Moving away from stereotypes

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.

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. And you have not answered my point about what these scientific studies prove. I suggested that it is very hard to disentangle the effects of nurture in the studies from that of nature: upbringing can affect the brain, we still live in a patriarchal society that brings boys and girls up differently. In any event, it is not clear how chemicals or  brain structure influence real behaviour.

Hope said:

Yes, I have looked at the 'evidence'. It is not clear that you can conflate apparent physical differences (very small though they are) with causes. Society indoctrinates people to behave a certain way; behaviour changes the structure of the brain, which is plastic. It is hard to disentangle effect from cause. I am no Scientist, so I must be stupid, but the real-world is very different from a Scientific laboratory - there are so many variables that can affect the brain. Secondarily, how do we KNOW that minute differences in brain structure significantly affect behaviour? And, also, what about the myriad differences between the brains of women or between the brains of men?

And this is why brain scientists don't deal with individual brains when drawing conclusions. Instead they look at numbers of brains from across as broad a spectrum of individuals as possible. This way the noise of environmental influence is canceled out and the underlying hard-wired differences are revealed.

We don't even need to use brain scanning to see that there are universal differences between men and women - even in the most matriarchal of societies, labour is divided down very clear lines, between nurture, and physical activity - the women raise children, and care for the sick, whilst the men hunt, and build.

Hope said:

And you obviously did not read what I said about American segregation being an EXTREME example - just the logical conclusion of this argument that some might pursue

Yes, I read it. But, resorting to extreme examples is a poor way to present an argument.

Hope said:

Your argument about humans being intrinsically worthless is called nihilism, or post-modernism. 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

Then you assume wrong. But not because I am morally bankrupt, or cynical (though I must admit I am often the latter), but because I believe simply in "do as to others as you would done to you". This principle does not require 'right', or 'worth', or 'value', precisely because in a system where one entity has as much 'right', 'worth', or 'value' as any other, those terms cease to have meaning. 'Right', 'worth', and 'value' are all relative concepts, so without relative difference, they have no validity.

Hope said:

And tautology is not a  way to argue a point either! (I am referring to your repetitive assertion that I am being emotional, this is a smear, and is a silly way of trying to argue a point)

I state that you're responding emotionally because it is evident in the language you use. I am not saying that this is wrong, or bad. Just that it is biasing your arguments.

Hope said:

If worth and value are subjective constructs, then presumably what you say is also a subjective construct? (a rhetorical question of course).

Your question may be rhetorical, but my answer to that question isn't:

I try not to place worth or value or what I say, or think. Instead I try to hold, and present absolute objective truth.

I am sure you will argue that we can not know absolute objective truth, and this is where I disagree.

We can assume absolute objective truth because if we did not percieve absolute objective truth we would find existence very hard indeed.

If I see a tiger, I can draw but two conclusions - either I'm halucinating - a very dangerous conclusion to reach - or that really is a tiger, and I need to attack, stay very still, hide, or run away very quickly.

And, the more evidence I have that it's a tiger, the more sure I can be - so if I see others attacking, standing very still, hiding, or running away, then I can pretty sure they too see a tiger.

Hope said:

Brain science is still about questions. The questions you have in mind bias the answers to the (apparent) physical differences. Science can never completely eliminate bias, and while hard physics can usually be relied on - we are all natural physicists, we use physics to manipulate THINGS - Science applied to humans is far less reliable, particularly when dealing with how brain patterns translate into human behaviour!

The basis of science is not the probably biased, possibly halucinatory, subjective, opinion of one individual - but the likely objective, probably true, fact, discerned from the shared, and corroborated, conclusions that have been drawn from of a myriad of opinions from a myriad of inidividuals.

In this way, the scientific method cancels out the noise of subjectivity to reveal objective truth.

Brain science is still about questions. The questions you have in mind bias the answers to the (apparent) physical differences. Science can never completely eliminate bias, and while hard physics can usually be relied on - we are all natural physicists, we use physics to manipulate THINGS - Science applied to humans is far less reliable, particularly when dealing with how brain patterns translate into human behaviour!

If worth and value are subjective constructs, then presumably what you say is also a subjective construct? (a rhetorical question of course).

