Male and female ability differences down to socialisation, not genetics [xpost from r/cogsci]

[+]Da_Dude_Abides 15 years ago [recovered] (19 children) | Copy Link

The brain is malleable but that's not to say the two brains are equivalent. There are going to be different genetic predispositions and different distributions of traits regardless of socialization.

[–]QueerCoup 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Da_Dude_Abides 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Da_Dude_Abides 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The research was presented at a psychological conference.

Do you know what conference? I can't seem to find the main author's name in any of the scholastic searchers. Anyway, I would like to read the actual study.

You can't rule anything out without systematically considering it, but do you really think baby girls get more face time than baby boys?

I don't know. I'd rather consider any possibilities I think of and control for them, rather then make assumptions, possibly biasing the results of a study, wouldn't you?

The most reasonable position is we are a product of nature and nurture. In my experience people lean too much to either side because it affirms some belief or ideology.

There's no proof for it either way. It's great that you have a theory, but without scientific evidence it's no better then the people you judge for leaning a different way then you do.

[–]Da_Dude_Abides 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Do you know what conference? I can't seem to find the main author's name in any of the scholastic searchers. Anyway, I would like to read the actual study.

What databases are you trying to search?
British Psychological Society annual conference

I don't know. I'd rather consider any possibilities I think of and control for them, rather then make assumptions, possibly biasing the results of a study, wouldn't you?

Sure, but that's not even a reasonable assumption to make. Perhaps the Perseid meteor shower had some sort of effect we should control for.

There's no proof for it either way. It's great that you have a theory, but without scientific evidence it's no better then the people you judge for leaning a different way then you do.

It certainly is better. It explains the widest set of observations and is where the science currently stands. That's like fundamentalists saying their beliefs are as good as evolution. Sure there is no direct evidence, but every piece of evidence points in that direction and is the most reasonable explanation.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What databases are you trying to search? British Psychological Society annual conference

Here In the future though, please cite the actual study and not a news article.

The study included children from 9 months to 3 years old. Are you really trying to tell me that those children haven't had gender influences at that age? Those children have already had parents at home that give them their gender appropriate toys. They picked out what is familiar, not what is innate.

Sure, but that's not even a reasonable assumption to make. Perhaps the Perseid meteor shower had some sort of effect we should control for.

Within reasonable limits, don't be obtuse.

It certainly is better. It explains the widest set of observations and is where the science currently stands. That's like fundamentalists saying their beliefs are as good as evolution. Sure there is no direct evidence, but every piece of evidence points in that direction and is the most reasonable explanation.

If you don't have actual data to back yourself up and rely on pseudo science, you aren't actually abiding by the scientific method. A true scientist does not make a conclusion while the evidence is not there, he makes a theory and makes it explicitly clear that it is theory, a belief, and not scientific fact.

[+]Da_Dude_Abides 15 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The study included children from 9 months to 3 years old. Are you really trying to tell me that those children haven't had gender influences at that age? Those children have already had parents at home that give them their gender appropriate toys. They picked out what is familiar, not what is innate.

That's not a database.

A 9 month old? Don't think so.

Keep in mind this phenomena was noted by feminist mothers and brought to the attention of scientists. Mothers that were explicitly socializing their kids against stereotypical roles.

And the monkey research mirroring the human research? All consistent.

Sure you can cast doubt. You can cast doubt on anything. But as a piece of the larger picture, it's compelling.

If you don't have actual data to back yourself up and rely on pseudo science, you aren't actually abiding by the scientific method. A true scientist does not make a conclusion while the evidence is not there, he makes a theory and makes it explicitly clear that it is theory, a belief, and not scientific fact.

ok sure, but theories have rank within the scientific community. Saying that models that take into account both nature and nurture are of equal standing with models that take into account only one is false.

All good studies involving genome expression control for environmental and individual differences. Finding that there are interactions between genetics and environment is so common that it is hardly worth mentioning.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not a database.

That's the British Psychology Society. If you found better, please feel free to actually cite it.

A 9 month old? Don't think so.

Really? 9 month olds aren't given toys? Do you even have children?

Mothers that were explicitly socializing their kids against stereotypical roles.

Are we still talking about the same study? If so, I've pointed out a flaw. Or the OP's study? In that case if socialization changes the way children develop, then it's an effect of socialization, not genetics.

ok sure, but theories have rank within the scientific community. Saying that models that take into account both nature and nurture are of equal standing with models that take into account only one is false.

