Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
This is the actual point of contention that tends to give rise to the biological denial. It's basically communist thought applied to genders. If people aren't equal in nature or in habit, we'll make them equal by force. It's just easier to justify to the masses if you pretend that there are no biological differences leading to different gender roles, and that in fact they are oppressions that need to be overcome.
I think some of jobs are better for a specific gender. For example, if a job requires serious muscles, then men are more likely to fit this criteria. Of course, if a woman trains enough, that's also possible but how many are they in comparison? From women's perspective, child care / babysitter jobs might be better for women as well as they have this mother instinct and stuff. How many men are as emotional as a mother? Yeah, let's not force people to be what they don't want to be. I know I gave a few examples but both genders can do those jobs if they REALLY want to.
On May 22 2017 01:21 bardtown wrote: This is the actual point of contention that tends to give rise to the biological denial. It's basically communist thought applied to genders. If people aren't equal in nature or in habit, we'll make them equal by force. It's just easier to justify to the masses if you pretend that there are no biological differences leading to different gender roles, and that in fact they are oppressions that need to be overcome.
Well we are not equal in 'nature' by a lot measures. We're a pretty sadistic and petty bunch, that why it takes a state, a police force and a few decades of education to get some reasonable behaviour out of most of us. Mystical forces of nature have very little to do with it. I just haven't really understood why we draw the line at women learning javascript or men learning to nurse a kid.
'Human nature' is simply a kind of hammer you hit people with if you want to drive your argument home, it's like the aether.
On May 22 2017 01:21 bardtown wrote: This is the actual point of contention that tends to give rise to the biological denial. It's basically communist thought applied to genders. If people aren't equal in nature or in habit, we'll make them equal by force. It's just easier to justify to the masses if you pretend that there are no biological differences leading to different gender roles, and that in fact they are oppressions that need to be overcome.
Well we are not equal in 'nature' by a lot measures. We're a pretty sadistic and petty bunch, that why it takes a state, a police force and a few decades of education to get some reasonable behaviour out of most of us. Mystical forces of nature have very little to do with it. I just haven't really understood why we draw the line at women learning javascript or men learning to nurse a kid.
'Human nature' is simply a kind of hammer you hit people with if you want to drive your argument home, it's like the aether.
Yet again you completely misunderstand the point. Forcing equality for the sake of equality is bad. If 50% of software engineers aren't women, it's not because of discrimination. It's because they don't want to. More meaningful battle is gender equality at home and equal pay for roles at work.
On May 22 2017 01:21 bardtown wrote: This is the actual point of contention that tends to give rise to the biological denial. It's basically communist thought applied to genders. If people aren't equal in nature or in habit, we'll make them equal by force. It's just easier to justify to the masses if you pretend that there are no biological differences leading to different gender roles, and that in fact they are oppressions that need to be overcome.
Well we are not equal in 'nature' by a lot measures. We're a pretty sadistic and petty bunch, that why it takes a state, a police force and a few decades of education to get some reasonable behaviour out of most of us. Mystical forces of nature have very little to do with it. I just haven't really understood why we draw the line at women learning javascript or men learning to nurse a kid.
'Human nature' is simply a kind of hammer you hit people with if you want to drive your argument home, it's like the aether.
I don't think we draw any such line. Or if we do it's just called 'adulthood'. Everyone has the same educational opportunities, and then once they reach adulthood the state has no role in deciding what they do within the limits of the law.
So for old news. Sweden is looking at its driest summer in 100 years (according to ground water levels). Might be forced into water rationing, which means it still isn't horrible but if the trend of dry winters continues it could become a big problem.
Nuclear is gone/will be phased out (building new nuclear plants is forbidden) and tons subventions for renewable energies and in general higher energy standarts/safings.
On May 21 2017 01:14 bardtown wrote: Edit: I'll just put this here. I recommend it to all interested.
