Support NeoGAF

[Vicetrailia]

The irony in this sentence is that people probably like you also first tried to blame it on Social conditioning or influence but now that it has a huge biological factor you are totally fine with conditioning people and manipulate them so it would fit better to your own ideology.

I hope you can see that...

You literally just said something divisive, and implying that you know all of the facts because you like biological arguments. But there's a huge biological factor with...what exactly?

 

[Dunki]

You literally just said something divisive, and implying that you know all of the facts because you like biological arguments. But there's a huge biological factor with...what exactly?

There is a huge biological factor regarding your interests. As I said before you have babies who are one day old and with more testosterone you will have more interest in technical and mechanical things while babies with less are concentrating more on faces and people. This is not something you can manipulate in one day. Girls also have a much better speech pattern because of their testosterone level. So it is natural that they trey to go into fields with social aspects as well.

What you want to do is to tell them that they should feel differently and that they should do STEM instead even though they are not interested in it. Again the more equal a women feels the more she ges into so called traditional jobs. Lawyer, teacher, nurse doctor, etc all these more social related jobs. Here is what you should do IMO as a parent. Look what you child is interested in and support it that way. never force her/him to do stuff they do not want to. Like Piano lessons. Let your id develop their own interest let it figure out their own strength etc.

Watch over your kid and support it not lead it to something you want them to do. What you said is that maybe we need to change their biological interests because for equality reasons and some gender employer gap which comes over as more natural than created.

 

[Papa]

There is a huge biological factor regarding your interests. As I said before you have babies who are one day old and with more testosterone you will have more interest in technical and mechanical things while babies with less are concentrating more on faces and people. This is not something you can manipulate in one day. Girls also have a much better speech pattern because of their testosterone level. So it is natural that they trey to go into fields with social aspects as well.

What you want to do is to tell them that they should feel differently and that they should do STEM instead even though they are not interested in it. Again the more equal a women feels the more she ges into so called traditional jobs. Lawyer, teacher, nurse doctor, etc all these more social related jobs. Here is what you should do IMO as a parent. Look what you child is interested in and support it that way. never force her/him to do stuff they do not want to. Like Piano lessons. Let your id develop their own interest let it figure out their own strength etc.

Watch over your kid and support it not lead it to something you want them to do. What you said is that maybe we need to change their biological interests because for equality reasons and some gender employer gap which comes over as more natural than created.

Recent studies have linked autism to testosterone levels in the womb, so there is evidently a biological basis as you suggest. However, I think people get stuck in a binary mode of thinking and forget that it’s not about all males preferring one thing and all females preferring another thing. There is significant overlap in the distributions as Damore attempted to demonstrate.

 

[Dunki]

Recent studies have linked autism to testosterone levels in the womb, so there is evidently a biological basis as you suggest. However, I think people get stuck in a binary mode of thinking and forget that it’s not about all males preferring one thing and all females preferring another thing. There is significant overlap in the distributions as Damore attempted to demonstrate.

Of course there are exceptions and for these children we need to support them as well. But I think it is wrong to lead your chid into something you think would be good for her/him even though your child is not interested in it.

We need to stop talking gender and support every child the same with the same Programm, courses etc. Where you should do more work however is to make these courses Programms for underprivileged kids.

 

[Papa]

Of course there are exceptions and for these children we need to support them as well. But I think it is wrong to lead your chid into something you think would be good for her/him even though your child is not interested in it.

We need to stop talking gender and support every child the same with the same Programm, courses etc. Where you should do more work however is to make these courses Programms for underprivileged kids.

Yes, any welfare should be targeted at socioeconomic status, not race, gender or any other immutable characteristic.

 

[Vicetrailia]

There is a huge biological factor regarding your interests. As I said before you have babies who are one day old and with more testosterone you will have more interest in technical and mechanical things while babies with less are concentrating more on faces and people. This is not something you can manipulate in one day. Girls also have a much better speech pattern because of their testosterone level. So it is natural that they trey to go into fields with social aspects as well.

No scientists agree that testosterone hormone levels have a bigger impact than environmental, or are a major factor in determining your career path. They all say that it may have influence. It's not clear whether testosterone even causes risk-taking behavior for example, but they found quite a few correlations with it.

If they find a biological correlation you seem to take our and run with it, as if there wouldn't be many other factors, or as if we know the weight of its impact.

