723 réponses à ce sujet

[Andraste_Reborn]

Cordelia Fine is not a neuroscientist and there is a massive and do mean massive amount of data showing us that men and women have different brains. She had a political agenda, not a scientific one.

 

While she may not be a neuroscientist (and I'd certainly be interested in a similar review of the data written by one) she's capable of reviewing the relevant studies and actually looking at the evidence. Turns out it's a lot sketchier than a lot of people like to think.

 

(And I say that as someone who had believed in some of the sex differences she dismantles before reading the book and looking at the studies she examines. I used to repeat that 'women have higher pain tolerance' thing, for example, and it turns out that there's no real evidence for that.)

[maia0407]

No. Men and women have very different brains, differing patterns of distribution of grey and white matter for example as well as volume. men typically have more grey matter than women and different connections. Men tend to be better at spatial tasks from day one, which suggests selection pressures that led to that, which is reflected in the data on male and female brain differences. Greater spatial ability is correlated with a greater affinity for engineering. If you are genuinely interested I will post a link.
 
http://www.cam.ac.uk...rain-structures
 
Unfortunately researchers are terrified of talking about this because they are attacked by progressives claiming "neurosexism".

Interesting meta analysis; thanks for the link. However, the article states that no conclusions can be drawn about behavioral patterns based on this data and that more research is needed. You made the leap to 'therefore, women are naturally not engineers'. There's also no mention of terrified scientists. In fact, to perform a meta analysis, there were enough studies published by non-terrified scientists for the analysis to happen.

[Ieldra]

There's also the problem that stating that differing evolutionary pressures resulted in such vast differences among gender lines that there 'naturally' aren't many women engineers. How do you get from here to there? What evolutionary pressures are we talking about exactly that create these differences? By what mechanism do they work on the human brain to cause these differences? This line of reasoning sounds more like a 'just so' story concocted to sound scientific but in reality is just tailored to fit a sexist narrative.

This "naturally" is not a value judgment. It's not an attempt at vindication, at least if the one who proposes it is honest. You are correct though, suppositions like this are naturally problematic. You can, for instance, make some plausible hypothesis based on the undeniable fact that women get the children and men don't, for instance hypothetizing that this is a main reason contributing to the observed fact that women have rarely been soldiers and warriors in human history. This is possible and plausible, but whether it's the actual truth, or a part of it, could only be determined by examining the behaviour of old cultures, which we can't because they don't exist anymore.

On the other hand, using biochemical rather than evolutionary arguments can be valid, since we can observe human biochemistry much more directly and connect it to behaviour in methodically valid ways. It would be delusional, for instance, to deny the influence of gender-specific hormones on behaviour. This may differ by various factors and may be even be negligible in individual cases, but on the population level it's highly significant. And btw, there are statistical methods to correct for confounding influences, for instance from society and culture. Researching those influences may find that biological programming is more or less easy to override by culture, but the biological influence exists as a factor regardless and is never irrelevant.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

Interesting meta analysis; thanks for the link. However, the article states that no conclusions can be drawn about behavioral patterns based on this data and that more research is needed. You made the leap to 'therefore, women are naturally not engineers'. There's also no mention of terrified scientists. In fact, to perform a meta analysis, there were enough studies published by non-terrified scientists for the analysis to happen.

It is not specifically in that article no, but they do say that asymmetric differences in male and female brains cannot be ignored with regards to research and the evaluation of psychiatric conditions, including autism, schizophrenia and depression, all of which have behavioural outcomes. More to the point, it would be absurd to claim that large brain asymmetries mean nothing in terms of behaviour, we are after all our brains.

[Dieb]

Okay now, please listen to me.

 

Repeatedly stating what effectively is old data, as an argument from authority rather than objectivity; upholding your conveluted and deprecative ad hominem discussion style as sort of a short-circuited corollary of the former also isn't getting you anywhere but the quote I at this point know you will understand:

 

"Gewisse Bucher scheinen geschrieben zu sein, nicht damit man daraus lerne, sondern damit man wisse, dass der Verfasser etwas gewusst hat."

 

It furthermore tells me that you are most likely not a scientist yourself, less likely a scientist in active research. At best you got started or are someone with admittedly somewhat general training on the matter. This has nothing to do with your knowledge or intelligence. I mean your behaviour alone. That is not intended as an insult, and I realize it is borderline presumptuous since you have not stated either explicitly.

 

If I'm wrong on that however -there is  always this possiblity regardless of age or experience- I can only urge you to realize how the wisest of the people you assumingly strive to represent, empirically do not have the need for even half of the hubris you (knowingly or unknowingly) put forth in a single posting alone. Referring to research data however current  everyone is fine to do, but some of those claims paint nothing but an unflattering portrait for not only this particular field of research science and the women & men working in it.

