Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Nov 8, 2017 01:18 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]Put all the leaders' brains in jars, let them run their respective countries from inside the glass and then tell me when they make a male or female decision.

why should society seek a balance of genders in leadership & general intellectual design models ...

here is some data 

http://content.time.com/time/health/arti...38,00.html

Quote:Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.

http://brainblogger.com/2015/05/14/homos...the-brain/

Quote:The Masculine and the Feminine Brain

Gender identity, which is the feeling of being like a man or a woman, influences various aspects of human behavior. These include choice of toys as a child and gender-specific cognitive, motor, and personality characteristics. Gender identity also has a role to play in determining sexuality. And all these developments are triggered by testosterone. Male and female fetuses vary in the level of this sex hormone.

Quote:According to one study, the human brain can show “masculine” or “feminine” traits, irrespective of physical sexual characteristics. When the fetus develops, gender identity and the sexual differentiation of the genitals may develop independently of one another. The former takes place during the second half of pregnancy while the latter starts much earlier, within the first 8 weeks of gestation. Incidentally, incongruent development in these two regions usually leads to transsexuality.

should gender be a fundermental consideration for leadership models ?
ask a heterosexual male if he knows what it is like to live as the other 50%(a woman) of society ? obviousely the answer is "no".
thus leaving reasonable room to ask why 50% of societys perspective on life is missing from leadership.

should we have a LGBT quota for leadership ?... do we need a quota for anything ? is a quota system a form of democracy ?
is democratic majority just a form of quota used to appease those who cant comprehend a single leader model ? (fascinating quandry for many middle of the road thinkers[assuming they do not try & dictate athoratarian dogma into the concept of leadership not being able to hold power]).

if democracy is important, why is 50% of democratic society not represented in leadership roles ?

(Nov 7, 2017 07:57 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Evolutionary psychology predisposes people to having certain expectations, motives, and strategies. Are these things, shaped by nature, unhealthy?
If evolution is generally a good thing that promotes good survival strategies, aren't most the consequences of that natural order healthy?

We’re talking about social issues, which are constructed through ideas, symbolism and cultural appropriation.  They didn’t evolve through an evolutionary process, you dumbass troll. There are no natural elements in the social process.  Using the term 'natural order' says more about you and your ideology than it does about us.  When you talk about the natural specificity of the sexes, you are in fact saying that a specific nature produces social practices.  No one here is denying that there are biological differences but using the term 'natural order' implies that we are born in the context of a specific social relations.  I thought that you said that you didn’t believe in determinism, yet here you are using the term 'natural', and applying it not only to a single individual, but to all women, as if we are internally and biologically programmed to behave in a certain way.  Why are you attaching any social significance to our anatomical differences?

(Nov 8, 2017 06:20 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 7, 2017 07:57 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Evolutionary psychology predisposes people to having certain expectations, motives, and strategies. Are these things, shaped by nature, unhealthy?
If evolution is generally a good thing that promotes good survival strategies, aren't most the consequences of that natural order healthy?

We’re talking about social issues, which are constructed through ideas, symbolism and cultural appropriation.  They didn’t evolve through an evolutionary process, dumbass troll. There are no natural elements in the social process.  Using the term 'natural order' says more about you and your ideology than it does about us.  When you talk about the natural specificity of the sexes, you are in fact saying that a specific nature produces social practices.  No one here is denying that there are biological differences but using the term 'natural order' implies that we are born in the context of a specific social relations.  I thought that you said that you didn’t believe in determinism, yet here you are using the term 'natural', and applying it not only to a single individual, but to all women, as if we are internally and biological programmed to behave in a certain way.  Why are you attaching any social significance to our anatomical differences?

like button

(Nov 8, 2017 06:20 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 7, 2017 07:57 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Evolutionary psychology predisposes people to having certain expectations, motives, and strategies. Are these things, shaped by nature, unhealthy?
If evolution is generally a good thing that promotes good survival strategies, aren't most the consequences of that natural order healthy?

We’re talking about social issues, which are constructed through ideas, symbolism and cultural appropriation.  They didn’t evolve through an evolutionary process, you dumbass troll. There are no natural elements in the social process.  Using the term 'natural order' says more about you and your ideology than it does about us.  When you talk about the natural specificity of the sexes, you are in fact saying that a specific nature produces social practices.  No one here is denying that there are biological differences but using the term 'natural order' implies that we are born in the context of a specific social relations.  I thought that you said that you didn’t believe in determinism, yet here you are using the term 'natural', and applying it not only to a single individual, but to all women, as if we are internally and biologically programmed to behave in a certain way.  Why are you attaching any social significance to our anatomical differences?

So you think there's zero underlying evolutionary psychology at work in social issues/interactions? O_o

"As humans are a highly social species, there are many adaptive problems associated with navigating the social world (e.g., maintaining allies, managing status hierarchies, interacting with outgroup members, coordinating social activities, collective decision-making). Researchers in the emerging field of evolutionary social psychology have made many discoveries pertaining to topics traditionally studied by social psychologists, including person perception, social cognition, attitudes, altruism, emotions, group dynamics, leadership, motivation, prejudice, intergroup relations, and cross-cultural differences." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona...psychology

"In the last three decades, the evolutionary perspective has been reinvigorated with considerable theoretical advances and a continually growing array of empirical studies.

