Moving away from stereotypes

So you refuse to accept that racism and sexism exists Scorpian? I am afraid arguing with people like you is as effective as getting a dog to talk.

Yes, court cases are fought and won but this does not mean sexism is not a reality. Rape conviction cases are notoriously low, many women don't report domestic violence or verbal sexism through fear. Unequal pay is an institutional phenomenon, not as bad as it used to be but it is still endemic and can only be rectified through ongoing political action, cultural and systemic change.

If you think women and men are hard-wired to think differently, what consequences do you think this will have on policy decisions or politics in general? Do you see a person first or do you see a man or women? If the former you will have no expectations as to how they are supposed to behave (my position), if the latter, you are prone to prejudice and ultimately discriminatory practice.

I just wanted to say I agree with everything you have said scorpion and you didn't come across in a negative way at all. From my perspective you were simply showing the scientific fact that men and women's brains differ and that even though they are different it doesn't matter because it does not give either more or less value. 

Sterotypes are used in a negative way but at the same time generalising(or having a term for a condition) has it's uses as pointed out with the apples example.

The term aspie refers to someone who has asperger's and as stated many times every person on the specturm is different but 'generally' an aspie will suffer with socialisation problems, sensory problems, communication issues(as in misunderstandings, not getting jokes etc) BUT that is not the be all and end all of it is it. I myself suffer with all 3 wheras other "aspie's" have no sensory problems or can get on quite well socially but suffer terribly with sensory issues. It's just a term as with most to sum up things, if you do not like the term that's fine don't refer to yourself as an aspie but many don't mind the term and find it easier to say "I'm an aspie/have asperger's" to help explain any odd behaviours, difficulties etc.

Hope said:

I am an atheist but I believe all humans and animals have intrinsic worth because sentient matter has feelings, feels pain, feels satisfaction, have a RIGHT to exist. Do you believe we have a right to exist? I assume you do, because not to believe this suggests moral bankruptsy and cynicism

I am also an Atheist. However I don't think humans have any right to exist. I would like to believe we do, however I see us an animal that will be here for a very small amout of geographic time and will become extinct through the process of evolution. Secondly right's can be taken away very easily. George Carlin expresses this well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

I am cynical tho, but I don't see that as a bad thing. I am certainly more moral than most people I know. I doo view the modern world as being morally bankrupt, too easily corruptable. I am partially nihilistic, but I see a lot of my thought in Max Stirner.

Hope said:

Our society nowadays is semi-totalitarian in its expectations, the emphasis being on total conformity. Of course society has always expected people to conform to the dominant world-view, but nowadays there is hardly any space for people to step back from society because society is everywhere and in everything, including the private home.

Firstly I'm too tired at the moment to read this thread cohesively. Hope your statement here is so very true. My interpretation is: Conform, however you must regulate yourself as it's cheaper and the ILLUSION of freedom remains.

Hope said:

I cannot really be bothered to argue with backward thinking, bio-chemical reductionists. But I will say this: We do live in a patriarchal society, but I guess as a patriarchal male you will never get female oppression. It is a bit like a racist white person trying to see things from a black person's perspective - unlikely to happen unless they can unclench their narrow minds. Sexism exists. Women on average still are not paid the same as men, the porn industry expolits women, women are raped and abused. GET REAL.

Once again, you are twisting my words to suit what you want me to be saying.

Whenever women can show they are being paid less than men, or women, for the same job, in court, they win.

And, whenever women can show they are being exploited by men, or women, in court, the men, or women, are prosecuted.

And, whenever women can show they have been raped, or abused, by men, or women, in court, the men, or women, are prosecuted.

Just as whenever men can show they are being paid less than women, or men, for the same job, in court, they win.

Or whenever men can show they are being exploited by women, or men, in court, the women, or men, are prosecuted.

Or whenever men can show they have been raped, or abused, by women, or men, in court, the women, or men, are prosecuted.

Women and men have equal rights in the eyes of our society, and the eyes of our law, and case after case proves that.

Hope said:

So I must be a deformed female from your way of seeing things (sarcasm, by the way!).

No but you are failing to understand the point.

Hope said:

I  prefer intellectual pursuits to socialising, don't wear makeup or skirts, don't care about fashion or clothes, am assertive and speak my mind. Many women are like me, a significant minority in fact, and before you put it down to my aspergers, there are many women with asperger traits who never need a diagnosis, and  many women who are not into socialising.  It is just that society expects women to behave in a certain way and conformity is a very powerful thing.

