~ archived since 2018 ~

Woman as solipsistic.

SolluxCaptor2

October 30, 2013

24 upvotes

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1m6b5q/the_male_experience/

The above is a post from the founder of TRP. Basically, it states that women in general believe that their experience of the world is universal, and they get angry when the evidence doesn't conform to this preconceived idea.

Then, near the end of the post, there is this lovely bit: 'The purple pill debate sub spent most of their time trying to explain why we're wrong. My main contention was: I don't really care, this was my experience. They couldn't fathom that I could hold my experience higher than their solipsistic statistical analysis.'

THIS IS SOLIPSISM! This man honestly believes that his experience is more important than the experiences of hundreds of other people. This is hypocritical, and if I may say, reflective of the type of individual that inhabits the sub. RP'ers are the first to use stats in incredibly inappropriate ways to back up their views.

But this is just my opinion. Discuss.

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Woman as solipsistic.
Author	SolluxCaptor2
Upvotes	24
Comments	62
Date	October 30, 2013 2:38 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1pjh94/woman_as_solipsistic/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/woman-as-solipsistic.286672 https://theredarchive.com/post/286672

Comments

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)22 points23 points24 points 12 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

Also I've never met one individual on this sub that thought men don't have gender related issue. The problems that TRP describes are very real. The difference between me and them is my solution to those problems. The issue as I see it is this:

The lie that women are nicer/kinder than men. This simply isn't true, but it does seem to be perpetuated by society.
The lie that women are more interested in personality than looks. Both men and women are primarily attracted to physical qualities. Women may be more complicated in this area, but physical attraction is still numero uno.
The gender related inequalities that hurt men. The idea that men are supposed to pay for things, the idea that men are expected to be productive, the idea that men should spend less time with their kids, the remaining discrimination in the legal structure.

These are very real gender issues, however I disagree that TRP is the best way to solve them. TRP basically teaches that women will be women and us men have to adapt our strategy to their innate instincts.

I, however, think that we should educate people about gender issues. We should give men the ability to look at things through a women's perspective and women the ability to look at things through a man's perspective. Both sexes are capable of high levels of empathy, but this empathy has to be taught. Through this type of education, we can learn how men and women really differ, while also eliminating harmful gender profiling and stereotypes.

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

I like your post, but one point I wanted to respond to:

we can learn how men and women really differ, while also eliminating harmful gender profiling and stereotypes.

This assumption that there is some "core difference" in kinds is shouldn't just be presumed. Unless you're talking about a very limited class of issues in which sex is a determinate factor (certain diseases and women's (essentially) exclusive ability to carry a pregnancy), then there isn't some platonic ideal of "male" and "female" to compare against one another. Human attributes appear at varying frequencies, and some attributes have higher degrees of frequency based on whether you have an XY or XX chromosome pair. And those same attributes will also have varying frequencies on the basis of entirely different factors.

That's all "gender differences" actually amount to. Statistical tendencies in populations. It's important to remember that the statistics that you may know about a group in no way control or dictate the attributes of any given person you happen to encounter, as generalizations about gender are not predictive at the individual level.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]poffin6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here are some gendered examples of female hypoagency from this site:

WAR – This is the claim that “men start wars” and that war is a male problem that men foist off onto innocent civilian bystanders. This relies on a completely uninformed and naïve understanding of war as some kind of sport that all those rough boys go off and do and the stray rounds fall on peace-loving innocent bystanders – in other words a complete denial of the benefits that women and others on the winning side derive from war, and a denial of women’s role in sending men to war.

POLITICS – This is the claim that men have all the power because they hold the majority of political office, despite the fact that women outnumber men as voters, so are responsible for all these male politicians being voted in. This ignores the troublesome fact that women make up the majority of voters. The engrained belief in hypoagency is what makes this denialism possible.

BENEVOLENT SEXISM – Every time women enjoy any kind of advantage due to gender – “privilege” – that has to be spun as being due to male action, or else it has to be spun as some kind of disadvantage. Labeling an advantage “benevolent sexism” accomplishes that.