Claims for such dramatic advancements on currently held beliefs likely evoke skepticism. The massive empirical evidence accumulating for the influence of evolutionary selection pressures on psychological mechanisms will convince objective observers." - http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/200...spx#Kruger


Apparently you do need a prime on evolutionary psychology.
And your ad hominems only demonstrate an emotional reaction to cognitive dissonance.


You don't even seem to understand that determinism means "that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event." Deterministic things can have influence without everything being 100% deterministic. After all, even if you have free will, the laws of physics will still determine what will happen if you jump. No choice is absolutely free of causal consequences. And it's actually my belief in physical determinism (causality) and free will that solves the problem of evil.



What happened to you, SS? I could swear you used to be able to make much more cogent arguments. Are you just getting more ideologically defensive as you age...or just lazy? Seems you use to cite a few sources for your arguments and not rely to much on ad hominems to do all your lifting.

(Nov 8, 2017 08:01 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]What happened to you, SS? I could swear you used to be able to make much more cogent arguments. Are you just getting more ideologically defensive as you age...or just lazy? Seems you use to cite a few sources for your arguments and not rely to much on ad hominems to do all your lifting.

Maybe I'm tired of doing all your heavy lifting.  Did you ever think of that?  I'm a tit-for-tat kinda girl.  You don't really have much to offer.  I get bored with your shenanigans.

Originally, I was thinking more along the lines of something like this…

"Nothing in evolutionary theory privileges males over females, however, nor does evolutionary theory prescribe social 'roles' for either sex. Are ovaries superior to testicles? The question is meaningless. Are male mate preferences superior to female mate preferences? The question is equally meaningless. Evolutionary psychology focuses on the properties of individuals. Because social roles are properties of particular groups at particular points in time, evolutionary psychology has little to say about them. Stated another way, evolutionary psychologists can formulate hypotheses about individual preferences, but cannot predict much regarding the social arrangements that will result when individuals with different preferences negotiate a social contract."

Is evolutionary psychology sexist?

But if you want to use evolutionary psychology to back up your term 'natural order' that’s fine by me.  

So…men really are stupid barbarians and women are more civilized.  That sounds good to me.  I can go along with that.

I guess you’d agree with Steven Pinker then, right?  He said that when it comes to stupid violence that’s much more of a guy thing.  I loved that!



So, maybe C C’s article was spot on.  Masculinity itself is a problem.

Noice!  

(Nov 9, 2017 04:22 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 8, 2017 08:01 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]What happened to you, SS? I could swear you used to be able to make much more cogent arguments. Are you just getting more ideologically defensive as you age...or just lazy? Seems you use to cite a few sources for your arguments and not rely to much on ad hominems to do all your lifting.

Maybe I'm tired of doing all your heavy lifting.  Did you ever think of that?  I'm a tit-for-tat kinda girl.  You don't really have much to offer.  I get bored with your shenanigans.

So shenanigans is citing two sources to support my argument..which you just completely ignore? O_o
Sorry deary, but you can't expect others to do research to support your own arguments for you. That is shifting the burden. I made an argument and I supported it. You talked out of your ass, and even seemed to misrepresent determinism, and now you're whining about having to support your own arguments.

Quote:Originally, I was thinking more along the lines of something like this…

"Nothing in evolutionary theory privileges males over females, however, nor does evolutionary theory prescribe social 'roles' for either sex. Are ovaries superior to testicles? The question is meaningless. Are male mate preferences superior to female mate preferences? The question is equally meaningless. Evolutionary psychology focuses on the properties of individuals. Because social roles are properties of particular groups at particular points in time, evolutionary psychology has little to say about them. Stated another way, evolutionary psychologists can formulate hypotheses about individual preferences, but cannot predict much regarding the social arrangements that will result when individuals with different preferences negotiate a social contract."

Is evolutionary psychology sexist?

You left out:
"Evolutionary theory predicts, therefore, that there will be some innate differences between males and females, that these differences very probably include cognitive differences, and, perhaps, that little can be done to erase these differences." - http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/...exism.html

Do you just skip anything you don't agree with so you can make straw man arguments like anyone mentioned anything about "privilege" or "prescribed roles"? Maybe that's why you don't like to support your arguments. The cognitive dissonance of having things your confirmation bias missed pointed out to you.

Quote:But if you want to use evolutionary psychology to back up your term 'natural order' that’s fine by me.  

So…men really are stupid barbarians and women are more civilized.  That sounds good to me.  I can go along with that.

The standard deviation for IQ is higher in men than women. So yes, there are more men both dumber and smarter than women, at the extremes of the bell curve. And yes, the lower end potential for IQ can mix with competitive nature to disastrous effect. But on the other hand, most modern technology, safety against inherently aggressive nations, and even safety against overly aggressive males are a product of men in general.

The civility of women cannot exist without the protection of men from the worst of the uncivilized. It only exists as a luxury afforded by the willingness of men to risk their lives fighting aggressors.