And theories are absolutely able to be wrong, which is why they are called theories. It was a theory that the Earth was the center of the solar system.

All good studies involving genome expression control for environmental and individual differences. Finding that there are interactions between genetics and environment is so common that it is hardly worth mentioning.

Really? Because nothing you have mentioned so far is representative of that. Stating that it's hardly worth mentioning when you are trying to prove something is pretty bad form.

[–]thetrollking 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]sempuki 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]sempuki -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sempuki -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sempuki-1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tomek77 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

A nice example of how feminist propaganda gets into the mainstream media..

Since the discovery of brain imagery, scientists have observed and documented many gender differences in how male and female brain are wired. We now have the proof that at least some of the differences are due to genetics (duh!).

Of course this directly contradicts a principal tenet of feminist ideology, so how do you write a feminist propaganda article to deny the obvious science? You quote a book (that was never peer-reviewed) written by a feminist. That's how! :) Notice how the title of the news article is worded: it is the exact opposite of the truth: the correct title based on the content of the article should be "scientists say that gender differences are due to genetics, and some feminist writers say otherwise!"

Now the scary part:

So should we abandon our search for the "real" differences between the sexes and give up this "pernicious pinkification of little girls", as one scientist has put it? Yes, we should, Eliot insisted.

Just another example of feminist anti-intellectualism and censorship: let's destroy those damn brain scanners, since they contradict feminist beliefs!

Even more scary, is the kind of society that this book indirectly advocates: since human brains can be trained through conditioning (she is correct here), then we can have an "equal" society where boys are brainwashed to be girls since birth (it's already happening to some extent, today).. this is the agenda that the feminist witch is pushing forward!

[–]cryptogirl[S] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77 -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]cryptogirl[S] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77 -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]cryptogirl[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hamakua 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hi Cryptogirl,

I am sure you saw it over at XX... but here is what 15 minutes of searching through real studies supplied. This was just a sample, there are hundreds if not thousands more published papers that refute exactly what the article claims.

I'll bet if you dug deeper into these sources, you'd find peer-reviewed work

Here you go

They span both measurable abstract criteria differences between the cognitive gender differences, as well as hormonal physical effects on the human brain across genders, as well as physical differences in volume as well as placement of specific parts of the brain across genders.

Like I write in the linked post. You do not simply grow more of "this" or "that" by going to yoga class more. Some things are genetically inherent. This is plainly obvious in outward physical characteristics between the genders, it's logically false to presume the same thing doesn't hold true to interior structures that are more difficult to measure.

[–]sempuki2 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you, this article provides no scientific proof towards its conclusion.

Since the discovery of brain imagery, scientists have observed and documented many gender differences in how male and female brain are wired

Yes, this is true.

We now have the proof that at least some of the differences are due to genetics

The differences in the brain are structurally different, but their impact on higher complexity functions of the brain has so far been shown to have a negligable effect , in areas such as intelligence [1]. Outside of that, there simply isn't any proof indicating that personality differences are genetically based or otherwise.

So while this article is founded in theory, I don't think that's an acceptable reason to throw out the theory. The information was misrepresented, but so are many articles written about the sciences.

[1] - From wikipedia : "In 2005, Haier et al. reported that, compared with men, women show more white matter and fewer gray matter areas related to intelligence. Using brain mapping, it was shown that men have more than six times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly ten times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men. They also report that the brain areas correlated with IQ differ between the sexes. In short, men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions."

[–]Hamakua 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

THE SCIENCE OF GENDER AND SCIENCE - PINKER VS. SPELKE - A DEBATE

Neko, you never entertain any argument that your position is incorrect, I have never seen you consider a differing point of view or hypothesis. Anything that supports your point of view is irrefutable and anything that -refutes it is trivialized, willfully ignored, truncated then dismantled while glossing over or omitting key important points, or assaulted with a smorgasbord board of fallacies bait and switch arguments, character assassination, or erecting straw-men.

You do not seek truth about a matter, nor do you seek to discuss a hypothesis in equitable debate. You have an unwavering ideology that you force-fit content, good and bad into that will fit, and intellectually sabotage with disingenuousness that does not fit.

You do not use the evidence to form your opinions, you use your opinions as a filter for what evidence is relevant and what evidence you should willfully ignore.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't argue with people who I think are correct (shockingly, not many people do!). And I've been posting here for a week.

