Can evolutionary biology explain the human impulse to create?

#41
(Dec 21, 2017 06:19 AM)Syne Wrote: What, a woman is better at understanding another woman? Does everyone know about this?  Rolleyes

She also communicates well with males.  Her insight is persuasive.

Syne Wrote:Yes, I'm positive you would think people who generally agree with you are less "painful and awkward." That is a liability to maintaining a high degree of cognitive dissonance. Being challenged is very discomforting to inconsistent people. Challenging consistent people is like strengthening the immune system...it feels healthy.

He may or may not agree with me. He simply offers his experiences, points of view, and interpretations.  

Syne Wrote:So you scoff at the feedback step in a proper communication cycle? If you don't provide feedback, you cannot rationally expect anyone to improve upon their understanding of what you say. But then, you probably only understand communication as a intuitive ability.

They're loaded questions.

Syne Wrote:Yeah, that's the response to facts I've come to expect from you.

Pff!

Syne Wrote:LOL! I've always tested fairly equally on left/right-brainedness. I can only assume it is ideological pigeon-holing that keeps people from realizing that.

I’ve always thought that was a myth.

Syne Wrote:High IQ and creativity and being a musician are all linked to well-connected brain hemispheres. It's only in average brains that hemisphere dominance may correlate to gender, while brain structure size is a much more solid correlation.

Are you describing yourself?


Syne Wrote:Again, do you believe in objective facts? Come on, certainly you have the nerve to answer that simple, direct question.

Within a well-defined context, yes.

Syne Wrote:Any reason you seem to have quit citing the actual sources for your quotes? O_o
Just lazy, huh?

No, just non-redundant.

(Dec 18, 2017 10:21 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Why do you build models?
Reply
#42
(Dec 21, 2017 03:26 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Dec 21, 2017 06:19 AM)Syne Wrote: What, a woman is better at understanding another woman? Does everyone know about this?  Rolleyes

She also communicates well with males.  

Really? Where's your evidence of that?

Quote:Her insight is persuasive.

Again, a woman finds another woman insightful or persuasive? Stop the presses. Rolleyes

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Yes, I'm positive you would think people who generally agree with you are less "painful and awkward." That is a liability to maintaining a high degree of cognitive dissonance. Being challenged is very discomforting to inconsistent people. Challenging consistent people is like strengthening the immune system...it feels healthy.

He may or may not agree with me. He simply offers his experiences, points of view, and interpretations.  

Exactly. He doesn't challenge you, so you don't readily know if he agrees or not.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:So you scoff at the feedback step in a proper communication cycle? If you don't provide feedback, you cannot rationally expect anyone to improve upon their understanding of what you say. But then, you probably only understand communication as a intuitive ability.

They're loaded questions.

Which are loaded questions? And why don't you point that out when they're asked? Dodgy
Or is this question somehow "loaded"? What does it presuppose that you disagree with? O_o
Do you think feedback, allowing people to clarify their understanding, is irrelevant to communication? O_o

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Yeah, that's the response to facts I've come to expect from you.

Pff!

And you seem to wonder why some people don't take you seriously. Rolleyes

Quote:
Syne Wrote:High IQ and creativity and being a musician are all linked to well-connected brain hemispheres.

Are you describing yourself?

Yes.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Again, do you believe in objective facts? Come on, certainly you have the nerve to answer that simple, direct question.

Within a well-defined context, yes.

What about the well-defined context of studies showing that infant males demonstrate a strong preference for things while infant females do for people?
Reply
#43
(Dec 21, 2017 07:08 PM)Syne Wrote: Do you think feedback, allowing people to clarify their understanding, is irrelevant to communication?

Of course not, but your loaded questions reminds me of something that Nietzsche wrote to his sister about the non-religious. 

"It is borne home to us that in some way or other we constantly appear different from what we think. Whereas we wish for nothing more than truth and straightforwardness, we are surrounded by a net of misunderstanding, and despite our most ardent wishes we cannot help our actions being smothered in a cloud of false opinion, attempted compromises, semi-concessions, charitable silence, and erroneous interpretations."


Syne Wrote:What about the well-defined context of studies showing that infant males demonstrate a strong preference for things while infant females do for people?

Why, are you an infant?

Our interests can clearly be shaped by our environment.  Every study leaves that possibility wide open.  

"The controversial—and still unsettled—question is whether these patterns mean anything to intelligence or behavior. Though popular culture is replete with supposed examples of intellectual and behavioral differences between the sexes, only a few, like higher physical aggression in men, have been borne out by scientific research." [source]

Hmm…but maybe Nietzsche was wrong.  Maybe it’s women who want the most dangerous playthings.
Reply
#44
(Dec 27, 2017 08:50 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Dec 21, 2017 07:08 PM)Syne Wrote: Do you think feedback, allowing people to clarify their understanding, is irrelevant to communication?

Of course not, but your loaded questions reminds me of something that Nietzsche wrote to his sister about the non-religious. 