And the point is that doesn't change the validity of the sterotype, because, and, please try to understand this very simple concept, stereotypes do not speak of the individual or minority, however significant, but of the GROUP and the MAJORITY.

Hope said:

I don't have an identity as a woman as such, more as a human-being. But I do identify with female oppression and identify as a Feminist.    How much to do you know about Feminism?

More than nothing, but not all there is to know. And that is all anyone who knows something about anything can say.

Hope said:

I do not ignore neurology completely: Aspergers is caused by a different wiring in the brain, but  beyond this there is a great deal of difference between people with aspergers. We are all unique, and one person with aspergers will have a slightly different brain difference to the next person with AS, just as one neurotypical's brain will be slightly different to another neurotypical: As Puck puts it, there is a human continuum. But the categories Woman and Man are not medical in a neurological sense, they are purely functional with regards to procreation, and some other marginal average differences like size and strength.  Your argument that men and women think differently due to biochemistry is naive, simplistic and conformist.

It is you that is being naive, simplistic, and frankly wrong. I have shown you evidence that the neuro-biology of men and women differ, and you simply refuse to even aknowledge the presence of that evidence. And, before you ask "What evidence?" go back and read the articles I linked to some posts back.

Hope said:

Do you ever question what you read, do you ever try and see behind facts to hidden meaning, to understand that appearance is not always the same as truth?

Yes.

Hope said:

We are not talking about tigers or cars, we are talking about human-beings.

And? So what? We do not, for this purpose, differ in any significant way to these other entities. We are not, for this purpose, special. We, for this purpose, obey the same universal laws. And, for this purpose, the same scientific principles can be applied to determine the essential similarities and differences within and between different sub-categories of human-beings as can be applied to sub-categories of tiger, or car.

Hope said:

Absolute truth once claimed the earth was flat, and that everything revolved round the earth. You must be aware of this, which sort of refutes your argument that Truth is unchanging!!!

Firstly it was never believed that the earth was flat. That's an urban myth.

Secondly, even if we did once believe that, that's not absolute (objective) truth. That's relative (subjective) truth.

Subjective truth is the subject of philosophy, and changes.

Objective truth is the subject of science, and is static.

Hope said:

And your argument about anaesthetics is a completely different kettle of fish.  Do you take me as stupid? Of course anaesthetics shut down the brain, but we are not talking about the parts of the brain that control our basic functions, like in this case feeling pain, or breathing, eating etc. We are talking about the parts of the brain that control complex human behaviour, thinking, emotions, dexterity...

The parts of the brain that control complex human behaviour, and so on, are no different to, and are affected by anaesthetics in exactly the same way as, the parts of the brain that control our basic functions.

They are made from neurological matter (neurons) and communicated using neural interconnections and chemical neuro-transmitters.

Only the patterns of interconnections between neurons, from neuron groups to muscles, and to neuron groups from sensory inputs, differ.

Hope said:

You say women and men feel pain differently. In what way?

Several ways. See:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Neurology/GeneralNeurology/2017

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120123115517.htm

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51160

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=proteins-may-be-key-to-pa

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4641567.stm

You may also like to read:

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2008/03/01/35810.aspx

http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/men-women-different-brains1.htm

and the many other articles you can find on the subject of the differences between male and female brains with a simple google search.

So I must be a deformed female from your way of seeing things (sarcasm, by the way!).

I  prefer intellectual pursuits to socialising, don't wear makeup or skirts, don't care about fashion or clothes, am assertive and speak my mind. Many women are like me, a significant minority in fact, and before you put it down to my aspergers, there are many women with asperger traits who never need a diagnosis, and  many women who are not into socialising.  It is just that society expects women to behave in a certain way and conformity is a very powerful thing.

I don't have an identity as a woman as such, more as a human-being. But I do identify with female oppression and identify as a Feminist.    How much to do you know about Feminism?

I do not ignore neurology completely: Aspergers is caused by a different wiring in the brain, but  beyond this there is a great deal of difference between people with aspergers. We are all unique, and one person with aspergers will have a slightly different brain difference to the next person with AS, just as one neurotypical's brain will be slightly different to another neurotypical: As Puck puts it, there is a human continuum. But the categories Woman and Man are not medical in a neurological sense, they are purely functional with regards to procreation, and some other marginal average differences like size and strength.  Your argument that men and women think differently due to biochemistry is naive, simplistic and conformist. Do you ever question what you read, do you ever try and see behind facts to hidden meaning, to understand that appearance is not always the same as truth? We are not talking about tigers or cars, we are talking about human-beings.

