On April 09 2012 05:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: And the answer is, we don't know. We can plausibly assume that people (both genders) are more likely to behave in a manner that they perceive will yield them the best results. Thus, we can plausibly argue that difference in physical strenght is likely to lead to more males resorting to violence when dealing with conflict than what the case is for females. We can also assume that hormonal differences create differences in behavior, e.g. periody girls being pissy.
However, there's absolutely no way we can try to like, gauge these differences against each other. .
Liquid`Drone I think we can all agree that both factors have effects. To say there is "ABSOLUTELY NO WAY" we can gauge the differences in these effects is a bit of a cop-out though. Science is a beautiful thing and we shouldn't give up on studying problems just because the solutions are not obvious. If you look at the video there is a scientist that does cross-cultural studies in 100s of different countries and I think these are the sort of studies that ABSOLUTELY CAN shed light on the issue.
Now I believe neither you nor I know the full extent of what these studies say, and what remaining work can be done, because we are not experts in the field. There are things to be said on what specific aspects of personality are affected by culture, what specific aspects of culture actually affect personality, etc. etc.
I think what can be said is that no individual person should be judged based on their gender, parents, race, etc. No matter what broad statistical trends exist among groups, any individual should have the opportunity to do any thing they are capable of. Such statistical trends in the social sciences are, after all, usually fairly weak and only measure things at the broadest of levels.
For something like PMS you could look at monozygotic twins preferably separated in order to gain insight into how much of the variance can be explained by what. Compare the difference to that of dizygotic twins or siblings or so. Best way to look at nature and nurture variance but hard to get good twin samples.
A bit harder when it comes to things like aggression though, with monozygotic twins ofc having the same sex.
On April 09 2012 05:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I also just have to say that I don't think most people are aware of how differently girls and boys are treated from the very moment they're born. In fact, typically, what happens with a newborn girl is that the girl is immediately embraced. Whereas a newborn boy will be showcased to the world. Basically, from the very moment of birth, girls are told; "the world is a dangerous place and I will protect you for it", whereas boys are told "this is yours to conquer". There's no question that this influences future behavior, the question is, to what degree do these (sub)conscious efforts to differentiate genders influence them in the future compared with the differences caused by hormonal and physical differences?
And the answer is, we don't know. We can plausibly assume that people (both genders) are more likely to behave in a manner that they perceive will yield them the best results. Thus, we can plausibly argue that difference in physical strenght is likely to lead to more males resorting to violence when dealing with conflict than what the case is for females. We can also assume that hormonal differences create differences in behavior, e.g. periody girls being pissy.
However, there's absolutely no way we can try to like, gauge these differences against eachother. You could easily make the case that periody females are also even more pissy than they'd otherwise be because of the societal expectation/acceptance of period-related anger. there's no science backing up either argument, it's all more or less "assumption founded on some underlying truthishly factoid". What I'm essentially saying here is; yes, there are obviously biological differences between the genders. There's no question about that. But there are also obviously differences related to upbringing and expected behavior from the genders, and there is absolutely no way anyone - and even less chance any of us - can accurately try to pinpoint which gender-based differences are caused by biology or society. And thus, it's absolutely laughable when people write gibberish like, "biology is the sole reason why males dominate mathematics and comedy and *insert other field*".
Are you saying that there is no evidence stating that the hormons released during periods makes you edgy and "pissy"?
It's a fact that hormones released during PMS, pregnancy et cetera makes you more emotional. This is just you ignoring facts based on scientific research just as the gender studies researchers in the first documentary.To state that it could be because of cultural expectations is just a theory without a trace of proof. I have to board a flight so I can't say more on the subject but you are ignoring facts.
No, I actually said that while we know that hormonal differences create differences in behavior (e.g. with the pms example), there's no way of accurately determine to what degree the behavioral differences are purely hormonal or a mix between biological and societal. I'm fairly certain that, if society imposed a law stating that periody girls were not allowed to be angry without adequate reason (yes obviously this is way out there in hypothetical-land), and that the punishment was public flogging, then hey, girls would actually be significantly less angry during their periods. Meanwhile, the statements that "it's okay that you're pissed off, it's just your period", or worse, the "are you angry? you must be on your period" are reinforcing period-pissy behavior. If you read the posts I've made in this thread, you'd see that I'm not arguing for the biology or the society being more important argument, I'm saying that both matter and that it's impossible to determine to what degree what matters. My main issue is with the people who argue that either definitely trumps the other - I guess that might make it seem like I'm arguing the pro-nurture point of view, but that's only the case because more "pro-nature" believers are more bombastic in their statements.