Ah, that documentary once again makes a return on TL. I addressed it at length in a post three years ago. I'll quote myself (TL;DR below):
Now, let's take a look at the documentary you posted. I watched it entirely. To sum it up, it defends the idea that both cultural and biological factors play a role in determining the career paths and choices of men and women, and that in an "equal" society like Norway differences in the career paths of women and men (for example, engineers tend to be men and nurses tend to be women) can be explained by the fact that men and women are free to follow their natural (understand: biological) inclinations. This is demonstrated by what appears to be a candid journalist/investigator going to speak with various experts in order to understand the issue better, and reaching what looks like a logical conclusion given the evidence that he has been presented with.
I could start by pointing out to you that this very documentary that you cited as evidence of your claim in fact contradicts it since it supports the idea that culture does play a role next to biology.
Let's go a bit further than that, however (I am in debt to Odile Fillod's excellent rebuttal of the documentary), and look at how its message pertaining to the role of biology holds up under increased scrutiny. First, let's point out that the "journalist/investigator" whom we follow in the "documentary", Harald Eia, is not actually trying to "inform himself" (and he's not a journalist) - he is an active proponent of the theory that biology leads to differences in behavior and interests between men and women, including in terms of career paths. He has, in fact, published a book defending these views (EIA, Harald, IHLE, Ole-Martin (2010), Født sånn eller blitt sånn?). He has confirmed in an interview that he held these views prior to making the "documentary", and that they came to him notably after reading authors like Steven Pinker and David Buss (see his interview here). So let's keep in mind that, contrary to what is being shown on screen, this guy is absolutely not genuinely trying to get a better idea of the issue and weighing what different experts are telling him - he had already made up his mind and the entire documentary is constructed to convince the audience of the validity of the views he holds. That is why he ends the documentary by showing the expert in gender studies seemingly unable to answer what is put forward by the experts in psychology and human evolution he carefully selected.
This being said, what is the validity of the "expert opinions" he relies on to assert that biology leads to men and women essentially having different brains? One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
If you look at the numbers even further, you'll notice that, beyond the averages put forward by the authors (Baron-Cohen was not alone in writing the study), 64% of the girls did not manifest a preference for the face, and 57% of the boys did not manifest a preference for the mobile object (these percentages include those who manifested a preference for the other stimulus and those who manifested no preference for either). I'll let that sink in. In the documentary (and, in fact, in the article itself), Baron-Cohen deliberately chose to look at the results which seemed to go this way (for example, girls did spend on average more time watching the mobile stimulus than the face - even though the difference was less than 10 seconds between the two), and presented interpretations that went way beyond, and were actually contradicted by, the very results of his experience. An assertion of the type that "girls preferred the face" and "boys preferred the mobile" is actually false for a majority of both groups. In addition to these problems with the interpretation of the results, several methodological biases and problems have been pointed out with regards to the study, including actual mistakes in the statistical analysis of the results - see NASH, Alison Nash, GROSSI, Giordana (2007), "Picking Barbie’s brain: inherent sex differences in scientific ability?".
Beyond these numbers, which do not support what is said in the documentary, it's also worth mentioning that the authors apparently did not keep the actual data (or at least they're unwilling to share it), and the results they cherry-pick to support their idea that biology plays a major role have never been reproduced. In fact, they've been contradicted by other studies - see SPELKE, Elizabeth (2005), "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics - A critical review", American Psychologist, 60(9), pp. 950-958.
To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
I explored the detail of this specific part of the documentary, but similar comments can be made with regards to the other testimonies defending the existence of a biological determinism separating male and female brains in a way that leads to differences in interests and even career paths. The social scientist interviewed at the beginning which says that there is no actual scientific evidence of such biological determinism is actually perfectly right. They were not very articulate at the end (I suspect that there might have been a bias in the selection of footage to show for their answers at the end, but oh well), but the fact is simply that the scientific research done so far does NOT establish the existence of such biological determinism. There have been articles claiming to establish such differences, such as Baron-Cohen's, but they do not resist scrutiny and are systematically characterized by methodological biases/flaws and interpretation problems. In fact, if you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture these initial differences (see also WITELSON, S. F. (1991), "Neural Sexual Mosaicism: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Temporo-Parietal Region for Functional Asymmetry". Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16 (1-3): pp. 131-153). Clearly, cultural factors are a driving force behind differences in career paths between men and women, and social construction of gender roles is a fundamental object of study for whomever is interested in more equality between sexes.
