.

Re:google app probably not needed (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 6 months ago | (#45037555)

A *huge* difference is that your daughter could see your face when you spoke about the woman.

DIY Data Mining (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037055)

Admittedly, I only skimmed both the article and the study, but I did not see a link to the list of words and their emotional associations. This could be useful if they'd let us at it.

Re:DIY Data Mining (1)

stewsters (1406737) | about 6 months ago | (#45037077)

Its probably generated with some semi-supervised learning. You pass in a set of a few hundred emails of each type, it looks for words that are common to them that don't appear in other emails, and goes with that.

What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy! (2, Interesting)

s.petry (762400) | about 6 months ago | (#45037071)

Of course men and women use different language in their emails. Young men would use different language than middle aged or older people do. A person emailing a friend would have different language than when they email their boss. This is not indicative of there "emotions". This is indicative of their education, wisdom, and who they are having a conversation with and the topics of discussion.

This whole article discusses work done on an absolutely false premise. Emails can not be used to determine your emotional state, any more than tweets can not be used to determine your psychological state.

Pack it in you eugenics morons! We are on to your game!

Re:What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 6 months ago | (#45037109)

Email language also vary based on where you're from, what your history is, your income level, your education level, how many fingers you've lost to chainsaws...

I think Slashdot had an article a while back about being able to use your email language to track down individual people because there are so many different variables.

Re:What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | about 6 months ago | (#45037133)

The article stated nothing about anyone's "emotional state". Read TFA, digest TFA, comprehend TFA.

Re:What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy (0)

s.petry (762400) | about 6 months ago | (#45037245)

It is then a straightforward matter to search Tweets, novels and even fairy tales to see what emotions appear. Now, researchers have carried out the first large-scale study of sentiment in workplace emails. They examined the emotions associated with words in over 30,000 emails and analyzed the emotional differences between messages sent by men and women.

If you are determining that someone is of an emotion, you are determining their emotional state. If you are determining an emotional difference, you must know two states of emotion. Logic and reason is not very complex, but many people choose not to use either.

Re:What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037377)

If you are determining that someone is of an emotion, you are determining their emotional state. If you are determining an emotional difference, you must know two states of emotion. Logic and reason is not very complex, but many people choose not to use either.

Slow down. Read it again, it says "emotions associated with words" and "emotional differences between messages". That says nothing about emotional state. Nor does it imply those are the true emotions of the authors. This is about how men and women use language differently. Why you read so much more into that, I don't know.

Re:What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 6 months ago | (#45037623)

It is apparent that you missed "The same researchers say they are developing a Google app that will allow users to track their own emotions towards the people they correspond with in Gmail."

If you choose to ignore what the article claims that is not my issue, but yours. I didn't read anything into the article, I read the whole article.

Re:What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy (1)

Давид Чапел (3032005) | about 6 months ago | (#45037919)

Of course men and women use different language in their emails. Young men would use different language than middle aged or older people do. A person emailing a friend would have different language than when they email their boss. This is not indicative of there "emotions". This is indicative of their education, wisdom, and who they are having a conversation with and the topics of discussion.

I don't the researchers claim that the words directly reflect the writers emotions. When people write persuasively they instead try to stir emotions in their readers. For example, if I write: "I am deaply concerned that our current strategy exposes us to unnecessary risk." I am fear words in the hope that my readers will take what I have to say more seriously.

Re:What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 6 months ago | (#45038145)

You could just as easily use those words due to ignorance and be repeating what you heard someone else say, and not intentionally using fear correct? How would a person or application be able to discern the difference? It can't because, as with any language, there is a tremendous amount of subjectivity in the words.

To take this a bit further, we often apply emotional words in an exactly different theme than our emotion. Take satire as a massive example. Another smaller example would be the person who just experienced a death of a close loved one that realizes they are emotionally distraught so intentionally choose words to mask their emotion (or for someone with knowledge of psychology, to facilitate changing their emotional state).

These small examples show that the claim is based on the false premise that you can know (via empathy, psychological profiling, etc..) what someone means when communicating. This is counter intuitive with even a basic understanding of language. One of the reasons we have so many different languages is that we have never perfected one that expresses our precise meaning, let alone our psychological reference for making our statements.

Re:What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 6 months ago | (#45038457)

Are you one of the many people Ive come across that think the Internet isn't real? Meaning what you say and do to others on the Internet cant hurt someone else feeling and emotions because well its the Internet?

