Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Willfor]

Because I thought you were saying that it was possible for these traits to be purely genetic. Which would be something that I would find to be stupid. That's my problem.

[DJ]

Just how much does endocrine gland activity depend on the social context? Hormone levels play a big part in personality (as in, what you're like, not what you know and what you think), as evidenced by personality changes in people with diseases that mess up the hormone balance.

[Ogdibus]

.

[Graknorke]

Because I thought you were saying that it was possible for these traits to be purely genetic. Which would be something that I would find to be stupid. That's my problem.

They're certainly influenced by genetics. Which is the point that the other posters were making on the last page.

[Glowcat]

Most feminists seem to want to deny evo-psy outright

Because for the most part it's useless pseudoscience that justifies stupid sexist viewpoints.  None of the assertions you've made are remotely testable, they're "just so" stories that only work if you assume they're right.

And also pushing an extremely far-fetched idea that these traits aren't just passed down but somehow sexually dimorphic. It's like these people forget women are humans too. Good evolutionary psychology doesn't go looking for long shot conclusions which always seem to try justifying backwards social views.

[Mlamlah]

The differences in brain chemistry in most areas is marginal, small enough that if people began artificially ingesting those chemicals they would adapt to the differences. It has been also been found that people can to a certain degree control their own brain chemistry through conscious thought. Brain chemistry is also changed by the emotional habits of an individual.
A good and relatively common real world example can be found in transitioning transgendered people, as they begin ingesting the hormones to bring about physical changes in the body they do experience certain changes in personality from time to time, including mood swings. However, over time, they *adapt* to those changes and reach mental normalization again.
Brain chemistry doesn't seem like a terribly strong argument for the differences between men and females.

[Helgoland]

There's a kind if fish in the Great Seas of Africa (bear with me for a moment) called Cichlids; they display a stunning amount of sexual dimorphism. Of course in humans the differences are quite small, but still we should remember that we're basically animals.

The fun point that many people (on both sides of the debate, and in other debates as well) miss is: The differences only tell us something about the average person! Even if it were found out that, to use a provocative example, black people were on average less intelligent, that would tell you nothing about your new co-worker who happens to be African-American.
TL;DR: Although there are differences, they don't matter when looking at the individuum.

[Glowcat]

There's a kind if fish in the Great Seas of Africa (bear with me for a moment) called Cichlids; they display a stunning amount of sexual dimorphism. Of course in humans the differences are quite small, but still we should remember that we're basically animals.

Kinda irrelevant to the argument that sexually dimorphic traits are passed down via evolution to fill certain niches, if you intended to put that forth as consideration in the evo-psych discussion. While it's always possible for traits to pass along sexual dimorphism it's much harder to make a case that those traits are establishing some sort of evolutionary fitness which ends up causing further differentiation between sexes of the same species. And the reasoning bad evo-psych types use to get there with the data they have available is worthy of a hundred facepalms.

[Hiiri]

The fun point that many people (on both sides of the debate, and in other debates as well) miss is: The differences only tell us something about the average person! Even if it were found out that, to use a provocative example, black people were on average less intelligent, that would tell you nothing about your new co-worker who happens to be African-American.
TL;DR: Although there are differences, they don't matter when looking at the individuum.

You should put this part in bold. You know, just to save time and avoid the Nazi discussion.

[Virex]

It's blatantly false that either gender is more emotional than the other (though there are some correlative differences in expression).

Well there are numerous studies that both support and refute this. In what's grown from hunter gather societies to patriarchies, it makes sense that the males would be more emotionally reserved to be able to hunt and fight whilst the females instinctively try to care.

You're forgetting that for a long time, emotion and passion were the field of males, while women were expected to be stoic. If gender roles can flip so quickly, then clearly genes are not the only deciding factor at work here. This appears to be typical of many arguments supposedly supported by evopsych. Apparently, humans are capable of going against there genes.
A bigger gripe I have with evopsych, or more specifically, the use of evopsych in discussions like these is that it is using a descriptive theory as normative. So what if males are on average better runners? Does that mean that women should not aspire to be runners? Should only those that are genetically best suited for a certain position aspire to fulfill that position? That seems backwards to me.