Instead of using hyperbole, why don't you actually comment on real things I've written instead of insult me. I've said a lot to stand up for mens rights too, and I've agreed with many people in the forum. But you'd rather ignore that and continue to hate me merely because I challenge your views.

I'm not going to put up with prejudice here! Plain and simple. The only argument I have absolutely disagreed with if you look through my history, is the differences between men and women, and whether they are cultural or genetic. THAT'S IT. All I asked for was proof! No one can provide that. I don't even say those people are wrong! I just want them to recognize it's their belief, and not to broadly generalize half the population on that.

You want to make sweeping generalizations about me without even having a discussion, fine. Use that as an excuse to ignore what I have to say. I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.

[–]Hamakua 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't argue with people who I think are correct (shockingly, not many people do!). And I've been posting here for 4 days.

Instead of using hyperbole, why don't you actually comment on real things I've written instead of insult me.

The previous post was commenting on real things you have written, and I don't re-challenge your arguments with evidence you previously ignored from other posters. I don't think hyperbole means what you think it means.

I've said a lot to stand up for mens rights too, and I've agreed with many people in the forum. But you'd rather ignore that and continue to hate me merely because I challenge your views.

I don't care if you agreed, disagreed, picketed outside of a court house or sat at home and shook your hand at media pundits on TV. Your participation doesn't change the validity of cited sources or a hypothesis.

I'm not going to put up with prejudice here! Plain and simple.

The above is called a straw man by the way.

What prejudice? Point out where I was being bigoted... in any way. WTF?

The only argument I have absolutely disagreed with if you look through my history, is the differences between men and women, and whether they are cultural or genetic. THAT'S IT. All I asked for was proof! No one can provide that. I don't even say those people are wrong! I just want them to recognize it's their belief, and not to broadly generalize half the population on that.

I was not just commenting on my interaction with you, but also with your interaction with everyone through this thread.

Here is your "proof"

And more evidence and argument from another poster who said it better than I could.

You want to make sweeping generalizations about me without even having a discussion, fine. Use that as an excuse to ignore what I have to say. I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.

More straw.

[–]tomek77 -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

one: it makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective, considering that men and women have mostly done different tasks for thousands of years

Evo-psych, theory not proof

two: anyone who has observed kids will quickly notice gender differences in their behavior

Could be cultural or genetic. Just because you observe it doesn't mean you understand it.

And yes, we do have proof thanks to brain imagery that even babies' brains are wired differently

Did you read the what I quoted? Wiring doesn't matter, highly complex functions manifest from many parts of the brain, so it's conceivable that different wiring can produce similar results, as in the case of IQ.

respond differently to different stimuli.

Citation?

Babies aren't socialized yet.

Babies begin reacting and learning immediately. Just yesterday someone was talking about they used to have nightmares at age 8 about their circumcision as a newborn. As soon as babies are able to perceive their world they begin learning how to respond. Just because they are mostly exposed only to their parents and not other people doesn't make it any less of a socialization process. for example

The statement that "there is no good proof" used to be tue and it allowed feminists to make the absurd claim the "gender is a social construct" - but not any more!

It's science, unless you have actual citations for any of your claims you are no better than the people you deride.

[–]J_F_Sebastian 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Evo-psych, theory not proof

Whoa, there.

First of all, as a trifling aside, you're misusing the word "theory" in the same way as creationists. You probably mean "hypothesis". But this is a minor point and not really relevant to the discussion here.

That said, your knee-jerk rejection of the OP's claim with "Evo-psych, theory not proof" is completely invalid. Sure, there may be specific hypotheses within the field of evolutionary psychology which do not have any solid proof and are little more than guesses. And, sure, those hypotheses should be considered with an appropriately sized grain of salt. But the general idea that human psychology is the product of evolution is not something which can just be dismissed. It's a logical necessity.

Fact: Our psychology is determined by the physical operation of our brain (unless you're a dualist).

Fact: The physical operation of our brain is determined by its structure, which is determined by the genetic blueprints for the brain. Yes, of course external stimuli have an influence on the brain's development during ontogeny, but the way in which the brain reacts to external stimuli is determined by the brain's physical structure, so at the very bottom of the chain of causality sits the genes.

Fact: Genotypes are shaped by evolution.

If you accept the above three facts as true then it is an inescapable conclusion that our psychology is evolutionarily determined. This is really very obvious: how else are we to explain why human psychology and ape psychology are different?

