That is compelling evidence for sure
It should be kept in mind that this sort of biological determinism almost never holds up in complex environments. It's more of a genetic suggestion than anything.
Printable View
I've never seen a form go into such detail tbh, care to give a real example? I'm curious.
Worst thing I have to deal with when filling stuff in is whether to put England or UK on things. Doesn't really work when one is a subset of the other but people would make a fuss if one wasn't there.
Seriously, my bad, I must have missed that post some how. This discussion has moved pretty fast. Sorry about that.
If we were discussion evolution vs creationism, you would have just said, "My daddy's daddy wadn't no monkey!"
I feel like you fail to see that you have taken the much harder position in saying that biology plays no role, or that any role it does play is washed away by nurture. If biology only plays a 1% role, that is not only enough to tip the scales and nudge people one way, but more importantly, given time, we could expect it to steer culture to reinforce its small influence.
I'll admit that we don't actually know, and that we likely will never know.
The two main points for my stance are as such: (1) for behavioral issues, there aren't any biological markers we can point to and say "he is like that because he's a guy" or "she is like that because she's a girl". However, there are many cultural factors we can use to explain those differences. (2) The arc of history continually trends towards us being surprised that our prejudices about innate differences between groups of people are wrong. It's not unique to gender. We used to think black people are naturally dumber than whites and we currently think Asians are naturally better at math. Both of which are not true.
Right, and the counter is that while the brain has no physical differences across races, across genders it very much does. To assume that a brain with a significantly different structure would not excel in some areas and fall short in other areas... I mean, why would we disregard this?
Should we let it pigeon hole people due to their gender? No. But we shouldn't force a square peg in a round hole just to be politically correct.
I think the probability that morphological differences in the brain are a product of culture -- like the claims in the article Imsavy posted -- is much higher than otherwise. The plasticity of the brain is kinda off the charts. Some of the known differences have no known effects, like size and matter type. Other differences in function that seem apparent -- like spatial proficiency -- are mostly postulated to be a result of nurture e.g. boys grow up playing sports.
Male and female fetus' are known to have physical differences in brain structure, and this is just what we can see from an ultrasound.
http://www.webmd.com/balance/feature...-brains-differ
Matter type has plenty of known differences. I can't figure out why you're being a retard on this.
Also:
http://www.wxii12.com/image/view/-/3...invite-jpg.jpg
Known differences but no known effects on the minds of the sexes.
I'm being such a "retard" on this because I'm backing up contemporary consensus on biology. The field is easily the most complex in existence, and things that appear to most people to be related -- like morphology of the brains of the sexes equaling to personality differences -- is not something biologists can extrapolate. Behavior and psychology are only tangentially related to some of the more robust biological fields. It is where if a study is done on diabetics, it has very little to no extrapolation elements onto non-diabetics. As interesting as something like men and women having different brains in some ways is, we absolutely cannot say its causative of behavior differences.
What we know today is that culture is likely to override any genetic disposition towards certain behaviors. There is yet to be demonstrated any empirical evidence that somebody's personality is the way it is because of sex. Yet we are overwhelmed with evidence that environment actively molds the way people are.
Take Rilla's study for an example of why biologists cannot extrapolate that far. If male babies look at mechanical objects more and female babes look at faces more, we have no idea what that means. We don't know if that tendency translates to other ages or if it completely disappears at some point. We don't know if that tendency is easily neutralized by standard variability in nurture. We don't even know if looking at mechanics instead of faces actually means that one is better at understanding mechanics.
But what we do know is that when it comes to personalities, genetics is pretty much just a suggestion and environment is king.
we know this? Where are your sources? Do you just make things up?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I12H7khht7o
It's worth the watch considering the convo
Hey look, a source that goes against Wuf's lack of.
I've stated several times that sexual preferences are among the most genetic dispositions probable. Of course, I'm unsure how much so since they too appear to be heavily cultural. There are some batty mating strategies in some cultures. I'd have to know more about them to give an assessment of how much is cultural, but some of them are so wacky that they involve knees being the most seductive part of the body, pederasty as the core, or polyandry.
What are some personality traits that are genetically female?
Which one? Rilla's? It doesn't. It's pretty great too. Contemporary psychology tends to view his situation as somebody who has a predisposition that is modified by environment. Additionally, like in the link Imsavy posted, we don't actually know if that predisposition is learned. On the genetic level (which that video isn't about), it gets even screwier. Geneticists will be the first to say that genes are not deterministic and that they're weirder than anybody thinks.
Brain scans do not solve the chicken or egg dilemma. Neuroplasticity is crazy stuff. Brain structure changes all the time. People who get paralyzed lose the structure that allows them to walk. People who learn the piano gain structure that knows how to play piano.