Some of the other stuff you said I kinda agree with you on, although you're being very simplistic about it. For example with interests, you don't even scratch the surface level.

 

[Dunki]

No scientists agree that testosterone hormone levels have a bigger impact than environmental, or are a major factor in determining your career path. They all say that it may have influence. It's not clear whether testosterone even causes risk-taking behavior for example, but they found quite a few correlations with it.

If they find a biological correlation you seem to take our and run with it, as if there wouldn't be many other factors, or as if we know the weight of its impact.

Some of the other stuff you said I kinda agree with you on, although you're being very simplistic about it. For example with interests, you don't even scratch the surface level.

You were the one suggesting that we should conditioning children because you know what exactly would be good for them and not them.

This biological evidence is a sign how children with more testosterone have different focus and view on things. and there you already can see affection interest these children have and which can develop even more during their childhood. which again you should support as parent or teachers and not try to push them into different direction. AKA "Math could also be fun" And of course t is more simplistic but you build up on simplistic ideas and thesis

 

[Vicetrailia]

You were the one suggesting that we should conditioning children because you know what exactly would be good for them and not them.

I don't believe that.

 

[Dunki]

I don't believe that.

My English is may be bad but how should I interpret this sentence otherwise?

Otherwise, what is natural isn't necessarily good, and we have been slowly running away from natural instincts.

 

[Vicetrailia]

My English is may be bad but how should I interpret this sentence otherwise?

Paleo diet, or that we don't need to emulate nature to the T throughout our societies (well, we can't obviously).

 

[Dunki]

Paleo diet, or that we don't need to emulate nature to the T throughout our societies (well, we can't obviously).

That is why I said that we should support our children based on their own interest and not trying to blame social culture for the gender gap in STEM for example.

 

[TheGraykid]

My point is that a lot of current cultural debates are, at their core, concerning the tensions between our culture and rooted biology. Women want to be more like men, but does that make them happier? Why are housewives happier than rich female CEOs? Why does working out -- something you could argue simulates hunting -- improve our mood so much, especially men? The paleo diet, for example, is a recent example of us reacting to our current society and saying "we aren't happy and healthy because we're not eating how we biologically were meant to eat."

Human beings are deeply tied to our primordial biology. We are not simply computers where we can modify our software at our whim, we don't have control over what makes us happy and healthy. Think about having a life partner. It seems ridiculous, really. Why do I need a partner? Why do I need to go home and sleep beside this same person every night? But try not doing it. Many do, of course, and its one of the leading causes of the ills of society.

Maybe one day we can be born, choose our gender, choose how we want to live, maybe alone in solitude with no life partner, without the feeling of hunger or sexual desire, without needing to sleep. Imagine if we didn't need to eat so often, sleep, or need to spend so much time chatting with our life partner? We would of conquered the universe already! But that can't happen over night, it would take thousands of years of evolution to change our biological code just as it took thousands of years to give us the capability of language, tool making, monogamy and so on.

My point is that this is an overly simplistic way of looking at an extremely complex issue, it presupposes a conflict that doesn't really have much evidence of existing. The conflict in your mind appears to be culture vs biology, whereas most of what you say can easily be written off as an effect of our culture. In my mind, the conflict is culture vs culture.

"happiness" shouldn't really have a major bearing on what we as a society should do. Simply because "happiness" is so complex and multifaceted. For example, Smoking made a lot of people happy. Not to mention the fact that environmental factors have a huge effect on any individuals "Happiness", we can't simply say that "something biological" makes women feel happier raising children than being a rich CEO, especially when we don't know what that "something biological" is. This isn't like working out which we know releases endorphins that make biologically feel better (regardless of if you're a man or a woman).

Framing this entire thing as women trying to be men, seems wrong to me. Power in society shouldn't be seen as a masculine thing, that's an issue in itself. What men are and what women are, can and probably should be completely redefined. We, as men, are literally killing ourselves with outdated ideas on masculinity (depression).

The idea that we're changing too fast seems off to me, especially considering how much over the last hundred of years we've changed in pretty much every single way as a species. The idea that women having high-level jobs is the thing we should be worried about as a potentially bad thing, feels way overblown.

 

[Dunki]

My point is that this is an overly simplistic way of looking at an extremely complex issue, it presupposes a conflict that doesn't really have much evidence of existing. The conflict in your mind appears to be culture vs biology, whereas most of what you say can easily be written off as an effect of our culture. In my mind, the conflict is culture vs culture.