Now, in what ways is our psychology the result of various evolutionary selection pressures? We absolutely know very little about this for certain, and in general skepticism is to be advised. Most of the proposed examples are little more than "just so" stories, and this is the origin of the knee-jerk rejection a lot of people have of evo psych. This is fine, so long as it is not overgeneralised to denying that our mind was shaped by evolution at all. Where we do have enough solid evidence to talk about evolutionary influences on psychology, doing so is entirely valid.

Now, as to the specific point about gender differences, I think this is something which should not be subject to knee-jerk skepticism and where we can say something sensible without making assumptions which are not backed up by evidence:

Fact: (established above) human psychology is the product of evolution.

Fact: The male and female bodies are built from distinct (but largely overlapping) sets of genes, due to the X/Y chromosone thing. This is how it is possible for males and females to have different reproductive organs. So, it is possible in principle for male and female brains to be built differently.

Fact: Evolution works to increase the efficacy of reproduction.

Fact: Optimal strategies for reproduction are different for males and females. This has been very well established using tools like evolutionary game theory, and is widely observed in non-human animals of all kinds.

In light of the above facts, we should expect male and female brains to differ in such a way as to induce different behaviour in the genders. This follows logically from the known facts, without any need to make potentially incorrect assumptions about the environments in which early humans evolved. We can be damn sure that, whatever those environments were, reproduction was happening. So I think it is absolutely sensible to say that a lack of psychological gender difference makes no evolutionary sense. You do not need to make any assumptions to show this (other than, I suppose, assuming a materialistic world view, i.e. discarding dualism), it follows from known biological facts.

Yes, this isn't an absolute proof of the existence of psychological gender differences. Perhaps we have overlooked something and this is not the case, but the idea that there are gender differences is the sensible "null hypothesis". The hypothesis that there aren't any differences is the hypothesis which has the burden of proof: that hypothesis claims that even though evolution can in principle influence human psychology, and even though evolution can in principle do so differently for males and females, and even though optimising reproductive efficiency requires different behaviour for males and females, and even though males and females do exhibit different behaviour throughout almost all (or even entirely all?) of the non-human animal kingdom (where the power of social conditioning is significantly weaker due to such things as a lack of language, so that these differences can only sensibly be ascribed to genetics), it just so happens that the male and female human brains, and hence psychology, have remained identical over evolutionary time. This is exactly contrary to reasonable biological expectations.

[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]J_F_Sebastian 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

First of all, as a trifling aside, you're misusing the word "theory" in the same way as creationists

No. I'm stating that these theories are not able to be used for conclusive proof in determining whether the differences in male and female personality are genetically or culturally based.

Fact: Our psychology is determined by the physical operation of our brain (unless you're a dualist). Fact: The physical operation of our brain is determined by its structure, which is determined by the genetic blueprints for the brain. Yes, of course external stimuli have an influence on the brain's development during ontogeny, but the way in which the brain reacts to external stimuli is determined by the brain's physical structure, so at the very bottom of the chain of causality sits the genes. Fact: Genotypes are shaped by evolution.

I have no arguments with this.

Fact: (established above) human psychology is the product of evolution. Fact: The male and female bodies are built from distinct (but largely overlapping) sets of genes, due to the X/Y chromosone thing. This is how it is possible for males and females to have different reproductive organs. So, it is possible in principle for male and female brains to be built differently. Fact: Evolution works to increase the efficacy of reproduction. Fact: Optimal strategies for reproduction are different for males and females. This has been very well established using tools like evolutionary game theory, and is widely observed in non-human animals of all kinds.

Again, no argument with this.

What I do have an argument with, and if you read some of the cited studies I posted, this would be obvious, is that higher level functions of the brain can be achieved through different brain structures. source

So what I am saying is that it is reasonable from these studies to theorize that personality differences in the genders are not genetic, because even though the structures of the brain are different, higher level brain functions manifest similarly.

My point is that the range of observable behavior the human brain is capable of producing is enormous. It is in my opinion that limiting specific behaviors to each gender is not an evolutionary advantage. Suppose all the males get sick for months or most of them die from something that happened while they were on a hunt. Or the females, while at the cave one day, all got sick from eating berries. It is necessary that the brain is able to take on the other gender roles during these situations.