And here's KarenStraughan's take on female hypoagency

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

That's all "gender differences" actually amount to. Statistical tendencies in populations. It's important to remember that the statistics that you may know about a group in no way control or dictate the attributes of any given person you happen to encounter, as generalizations about gender are not predictive at the individual level.

I've said that exact thing, almost word-for-word, many times. Blue pillers still get angry though. You guys get angry over any discussion of statistical differences.

Here's why we are interested in those statistical differences - as a guy, we are playing a numbers game, in a way that you may never be able to understand. Blue pillers like to scream, "no! not all women are like that!!" but that's not helpful to me. What is helpful to me is understanding what most women are like.

Let's use height as a (hopefully not controversial) example. As you know, women tend to be shorter than men. For this hypothetical, imagine that something I'm doing when I interact with women depends on height. I scratch my head and say, "gosh, I don't understand why I'm failing all the time!"

TRP comes along and says, "well dude, most women are shorter than you. You need to account for that." That's actual, helpful information.

Blue pillers scream, "no! stop saying that!! not all women are shorter than all men!! he might meet a woman who is taller than him! you're giving him bad advice!!" That's just useless information. It's a waste of everyone's time.

Should I happen to meet a woman my height or taller, awesome! But chances are, the women I meet will be shorter than me, and I need to understand that. But you blue pillers get angry when we talk about it.

[–]Bonig9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's stay with your example and let me illustrate how I perceive the common trp discourse.

You are being helped with your problem: "Women are shorter than men." As soon as someone states "Not all women are shorter than men, my girl friend is as tall as I am and I've seen a woman even taller than me the other day" he is choked off with "Nawalt! Your argument it's invalid."

You may understand that this pisses off not only tall women, but also those who know at least one tall woman, because you devalue their experiences and observations.

Moreover, there is an important flaw in your analogy: the height is easily measurable, but personal traits and character are not. So when somebody wants to help you with "Women are funnier than men", those who know at least one boring women will not only state their own opinion but may also ask for a source for yours. If it then turns out that there isn't a valid source to prove that women are in fact funnier, but opposing statements are still rejected, please understand that this pisses people off even more, no matter how useful the assumption of a funny woman was for you in the first place.

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

find an example that actually demonstrates that

No.

The reason I picked height is so that we could discuss the usefulness of generalizations without having to argue about the validity of any particular generalization. I'm trying to keep you on topic.

Height works perfectly for my purpose, so we'll continue to use it.

In my hypothetical example, there is something about height that has to be taken into consideration by a male when seeking a relationship with a woman. But this hypothetical male is blind to height. He cannot just look at the woman he's talking to and say, "oh wait, she's short, I should (do whatever)."

Because he doesn't make the necessary adjustments, he fails women women. He becomes frustrated by his failure. TRP explains his failure to him by making a generalization about women, and suggesting a way that he can modify his behavior.

Blue pillers become offended at the generalization. They point out the fact that some women are tall, and that some men are short.

The point of this story is that the blue piller's objection is a waste of everyone's time. The point of the story is that the generalization is useful, even though it doesn't apply to everyone.

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're right, I edited my response to clarify the "all" statement.

Your hypothetical proves why your premise is absurd, though. If these secret generalizations that you have in mind are so debatable that you can't even confidently say they apply to > 50% of the population, why do you feel justified in assuming that any individual in that category you encounter will have that attribute?

If someone is walking around doing things that annoy short people, then he is not going to improve his situation by deciding to avoid the thing that annoys short people whenever he is around women. A rational individual will realize his error and correct it by not doing this thing around people who are short. By treating the people he encounters as individuals, he increases his accuracy a huge amount.

People get annoyed when they are assumed to have characteristics that they don't have, on the basis of irrelevant attributes. And making generalizations is a horrible strategy for dealing with people, when compared to taking the time to look at the people you are dealing with and responding to their specific attributes as human beings.

The reason blue pillers are pointing out that lots of women are tall and lots of men are short is because your premise -- that you should deal with people based on gender rather than height -- is not only grossly inaccurate, it is also disrespectful. And height is far more gender-specific than any character attribute ever could be, and the absurdities of using gender as a proxy for height is obvious enough.