Quote:I guess you’d agree with Steven Pinker then, right?  He said that when it comes to stupid violence that’s much more of a guy thing.  I loved that!

Of course. You'd have to be blind to think otherwise. Which again, it only supports evolved behavior that such generalities hold to such a degree.

Quote:So, maybe C C’s article was spot on.  Masculinity itself is a problem.

Noice!  

Aside from you seeming to be a teenage girl, saying "noice", if you agree with that article, you're simply a man-hating misandrist. You can test it too. Take any statement from that article and swap the gender.

"women must renounce their femininity and “denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it.”"
"calling for people to “attack femininity directly”
“We can only give femininity so many modifiers for so long before we have to confront the possibility that it is femininity itself that has become the problem.”

Syne Wrote:"women must renounce their femininity and “denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it.”"
"calling for people to “attack femininity directly”
“We can only give femininity so many modifiers for so long before we have to confront the possibility that it is femininity itself that has become the problem.”

Did that come out as well as you thought it was going to? Genuinly [< I have lost the will to get past the spell checker] - assume no mockery intended, do you think it worked?

(Nov 10, 2017 01:32 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]

Syne Wrote:"women must renounce their femininity and “denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it.”"
"calling for people to “attack femininity directly”
“We can only give femininity so many modifiers for so long before we have to confront the possibility that it is femininity itself that has become the problem.”

Did that come out as well as you thought it was going to?  Genuinly [< I have lost the will to get past the spell checker]  - assume no mockery intended, do you think it worked?

Why, do you find none of those statements objectionable? O_o
It works as well as it exposes the sexist hypocrisy in condemning a whole gender. If you find the statements about women more objectionable than those about men, you're fostering a transparent and sexist double standard.


Genuinely.

(Nov 10, 2017 01:42 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 10, 2017 01:32 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]

Syne Wrote:"women must renounce their femininity and “denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it.”"
"calling for people to “attack femininity directly”
“We can only give femininity so many modifiers for so long before we have to confront the possibility that it is femininity itself that has become the problem.”

Did that come out as well as you thought it was going to?  Genuinly [< I have lost the will to get past the spell checker]  - assume no mockery intended, do you think it worked?

Why, do you find none of those statements objectionable? O_o
It works as well as it exposes the sexist hypocrisy in condemning a whole gender. If you find the statements about women more objectionable than those about men, you're fostering a transparent and sexist double standard.


Genuinely.  

Genuinely (thanks) and in fairness I have to report from my social circle (males and females, a circle both small and imperfectly formed) - it is a mix of those who are attracted to me and not those who are repelled by me and those I am attracted to and not those I choose to repel. So I'm left with a few. Like everyone else I'm looking at things biased by many things and foremost is (naturally) going to be my own experience. I have a friend who could reasonably expect some kind of response to his postcards other than abandoned replies - we're talking well over five years here *. I twitter (? that may be what I did but whatever it was she read and replied to it) a woman I haven't seen for 10 years and she replies in 6 minutes. Anyway, gen'rally the females I've known come out smelling of roses (somewhat literally as well as metaphorically).

I could offer some suggestions as to why it is women like your own Crooked Hillary who rise towards the top but that would be opinion not experience and those are not the same thing.

*Mrs C2 recently lost patience on M*'s behalf and wrote and posted the reply. As two old friends the hand-written reply is important (you are probably too young to understand) . He will now think I have rather girly handwriting. Them what seek to deceive are forever damned..

(Nov 9, 2017 09:38 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So shenanigans is citing two sources to support my argument..which you just completely ignore? O_o
Sorry deary, but you can't expect others to do research to support your own arguments for you. That is shifting the burden. I made an argument and I supported it. You talked out of your ass, and even seemed to misrepresent determinism, and now you're whining about having to support your own arguments.

You cited two sources supporting your argument?  That's fucking hilarious!  You're all over the place.

Would the world be more peaceful if there were more women leaders?

(Oct 31, 2017 07:28 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]No. When polled, 33% of women want men as leaders...because they know, first hand, the cattiness and often vindictive jealousy of other women.

I take it that you agreed with the article, which was in opposition to Steven Pinker’s opinion.

The article says…

"It is, indeed, a stereotype to dismiss women as inherently peaceable. I wish to disclaim altogether the kind of assumption… in feminist talk of the present day.” That is, “the assumption that men have been the barbarians who loved physical force, and that women alone were civilized and civilizing. There are no signs of this in literature or history."

But then you try to back up your argument (whatever the fuck that is) citing quotes from Wikipedia on evolutionary psychology.  And now, you’re agreeing with Steven Pinker, who basically says that men are stupid barbarians and women are more civilized.

He said that feminization is one of the long term trends that has been pushing violence down.  That giving women more power will mean that violence for its own sake will be less appealing.  He notes that the parts of the world that lag in the decline of violence are also the parts that lag in the empowerment of women.  Pinker argues that the empowerment of women does exercise a pacifying influence and the world would be more peaceful if women were in charge.

WTF?  Yeah, like I said...shenanigans.