|
On June 07 2014 07:59 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote:
I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity. Hope nobody minds me bumping this thread. The thing is, you have no reliable means of measuring whether there is equality of opportunity between men and women, even if it remains your goal. If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all. If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms. Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different. In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling, and this is why most feminist explanations for social phenomena are increasingly being dismissed. The nature of opportunity would only follow from observing results between identical groups. I think different races are close enough to identical to comment on opportunity based on results. Men and women, however, aren't close enough to identical to allow us to do this.
Erm, none of what you just said is true - that there exist extremely small biological differences between men and women doesn't prevent us in any way from studying how cultural/social factors have an impact on social/political/economical differences in how men and women are treated/live in our societies. In fact, that's exactly what gender studies (and, more broadly, social sciences) do.
|
On June 07 2014 22:08 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2014 07:59 sevencck wrote:On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote:
I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity. Hope nobody minds me bumping this thread. The thing is, you have no reliable means of measuring whether there is equality of opportunity between men and women, even if it remains your goal. If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all. If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms. Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different. In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling, and this is why most feminist explanations for social phenomena are increasingly being dismissed. The nature of opportunity would only follow from observing results between identical groups. I think different races are close enough to identical to comment on opportunity based on results. Men and women, however, aren't close enough to identical to allow us to do this. Erm, none of what you just said is true - that there exist extremely small biological differences between men and women doesn't prevent us in any way from studying how cultural/social factors have an impact on social/political/economical differences in how men and women are treated/live in our societies. In fact, that's exactly what gender studies (and, more broadly, social sciences) do.
I think his point is that we don't know how small that difference actually is, and that gender studies/social sciences tend to completely neglect said difference claiming it all to be caused by social constructs - without actually controlling for the impact of biology (because we don't really know how big it is).
|
On June 07 2014 22:17 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2014 22:08 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2014 07:59 sevencck wrote:On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote:
I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity. Hope nobody minds me bumping this thread. The thing is, you have no reliable means of measuring whether there is equality of opportunity between men and women, even if it remains your goal. If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all. If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms. Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different. In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling, and this is why most feminist explanations for social phenomena are increasingly being dismissed. The nature of opportunity would only follow from observing results between identical groups. I think different races are close enough to identical to comment on opportunity based on results. Men and women, however, aren't close enough to identical to allow us to do this. Erm, none of what you just said is true - that there exist extremely small biological differences between men and women doesn't prevent us in any way from studying how cultural/social factors have an impact on social/political/economical differences in how men and women are treated/live in our societies. In fact, that's exactly what gender studies (and, more broadly, social sciences) do. I think his point is that we don't know how small that difference actually is, and that gender studies/social sciences tend to completely neglect said difference claiming it all to be caused by social constructs - without actually controlling for the impact of biology (because we don't really know how big it is).
No, he went farther than that. He said that there was "no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all". There is plenty of scientific literature in social sciences studying effects of social factors. There are still some debates with respect to the role played by biological factors, but the importance of cultural factors is disputed by virtually nobody because it has already been thoroughly established.
|
On June 07 2014 22:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2014 22:17 Ghostcom wrote:On June 07 2014 22:08 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2014 07:59 sevencck wrote:On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote:
I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity. Hope nobody minds me bumping this thread. The thing is, you have no reliable means of measuring whether there is equality of opportunity between men and women, even if it remains your goal. If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all. If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms. Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different. In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling, and this is why most feminist explanations for social phenomena are increasingly being dismissed. The nature of opportunity would only follow from observing results between identical groups. I think different races are close enough to identical to comment on opportunity based on results. Men and women, however, aren't close enough to identical to allow us to do this. Erm, none of what you just said is true - that there exist extremely small biological differences between men and women doesn't prevent us in any way from studying how cultural/social factors have an impact on social/political/economical differences in how men and women are treated/live in our societies. In fact, that's exactly what gender studies (and, more broadly, social sciences) do. I think his point is that we don't know how small that difference actually is, and that gender studies/social sciences tend to completely neglect said difference claiming it all to be caused by social constructs - without actually controlling for the impact of biology (because we don't really know how big it is). No, he went farther than that. He said that there was "no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all". There is plenty of scientific literature in social sciences studying effects of social factors. There are still some debates with respect to the role played by biological factors, but the importance of cultural factors is disputed by virtually nobody because it has already been thoroughly established.