TL;DR: The author of the "documentary" held the prior view that biology leads to differences in behavior and interests between men and women and pretended to be a neutral investigator while in reality constructing the entire piece to convince uninformed viewers of the validity of his views. He tries to portray social scientists as naïve on the issue and as contradicted by the research done in the natural sciences, while the truth is that he cherry-picked a few natural scientists that share his positions and that do not represent in any way a consensus in their field (sometimes the opposite). It's a cleverly crafted piece, which can persuade people who are not familiar with the subject matter (especially those who hold a priori views similar to the author's), but it's pure garbage when it comes to wanting to take a look at the actual state of the scientific research (natural and social sciences) on the topic. If you're actually interested in learning more about it, in addition to the Jordan-Young reference I mention at the end of my post, I suggest reading Janet Shibley Hyde's Half the Human Experience: The Psychology of Women (8th edition, 2012) and Cordelia Fine's Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society (2017). Again, while we're not blank states and there can be some initial statistical differences in brain formation between men and women, the groups largely overlap, the binary division between men and women does not accurately reflect this initial reality, and most importantly neuroplasticity plays such a role that initial differences are unimportant in comparison to the development that occurs throughout our lives. This leads cultural variables ("nurture") to be at the core of the differences in career paths between men and women -- not biology.
You're trying to present yourself as an objective observer, and yet I can't help but suspect you are at least as inclined to the opposite position as Harald was to favouring biological factors. To suggest that the belief that there are biological differences between male and female brains is not mainstream in the sciences is beyond absurd. I'm always curious about something in these cases. Do you live in the countryside or the city?
I don't know if you watched the 'entire' documentary in the sense of watching all the episodes, but you may find the parental effect episode interesting. Then again, you might just ignore all the evidence and look for some little detail to pick on.
This is an excellent example of a non-reply that doesn't address the points raised, re-states the original position without the slightest attention paid to what was just argued and referenced, misrepresents the argument of the previous post, and seeks to discredit the other poster through unjustified means and accusations. Thanks for establishing that you're not interested in having an honest discussion on the topic.
Firstly, I'm not "trying to present [myself]" in any particular way -- this is you trying to draw a false equivalency with my (factual) comments on the author of the pseudo-documentary that you posted, in order to deflect from the contents of my post on the video itself. Secondly, I certainly did no "ignore all the evidence and look for some little detail to pick on" -- I actually did the exact opposite, namely address both the pseudo-documentary and the wider debate on sexual and gender differences in cognition and career paths. You're the one who brought up that piece and presented it as insightful and informative; I explained that it's not only not informative, but it actually actively -- and voluntarily -- spreads misinformation on the topic. If you have a rebuttal to my points on the documentary, feel free to present it. Thirdly, I'm not sure why you're advising me to watch a follow-up piece given that (a) I just explained to you why the original piece that you linked was garbage and (b) I'm quite familiar with the actual state of the scientific research on the topic and literally just provided you with several references that study the state of the art and provide a much more in-depth overview than any documentary possibly could.
Finally, and like silynxer pointed out, I did not say that there were zero biological differences at any point between men and women. I specifically addressed this when I wrote "although we're not blank states and there can be some initial statistical differences in brain formation between men and women, the groups largely overlap, the binary division between men and women does not accurately reflect this initial reality, and most importantly neuroplasticity plays such a role that initial differences are unimportant in comparison to the development that occurs throughout our lives". I want to stress again that I am not arguing that it is scientifically established that the statistical differences in brain biology that have been observed play no role whatsoever in some of the differences in career paths that continue to exist in many societies. The point is indeed instead that the biological differences that have been highlighted through research are often grossly caricatured and overemphasized way beyond what the scientific research actually says (including occasionally to an extent by some researchers themselves, but usually through poor journalism and misuse/distortion by people with an ideological agenda), and that there is so far no clear and conclusive scientific evidence to affirm that the main causes (or even major causes) of the wide range of systemic differences in career paths that can be observed between men and women (the topic that was being discussed here) are rooted in the limited, statistical, (cognitive) biological differences that have been observed -- especially considering the fact that the incredible importance of cultural factors has been, and continues to be, well studied and established (incidentally, some current strands of research also seek to study the influence of cultural factors on what were previously considered to be strictly biological, and related to sex, variations over one's life, for example with regards to health issues). And just in case this needs to be pointed out, the Nature article that you posted on this page doesn't indicate otherwise in the slightest.
