~ archived since 2018 ~

Norwegian Documentary

[deleted]

January 23, 2014

10 upvotes

While doing my usual browsing of TRP, I came across one of the top posts there: a set of videos from a Norwegian documentary on gender. This post is linked here for your viewing pleasure. Since we are blue and redpillers here mostly, I'd ask that you'd not brigade the sub, but both RP and BP know not to do that by now.

Anyway, I was wondering what PPD thought of the videos. From what it seems, many of the researches actually take the Red Pill's side on many issues. For example:

In the video marked "Sex", the double standard for sex was brought up (stud vs slut), and more than one of the researchers brought up very Red Pill points: men wouldn't know for sure their kids were theirs with a "slut", men want sex and women want commitment, etc.

In the first video, the idea that many gender trends have a biological rather than social origin was explored.

So what does Purple Pill think? What are the implications if this documentary has truth to it?

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Norwegian Documentary
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	10
Comments	101
Date	January 23, 2014 6:04 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1vx8am/norwegian_documentary/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/norwegian-documentary.286329 https://theredarchive.com/post/286329

Comments

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (72 children) | Copy Link

I completely agree with the video, obviously. I think most blue pillers would agree with it too.

It does support Red Pill Theory not all of it though. Don't fall into the trap of a false dichotomy, I wouldn't want blue pillers to deny reality just because it correlates with the red pill.

So yes, this video fits into a sub-set of red pill theory. Red Pill theory then pushes the boundaries of this thinking. Red Pill Theory leans more towards biological importance while blue pill leans towards cultural influences.

As the scientist said in the video, a theory occurs when you notice a pattern in related studies. One study is not enough to prove or disprove an entire theory. Personally, having studied evolutionary and functional biology, as well as being influenced by non-scientific elements such as nature documentries. I'm far more inclined to say the Red Pill Theory is closer to reality then "blue pill theory".

This stood out to me

According to the video, this attitude is wrong. Men are driven and controlled by their sex drive and we probably are less capable of empathy (within some contexts). To deny psychological differences in men and women is a direct rejection of science. You can't argue these studies are biased as they're being conducted in a feminist nation by scientists who where probably raised with feminist values by legitimate scientists who aim to remove as much bias as possible.

Red Pill is not a scientific theory though, but no scientific studies exist to support or deny it however. It is a philosophy based on a foundation of science. The purpose of the Red Pill is to motivate men to improve their lives, this is more important than removing all bias of a male perception, but it's all based off strong science.

I don't hate women by the way, I just think we're different, not inferior/superior, different.

[–]mrsamsa5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (71 children) | Copy Link

Men are driven and controlled by their sex drive and we probably are less capable of empathy (within some contexts). To deny psychological differences in men and women is a direct rejection of science.

I'm interested in hearing more about this claim. Firstly it would be good to read some studies specifically showing men being controlled by their "sex drive" (using quotations because keep in mind that drive theory is a rejected scientific notion and not considered a valid way of viewing behavior but for the sake of discussion I assume you just mean something like 'libido' or sexual arousal), and that they are innately less empathetic than women.

One thing I've always wanted to ask a red piller, and maybe you can help me, is why you guys are so committed to a strong form of biological determinism. Whenever a discussion comes up about behavior, it always seem to turn into red pillers making a claim about evolution or "nature" and then suggesting that some conclusion is inevitable because of this - completely ignoring the fact that behavior isn't completely biological determined and there is no reason to think that biological motivators trump conditioned ones.

You can't argue these studies are biased as they're being conducted in a feminist nation by scientists who where probably raised with feminist values by legitimate scientists who aim to remove as much bias as possible.

Two important points:

1) you're confusing more egalitarian with more feminist. There may be a correlation but it's nowhere near strong enough to claim it's a "feminist nation". Just look at the opening sequence where they ask people about their beliefs about gender (e.g. girls like dolls and boys like trucks, etc).

2) I don't think any of the researchers on the biological side are from Norway. One, in particular, is Simon Baron-Cohen who is infamous for his flawed methodology in the infant study comparing looking time at faces versus mechanical objects in boys and girls.

So we can claim bias even if a country has slightly more emphasis on equal laws than another country.

Red Pill is not a scientific theory though, but no scientific studies exist to support or deny it however.

I don't think this is quite true. Many of the claims red pillers make have been tested by science so they should be supported or disconfirmed by science. One example is the notion of "last minute resistance" being common in women - science tells us this isn't true (and in fact is probably more common in men, which refutes the whole reasoning behind the initial idea as well since men aren't often worried about being viewed as sluts).

I don't hate women by the way, I just think we're different, not inferior/superior, different.

You might be interested to know that there was a thread here recently asking blue pillers what they thought about gender differences. Every single one of them accepted that men and women are different. So you won't find anyone disagree on that point.

Where you will get debate, however, is in the specific claims.

[–]tremenfing1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]tremenfing0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]tremenfing0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is there any reason to believe that conditioned motivators trump biological ones?

Well the fact that they can, and do, is the reason why scientists rejected the notion of drive theory. In other words, we previously used to believe that behavior was just a way of satisfying basic biological needs and they used this to explain why people worked for money. However, they started having trouble when people would work for money over basic biological needs, even if the money was objectively worth less.

In technical terms, it wasn't a case of higher order behaviors being a means to an end for biological needs, but instead it was a recognition of the fact that there are different kinds of reinforcers (primary and secondary) and whilst the secondary initially derive their power from primary reinforcers, once learnt it is no longer dependent on the primary reinforcer.

In terms of the heritability of IQ, a study in the UK found that the majority of a student's academic success can be directly attributed to genetic factors alone. This news is no doubt very disheartening to educators. And similar bio-truths are very inconvenient for those who cling to nurture theories.

That seems to contradict everything I've read on the topic which suggests that hereditary factors roughly account for around half of the variance in childhood and usually at a maximum go up to around 80%. But none of that suggests that learning and environmental factors are irrelevant or insignificant, obviously (as your article states).

Also, importantly, "hereditary" does not mean "genetic".

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I'm interested in hearing more about this claim. Firstly it would be good to read some studies specifically showing men being controlled by their "sex drive" (using quotations because keep in mind that drive theory is a rejected scientific notion and not considered a valid way of viewing behavior but for the sake of discussion I assume you just mean something like 'libido' or sexual arousal), and that they are innately less empathetic than women.

I did mean drive colloquially. I do think our desire to get sex influences our behaviour and that there is a difference between male and female sexual goals. I think men having more testosterone makes our sexual urges/drive/libido more apparent. Honestly its really important for a lot of men.

One thing I've always wanted to ask a red piller, and maybe you can help me, is why you guys are so committed to a strong form of biological determinism. Whenever a discussion comes up about behavior, it always seem to turn into red pillers making a claim about evolution or "nature" and then suggesting that some conclusion is inevitable because of this - completely ignoring the fact that behavior isn't completely biological determined and there is no reason to think that biological motivators trump conditioned ones.

The gender studies clinic in the video should have never existed (hence being shut down). In our current ideology there is a large bias towards societal influences and the main reason for this is due to gender studies. We are aware of social conditioning, we just think it's inherently bad for women and men. Ie making men more feminised or making women more masculine (whether they like it or not). Our argument is that a women is more likely to be happy being feminen and a man, masculine. If you don't want to be fine, but it shouldn't be the default. Feminism, to red pillers, is in denial of biology. To you it seems extreme, to us it seems reasonable.

So we can claim bias even if a country has slightly more emphasis on equal laws than another country.

Yea, which goes for both sides of the argument. I'm going to give to the biologists arguing against mainstream more credibility then the social "scientists" who are conforming with society.

I don't think this is quite true. Many of the claims red pillers make have been tested by science so they should be supported or disconfirmed by science. One example is the notion of "last minute resistance" being common in women - science tells us this isn't true (and in fact is probably more common in men, which refutes the whole reasoning behind the initial idea as well since men aren't often worried about being viewed as sluts).

I need to see these studies. I think I've experienced LMR. I asked her to get in the cab with me, she umm'd and ahhh'd, mumbled something like "I should go home" but got in the cab, all I said was "cmon it will be fun" I didn't physically touch her during this process. Once at my place there was no resistance before sex.

You might be interested to know that there was a thread here recently asking blue pillers what they thought about gender differences. Every single one of them accepted that men and women are different. So you won't find anyone disagree on that point.

Where you will get debate, however, is in the specific claims.

I'm not on the red pill to prove male biology, more so to escape feminism's biased world views (as shown in the video).

Honestly, and this goes for a lot of red pillers, whether it's absolutely true is not what's important, it is the impact it has on our actions.

The red pill could all be a big placebo that gets men off the internet and into the real world.

