Truth Discussion Time - Page 51

On October 14 2017 11:15 Loco wrote: I've never admitted fighting a "natural urge" to consume animal products. It's a lot more nuanced than that. First of all, the urge to eat those foods is not "natural", because we live in an unnatural world and none of those foods are actually natural. It took me over 21 years before I actually ate something resembling a natural animal product (grass-fed Bison and Highland). My taste for animal products was acquired mostly through culture. I had pet rabbits when I was a kid and I never salivated at their sight. My culture taught me that some animals were good to eat and others weren't, not based on some logic but purely prejudice carried through tradition. Once I saw through that and learned I could eat differently, there was no urge to fight. When it comes to cheese, the only animal product I can say that I've been addicted to, it's also clearly not a natural food. You take the milk from another species, which we never did until very recently in our evolution. This milk has a protein in it which serves the purpose of encouraging mother-child bonding. When you make cheese you take that protein and you concentrate it, then when it's broken down by your body it transforms it into casomorphine, an opioid peptide. So, you get a mild drug-like effect from this stuff. Makes sense for the calf for whom the milk was designed for, who absolutely needs it to survive, not so much for the human being who is in an environment of abundance and who doesn't need it. You combine that with the high sodium that's in it (because cheese is disgusting without it) and you get a supernormal stimuli that will have you come back for more. Most people on the planet are lactose intolerant ffs, how natural can it be?

I wasnt making an a naturallist fallacy, what I meant is that we "naturally" like things like meat, sweets etc because of the relation between their scarcity and nutritional value in the natural world, obviously now that these "super" foods are more available causes an issue in our diet.

The point was that only because you personally deprive yourself of something or even if you dont have an urge it does not mean its not a drive for most people, I mean, come on you made some silly argument about "me and my friends dont like kids, so it must have been a taught thing" that ridiculous, we suround ourselves with people like minded so your sample does not represent the mean at all.

Like I said, this is not a topic I'm terribly knowledgeable about, so I have no problem deferring to the experts in those fields. I can only go off of the evidence presented in the clip you showed and say my conclusion is based on the weakness of that evidence. Why do you think this is evidence of causation in the first place? As far as I can see, you're assuming that the fairer a society is, the more standard gender roles will see themselves played out, and you're seeing what you want to see by saying that this happens through biology. But you're missing the obvious... the more equal a country is when it comes to jobs, pay and law doesn't tell us anything about equality with relation to how the genders are treated on a social level. There's obviously a ton of strong data on how society influences identity/motivation/behavior and there's no reason to believe that it's not largely why gender roles exist as they do now. And if there's counter-evidence to that it's definitely not based on that inverse relationship in Norway or Lippa's self selected study of well-off people on the internet. It's not enough for studies to show a difference if they want to claim it's biological, they need to show how this difference is innate.

Thats a shitty thing to say, what if I argue about diet with you and say "I'm not very knowledable about this subject so ill take the words of this Dr. whatever that pushes Keto", these people have a clear ideological agenda, going back to the Keto hoaxes as you implied, dont believe diet advice from people selling you shit, welll dont believe gender science from people who have a full progressive ideologic agenda, they are not in it to find the truth, but to confirm their beliefs.

You didnt explain the inverse relation between egalitarian society and traditional gender roles, if it was a nurture thing, it would show the opposite, so you can say it is not conclusive, but damn it points haaaard at a conclusion and just saying oh its not for sure and ignoring it is dishonest.

I don't think that's evolution 101. There's no reason why a desire to procreate would have been selected for, since the drive for sex is entirely necessary to perpetuate a species until you introduce contraceptives.

Our species due to our oversized head in relation to womens hip we have an absurdly long period of nurturing the offspring, so the urge of sex doesnt cut it to ensure the survival of the child, it requires an paternal and materal instinct, Lionesses will let their cubs die to have more because of how their reproductive age and patterns work, african primates do not, the mother would often die defending their babies, this is an evolved instinct, and it is the same instinct that drives people in to having children.


It seems that we vastly disagree in general of the role of nature/nurture, you seem to view humans much more "free willed" than I do, We are just a silly ape that when we got past the 80 points in IQ somehow manage to from time to time break off our coding, but we dont go too far.