Playing the devils advocate here:
How can you establish that a predictor is causative of the outcome when you have a variable which influences both the predictor and the outcome by an unknown factor which is ENTIRELY ignored? Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial?
|
"Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
Assuming biology as anologous to genetics then:
1) When there are different cultural norms, and you are arguing that cultural norms spring from biology, then you are arguing that different groups have different biology. Since different cultural norms are apparent even within the same family of people, you would then be arguing that small changes in biology of a person causes change drastic cultural norms.
2) Humanity is a species. They are not genetically divergent. Other species just as genetically divergent as humans exhibit similar social behaviours to one another. Humans exhibit broadly different social behaviours.
3) There are biologically different peoples with much more similar cultural norms than peoples of much more similar biology. If 2 people closely related can have vastly differing cultural norms and 2 people unrelated with similar cultural norms, then it is apparent that culture is not dictated by biology.
4) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
5) The definition of culture mostly precludes biological instincts. They would be classified as biological instincts not culture, which are generally defined as the knowledge and behaviours which are passed from generation to generation, whilst instincts are not.
___
Btw, I haven't read this thread, but you asked a question so here's enough reasons to why that argument is an invalid course of argument.
|
On June 07 2014 23:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial?
1) When there are different cultural norms, and you are arguing that cultural norms spring from biology, then you are arguing that different groups have different biology. Since different cultural norms are apparent even within the same family of people, you would then be arguing that small changes in biology of a person causes change drastic cultural norms.
2) Outside of close family, there are biologically different peples with much more similar cultural norms. If 2 people closely related can have vastly differing cultural norms and 2 people unrelated with similar cultural norms, then it is apparent that culture is not dictated by biology.
3) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
4) The definition of culture mostly precludes biological instincts. They would be classified as biological instincts not culture, which are generally defined as the knowledge and behaviours which are passed from generation to generation, whilst instincts are not.
That's quite a hard question to answer either way. It's the old fallacious Nature vs Nurture chestnut. The point that two biologically similar people can embrace very different cultural norms is a great one, but it isn't the end of the story, or evidence that biology's effects are necessarily very small. The same biological makeup can manifest in very different ways depending on the environment, especially the social environment. Where I strongly agree with the feminist POV is that the contribution of biology can't really be ascertained in the unequal environment that modern culture provides, there's too much systemic bias.
|
On June 07 2014 23:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
"Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
Assuming biology as anologous to genetics then:
1) When there are different cultural norms, and you are arguing that cultural norms spring from biology, then you are arguing that different groups have different biology. Since different cultural norms are apparent even within the same family of people, you would then be arguing that small changes in biology of a person causes change drastic cultural norms.
2) Humanity is a species. They are not genetically divergent. Other species just as genetically divergent as humans exhibit similar social behaviours to one another. Humans exhibit broadly different social behaviours.
3) There are biologically different peoples with much more similar cultural norms than peoples of much more similar biology. If 2 people closely related can have vastly differing cultural norms and 2 people unrelated with similar cultural norms, then it is apparent that culture is not dictated by biology.
4) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
5) The definition of culture mostly precludes biological instincts. They would be classified as biological instincts not culture, which are generally defined as the knowledge and behaviours which are passed from generation to generation, whilst instincts are not.
___
Btw, I haven't read this thread, but you asked a question so here's enough reasons to why that argument is an invalid course of argument.
It is because you do not get that our biology is the "foundation" of our culture and certain things are consitant in every culture that is bigger than three huts in the middle of nowhere. You just have a wrong idea what culture and what biology means.
Just because every culture has arbitrary habits doesnt mean every habit and costum is therefore arbitrary and isolated from biology.
|
On June 07 2014 23:27 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2014 23:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial?