[–]mrsamsa8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

I do think our desire to get sex influences our behaviour and that there is a difference between male and female sexual goals.

Generally agreed, but I think the red pill ideas on the differences in sexual desires between men aren't as distinct as they sometimes suggest.

I think men having more testosterone makes our sexual urges/drive/libido more apparent. Honestly its really important for a lot of men.

Sure, but it's also really important for many women too. The disagreement is in the details.

The gender studies clinic in the video should have never existed (hence being shut down).

I missed that bit - what's the gender clinic and why shouldn't it have existed?

In our current ideology there is a large bias towards societal influences and the main reason for this is due to gender studies.

Whoa, why do you think this? In my experience, from society to research, the influence is quite strongly towards biological explanations for behavior. That's why Pinker's "The Blank Slate" was so heavily criticised by relevant experts - it was a complete fabrication of facts.

We are aware of social conditioning, we just think it's inherently bad for women and men. Ie making men more feminised or making women more masculine (whether they like it or not).

The problem is that you guys tend to also ignore the social conditioning towards the traditional gender norms that you happen to accept.

Our argument is that a women is more likely to be happy being feminen and a man, masculine. If you don't want to be fine, but it shouldn't be the default. Feminism, to red pillers, is in denial of biology. To you it seems extreme, to us it seems reasonable.

How is feminism a denial of biology? It basically accepts the same position you've described above, they just disagree over how many women are happy with traditional norms. Importantly, they state that it doesn't matter if it's natural or not, gender norms shouldn't be applied as a blanket to all women - which is what you seem to be agreeing with.

Yea, which goes for both sides of the argument.

Not quite. You can't just claim "bias", you need to actually demonstrate it. With the Simon Baron-Cohen study I can quite clearly point to the fact that there was no blinding of conditions. Can you do the same with the studies you criticise?

I'm going to give to the biologists arguing against mainstream more credibility then the social "scientists" who are conforming with society.

But the biologists aren't arguing against mainstream - the idea that significant components of our behavior are biologically determined is a fundamental assumption amongst (I'd argue) all scientists and a large amount of the population.

But regardless, I'd personally attribute my 'credibility' to the strength of the evidence, not the researchers themselves or their personal positions.

I need to see these studies. I think I've experienced LMR. I asked her to get in the cab with me, she umm'd and ahhh'd, mumbled something like "I should go home" but got in the cab, all I said was "cmon it will be fun" I didn't physically touch her during this process. Once at my place there was no resistance before sex.

The studies are fairly limited but there's a decent one on token resistance here.

I don't doubt that you've probably come across someone who experiences token resistance, the point is just that it's not as prevalent as red pillers claim (according to the data) and it can't be for the reason they claim.

I'm not on the red pill to prove male biology, more so to escape feminism's biased world views (as shown in the video).

Out of interest, do you actually understand what feminism says? From what you mention above I get the impression that you think feminists fight against traditional gender norms without understanding that they only fight against blind support for traditional gender norms. If someone is happy in a traditional relationship then you'll find feminists fighting tooth and nail to let them be in that relationship.

Honestly, and this goes for a lot of red pillers, whether it's absolutely true is not what's important, it is the impact it has on our actions.

I get that but the problem is that, for a lot of red pill claims they aren't even generally true. Look at the current thread on female honour where it was suggested that women would dump a guy often when they get terminally ill - data suggests that that's not true, even generally.

The red pill could all be a big placebo that gets men off the internet and into the real world.

It could be, and that would be what I lean towards.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Generally agreed, but I think the red pill ideas on the differences in sexual desires between men aren't as distinct as they sometimes suggest.

Yup, and this is simply a difference of opinion based off our experiences

Sure, but it's also really important for many women too. The disagreement is in the details.

It's more important for men. (When I start to see an equal number of male prostitutes, strippers and porn sites for women I will retract this statement)

I missed that bit - what's the gender clinic and why shouldn't it have existed?

The social scientists work at a gender studies institution funded by the government. After this documentry aired they where shutdown for their unscientific views.

Whoa, why do you think this? In my experience, from society to research, the influence is quite strongly towards biological explanations for behavior. That's why Pinker's "The Blank Slate" was so heavily criticised by relevant experts - it was a complete fabrication of facts.

Television, movies, advertising and the consumerist culture heavily leans to a feminist imperative. It's almost impossible to find media in support of red pill, stand up comedy is probably one of the only places.

The problem is that you guys tend to also ignore the social conditioning towards the traditional gender norms that you happen to accept.

Boys should be taught to be men, not women.

How is feminism a denial of biology? It basically accepts the same position you've described above, they just disagree over how many women are happy with traditional norms. Importantly, they state that it doesn't matter if it's natural or not, gender norms shouldn't be applied as a blanket to all women - which is what you seem to be agreeing with.

A boy should be taught how to be masculine and a girl should be tsught how to be feminine. That is their natural, biological state. (Obviously outliers due to genetic or hormonal differences)

Not quite. You can't just claim "bias", you need to actually demonstrate it. With the Simon Baron-Cohen study I can quite clearly point to the fact that there was no blinding of conditions. Can you do the same with the studies you criticise?

Well no source first, second he was one of 3 biologists, while all the gender studies scientists where extremely biased (hence being fired after this filming)

But the biologists aren't arguing against mainstream - the idea that significant components of our behavior are biologically determined is a fundamental assumption amongst (I'd argue) all scientists and a large amount of the population.

Media still portrays feminist ideology.

But regardless, I'd personally attribute my 'credibility' to the strength of the evidence, not the researchers themselves or their personal positions.

In which case there was none for the gender studies. "Theoretical hypothesis" a.k.a "philosophy with no scientific backing".

The studies are fairly limited but there's a decent one on token resistance here.

Will read when off my phone

I don't doubt that you've probably come across someone who experiences token resistance, the point is just that it's not as prevalent as red pillers claim (according to the data) and it can't be for the reason they claim.

Red pillers use unconventional "agressive" seduction (it escalates fast) and therefore more likely to meet token resistance.

Out of interest, do you actually understand what feminism says? From what you mention above I get the impression that you think feminists fight against traditional gender norms without understanding that they only fight against blind support for traditional gender norms. If someone is happy in a traditional relationship then you'll find feminists fighting tooth and nail to let them be in that relationship.

I don't care what feminist says, I care what it does if I ask a feminist they will say "it empowers women and makes society equal thus better" if I look what it does I see masculinity being repressed in men and encouraged in women, which has negative consequences.

I get that but the problem is that, for a lot of red pill claims they aren't even generally true. Look at the current thread on female honour where it was suggested that women would dump a guy often when they get terminally ill - data suggests that that's not true, even generally.

I think the majority is true, but blue pillers onky see the cherry picked false claims. 80% of rp theory is on the manosphere (40+ blogs) and in books (30+?).

It could be, and that would be what I lean towards.

And I lean vehemently the other way.

[–]mrsamsa4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Yup, and this is simply a difference of opinion based off our experiences

Except the problem is that the red pillers are the ones making the claim, so whilst their experience isn't valid evidence to support their generalisation, my experience is valid experience to disprove it. It's basically Popper's falsificationism, where you guys are saying all swans are white and I'm telling you I've seen a black swan.

It's more important for men. (When I start to see an equal number of male prostitutes, strippers and porn sites for women I will retract this statement)

That seems like a rather simplistic way to view it - do you not think there are any societal or cultural differences which would affect the differences in those areas? Not to mention the fact that we are seeing things like erotica, male escorts, and the rates of women purchasing porn and sex toys sky rocket to incredible levels compared to just a few years ago.

The social scientists work at a gender studies institution funded by the government. After this documentry aired they where shutdown for their unscientific views.

Ah, it looks like it was purely political. The institute dared to go against the mainstream and go shut down for it, that's actually a shame.

Television, movies, advertising and the consumerist culture heavily leans to a feminist imperative. It's almost impossible to find media in support of red pill, stand up comedy is probably one of the only places.

Two points:

1) you won't find much popular culture that is even feminist friendly, nevermind actively pro-feminist, so that's just nonsense unless you're defining feminism so broadly as to include things like believing men and women should be treated equally, and

2) it honestly shouldn't be surprising that red pill beliefs aren't well represented in media. Media gives us a broadly popular view of what the consensus thinks and believes. TRP is an extremely radical view of gender and sexual dynamics. We shouldn't expect them to be common in media because most people find the views to be a little absurd and abhorrent.

Boys should be taught to be men, not women.

What happened to all of your discussion above that people should be free to choose whatever life they want? Does that only apply when they want to choose traditional gender norms?

A boy should be taught how to be masculine and a girl should be tsught how to be feminine. That is their natural, biological state. (Obviously outliers due to genetic or hormonal differences)

Do you have any evidence for that? I would be surprised if you did given that most scientists reject the outdated notion of a binary gender system.