(finally a fucking topic worth discussing and not diet bullshit)

Thats a shitty thing to say, what if I argue about diet with you and say "I'm not very knowledable about this subject so ill take the words of this Dr. whatever that pushes Keto"

I'd say that it's a terrible analogy since keto proponents aren't genuine experts and you know that. It's easy to debunk them even if I wasn't personally an expert because there is such a thing as a reliable scientific consensus on what human beings should be eating. If your analogy was valid then you could show there is a consensus among scientists validating the idea that gender role/identity/behavior have most if not all of their basis in biology. But you're not doing that (because you can't): your evidence is centered on a comedian's one-sided documentary with a pretty unimpressive cast and evolutionary psychologists who also have a worldview and an agenda to push which you somehow can't see. You have to rely on a tenuous correlation that doesn't control in any way for the social influences that you purport aren't there. Again, you extrapolate from equality in pay, law and opportunities, to something which you have no data for, namely that these factors somehow completely override the cultural imprinting and the social pressures that exist independent of such equality of opportunity and reward.

When I say I defer to the experts, I mean to say that as far as we know scientifically, this is the other way around, it can be largely explained sociologically and psychologically without relying on tenuous data, and I just haven't invested a lot of time diving deep into the research, but I know that it's there, and I know that it's reliable based off of people whose judgment I trust.

Our species due to our oversized head in relation to womens hip we have an absurdly long period of nurturing the offspring, so the urge of sex doesnt cut it to ensure the survival of the child, it requires an paternal and materal instinct, Lionesses will let their cubs die to have more because of how their reproductive age and patterns work, african primates do not, the mother would often die defending their babies, this is an evolved instinct, and it is the same instinct that drives people in to having children.

What does the paternal and maternal instinct have to do with the length of nurture? Aren't you saying the exact opposite here by saying this? That this long period of time allows bonding feelings to grow? So there's no need for an hardwired instinct. The hormones and the drive for sex all explain it on their own. You know there are studies showing that parents who adopt children have just as strong bonds with their adopted kids as they do with their biological kids? How does that fit in with your position that there is this one drive that pushes people towards having biological kids and it's this same instinct that makes them want to care for them?

It seems that we vastly disagree in general of the role of nature/nurture, you seem to view humans much more "free willed" than I do, We are just a silly ape that when we got past the 80 points in IQ somehow manage to from time to time break off our coding, but we dont go too far.

Yes, we strongly disagree. I don't even know if you think it's entirely biological or mostly biological, I think it's a mix of both, but mostly culturally inherited and socially constructed. You also have a view of evolution and free will which I have come to reject through my philosophical studies. Science aside, where we disagree the most is that you think I'm on the side of the "ideologically motivated" while you're on the side of the rationalists fighting the good fight. It's actually absurd and it's damn near impossible for me to respond to this charge without being condescending. I think you were just fooled by people like Jordan Peterson who have a way with words and manage to stay composed under duress. It allows you to overlook that they are little else other than unempathetic and intolerant people with traditional (religious) values that they hold sacred.

We could fill a book with all the discussions we've had in here and privately but this is the first time I believe you are totally off base.

1 - The keto experts arent really experts, neither are gender studies quaks, both are charlatans and I am suprised of the hypocricy in always pulling the ad authoritas fallacy card and yet doing it here so blatantly.

2 - There IS a concensus among scientists that societal roles are mostly based on biology, among real scientists, like biologist and evolutionary biologists, not among quacks with fake degrees in gender stories naturally.

3 - If you want is data and the studies just ask, and will do that when Im back at my PC

4 - Bonding/feelings are evolutionary too, thats what ensures that we take care of the chlidren, the children of peole who didn't bond with them died more often so naturally the "gene" that cared dominated.

5 - Funny you mention adoption, if sex is the only drive to reproduce, then explain to me why people strongly prefer to have biological over adopted children?


I dont believe it is entire biological, it is impossible to quantify but our preferences and affinities are biologically driven, the specifics are cultural.

Also, I never lumped you in with the ideologes from the left at all, I've always considered you mostly an independant thinker and I feel a bit insulted that perception isnt mutual and you think somehow Peterson seduced me into these ideas I've held long before I ever heard his name, to me this has always been absurdly obvious to the point that its difficult to discuss with a straight face, I mean, the topic of how free or captive from instinct we are is interesting, to discuss specifically if there are biological differences between female and male brain is idiotic.


Also you didnt provide me with your hypothesis why in the most egalitarian countrie with less societal indoctrination in traditional gender roles the results are the opposite of your thesis, please expain this.

No fucking way you misconstrued me simply being humble with regards to the disciplines I'm knowledgeable about and saying there are people whose judgment and knowledge-base I respect as an appeal to authority... come on. It's not like I dismissed any of your arguments and said, "oh look this person is on the other side of the debate and she has a PhD, you don't!". I replied to your points. I'm just saying that I don't have the time, interest or expertise to get into this subject more than superficially, and I believe it's required to have a good understanding of it, but I think I know enough to know that you have made some errors of judgment and you hold a stronger position than you should be based on the evidence that you provided.

