Print

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

[Kay12]

Ascribing those differences to cultural reasons, as Virex wants to do, is false and harmful to the good cause. Women just don't like engineering as much as men do, on average. Regardless of upbringing or culture.

You'll have a damn hard time proving this, as no one grows up without cultural influence.


Personally I'm VERY adamant in the opinion that the differences between men and women, psychologically, are vastly overblown. Girls like dolls and boys like toy trucks as children not because of any biological difference, but because that's what they see other children playing with. Extend that to things like hobbies or career choices later in life.

Actually they've observed female monkeys liking dolls more than male monkeys, probably because handling infants is something our cousins usually leave to their mother - arguably a natural choice, since the mother is equipped for breastfeeding. And yes, I believe there to be culture-independent psychological differences between the sexes. On the average, that is. Humans are a varying bunch, there are plenty of exceptions all around.

[kaijyuu]

Actually they've observed female monkeys liking dolls more than male monkeys, probably because handling infants is something our cousins usually leave to their mother - arguably a natural choice, since the mother is equipped for breastfeeding. And yes, I believe there to be culture-independent psychological differences between the sexes. On the average, that is. Humans are a varying bunch, there are plenty of exceptions all around.

See a much better way to attack my argument.

Alright I'll accept that; lets switch from toys to media. There's definitely a gender difference in what type of stories people like to listen to: men are into action movies, women into romance. These things I won't call (entirely) cultural because there's a logical base for why it might be: historically, men were hunters and warriors, while women raised kids and dealt with families. Evolution had good reason to make them more likely to be interested in such things.

I still say it's vastly overblown, however.

[Virex]

Monkeys also have a culture though so that doesn't prove much either.


Also that comic has reminded me that I've been rather egoistic in this thread. Therefor I would like to apologize to anyone I may have offended, as it was not my intent to do so.

[Siquo]

You're right I don't have kids. Now stop trying to discredit me and instead attack my assertion.


I'm also calling bullshit on that previous comic. Self esteem issues are the last thing that are split by gender (though I'll concede they tend to deal with it in different ways; men don't deal with their self esteem in front of a mirror as often).

The mirror thing has actually been researched: http://www.sirc.org/publik/mirror.html. Fakeedit: the evolutionary psychology approach is "making up reasons" instead of looking at what's there. It should come after the observation, not up front.

The children's affinity has also been researched, and at a very young age where they either can't tell genders yet or haven't met a lot of them. My assertion that you don't have children should have been enough: if you did have them you'd have noticed that. I really really REALLY tried to get my girl to like cars. She sometimes plays with em, but most of the time she won't.

Virex, monkeys do not have a culture sophisticated enough that somehow in a controlled laboratory experiment where monkeys who can't tell gender yet and are too young to pick up on culture are influenced by it.

[Reelyanoob]

With "prettier" I mostly mean "looks nicer but still covers the subject", not "nonsense". It's about being gullible, not stupid

That's marketing, which both sexes can be maniupulated by. Maybe both sexes are equally gullible but previously the name was targetted to boys (because less female students in the old days). Now with more females going on to higher studies and the workforce the marketing needs to be changed to get them interested as well. Also, the course content probably contains quite a bit of reference to the environment (modern electrical engineering needs to take environmental impact into account).

No proof of females being more gullible there, just different ideas appealling to them. It's like a book which could have different covers which appeal to male / female (the name of the course), then you flip the book over and read the blurb (the list of subjects / electives). The "cover"/course name gets you interested initially, but you're not dedicating several years of your life to a course without considering the contents and what you want to do with it.

I'm sure if you named the course "energy and boobs" you'd get more gullible males interested.

[olemars]

It's nothing to do with the name being "pretty" at all, that has nothing to do with it. It's that "Energy and the environment" implies a relation to the real world. Usually these studies (of gender-variable choices) have found that females are more likely to talk about wanting to do things which are "meaningful", "making a difference" whereas males tend to be more interested in abstract ideas. Holistic vs Abstract. So it's no surprise that putting the name into a real-world context is more appealing to females.

Presumably, the females initially consider that course because the name implies you can make a difference for the actual environment, not because they think the word "environment" is pretty. It's a form of advertising after all.