And tautology is not a  way to argue a point either! (I am referring to your repetitive assertion that I am being emotional, this is a smear, and is a silly way of trying to argue a point)

Your argument about humans being intrinsically worthless is called nihilism, or post-modernism. 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

And you obviously did not read what I said about American segregation being an EXTREME example - just the logical conclusion of this argument that some might pursue

What do you think these physical differences reveal?

Yes, I have looked at the 'evidence'. It is not clear that you can conflate apparent physical differences (very small though they are) with causes. Society indoctrinates people to behave a certain way; behaviour changes the structure of the brain, which is plastic. It is hard to disentangle effect from cause. I am no Scientist, so I must be stupid, but the real-world is very different from a Scientific laboratory - there are so many variables that can affect the brain. Secondarily, how do we KNOW that minute differences in brain structure significantly affect behaviour? And, also, what about the myriad differences between the brains of women or between the brains of men?

What does the research prove?

Hope said:

'Clearly demonstrate hard wired psychological differences'. Do they really? According to whom? Some biased researcher asks biased questions about what it means to be man or women, and then confuses effect with cause.

No, researchers using MRI scanner to show real physical differences between the brains of males, on average, and females, on average.

Brain science is no longer about asking questions and philosophising about what the answers you get might mean.

Science can now see the brain, how it's being used, as it's being used, in detail, in living, breathing, human beings, and, from that data, deduce the real physical differences between one brain and another, or one group of brains and another.

Hope said:

''Don't confuse what you like with what is true'' - I can say the same about your argument

You can say it, but my arguments are not based on my emotional response to the evidence, they're based on logical deductions from that evidence.

Hope said:

Also, what is 'true' may be wrong!

When I write 'true' I mean absolute, not subjective, truth.

Hope said:

What do you mean by 'worthless'?.

That we, and all things, have no intrinsic worth. Matter has no true value. Worth and value are subjective human constructs imposed onto indifferent matter.

Hope said:

Your other argument about differences between men and women not necessarily being a bad thing reminds me of the 'different but equal' line that American segregationists put forward, upholding 'different' but apparently 'equal' treatment for African-Americans. Sure, this is an extreme example and does not parallel the discrimination against women in today's society, but the logic is the same.

 

Ah, yes, and next you'll be telling me I'm no better than Hitler.

Good way to argue that. (that's sarcasm, btw)

And, I said you're reacting emotionally because you are - you're presenting an argument based on the world as you would like it to be, not as it is.

Telling me I am being emotional is not a good argument!

'Clearly demonstrate hard wired psychological differences'. Do they really? According to whom? Some biased researcher asks biased questions about what it means to be man or women, and then confuses effect with cause. It appears that women are sometimes more emotional than men. Therefore it is assumed that there is some natural chemical that makes them like this, instead of the more plausible explanation that society has systematically indoctrinated men to ignore their feelings and to not show emotion because emotion is for babies and women!!!

''Don't confuse what you like with what is true'' - I can say the same about your argument and the arguments of those godly researchers who must be true - never trample 'Science' and its self-validating hypotheses! Also, what is 'true' may be wrong!. Society changes and to believe something just because you read about it or it is the dominant 'truth', without having any preferences or opinions of your own, hardly bodes well for progression in society. Otherwise we would still be in the caves, when what was 'true' was very different to what is now 'true'.

The only likeness we share is that we are all human.

What do you mean by 'worthless'?.

We are all human, we are different in degree to apes, though we are related to them.

Your other argument about differences between men and women not necessarily being a bad thing reminds me of the 'different but equal' line that American segregationists put forward, upholding 'different' but apparently 'equal' treatment for African-Americans. Sure, this is an extreme example and does not parallel the discrimination against women in today's society, but the logic is the same.

http://www.livescience.com/4085-emotional-wiring-men-women.html and http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/articles/spatial_tests.shtml for but two articles.

I'd post proper scientific papers, but I don't have access to those kinds of repositories, and I suspect neither do you (but if you do, then I suggest you pull up the research for yourself).

There are also studies that demonstrate women and men process pain differently, as well as other studies that clearly demonstrate many other hard-wired psychological differences.

You're responding emotionally Hope, which is fine, but don't confuse what you 'like' with what is 'true'.

And, this is not to say that men or women are better or worse then each other, or that there is not a large overlap in psychological profiles.

Difference does not infer value, in fact, the only things we all, and all things in nature, have in common are that we are all utterly unique, and ultimately worthless.

