Moving away from stereotypes

Hope said:

Scorpian, your argument comes right out of the Victorian  rule-book. Women=emotional, caring, passive. Men=active, intellectual, thing-driven. As a Feminst I think your views reek of sexism. Welcome to the 21st century. Women have a life and not all women want to sit at home all day, passively self-sacrificing their needs on the alter of patriarchy. Times change.

You're misreading what I'm writing to make it mean what you think I'm saying.

I am NOT saying that women should be in any way subservient to men. Or that women should not choose their own path through life. Or that all women, or all men are identical.

What I AM saying is that the different paths through life chosen by men and women are determined largely by their differing neuro-physical make ups. And that though we are all males and all females differ from each other within those groups, there are demonstrable neuro-physical differences between the 'average man' and the 'average women'.

What you seem to be not getting here is that sterotypes talk about notional 'average specimens' of a given type, not any given individual of that type!

Hope said:

And you have not answered my point about what these scientific studies prove.

Yes I have. They prove that men and women process pain differently. They prove that men and womens brains a physically different. They prove that men and women think differently. And they prove many other things besides. Try actually going out and looking for the truth instead of sitting back philosophising about the world as you would like it to be, and maybe you'll learn one or two things.

Hope said:

I suggested that it is very hard to disentangle the effects of nurture in the studies from that of nature

You can suggest all you want, but that is complete and utter rubbish. And I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself, because I've stated how, several times, in different ways, but, I'll try once again:

By taking large numbers of individual specimens, testing them, and averaging the results, you filter, or cancel, out the differences, and individualities, and are left only with the similarities. So, by taking those large numbers of individual specimens from a wide range of developmental environments, you can disentangle the effects of nature and nuture very effectively.

Think of it like this:

If we take, say, 1000, or 10,000, or 100,000 cars, of all different colours, makes, models, and sizes, and write down long lists of all their features and characteristics, such as their colour, the number of wheels, the fact they have an engine, and a steering wheel, how many doors, and seats they have, and so on, and so on, and then we go through our lists and we remove any item that doesn't appear on all lists, we will, eventually, reduce our lists down to just those factors that make a car 'a car' - that they have an 'engine', for example.

The same can be done for anything. And this is what science does when it's answering the question "what makes men 'men', women 'women', and what are the differences between them?"

Or to get us back to your original question "What makes someone with Autisim 'autistic'?"

Hope said:

upbringing can affect the brain, we still live in a patriarchal society that brings boys and girls up differently.

I'm sorry but I simply refute the idea that we, in the UK, live in a patriarchal society. All other things being equal, you have exactly the same degree of opportunity to any male in your position. There are no 'male only' professions. A women is not expected to be subservient to a man. You are free to do everything and anything a man can (and which you're physiscally able to) do.

Hope said:

In any event, it is not clear how chemicals or  brain structure influence real behaviour.

Oh, come on?! Are you serious?! The bio-chemical pathways from 'thought' to 'action' have been mapped and very well understood for a very long time (almost certainly longer than either of our lifetimes). We started to understand them when the first anethstetics were produced - in fact anethstetics were the first step in proveing that all behaviour is rooted in the brain - shut down the brain and you not only shut down conciousness, but you also shut down behaviour - it's not like we just continue walking round the operating theatre like automatons, now, is it?!

Hope said:

You can never seperate an individual from the society in which they are raised, so I am afraid environmental influences can never be ruled out.

I refer you to the statement I made earlier:

By taking large numbers of individual specimens, testing them, and averaging the results, you filter, or cancel, out the differences, and individualities, and are left only with the similarities. So, by taking those large numbers of individual specimens from a wide range of developmental environments, you can disentangle the effects of nature and nuture very effectively.

Think of it like this:

If we take, say, 1000, or 10,000, or 100,000 cars, of all different colours, makes, models, and sizes, and write down long lists of all their features and characteristics, such as their colour, the number of wheels, the fact they have an engine, and a steering wheel, how many doors, and seats they have, and so on, and so on, and then we go through our lists and we remove any item that doesn't appear on all lists, we will, eventually, reduce our lists down to just those factors that make a car 'a car' - that they have an 'engine', for example.