Re:What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 6 months ago | (#45038613)

Seriously, do I give any hint that communication in any medium is different (internet vs. diary vs. book)? The point I raise is not that you can't harm someone in a communication, the point is that you can't know their intent by the words chosen from a single email.

If I was to analyze a threaded communication, I would get an idea that it's possible your "piss off" email was a joke and not malicious. Having no such thread and looking at the "piss off" email I can make no such speculation rationally, and should make no claim that it's possible. Especially considering that when I read the thread and assume you were joking, I may be very very wrong.

The point is not that communication is not real depending on the medium. The point is that we can't use a single communication as a reference to claim to know a person's emotional state or psychological state.

Re:What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 6 months ago | (#45039131)

Wouldn't have asked if i thought any different. Which makes your point.

Re:What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 6 months ago | (#45039363)

Exactly what language give you the idea that I claim that a communication could not cause harm? I never make that claim, and make no implication. I claim that communications are subjective.

This is not indicative of there "emotions". This is indicative of their education, wisdom, and who they are having a conversation with and the topics of discussion.

Re:What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45039207)

Emails can not be used to determine your emotional state

"Listen, you goddamned son of a bitch, one more fuckup and I'll pull your fucking teeth out with a goddamned rusty pair of pliars!"

Ya think?

Re:What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy (1)

Valdrax (32670) | about 6 months ago | (#45040745)

Pack it in you eugenics morons! We are on to your game!

I sense irritation and a vague sense of intellectual superiority...

Woah... James Randi, here I come!

Re:What the F$&*? Talk about a big fat fallacy (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 6 months ago | (#45042315)

Irritation? I think it's worse than that with the eugenics people. I side with Socrates over the Sophists, and despise this type of rhetoric for the same reasons. Philosophy should not be used for personal gain, but should be used for bettering society. I may actually be irritated because people are repeatedly being duped by the same propaganda, and on a site where people are supposed to be intellectuals it's befuddling that the same rhetorical tricks seem to always work.

In the last year, there have been at least 5 different articles of "science" claiming to be able to work magic with words. This is everything from labeling you as a psychopath or a sociopath by your 1024 or less character tweets, to determining if you will be a future criminal by your DNA, to this one claiming to be able to know your emotion by a single email (or the emotions involved while you created your email). None of this is possible, but since they wrap it in a box labelled "science" people seem to ignore the content.

Sense of intellectual superiority? That is an entirely subjective, quite possibly stated as an ad hominem.

Men are miserable cynics woman are crazy manics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037113)

Nothing new there then!

Fascinating! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037115)

Fascinating!

Let's try the same thing with song lyrics:

Mama Cass:

Stars shining bright above you
Night breezes seem to whisper "I love you"
Birds singing in the sycamore tree
Dream a little dream of me
Say "Night-ie night" and kiss me
Just hold me tight and tell me you'll miss me
While I'm alone and blue as can be
Dream a little dream of me
Stars fading but I linger on, dear
Still craving your kiss
I'm longing to linger till dawn, dear
Just saying this
Sweet dreams till sunbeams find you
Sweet dreams that leave all worries behind you
But in your dreams whatever they be
Dream a little dream of me

And DJ Assault:

(2x)
Ass, titties, ass 'n titties
Ass ass titties titties, ass 'n titties

(2x)
Big booty bitches thats where it gets
Come on, hoe, let's go to the easy rest
When I see ass, titties, ass 'n titties
Ass, ass, titties, titties, ass 'n titties.

(4x)
Ass, ass, ass, ass

(2x)
If you a light-skinned bitch that think you the shit,
I can buy you, hoe, 'cause bitch I'm rich.
I see broke-ass hoes, broke-ass hoes,
Broke-ass hoes, broke-ass hoes.

(4x)
Hoes, hoes, hoes, hoes

(2x)
If you a freaky-dancin' ho, keep shakin' that shit
Let's see how you shake it on top of my dick
And you'll say "Assault, I'm cuming. Assault, I'm cuming.
"Assault, I'm cuming. Assault, I'm cuming."

(4x)
Cumin', Cumin', Cumin', Cumin'

(2x)
Stankin ass bitches that need to wash up
Dont get mad when i dont want to fuck
You need soap and water, soap and water
Soap and water, Soap and Water

(4x)
Water, Water, Water, Water

The difference is subtle, but in my opinion quite discernible.