Again, you start with the false analogy of the keto folks. Gender studies is a broad field of interdisciplinary study; ketogenic dieting is a narrow, sub-interest of a broad field, and goes against a clear consensus within that field. These are less than 1% of the people working in this field.

So, just a few basic questions. Who are those "gender studies quacks" you speak of? How many are they? If you think the entire field is bankrupt and led by quacks and anti-science ideologues, why has the Wikipedia page not been successfully edited or refuted? Why does the gender role Wikipedia page specifically not reflect what you are saying here if there is such a consensus? Is Wikipedia run by Post-modern, Neo-Marxist ideologues? It's open for everyone to edit and challenge what is written there provided that you have evidence for your claims. Most importantly, the broad fields of sociology, psychology, and cultural anthropology all did research that informs this topic, it's not just people within "gender studies" that have contributed to the knowledge-base. So, while it's convenient to lampoon them like it was done in the documentary, it's entirely misguided.

Bonding/feelings are evolutionary too, thats what ensures that we take care of the chlidren, the children of peole who didn't bond with them died more often so naturally the "gene" that cared dominated.

You're contradicting yourself here. You first said we have a biological urge that is instinctive which pushes us to want and have kids (rather than want to have sex) and to also take care of our young, your words were, "the urge of sex doesn't cut it to ensure the survival of the child". But here you agree with me that the interactive process of bonding serves the very purpose you claim this other instinct serves out of necessity.

Funny you mention adoption, if sex is the only drive to reproduce, then explain to me why people strongly prefer to have biological over adopted children?

My argument is precisely that there is no reason to believe there is a biological drive to reproduce per se, there is evidence for a drive to want to have sex, which in all animals indirectly leads to offspring and we are no different, except we can now circumvent the once-inevitable byproduct of sex and have sex purely for pleasure.

People have biological kids for all sorts of reasons that are unrelated to a biological drive for kids. You can go read some of them in a humoristic form here: http://vhemt.org/whybreed.pdf (I think you'll appreciate much of it)

Also, I never lumped you in with the ideologues from the left at all, I've always considered you mostly an independent thinker and I feel a bit insulted that perception isnt mutual and you think somehow Peterson seduced me into these ideas I've held long before I ever heard his name, to me this has always been absurdly obvious to the point that its difficult to discuss with a straight face, I mean, the topic of how free or captive from instinct we are is interesting, to discuss specifically if there are biological differences between female and male brain is idiotic.

I know that you didn't lump me in with ideologues and I didn't claim you did. I said you believe I'm on their side (on the issue of gender roles), which isn't the same thing. I said that because, from everything you've said here, this is a really black and white issue to you, and because I see this kind of certainty all the time. There's those who know of the scientific consensus and those who are blind to it because they are ideologically driven. And if we add a third category, there's those who were deceived by them, which I figure would likely be me from your POV. I'm only on one side though, the side of caution. I believe the virtue of skepticism cannot be overstated, and in the last year, even though I have become more knowledgeable in general, I have become ever more uncertain in the process. This uncertainty is at the core of my method -- of the epistemology from which I approach the world and every complex problem within it. I know that you are a skeptic too, but what happens is that we disagree strongly because you don't think there is a complex problem here (which warrants uncertainty). I do because where there are social beings, there is necessarily complexity involved.

I'm not calling you a sheep either. What I think is that you might have been more influenced by people and ideas that are pervasive than you realize and I mention JBP because he's probably the most influential person who pushes these ideas and this certainty and I know that you appreciate and respect him. I think what people (and you might be among them) consider his "success" can only contribute to your confidence. And again, I'm saying that you are apparently oblivious to the ideological motivations of the people who exhibit the same confidence and certainty as you do, and I can say that without implying that you are "one of them".

It's pointless and irrelevant to say, "I have had this stance for a long time even before X, it always was obvious to me". We need to re-evaluate what we believe periodically and challenge it, and often times things that are obvious and common sense are totally wrong. For instance, I once asked you whether a rainbow had an independent existence and you said yes in a "obviously, yes" kind of way and you were fundamentally wrong, as most people are. And you know this because I recall you quoting Mark Twain who said, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"." The obvious" and one's common sense are useful but not reliable when there is complexity involved.

Also you didnt provide me with your hypothesis why in the most egalitarian countrie with less societal indoctrination in traditional gender roles the results are the opposite of your thesis, please expain this.