Well no source first, second he was one of 3 biologists, while all the gender studies scientists where extremely biased (hence being fired after this filming)

You're just making assertions with no evidence.

Media still portrays feminist ideology.

No it honestly doesn't. Just look at the Bechdel test, how many movies even pass it?

In which case there was none for the gender studies. "Theoretical hypothesis" a.k.a "philosophy with no scientific backing".

The gender studies were far more rigorous than the ones supporting the more biological side, as demonstrated by the huge flaw in the Baron-Cohen study.

Red pillers use unconventional "agressive" seduction (it escalates fast) and therefore more likely to meet token resistance.

Honest question: what methods or steps do you take to ensure that a girl is engaging in token resistance rather than actual resistance? Or, to put it another way, how do you make sure you don't accidentally pressure someone who doesn't want to have sex into having sex? Or do you just lump them into one category and pressure all of them?

I don't care what feminist says, I care what it does if I ask a feminist they will say "it empowers women and makes society equal thus better" if I look what it does I see masculinity being repressed in men and encouraged in women, which has negative consequences.

You clearly don't know much about feminism. Feminism works to remove the repressive norms that are placed on men. What you are actively doing by supporting the red pill is strengthening the negative consequences that men face.

I think the majority is true, but blue pillers onky see the cherry picked false claims. 80% of rp theory is on the manosphere (40+ blogs) and in books (30+?).

And blue pillers criticise RP blogs and books too. We don't just look at the red pill subreddit, that wouldn't give us an accurate overall view of TRP as a philosophy.

And I lean vehemently the other way.

Fair enough, but I'm going to suggest that your posts have been a bit light on evidence. You might want to try to fix that.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You think it's a shame the gender studies Institute was shut down, despite not following the scientific method (watch the video for your proof)

It wasn't shut down for not following the scientific method, it was entirely political based on the backlash of the dodgy documentary.

You think the social scientists had legitimate articles and arguments despite not being scientific or following the scientific method.

Their positions were entirely consistent with the current scientific consensus, yes, undeniably.

There's a reason scientists dont take social science seriously.

...Uh? You realise that you've been quoting social scientists to disprove other social scientists, right? Baron-Cohen, Lippa, Pinker, Campbell, etc, they're all social scientists.

I mean, you can adopt a science-denialist attitude if you like and reject an entire field of science but you cannot reject it based on evidence from that field of science. That is a self-refuting position.

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points5 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

She thinks a "theoretical hypothesis" has more basis than a study with a sample size of 200 000 people.

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

The gender researches argument was not based on empirical or measurable evidence - "theoretical hypothesis".

She refused to correct or integrate the studies presented stating "im interested to know why they're so interested in biology" lady! Thats science!

Her argument is completely devoid of reasoning. Now mrsama is in support of these social 'scientists' and its evident from her comments she does not respect, or uphold these standards either.

In conclusion, I am not arguing with someone who willfully remains ignorant of the facts.

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

She thinks a "theoretical hypothesis" has more basis than a study with a sample size of 200 000 people.

He thinks no such thing. He pointed out that the study of 200,000 people is great evidence for both biological and cultural explanations. You failed to understand the science behind this issue so I understand why you bowed out of the discussion.

The gender researches argument was not based on empirical or measurable evidence - "theoretical hypothesis".

No, their positions were based entirely on empirical research.

She refused to correct or integrate the studies presented stating "im interested to know why they're so interested in biology" lady! Thats science!

He accurately pointed out the flaws of the studies and perfectly integrated them into a cultural explanation, and then pondered why red pillers adopted the outdated philosophical belief of biological determinism. At no point did I ask why people were interested in biology.

Perhaps the confusion was my fault, I had assumed people would either know what the term "biological determinism" means, or they would look it up. I didn't think that people would think it meant "biology". It's a philosophical position not a scientific one.

Her argument is completely devoid of reasoning.

His argument contained more reasoning in a single sentence than every post you've made here.

In conclusion, I am not arguing with someone who willfully remains ignorant of the facts.

Coming from someone who thinks cross cultural evidence is evidence of an innate behavior and that 'biological determinism' means 'biology'? Come on now, you've smashed every window of your glasshouse and you've now fired up a kiln to smash some more.

You honestly aren't in a position to accuse an evolutionary psychologist of being ignorant of the facts.

[–]_Reticent_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminism works to remove the repressive norms that are placed on men.

Never understood the notion that the 'norms' of my sex are repressing my sex. Please can you give me a brief overview on how being a man/doing traditionally manly things hinders me being a man?

Also, if you wouldn't mind quickly answering why feminists aren't concerned with MRA claims of equality (equality being a genderless term; tit-for-tat) considering child support payments, legal issues, rape charges, to whom the children default to in divorce, female prison sentences for equal crimes, and those sort of things. That'd be grand. Equality == equality, right?

I'm not sure from reading all this thread (and only having watched the first part of the documentary), but, do gender studies look at biology at all? As in, do they state and believe that 'the society to come' is conditioned by 'the society before it', without acknowledging things such as the things the British lady mentioned? Which I've tried to remember below.

What about the fact that DNA holds information and impulses that are both consciously, as well as unconsciously triggered? Traits are passed by selection, in genes, in chromosomes, which differ in men and women. The differences in these things leads to different hormones in the body, which exhibit different effects on the body, which in turn affects your treatment in/by society. Are you saying that those differences are more due to society than to biology, or just that the biology isn’t 100% true so you cannot conclude it is the reason? I ask, because you can’t prove God exists (or doesn’t!), but you can make the likelihood of one existing very, very, very slim. God hides in the cracks of science – does gender theory?

What my personal belief is (and I have no studies to back this up on hand I'm afraid) is that Biology precludes society. Different genes produce different hormones (fact), that produce different physiological responses in the body (fact), which lead to the different growth of that body (fact), and different brain structures (fact), and that a difference in brain structure affects a difference in behaviour (fact; broadly speaking) so that the DNA-influenced-behaviour resulted in a specialisation of abilities geared towards those (fact). The specialities for certain things exist in the gender that specialises in them, although there is an overlap; it just makes sense. From there, society grew around the biology; society hangs on the framework that biology wrought essentially.

The only thing society/civilization is capable of doing (on the scale it is now, which is my problem with feminism as it's practiced, not preached) is of stating what is 'normal' and 'correct' in the ways of thinking and beliefs. If a society is fed a load of shit about something, and that society believes it, then bad things happen to the people. Take any example of a duped society – Nazi Germany. This is the level where society supersedes biology; when it can dictate and expel the DNA of those who do not agree with "the norm" by shame, or by them not matching societies 'ideals'. It could, essentially, derail evolution if misinformed, producing masculine women and feminine men; a scary thought, and not a healthy one either!

Well, "the norm" isn't normal; I believe we are hurting everyone as we try to cater for the 'society that is' without understanding what caused the 'society that was' that came from the 'society that HAD to be because of evolution'. It's not as if the patriarchy existed around the dawn of the humans, is it?

Now, because none of that is backed up with quoted studies you can refute it if you wish on that basis, but if you refute the above on a basis of the evidence (that I'm ignorant of finding) then I would genuinely like to see it, because I enjoy challenging my views.

EDIT:

Come on! I can see you posting elsewhere!

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Never understood the notion that the 'norms' of my sex are repressing my sex. Please can you give me a brief overview on how being a man/doing traditionally manly things hinders me being a man?

Well one concept that MRAs and even some red pillers often worry about is the idea of the "disposability of the male". This is due to the fact that gender norms (whether objectively true or culturally generated) treat men as stronger than women, both physically and mentally, so they're needed for the more dangerous jobs like being a solider or working in mines, etc. This also leads to them being far less likely to seek out medical or psychological attention which has obvious negative implications for them, like having a far higher suicide rate.

Also, if you wouldn't mind quickly answering why feminists aren't concerned with MRA claims of equality (equality being a genderless term; tit-for-tat) considering child support payments, legal issues, rape charges, to whom the children default to in divorce, female prison sentences for equal crimes, and those sort of things. That'd be grand. Equality == equality, right?

Where there is actual discrimination, feminists are interested in addressing these things. The fact of the matter is that even if they didn't want to take away their advantages in those areas, it's impossible to deconstruct the patriarchal issues that they're concerned with without simultaneously removing those advantages.

The issue of things like prison sentences is a complicated matter though, given that non-discriminatory processes account for most of the differences in the rates (i.e. women tend to have more extenuating circumstances, like being first time offenders, having a milder record, being the primary caregiver of children, etc). When you account for those non-gender related differences the differences in in sentences usually disappear.