"happiness" shouldn't really have a major bearing on what we as a society should do. Simply because "happiness" is so complex and multifaceted. For example, Smoking made a lot of people happy. Not to mention the fact that environmental factors have a huge effect on any individuals "Happiness", we can't simply say that "something biological" makes women feel happier raising children than being a rich CEO, especially when we don't know what that "something biological" is. This isn't like working out which we know releases endorphins that make biologically feel better (regardless of if you're a man or a woman).

Framing this entire thing as women trying to be men, seems wrong to me. Power in society shouldn't be seen as a masculine thing, that's an issue in itself. What men are and what women are, can and probably should be completely redefined. We, as men, are literally killing ourselves with outdated ideas on masculinity (depression).

The idea that we're changing too fast seems off to me, especially considering how much over the last hundred of years we've changed in pretty much every single way as a species. The idea that women having high-level jobs is the thing we should be worried about as a potentially bad thing, feels way overblown.

Even here this fits

Likewise, Peterson argues that modern women are told by society “implicitly and explicitly that their primary interest will be the pursuit of a dynamic career.” In reality, he says, most people don’t have a dynamic career. Instead, they are likely to have a “job,” and one that is “job-like,” in that it is mundane and hardly exciting in the day-to-day. Women, especially, experience a crisis in their early thirties, he argues, as their interest in marriage and motherhood begins to compete with their career interests, even if they are lucky enough to have a dynamic professional life.

He goes to talk about countless female clients, who, despite having achieved pinnacles in their careers, opt to pull back and focus on their families:

My experience has been, overhelmingly, that high caliber women decide in their thirties that relationship and family [are] the most important things in their life. And I think the fact that major law firms, for example, have a really difficult time holding on to their high-performing women, even though they bend over backward to do that, is actually an indication of exactly that.

His point is a fascinating one. Law firms attract and hire top female talent, but a major factor that contributes to what makes a woman a high-quality hire is also often what drives her to eventually leave: her conscientious focus on all things, especially relationships. Peterson essentially expands what it means to be a “high caliber” worker beyond sheer industriousness. When it comes to nurturing relationships, both in the workplace and in the family, would anyone argue that women outperform men?

https://ifstudies.org/blog/what-jordan-peterson-has-to-say-about-motherhood-might-surprise-you

 

[TheGraykid]

Even here this fits



https://ifstudies.org/blog/what-jordan-peterson-has-to-say-about-motherhood-might-surprise-you

I don't see the point you're making or even the grand point Jordan is making (Via this other person's article). Is his takeaway that we need to tell more women to stay at home and raise children? Or that our work society needs to be more flexible and accommodating to those who want children? Or even that males should take on more responsibility in society when it comes to raising children so this isn't as much of an issue?

 

[Vicetrailia]

That is why I said that we should support our children based on their own interest and not trying to blame social culture for the gender gap in STEM for example.

Except social culture has an impact on women who go into certain STEM jobs. And it has perception issues, so women actively avoid it. There's also gender stereotypes, but lets chill on that for now. It's found that having women there is good for bottomlines, and so companies want more of them, and want to keep them. Thus they reduce the barriers to not scare off people. Is that really a big deal? What ought to be in googles perception is the pipeline increasing because they have a great work environment, and potentially interested women have the resources they need. Now they'll never be perfect, but they can be better.

 

[Dunki]

I don't see the point you're making or even the grand point Jordan is making (Via this other person's article). Is his takeaway that we need to tell more women to stay at home and raise children? Or that our work society needs to be more flexible and accommodating to those who want children? Or even that males should take on more responsibility in society when it comes to raising children so this isn't as much of an issue?

That you mostly should stop women pressuring in top careers they will not be happy with in the end just for the sake of someone ideology. Again Gender equality Paradox which again states that women who are not feeling pressured and feel equal will fall back into more "traditional jobs and life situations"

Again all this culture argument does not work when women in countries like Saudia Arabia occupy 70% in STEM. A country which is deeply misogynistic in its beliefs. A country in which women could not even drive a car, need a male guardian etc.

 

[TheGraykid]

That you mostly should stop women pressuring in top careers they will not be happy with in the end just for the sake of someone ideology. Again Gender equality Paradox which again states that women who are not feeling pressured and feel equal will fall back into more "traditional jobs and life situations"

Again all this culture argument does not work when women in countries like Saudia Arabia occupy 70% in STEM. A country which is deeply misogynistic in its beliefs. A country in which women could not even drive a car, need a male guardian etc.