The Nature article links neural development to severe behavioural abnormalities. Incidentally, so does Baron-Cohen's autism research, which goes well beyond the minor point you spent most of your post criticising. What of the link between foetal exposure to testosterone and the lifelong displaying of traits associated with autism? Did you notice that neuroplasticity failed to erase these traits? Let's go back to beating left handed people until neuroplasticity works its magic. What about the consistency of gender preferences across all cultures? You criticised the science of one small part of the documentary for overemphasising the result, and then acted as though this was sufficient to dismiss the entire body of evidence pointing to the conclusion that biology has a significant effect on gender specific behavioural traits. You're guilty of exactly the misrepresentation you claim to be against.
The Nature article is about non-hormonal -- in particular genetic -- biological factors impacting differently the neural development of males and females. It touches upon issues such as sexual behavior and gender identity -- I'm not sure why you're referring to "severe behavioural abnormalities", -- nothing even close to the topic being discussed, namely differences in career paths between men and women, and nothing that contradicts what I pointed out in my previous post (in fact, the ongoing research on the impact of genetic factors on neural development among men and women is addressed extensively in two of the state-of-the-art references I provided you with in my first message).
I didn't criticize a "minor point" of Baron-Cohen's research, I criticized the entirety of the study that his intervention in the "documentary" is based on, and I also provided an additional reference which analyzes critically what in his body of work pertains to the subject at hand (it also shows how his theses have been extensively criticized in his own field). In addition, I can't help but notice that once again, you have not put forward the slightest bit of evidence or argument to explain how the assumed sex-related origin of traits associated with autism is relevant in any way to what we're actually discussing, which is the systemic differences in career paths between men and women. The bait-and-switch is a little too transparent.
I didn't criticize a small part of the documentary, I criticized the entire way it was constructed, how it represented the various viewpoints, how it pretended that some viewpoints were representative of their authors' entire discipline when that wasn't the case at all, and I criticized the very specific study that Baron-Cohen bases his intervention on (a major part of the documentary). What "entire body of evidence"? If you're referring to the statistics put forward about differences in career paths in various countries, how exactly is that supposed to be taken as evidence that those differences are explained by biological differences between the two? Not only is it obvious that patriarchal cultural structures persist across all of the countries under study, but it's profoundly nonsensical to assume that we can control for a myriad of intervening (cultural -- political, economical, etc.) independent variables which contribute to shaping those differences in career paths. For example, it is argued that Scandinavian countries tend to have less sexist cultural norms than many non-Western countries, yet that differences in career paths can by some metrics be even more prevalent in Scandinavia. Yet it can hardly be concluded from this that biological factors are the cause: plenty of factors can offset the positive influence of more egalitarian gender norms (although we're still far from being rid of gender stereotypes even there). For example, although I am extremely skeptical of his analysis, this is what Nima Sanandaji argues here by stating that the Scandinavian welfare state hinders the advancement of women in the workforce. One could also argue that the very discriminating domestic norms in some country may lead more women to seek high-paying jobs when they can in order to achieve more independence from men, etc. It's always funny to see the same people who pretend to understand and dismiss social sciences when it comes to issues of gender, engage in the most unscientific and facepalm-worthy kind of analyses of social data.
On May 22 2017 01:21 bardtown wrote: This is the actual point of contention that tends to give rise to the biological denial. It's basically communist thought applied to genders. If people aren't equal in nature or in habit, we'll make them equal by force. It's just easier to justify to the masses if you pretend that there are no biological differences leading to different gender roles, and that in fact they are oppressions that need to be overcome.
This analogy perfectly illustrates the problems at the core of your stance. The first issue is that you obviously have no idea what you're talking about given your inability to accurately discuss and evoke the topic, and the second issue is that you see the scientific challenges to your preconceived views as purely ideological, completely dismissing the scientifically sound evidence that runs contrary to what you think. If at one point you're ready to put your blinders aside, the references I included in my initial post are very interesting and pedagogic reads, with a myriad of (scientific) references for further reading.