 

TL;DR There is more than one ongoing research that re-evaluates certain compulsions of the modern human of either sex in relation to their primordial necessities; and not all any of them questioning old (in certain lingo aka "Monday's...") data are doing so to cater to political correctness. You won't find an honourable scientist re-visting a deductively flawless analysis just to properly adapt them to the current standards of social ethics.

 

 

P.S.: I am aware that my Rick Astley memorial avatar doesn't help my case, as well as the fact that I often attempt my go at humor and deplorably simple language. It doesn't make this appeal less genuine.

[maia0407]

This "naturally" is not a value judgment. It's not an attempt at vindication, at least if the one who proposes it is honest. You are correct though, suppositions like this are naturally problematic. You can, for instance, make some plausible hypothesis based on the undeniable fact that women get the children and men don't, for instance hypothetizing that this is a main reason contributing to the observed fact that women have rarely been soldiers and warriors in human history. This is possible and plausible, but whether it's the actual truth, or a part of it, could only be determined by examining the behaviour of old cultures, which we can't because they don't exist anymore.On the other hand, using biochemical rather than evolutionary arguments *can* be valid, since we can observe human biochemistry much more directly and connect it to behaviour in methodically valid ways. It would be delusional, for instance, to deny the influence of gender-specific hormones on behaviour. This may differ by various factors and may be even be negligible in individual cases, but on the population level it's highly significant.

I agree; the label 'natural' too often carries a value judgment along the lines that 'natural' is always good and 'right' within a behavioral context. I wouldn't argue that there aren't differences between men and women; unfortunately, many people use this admission to enforce preexisiting sexist notions as the 'natural' way of the world. They also extrapolate these differences to a much larger degree than is warranted by the science that they prop up their sexist beliefs on. Nothing I have seen so far indicates that biology is the primary factor leading to fewer women in the sciences. Sure, it might play a role but I am not convinced that it is the entire explanation, especially when dealing with such a huge gap. Cultural problems appear to be a very big factor that sexists like to ignore or, at least, play down.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

Okay now, please listen to me.

 

Repeatedly stating what effectively is old data, as an argument from authority rather than objectivity; upholding your conveluted and deprecative ad hominem discussion style as sort of a short-circuited corollary of the former also isn't getting you anywhere but the quote I at this point know you will understand:

 

"Gewisse Bucher scheinen geschrieben zu sein, nicht damit man daraus lerne, sondern damit man wisse, dass der Verfasser etwas gewusst hat."

 

It furthermore tells me that you are most likely not a scientist yourself, less likely a scientist in active research. At best you got started or are someone with admittedly somewhat general training on the matter. This has nothing to do with your knowledge or intelligence. I mean your behaviour alone. That is not intended as an insult, and I realize it is borderline presumptuous since you have not stated either explicitly.

 

If I'm wrong on that however -there is  always this possiblity regardless of age or experience- I can only urge you to realize how the wisest of the people you assumingly strive to represent, empirically do not have the need for even half of the hubris you (knowingly or unknowingly) put forth in a single posting alone. Referring to research data however current  everyone is fine to do, but some of those claims paint nothing but an unflattering portrait for not only this particular field of research science and the women & men working in it.

 

TL;DR There is more than one ongoing research that re-evaluates certain compulsions of the modern human of either sex in relation to their primordial necessities; and not all any of them questioning old (in certain lingo aka "Monday's...") data are doing so to cater to political correctness. You won't find an honourable scientist re-visting a deductively flawless analysis just to properly adapt them to the current standards of social ethics.

 

 

P.S.: I am aware that my Rick Astley memorial avatar doesn't help my case, as well as the fact that I often attempt my go at humor and deplorably simple language. It doesn't make this appeal less genuine.

An mich geschrieben? Brain asymmetries are old data? News to me. Are there new data showing that male and female brains are the same. Science has nothing to do with flattering or unflattering. It simply is, or rather the data simply are. Data do not care about our feeling or how they make us feel. It is pretty well-known that most human behaviour is not conscious and can be divided between distal and proximate cause. Most people only think about proximate cause but the distal cannot be ignored because it invariably forms the basis of biological organisms' behaviour, including humans.

[Ieldra]

I would like to add another element to the debate:

In practical terms, in everyday behaviour, I find it appropriate to always assume plasticity, assume that there are no limitations in any individual case unless I can prove them in this individual case. For instance I tend to say that everyone can learn mathematics and that it's not even hard once you've understood the fundamentals. This may not apply to everyone, and there may be gender-specific differences, but I'd rather err on the side of plasticity, for to do otherwise would mean to limit someone's potential needlessly, if my judgment of the individual case is wrong.

The thought of, for instance, losing a potentially genius engineer just because some careless person told her that girls don't do engineering well in her childhood, that's unbearable. That makes me go up the wall. She could've been the one who takes us to the stars.

[Panda]

It is not specifically in that article no, but they do say that asymmetric differences in male and female brains cannot be ignored with regards to research and the evaluation of psychiatric conditions, including autism, schizophrenia and depression, all of which have behavioural outcomes. More to the point, it would be absurd to claim that large brain asymmetries mean nothing in terms of behaviour, we are after all our brains.