The main problem with most of that stuff is vague generalizations like "50% nature, 50% nurture". For those numbers to be meaningful it has to be clear what you are trying to measure. I'll take some simple examples: -Human behavior is roughly 100% genetical. Ignoring supernatural models this is arguably correct. -What a humans life will be like is roughly 100% dependent on the environment. This is also arguably correct.
So like I said you need to be clear about what you are trying to measure. Most human behavioral attributes can certainly be measured, sometimes very accurately. So I disagree completely that it's impossible to determine to what degree what matters unless you mean by 100% accuracy, but if you do I don't understand your argument. That for example so called women's studies sometimes appear to have some form of hatred against actual knowledge doesn't mean that actual knowledge is impossible get, it just means there is(perhaps a lot of) bad science is that field.
On April 09 2012 05:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: And the answer is, we don't know. We can plausibly assume that people (both genders) are more likely to behave in a manner that they perceive will yield them the best results. Thus, we can plausibly argue that difference in physical strenght is likely to lead to more males resorting to violence when dealing with conflict than what the case is for females. We can also assume that hormonal differences create differences in behavior, e.g. periody girls being pissy.
However, there's absolutely no way we can try to like, gauge these differences against each other. .
Liquid`Drone I think we can all agree that both factors have effects. To say there is "ABSOLUTELY NO WAY" we can gauge the differences in these effects is a bit of a cop-out though. Science is a beautiful thing and we shouldn't give up on studying problems just because the solutions are not obvious. If you look at the video there is a scientist that does cross-cultural studies in 100s of different countries and I think these are the sort of studies that ABSOLUTELY CAN shed light on the issue.
Now I believe neither you nor I know the full extent of what these studies say, and what remaining work can be done, because we are not experts in the field. There are things to be said on what specific aspects of personality are affected by culture, what specific aspects of culture actually affect personality, etc. etc.
I think what can be said is that no individual person should be judged based on their gender, parents, race, etc. No matter what broad statistical trends exist among groups, any individual should have the opportunity to do any thing they are capable of. Such statistical trends in the social sciences are, after all, usually fairly weak and only measure things at the broadest of levels.
this stuff is way too complex for it to be solved by a mathematical equation. I mean, say that we eventually manage to completely map out human genealogy or whatever, and how it influences a person. And say we also knew exactly how people are psychiogically influenced by experiences through their life. We'd still need to know every single tiniest detail of that person's life so far to have the ability to mathematically calculate the percentage of biological vs societal influence in determining qualities and abilities in that person..
Even accepting that humanity eventually reaches the level of knowledge where it'd be theoretically possible to accurately state what percentage of a person's behavior can be attributed to the person's biology and what percentage can be attributed to how he was influenced by society, we're currently at like what, 2% of the knowledge level required to accurately calculate this stuff. basically, the nature vs nurture discussion, and the degree to which people feel comfortable making bombastic statements regarding biological abilities of different genders, makes me feel like I'm watching people try to precisely calculate the mass and density and trajectory of every component flung out following the big bang, or that someone claims to know exactly when and from what different species evolved from other species. We probably know that there was a big bang of some kind. We know that species have the ability to evolve. We know that human behavior is influenced by biology as well as society/upbringing. And it's fine that people want to research this while attempting to learn more - but it's not fine that people claim to have the answers, because they don't.
Analyzing how much of the variance in behavior etc can be explained by genes (heritability) is perfectly possible even if it doesn't mean that genes cause the behavior.
Not the same as explaining why 1 person does something, but with twin studies you can still get insight into how genes + environment shape us.
Not really suited for all types of behavior but something like aggression could still be looked at for example.
Watched two episodes and skipped through a third. And even though I plan to watch the others as well - since they are quite entertaining and deal with subjects that I'm generally interested in - those "documentarys" are quite obviously edited and biased to such a degree that the people representing the "cultural influence"-side of the "argument" are portrayed as complete dummies (or eia actually chose complete dummies, hard to tell without knowing their work).
Two-thirds of my course of studies consists of social studies and I've yet to meet or read of anyone in the field who'd completly rule out biological factors to explain human behaviour. It's true that social studies and the broad field surrounding them usually focus on cultural influences, but that's solely because those are the main subject of their respective fields. Since I'm not sure if my english is clear in this case so: of course media studies focus on media and their influence on humans, and not the biological factors, because that's the main focus of their interest - but that isn't identical to actually denying biological/educational/.... factors.
In other words: the argument presented by Eia, an argument of people who strictly deny biological against the moderate scientiest who search for a compromise, seems suprisingly new and not representative of the general tone in social studies to me.