I've tried to do it twice. I don't know that I can find a third way to say it. First of all, you and I have been taking this for granted but it might not be true to begin with. One paper argues that "it can be argued that gender equality in Norway is perhaps more of an illusion than reality. Equality appears to be a commonly held value, but this is not reflected in the actual gender diversity situation." And no, she's not a "gender studies quack"; she's a PhD researcher with degrees in Economics and Business Administration. And this is why I have to be humble and simply say that I don't know enough. I don't have the time to read all -- or even just 10% -- of the relevant literature to get an accurate picture of the reality of it all. Not that I really need to since I never argued the thesis you think I did, I've only basically stated that you give this way too much importance and what you have is a correlation there that's not in any way strong enough to suggest causation.

I'll try again. People can and do treat themselves/each other as stereotypical male and female and influence each other to conform to the image of a specific gender regardless of the law and the employment opportunities they have. I find it hard to believe there are no systemic and population-wide biases when it comes to gender roles, and these data do nothing to investigate this. And at the global level of analysis, it becomes impossible to believe. People have access to the internet, international news, social media, etc., which can and do influence the construction of their identities and behavior, so systemic oppression in the way that it manifests in less progressive countries isn't the be-all-end-all. Also, I don't live in Norway and I'm not a GS scholar so I don't know the extent to which this is accurate but I would wager that equality there is mostly concerning women's rights and counter-heteronormativity, while there is still considerable pressure on trans and non-binary people to conform (at the systemic and global level). Maybe Eriador would be knowledgeable about this and could chime in.

Many if not all of the ideas you presented here are found in Pinker's work. I recommend you read this critique of Pinker, more specifically his "Blank Slate" book which deals with what we're discussing here (as you probably already know). Again, don't worry about me linking you to some ideological trash: the author is a distinguished scholar who won a Pulitzer prize and teaches at Harvard University.

This is a cool discussion. I have had this discussion before and I just don't know how much evidence is out there.

Why were 100% of the masons at x steel mill I worked with male?

How come I have never seen a straight male flight attendant?

These are questions that I ponder sometimes. Then there is the gender gap and politics and it is really cool to see some of this stuff get debunked.

On October 17 2017 10:57 Loco wrote: No fucking way you misconstrued me simply being humble with regards to the disciplines I'm knowledgeable about and saying there are people whose judgment and knowledge-base I respect as an appeal to authority... come on. It's not like I dismissed any of your arguments and said, "oh look this person is on the other side of the debate and she has a PhD, you don't!". I replied to your points. I'm just saying that I don't have the time, interest or expertise to get into this subject more than superficially, and I believe it's required to have a good understanding of it, but I think I know enough to know that you have made some errors of judgment and you hold a stronger position than you should be based on the evidence that you provided.

- I hold a stronger belief than the evidence I provided because I havent really provided any, I offered to do so if that interest you but I am not the kind fo post links to long studies and articles until I get a request for them.

Again, you start with the false analogy of the keto folks. Gender studies is a broad field of interdisciplinary study; ketogenic dieting is a narrow, sub-interest of a broad field, and goes against a clear consensus within that field. These are less than 1% of the people working in this field. So, just a few basic questions. Who are those "gender studies quacks" you speak of? How many are they? If you think the entire field is bankrupt and led by quacks and anti-science ideologues, why has the Wikipedia page not been successfully edited or refuted? Why does the gender role Wikipedia page specifically not reflect what you are saying here if there is such a consensus? Is Wikipedia run by Post-modern, Neo-Marxist ideologues? It's open for everyone to edit and challenge what is written there provided that you have evidence for your claims. Most importantly, the broad fields of sociology, psychology, and cultural anthropology all did research that informs this topic, it's not just people within "gender studies" that have contributed to the knowledge-base. So, while it's convenient to lampoon them like it was done in the documentary, it's entirely misguided.

Yes basically the whole field is quakery and ideologically driven, and again also the scientific consensus goes against their ideas, if universtities opened "Keto studies" would that mean that the scientific consensus isnt anymore that its a "bullshit diet"?

You're contradicting yourself here. You first said we have a biological urge that is instinctive which pushes us to want and have kids (rather than want to have sex) and to also take care of our young, your words were, "the urge of sex doesn't cut it to ensure the survival of the child". But here you agree with me that the interactive process of bonding serves the very purpose you claim this other instinct serves out of necessity.

I am not contradicting myself at all, I didnt sex wasnt a drive for procreation, I said it was one of MANY innate drives to reproduce.