On May 22 2017 02:28 Velr wrote: Its the energystrategy for the next ~30 years.
Nuclear is gone/will be phased out (building new nuclear plants is forbidden) and tons subventions for renewable energies and in general higher energy standarts/safings.
It touches upon issues such as sexual behavior and gender identity -- I'm not sure why you're referring to "severe behavioural abnormalities", -- nothing even close to the topic being discussed, namely differences in career paths between men and women, and nothing that contradicts what I pointed out in my previous post
Gender dysphoria is not a severe behavioural abnormality? Yes it is, and it is a clear indicator that the individual's sense of their gender has an enormous impact on the way in which they live their life. It's only common sense to assume that this would extend to interests, and via interests to career choice, but you can pick any one of a thousand studies if you, perchance, lack common sense.
If you're referring to the statistics put forward about differences in career paths in various countries, how exactly is that supposed to be taken as evidence that those differences are explained by biological differences between the two? Not only is it obvious that patriarchal cultural structures persist across all of the countries under study, but it's profoundly nonsensical to assume that we can control for a myriad of intervening (cultural -- political, economical, etc.) independent variables which contribute to shaping those differences in career paths.
Thank you for making my point for me. You cannot control for all the different cultural factors in all those different countries. You simply cannot. Which makes the fact that genders in all of those countries exhibit the same behavioural inclinations almost certainly biological - as if that shouldn't be obvious to you when you point out that all of these countries are 'patriarchies'. Goodness, it's almost as though we have a genetic predisposition towards certain societal and familial structures.
On May 22 2017 02:28 Velr wrote: Its the energystrategy for the next ~30 years.
Nuclear is gone/will be phased out (building new nuclear plants is forbidden) and tons subventions for renewable energies and in general higher energy standarts/safings.
But nothing is totally clear yet.
Iirc it got a YES with 59%, which is pretty big.
Do people get exhausted from that many referendums? Do they actually help? I know referendum is a good thing and it helps democracy, but it could also be bad if uneducated people vote on specific topics. Note that I'm asking about Switzerland specifically because it holds referendums more frequently than other countries.
On May 22 2017 02:28 Velr wrote: Its the energystrategy for the next ~30 years.
Nuclear is gone/will be phased out (building new nuclear plants is forbidden) and tons subventions for renewable energies and in general higher energy standarts/safings.
But nothing is totally clear yet.
Iirc it got a YES with 59%, which is pretty big.
Do people get exhausted from that many referendums? Do they actually help? I know referendum is a good thing and it helps democracy, but it could also be bad if uneducated people vote on specific topics. Note that I'm asking about Switzerland specifically because it holds referendums more frequently than other countries.
The problem is not "uneducated people", the problem is that wealthy interest groups are rigging the media.
Its just normal here. Most people just don't go voting if they really don't care. Its often also pretty boring/generic/batshit stuff that either had a mandatory referendum or somehow managed to get enough people to sign it. Voting, while not online, is also really easy. You get everything by mail, have to write Yes/No in 4-10 boxes (there are state, cantonal and city/village referendums) and send it back or drop it at the Urn.
On May 22 2017 02:28 Velr wrote: Its the energystrategy for the next ~30 years.
Nuclear is gone/will be phased out (building new nuclear plants is forbidden) and tons subventions for renewable energies and in general higher energy standarts/safings.
But nothing is totally clear yet.
Iirc it got a YES with 59%, which is pretty big.
Do people get exhausted from that many referendums? Do they actually help? I know referendum is a good thing and it helps democracy, but it could also be bad if uneducated people vote on specific topics. Note that I'm asking about Switzerland specifically because it holds referendums more frequently than other countries.
Referendums, under the right conditions (if they're not only a political maneuver to get a plebiscite), can be nice tools for political education and awareness. The TCE 2005 referendum saw thousands of ordinary people in France actually read the technical jargon of the EU treaty to find the liberal spots: can you imagine the dedication?
On May 22 2017 02:17 Yurie wrote: So for old news. Sweden is looking at its driest summer in 100 years (according to ground water levels). Might be forced into water rationing, which means it still isn't horrible but if the trend of dry winters continues it could become a big problem.