Again, I ask you: what is a generalized psychological attribute categories that you feel is appropriate to be regarded as a default in women, such that you assume it without knowing anything about the woman in question?

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If these secret generalizations that you have in mind are so debatable that you can't even confidently say they apply to > 50% of the population

They are not "secret" and yes, they apply to enough of the population to be useful.

But you still don't get it. You are trying to derail the conversation. I'm talking about the principal that a generalization can be useful. You want to derail that by attacking a specific generalization.

I wont talk about a specific generalization until we're finished deciding if a generalization can be useful.

To decide that, I present to you a generalization that is not controversial. It is about a trait that is easily observed. I suggest a thought experiment in which that trait is not easily observed, and I ask you to consider the possibility that the generalization is useful.

For whatever reason, this thought process completely blows your mind.

Imagine a world where people cannot easily determine each other's height. Imagine that height is somehow important in a relationship. Imagine a guy who has been told all his life that men and women are about the same height. Imagine that he is frustrated by his failures, and imagine that he is then told the truth.

Before being told the truth, he would continue to be frustrated unless and until he just so happens to meet a girl of the same height as him.

After being told the truth, he'll be more successful. He may still have problems if he happens to meet a really tall girl. But he'll have fewer failures and experience less frustration than he did before.

People get annoyed when they are assumed to have characteristics that they don't have

For perhaps the 5th time in this discussion, I'm not telling this guy to assume all women are short. I'm not telling him that when he meets a girl, she will definitely be short.

What I'm telling him is that most women are shorter than him. A girl he meets is probably shorter than him. I'm telling him to be prepared for that likelihood. That's good advice.

When he meets an actual woman, if she's taller - cool. (I've written that exact sentence more than once in this thread. Why can't you get it?)

The reason blue pillers are pointing out that lots of women are tall and lots of men are short is because your premise -- that you should deal with people based on gender rather than height -- is not only grossly inaccurate, it is also disrespectful.

Oh sure. You say that now. But when feminists say exactly the same thing, you'll be all onboard with it. I remember a discussion years ago about how trucks are built for a certain size driver. Feminists said that manufacturers should make changes so that it'd be easier for women to be truck drivers.

That's basically the same thing I'm saying. If you're a truck (a male) and you're frustrated by your failures with a certain kind of customer (women) then it is perfectly reasonable to note statistically significant characteristics of that customer (generalizations) and make changes accordingly.

[–]Archipelagi4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your height example is absurd. It is possible there is an example where what you are proposing makes sense, but I can't even begin to think of what it might be.

I know that you are saying is that "a girl [someone] meets is probably shorter than him. I'm telling him to be prepared for that likelihood." And what I am asking is why this advice would ever be beneficial or appropriate.

I make it through the day without responding to people differently based on what gender they are. So I am asking you: why do you find it necessary to use gender as a proxy for some other kind of attribute, and what attributes are these?

The height example shows how ridiculous it is to use gender, instead of height, as a default response to height-based attributes. I don't believe there are any examples that are less ridiculous, because you adamantly refuse to name one.

then it is perfectly reasonable to note statistically significant characteristics of that customer (generalizations) and make changes accordingly.

I'm not talking about statistics used to create generalized consumer products. I am talking about individual interactions with individual people. In which you can meet the person and determine their relevant attributes for yourself.

Why are you so afraid to admit what your own argument is? You seem to be terrified to disclose what sort of generalizations you believe are appropriate to make, and I'm curious why.

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your height example is absurd.

It is no more absurd than any other thought experiment. It serves its purpose perfectly - it forces you to focus on the question at hand: can a generalization constitute good advice?

The answer to that question, as the height hypothetical illustrates, is yes.

Why are you so afraid to admit what your own argument is?

lol! I've repeated my argument at least a dozen times! You're just trying to derail the argument by making it about some specific generalization so that you can say, "I disagree with that specific generalization."

Well no shit you disagree. I know that you'll disagree with every generalization I name. Believe me, I know that going into this. That's why the only possible way for us to have a discussion of the principal of generalizations is to prevent you from derailing by refusing to name a specific.

I'm dragging you, kicking and screaming, through a conversation that you desperately want to derail.