My argument is precisely that there is no reason to believe there is a biological drive to reproduce per se, there is evidence for a drive to want to have sex, which in all animals indirectly leads to offspring and we are no different, except we can now circumvent the once-inevitable byproduct of sex and have sex purely for pleasure.

The fact strog bonds are created by the parents is evidence that the instinct to reproduce doesnt stop at sex

People have biological kids for all sorts of reasons that are unrelated to a biological drive for kids. You can go read some of them in a humoristic form here: http://vhemt.org/whybreed.pdf (I think you'll appreciate much of it)

Those are mostly rationalizations especially the ones that do not derive from ego from an evolutionary behavioral seed, peole dont honestly think their kid will be the savior of the world ffs, they just spit that bullshit because they want a kid.

I have become ever more uncertain in the process. This uncertainty is at the core of my method -- of the epistemology from which I approach the world and every complex problem within it. I know that you are a skeptic too, but what happens is that we disagree strongly because you don't think there is a complex problem here (which warrants uncertainty). I do because where there are social beings, there is necessarily complexity involved.

I know your approach is of skepticism and uncertainty, I dont think think its a simple issue and I said that quantifying the genetic/social contribution is nearly impossible, what I think is wrong is the identical brain theory which is what the gende studies types peddle.

It's pointless and irrelevant to say, "I have had this stance for a long time even before X, it always was obvious to me". We need to re-evaluate what we believe periodically and challenge it, and often times things that are obvious and common sense are totally wrong. For instance, I once asked you whether a rainbow had an independent existence and you said yes in a "obviously, yes" kind of way and you were fundamentally wrong, as most people are. And you know this because I recall you quoting Mark Twain who said, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"." The obvious" and one's common sense are useful but not reliable when there is complexity involved.

I only said that because you implied that I was "foooled" by peterson, obviously holding a belief for a long time has no value whatesoever, I agree on the 2nd part.

I've tried to do it twice. I don't know that I can find a third way to say it. First of all, you and I have been taking this for granted but it might not be true to begin with.

I am not saying Norway is perfectly gender-neutral, I am saying that it is more gender neutral than the 3rd world, can we agree on that? however Norway has a more traditional occupation distribution than the 3rd world, why is that?

This is by far the strongest evidence piece in the whole discussion, and it strongly points towards the genetic side.



Now would you please point me to any kind of evidence of this magnitude or hell, any actual evidence of the opposing view that isnt an opinion piece?

I've put a considerable amount of time in my previous post and you're answering it with one and two liners, which is fine but it suggests to me that you are not all that interested in having the discussion in the first place. Since the effort doesn't seem to be commensurate, can you please answer my previous questions before asking me to go look for evidence and put more considerable time into this?

Why do the two Wikipedia articles (the general one on gender studies and the one on gender roles and its nature vs nurture subsection) not corroborate what you are saying here? Give me a sensible reason as to why the evidence presented there on gender roles and their influences is imbalanced or inaccurate. And since the whole field of gender studies is bankrupt, why does the page exist in a fairly uncontroversial manner? The only critique there that is dismissive of the field as a whole comes from the Vatican. I might oblige you and look elsewhere for evidence that would satisfy you if you can give me your rationale. Link me to the data you want me to address re occupational differences between progressive places like Norway vs the third world.

If I said that the categories of "genetics" and "culture" weren't self-evident, non-overlapping, and/or opposing categories, and asking to split gender/sex into these things "cleanly" is not possible or desirable, what would you respond?

On October 18 2017 06:05 Loco wrote: I've put a considerable amount of time in my previous post and you're answering it with one and two liners, which is fine but it suggests to me that you are not all that interested in having the discussion in the first place. Since the effort doesn't seem to be commensurate, can you please answer my previous questions before asking me to go look for evidence and put more considerable time into this? Why do the two Wikipedia articles (the general one on gender studies and the one on gender roles and its nature vs nurture subsection) not corroborate what you are saying here? Give me a sensible reason as to why the evidence presented there on gender roles and their influences is imbalanced or inaccurate. And since the whole field of gender studies is bankrupt, why does the page exist in a fairly uncontroversial manner? The only critique there that is dismissive of the field as a whole comes from the Vatican. I might oblige you and look elsewhere for evidence that would satisfy you if you can give me your rationale. Link me to the data you want me to address re occupational differences between progressive places like Norway vs the third world. If I said that the categories of "genetics" and "culture" weren't self-evident, non-overlapping, and/or opposing categories, and asking to split gender/sex into these things "cleanly" is not possible or desirable, what would you respond?

I try to be as brief as possible I can easily rant on and on but I think long posts like that arent really good for back and forth written discussions, so dont mistake it for uninterest.