There are some places where there appear to be discriminatory factors at play as well, and I doubt you'll find many feminists arguing against fixing them, but obviously it's not their battle so there won't be explicitly feminist motions to fix the problem. With that said, since many feminists are also men's rights supporters, those who overlap will be feminist and actively fighting for men's rights.

I'm not sure from reading all this thread (and only having watched the first part of the documentary), but, do gender studies look at biology at all? As in, do they state and believe that 'the society to come' is conditioned by 'the society before it', without acknowledging things such as the things the British lady mentioned? Which I've tried to remember below.

No, I'm not aware of a single blank slatist in science at all. What people tend to confuse (as the host in that "documentary" did) was what sociologists study with what they supposedly believe is the full answer to the question. Sociologists study societal and cultural processes; it's sort of in the name. They accept and attempt to incorporate biological explanations where they are relevant but they aren't biologists so they don't study biology for the most part.

This sounds simply and straightforward but often people mistake this for the idea that they think biology is irrelevant and unneeded, which is absurd. As a comparison, chemists will rarely discuss physical laws when explaining chemical reactions but it doesn't mean they reject the role that physics has to play on their field, it's just that for much of the work the deeper world of physics is not directly relevant.

Are you saying that those differences are more due to society than to biology, or just that the biology isn’t 100% true so you cannot conclude it is the reason?

The foundational position that all people should, and all scientists do, accept is that these things are necessarily a combination of biology and environment. Assigning any kind of number to this is always going to be difficult but my point is simply that much of the research into biological processes is extremely new and is still a growing field. The data and research is impressive but it is nowhere near the level of certitude required for the strength of the claims made by some people.

To be clear, this isn't to say that biology isn't important or even that it isn't the most dominant process in these issues. The point is simply that the evidence still needs to come in.

I ask, because you can’t prove God exists (or doesn’t!), but you can make the likelihood of one existing very, very, very slim. God hides in the cracks of science – does gender theory?

The analogy is actually most damning to your position here. Cultural explanations of gender processes have a massive amount of data supporting them (note: this doesn't mean that it overrules or discounts biological processes) so we know without a doubt that cultural processes are relevant to gender - which is completely different to the god argument. However, there is currently no comparable weighty evidence from the biological side and currently the only reason we accept that biology must be important to gender is essentially just a matter of faith (that is, we know that biology must be important, we just can't find the evidence yet).

The specialities for certain things exist in the gender that specialises in them, although there is an overlap; it just makes sense. From there, society grew around the biology; society hangs on the framework that biology wrought essentially.

Your above 'facts' aren't overly controversial but you missed out some last points: interacting with the environment shapes the structures of our brain (fact), these structures are indistinguishable and no more or less important than biological brain structures (fact), society is just a series of constrained environmental factors (fact). With those points in mind, it makes no sense to say that biology or society precludes the other. They grew together.

It could, essentially, derail evolution if misinformed, producing masculine women and feminine men; a scary thought, and not a healthy one either!

Uh, I'm a little confused by this - what do you mean by "derail evolution"? Evolution has no direction, it can't be derailed at all in any way.

It's not as if the patriarchy existed around the dawn of the humans, is it?

True, patriarchy developed as a purely cultural artefact.

Now, because none of that is backed up with quoted studies you can refute it if you wish on that basis, but if you refute the above on a basis of the evidence (that I'm ignorant of finding) then I would genuinely like to see it, because I enjoy challenging my views.

I don't think scientific studies are necessary, they just become needed when people make specific claims - e.g. "But it's true that X causes Y!". If it's simply a bunch of observations you've made, structured in an attempted logical argument, then it forms the basis for a good discussion in my opinion.

Ultimately though, I think these discussions will boil down to the basic axioms you're basing your argument on and usually these will require scientific evidence. But we can cross that bridge when we get to it.

EDIT: Come on! I can see you posting elsewhere!

Sorry, I've been tiling my front hall and didn't have time to jump on a computer, I just responded to some people on my phone when their comments were short enough to reply to.

[–]chryseaBlue Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]chryseaBlue Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chryseaBlue Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's a bit from linked Wikipedia article about Sociocultural evolution :

Sociocultural evolution(ism) is an umbrella term for theories of cultural evolution and social evolution, describing how cultures and societies change over time. Note that "sociocultural evolution" is not an equivalent of "sociocultural development" (unified processes of differentiation and integration involving increases in sociocultural complexity), as sociocultural evolution also encompasses sociocultural transformations accompanied by decreases of complexity (degeneration) as well as ones not accompanied by any significant changes of sociocultural complexity (cladogenesis). Thus, sociocultural evolution can be defined as "the process by which structural reorganization is affected through time, eventually producing a form or structure which is qualitatively different from the ancestral form."

^Picture

^{image source} ^| ^about ^| ^{/u/CFRProflcopter can reply with 'delete'. Will also delete if comment's score is -1 or less.} ^| ^{Summon: wikibot, what is something?} ^| ^{flag for glitch}

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes and no. Our microbial flora has evolved tremendously and there is some evidence for genetics, or at least epigenetics, having at least some impact on the make-up of our microbial flora. However, the actual anatomy of our digestive system has not really changed at all.

I'm talking more about the physiology and the biochemistry of our digestive system.

The biochemistry of our digestive system has not changed much either other than the development of lactase persistence. However, even lactase persistence is not present in the majority of modern humans.

This is certainly the traditional thought in current medicine and physiology, however the leading edge evolutionary research is suggesting that our digestive system has changed more rapidly than previously thought. That's definitely the direction research is going.

[–]648262Red Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]_Reticent_-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I actually agree with you that the starting point isn't culture, it's biology, and the differences in biology precluded difference in the society and culture that spawned from those differences. As I said in my above point:

My personal belief is (and I have no studies to back this up on hand I'm afraid) that Biology precludes society. Different genes produce different hormones (fact), that produce different physiological responses in the body (fact), which lead to the different growth of that body (fact), and different brain structures (fact), and that a difference in brain structure affects a difference in behaviour (fact; broadly speaking) so that the DNA-influenced-behaviour resulted in a specialisation of abilities geared towards those (fact). The specialities for certain things exist in the gender that specialises in them, although there is an overlap; it just makes sense. From there, society grew around the biology; society hangs on the framework that biology wrought essentially.

[–]648262Red Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]648262Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]twentyfoursevensex7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

Humans are incredibly adaptable, so if we have a biological basis and you filter it through different cultural/ societal contexts you will have different outcomes. The stud/slut phenomena is only applicable in cultures that have monogamous pairings, sometimes in polygynous cultures, or cultures that pass lineage through the paternity line. There are cultures where whole villages raise children thus the paternity of the child is of no concern thus there is no slut/stud phenomena. My question to you is how much of our evolution was filtered through that cultural setting before arriving at the monogamous pair setting? How much of our evolution was influenced by this different organization? Its disingenuous to claim that the slut/stud phenomena is the be all end all of hunan sexual organization.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]roe_Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]twentyfoursevensex2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

The universality of jealousy doesn't actually negate what I was discussing. What's so amazing about humans is that we are incredibly adaptable to a variety of different environmental contexts. Sexual jealousy is a common emotion, it occurs in both men and women. Considering how adaptable humans are I would especially expect to see sexual jealousy within a culture that promotes monogamous bonding.

The thing about evolutionary psychology is that it is an incredibly speculative field - because let's be honest we cannot be 100% how humans were before we could record history. A good way to gain some insight, however, is to observe cultures that have not been affected by globalization influence.

There are numerous examples of matrilineal cultures which pass lineage through the women. Let's take the Mosuo for example, which isn't uncommon for the women to have multiple male partners either for a night, year or lifetime. There have been 16 identified cultures that practice partible paternity in which there is shared paternity between men. Polyandry is not quite as uncommon as you may think.

If were using animal examples as well, look at the Bonobos! Sex is a huge part of their organization which is used for reproduction, bonding, problem solving and just for fun. There is a fair amount of homosexuality as well as multiple partners for both males and females.

Overall, there are many different ways to organize sexuality, some polyandry, some polygynist, some monogamist and some a mix. People can still be jealous in these scenarios, jealousy does not disprove these ways of organizing sexuality. Human sexual organization is not as cut and dry as the Paternity Uncertainty theory makes it out to be.