On April 09 2012 08:53 KiaL.Kiwi wrote: Watched two episodes and skipped through a third. And even though I plan to watch the others as well - since they are quite entertaining and deal with subjects that I'm generally interested in - those "documentarys" are quite obviously edited and biased to such a degree that the people representing the "cultural influence"-side of the "argument" are portrayed as complete dummies (or eia actually chose complete dummies, hard to tell without knowing their work).
Two-thirds of my course of studies consists of social studies and I've yet to meet or read of anyone in the field who'd completly rule out biological factors to explain human behaviour. It's true that social studies and the broad field surrounding them usually focus on cultural influences, but that's solely because those are the main subject of their respective fields. Since I'm not sure if my english is clear in this case so: of course media studies focus on media and their influence on humans, and not the biological factors, because that's the main focus of their interest - but that isn't identical to actually denying biological/educational/.... factors.
In other words: the argument presented by Eia, an argument of people who strictly deny biological against the moderate scientiest who search for a compromise, seems suprisingly new and not representative of the general tone in social studies to me.
Agree with most of what you say. Bad science in a field(which I would say is what hjernevask is about) like for example gender studies doesn't mean all gender studies are bad.
edit How representative it is depends on what you compare to. Sweden is probably "worse" than Norway with this for example.
not subbed, unfortunately. It doesn't quite argue the other side of the argument, but it does show how Eia has been very selective in his editing, and the interviewee comes out of it with a more reasonable and rational argument for his case, a more accurate critique of Eia's sources, and as a bit more open to the other side of an argument.
Is this for real? I just watched the first one. Now I'm just a dumb American, but I don't know ANYONE who thinks that men and women are exactly the same biologically besides their reproductive horomones/secondary sex traits. Not even my anthropology and gender studies professors for my general education classes said anything close to that.
On April 09 2012 11:47 Hinanawi wrote: Is this for real? I just watched the first one. Now I'm just a dumb American, but I don't know ANYONE who thinks that men and women are exactly the same biologically besides their reproductive horomones/secondary sex traits. Not even my anthropology and gender studies professors for my general education classes said anything close to that.
Is this really the dominant view in Norway?
Not dominant but I've heard it a few times in Sweden, would think it's about the same in Norway. They are just ignoring facts and shaping reality to their ideology.
On April 09 2012 11:47 Hinanawi wrote: Is this for real? I just watched the first one. Now I'm just a dumb American, but I don't know ANYONE who thinks that men and women are exactly the same biologically besides their reproductive horomones/secondary sex traits. Not even my anthropology and gender studies professors for my general education classes said anything close to that.
Is this really the dominant view in Norway?
politically, the emphasis has been put on social constructions for things like gender, education, alcohol policy, but I don't think it's the dominant view. Also, keep in mind that the same "gender researcher" (Jørgen Lorentzen, who's field of expertise is actually literature, not gender studies, sociology or biology) has been commenting in almost every episode of the series, and he isn't completely uncontroversial among his peers in Norway.
Thanks for the recommendation i've really enjoyed the series, i would have liked to see all the interviews unedited however, as he obviously has an agenda and it comes out as being far from impartial, the interviews at the end where the Norwegian researchers and experts that hold the opposing views are confronted comes out pretty badly in my opinion. The documentary itself hasn't really changed my opinion on the topics as i've never really believed in children being born a "tabula rasa".
A few lucky men are at the top of society and enjoy the culture’s best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. Culture uses both men and women, but most cultures use them in somewhat different ways. Most cultures see individual men as more expendable than individual women, and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some men are the big losers and other men are the biggest winners. Hence it uses men for the many risky jobs it has.
On April 09 2012 07:34 Liquid`Drone wrote: And it's fine that people want to research this while attempting to learn more - but it's not fine that people claim to have the answers, because they don't.
I believe that's the point of the documentary:
The author suggests that ideologically-influenced researchers in Norway claim to unequivocally know that biology has no effect, while the scientific consensus pretty much everywhere else holds that it's some combination of nature and nurture, without specifying the exact proportion.
On April 09 2012 00:49 Rainling wrote: Although feminism is based off of the belief that women are disadvantaged in comparison to men, the purpose of feminism is to establish equal rights for men and women. I think this idea is entirely reasonable and very poignant. Sex discrimination was until very recently common in most countries. For example, in the United States, many women could not obtain credit cards, make wills, or own property without the consent of a husband in the 1970's. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Strike_for_Equality#Reactions_and_media_coverage)
If people attempt to give men and women unequal rights, they are not feminist. They are sexist. Radical feminists, however, are feminists that intend to produce equal rights for both men and women but use radical means to do so that might have unintended consequences. This debate seems to consider feminism as a movement that aggressively promotes the rights of women and discards the rights of men. If that movement is in fact taking place, it is a sexist, not a feminist, movement.