About the wikipedia article on gender roles


About some data regarding traditional gender ocupation in conservative and progressive countries: https://www.theatlantic.com/internati...mfortable-with-math-than-boys/284272/


About your last question, I would responde that In general I agree, as you claim its a complex issue and nearly impossible to draw the line between nature and nurture, the subject interests me in general because I enjoy evolutionary biology, and recently caught my attention because it has been hijacked by ideologues from the left and feminist theory quakery

What is this picture supposed to prove? It only states the obvious.There is no mention of a scientific consensus or that one theory is considerably more credible than the other, which is the position you're advancing. I'm wondering why you think that is. You were also saying that "real scientists" agreed on such facts, so I'm expecting a consensus by behavioral biologists, not evolutionary psychologists, who have more in common in general with speculative metaphysicians than actual scientists. You don't seem to realize that evolutionary psychology has also been "hijacked" by ideologues. There's so much shoddy science being done in that field. What about the gender studies page? Interestingly enough, if we contrast criticisms on both Wikipedia pages, evolutionary psychology is seemingly under considerably more heat than gender studies. And the critiques are not just coming from the gender studies side, they're coming from "hard" scientists too.

I'll have a look at your article/data. In the meantime, I found this study which seems to be the most cited study on gender differences across cultures, which says that "contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender differences varied across cultures".

Pretty sure the gender as social construct theories have all been proven wrong. I've recently read Middlesex ( a Pulitzer fiction winner) - the author has made pretty sick research on the topic and dismantled it by using new research, there are references to the works he's used at the end of the book.

On October 18 2017 16:16 Spitfiree wrote: Pretty sure the gender as social construct theories have all been proven wrong. I've recently read Middlesex ( a Pulitzer fiction winner) - the author has made pretty sick research on the topic and dismantled it by using new research, there are references to the works he's used at the end of the book.

Again, I've brought this up earlier in the thread, but you're referring to an extreme minority of people who can be called "blank slate theorists" -- those who believe gender identity is entirely the result of socialization. Social constructionists are rarely blank slate advocates, just like evolutionary biologists are rarely saying it's all in the genes and the binary is all there is to it (and I'd direct such people to this baby with 3 biological parents).

If you're a blank slatist you're basically saying that, if you removed Shakespeare from his crib as a >1 day old and replaced him with a random baby, this baby would have gone to accomplish the same things Shakespeare did. Kind of ridiculous to think about and to argue for, yet people strawman social constructionists all the time thinking this is what they believe.

The wiki on your book is at least very clear that the constructionist aspect is significant:

Eugenides sought to find a compromise between these two views. Explaining that gender is a "very American concept", he believes that "humans are freer than we realize. Less genetically encumbered." Raised as a girl, Cal views himself as a girl who likes other girls. His ability to have a "feminine gender schema" despite his having male genes, substantiates the constructionist position that gender identity is fully dependent on outer influences.

This book is also a very well-researched one dealing with intersex and the nature vs nurture debate.

On October 19 2017 00:45 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On October 18 2017 16:16 Spitfiree wrote: Pretty sure the gender as social construct theories have all been proven wrong. I've recently read Middlesex ( a Pulitzer fiction winner) - the author has made pretty sick research on the topic and dismantled it by using new research, there are references to the works he's used at the end of the book. Again, I've brought this up earlier in the thread, but you're referring to an extreme minority of people who can be called "blank slate theorists" -- those who believe gender identity is entirely the result of socialization. Social constructionists are rarely blank slate advocates, just like evolutionary biologists are rarely saying it's all in the genes and the binary is all there is to it (and I'd direct such people to this baby with 3 biological parents). If you're a blank slatist you're basically saying that, if you removed Shakespeare from his crib as a >1 day old and replaced him with a random baby, this baby would have gone to accomplish the same things Shakespeare did. Kind of ridiculous to think about and to argue for, yet people strawman social constructionists all the time thinking this is what they believe. The wiki on your book is at least very clear that the constructionist aspect is significant:   Eugenides sought to find a compromise between these two views. Explaining that gender is a "very American concept", he believes that "humans are freer than we realize. Less genetically encumbered." Raised as a girl, Cal views himself as a girl who likes other girls. His ability to have a "feminine gender schema" despite his having male genes, substantiates the constructionist position that gender identity is fully dependent on outer influences.

The blank slate theory is mainly about sexes not about IQ/talents, (altho as you mention there are some insane ppl that go that far).