You say women and men feel pain differently. In what way?

And your argument about anaesthetics is a completely different kettle of fish.  Do you take me as stupid? Of course anaesthetics shut down the brain, but we are not talking about the parts of the brain that control our basic functions, like in this case feeling pain, or breathing, eating etc. We are talking about the parts of the brain that control complex human behaviour, thinking, emotions, dexterity...

Absolute truth once claimed the earth was flat, and that everything revolved round the earth. You must be aware of this, which sort of refutes your argument that Truth is unchanging!!!

I cannot really be bothered to argue with backward thinking, bio-chemical reductionists. But I will say this: We do live in a patriarchal society, but I guess as a patriarchal male you will never get female oppression. It is a bit like a racist white person trying to see things from a black person's perspective - unlikely to happen unless they can unclench their narrow minds. Sexism exists. Women on average still are not paid the same as men, the porn industry expolits women, women are raped and abused. GET REAL.

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.

And Puck, I agree that our shared humanity is the most important thing. All of us are unique, with different strengths and weaknesses, different interests, likes and dislikes. We all have personal limits but we also have ambition and aspirations - no-one can take this from us. Imagination is the most important thing - the will to improve ourselves and break with custom and stereotypes.

I agree that the majority view is not always productive or 'sane' from a humanitarian perspective. Just because the majority believe something, it does not make them right.

You make the point about Einstein, Van Gogh etc. These people may well have had aspergers, or they might just have been very eccentric, we just don't know. But it is likely that a fair few amazing geniuses may have had aspergers or certaintly asperger traits. However, they were a tiny minority, and I think that in the past difference was not always so well tolerated; it largely depended on what social group you belonged to. If you were poor, working-class and/or female I think asperger traits would have attracted denigration and even abuse. Many of these 'misfits' would have ended up in the workhouse.

I think there is some truth to your argument Longman. Our society nowadays is semi-totalitarian in its expectations, the emphasis being on total conformity. Of course society has always expected people to conform to the dominant world-view, but nowadays there is hardly any space for people to step back from society because society is everywhere and in everything, including the private home.

Charles Dickens managed to find a wide range of characters, which might have been charicatures, but also they had to be identifiable to his readers. In the past, for a variety of social, medical and financial circumstances, people's behaviours widely varied.

Nowadays society is driven by TV, media, internet (twitter etc), magazines (including lifestyle) etc., and standardised expectations of education and training and worklife.

The consequence is that the majority traits define the norm.

Those of us who cannot match these traits go to the wall.

We've had the debate on here about achievement and AS, with some people arguing that if you've achieved you haven't really got AS.

The historical models - Einstein, van Gogh, Warhol - that people have tried to argue showed asperger traits, mostly lived in times when their eccentricity was tolerated because people were so widely different.

The tragedy is that we clearly need people who are wired differently to make scientific breakthroughs necessary for human survival and progress.

The current strategy of dividing such people off, and majking them clinical specimens, is we are losing the variety and range of skills humans need.

Standard NT man/woman may not actually be capable of survival.

The term 'spectrum' is used to show that there are all different kinds of autism.  The autistic spectrum.  Really though surely we should all be on the humanity spectrum.  I never define myself as an aspie and generally it is kept secret.  My employer knows.  He actually thinks I am quite an extreme example whereas I would say that I integrate very well with regular society, though at arm's length.

Nowadays people with the syndrome are beginning to become dominant in many of the modern industries and hence are entering the public consciousness.  To this extent they are becoming typical, although not neurotypical, people.  They cannot be segregated from society by a designation, they are part of society.

Huge numbers of 'NT' people demonstrate 'AS' tendencies and vice versa.  We are not on an autistic spectrum, we are on a human spectrum.  I find it hard to believe that anyone feels completely normal inside.  Surely even accountants with 2.4 children and pensions must feel as though they are a bit strange.  After all everyone else does.

Although I do try to keep it all on the hush hush I do appreciate the fact that there is a blanket term that I can offer people that will enable them to say 'Ah, of course, I should have known' when I am having noticeable difficulties with fitting in.  To that extent it does help to take a little of the pressure out of the situation.

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

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

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.