1) When there are different cultural norms, and you are arguing that cultural norms spring from biology, then you are arguing that different groups have different biology. Since different cultural norms are apparent even within the same family of people, you would then be arguing that small changes in biology of a person causes change drastic cultural norms.
2) Outside of close family, there are biologically different peples with much more similar cultural norms. If 2 people closely related can have vastly differing cultural norms and 2 people unrelated with similar cultural norms, then it is apparent that culture is not dictated by biology.
3) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
4) The definition of culture mostly precludes biological instincts. They would be classified as biological instincts not culture, which are generally defined as the knowledge and behaviours which are passed from generation to generation, whilst instincts are not. That's quite a hard question to answer either way. It's the old fallacious Nature vs Nurture chestnut. The point that two biologically similar people can embrace very different cultural norms is a great one, but it isn't the end of the story, or evidence that biology's effects are necessarily very small. The same biological makeup can manifest in very different ways depending on the environment, especially the social environment. Where I strongly agree with the feminist POV is that the contribution of biology can't really be ascertained in the unequal environment that modern culture provides, there's too much systemic bias.
1) Social environment is part of culture. When genetically idetical twins brought up togeher can have different cultures and people who never met each other on the other side of the world can have similar cultures, it is very hard to argue for that biology affect human culture. It literally makes no sense. Broadly speaking, there is a general human culture; people tend to eat together and excrete waste away from their homes, but for specific culture, you will have to make an argument how biology does indeed affect culture instead of merely positing that it does.
2) I editted my post to add a bit more before you posted this. I don't know what this specific feminism stuff is about. A question was asked, and it was answered. Feminism or counterfeminism or whatever this thread is about has nothing to do with it. I have not invested in whatever the topic is about, only his question.
|
On June 07 2014 23:34 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2014 23:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
"Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
Assuming biology as anologous to genetics then:
1) When there are different cultural norms, and you are arguing that cultural norms spring from biology, then you are arguing that different groups have different biology. Since different cultural norms are apparent even within the same family of people, you would then be arguing that small changes in biology of a person causes change drastic cultural norms.
2) Humanity is a species. They are not genetically divergent. Other species just as genetically divergent as humans exhibit similar social behaviours to one another. Humans exhibit broadly different social behaviours.
3) There are biologically different peoples with much more similar cultural norms than peoples of much more similar biology. If 2 people closely related can have vastly differing cultural norms and 2 people unrelated with similar cultural norms, then it is apparent that culture is not dictated by biology.
4) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
5) The definition of culture mostly precludes biological instincts. They would be classified as biological instincts not culture, which are generally defined as the knowledge and behaviours which are passed from generation to generation, whilst instincts are not.
___
Btw, I haven't read this thread, but you asked a question so here's enough reasons to why that argument is an invalid course of argument. It is because you do not get that our biology is the "foundation" of our culture and certain things are consitant in every culture that is bigger than three huts in the middle of nowhere. You just have a wrong idea what culture and what biology means. Just because every culture has arbitrary habits doesnt mean every habit and costum is therefore arbitrary and isolated from biology.
Ok, you seem really into this for some reason, so tell me. What culture is biologically defined? And how does this relate to whatever. because you seem to be arguing for something, but you are also trying to skirt round what it is. So if you have an argument to make, make it.
|
Language, sex, music, jealousy, greed, hate, love, anger, hatred, laughter, playing games, entertainment, love for symmetry, punishment for misbehaving, socialising, family etc, rules, form of governing, distinction between men and women, men and women having different roles, belief in a higher power, incest taboo.
That are things that are almost always existing in every culture. Just to name a few.
|
On June 07 2014 23:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
"Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
Assuming biology as anologous to genetics then:
1) When there are different cultural norms, and you are arguing that cultural norms spring from biology, then you are arguing that different groups have different biology. Since different cultural norms are apparent even within the same family of people, you would then be arguing that small changes in biology of a person causes change drastic cultural norms.