I'll restate my thesis: A generalization can be useful.

[–]AcatalepticPolemic2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Blue pillers scream, "no! stop saying that!! not all women are shorter than all men!! he might meet a woman who is taller than him! you're giving him bad advice!!" That's just useless information. It's a waste of everyone's time.

This is not useless information, nor a waste of everyone's time. It's only poor advice in the paradigm created by TRP, or more appropriately, the paradigm TRP has adopted from the same society they claim lied to them about relationships in the first place; the idea that the amount of women one beds is an indication of one's worth, and will lead to personal happiness and success.

The blue pillers you're referring might be suggesting that taking the time to foster quality relationships rather than appealing to the lowest common denominator is more conducive towards personal success, and the many successful people would agree.

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

as a guy, we are playing a numbers game, in a way that you may never be able to understand.

See, here's the thing. With the whole 'statistical differences in population' thing, the statement you just made is nonsensical. And it shows that what I am saying is not the same at all as what you have said.

There is no most women. There is no "what most women are like," there is no generalized female. These psychological differences you are apparently assuming to exist are not supported by any sort of scientific research.

What is helpful to me is understanding what most women are like.

Why? Why is this helpful? You are writing off half the entire human population into one lumpy made up category. Why is it not helpful instead to understand that people are different, and that everyone should be met as an individual person in their own right, as opposed to a representative for some amorphous category?

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

There is no "what most women are like,"

yes actually, there is.

These psychological differences you are apparently assuming to exist are not supported by any sort of scientific research.

That is laughably naive - but honestly, it's what I most love about you blue pillers. You really honestly believe that men and women are exactly the same, and that it's only our culture that makes us different.

You've been lied to.

Why? Why is this helpful?

I gave a hypothetical example. Thanks for just skipping over it entirely.

You are writing off half the entire human population

No, I'm not writing off anyone. I'm learning how best to interact with them. I'm happier. The women I meet are happier. Your biases have so colored your perception of me that you phrase it as "writing off" - that's just sad.

one lumpy made up category.

No, I'm not.

Why is it not helpful instead to understand that people are different

I do understand that. I addressed it in my hypothetical, which you apparently ignored.

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolluxCaptor2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]not_any4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolluxCaptor2[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Nope. RP likes to imagine that nature is backing them up, but we arbitrarily state that certain traits are are specific to one gender. There are plenty of deviations from the norm, such as everybody on the planet who is inter sex. We as a society just decided at some point that two groups of characteristics are 'genders' and that the were stark opposites with nothing in between. Gender is a spectrum, just like anything else.

People who have the SRY gene possess 'male' characteristics, but that does not necessarily make them 'male'. The gene can be accidentally spliced into a pair of X chromosomes, resulting in a biological woman that is physiologically male. The opposite can happen for men, having the SRY gene cut out and making a biological man that is physiologically a woman. And that's not even getting into people who have more than 2 X chromosomes.

Your sweeping 'bio-truth' assumptions are bullshit, and so is your entire mentality as an RPer.

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nope. Humans are just like every other animal. There are characteristics and behaviors that are typical to one gender or the other.

Inter-sex people are exceptions, and it's as ridiculous to use them to argue against the majority.

We as a society just decided at some point that two groups of characteristics are 'genders'

Nope. Sex hormones lead to different behaviors. I'll give you a great example - I bet you think that differences in the way men and women think about sex is entirely cultural, right? Like, it's much more common for a man to stare at a woman's ass than for a woman to stare. You probably think that's patriarchy or whatever, right?

Well, you're wrong. That's entirely a result of testosterone. And I can prove it.

opposites with nothing in between.

That's a straw man. I haven't said that and I don't believe that.

Gender is a spectrum, just like anything else.

True, but it doesn't refute anything I've said. There are these two massive clusters on that spectrum - male, and female. The clusters are caused by biology and are not socially constructed.

Your sweeping 'bio-truth' assumptions are bullshit, and so is your entire mentality as an RPer.

Your sweeping "social construction" assumptions are bullshit, and so is your entire mentality as a BPer.