[–]roe_Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's the linked section Reception from experts in the field from Wikipedia article Sex at Dawn :

The book has been criticized for its alleged "biased reporting of data, theoretical and evidentiary shortcomings, and problematic assumptions" in a series of book reviews by Ryan Ellsworth, graduate student in anthropology at the University of Missouri, in the peer reviewed journal Evolutionary Psychology. Ellsworth argues that the book misrepresents the state of current research on sexual behavior. In particular, Ellsworth criticizes the authors for drawing too many conclusions from too little evidence, charging that "if promiscuity even slightly approaching bonobo levels were characteristic of (post-Homo erectus) ancestral sexuality, there would be much more evidence for it than Sex at Dawn manages to drum up. Ryan and Jethá conjure up a phantom of human nature that vanishes in the face of scrutiny—a naïve vision of a human that never evolved." Ellsworth notes that while promiscuity has certainly been part of human behavior, it is "doubtful that this is because we are promiscuous at heart (this may apply to the behavior of most women more than the desire of most men), shackled by the trappings of a post-agricultural dilemma of our own devices, unable to return to the ancestral days of sexual communism." Writing that he could find no previous academic reviews of Sex at Dawn, Ellsworth faults his fellow scientists for failing to give the book the attention he believes it deserves, because its popularity may result in "a distorted portrayal of current theory and evidence on ev ... (Truncated at 1500 characters)

^about ^| ^{/u/roe_ can reply with 'delete'. Will also delete if comment's score is -1 or less.} ^| ^{Summon: wikibot, what is something?}

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]roe_Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]roe_Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Animals (except for higher primates) don't have culture,

I'm not sure why you think culture is only present in humans and higher primates, it's fairly ubiquitous amongst social species. It isn't even limited to mammals.

so the fact that animals mate guard is evidence of a mate guarding instinct, which likely continues in humans.

Even if I accept that culture is limited to humans and higher primates, how are you teaching this conclusion? Are you suggesting that the only possible options are instinct or culture? What about learning, which is one of the primary causes of cross cultural behaviors?

If there is a mate guarding instinct in humans, the cultural expressions of jealousy & mate-guarding aren't exact representations of the instinct - but the cultural expressions serve to satisfy the instinct (among other functions).

This sounds far too much like the debunked notion of drive theory. Instincts aren't "satisfied", they are automatic stimulus-response reactions.

Can you explain what you mean in more detail here? Maybe it would help if you could use more precise terminology, rather than the laymen terms like "instinct".

[–]roe_Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Even if I accept that culture is limited to humans and higher primates, how are you teaching this conclusion? Are you suggesting that the only possible options are instinct or culture? What about learning, which is one of the primary causes of cross cultural behaviors?

To answer your questions backward: I think learning has a lot to do with how jealousy & mate guarding works, particularly in higher primates, I think there are behaviours which are "instinct-y" and "less instinct-y" which have to do with how embedded they are in neural structures which are common across a species, and I think the presence of a mate-guarding instinct is likely because mate guarding behaviours have been around (on evolutionary time-scales) almost as long as sexual reproduction, and they are more or less directly linked to reproductive success.

Can you explain what you mean in more detail here?

Sure - mate guarding as instinctual stimulus-response could be exemplified by "post-copulatory hanging around" - making sure another male doesn't come around trying to introduce competing sperm into the female. This is pretty easy to conceptualize as a fixed action pattern.

But mate-guarding would be subject to an evolutionary arm-race, so I expect a whole bunch of evolved, and then eventually learnt, measures and counter-measures, and I think modern cultural traditions such marriage and monogamy are (partially) structured to continue the legacy of serving the function of (centrally) keeping competing males from fertilizing a mate.

So... I'm motivated to be somewhat skeptical of anthropological reports of cultures that have leveraged themselves off this ancient practise of mate-guarding. And given the amount of controversy in the past about anthropological reports wrt violence, sexuality, &etc, I think it's worth understanding, in a pretty close way, what's going on in these cultures.

[–]mrsamsa6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (32 children) | Copy Link

Oh god, I hate this documentary. It's a Gish Gallop of half-truths, questionable ethics, and biased editing. In the first part, for example, the creator sets it up to make it seem like there are a bunch of crazy blank slatists but they actually got quite pissed off afterwards due to the host being dishonest about what the debate was about, so leading them down specific lines of questioning, and then selectively editing it. More simply, none of the people interviewed were blank slatists. This is the gender version of "Expelled".

A lot of the arguments against the "blank slate" view were just terrible as well, for example, the first study presented is the survey of over 200,000 people which demonstrated that there are differences in preferences of jobs in men and women. Well, we already knew this. That's the gender difference we're trying to explain. It doesn't tell us whether it's innate or learnt (or a mixture of both).

Lippa then suggests that if these differences were learnt, then we'd expect them to change across cultures, and he points to a graph with two constant, unchanging lines, and says that this is evidence that something biological is going on. Obviously it isn't. It's evidence that there is a common underlying variable controlling both, which can be biological or learnt. This is the problem with most people's interpretation of cross-cultural studies, they ignore the fact that cross-cultural behaviors can also be explained by species-specific environmental constraints which produce universal learning. As an example, look at the fact that all individuals, across all cultures and generations, eat hot soup from a bowl. Amazing, must be innate, right? Clearly not, there is no "eating-soup-from-a-bowl gene", and instead the common behavior is there because the guy who tried to eat it off a plate or flat leaf or whatever burnt his nutsack. The common factor of gravity produces this learnt effect. This isn't to say that the behavior is learnt, but that it's something that needs to be ruled out, not just shrugged off.

The next study found that there were clear differences in the toy preferences of 9 month olds. Obviously, both biological and learning explanations predict this.

Simon Baron-Cohen then presents us with another study where newborn babies look longer at mechanical devices than they do at faces. This is interesting, except that we find that this difference disappears when the person holding the mechanical device (normally a mobile) or showing their face, doesn't know the sex of the baby. That is, the responses of the babies change, and the sex differences emerge, as a direct result of the person interacting with them treating them differently. In other words, the studies that find the differences are not blinded.

Campbell, the evolutionary psychologist, suggests that it would be surprising if evolution hadn't equipped women (who give birth and generally look after children) with some kind of innate mechanism that made such actions pleasurable. Of course it's not surprising. We build bonds with people we spend time with, and we build a sunk-cost fallacy into the way we behave as a result of our learning, and so carrying something around for 9 months generally results in us being pretty protective of it, and rationalising to ourselves that it's a good thing. It would be surprising if we needed extra innate mechanisms on top of this.

She then quotes a study which finds that men prefer to be alone when stressed - this again only describes a gender difference we already knew existed, it doesn't tell us whether it has a biological or environmental cause. And she concludes her interview with an argument from incredulity; seemingly baffled by the idea that subtle changes in our behavior can significantly affect the behavior of a baby (whose brain is literally exploding with neural connections and associations, picking up on every tiny thing and strengthening and culling millions of connections)..

Lippa, who told us that cross-cultural studies and unchanging opinions demonstrate that there is a biological cause, then explains why some cultures (the non-egalitarian ones) differ from others. In other words, cross-cultural studies always support the biological cause, whether they show consistent results, or divergent ones..

Campbell makes the standard evo psych fallacy, of pointing out that our brains are evolved organs and then trying to conclude that our behaviors (specifically whatever behaviors are currently being discussed) must have evolved as well. This obviously isn't true. It's probably true for at least some behaviors, but it's also possible that the evolution of the brain was to push it entirely into a domain-general processor, meaning that we can accept the evolution of the brain and conclusively reject the claim that evolutionary theories must have a role to play in sex differences.

Lorentzen makes the good argument that he's not a blank slatist, he just accepts that there is currently no good evidence of a biological link - and he's entirely correct here. There are some studies suggesting it, and the studies are getting better and more interesting, but it's still a leap to accept that position from what we currently know.

Baron-Cohen concludes with:

It's a moderate proposal to say it's a mixture of biology and culture.

This is the golden mean fallacy; the idea that it's reasonable to presume that the two extremes of a position are wrong, and that the middle ground is likely to be correct. Of course, since the evidence is largely in favour of a cultural explanation of gender differences (mostly due to the longer history, and the ability to perform more rigorous experiments), it is an extreme position to suggest that gender differences are equally influenced by biology and culture.

EDIT: Wow, apparently I pissed off a lot of red pillers with this post. Thanks for the downvotes?..

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh god, I hate this documentary. It's a Gish Gallop of half-truths, questionable ethics, and biased editing. In the first part, for example, the creator sets it up to make it seem like there are a bunch of crazy blank slatists but they actually got quite pissed off afterwards due to the host being dishonest about what the debate was about, so leading them down specific lines of questioning, and then selectively editing it. More simply, none of the people interviewed were blank slatists. This is the gender version of "Expelled".

You're assuming he set it up.. I don't see what reason he had for being dishonest.

A lot of the arguments against the "blank slate" view were just terrible as well, for example, the first study presented is the survey of over 200,000 people which demonstrated that there are differences in preferences of jobs in men and women. Well, we already knew this. That's the gender difference we're trying to explain. It doesn't tell us whether it's innate or learnt (or a mixture of both).