The same can be done for anything. And this is what science does when it's answering the question "what makes men 'men', women 'women', and what are the differences between them?"

Or to get us back to your original question "What makes someone with Autisim 'autistic'?"

Hope said:

Cave society is very different to our modern society. Women now have a CHOICE whether or not to have children. In our evolutionary past we had to focus on survival and expanding the population was imperative. Technology was limited, women were enslaved to their bodies.  Not any more, thank goodness, unless you want to regress to some mythic patriarchal wonder-land. 

Again, stop twisting what I'm saying to fit with what you want to think I'm saying!

I do not wish to "regress to some mythic patriarchal wonder-land", as you put it, and I am NOT saying that we should.

Simply stating that men and women are different is in no way congruent with saying that men or more or less worthy, or have more or less rights, or any other such value-based statement.

An apple is not an orange, but an apple is not in any absolute way better than an orange, nor vice versa.

Difference does not infer value.

Hope said:

And your arguments are operational to the extreme: confusing what has been with nature.   Slavery was once 'natural', women being barred from the professions was 'natural'. Now we know this is not the case, only because our foremothers threw off their shackles and DEMANDED freedom from the established patriarchical pseudo-science

Twisting my words to fit what you want them to say, again.

If you insist on continuing to do so, then this discussion is pointless, as you clearly have a closed, and distorted, mind.

Hope said:

Absolute truth, by the way, is lived. There is a constant dialectic between material circumstances and ideas. Your views simply reflect the mainstream patriarchal consensus, embedded in behaviour and reflected in ideas

Rubbish. Absolute truth is what is absolutely true. It is the very nature and essence of the universe. It is constant and unchanging. What we think and say does not change the fundemental nature of matter. Science seeks to understand it, not to define it.

Oh, and by the way, you accused me of using tautoligical reasoning, however, everything you've stated boils down to "I don't agree with you, therefore you are wrong, because I say you are wrong".

Open your mind, take off the blinkers of opinion, and maybe you'll find a path to truth.

Hope said:

Scorpian, your argument comes right out of the Victorian  rule-book. Women=emotional, caring, passive. Men=active, intellectual, thing-driven. As a Feminst I think your views reek of sexism. Welcome to the 21st century. Women have a life and not all women want to sit at home all day, passively self-sacrificing their needs on the alter of patriarchy. Times change.

You're misreading what I'm writing to make it mean what you think I'm saying.

I am NOT saying that women should be in any way subservient to men. Or that women should not choose their own path through life. Or that all women, or all men are identical.

What I AM saying is that the different paths through life chosen by men and women are determined largely by their differing neuro-physical make ups. And that though we are all males and all females differ from each other within those groups, there are demonstrable neuro-physical differences between the 'average man' and the 'average women'.

What you seem to be not getting here is that sterotypes talk about notional 'average specimens' of a given type, not any given individual of that type!

Hope said:

And you have not answered my point about what these scientific studies prove.

Yes I have. They prove that men and women process pain differently. They prove that men and womens brains a physically different. They prove that men and women think differently. And they prove many other things besides. Try actually going out and looking for the truth instead of sitting back philosophising about the world as you would like it to be, and maybe you'll learn one or two things.

Hope said:

I suggested that it is very hard to disentangle the effects of nurture in the studies from that of nature

You can suggest all you want, but that is complete and utter rubbish. And I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself, because I've stated how, several times, in different ways, but, I'll try once again:

By taking large numbers of individual specimens, testing them, and averaging the results, you filter, or cancel, out the differences, and individualities, and are left only with the similarities. So, by taking those large numbers of individual specimens from a wide range of developmental environments, you can disentangle the effects of nature and nuture very effectively.

Think of it like this:

If we take, say, 1000, or 10,000, or 100,000 cars, of all different colours, makes, models, and sizes, and write down long lists of all their features and characteristics, such as their colour, the number of wheels, the fact they have an engine, and a steering wheel, how many doors, and seats they have, and so on, and so on, and then we go through our lists and we remove any item that doesn't appear on all lists, we will, eventually, reduce our lists down to just those factors that make a car 'a car' - that they have an 'engine', for example.