I'll hit on one line from the wiki
First off, evolutionary determinism is taboo. Biologists shy from it because it's not scientific, but it is still a useful tool to use in pursuit of scientific research. It's like how postulating where to find an evolutionary link in the fossil record isn't scientific data but a tool that gets used to find the data.Quote:
Evolutionary psychologists contend this is an inherent sex difference arising out of sexual selection, with men driven to seek women who will give birth to healthy babies and women driven to seek men who will be able to provide the necessary resources for the family's survival.
Second, baked into the quoted is environmental drivers. It's why, as there is less pressure on females to marry resources, females marry resources less. Hypergamy is a trait found disproportionately in females over males, for sure, but that doesn't mean it's genetically female. Hell, some theory about pre-civilization humans is that both polygamy and hypergamy were not normally practiced. IIRC most of the backing for this has been found in jungle tribes unaffiliated with civilization.
It should be noted that we're not even sure if marriage is something pre-agriculture humans did. There is reason to believe that humans "naturally" have relationships more like bonobos (group bondings instead of pair bondings).
Would you guys ever date a stripper?
I'd date JKDS just for fun. Just one date. And no touching.
I'd date you too boog, but you can touch me.
it is a good idea to spend time with people who make your life better.
i am using way too many periods these days. frickin boog.
Grunching here, but wuf, you seem to be pressing this argument that because of the difficulty of running an experiment on the causality of biology on behavior that the easier to study causality is the only causality. I was half joking about calling your argument tantamount to "my granddaddy wasn't no stinkin ape!", but I think you are very close to making the "missing link" argument.
Even so you don't even stick to your guns as you can continually be seen saying that whatever causality biology does affect on behavior, experience trumps it. Do you not realize that you are forfeiting here? If there is causality from biology, whether it can be overridden by experience or not, it will show in aggregate since all things being equal, more of gender A will tend to behave one way. And that's not even taking into account that once a gender, in aggregate, behaves one way, culture is likely to reinforce the behavior.
I've dated a stripper. She also did page 3. Suck it bitches!
Dated? Well we had a couple of drinks on two occasions.
And she wasn't exactly hot
Who the fuck puts not hot women on page 3?
Would you guys ever marry a hooker?
It wasn't the sun page 3, it was the sport. Perhaps a slight exaggeration on my behalf.
Would you rather marry a porn star or a hooker? I mean the only difference is how many people saw it. And possibly average dick size experienced.
I imagine porn stars are better about having safe sex. Porn star.
I'd date a hooker, but I wouldn't have sex with her unless she quit. My idea of safe sex is her taking the pill, condoms are fucking horrible. Plus, it's a matter of loyalty. I realise a hooker is not usually enjoying sex with her clients, but that's besides the point. I'm not overly jealous, but I'd have a serious problem with other men putting their dicks into my gf's vagina. So, a hooker would need to demonstrate her love for me by finding alternative employment before a serious relationship can begin.
Porn stars are hookers with a more glamourous job title.
Stripper? no
Porn star v hooker? Porn star, especially if she's part of a regulated industry, she probably invest more in keeping herself healthy.
Porn star, then? no
I felt pretty whore-like working in a carpentry shop. The work was physical, and the management bent us over at every opportunity.
Anyone wanna buy me dinner?
A cheap holiday in other people's misery. - Will Self on the news. I look that.
A cheeky lift? Or a struggle for life?
http://www.independent.co.uk/incomin...ker-weasel.jpg
@ong: That's awesome!
***
I read two phrases in the past 30 minutes that lead me to believe that I'm a racist...
Russian environmentalist
Chinese comedian
I never pieced those words together before and my brain literally stopped and went, "what, now?" both times.
I'm a bad person, clearly.
Not so awesome when you realise the weasel is trying to kill the woodpecker. Well actually it's still awesome, but brutal.
The woodpecker escaped.
I don't think you can be racist towards the Russians. Xenophobic, yes, but not racist. They mostly white Caucasian.
I can't help your conscience when it comes to the Chinese though, other than to say that it's hard to be racist towards a superior race of people.
It's a semantical thing. What they mean is that racism implies systemic oppression.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/0...Reverse-Racism
The bolds are mine, as I think they're the most salient.Quote:
Prejudice is an irrational feeling of dislike for a person or group of persons, usually based on stereotype. Virtually everyone feels some sort of prejudice, whether it's for an ethnic group, or for a religious group, or for a type of person like blondes or fat people or tall people. The important thing is they just don't like them -- in short, prejudice is a feeling, a belief. You can be prejudiced, but still be a fair person if you're careful not to act on your irrational dislike.
Discrimination takes place the moment a person acts on prejudice. This describes those moments when one individual decides not to give another individual a job because of, say, their race or their religious orientation. Or even because of their looks (there's a lot of hiring discrimination against "unattractive" women, for example). You can discriminate, individually, against any person or group, if you're in a position of power over the person you want to discriminate against. White people can discriminate against black people, and black people can discriminate against white people if, for example, one is the interviewer and the other is the person being interviewed.