As I said earlier.

"happiness" shouldn't really have a major bearing on what we as a society should do. Simply because "happiness" is so complex and multifaceted. For example, Smoking made a lot of people happy. Not to mention the fact that environmental factors have a huge effect on any individuals "Happiness", we can't simply say that "something biological" makes women feel happier raising children than being a rich CEO, especially when we don't know what that "something biological" is. This isn't like working out which we know releases endorphins that make biologically feel better (regardless of if you're a man or a woman). "

I'll also add that:

Comparing multiple countries the way you do, implicitly overlooks all other dimensions that might influence the presence of the gender statistic of interest (socioeconomic background, age, current or past political policies). TLDR: Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Dunki]

As I said earlier.

"happiness" shouldn't really have a major bearing on what we as a society should do. Simply because "happiness" is so complex and multifaceted. For example, Smoking made a lot of people happy. Not to mention the fact that environmental factors have a huge effect on any individuals "Happiness", we can't simply say that "something biological" makes women feel happier raising children than being a rich CEO, especially when we don't know what that "something biological" is. This isn't like working out which we know releases endorphins that make biologically feel better (regardless of if you're a man or a woman). "

I'll also add that:

Comparing multiple countries the way you do, implicitly overlooks all other dimensions that might influence the presence of the gender statistic of interest (socioeconomic background, age, current or past political policies). TLDR: Correlation does not equal causation.

Comparing multiple countries with hugely different cultures and when you can see the same patterns than you can conclude that there is no cultural influence going on like modern Feminism suggests

 

[llien]

No scientists agree that testosterone hormone levels have a bigger impact than environmental, or are a major factor in determining your career path.

You are making things up somewhat (but of course it's not about single hormone)

There are notable differences between genders which are universal across wildly different cultures. That alone defeats "bigger impact of the environment".

It is also notable how privileged the "environmental" theory is, needing no evidence to support.

The only reason why this is even controversial, is that now one can't claim that gender imbalances in whatever field are necessarily caused by offensive attitudes.
Which we actually can't claim even if environmental impact was bigger than biological one.

 

[TheGraykid]

Comparing multiple countries with hugely different cultures and when you can see the same patterns than you can conclude that there is no cultural influence going on like modern Feminism suggests

But that's not what happens here. We're comparing conservative religious countries (which in a lot of cases have completely gender separated schools) to more liberal western countries. Look at these countries that make up the trend on an individual level and try and understand why this exists, not digging any deeper and just making an assumption makes no sense to me.

 

[Vicetrailia]

You are making things up somewhat (but of course it's not about single hormone)

There are notable differences between genders which are universal across wildly different cultures. That alone defeats "bigger impact of the environment".

It is also notable how privileged the "environmental" theory is, needing no evidence to support.

The only reason why this is even controversial, is that now one can't claim that gender imbalances in whatever field are necessarily caused by offensive attitudes.

I'm not concerned with saying that environment is a bigger impact (there's no ratio, life is so variable), just that the influence is persistent. Genetics could influence our career choice, but it's still not destiny in the big picture because there are many factors and variances.

We have examples of social woes in Silicon Valley, or societal norms like gender stereotypes, but those aren't the only reasons.

I don't know what you mean by privileged environmental theory.

 

[Rookje]

"happiness" shouldn't really have a major bearing on what we as a society should do. Simply because "happiness" is so complex and multifaceted. For example, Smoking made a lot of people happy. Not to mention the fact that environmental factors have a huge effect on any individuals "Happiness", we can't simply say that "something biological" makes women feel happier raising children than being a rich CEO, especially when we don't know what that "something biological" is.

That's a different type of happiness though. Smoking is a short term happiness, shrouded by addictive chemicals. What I'm talking about is long-term fulfillment. I'm talking about when people feel they "have it all" but aren't happy. This is a concept philosophers have been talking about since the days of Plato and Aristotle.
I never said having a job that makes you a lot of money wouldn't make you happy, at least for a time. And I'm not saying that even if there is biological truth that being a stay at home mother will make a women happier than anything else, that isn't true for everyone. The feminist revolution was about empowering women with choices, and society then decided that being a professional women in the workplace was the best choice or even the only choice which has proven problematic. Women can't have it all, just like men can't have it all.