Did you totally miss this bit? He said there where differences in male and female preferences for occuption over 53 nations (cultures). Same results in sweden as there where in saudi Arabia. There is no correlation between culture and occupational preference. This study suggests it's innate...

Lippa then suggests that if these differences were learnt, then we'd expect them to change across cultures, and he points to a graph with two constant, unchanging lines, and says that this is evidence that something biological is going on. Obviously it isn't. It's evidence that there is a common underlying variable controlling both, which can be biological or learnt. This is the problem with most people's interpretation of cross-cultural studies, they ignore the fact that cross-cultural behaviors can also be explained by species-specific environmental constraints which produce universal learning. As an example, look at the fact that all individuals, across all cultures and generations, eat hot soup from a bowl. Amazing, must be innate, right? Clearly not, there is no "eating-soup-from-a-bowl gene", and instead the common behavior is there because the guy who tried to eat it off a plate or flat leaf or whatever burnt his nutsack. The common factor of gravity produces this learnt effect. This isn't to say that the behavior is learnt, but that it's something that needs to be ruled out, not just shrugged off.

So you're not saying eating from a bowl of soup is innate biology, but forming a culture thst teaches people to eat from a bowl of soup is... so either way it doesn't matter.

Either it's biology or by coincidence all cultures formed convergent ideologies independently. That's one hell of a stretch. Occams razor would be advised in this case.

The next study found that there were clear differences in the toy preferences of 9 month olds. Obviously, both biological and learning explanations predict this.

Simon Baron-Cohen then presents us with another study where newborn babies look longer at mechanical devices than they do at faces. This is interesting, except that we find that this difference disappears when the person holding the mechanical device (normally a mobile) or showing their face, doesn't know the sex of the baby. That is, the responses of the babies change, and the sex differences emerge, as a direct result of the person interacting with them treating them differently. In other words, the studies that find the differences are not blinded.

Source of claim.

Campbell, the evolutionary psychologist, suggests that it would be surprising if evolution hadn't equipped women (who give birth and generally look after children) with some kind of innate mechanism that made such actions pleasurable. Of course it's not surprising. We build bonds with people we spend time with, and we build a sunk-cost fallacy into the way we behave as a result of our learning, and so carrying something around for 9 months generally results in us being pretty protective of it, and rationalising to ourselves that it's a good thing. It would be surprising if we needed extra innate mechanisms on top of this.

You're denying her claim because you would "find it surprising". You really think sunk-cost fallacy is the reason mothers protect their babies? That's nothing but a wild assumption.

She then quotes a study which finds that men prefer to be alone when stressed - this again only describes a gender difference we already knew existed, it doesn't tell us whether it has a biological or environmental cause. And she concludes her interview with an argument from incredulity; seemingly baffled by the idea that subtle changes in our behavior can significantly affect the behavior of a baby (whose brain is literally exploding with neural connections and associations, picking up on every tiny thing and strengthening and culling millions of connections)..

Well what about the fact men and women have different brains?

Lippa, who told us that cross-cultural studies and unchanging opinions demonstrate that there is a biological cause, then explains why some cultures (the non-egalitarian ones) differ from others. In other words, cross-cultural studies always support the biological cause, whether they show consistent results, or divergent ones..

Campbell makes the standard evo psych fallacy, of pointing out that our brains are evolved organs and then trying to conclude that our behaviors (specifically whatever behaviors are currently being discussed) must have evolved as well. This obviously isn't true.

Okay

It's probably true for at least some behaviors,

Okay..?

but it's also possible that the evolution of the brain was to push it entirely into a domain-general processor, meaning that we can accept the evolution of the brain and conclusively reject the claim that evolutionary theories must have a role to play in sex differences.

So evolution has an influence on biology sometimes, but then some behaviors are due to a transcended conciousness independent of evolution? With no evidence to support said claim, then an assumption that it must be true for the specific case? Evidence, please, to support at least one of these fallacies.

Lorentzen makes the good argument that he's not a blank slatist, he just accepts that there is currently no good evidence of a biological link - and he's entirely correct here. There are some studies suggesting it, and the studies are getting better and more interesting, but it's still a leap to accept that position from what we currently know.

He made a hypothesis that biology has no relstion to gender but refuses to actually prove or disprove said hypothesis. When you mske a hypothesis, you try to prove or disprove it. That is the scientific method at its core. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

Baron-Cohen concludes with:

It's a moderate proposal to say it's a mixture of biology and culture.

This is the golden mean fallacy; the idea that it's reasonable to presume that the two extremes of a position are wrong, and that the middle ground is likely to be correct. Of course, since the evidence is largely in favour of a cultural explanation of gender differences (mostly due to the longer history, and the ability to perform more rigorous experiments), it is an extreme position to suggest that gender differences are equally influenced by biology and culture.

"Evidence is largerly in favour of cultural explanation"

Prove this statement isn't a fabrication.

[–]mrsamsa7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're assuming he set it up.. I don't see what reason he had for being dishonest.

I'm not assuming it, just watch the documentary. The whole thing is tailored to support the biological side which is why the ones interviewed on the "blank slate" side (which is ridiculous given that a couple of them even make statements which clearly show they weren't blank slatists) complained afterwards that he was dishonest in his methods.

Did you totally miss this bit? He said there where differences in male and female preferences for occuption over 53 nations (cultures). Same results in sweden as there where in saudi Arabia. There is no correlation between culture and occupational preference. This study suggests it's innate...

I saw that bit. Did you see the bit where I pointed out that no evolutionary psychologist worth his salt would accept cross cultural evidence as evidence of an innate effect.

Cross cultural data is the first step in testing whether a behavior is innate. Once you've determined that a behavior is cross cultural then you've shown it's possible that it could be innate - the next step is to design studies to see whether the effect is learnt or innate.

Since all cultures share a massive amount of commonalties, most namely the fact that our histories are all intermingled and seeped in patriarchal processes, it's impossible for any rational person to conclude from that evidence alone that it's innate.

So you're not saying eating from a bowl of soup is innate biology, but forming a culture thst teaches people to eat from a bowl of soup is... so either way it doesn't matter.

Absolutely not. Why would you think forming a culture specifically around eating soup from a bowl is biological? That's an oddly complicated and specific evolutionary adaptation.

Either it's biology or by coincidence all cultures formed convergent ideologies independently. That's one hell of a stretch. Occams razor would be advised in this case.

This is classic creationist reasoning: either god did it or it happened by complete random chance. What about the third option? It wasn't random chance but consistent natural processes common across all cultures (of which there are millions!).

Source of claim.

Cordelia Fine's book "Delusions of Gender" is an incredible read on the topic, and this study specifically is relevant here.

You're denying her claim because you would "find it surprising". You really think sunk-cost fallacy is the reason mothers protect their babies? That's nothing but a wild assumption.

No, I'm rejecting her claim on the basis of a number of known learning processes that could easily explain the issue she's describing. My comment about "finding it surprising" was clearly a throwback to her own appeal to incredulity, pointing out that anybody can make wild claims without evidence - it doesn't make them right.

And I haven't made any assumptions as I never claimed it was caused by learning, I simply effectively dismantled hers by demonstrating it could have been caused by learning thus showing her incredulity to be unwarranted. Since her entire position was based on incredulity, and not evidence, her position was demolished.

Well what about the fact men and women have different brains?

What about it? This is necessarily true in both the learning and biological accounts since (obviously) differences in brain structures is not evidence of innate causes.

So evolution has an influence on biology sometimes, but then some behaviors are due to a transcended conciousness independent of evolution? With no evidence to support said claim, then an assumption that it must be true for the specific case? Evidence, please, to support at least one of these fallacies.

...What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with what I've said.

What I've described above is the standard problem described in evolutionary psychology of determining whether a specific behavior has come about due to the evolution of domain-specific processes or the evolution of domain-general processes. If a behavior is a result of domain-general processes (e.g. learning, cultural conditioning, etc), then Campbell's point is still true in that the brain has evolved and nobody has to reject the idea that evolution affects the development of the brain, but it disproves his implication that accepting the evolution of the brain requires us to accept that a specific behavior is an evolutionary adaptation.

This has nothing to do with "consciousness transcending evolution", unless you're referring to standard mental processes which aren't in themselves evolutionary adaptations because they are emergent phenomena. In which case, yes, they obviously exist - no scientist would argue that learnt behaviors are evolutionary adaptations.

He made a hypothesis that biology has no relstion to gender but refuses to actually prove or disprove said hypothesis.

No he doesn't, he states that the biological component is not significant enough to warrant the conclusions reached by some people, which again is entirely correct.