[–]SolluxCaptor21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nope. Humans are just like every other animal. There are characteristics and behaviors that are typical to one gender or the other.

This is the meaningless statement at the beginning of every high school bio essay.

Nope. Sex hormones lead to different behaviors. I'll give you a great example - I bet you think that differences in the way men and women think about sex is entirely cultural, right? Like, it's much more common for a man to stare at a woman's ass than for a woman to stare. You probably think that's patriarchy or whatever, right? Well, you're wrong. That's entirely a result of testosterone. And I can prove it.

God, where do I even begin? Humanity is social, and it has learned behaviors. Mature humans simply do not rely entirely on instinct. We have higher reasoning and are capable of overcoming instinctual desire when necessary to do some more complex mental processes. Choosing to stare is half instinctual biological mechanisms and half social behaviours, because we have developed a culture where it is considered okay to do so, and we aren't slaves to our bodies. Bio-truths are a fallacious oversimplification of human psychology.

That's a straw man. I haven't said that and I don't believe that...True, but it doesn't refute anything I've said. There are these two massive clusters on that spectrum - male, and female. The clusters are caused by biology and are not socially constructed.

The fact that they are 'clusters' doesn't matter. 'Biology' does not define anything. Humanity, in its creation of the field of biology, chose binary genders because it was apparent on the most basic physical level that there tend to be only a pair of genders. We have advanced since then. See my entire diatribe on inter sex people for that. What we use to define gender is often wrong.

Answer me this: If a person looks male but has XX chromosomes, what gender are they?

Your sweeping "social construction" assumptions are bullshit, and so is your entire mentality as a BPer.

Imitation is the sincerest form of admitting that your point is bullshit.

[–]not_any1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

RP likes to imagine that nature is backing them up, but we arbitrarily state that certain traits are are specific to one gender.

Specific would be incorrect. Certain traits manifest more strongly in one gender than the other. There is not enough research regarding intersex individuals to meaningfully comment on how these traits are clustered in that subset. People are not binary, nor can individuals be accurately judged based on broad categories. Nevertheless, that does not invalidate the study of populations.

Gender may be an arbitrary name that was created to describe certain characteristics. But there are certain clusters of behaviors and predispositions that occur more often in a subset of humans that share genotype and phenotype traits. Whether they are called male or female is irrelevant. Call it donut and bagel, that does not invalidate that certain differences exist in the population that can be categorized. Categorization of large groups is always imperfect and is based on relative odds. Outliers will exist. Depending on the clustering, the differences can be more or less distinct.

The extent of the biological influences on gender is uncertain. It could be small or large, but there is evidence of some degree of biological predisposition towards certain behaviors.

[–]SolluxCaptor21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]not_any1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SolluxCaptor21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

Here's why we are interested in those statistical differences - as a guy, we are playing a numbers game, in a way that you may never be able to understand. Blue pillers like to scream, "no! not all women are like that!!" but that's not helpful to me. What is helpful to me is understanding what most women are like.

The thing is, for most measures there is more variation within genders than between genders.

Should I happen to meet a woman my height or taller, awesome! But chances are, the women I meet will be shorter than me, and I need to understand that.

That depends on your height. Maybe you're 6'4" and meeting a woman at your height or above is rare, but odds are there is some other aspect of gender difference where you're part of the extreme variance. Like even though men are on average slightly more skilled at spacial reasoning, you're on the low end and your girlfriend is better at it. Well, then she should probably be the one leading the way when you put together the Ikea furniture. But since you're not going to give all your partners a battery of tests, you're not going to know that.

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My point is that a generalization can be a helpful thing. And your reply:

The thing is, for most measures there is more variation within genders than between genders.

doesn't address that. Exactly what point do you think you're making here?

There is more genetic variation withing breeds of dogs than there is between breeds of dogs. So what? If you go shopping for a food bowl, what's the first thing the store clerk is going to ask you? "What kind of dog do you have?"

You're going to be asked that question because generalizations can be helpful as guides. The bowl that the clerk will suggest you buy for a chihuahua is smaller than the bowl he'll suggest for a mastif. That is true in spite of the fact that there's more variation within breeds than between breeds.