The same can be done for anything. And this is what science does when it's answering the question "what makes men 'men', women 'women', and what are the differences between them?"

Or to get us back to your original question "What makes someone with Autisim 'autistic'?"

Hope said:

upbringing can affect the brain, we still live in a patriarchal society that brings boys and girls up differently.

I'm sorry but I simply refute the idea that we, in the UK, live in a patriarchal society. All other things being equal, you have exactly the same degree of opportunity to any male in your position. There are no 'male only' professions. A women is not expected to be subservient to a man. You are free to do everything and anything a man can (and which you're physiscally able to) do.

Hope said:

In any event, it is not clear how chemicals or  brain structure influence real behaviour.

Oh, come on?! Are you serious?! The bio-chemical pathways from 'thought' to 'action' have been mapped and very well understood for a very long time (almost certainly longer than either of our lifetimes). We started to understand them when the first anethstetics were produced - in fact anethstetics were the first step in proveing that all behaviour is rooted in the brain - shut down the brain and you not only shut down conciousness, but you also shut down behaviour - it's not like we just continue walking round the operating theatre like automatons, now, is it?!

Hope said:

You can never seperate an individual from the society in which they are raised, so I am afraid environmental influences can never be ruled out.

I refer you to the statement I made earlier:

By taking large numbers of individual specimens, testing them, and averaging the results, you filter, or cancel, out the differences, and individualities, and are left only with the similarities. So, by taking those large numbers of individual specimens from a wide range of developmental environments, you can disentangle the effects of nature and nuture very effectively.

Think of it like this:

If we take, say, 1000, or 10,000, or 100,000 cars, of all different colours, makes, models, and sizes, and write down long lists of all their features and characteristics, such as their colour, the number of wheels, the fact they have an engine, and a steering wheel, how many doors, and seats they have, and so on, and so on, and then we go through our lists and we remove any item that doesn't appear on all lists, we will, eventually, reduce our lists down to just those factors that make a car 'a car' - that they have an 'engine', for example.

The same can be done for anything. And this is what science does when it's answering the question "what makes men 'men', women 'women', and what are the differences between them?"

Or to get us back to your original question "What makes someone with Autisim 'autistic'?"

Hope said:

Cave society is very different to our modern society. Women now have a CHOICE whether or not to have children. In our evolutionary past we had to focus on survival and expanding the population was imperative. Technology was limited, women were enslaved to their bodies.  Not any more, thank goodness, unless you want to regress to some mythic patriarchal wonder-land. 

Again, stop twisting what I'm saying to fit with what you want to think I'm saying!

I do not wish to "regress to some mythic patriarchal wonder-land", as you put it, and I am NOT saying that we should.

Simply stating that men and women are different is in no way congruent with saying that men or more or less worthy, or have more or less rights, or any other such value-based statement.

An apple is not an orange, but an apple is not in any absolute way better than an orange, nor vice versa.

Difference does not infer value.

Hope said:

And your arguments are operational to the extreme: confusing what has been with nature.   Slavery was once 'natural', women being barred from the professions was 'natural'. Now we know this is not the case, only because our foremothers threw off their shackles and DEMANDED freedom from the established patriarchical pseudo-science

Twisting my words to fit what you want them to say, again.

If you insist on continuing to do so, then this discussion is pointless, as you clearly have a closed, and distorted, mind.

Hope said:

Absolute truth, by the way, is lived. There is a constant dialectic between material circumstances and ideas. Your views simply reflect the mainstream patriarchal consensus, embedded in behaviour and reflected in ideas

Rubbish. Absolute truth is what is absolutely true. It is the very nature and essence of the universe. It is constant and unchanging. What we think and say does not change the fundemental nature of matter. Science seeks to understand it, not to define it.

Oh, and by the way, you accused me of using tautoligical reasoning, however, everything you've stated boils down to "I don't agree with you, therefore you are wrong, because I say you are wrong".

Open your mind, take off the blinkers of opinion, and maybe you'll find a path to truth.