Would be interesting to know if what you're saying here holds water when these girls finish their studies and start looking for work. In the cases I know of it does not, they generally ended up in the same kind of jobs as the boys in the same study programme.

[Reelyanoob]

Not being able to predict your job choices before embarking on a course is something both sexes can suffer from. Often the subject matter of the course gives you many potential job routes which sound appealing, but those jobs might just not be there.

[Siquo]

That's marketing, which both sexes can be maniupulated by. Maybe both sexes are equally gullible but previously the name was targetted to boys (because less female students in the old days).

Ah, but my point was that the (arche)typical male electrical engineer won't care about the name, but about the content. The only way that could be wrong is if the new-named-study had significantly less males signing up as before. I'm not comparing the entire sexes, just a subset of the male sex versus the female sex. That subset won't include a lot of people who'd fall for "energy&boobs".

[RedKing]

My daughter is into Spiderman and superheroes and rocketships (and thanks to me, watching old, "violent" cartoons like Looney Tunes and Tom & Jerry). She also has Disney Princess stuff, but doesn't really do the whole "dress-up" thing. Her aunt bought her a plastic "tea party" set (the kind with dishes and plates and doilies, not with Bachmann). She mostly uses it to pretend-cook rather than hold parties.

My son cuddles with baby dolls. And with most any kind of stuffed animal, especially any that he sees his sister playing with. He is also near-obsessed with dogs, because it's one of the few words he knows. He will push a car/lawn mower/baby stroller with equal gusto.


My point is, kids really don't have a predilection towards liking certain toys or certain activities at a very young age. What develops later is mostly socialized. And even then, it can be counteracted by their own innate nature or by counter-socialization. My daughter's not a "girly-girl" by any stretch of the imagination, despite having pink everything. She actually prefers playing with the boys at her preschool, because they're more accepting of her interests and play more interesting, active games. But at the same time she's not a "tomboy".

My son is definitely "a boy" in the sense that he is more physically aggressive than she was at this age, and more prone to getting into things he's not supposed to. But AFAIK, he still doesn't even have a conception of gender. He calls me "Mommy" as much as he does "Daddy".

If there's anything that having kids (especially one of each) has shown it's that the evolutionary biology arguments are mostly bullshit. There is some physical difference (aggression levels, for instance) in the aggregate, although not necessarily applicable for every single individual. There's a boy in my daughter's class who cries at the drop of a hat and is utterly passive. But socialization (and in our case, deliberate efforts to avoid gender-stereotypical socialization at home) plays a much bigger role.

[Siquo]

There is some physical difference (aggression levels, for instance) in the aggregate, although not necessarily applicable for every single individual.

Yeah, that's what on average means
However, you just said that A. they have a preference and then conclude B. there's no such thing as a predilection.
I have not been able to stop mine from roleplaying with even the best of efforts. She just keeps doing stories. If I give her two cars she'll just make them talk to eachother... 

[Reelyanoob]

Of course there's a middle-ground and exceptions, but i'll point you back to the studies of pre-natal testosterone levels (decreases verbal ability in males or females, and other effects) and of adult males sniffing female brain hormone Oxytocin (measurably increases ability to read facial emotions, amongst other things).

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/?ttype=2&tid=10123

Prenatal Testosterone in Mind
Amniotic Fluid Studies
Simon Baron-Cohen, Svetlana Lutchmaya and Rebecca Knickmeyer

 Table of Contents and Sample Chapters

This pioneering study looks at the effects of prenatal testosterone on postnatal development and behavior. Hormonal effects on behavior have long been studied in animals; the unique contribution of this book is to suggest a connection between human fetal hormones and later behavior. It details for the first time testosterone's effect on social and language development, opening a new avenue of research for cognitive neuroscience.

The authors look at samples of amniotic fluid taken during amniocentesis at 16 weeks' gestation, and relate the fetal level of testosterone (which is present in fetuses of both sexes, although in different quantities) to behavior at ages 1, 2, and 4 years. They argue that the amniotic fluid provides a window into the child's past—a chemical record of that child's time in the womb—that allows informed prediction about the child's future brain, mind, and behavior. This is not the retrospective speculation of psychoanalysis, they point out, but an opportunity to study development prospectively and trace developmental precursors and causes of later cognition.