So as I said, you're not really making a valid point.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No two population groups, however selected, can ever be 100% alike. So saying males and females are not 100% alike doesn't state anything meaningful.

And differences in average hormone exposure (in utero and during development) is responsible for many statistical differences between men and women. But for any individual person,

As I said above, there is no abstract concept of "man" or "woman". The single defining difference between male and female is the presence of sperm cells or egg cells (and for mammals at least, the ability to gestate). That's what the definition means, and it's the only distinction that comes close to being absolute. All other distinctions are based upon varying frequencies of correlations between those two distinguishing attributes and other attributes.

Some of these correlations are quite strong (such as the configuration of external genitalia) while others are very significant but with a great deal of overlap (such as height). We do know that correlations between sex and physical attributes are much more significant than the correlations between sex and psychological attributes. The latter are harder to measure, though, as social influences cause different populations to develop different frequencies of attributes, not on the basis of the presence of eggs or sperm, but on the individual's social categorization as male or female.

As a result, given the huge degree of overlap between the sexes on every attribute other than some of the basic physiological differences (although even those can't be called universal), it is meaningless to speak of a "generalized female brain" or a "generalized male brain." There are people brains, full stop.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points3 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can't attribute all psychological differences on cultural imprints

Well a good thing I didn't, then.

Again, nothing you are talking about is addressing my point. Which is that gender is a collection of attributes that appear with greater frequency in one sex or the other. Gender differences in studies (psych studies) are overwhelmingly of small statistical significance. Review this meta study if you want more information on this. For many variables, differences between men and women are consistent and small. Of statistical significance -- the population differences are real -- but they are also marginal. Any given man and any given woman are more alike than different, and their comparative character attributes will be all over the place.

If we look at it from the perspective of evolutionary psychiatry, there is no coincidence women prefer jobs like caretaking, nursing, medicine or social work.

No way, I am not going to get into this conversation, because so help me I cannot handle these science fairy tales. You cannot use evo psych to explain the modern labor market, it is preposterous to attempt to do so. There is no dispute that gender representation in various careers is overwhelmingly affected by cultural factors, both existing and historical. Or do you think evo psych explains why women in 1900 overwhelmingly didn't go to college?

Which explains the paradox, why are women in countries with the highest equality slipping back into old gender roles when it comes to work? Like in Sweden, Norway?

No they're not, this isn't a thing. Countries with the greatest levels of individual equality also uniformly show the highest levels of gender equality.

Thus we are more likely to see a desire of women to push into male dominated jobs, in countries with less equality.

Yeah this is why there were hardly any female attorneys or doctors in that United States in 1910, and why women in Yemen are more likely to be physics professors.

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

Baron Cohen's research isn't the be all end all. I can't remember the title, but there is at least one book written in direct response to his work.

Looking at the way things are and assuming that they are natural and based in evolution is really iffy. Math achievement is a good example of why this is tricky. Large scale measurement of children's academic achievement started in the post WWII era. Initially, boys did way better in math but slowly that gap started to close until circa-2000 boys and girls scores became virtually the same. There are exceptions, like boys still tend to do slightly better in higher level math than girls in the US, but the general math level is even and the high level ability difference doesn't show up in other countries. The social changes are too new to know where things will shake out or what is natural. No one lives in a void.

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

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_12 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LucifutureCrassanova9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine1992 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]SolluxCaptor2[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine6153 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SolluxCaptor2[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

THIS IS SOLIPSISM!

Nope. Solipsism is the belief that nothing outside you exists. Solipsism is believing that you are the entire universe. That is very different than believing that your experiences are different from others, and the most relevant to your personal life.

Here's an example of solipsism (note: I choose an example in which the speaker is male)

"It's funny that women clutch their purses when I pass them on the street. There's nothing to be afraid of."

Here's an example of a similar thought, that isn't solipsistic.

"As a man, I don't have anything to be afraid of. That's my personal experience. That's why I behave the way that I do. Your experiences may be different than mine. That's fine. But I'm not going to let you tell me that I should be afraid, just because you're afraid. I live in a good neighborhood and am able to protect myself, so I'm not afraid."

[–]SolluxCaptor2[S] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link