Racism, however, describes patterns of discrimination that are institutionalized as "normal" throughout an entire culture. It's based on an ideological belief that one "race" is somehow better than another "race". It's not one person discriminating at this point, but a whole population operating in a social structure that actually makes it difficult for a person not to discriminate.
He's right. I'm not racist, because I'm not judging based on race, but nationality.
It's borderline with Chinese, because the word can refer to the race or the nationality.
I'd normally use the word bigot.
I mean, one can clearly be racist against whites, I just wasn't being so in that argument.
My job's site is down so I have a minute, but not enough to explain the African American perspective on the phrase, "I can't be racist, I'm black." Personally, I have only a white guy's perspective on conversations I've had on the subject with black people, but I have that.
Mostly it's about the notion that pushing back against a slight is not the same as the slight. The idea they've expressed to me is that they're not being racist, they're reacting to racism. I think it's a poor definition of racism, but there it is.
This way of thinking about racism drives me nuts. I don't understand where the idea that the discrimination must be "normal throughout an entire culture" came from. Whatever happened to the simple definition of racism where it's simply believing that members of a race are inferior or superior to other races?
I really should refresh the page before posting when I leave my browser open while I make tea, y'know, in case someone else has posted what I was about to post and the conversation has moved forward.
How is the distinction itself rationalizing any form of discriminatory behavior?
I think it's more about a false equivalency. If you read that article, it's addressing the right wing's claims of "reverse racism."
Shitty people can use anything to rationalize shitty behavior, but the distinction itself doesn't have any such motive, I don't think.
Well if this remained the definition of racism, then it would be very difficult to call someone racist for using derogatory terms based on race, so long as one does not imply superiority. If a black man says hello to me, can I respond with "sup negroid" and not be a racist twat? No I can't, it is indeed racist, but not according to the idea that racism is belief in superiority.
I don't think racism and discriminatory behavior are one in the same. Discriminatory behavior can STEM from racism but the discrimination part is not necessary for racism to have taken place. Racism is a thought or idea, not a behavior.
MMM gave an example of the idea: "I can't be racist, I'm black." A lot of this was prevalent after the Ferguson and Eric Garner stuff. A really good friend of mine who I respect greatly went down that road. "I fucking hate white people," was a quote out of her mouth. Of course, this is all anecdotal but it's things like this that drives me nuts. It only makes racial divides worse when people believe that, because there is little (read: no) discrimination against whites, saying shit like that is fine.
Edit: Yeah, things were tense at that point. She was really angry about how things went down. I'm giving her a pass for saying that out of passion. Still, not cool to think malicious, racist thangs.
Reactionary statements like that don't really bother me either. I don't even see it as malicious. It stems from extreme pain and frustration.
edit: but I agree, there are people who will try to defend that kind of rhetoric across the board, and I don't think that's cool either. And then there are people who attack it by calling it "reverse racism." I think that's the wrong way to go about criticizing it. No matter how "racist" a black person is towards a white person, you, as a white person, can't act as though you have the same bone to pick about it. It's just not the same. Nonetheless, can you criticize it on the grounds of being detrimental to any real progress? Sure. It's when you react as though you are now equally victimized by racism that the conversation breaks down.
my you's are general, btw.
Racism to me is stereotyping works. If I had to guess which out of some group of people was most likely to mug me, my brain already knows the answer.
How that percolates into institution oppression or whatever else is required for racism is the interesting part. Griping about who gets to bitch and moan about 'the system' is a waste.
Guy hates me because I'm white, I'm just supposed to smile and thank him and I do so. This triggers an internal conflict and discomfort in me. Now I'm being oppressed by him in a way he could never understand. His race gives him the power to step all over me and I must take it. This is oppression of the highest order which now opens me to being racist at him - aw shit son.
I don't even think that's racism. There's a large, tough group of African-American and Guyanese people in Jamaica, Queens. Most follow the whole "thug life" bullshit. Yup, I pre-judge them all to hell and actually dodged a glass bottle being swung at me due to my excellent judgment skills. They HAPPEN to be Guyanese and African-American, but that isn't much of what caused me to judge them prior to knowing who they really were.
I have a hard time believing level headed people actually buy into the internet rhetoric around racism. If you believe it's because you want to, not because it makes a tremendous amount of sense.
It's like white power people and how they sense the threat of the colored man to the white race. The black man knows the oppression of The Man. Women feel the Patriarchy.
I dunno what I'm saying... You find a way to feel strong through the intended oppression you want to believe is real.
Yeah, to me that's the mechanism that bores out racism. White guy reads a black guys name on a resume and automatically rates it lower than the same resume with a white guys name ... all the way up to some white guy being furious with blacks because he thinks they make his life worse.