How is it looking for the rest of Europe?
Sweden surely doesn't have an overall lack of water, the nothern half is one huge swamp. I can imagine lack of watet in the south maybe, but even therr are huge lakes. You probably just need some channels and pipes and no longer depend on the habit to rain everywhere which the Scandinavian weather used to have.
On May 22 2017 02:28 Velr wrote: Its the energystrategy for the next ~30 years.
Nuclear is gone/will be phased out (building new nuclear plants is forbidden) and tons subventions for renewable energies and in general higher energy standarts/safings.
But nothing is totally clear yet.
Iirc it got a YES with 59%, which is pretty big.
Do people get exhausted from that many referendums? Do they actually help? I know referendum is a good thing and it helps democracy, but it could also be bad if uneducated people vote on specific topics. Note that I'm asking about Switzerland specifically because it holds referendums more frequently than other countries.
Exhaustion isn't that relevant, the referendums aren't mandatory, so if you don't care anymore, just don't vote. They do help in that they force political strategies to match the will of the people at least to a certain extent; something like 90% of Americans being for more background checks for guns and the political world doing nothing about it because of gun lobbies would be unthinkable in Switzerland, and that's certainly a good thing.
It touches upon issues such as sexual behavior and gender identity -- I'm not sure why you're referring to "severe behavioural abnormalities", -- nothing even close to the topic being discussed, namely differences in career paths between men and women, and nothing that contradicts what I pointed out in my previous post
Gender dysphoria is not a severe behavioural abnormality? Yes it is, and it is a clear indicator that the individual's sense of their gender has an enormous impact on the way in which they live their life. It's only common sense to assume that this would extend to interests, and via interests to career choice, but you can pick any one of a thousand studies if you, perchance, lack common sense.
I'd argue that there are much more useful and relevant ways of referring to it, and the expression you used notably serves to obfuscate the fact that it is, again, utterly irrelevant to what is being discussed. There is nothing "common sense" about a link between the biological factors behind gender incongruence and the career choices of men and women other than through the cultural norms that surround gender identities. The Nature article doesn't support your case at all, and you're going to have to do better than invoking "common sense" to justify your unfounded logical leaps if you're going to assert anything that goes beyond what I have argued.
If you're referring to the statistics put forward about differences in career paths in various countries, how exactly is that supposed to be taken as evidence that those differences are explained by biological differences between the two? Not only is it obvious that patriarchal cultural structures persist across all of the countries under study, but it's profoundly nonsensical to assume that we can control for a myriad of intervening (cultural -- political, economical, etc.) independent variables which contribute to shaping those differences in career paths.
Thank you for making my point for me. You cannot control for all the different cultural factors in all those different countries. You simply cannot. Which makes the fact that genders in all of those countries exhibit the same behavioural inclinations almost certainly biological - as if that shouldn't be obvious to you when you point out that all of these countries are 'patriarchies'. Goodness, it's almost as though we have a genetic predisposition towards certain societal and familial structures.
I'm not making your point for you, you're simply misunderstanding the basics of controlling for independent variables. There may be various cultural variables at play, that one cannot control sufficiently well to verify the biological variable is relevant to explain the slight changes in career path distribution that can be observed across countries. There is zero reason to believe the biological variable is relevant just because one can't control for the other variables. That would be like arguing that because we can't control accurately for professional experience, diploma level, place in the hierarchy and years in the company due to extremely limited data, hair color is the relevant variable to explain salary disparity among a company's employees. Goodness, it's almost as though you have zero leg to stand on and are completely out of your depth.
You really need to rewatch the documentary or you're just going to dig yourself a deeper hole. His study did not only measure which occupations the different genders pursued, but also which they were interested in. As you say - it is impossible to control for all the different variables across those cultures, so the fact that they were interested in the same things across every single country strongly implies a biological foundation. Again, men and women were consistently interested in the same things across all the surveyed countries. In wealthy, liberal countries, these interests were more closely aligned with their actual occupations.
The alternative, of course, is your theory that every single society in the world indoctrinates men and women into the exact same preferences to the exact same extent. Convincing.
EPT