Re:Fascinating! (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 6 months ago | (#45037351)

Is this some kind of trick? I could swear these were written by the same person. This may be proof the Mama Cass faked her own death, changed her appearance, and is performing under the name DJ Assault.

That's sexist! (5, Funny)

pla (258480) | about 6 months ago | (#45037151)

Males and females have absolutely no difference between them, despite the overwhelming experiential, physiological, neurological, anatomical, and hormonal evidence to the contrary, you sexist pigs, and how dare you even conduct this research into the issue!

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go open a jar of mayo for the little lady, though that in no way suggests she lacks the wrist and forearm strength to grasp and twist just as well as any man.

Re:That's sexist! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037241)

Males and females have absolutely no difference between them, despite the overwhelming experiential, physiological, neurological, anatomical, and hormonal evidence to the contrary, you sexist pigs, and how dare you even conduct this research into the issue!

I realize you're joking, but sexism (or racism, or class-ism, etc.) is not noticing that real differences exist, rather it is the value judgement assigned to those differences.

Re:That's sexist! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037359)

There is a real value difference between the sexes. You can't just pretend the differences don't matter. Being larger makes boys better at sports. Having a monthly period is a negative value (I don't think anyone disagrees with that, although it does come with a benefit of being able to have children).

Pretending that the differences don't provide benefit to one side of the other is just silly.

Re:That's sexist! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037823)

There is a real value difference between the sexes. You can't just pretend the differences don't matter. Being larger makes boys better at sports. Having a monthly period is a negative value (I don't think anyone disagrees with that, although it does come with a benefit of being able to have children).

Pretending that the differences don't provide benefit to one side of the other is just silly.

Except that if girls spent as much time playing sorts and were pushed to win the way boys are they'd on average be only slightly worse than boys and individuals could easily exceed the average for boys.

However, if you just look at observed results and conclude that "girls suck at sports" and therefore shouldn't try you create an environment of sexism (a girl who wants to be good at sports will be discouraged from trying because it's assumed she'll fail). On the other hand if you don't make the judgment and encourage girls who want to be good at sports to play them then you get talented female athletes, and no one cares if it's not a a perfect 50/50 split.

Re:That's sexist! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45038131)

Except that if girls spent as much time playing sorts and were pushed to win the way boys are they'd on average be only slightly worse than boys

That's a nice idea, but it's just not true. Men have much more capability to build muscle, for example, so unless you encourage women to take steroids, they're going to always have trouble entering the NFL. Or any competitive sport that requires muscle.

Re:That's sexist! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45038947)

Not the AC, but re-read the post and pay attention to "on average be only slightly worse than boys and individuals could easily exceed the average for boys". I am stronger than the average man, but I would not be able to out-lift a female Olympic athlete. Men (on average) are stronger than women, but that doesn't mean that every man is stronger than every woman.

Re:That's sexist! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45038347)

> Being larger makes boys better at sports.

No, it doesn't. It gives them a potential advantage at sports.

This is exactly the problem with making such a big fuss about the differences between the sexes, whatever they may be. My Y chromosome did not make me particularly athletic (like many Slashdot readers, I suspect), and my girlfriend can out-wrestle me. But your casual phrasing suggests that this should be impossible, because it paints both of us with an extremely broad brush.

It gets worse with fuzzier aptitudes like math, which is stereotypically believed to be a male discipline for... some reason or another. But today's NYT article [nytimes.com] suggests that perhaps there are fewer women in math and sciences because we tell women they can't do math and sciences.

So yes, all else being an equal, a man will probably be stronger than a woman who's done the same training. But a woman who's done any training at all will be stronger than the vast majority of men who haven't, and insisting that "men are better at sports" will discourage women from bothering at all (and earn scorn towards both men and women who don't fit the mold).

Re:That's sexist! (1)

znanue (2782675) | about 6 months ago | (#45038677)

> Being larger makes boys better at sports.

No, it doesn't. It gives them a potential advantage at sports.

This is exactly the problem with making such a big fuss about the differences between the sexes, whatever they may be. My Y chromosome did not make me particularly athletic (like many Slashdot readers, I suspect), and my girlfriend can out-wrestle me. But your casual phrasing suggests that this should be impossible, because it paints both of us with an extremely broad brush.

It gets worse with fuzzier aptitudes like math, which is stereotypically believed to be a male discipline for... some reason or another. But today's NYT article [nytimes.com] suggests that perhaps there are fewer women in math and sciences because we tell women they can't do math and sciences.