 

There was line though that admits that environmental and social aspects can have influence in these brain differences:  “Although these very clear sex differences in brain structure may reflect an environmental or social factor, from other studies we know that biological influences are also important".

 

So I guess things are quite related ^^

[Dieb]

I was speaking of psychological inclination theories with hundreds of active studies going on for decades because of the wonkey legs they're standing on, not anatomical facts.

 

To put it plainly: Be nice, please. I've said nothing else.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

I would like to add another element to the debate:

In practical terms, in everyday behaviour, I find it appropriate to always assume plasticity, assume that there are no limitations in any individual case unless I can prove them in this individual case. For instance I tend to say that everyone can learn mathematics and that it's not even hard once you've understood the fundamentals. This may not apply to everyone, and may be gender-specific differences, but I'd rather err on the side of plasticity, for to do otherwise would mean to limit someone's potential needlessly, if my judgment of the individual case is wrong.

The thought of, for instance, losing a potentially genius engineer just because some careless person told her that girls don't do engineering well in her childhood, that's unbearable. That makes me go up the wall. She could've been the one who takes us to the stars.

A person who is driven to become an engineer is not going to stop because of something said to them during childhood. That people have limitations is fairly obvious Neither you nor I are ever going to be Einstein nor will we run as fast as Usain Bolt. Plasticity does not imply we can do anything and everything we wish. It merely implies that the brain is adaptive. Someone with a IQ of 80 will almost certainly never be doing string theory, no matter the degree of plasticity.

[Andraste_Reborn]

A person who is driven to become an engineer is not going to stop because of something said to them during childhood. That people have limitations is fairly obvious Neither you nor I are ever going to be Einstein nor will we run as fast as Usain Bolt. Plasticity does not imply we can do anything and everything we wish. It merely implies that the brain is adaptive. Someone with a IQ of 80 will almost certainly never be doing string theory, no matter the degree of plasticity.

 

But a person who's discouraged from taking an interest in maths because of her gender might never realize that she'd make a good engineer or even consider that possibility in the first place. Stereotype threat is a thing.

[Ieldra]

A person who is driven to become an engineer is not going to stop because of something said to them during childhood.

Not if a careless comment nips that drive in the bud. Most children aren't very capable of rejecting judgments by their peers, for reasons that have nothing to do with their future potential in specific fields. If you survive your childhood with your drive intact, then you're not going to budge anymore, but until then you're vulnerable.

[SardaukarElite]

Do you know how many people have thought I was a dude based on my posting style? I can tell you it is a fair amount and includes most everyone I have interacted with on these forums.

 

I mostly think of you as someone carrying a lot of alcohol.

 

---

 

I suspect avatars throw a lot of people if you don't explicitly declare your gender.

[Dieb]

I mostly think of you as someone carrying a lot of alcohol.

 

---

 

I suspect avatars throw a lot of people if you don't explicitly declare your gender.

 

I have always thought you were a black & white Russian war hero.

[Donk]

I mostly think of you as someone carrying a lot of alcohol.

 

---

 

I suspect avatars throw a lot of people if you don't explicitly declare your gender.

 

Not always. For months I sported a desire demon avatar and got mistaken for a dude. I think it was my vulgar behaviour.

[SardaukarElite]

Not always. For months I sported a desire demon avatar and got mistaken for a dude. I think it was my vulgar behaviour.

 

Desire demons probably count as the kind of avatar that get you flagged as a guy. Not that I'm arguing it's a hard rule or anything.

[Donk]

Desire demons probably count as the kind of avatar that get you flagged as a guy. Not that I'm arguing it's a hard rule or anything.

 

Actually, that is a good point.

[lynroy]

I mostly think of you as someone carrying a lot of alcohol.

 

---

 

I suspect avatars throw a lot of people if you don't explicitly declare your gender.

Shhhhh I'm in disguise.

[WildOrchid]

I always wonder if people can guess my gender at first from my name/posts/avi.

 

 

That being said, on the internet everyone assumes you're a dude until proven otherwise.

[Fearsome1]

I'm male, but I like to play both genders. I much preferred FemShep in Mass Effect, and I probably played more female Hawkes than male, but my Inquisitors are an equal split, also across all four races.

[SharpWalkers]

. . . so what was this thread about, again? 

[Ieldra]

. . . so what was this thread about, again? 

This started with the OP making the false assumption that the characters we play are just ourselves in a fantasy world, so he was baffled that there were so many female Inquisitors.

[Steelcan]

I always wonder if people can guess my gender at first from my name/posts/avi.

 

 

That being said, on the internet everyone assumes you're a dude until proven otherwise.

not sure that's true on the BSN

 

*has flashbacks to being called an SJW*

[Panda]

not sure that's true on the BSN

 

*has flashbacks to being called an SJW*

 

I doubt you are only guy called SJW here though.