But that uniqueness does not preclude similarity and the possiblity of grouping individual entities into type groups based on their shared properties.

Oh, and I believe the 'black athelets' thing is an urban myth - there were never any such studies done, it's was pure speculation based on the appearence of there being a high number of top-class black athletes (which I believe is also not true).

And there is no "what it is to be human" there is only "what you believe it is to be human". We are not 'special' and there is no 'meaning', 'purpose', or 'essence' to being human.

This does not reduce us all to being identical, far from it, it brings us closer to our true nature - unique, and individual, but interconnected, patterns of energy - as unique and important as any rock, tree, apple, or rabbit.

Humans share a common nature, this much is true. We are not born with a completely blank slate. Certain ways of living that deform what it is to be human (the yearning for positive freedom, security, feeling at one with nature and other humans) will result in mental illness, insecurity, fear and hostility. However, to reduce everything to nature is reactionary and regressive, ignoring diversity and celebrating conformity, ignoring alternative rationalities that transcend the established order.

Negative, critical logic tramples on the Capitalist, sexist culture and transcends established meaning

Studies used to claim black  people are better at athletics than white people, later shown to be the racist nonsense that it really is. What research are you referring to? I am afraid I don't agree with the (predominantly sexist) research. Yes, I am aware of Simon-Baron-Cohen's research, and I am independently minded enough not to go along with the conformist notion that women are more emotional than men, more sensitive, less into technology and all this pre-1960s tosh.

Also, I am not a reductionist. We are more than hormones. We shape the environment, the environment shapes us - nurture complements and molds nature.

Hope said:

Yes, but human beings are different to apples and rabbits.

Not in any really meaningful sense. We, rabbits, and apples, are all just bags of biochemical star dust, to say any more than that is just philosophical self-aggrandisment.

Hope said:

Sure, women are different from men on a purely anatomical level, but here the difference ends.

And that's just factually incorrect. Study, after study, after study, has shown very real differences (if some overlap) between the psychological profiles of men and women.

Hope said:

We are more than the sum of our parts. We are human beings and we act, changing objects into agents.

Philosophical self-aggrandisment again. Rabbits act too. They too change objects into agents. The diffference is that we have a more complex brain that allows us to agentise objects on a far greater scale than rabbits.

What you say above is very much an example of logical positivism. I subscribe more to the negative logic, anti-positivist school of thought.

Yes, but human beings are different to apples and rabbits. Heard of existentialism? This philosophy shows that existence precedes essence. Functionalism equates a thing with a fixed characteristic through dint of the operationalist language used, highly prized by the positivist, Western language structure. It is hard to avoid operationalism in the West, but this does not mean it is sacrosanct.

Sure, women are different from men on a purely anatomical level, but here the difference ends. We are more than the sum of our parts. We are human beings and we act, changing objects into agents.

Hope said:

there are more differences between women than there are between women and men

If you analyse that logically, you'll find that it can not possibly be true.

And that is kind of the point of stereotypes - they're stereotypes precisely because they roughly describe a typical member of a subset of a wider group of inidividuals.

If you have a diagnosis of Asperger's then you share something with all other's with that diagnosis.

Sure, we don't all share all traits, but that's irrelevent.

It's like saying "Apples are green" - yes, not all apples are just green - some are red, some yellow, and some are a mixture of green, red, and/or yellow - but, the proportion of green to non-green apples is weighted so greatly on the green side of the equation that it makes sense to shorten "Apples are mixture of colours, including some that are all red, some that are all yellow, and some that are mixture of red and/or yellow and green, but the majority are predominantly green" to "apples are green" - it's not a statement of absolute fact, just a simplification to prevent haven't to say, or type, long-winded explanations of all the possible combinations of all possible properties of a thing when the majority of instances of that thing display a small subset of the larger set of possible properties.

I can also guarentee that you use stereotypes all the time. You just don't think of them as sterotypes. Why? Well, precisely because all words that label a 'subset of a larger group' are, by their very nature, stereotypes - so when you say "rabbit" you mean something like "a subset of the mamalian class of animals that has features X, Y, and Z" - not all rabbits share all the same traits - but everyone knows what a 'rabbit' is and that though one might say "rabbits have long ears and eat carrots", not all rabbits actually have long ears, and nor do they all eat carrots.