So yes, all else being an equal, a man will probably be stronger than a woman who's done the same training. But a woman who's done any training at all will be stronger than the vast majority of men who haven't, and insisting that "men are better at sports" will discourage women from bothering at all (and earn scorn towards both men and women who don't fit the mold).

What is the use in such a distinction between potential advantage and just plain old advantage? A larger size really does seem to be a plain old advantage in many sports and a disadvantage in others.

Why can't it be a little from column A and a little from column B? Or a lot from one and a little from the other? Of course the golem effect [wikipedia.org] is probably discouraging women from science, but on average, they may also just be worse at it, simultaneously. If that is the case, then is it in our best interests to acknowledge that fact? I'm not saying we shouldn't have female scientists, but it does impact the discussion on what, if anything, we should do about the numbers imbalance.

Re:That's sexist! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45039055)

If someone is exceptional, then the average potential of whatever way they are grouped (sex, hair color, income group, race, nationality, social status, etc.) doesn't dictate their ability and they shouldn't be judged or pushed away from a field due to prejudice.

Re:That's sexist! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45042317)

He wasn't distinguishing potential advantage from plain old advantage. He was distinguishing advantage from "being better at". A larger size is an advantage in many sports as you describe, but it doesn't mean you are better at them.

It could be a little from column A and a little from column B (column A will be "nature" and column B will be "nurture"), but we have a paucity of evidence about it in any direction, and every time somebody looks into it somebody rolls their eyes and makes a "have we gone so PC that we can't just say that boys are better than girls at sports???" argument. It's entirely conceivable that the natural ability is in the opposite direction. There are cultures where the healthcare professionals are all women and cultures where they are all men. Clearly at least one culture is doing it wrong from the nature perspective, assuming the genetic makeup of those cultures isn't so wildly different that the average natural differences between men and women isn't vastly different along those cultural boundaries.

I'm actually really skeptical that you'd come up with exact equality on nearly any attribute if you could really separate out the effects, though I expect most are pretty close, and I don't see a lot of reason to suspect that we've assigned it correctly any more than 50% of the time. It's not like any sort of "Social Darwinism" is all that effective at eliminating cultural inefficiencies. Just look at all the batshit crazy clearly-inefficient things some cultures hold sacred (you can ignore the crazy things yours does).

Re:That's sexist! (2)

Guy Harris (3803) | about 6 months ago | (#45038921)

Being larger makes boys better at sports.

Being larger makes a person better at sports where greater size (which is probably a proxy for muscle mass here) is an advantage. I'm not certain that, in all sports, a big muscle-bound person would be better than, say, a slim wiry person.

Boys are, on average, larger, but, then, the average person has (approximately) one ovary and one testicle. A larger boy would be better than a smaller boy at a sport where greater size is an advantage, but a larger girl might be better than that same smaller boy at that sport.

Re:That's sexist! (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 6 months ago | (#45040659)

The "advantage" men have ovar women exists moslty at the highest levels of sports that focus on strength and lung capacity. Maybe the solution is to introduce more sports that focus on flexibility such as gymnastics. Admittedly judging such events is going to be more subjective than a game where you breast the tape or lift up a fixed series of weights.

Re:That's sexist! (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 6 months ago | (#45037479)

No, I cannot speak for Sexism, but Racism is very clearly defined as believing that the Races have differences, or that "The Races" exist at all.

I do not believe that is a very good definition, but that is what many people use and what you will find on Wikipedia, for example (and many others).

I think it is mostly a European thing, I think I might have something to do with overcompensating for the Nazis.

Re:That's sexist! (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 6 months ago | (#45037975)

It's a way of describing certain concrete physical characteristics. I like having names for things.

Of course, then we go overboard and start assigning intelligence and other nurture things to them...

Re:That's sexist! (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 6 months ago | (#45038307)

Because height and strength are not influenced by nurture.

Re:That's sexist! (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 6 months ago | (#45038513)

Depending what diet you feed your kids and the physical activities you encourage them to do, sure. You can't, however, say, "Son...stop being black."

Re:That's sexist! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45039215)

More commonly (at least in India) it is, "Daughter, avoid the sun and use fairness cream".

Re:That's sexist! (1)

znanue (2782675) | about 6 months ago | (#45038713)

Are you saying there are no genetic factors for intelligence? Because, that seems like a nice pc thing to say but totally erroneous.

If our discussions of race are pure 'nature' or pure 'nurture', then I think we're just appealing to one human vanity or the other.