Also, why do we have people who are trans gendered, transvestites, simply don't adhere to traditional gender roles? It doesn't make sense that the brain is only wired to produce a specific set of behaviors.

Now, this above is a theory, I'm not stating it as fact. But I think it poses an interesting question, and I don't think we are quite ready to throw it out yet.

[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, why do we have people who are trans gendered, transvestites, simply don't adhere to traditional gender roles? It doesn't make sense that the brain is only wired to produce a specific set of behaviors.

Because nature always produces outliers. It's the "mad frog" hypothesis. Basically, every year one species of frogs migrate to their traditional spawning grounds. But there's always a few outliers that go in a random direction. Why? Well, the hypothesis is that if the spawning grounds were destroyed by a natural catastrophe, the "mad" frogs would be the only ones to have a chance to reproduce, and keep the species going. Species without outliers would be destroyed. Which is why species with outliers have been selected, and the others have disappeared. The less-optimal solution is actually better.

So basically, you can expect behavioral outliers in every species, just in case.

[–]tomek77 -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

We have to agree to disagree!

I think a reasonable look at today's research demonstrates that gender is a genetic construct, and the results are generally consistent with an evolutionary explanation. For example:

Men have more brain area devoted to spatial skills, and score better on orientation tests; it is consistent with male traditional role historically (and also with casual observation)
Men are more upset when thinking about their gf cheating on them, while women are more upset when thinking about their bf bonding with another female; again, it is consistent with an evolutionary approach: males need females for procreation, females need men for protection and resources.
Women are better at reading facial expressions; again, it is consistent with an evolutionary explanation: women were the ones staying in the "cave" and socializing with others. It is also consistent with casual observation.

The idea that all of this (and so much more, I am only giving 3 examples but there is tons of research on similar topics) is not valid because IQ is not related to brain structure, makes no sense to me! It sounds like a not-so-convincing excuse, to ignore the facts. Your reasoning is something like this: we looked at brain structure and IQ and found that brain structure was different in men vs women but their IQ was similar, therefore we conclude that brain structure has no influence on anything and any research that shows a link between brain structure and some measurable psychological quality must be false. Really? Do I have to explain how absurd this line of reasoning is?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Men have more brain area devoted to spatial skills, and score better on orientation tests; it is consistent with male's traditional role (and also with casual observation)

I agree with spatial orientation. Men are better at that while women have better memory. But that doesn't have anything to do with personal preference, it's a very small part of personality. All I'm saying is that there is room to theorize.

Men are more upset when thinking about their gf cheating on them, while women are more upset when thinking about their bf bonding with another female; again, it is consistent with an evolutionary approach: males need females to breed, females need men for protection and resources.

This could be cultural! Again, observation does not demonstrate the actual mechanism by which these things function.

Women are better at reading facial expressions; again, it is consistent with an evolutionary explanation: women were the ones staying in the "cave" and socializing with others. It is also consistent with casual observation.

I have heard this as a theory, but have not read any study confirming it. Do you have a citation? This is pretty interesting.

But remember, it might also be possible that female children are exposed to more media and toys that have facial expressions. Think of the difference between male and female cartoons, even toys. Male toys and media are usually abstracted, robots, masked super heros, transformers, and so on. Female media and toys are heavily concentrated on the facial appearance, barbie for example.

The idea that all of this (and so much more, I am only giving 3 examples but there is tons of research on similar topics) is not valid because men and women have different brain structures and yet similar (but not equal) IQ's, makes no sense to me! It sounds like a not-so-convincing excuse, to ignore the facts.

I know that it's ridiculous to you. But it's necessary to examine all possibilities until one way has been proven true. I can agree to disagree friend, but let us both acknowledge that all we have are theories and not scientific proof. That is why we are still studying these areas, to find the truth. Let's not let our preconceptions get in the way of that.

[–]thetrollking 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mandano -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]cryptogirl[S] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]sempuki 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I agree cognitive function is largely gender neutral. Logic doesn't care about race (human or otherwise) or gender. This is true.

But inclination is an entirely different thing. Our emotions constitute our hard-wiring. We don't get to decide "I will enjoy being an engineer" or "I will enjoy nursing". We just do. Yes, there are social forces influencing our decisions, but social forces do not change what we enjoy or don't enjoy (unless you consider trauma a social force).

This explains why we don't know how we respond to something until we try it. "I discovered I like para-sailing! Woot!"