"It is borne home to us that in some way or other we constantly appear different from what we think. Whereas we wish for nothing more than truth and straightforwardness, we are surrounded by a net of misunderstanding, and despite our most ardent wishes we cannot help our actions being smothered in a cloud of false opinion, attempted compromises, semi-concessions, charitable silence, and erroneous interpretations."

Again, what loaded question? What's the disputed presupposition?

You can only remedy misunderstandings and false assumptions by responding to the feedback you receive. You frequently forget that crucial step.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:What about the well-defined context of studies showing that infant males demonstrate a strong preference for things while infant females do for people?

Why, are you an infant?

Our interests can clearly be shaped by our environment.  Every study leaves that possibility wide open.
 

Everyone but a simpleton realizes that infants display the least influence of environment and the most inherent tendencies.
And apparently those same inherent tendencies in infancy continue into adulthood:

"Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93) on the Things-People dimension. Men showed stronger Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d = -0.35), Social (d = -0.68), and Conventional (d = -0.33) interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering (d = 1.11), science (d = 0.36), and mathematics (d = 0.34) interests." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140

Since these are inherent tendencies (again, from infancy), they shape our environment. So it's circular reasoning to then claim those tendencies are shaped by our environment.
Reply
#45
(Dec 27, 2017 09:24 PM)Syne Wrote: Everyone but a simpleton realizes that infants display the least influence of environment and the most inherent tendencies.
And apparently those same inherent tendencies in infancy continue into adulthood:

"Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93) on the Things-People dimension. Men showed stronger Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d = -0.35), Social (d = -0.68), and Conventional (d = -0.33) interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering (d = 1.11), science (d = 0.36), and mathematics (d = 0.34) interests." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140

Since these are inherent tendencies (again, from infancy), they shape our environment. So it's circular reasoning to then claim those tendencies are shaped by our environment.

Everyone but a pretentious, tedious, intellectual goose would read more than just the abstract.

"Although it is beyond the scope of the present study to provide a detailed exploration of the environmental, social, and biological factors that have contributed to the development of these sex differences, the findings presented here highlight the importance of understanding how sex differences in interests develop."
Reply
#46
(Dec 27, 2017 09:30 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Dec 27, 2017 09:24 PM)Syne Wrote: Everyone but a simpleton realizes that infants display the least influence of environment and the most inherent tendencies.
And apparently those same inherent tendencies in infancy continue into adulthood:

"Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93) on the Things-People dimension. Men showed stronger Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d = -0.35), Social (d = -0.68), and Conventional (d = -0.33) interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering (d = 1.11), science (d = 0.36), and mathematics (d = 0.34) interests." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140

Since these are inherent tendencies (again, from infancy), they shape our environment. So it's circular reasoning to then claim those tendencies are shaped by our environment.

Everyone but a pretentious, tedious, intellectual goose would read more than just the abstract.  

"Although it is beyond the scope of the present study to provide a detailed exploration of the environmental, social, and biological factors that have contributed to the development of these sex differences, the findings presented here highlight the importance of understanding how sex differences in interests develop."

Again, there are already studies of infants that speak to what is beyond the scope of this one. Try to keep up.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...114739.htm

"Sexual dimorphism in sociability has been documented in humans. The present study aimed to
ascertain whether the sexual dimorphism is a result of biological or socio-cultural differences between
the two sexes. 102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and
cultural factors
, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object)
and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger
interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the
face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in
origin.
" - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow...1&type=pdf
Reply
#47
(Dec 27, 2017 09:45 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, there are already studies of infants that speak to what is beyond the scope of this one. Try to keep up.

I've already read them. Have you? Don't lie, faker fox.

"Interested readers are referred to reviews such as those by Watt and Eccles(2008), Ceci and Williams (2007), and Ceci et al. (2009) for a discussion on the biological, psychological, and social processes and gendered vocational interests or career choices."
Reply
#48
(Dec 27, 2017 09:54 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Dec 27, 2017 09:45 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, there are already studies of infants that speak to what is beyond the scope of this one. Try to keep up.

I've already read them.  Have you?  Don't lie, faker fox.

"Interested readers are referred to reviews such as those by Watt and Eccles(2008), Ceci and Williams (2007), and Ceci et al. (2009) for a discussion on the biological, psychological, and social processes and gendered vocational interests or career choices."

I just cited two of them. If you had read them, you wouldn't be spouting nonsense about environment. Rolleyes
Reply
#49
(Dec 27, 2017 09:58 PM)Syne Wrote: I just cited two of them. If you had read them, you wouldn't be spouting nonsense about environment. Rolleyes

Really?  Did you even look at the mobile?


[Image: ConnellanFig1.gif]


It could just prove that girls are quicker at recognizing faces. I mean, you guys are a little behind, right?


The girls spent 3.8% more of their time looking at the faces than the boys did (an effect size of 0.17), while the boys spent 11.3% more of their time looking at the mobile than the girls did (an effect size of 0.47).

Another way to describe these results would be to say "Boys on average were slightly more interested in the mobile than in the face (51.9% of their looking time vs. 45.6% of their looking time), whereas girls on average were slightly more interested in the face than the mobile (49.4% of their looking time vs. 40.6% of their looking time). The differences in average looking time between the sexes were between 1/6 and 1/2 of the within-sex standard deviations."