When you mske a hypothesis, you try to prove or disprove it. That is the scientific method at its core. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

Scientists actually hate when people repeat that quote because it's actually false - absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence. If I hypothesise that the earth was hit by the moon yesterday, and I find no evidence of a crater or a moon sticking out of Australia, then that is evidence of absence.

Regardless, the problem here is that you're on the losing side if you want to adopt that quote. The problem with the biological side in this debate is that it is heavily outweight by the cultural data, simply due to the fact that the cultural side has had far more time to study this stuff and it is able to perform more rigorous experiments.

"Evidence is largerly in favour of cultural explanation" Prove this statement isn't a fabrication.

As I mention above, the evidence for the effects of culture and learning on behavior is massive. It's just incredible the sheer amount of evidence we have. So we know for a fact that culture and learning can effect how we behave, which necessarily includes gender norms, and the evidence in favour of biological ideas is currently extremely weak due to the fact that it's impossible for them to perform true experiments to test the question (can't raise kids from birth or take them from their mothers, or anything like that) so they're definitely fighting an uphill battle.

The point is that the debate over whether culture and learning affects gender is over. We already know and accept this is true. The only remaining question is whether biology plays a significant role and, if it does, to what degree is it relevant compared to culture and learning.

[–]roe_Purple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Of course, since the evidence is largely in favour of a cultural explanation of gender differences (mostly due to the longer history, and the ability to perform more rigorous experiments), it is an extreme position to suggest that gender differences are equally influenced by biology and culture.

You haven't shown any such thing - if anything, you've found reasons to reject any evidence which conflicts with your preferred hypothesis. Your post is just covered in motivated skepticism.

they ignore the fact that cross-cultural behaviors can also be explained by species-specific environmental constraints which produce universal learning

Like one half of the species having to grow another member of the species inside them while the other half only has to fertilize the egg? How much "constraint" do you think that might put on universal learning?

The next study found that there were clear differences in the toy preferences of 9 month olds. Obviously, both biological and learning explanations predict this.

Not equally - the earlier in development a preference shows up, the more likely it is to be innate (since learning takes time and innate is "just there"). Nine months old is, I believe, the earliest you can expect kids to be ambulatory enough to move to the toy they prefer.

This is interesting, except that we find that this difference disappears when the person holding the mechanical device (normally a mobile) or showing their face, doesn't know the sex of the baby.

Here is Baron-Cohen's response to Fine.

This obviously isn't true. It's probably true for at least some behaviors, but it's also possible that the evolution of the brain was to push it entirely into a domain-general processor, meaning that we can accept the evolution of the brain and conclusively reject the claim that evolutionary theories must have a role to play in sex differences.

It's not obvious to me. The "domain-general processor" model is an assumption on your end - the competing model for neural architecture is the modularity model. If the modularity model is true, it stands to reason that evolution can act on the brain in a partitioned way - which means human sub-populations can have stable differences in neural architecture.

seemingly baffled by the idea that subtle changes in our behavior can significantly affect the behavior of a baby

I share her bafflement - this is the poverty of the stimulus argument. How does "play with dolls" come from "pink blanket"? (That's a bit unfair on my part - but you really do have to come up with a model for how gender performance comes from these very subtle cues so quickly and in such a stable manner)

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You haven't shown any such thing - if anything, you've found reasons to reject any evidence which conflicts with your preferred hypothesis. Your post is just covered in motivated skepticism.

I don't understand what you mean - what is my "preferred hypothesis"? I lean towards the biological, I'm just aware of the actual state of evidence.

Like one half of the species having to grow another member of the species inside them while the other half only has to fertilize the egg? How much "constraint" do you think that might put on universal learning?

Potentially none at all, I would imagine. Having a baby after you've been alive for a few decades doesn't, for example, affect how you understand gravity up until that point (and probably afterwards).

Not equally - the earlier in development a preference shows up, the more likely it is to be innate (since learning takes time and innate is "just there"). Nine months old is, I believe, the earliest you can expect kids to be ambulatory enough to move to the toy they prefer.

Both explanations predict this exactly. Learning begins absolutely immediately and due to the sensitivity of babies' brains, these can form serious associations that last for a long time.

One of the big problems for the biological arguments is that toy preferences generally don't appear until after the point that children demonstrate awareness of gender norms, and even then girls rarely tend to show a preference towards girl toys - the difference is largely a result of boys showing a preference away from girls toys.

Here[1] is Baron-Cohen's response to Fine.

Wow, I'm only the first sentence in to the article and he's already demonstrated that he hasn't read the book. She's attempting to show that there are no essential gender differences and that all claimed differences can be shown to vanish? Of course she says nothing of the sort. As for having an 'agenda', it's easy to make accusations but apparently harder to support them.

The arguments in that article are extremely poor. Which ones in particular did you find convincing?

It's not obvious to me. The "domain-general processor" model is an assumption on your end

...What? For starters, it can't be an assumption as I haven't made any claims. I simply pointed out that a very real alternative could explain the same things Campbell was trying to use to support his point. More importantly, there is nothing assumptive about domain-general processes, they necessarily exist unless you think learning is impossible.

the competing model for neural architecture is the modularity model. If the modularity model is true, it stands to reason that evolution can act on the brain in a partitioned way - which means human sub-populations can have stable differences in neural architecture.

Massive modularity is not in competition with domain-general processes. All scientists accept that domain-general processes (as I mention above, to deny this requires you reject the existence of learning), but some scientists argue that there are very specific areas or links within the brain that can be tied to mental functions (i.e. massive modularity).

But no evolutionary psychologist would deny that domain-general processes don't exist simply because some behavior might be tied to a specific area of the brain. You're basically saying that humans are incapable of learning because there are structures in the brain dedicated to language processing.

I share her bafflement - this is the poverty of the stimulus argument.

I'm not sure you want to present POTS as an argument, it's a fairly well-discredited idea now and even when it was proposed it wasn't even logically sound.

How does "play with dolls" come from "pink blanket"? (That's a bit unfair on my part - but you really do have to come up with a model for how gender performance comes from these very subtle cues so quickly and in such a stable manner)

That's not unfair at all, that's a fairly simple association. Take a few things into account:

1) adults have formed associations of colour in babies rooms to baby gender (e.g. if they see a pink room then they will usually assume the baby is a girl).

2) adults have ideas about what boys and girls enjoy and how they behave

3) starting with a preconceived idea, like girls enjoying dolls, can affect how you treat somebody

4) the different behaviors of other people can affect our own behaviors.

When you take all those things into account, you have a person trying to test something when they are aware of what outcomes should be expected and can, even unconsciously lead that baby to make choices that fit the narrative you believe.

A great example of this is that of Clever Hans, where (many years ago) a guy travelled the US with his amazing horse who could count. He would give it a maths question and it would tap its hoof to the correct number - it could add, subtract, multiple, divide, and everything. It was incredible.

However, it turned out that what was happening was that an entirely unconscious subtle behavior of the owner was triggering the horse to stop tapping its hoof. So all the horse did was start tapping and then stopped when he got the cue.

You see the exact same thing in humans and that's why research is designed specifically to eliminate experimenter bias.

[–]roe_Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I lean towards the biological

Good - we're not far apart on this, then.

Potentially none at all, I would imagine. Having a baby after you've been alive for a few decades doesn't, for example, affect how you understand gravity up until that point (and probably afterwards).

...and on mating decisions?

...inter- and intra-sex social structures?

...preferred day-to-day activities?

You are right that it doesn't overly much change our approach to abstract physics problems.

Both explanations predict this exactly. Learning begins absolutely immediately and due to the sensitivity of babies' brains, these can form serious associations that last for a long time.

This is a specific difference in the predictions of nativist vs. learned models of behaviour. Generally speaking, the nativist prediction is that babies will demonstrate gender differences, the learned is that babies will show no difference until a learning environment is provided. Do you agree with my framing?

If so, there is a point at which babies would have to be so sensitive to stimulus, that the learned argument itself becomes absurd. Where, specifically, would you put that point, for which stimulus?

To tether it back to what we're talking about, in a modern day, gender-egalitarian household, where parents make sure both trucks and dolls are available for play, how long would it take for a toy preference to develop, and where would that stimulus come from?

Re: Baron-Cohen vs. Fine

I haven't read Fine's book - so won't comment on it. I mainly wanted to highlight his response to Fine's criticism of his study.

Re: general-process vs. modularity

I think we talked past each other a bit here - some portion of the brain is general-process, but the overall design architecture (I would say) is modular. Are you familiar with the Wasson hypothesis testing experiments? Or Cosmides and Tooby's interpretation of such?

I'm not sure you want to present POTS as an argument, it's a fairly well-discredited idea now and even when it was proposed it wasn't even logically sound.