[Helgoland]

A bigger gripe I have with evopsych, or more specifically, the use of evopsych in discussions like these is that it is using a descriptive theory as normative. So what if males are on average better runners? Does that mean that women should not aspire to be runners? Should only those that are genetically best suited for a certain position aspire to fulfill that position? That seems backwards to me.

Not if they are geneticallyy best suited, no; but when they are actually better suited it's alright - that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, of course. There's some special forces in the army that have no rule against women, but no woman has ever passed the entry test.
Sadly, the conclusion was to lower the requirements for women.

[dei]

Yeah, people *should* be nice. They're not, though.

Actually I think it's a good think when thinking about political questions to consider the people basically cattle: There's no point in saying 'should', 'ought to' etc.; the only way we can ever change anything is by force (prohibitions, taxes, other laws) and by education/indoctrination. (This probably sounds kind of evil because of the connotations, but indoctrination and use of force is not evil when done in the name of good, right? Right?)

So in conclusion: Keep teaching kids to respect everyone, and wait ~30 years.

The problem is that a lot of people aren't fit to be parents. They don't take the time to teach their kids common courtesy, respectful behavior and common sense. Back when I was a kid I was one of two children I knew who even said please, thank you or excuse me and that was because my mother taught my brother and I how to be polite, courteous and respectful.

Just the other day a child who was maybe eleven or twelve years old said he would kill me if I look at him funny and then called me a nigger. I hear children throw that word around or some variation of it all the time, and these are kids who are about eight to thirteen years old. They never say excuse me and instead block the street like they're the decoy FBI team that gets sent out with the stealth team, the one that uses aggression tactics to get you upset so you slip up and do something that actually does get you picked up by the party van. They blatantly stare at people who look different, point and laugh at them like they're they're some geek biting the head off of a chicken. I saw two children who looked to be about six or seven do this to a man who had Multiple Sclerosis and was having difficulties carrying his groceries just yesterday.

I don't think it's the childrens' fault. It's the parents' fault for not teaching their children manners, courtesy and respect. In the mid-nineties my mother's ex-boyfriend had a five-year-old daughter who was more polite than half of the people my age. Kaylee never even threw fits because she was so well-behaved. And this was because her father taught her manners, courtesy and respectful behavior.

Like I said, most people are not fit to be parents. I've known perhaps two or three people who were good parents in my entire lifetime, and the rest of them either treated their children like property or just didn't have a fucking clue what they were doing. Therefore I seriously doubt that we'll be able to eliminate discrimination within the next thirty years just by teaching our children how to respect one another.

I'm sorry if this post doesn't make too much sense or offends some people. I have a really bad cold and I also have a lot of back pain right now. In fact, after I check out the Terrible Jokes thread I'm going to lie down.

[Descan]

I still think Dei needs a hug.

[penguinofhonor]

It's blatantly false that either gender is more emotional than the other (though there are some correlative differences in expression).

Well there are numerous studies that both support and refute this. In what's grown from hunter gather societies to patriarchies, it makes sense that the males would be more emotionally reserved to be able to hunt and fight whilst the females instinctively try to care.

You're forgetting that for a long time, emotion and passion were the field of males, while women were expected to be stoic. If gender roles can flip so quickly, then clearly genes are not the only deciding factor at work here. This appears to be typical of many arguments supposedly supported by evopsych. Apparently, humans are capable of going against there genes.

This is pretty much my biggest gripe with evo psych. There's no analysis of gender roles throughout history and across different societies to find constants that may have a genetic origin. They just look at 1950's America and justify that with hunter-gatherer anecdotes.

[dei]

I still think Dei needs a hug.

I get them from my landlady and a Mr. Wrinkles plush I've had since I was ten months old. My stress levels have actually gone down in the past five weeks since I've been getting hugs to the point where my hyposidrotic eczema has almost cleared up and I've only had three nightmares and one panic attack since then. Thanks for the consideration though.