Re:That's sexist! (2)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 6 months ago | (#45038975)

I didn't say anything about the ratio of nature to nurture. I'm just saying society sometimes tells me a term I use solely to describe a certain group of people--with no intention of implied connotations--is unacceptable because apparently society can't use any word to describe the group without someone considering it a slur. I'm a programmer. I call a duck a fucking duck.

wisnoskij says there's no such thing as race; you say race is an indicator for intelligence. I think I should put you two in a cage with polearms and wait until you've beaten each other senseless.

P.S: I'm talking about the United States. Slashdot is hosted in the U.S., is in English, and largely deals with U.S. issues. So bite me, European pedants.

Re:That's sexist! (1)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#45037331)

First, mod this +Funny. I'm out of points.

and how dare you even conduct this research into the issue!

Stand by for a lot more politically incorrect research being done by AI researchers. Sociologists, psychologists and linguists have known about this stuff for years. But it has been a 'no go' area of research, thanks to many institutes of higher learning PC policies. Now, enter the software geeks, necessarily lacking social skills. Give them a sizable corpus of training material and look what pops out.

Re:That's sexist! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45038507)

Yeah, it is obvious (even to very young children) that men and women are different. What we should concentrate effort towards is not offering different opportunities based on gender, and simply let those that have the skills get it done.

Re:That's sexist! (1)

kermidge (2221646) | about 6 months ago | (#45041425)

Yup, one gots innies, t'other, outies; moral of story, get 'er done.

Fellow a ways above in regard the menses pointed out the positive aspect: "although it does come with a benefit of being able to have children." I can't remember speaking with a mother who at some point doesn't nigh gush on the wonder, the thrill, the immense sense of fulfillment yadda yadda, yet I have privately (ere now) suspected it was at least also a gigantic shared myth and mythos preventing the fairer sex from running amok.

Some time back during a discussion with one of my nurses the thought arose and I said that if men were the ones who had to bear children that the species would likely die out in a generation. It didn't surprise me that she agreed. Any male survivors would be variously masochists, slaves, those whose commitment over-ran sense, or someone would invent either an artificial womb or means for another species to carry humans to term.

All of the above, of course done with tongue firmly in cheek.

Re:That's sexist! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45039321)

It will be interesting to see how would gender literature evolve with the less guided data sampling future!

Re:That's sexist! (2)

WSOGMM (1460481) | about 6 months ago | (#45037505)

Males and females have absolutely no difference between them, despite the overwhelming experiential, physiological, neurological, anatomical, and hormonal evidence to the contrary, you sexist pigs, and how dare you even conduct this research into the issue! Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go open a jar of mayo for the little lady, though that in no way suggests she lacks the wrist and forearm strength to grasp and twist just as well as any man.

I find your sentiment absolutely discussing!!

Re:That's sexist! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45038159)

How do you tell whether the differences are innate or cultural? If boys are generally raised to be tough and girls are generally raised to be pretty and amicable, would that not just as well explain these findings?

And therein lies the problem: if the differences are cultural, but we observe them and infer that they're innate, we'll reinforce them culturally. Future generations will be doomed into stereotypes that nobody will challenge because haven't you seen all these studies?

Re:That's sexist! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45040449)

Girls are raised to be amicable?

Re:That's sexist! (1)

mdielmann (514750) | about 6 months ago | (#45039985)

Males and females have absolutely no difference between them, despite the overwhelming experiential, physiological, neurological, anatomical, and hormonal evidence to the contrary, you sexist pigs, and how dare you even conduct this research into the issue! Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go open a jar of mayo for the little lady, though that in no way suggests she lacks the wrist and forearm strength to grasp and twist just as well as any man.

It's pretty clear her grasp and twist capability is far superior to yours, she's just not using it on the jar.

Browser history is even more revealing (4, Funny)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 6 months ago | (#45037161)

Even the most basic data mining can reveal a lot about your hopes and dreams [theonion.com].

Re:Browser history is even more revealing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45039601)

They are using IE on an iMac? ...

Re:Browser history is even more revealing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45042381)

It was published in 2000. At that time, Macs shipped with IE pre-installed, and IE5 for Macintosh had cutting edge standards support. Safari wouldn't exist until 2003, and it wouldn't become good until a bit later.

This was before the long night of IE6, which wouldn't release for another year (and took a little longer to actually become bad compared to the competition, due to neglect).