I know lots and lots and LOTS of brilliant women who don't succeed in business and engineering ... because they simply don't care. They don't find these topics compelling enough to excel.

The best [anything] is the person who would do it even if they were not paid.

I also agree we should strive for tolerance of people who don't fit the 80% mold.

But this feminist preoccupation with denying innate emotional predisposition has gone way too far.

Right from the get-go, feminists have been trying to re-program their sons and daughters. And guess what? They failed. And the ones who "succeed" end up paying therapy bills to undo the damage inflicted upon their children.

And those feminists who sought to re-program their kids -- that behavior exemplifies how little respect feminism has for life, for individual autonomy, self-determination and for children.

You would throw your own children under a bus just so you could try to prove a point. Disgusting.

[–]cryptogirl[S] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

5 seconds of googling:

http://www.menweb.org/sommersboys.htm

Hasbro Toys, a major toy company, tested a play house they were considering marketing to both boys and girls. They soon discovered that girls and boys did not interact with the structure in the same way. The girls dressed the dolls, talked to them, kissed them and played house; the boys catapulted the baby carriage from the roof.

I said to Ms. Allred, "Surely you would agree, boys and girls are innately different?"

Allred seemed to be shocked by the boy’s catapulting behavior. Apparently, she takes it as a sign of a propensity for violence. She flatly denied there were any innate differences. Said Allred, "If there are little boys who catapult baby carriages off the roof of doll houses that is just one more reason why we have to socialize boys at an earlier age, perhaps to be playing with doll houses."

Second example of worrying and (apparently) offensive boy behavior: Ms. Logan is a very committed middle school teacher in San Francisco who sees it as her mission to sensitize boys, to make them more aware of how women have been oppressed and at the same time to bring out their more loving, nurturing side. As a class assignment she has the children make a quilt celebrating "women we admire." But there is a problem; the boys do not always produce the kind of muslin quilt squares the teacher wants.

There are worrying signs of persistent insensitivity.

A 12-year-old boy named Jimmy, for example, chose to honor the tennis player Monica Seles by drawing a bloody knife on a tennis racket. It’s not the sort of thing a girl would think of. Jimmy’s square may be unique in the history of quilting but Ms. Logan did not appreciate its originality. She insisted he start again and make an acceptable contribution to the class quilt.

(emphasis mine)

which leads nicely to this second quote...

http://www.parenting.com/article/Toddler/Behavior/Guns-and-Dolls

I was surprised that Sam never once spontaneously cuddled his doll and only reluctantly joined me when I said brightly, "Let's give the baby a bottle!"

Many parents who think they've done all they can to make sure their children won't be shaped by gender stereotypes are mystified by [gender-stereotypical] behavior.

And http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021293/How-mothers-fanatical-feminist-views-tore-apart-daughter-The-Color-Purple-author.html

My mother's feminist principles coloured every aspect of my life. As a little girl, I wasn't even allowed to play with dolls or stuffed toys in case they brought out a maternal instinct. It was drummed into me that being a mother, raising children and running a home were a form of slavery. Having a career, travelling the world and being independent were what really mattered according to her.

Or http://www.womanist-musings.com/2008/12/boys-can-be-feminist-too.html

When I found out that I was having a boy I was initially disappointed. What was I going to do with a boy I thought. I have big feminist ambitions and for that I need a girl I thought... I watched as despite my idea of gender neutral parenting the world was determined to teach my little guy that all boys like cars and girls play with my little ponies.

What I have learned from becoming a mother is exactly how insidious patriarchy is. Silently like a snake it slithers into your home and kisses your children while they sleep. It whispers foul messages in their ear, granting some privilege and forever sentencing some to a lifetime of marginalization.

The unenlightened tease me, and tell me I am making [my sons] wimpy for the sake of my future daughter in-laws (heterosexist assumptions) but in truth, I know that I am giving them a rare gift.

I intend to raise feminist sons. When my beautiful boys become men, I want to be secure in the knowledge that not only do I love them because they are my sons; but that I like them as men and for that to happen they must be feminist men.

(emphasis mine)

Newsflash to the above author: your sons will likely be childless, or paying for some other dude's kids.