I very much do - and I don't generally trust assertions that ideas are "discredited." Ideas are discredited often for ideological or political reasons that have nothing to do with science.

Re: pink blanket

Thanks for providing something specific. And I'll accept that model as something that may amplify or hurry the development of gendered behaviours. I guess I'd refer to my questions above wrt the limitation of what can be broadcast unconsciously by adults.

Lastly: what's your take on David Reimer?

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

...and on mating decisions? ...inter- and intra-sex social structures? ...preferred day-to-day activities? You are right that it doesn't overly much change our approach to abstract physics problems.

I see no reason why it would necessarily cause differences in those areas. To be clear, I'm not saying that the behaviors are learnt, just that there is no rational or logical way to argue that any cross-cultural behavior is evidence of innateness.

This is a specific difference in the predictions of nativist vs. learned models of behaviour. Generally speaking, the nativist prediction is that babies will demonstrate gender differences, the learned is that babies will show no difference until a learning environment is provided. Do you agree with my framing?

I think you're painting the learning account into too much of a blank slate view. Most learning theorists I've worked with on this issue are simply skeptical of specific biological claims of causing gender differences, they don't argue that biology plays no role.

The point is that often biological explanations will overlook the learning alternative by painting a strawman - for example, I've seen studies looking at gender differences which suggest that the findings are probably innate because the subjects are 6 months old and too young to learn such differences.

Obviously this is an absurd understanding of the role that learning plays and the main problem is that scientific research is designed so that ideas are set up to be falsified - if you don't test it against real alternative explanations, then your idea isn't actually being tested and the evidence is worthless.

If so, there is a point at which babies would have to be so sensitive to stimulus, that the learned argument itself becomes absurd. Where, specifically, would you put that point, for which stimulus?

Can you expand on this? Why would they have to be "so sensitive to stimulus"? What 'stimulus'? And why would that make learning absurd?

To tether it back to what we're talking about, in a modern day, gender-egalitarian household, where parents make sure both trucks and dolls are available for play, how long would it take for a toy preference to develop, and where would that stimulus come from?

The problem here is that very few people actually even bother trying this so we have little evidence to work from, but even when they do try it they start with an understanding of what those gender differences are supposed to be which necessarily affects their behvior, and they usually can't control the behavior of nurses, doctors, grandparents, friends, playmates, etc, who will reinforce gender norms.

I think we talked past each other a bit here - some portion of the brain is general-process, but the overall design architecture (I would say) is modular.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Just to be clear, you know that evolutionary psychologists have largely dropped the more literal understanding of modular mind (that brain structures are specialised for certain functions, due to the dwindling evidence in favour of it) and instead now take a broader approach of simply dividing up relevant mental processes into useful categories to work from when looking at particular questions.

Are you familiar with the Wasson hypothesis testing experiments? Or Cosmides and Tooby's interpretation of such?

You mean the Wason selection task that Cosmides tried to use to support the notion of a cheater-detection module? I know of it, yes, and when it was disproved years ago it was a pretty brutal takedown by Sperber and co.

I very much do - and I don't generally trust assertions that ideas are "discredited." Ideas are discredited often for ideological or political reasons that have nothing to do with science.

Actually the opposite. The problem with POTS is that it was proposed for entirely ideological reasons (Chomsky's bias on the topic) and it could never find any evidential support. When the vast wealth of data went quite clearly against POTS, people rejected Chomsky's argument rather reluctantly because initially they thought it was true.

Thanks for providing something specific. And I'll accept that model as something that may amplify or hurry the development of gendered behaviours. I guess I'd refer to my questions above wrt the limitation of what can be broadcast unconsciously by adults.

I'm not sure where exactly the 'limitation' is but we do know that unconscious beliefs can have massive effects on the behavior of others. For example, if you haven't read the research on how the idea of 'experimenter bias' came about, then I recommend looking it up (otherwise known as the Hawthorne effect).

Lastly: what's your take on David Reimer[1] ?

My take is that people tend to bring David up in gender debates when they have little to no understanding of what actually happened. That is, they try to use the fact that he was depressed and killed himself as evidence that trying to raise someone as a different gender will never work and can have harmful effects.

Of course, they fail to recognise the fact that both the parents knew what sex he was born as, as did all of his doctors and Money, and of course the depression and eventual suicide was most likely the result of the years of sexual abuse he faced as a result of being "treated" by Money, whose therapy mostly consisted of making David have sex with his brother.

In other words, hardly convincing evidence of anything at all, in my opinion.

[–]roe_Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

At this point, I'm basically asking questions cause I'm trying to figure out how an "unconscious learning" hypothesis should control my anticipation.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean here.

It seems really hand-wavy to me right now, without much in the way of positive evidence.

That's because I don't need positive evidence because I'm not making a claim, I'm simply pointing out a confound that needs to be controlled for by nativist studies.

The hand waving is actually coming from people trying to speak beyond the data and saying that there is positive evidence of innate causes, but they do so without even attempting to account for learning alternatives.

Instead of performing a true experiment by attempting to falsify one explanation or the other, it's like they've gone back to pre-20th century verificationist science based on the assumption that you can reject an entire hypothesis on the argument from ignorance (I.e "I can't understand how learning could explain the data therefore it can't").

[–]roe_Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

By "control my anticipation" - I mean, if I were in a position of having to design policies based on probabilistic assessments of the aggregate evidence, what would I do? How do I operationalize the knowledge? (I have somewhat personal motives at stake - I'm raising two girls)

I'd argue that trying to build policies, or raise children, on aggregated evidence of biological constraints would be a hugely impractical and potentially harmful - even if the evidence supports the biological explanation.

The reason for this is that we can't change biology but we know that environmental factors play a large enough role that focusing our efforts there will yield the largest results. This is especially true when applied to individuals rather than groups, like your daughters, because there is no reason at all to think that the aggregated data has any relevance to them at all.

In other words, even if it's true that boys prefer mechanical toys and girls prefer dolls in general, there is no need or purpose to specifically encouraging these toy preferences. If you give them a number of options and even with free choice they choose gender typical toys then there's nothing lost. If you limit their choices to gender typical toys then you might inadvertently push them down a path that does not personally suit their needs and desires.

[–]roe_Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tremenfing0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tremenfing0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anextio9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No, sorry but no. The way they immediately question the ulterior motives of the other researchers right after their opinions are presented is not edited in at all.

Questioning the ulterior motives is absolutely warranted though because, as demonstrated, the studies were flawed and the logic was shoddy.

The fact that they directly refuse to engage the bio viewpoint because they are not interested in it is out of their mouths.

That's because they were sociologists... Why would they care about biology? It's completely irrelevant to what they're studying. And to be clear, this does not mean that biology does not affect the things that sociologists study but rather they are studying a different aspect of it.

That was part of the reason why the documentary is so biased. It interviews a sociologist, the sociologist says that they're mostly interested in sociological explanations for behavior, and the host thinks he's bagged the story of a lifetime.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this (literally, I don't understand how the sentence is constructed).

Sorry, I was on my phone and autocorrect made a typo - the "talked" should say "failed".

The bio side repeatedly said that they think there is undeniable evidence for some influence of biology in behavior, although I don't recall any of them ever saying that biology was the only factor or that nurture wasn't a factor.

The problem is: 1) they didn't present any evidence for their claim, and 2) none of the other side claimed that nature wasn't a factor either.

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What? No, that's not how science works. Areas are specialised precisely because it's near-impossible for anyone to get the knowledge required to do vast interdisciplinary work all the time and arguably it would be detrimental to the progress of science to change our research paths to something so vague.

More simply, it is not a problem that sociologists study sociology and biologists study biology. It's not bias, or ignoring explanations; it is specialisation. To put is another way, are you going to criticise biology for not incorporating physics into their day-to-day work?

You are confusing specialisation with ignoring the relevance of other fields. Like the sociologists in the documentary said, biology is still relevant and important, it's just not always directly relevant to what they are studying. Similarly just because biologists typically ignore sociological explanations for behavior, it doesn't mean that they are biased or that they are doing it wrong. They are biologists not sociologists.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingFlew0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

To put is another way, are you going to criticise biology for not incorporating physics into their day-to-day work?

I would criticize any biologist trying to understand the origin of life saying "there is no room for chemistry in my field." There was actually a time where organic and inorganic compounds were believe to be inherently different. I took a big part of XIX century to convince biologist that life was just a chemical reaction, like any other. Philosophers and natural philosophers (pre-biology) discussed the nature of life for centuries, but it was chemistry, not biology, the one that settled the problem.

Likewise, the existence of human nature and gender doesn't seem to be something that sociologists can figure out using their normal tools. If there is something deeply rooted in human brain that ties gender to sex, it seems natural to study it from a biological point of view.

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link