2) Humanity is a species. They are not genetically divergent. Other species just as genetically divergent as humans exhibit similar social behaviours to one another. Humans exhibit broadly different social behaviours.
3) There are biologically different peoples with much more similar cultural norms than peoples of much more similar biology. If 2 people closely related can have vastly differing cultural norms and 2 people unrelated with similar cultural norms, then it is apparent that culture is not dictated by biology.
4) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
5) The definition of culture mostly precludes biological instincts. They would be classified as biological instincts not culture, which are generally defined as the knowledge and behaviours which are passed from generation to generation, whilst instincts are not.
___
Btw, I haven't read this thread, but you asked a question so here's enough reasons to why that argument is an invalid course of argument.
Perhaps you should have read the thread before posting. I was talking about the difference between male and female biology (which is of course due to genetics (XX vs XY), however not in the way you interpreted it - as genetics on an individual level - which alone invalidates most of your points as they are simply not relevant).
Furthermore you commit the very same fault that I was criticizing - you disregard all covariates and assume a singular causal relationship - which is rather naïve if not straight up ignorant when talking about nature vs nurture.
Also, I am really interested in your definition of culture which precludes biological instincts. I am pretty sure that for example customs are part of a culture - and some customs do spring from biology, a historical example could be the male provider.
You have really provided zero conclusive answers to the question.
|
On June 07 2014 23:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
"Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
Assuming biology as anologous to genetics then:
1) When there are different cultural norms, and you are arguing that cultural norms spring from biology, then you are arguing that different groups have different biology. Since different cultural norms are apparent even within the same family of people, you would then be arguing that small changes in biology of a person causes change drastic cultural norms.
2) Humanity is a species. They are not genetically divergent. Other species just as genetically divergent as humans exhibit similar social behaviours to one another. Humans exhibit broadly different social behaviours.
3) There are biologically different peoples with much more similar cultural norms than peoples of much more similar biology. If 2 people closely related can have vastly differing cultural norms and 2 people unrelated with similar cultural norms, then it is apparent that culture is not dictated by biology.
4) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
5) The definition of culture mostly precludes biological instincts. They would be classified as biological instincts not culture, which are generally defined as the knowledge and behaviours which are passed from generation to generation, whilst instincts are not.
___
Btw, I haven't read this thread, but you asked a question so here's enough reasons to why that argument is an invalid course of argument.
It seems to me you are treating causal relationships very neatly and deductively and showing they can't exist, when the other person is saying the exact reason we don't understand these relationships is they're so complicated and these different concepts are so interdigitated that even if you find correlations it's hard to find neatly presentable causal mechanisms.
For instance you said culture changes at a rate too fast to be determined by biology as biological evolution isn't working at the same rate. Your logic is similar to me saying it gets hot in the day and cold at night so your theory that the weather is influenced by where the axis of the Earth is pointing in relation to the sun is wrong because the temperature changes too fast. Ignoring other factors at work and then demanding that one factor explain everything and then lambasting it when it fails doesn't mean it's not a factor, right? nobody is saying biology is singly the cause of everything that falls under the purview of social sciences.
I mean, culture has its own forces of change or evolution obviously? That doesn't mean biology isn't relevant? I mean what you're saying would be like: Science has learned too much too fast in the last 400 years, we went from the first airplane to landing on the moon in 70 years, so obviously biology isn't responsible for our intelligence because that progress is too fast to be accounted for by genetics. This doesn't make sense right?
Also biology and genetics don't work the way you describe. Different genetics can come up with the same phenotype. For instance, the eye evolved independently like 60 times in nature. Also, if you look at a pile of mussels, it's impossible to distinguish the various species of them (that one is from QI). You seem to be looking at it (a priori) like biology and culture can be shown to mirror each other exactly, like there would be a USSR gene and a capitalism gene and a fascism gene and the Irish potato famine happened because potatoes contain diligence hormones and when the Irish people had no potatoes to eat they stopped working and all died from laziness or something. Of course that's ridiculous.