The study suggests that prenatal levels of testosterone affect a range of later behaviors in children, from the inclination to make eye contact with others to the size of the vocabulary. It also suggests that prenatal testosterone level may be related to the development of typically "masculine" and "feminine" behaviors. The study's ongoing research explores whether fetal testosterone has any link with the risk of developing autism. Connecting endocrinology and psychology, the authors propose that there is a biological component to behaviors often thought to be produced by the social environment.

Later studies have correlated effects of pre-natal testosterone into the teen years.

[RedKing]

There is some physical difference (aggression levels, for instance) in the aggregate, although not necessarily applicable for every single individual.

Yeah, that's what on average means
However, you just said that A. they have a preference and then conclude B. there's no such thing as a predilection.
I have not been able to stop mine from roleplaying with even the best of efforts. She just keeps doing stories. If I give her two cars she'll just make them talk to eachother... 

No, I said they have a personal preference and concluded that there's no such thing as a gender-inherent predilection.


@Reelyanoob:

I know it's an old saw, but correlation does not equal causation. I'd have to see repeated experimental data with male fetuses with abnormally low testosterone and female fetuses with abnormally high testosterone, and then see their growth and development tracked out over the formative years. And adjusted for socialization influences.

Otherwise, all they're saying is "Boys have more testosterone than girls. Boys have less verbal ability and exhibit more masculine behaviors (in part, because they're socialized to 'be boys'). Ergo, higher testosterone correlates with less verbal ability and masculine behavior." It borders on circular logic with some molecular biology thrown in. You could do a similar study correlating these characteristics with the number of X chromosomes and get more or less the same result.

[Reelyanoob]

Well, seeing as how pre-natal testosterone levels seems to be correlated with a number of cliche "male" behaviours, and is also correlated with actually being male, I'd say that's just semantics / political correctness.

[kaijyuu]

The mirror thing has actually been researched: http://www.sirc.org/publik/mirror.html.

Body image is far from the only factor in self esteem. So yeah, I concede the findings of that study: women tend to be more worried about it. Men will be concerned about other things relating to self esteem.

Fakeedit: the evolutionary psychology approach is "making up reasons" instead of looking at what's there. It should come after the observation, not up front.

The children's affinity has also been researched, and at a very young age where they either can't tell genders yet or haven't met a lot of them. My assertion that you don't have children should have been enough: if you did have them you'd have noticed that. I really really REALLY tried to get my girl to like cars. She sometimes plays with em, but most of the time she won't.

Empiricism isn't the only way to come to logical conclusions, you realize? I'll accept that I haven't proven anything by bringing up a logical explanation for why things might be (so you're more than justified in being skeptical), but "making up reasons"? Ha.


Anyway, two things.

First I already concede that there are psychological gender differences, so an "affinity" would not be surprising to me. What WOULD be surprising is if these studies show the gender split we see in society.
Secondly, anecdotal evidence concerning your daughter. Normally I wouldn't point that out as I'm perfectly fine with personal examples, but I think you're putting too much weight on personal experience here. Neither I or you are experts on child psychology, so we'll have to rely on actual logic, debate, and example rather than "whoever's got the best credentials is right."

Virex, monkeys do not have a culture sophisticated enough that somehow in a controlled laboratory experiment where monkeys who can't tell gender yet and are too young to pick up on culture are influenced by it.

Pretty much false here, from both of you; monkeys do have a culture, and yes their children will be influenced by it. However, their culture is no where near as influential on behavior as ours is. So yes the initial point about monkeys was valid, and no their culture will not have enough influence to distort the findings (much), and yes cultural influence exists even there.

[Andir]

There is some physical difference (aggression levels, for instance)

That, in itself, would lead to the notion that parents treat their children differently.  Taking that into consideration, most parents would act swifter towards a boy than a girl because the boy would act more aggressively.  If a boy would bite where a girl would hit, the punishment for each would be different enough to continue that aggression... to teach the boy that a harsh response is needed to resolve aggression.

Also, let's say you had a boy who bit someone.  You punish him just as you'd punish a girl for the same thing?  Likely not.  I've not seen it in most parenting situations.  My nieces get off with a verbal warning when they bite.  Nephews get a spank.  That's not to say my nieces don't get a spank every now and then... but it usually takes a bit more prodding.