It seems like the people in this thread are targeting feminism without understanding what feminism is. Feminism may involve affirmative action, but its ultimate goal is to achieve equality. Affirmative action with a long-term goal of giving more rights to females than males, or vice versa, is sexis
m.
There are some perhaps more conspiratorial or social engineering purposes behind it besides right enhancements. Feminism has been linked to decreasing fertility rates and increased percentage of women in the labor force, meaning more revenue and less children.
ect... (you can fill an entire night reading papers on it so feel free to look for yourself)
One thing I always disagree with is that feminism or rise of women is somehow a cause of these societal traits, rather than effect. Nearly all post-industrial economies who age experience declining birth rates (excluding Ireland off the top of my head) and it seems its an effect of age, rather than a cause of declining birth rates. However those papers above explore the idea it can (or seems to be already working for Brazil) be supplanted artificially to speed up the process of increased woman labor and declining birth rates. In the long term is it good? Yeah, bottom line demographic transitions are projected to curb overpopulation (although economies and government revenue will suffer and undergo transitions in the very long term), social engineering can artifically enhance this "aging" process.
On April 09 2012 07:34 Liquid`Drone wrote: And it's fine that people want to research this while attempting to learn more - but it's not fine that people claim to have the answers, because they don't.
I believe that's the point of the documentary:
The author suggests that ideologically-influenced researchers in Norway claim to unequivocally know that biology has no effect, while the scientific consensus pretty much everywhere else holds that it's some combination of nature and nurture, without specifying the exact proportion.
yes, and that's an incorrect assessment of the dominant belief held in norway. what hjernevask did was: interview people who were representatives of fringe beliefs, edit their interviews to make them seem even more extreme, argue that this was the dominant point of view in norway, and then debunk the opinions held by the guys being interviewed. in reality, social studies definitely focus on the "nurture" aspect, but this is because that's their field of study. biology also focuses on the "nature" cause of effect, but sensible biologists wouldn't suggest that upbringing has no effect.
hjernevask was cool because eventually, it made people who followed the debate realize that everyone were actually in agreement aside from "percentage of influence" or whatever, but scientifically, it's garbage. harald eia is a comedian (and a really, really funny one), but that's it.
Yeah that's why men really understand women, and women really understand men.
O wait sometimes talking to the missis seems like I'm encountering an alien from another dimension. Guess I should have played with my sister's barbie dolls more often when I was a kid. O wait, I did. They had really nice tits ^_^
On April 11 2012 07:11 sunprince wrote: The author suggests that ideologically-influenced researchers in Norway claim to unequivocally know that biology has no effect, while the scientific consensus pretty much everywhere else holds that it's some combination of nature and nurture, without specifying the exact proportion.
yes, and that's an incorrect assessment of the dominant belief held in norway.
I'm not necessarily disputing you here, but do you have any citations for your claim?
Man how can the ''gender researchers'' just reject all the science that is proving that men and women do have difference in biology. You don't need to be a genius to understand that's the case, it is displayed both on the outside and inside.
Find it funny that they seem to be obsessed with the notion that scientists that are studying differences are, obsessed with that their are differences in the genders, while in truth it is the ''gender researchers'' that are obsesses with their belief that men and female are exacly the same.
Gender researchers disgust me truly. Basing a belief on your idea and then rejecting true research is so idiotic I'm amazed by it's stupidity.
On April 11 2012 07:11 sunprince wrote: The author suggests that ideologically-influenced researchers in Norway claim to unequivocally know that biology has no effect, while the scientific consensus pretty much everywhere else holds that it's some combination of nature and nurture, without specifying the exact proportion.
yes, and that's an incorrect assessment of the dominant belief held in norway.
I'm not necessarily disputing you here, but do you have any citations for your claim?
I don't really feel like digging for a probably nonexistent statistic wrt how many norwegian scholars believe that biology has no effect on gender. But I've yet to meet a single norwegian who actually believes this, and partially due to hjernevask, I've observed/read multiple discussions. Never has any person made the claim that biology has no effect or nearly no effect on gender. What has been claimed is that biology is given too much of the credit for certain differences between genders (such as "having a scientific and inquisitive mind" being attributed to male biology), and while this cannot be proven either way, I don't think it's a far-fetched claim. Everyone in norway who actually have an opinion, hold the opinion that there's a combination of nature and nurture. It is true that norwegians will probably, on average, put slightly more emphasis on the nurture side of the equation, but that's just like, a pretty arbitrary and small difference in assumed percentages and imo, not worth focusing much on.
EPT