Feminist push for equal representation on fields like STEM, that comes from a position of blan slate, denying any biological predisposition to career affinity. they dont want equal acces/rights to practice in the STEM field, they want equal representation, 50/50

On October 18 2017 09:25 Loco wrote: What is this picture supposed to prove? It only states the obvious.There is no mention of a scientific consensus or that one theory is considerably more credible than the other, which is the position you're advancing. I'm wondering why you think that is. You were also saying that "real scientists" agreed on such facts, so I'm expecting a consensus by behavioral biologists, not evolutionary psychologists, who have more in common in general with speculative metaphysicians than actual scientists. You don't seem to realize that evolutionary psychology has also been "hijacked" by ideologues. There's so much shoddy science being done in that field. What about the gender studies page? Interestingly enough, if we contrast criticisms on both Wikipedia pages, evolutionary psychology is seemingly under considerably more heat than gender studies. And the critiques are not just coming from the gender studies side, they're coming from "hard" scientists too. I'll have a look at your article/data. In the meantime, I found this study which seems to be the most cited study on gender differences across cultures, which says that "contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender differences varied across cultures".

You said they were uncontested, they are not, you want Wikpedia to specifically say what the consensus is? thats ridiculous and sadly is taking a political stance as this topic is tainted with politics, it is the consensus among biologist that the brain of the man are not only distinct in function but in the physiology itself for fucks sake, you must be insane to think that the homo sapiens sapien is the only species in this planet where societal roles are not related to genetical drive.

That you link you posted is 1 paragraph long, and you quoted a opinion part what is the prediction and how does they measure the deviation?, funny thing just after the thing you quoted it says:





So for the 3rd (or 4th?) time, as claimed by your own damn link, explain to my why the most a egalitarian a society is the most traditional gender roles they choose... may it be perhaps different genders like different things because we had different roles for millions of years? nah, cant be.

Please elaborate on how idology hijacked biology and evolutionary psychology, assuming it is right-wing traditional ideology, what is the proportion between republican/democrats in these fields?

I can write a lot how the left took control over many of the department of the humanities decades ago and how the distribution of left/right are about 40 to 1, how they supress publications that contradict their views, how the vast majority of gender studies published articles in their "scientific" journals have no citations.

You can watch the interview of Camille Paglia, renowed feminist on the conception of women studies:

Ok, this is probably going to be my last post on this subject since this has clearly not been productive at all. Several posts later I'm having to repeat myself and keep correcting misunderstandings and misrepresentations and we're just going around in circles. I dread just writing this post right now. I don't have the motivation to keep doing that.

From the beginning, I have basically presented myself as somewhat ignorant and I am contesting your claims more than I am advancing a particular position. From my POV, the nature vs nurture debate is largely misguided and there is a co-creative (retroactive) process between biology and socialization (socialization affects biology and biology affects socialization) such is that you're often faced with a chicken-or-egg question. Even saying that there's overlap between the two doesn't quite get to it. It's a complex issue that I don't think is properly addressed in a reductionist, manichean "X vs X" approach.

What makes this such a heated debate? Because you have two sides that are both simplifying complex issues. There's no one side who has the truth and another side who is ignoring it, as you present it here. The truth is simply not clear, that's about as much as we can say.

It reminds me of the saying, "half truths are worse than lies." It's easy to fall for a falsehood when there's some truth to it. If it keeps being repeated for long enough, especially by charismatic people, people end up dogmatically committing to it instead of re-examining it. People's insistence to "pick a side" instead of thinking for themselves and adopting a meta-perspective just means that they are acting like the people they oppose. You can post examples on one side only like the Brett Weinstein incident but this happens on both sides. Relying on media outlets and social media in general to get a nuanced and accurate view of the impacts of both side's agenda is just not going to happen. Do you think that if the numbers you present (40:1 left/right) were to be flipped, there would be less oppression, less conflict? What are you saying exactly here?

You said they were uncontested, they are not, you want Wikpedia to specifically say what the consensus is?

I have never said that it's uncontested, wtf. I said that the strength of the evidence you claim is there for the nature side vs. the nurture one is not corroborated on Wikipedia. This is simply a fact, and I was asking your opinion as to why you think that is. I didn't think you would actually argue on the fact itself. That there is evidence for "nature" is stupidly obvious, that there is evidence that it has "won the debate" is not.