To be fair I don't know exactly what he meant by "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology?" because "spring from" is so vague but I assume "spring from" wasn't supposed to mean "totally and only determined by."
oh he's smarter than me and said it better
On June 08 2014 00:09 Ghostcom wrote:
you disregard all covariates and assume a singular causal relationship - which is rather naïve if not straight up ignorant when talking about nature vs nurture.
|
Well this is awkward, because I was going to say that oBlade was smarter than me and explained it better. You hit the nail right on the head.
|
On June 08 2014 00:04 Sokrates wrote:
Language, sex, music, jealousy, greed, hate, love, anger, hatred, laughter, playing games, entertainment, love for symmetry, punishment for misbehaving, socialising, family etc, rules, form of governing, distinction between men and women, men and women having different roles, belief in a higher power, incest taboo.
That are things that are almost always existing in every culture. Just to name a few. Yes, they exist. None of those exist in the same form. All of these cultural forms differ from culture to culure. To argue that they are spring from biology (whatever that means) would be to argue that they would be uniform across all of human culture. I did say there is a general human culture. Oh and half of those are emotions, not culture. What exactly are you arguing for? I reply to his question, you seem to be arguing for soemthing, but yet again left it.
|
On June 08 2014 00:09 Ghostcom wrote:
Perhaps you should have read the thread before posting. I was talking about the difference between male and female biology (which is of course due to genetics (XX vs XY), however not in the way you interpreted it - as genetics on an individual level - which alone invalidates most of your points as they are simply not relevant).
Furthermore you commit the very same fault that I was criticizing - you disregard all covariates and assume a singular causal relationship - which is rather naïve if not straight up ignorant when talking about nature vs nurture.
Also, I am really interested in your definition of culture which precludes biological instincts. I am pretty sure that for example customs are part of a culture - and some customs do spring from biology, a historical example could be the male provider.
You have really provided zero conclusive answers to the question.
A lot of words, but nothing meaningful is how exactly how I would describe what you have just written.
You asked "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
You had a question and it is answered. If you think the asnwers are irrelevent to your question, then you should ask the question you wanted to ask, not a question you didn't want answered.
There is an awful lot of hidden subtext, but the question itself is simple. The problem is as Sokrates (ironic name!), you simply don't want to go and assert whatever argument you want to make.
|
On June 08 2014 00:47 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2014 00:04 Sokrates wrote:
Language, sex, music, jealousy, greed, hate, love, anger, hatred, laughter, playing games, entertainment, love for symmetry, punishment for misbehaving, socialising, family etc, rules, form of governing, distinction between men and women, men and women having different roles, belief in a higher power, incest taboo.
That are things that are almost always existing in every culture. Just to name a few. Yes, they exist. None of those exist in the same form. All of these cultural forms differ from culture to culure. To argue that they are spring from biology (whatever that means) would be to argue that they would be uniform across all of human culture. I did say there is a general human culture. Oh and half of those are emotions, not culture. What exactly are you arguing for? I reply to his question, you seem to be arguing for soemthing, but yet again left it.
Because that is what you do not understand. They dont have to be exactly the same, what is important to know is the "fundamental basis". One culture will prefer a different game than the other but what they have in common is that every culture enjoys playing games. If you dont know what i m arguing about you should read the thread.
On June 08 2014 00:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2014 00:09 Ghostcom wrote:
Perhaps you should have read the thread before posting. I was talking about the difference between male and female biology (which is of course due to genetics (XX vs XY), however not in the way you interpreted it - as genetics on an individual level - which alone invalidates most of your points as they are simply not relevant).
Furthermore you commit the very same fault that I was criticizing - you disregard all covariates and assume a singular causal relationship - which is rather naïve if not straight up ignorant when talking about nature vs nurture.
Also, I am really interested in your definition of culture which precludes biological instincts. I am pretty sure that for example customs are part of a culture - and some customs do spring from biology, a historical example could be the male provider.