Feelings (1)

davegravy (1019182) | about 6 months ago | (#45037203)

"eight fundamental emotions: joy, trust, fear, surprise, sadness, discuss, anger and anticipation"

Great. When my wife tells me I need to be more open about my feelings I just need to discuss the relative merits of procedural and nonprocedural programming languages

anticipa-a-a-a-a-tion (1)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about 6 months ago | (#45037261)

I can hardly wait for the full science to come out.
I anticipate having a gigundamous brain orgasm when I process the data.
It's what I live for; it's what I write e-mails for; it's what I read comments for but then feel ashamed and disgusted.

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45037285)

I find TFS very discussing, you insensitive clod!

Again, useless. (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 6 months ago | (#45037705)

This research is as valuable as the worth of a beautiful gold button which has been determined to be brass.

I have serious doubts that any program could determine the actual "emotional" meaning of that phrase.

The problem with all research of this nature is that human language is filled with reverses of logic and emotion in order to convey more subtle states of thought. Not to mention, as a writer I frequently change to a feminine voice for either a specific third person effect or simply dialogue for a female character. "Not to mention" being an example of reversal in logic.

Colloquialism is another killer. "I don't care to" carries an entirely different meaning in different parts of the US.

And yes, I will do that in emails if the recipient knows me.

Re:Again, useless. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 6 months ago | (#45038119)

I'm afraid you just haven't yet explored how amazing this wonderful research truly is.

I just can't wait until people begin applying critical thinking skills in email to present a more pleasant and normalized tone!

It really pisses me off that sarcasm can be mistaken as revulsion or praise by dumb machines.

I trust you to understand the pain this causes me, human.

Re:Again, useless. (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 6 months ago | (#45038801)

Oligonicella & VortexCortex, you've just provided a laundry list of the challenges that the developers of this app are probably already aware of. I suspect that this will be a useful tool in creating an overall public contentedness index which will in turn allow those in power to make certain that the rabble aren't getting roused at any given point in time. Part of the "Manage the humans" SPOG we're all helping to create. :) Yay! The differences between the sexes thing is interesting, but of questionable value, since no individual humans are absolutely feminine or masculine.

Re:Again, useless. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45038913)

Of course you and everyone else is wrong. Why are people treating this like voodoo, it works, I've used similar data and research in Data Mining. Is there anyone on this site with a mind of their own? Stop putting social crap in the middle of it, with few exceptions men and women write differently, this article doesn't really articulate it very well, but there certainly is.

I bet the NSA, knows this as well.

Life imitates Seinfeld (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45039049)

Elaine dumped her boyfriend because he would not use exclamation points when they might apply.
She in turn was fired for using them inappropriately (she was an editor for a publisher).

It is another illustration of the emotional differences between men and women and how they communicate

Read the study (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45042505)

Worth pointing out that all the differences reported were pretty small. For example, the largest difference I found in all the tables was in the use of trust words, and the largest difference quoted in that was 4.3% (if I read the small numbers right, but in any case something slightly over 4%). All the other differences were smaller than that. So I think the discussion here makes the frequent error of magnifying the differences.

Eight fundamental emotions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45064459)

How convenient. No redundancy.

Computational methods and multiple gendered styles (1)

Tyler Schnoebelen (3391235) | about 6 months ago | (#45086265)

It's kind of retrograde, limited, and descriptively inadequate to insist on defining men and women first by gender. An alternative would be to cluster people by using a common vocabulary. You'll still get lots of gender stuff coming out but you can reflect the fact that there are lots of different ways to "do" gender. This is something we all know--there's not just one type of guy, nor one type of woman and gender--while often relevant--isn't always.

Here's a paper on the matter. "Computational sociolinguistics": http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.4567 [arxiv.org]

The abstract:
We present a study of the relationship between gender, linguistic style, and social networks, using a novel corpus of 14,000 users of Twitter. Prior quantitative work on gender often treats this social variable as a binary; we argue for a more nuanced approach. By clustering Twitter feeds, we find a range of styles and interests that reflects the multifaceted interaction between gender and language. Some styles mirror the aggregated language-gender statistics, while others contradict them. Next, we investigate individuals whose language better matches the other gender. We find that such individuals have social networks that include significantly more individuals from the other gender, and that in general, social network homophily is correlated with the use of same-gender language markers. Pairing computational methods and social theory thus offers a new perspective on how gender emerges as individuals position themselves relative to audiences, topics, and mainstream gender norms.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...