The other strong claim you made is that gender study is a field that is entirely bankrupt and ideologically driven. In other words, it has no purpose to exist whatsoever. Yet, the Wikipedia presents the field pretty uncontroversially. It's not completely uncontroversial, but minimally so: only three critiques (less than for evo psychology). And not a single one of these 3 critiques comes from biologists. The 2 critiques of the field as a whole come from (1) a postmodernist feminist and (2) the Vatican. Suffices to say that once we quantify/qualify the criticism, there is no way that it legitimizes what you are saying here. You've used keto advocates as an analogy for these people multiple times and I have shown that it was false. I can do it again: you can't link to a consensus for the biological essentialist view of gender roles, and you can't show from an objective source like Wikipedia that gender studies is a bankrupt field according to scientists, yet I can provide links that show that keto advocates -- who deny the lipid hypothesis -- are wrong via consensus. You say it's not Wikipedia's job to mention the consensus, but it happens necessarily. If it's true and it's not showing up yet, it's at the very least being discussed in the "Talk" page. But it's not being discussed at all there. Why is it so hard to just admit you're working off of a theory that seems to make sense yet isn't conclusive?

So for the 3rd (or 4th?) time, as claimed by your own damn link, explain to my why the most a egalitarian a society is the most traditional gender roles they choose... may it be perhaps different genders like different things because we had different roles for millions of years? nah, cant be.

For the third time, explain to me why I have to know that and why I have to debunk your assumption that this is evidence of mostly/entirely biological differences at work. Why do I need evidence to reject that which has been asserted without evidence? You have an hypothesis with this, nothing more.

Explain to me why objective sources of information present both sides without a "clear winner" if you think the nature side of things is absolutely one hundred percent clear among objective scientists. Where can I find a group of biologists, sociologists and anthropologists that agree that we can neatly and intelligibly put things into the genetics and culture categories, and that once we've looked at all of the available literature, there is a clear winner for what is the cause of gender identity and gender roles?

Substantiate your claim by explaining to me how it is that the metrics used by psychologists to differentiate between female and male traits and aptitudes pick up solely on biological differences and avoid picking up on socially constructed and conditioned differences as Jordan says here at 9:25 (when he's misquoting the lady):



I've listened to the Paglia talk already when it came out. She makes fundamental assumptions and errors, just like JBP. It's no wonder he sought to have a conversation with her. It's just what you'd expect when someone has a popular platform and an agenda. Here's a neat Paglia quote (imagine her gesticulating and speaking rapidly as you read):

This whole thing about global warming - I am absolutely incredulous at the gullibility of people. What is this hysteria over drowning polar bears? And finally I realized, people don't know polar bears can swim! For me, the answer is always more facts, more basic information, presented without sentimentality and without drama. To inflict this kind of anxiety on young people is an outrage.

This is not someone I'd spend a lot of time listening to if I were you. I'll have a listen to the Arthur Sakamoto talk later, I don't know anything about him.

I can write a lot how the left took control over many of the department of the humanities decades ago and how the distribution of left/right are about 40 to 1, how they supress publications that contradict their views, how the vast majority of gender studies published articles in their "scientific" journals have no citations.

All of that sounds like a terribly unconvincing narrative that comes directly from JBP, not you.

.

..

Ok nvm you can ignore/delete the previous dot posts, I was just trying to see if I could get to a new page to post my large post since the format of this page is fucked. Fix it by putting your wide wiki picture in spoiler tags instead plz.

On October 19 2017 05:22 Baalim wrote: Please elaborate on how idology hijacked biology and evolutionary psychology, assuming it is right-wing traditional ideology, what is the proportion between republican/democrats in these fields? I can write a lot how the left took control over many of the department of the humanities decades ago and how the distribution of left/right are about 40 to 1, how they supress publications that contradict their views, how the vast majority of gender studies published articles in their "scientific" journals have no citations.

Almost sounds like you're arguing for ideology-based quota schemes

On October 19 2017 07:45 Loco wrote: Do you think that if the numbers you present (40:1 left/right) were to be flipped, there would be less oppression, less conflict? What are you saying exactly here?

I am showing the absurd disparity of political inclination in these fields, if you were to show me an alike stat of evolutionary biologists being republican 40 to 1 I would instantly concede you that the field is indeed hijacked by conservative ideology.

For the third time, explain to me why I have to know that and why I have to debunk your assumption that this is evidence of mostly/entirely biological differences at work. Why do I need evidence to reject that which has been asserted without evidence? You have an hypothesis with this, nothing more.

This whole thing about global warming - I am absolutely incredulous at the gullibility of people. What is this hysteria over drowning polar bears? And finally I realized, people don't know polar bears can swim! For me, the answer is always more facts, more basic information, presented without sentimentality and without drama. To inflict this kind of anxiety on young people is an outrage.

Well yeah she is kind of retarded I've seen her say other dumb shit, I concede that, but she was part of the movement before 3rd wave feminism started and has stuff to say about this,