Or how about this lovely sexist double-standard: http://www.phdinparenting.com/2008/11/02/raising-a-feminist/

In my post on the bias against boys, I made some recommendations for raising boys, several of which I think contribute to making a boy a feminist:

Teach our boys to be nurturing

Limit access to television and Internet and ensure that materials are age appropriate and do not include images of violence or unhealthy sexuality

Teach them about healthy sexuality and encourage them to ask questions

Teach them to respect people, including teachers, women and girls, those that are weaker than them, those that are different from them

As for my daughter, I want to teach her first and foremost to respect herself and be confident. I want to teach her that it is okay to be a woman or be womanly (that does not make you weak), but I want her to be self-aware enough to not let anyone take advantage of her for being a woman. I want to teach her about healthy sexuality, so that she can minimize the risk of being taken advantage of and so that she can be an equal in her relationships with others.

... because patriarchy-indoctrinated men don't need to be confident, or feel it's okay to be a man or manly, or self-aware enough to not let anyone take advantage of him (marriage anyone?).

And a patriarchy-indoctrinated woman doesn't need to be nurturing, or taught to respect people, including teachers, men and boys, those that are weaker than them, those that are different from them.

[–]QueerCoup 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hpm7022 -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sempuki -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cryptogirl[S] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]sempuki 15 years ago* [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

my daughter doesn't play with dolls. that's not because I or anyone taught her not to. it was because she was born that way. the exact opposite of the article's thesis.

according to the article, all boys can be taught to love knitting, and all girls can be turned into engineers. I'd love to see the authors try.

[–]QueerCoup 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]sempuki -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

meh -- I wish people would read things a little then think about them a little more...

> Children don't inherit intellectual differences. They learn them. They are a result of what we expect a boy or a girl to be.
> There is almost nothing we do with our brains that is hard-wired. Every skill, attribute and personality trait is moulded by experience.

OK -- what does it say? That there is no significant genetic basis for any neurological ability; simultaneously, all neurological ability is a product of environment. That means anything can be taught. That means all boys can be taught to love knitting, and all girls can be turned into engineers. QED.

They add wiggle words like "almost" to "nothing" to remain remotely on this side of sane, but the sensationalist intent is quite clear. Do try to read the article, not your own pre-affirmed conclusions.

The best argument you can make for this drivel is that they only create straw-man arguments that no one actually believes in, just so they can look dramatic knocking them down, and the horrible presentation doesn't change the basic research. But that's the whole point of this article -- to give propaganda the guise of research; you can tell this because it's all assertion and no bloody research. It's designed to sell a book!

In short, women can read maps despite claims that they lack the spatial skills for such efforts, while men can learn to empathise and need not be isolated like Mel Gibson's Nick Marshall, the emotionally retarded male lead of the film What Women Want

Which is still rubbish on a stick. Show me a man that literally thinks women can't read maps, and I'll show you someone's senile grandfather. Or Mel Gibson.

But thanks for joining the conversation.

[–]QueerCoup 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]sempuki 15 years ago* [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

That's nonsense. Clearly you've never had to raise many children.

You may create a society that teachs boys they must "love" knitting, and you may even get a majority of boys to think they love it. But take society away, lord of the flies style if you must, and you get boys playing ball and catching bugs, not knitting. So knitting was coercive, and not genuinely "loved", and your manufactured thought experiment society is just that.

Double Strawman; no returns.

[–]QueerCoup 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sempuki -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

All I need is one boy, whom in the absence of society reverts to "boyish" activities, to show that making him (along with all boys in your thought experiment) knit is not "teaching", but in fact coercion.

That boy is me growing up in a secluded compound in the desert in Saudi Arabia, mostly on my own, with an absentee father, and a mother who very clearly prefer I learn to knit.

I go further, and assert without proof, but instead hard-fought experience and wisdom gained having children and socializing with families with children, that I am not the exception but the norm. There are plenty of outliers on record, but the existence of testosterone in boys alone is reason enough to support such an assertion. Moreover, there is Darwinian purpose in both the norm and the outliers, and is logically consistent with everything we know about the biology of species.

Now what on earth is the basis for your claims? I notice you don't have much to add to this discussion. Just wimpy little retorts here and there.

[–]QueerCoup 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sempuki1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sempuki -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueerCoup 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sempuki1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]callipygian1 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Male and female ability differences down to socialisation, not genetics [xpost from r/cogsci]
Author	cryptogirl
Upvotes	7
Comments	86
Date	August 15, 2010 10:01 AM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/d1ctx/male_and_female_ability_differences_down_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/male-and-female-ability-differences-down-to.1048079 https://theredarchive.com/post/1048079

Comments