The biggest (proportional) sex difference in the study, actually, was a sex difference in the drop-out rate:

102 neonates (58 female, 44 male) completed testing, drawn from a larger sample of 154 randomly selected neonates on the maternity wards at the Rosie Maternity Hospital, Cambridge. 51 additional subjects did not complete testing due to extended crying, falling asleep, or fussiness, so their data were not used. The mean age of the final sample tested was x = 36.7 hrs (sd = 26.03).

Thus 33 boys (= 77-44) vs. 19 girls (= 77-58) "did not complete testing due to extended crying, falling asleep, or fussiness. This is 74% more boys than girls (33/19 = 1.74).  I believe that this pattern is typical of infant research, and it always raises the question of whether it contributes to a bias of some sort, since we don't know whether failure to complete the test is independent of the qualities being tested. One issue that occurred to me is the question of how many of the boy babies might have undergone circumcision before being tested. The rate of infant circumcision in the U.K. is generally fairly low these days, but the authors don't tell us what proportion of the male infants might have been circumcized during the period (average 37 hours) between birth and testing.

Let's note next that Spencer's contrast ("From birth, a girl baby tends to be more interested in looking at colors and textures, like those on the human face, while a boy baby is drawn more to movement, like a whirling mobile") was explicitly not explored in this study, since

The mobile was carefully matched with the face stimulus for 5 factors: (a) Color (‘skin color’). (b) Size and © Shape (a ball was used). (d) Contrast (using facial features pasted onto the ball in a scrambled but symmetrical arrangement, following previous studies (Johnson & Morton, 1991)). (e) Dimensionality (to control for a nose-like structure, a 3cm string was attached to the center of the ball, at the end of which was a smaller ball, also matched for ‘skin color’).

(After seeing this picture, I'm inclined, only half-jokingly, to re-interpret the experiment as showing that "Boy babies are innately somewhat more interested in transdimensional monsters than girl babies are".)
And finally, let's note that

The videotapes were coded by two judges … to calculate the number of seconds the infants looked at each stimulus. A second [third? -myl] observer (independent of the first pair and also blind to the infants’ sex) was trained to use the same coding technique for 20 randomly selected infants to establish reliability. Agreement, measured as the Pearson correlation between observers’ recorded looking times for both conditions, was 0.85.

See above for what inter-rater correlation of 0.85 means…

OK, so how did Leonard Sax interpret results like these as justifying the statement that

"The differences were large: the boys were more than twice as likely to prefer the mobile."

Well, Connellan et al. — perhaps recognizing that the data on looking times are underwhelming — found another way to present the results which emphasizes the sex difference:

For each baby, a difference score was calculated by subtracting the percent of time spent looking at the mobile from the percent of time they spent looking at the face. Each baby was classified as having a preference for (a) the face (difference score of +20 or higher), (b) the mobile (difference score of –20 or less), or © no preference (difference score of between –20 and +20).

This is a reasonable approach to the data, in my opinion, but it should be recognized for what it is, namely an effort to emphasize a difference that does not seem different enough in the more straightforward presentation of looking-time proportions. (And I'll again emphasize that the Right Thing to Do is to publish all the raw data — in this case, the table of face time, mobile time, and "other" time for all 102 subjects.)
Quoting the paper:

Examining the cells that contribute most to the chi-square result suggests that the significant result is due to more of the male babies, and fewer of the female babies, having a preference for the mobile than would be predicted. In other words, male babies tend to prefer the mobile, whereas female babies either have no preference or prefer the real face.

In sum, there are certainly differences in the behavior of the male and female babies in this experiment.  The biggest difference was that almost twice as many boys as girls were too fussy or sleepy to be tested. The second-biggest difference was that more of the boy babies were more interested in the "mobile", a surpassingly weird object in which various facial features were pasted on a face-sized ball in a scrambled way, with a second and smaller ball attached by string in a nose-like location.

This experiment certainly seems to tell us something about sex-linked behavioral, perceptual, and (perhaps) cognitive differences in neonates. It may tell us something about sex differences in interest in faces, but maybe not — it seems to tell us more about sex differences in fussiness and sleepiness, and sex differences in interest in weirdly scrambled face-like stimuli. If you wanted to be difficult, you could argue that it really shows that the boy babies have learned more quickly what faces are supposed to look like, and are therefore more concerned to try to sort out what's going on with that strange face-like thing with an eye in its chin and its nose on a string. [source]
Reply
#50
You don't really care how the first one I cited supports the finding of the second, do you? Just interested in jumping on the first thing that confirms your bias.
Even if those same tendencies are found in primates as well:

"Evidence indicating that sex-linked toy prefer-
ences exist in two nonhuman primate species support the
hypothesis that developmental sex differences such as those
observed in children’s object preferences are shaped in part
by inborn factors. ... The existence of these innate preferences for object
features coupled with well-documented social influences
may explain why toy preferences are one of the earliest
known manifestations of sex-linked social behavior."
- http://infantcognition.tamu.edu/files/20....-2009.pdf

Rolleyes
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)