You have really provided zero conclusive answers to the question. A lot of words, but nothing meaningful is how exactly how I would describe what you have just written. You asked "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? " You had a question and it is answered. If you think the asnwers are irrelevent to your question, then you should ask the question you wanted to ask, not a question you didn't want answered. There is an awful lot of hidden subtext, but the question itself is simple. The problem is as Sokrates (ironic name!), you simply don't want to go and assert whatever argument you want to make.
Look you have to make a difference between every cultural norm is existing without biology or SOME cultural norms are free from biology. Feminists believe that everything is just a matter of culture and biology doesnt have an impact. And that is why you should read the thread and you would know what we are arguing about.
|
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:
It seems to me you are treating causal relationships very neatly and deductively and showing they can't exist, when the other person is saying the exact reason we don't understand these relationships is they're so complicated and these different concepts are so interdigitated that even if you find correlations it's hard to find neatly presentable causal mechanisms.
He said no such thing. He had a question and it was answered. Only that it wasn't the question he wanted to ask. perhaps you can tell me what he wanted to ask instead. 
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:For instance you said culture changes at a rate too fast to be determined by biology as biological evolution isn't working at the same rate. I said no such thing.
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:Your logic is similar to me saying it gets hot in the day and cold at night so your theory that the weather is influenced by where the axis of the Earth is pointing in relation to the sun is wrong because the temperature changes too fast. Ignoring other factors at work and then demanding that one factor explain everything and then lambasting it when it fails doesn't mean it's not a factor, right? nobody is saying biology is singly the cause of everything that falls under the purview of social sciences. What exactly has this got to do with "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:[/BI mean, culture has its own forces of change or evolution obviously? That doesn't mean biology isn't relevant? When did I say biology is irrelevent to forces of change or evolution?
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:I mean what you're saying would be like: Science has learned too much too fast in the last 400 years, we went from the first airplane to landing on the moon in 70 years, so obviously biology isn't responsible for our intelligence because that progress is too fast to be accounted for by genetics. This doesn't make sense right? Yes it doesn't make sense, because you have equated science directly as a function of intelligence. But cultures change. If cultures change and "cultures spring from biology", what has changed in that biology in order for that statement to be true?
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:Also biology and genetics don't work the way you describe. Different genetics can come up with the same phenotype. For instance, the eye evolved independently like 60 times in nature. Also, if you look at a pile of mussels, it's impossible to distinguish the various species of them (that one is from QI). You seem to be looking at it (a priori) like biology and culture can be shown to mirror each other exactly, like there would be a USSR gene and a capitalism gene and a fascism gene and the Irish potato famine happened because potatoes contain diligence hormones and when the Irish people had no potatoes to eat they stopped working and all died from laziness or something. Of course that's ridiculous. Yes exactly. Therefore cultural norms do not spring from biology.
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:To be fair I don't know exactly what he meant by "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology?" because "spring from" is so vague but I assume "spring from" wasn't supposed to mean "totally and only determined by."
[B]On June 08 2014 00:32 Ghostcom wrote:
Well this is awkward, because I was going to say that oBlade was smarter than me and explained it better. You hit the nail right on the head.
Yes funny that. If he doesn't mean "totally and only determined by", then that's up to him, but he bizzarely agrees with you that he has no idea what question he wants to ask, only that he disagrees. So I guess in the end, Ghostcom has no idea how to ask the question he wants to ask. And neither of us knows either.
|
Am I getting trolled here? You haven't even read the thread, heck you haven't even read the very post that spurred you to reply to this thread... If you had it would tell you that your assumption that I meant biology was the single causative factor for culture is wrong. And you complain that there is a lack of context?!
EDIT: "Spring from" was purposefully vague. As I wrote in my initial post we have no idea how big an impact biology plays, thus I didn't specify it further than that.
EDIT2: I'm actually convinced I'm getting trolled here, so I'll leave this thread for tonight.
|
Well, the two of us aren't sure what your question meant, and you declined to explain, so you leave the thread. Makes perfect sense. So by "playing devil's advocate", what you really meant was, to ask a rhetorical question presumably lol.
|
I'm pretty sure oBlade understands my question. Same for Socrates. You are the special flower here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