 

[llien]

Genetics could influence our career choice, but it's still not destiny in the big picture because there are many factors and variances.

But that's a strawman or at least misunderstanding.
"Women on average prefer" as well as "men on average prefer" tells us exactly nothing about concrete individuals.
There is no need in environmental factors AT ALL for a concrete men to prefer things other than people of the same gender prefer on average.

Notable read on "averages" and why stats are to be handled with care: Sex Discrimination Paradox (The Simpson Paradox)

I don't know what you mean by privileged environmental theory.

The fact that exists and needs to be "disproved" to not be right, instead of needing to be proved to be right.

 

[Vicetrailia]

But that's a strawman or at least misunderstanding.
"Women on average prefer" as well as "men on average prefer" tells us exactly nothing about concrete individuals.
There is no need in environmental factors AT ALL for a concrete men to prefer things other than people of the same gender prefer on average.

Notable read on "averages" and why stats are to be handled with care: Sex Discrimination Paradox (The Simpson Paradox)


The fact that exists and needs to be "disproved" to not be right, instead of needing to be proved to be right.

First, do you know what environmental factors are, can you list some?

 

[TheGraykid]

That's a different type of happiness though. Smoking is a short term happiness, shrouded by addictive chemicals. What I'm talking about is long-term fulfillment. I'm talking about when people feel they "have it all" but aren't happy. This is a concept philosophers have been talking about since the days of Plato and Aristotle.
I never said having a job that makes you a lot of money wouldn't make you happy, at least for a time. And I'm not saying that even if there is biological truth that being a stay at home mother will make a women happier than anything else, that isn't true for everyone. The feminist revolution was about empowering women with choices, and society then decided that being a professional women in the workplace was the best choice or even the only choice which has proven problematic. Women can't have it all, just like men can't have it all.

My point is that is difficult to quantify happiness in general, this doesn't necessarily get easier even when we narrow down the type of happiness we're talking about. I think this especially when we're relying on people self-reporting their own happiness, and when we're using it to imply a strictly biological factor.

Society has decided that working is the place for every person of all demographics. We live in a capitalist society, in a world where money is power. If your point is "it is problematic that our current society is pushing women into working when they might want to have children", then I want to point out that even though women are the only people who can carry and give birth to children, but they're not the only people who can raise them. Shouldn't we as a culture work towards a place where men are more involved in child-rearing, so both men and women don't have to make a strict choice between families and working lives? We live in societies that constantly push and reinforce the idea that women as supposed to be child rearers, we do this to the point that it not only hurts women, but that it actually hurts men (Men have issues working in pre-schools, are not thought of as equals when it comes to raising their own kids, in divorce proceedings have harder times getting child custody). Things don't have to be this way.

 

[llien]

First, do you know what environmental factors are, can you list some?

I've heard about some ("social influence", "influence through parents", "social pressure") and some of it sounds almost magical, frankly, but I have never seen a full list of those.

Why does it matter?

PS
And I'm not talking only about "gender choices", but there is quite a bunch of "scientists" pushing for "there are no biological differences". (e.g. strength difference is social too)

 

[Relativ9]

No scientists agree that testosterone hormone levels have a bigger impact than environmental, or are a major factor in determining your career path. They all say that it may have influence. It's not clear whether testosterone even causes risk-taking behavior for example, but they found quite a few correlations with it.

If they find a biological correlation you seem to take our and run with it, as if there wouldn't be many other factors, or as if we know the weight of its impact.

Some of the other stuff you said I kinda agree with you on, although you're being very simplistic about it. For example with interests, you don't even scratch the surface level.

You're not addressing his points.

1. His point wasn't that hormone levels have a bigger impact than environmental, simply that they have an impact, something illustrated by the study done on 1-day old infants, environmental factors don't apply here. I've seen the study Dunki talks about before (I think he's posted it like 20 times on GAF in different discussions), but it would be great if he and especially you (since I have no idea where you got the info about scientists being split here) would link the research you site.

2. He never argued that there aren't other factors. He argued that the other factors (the gender structures of our society) are informed by our biological predisposition. Example: Girls are sold dolls which reinforce gender-roles primarily because girls by and large tend to like dolls, not because evil corporations want to make sure women stay perpetually oppressed into traditional gender roles.

3. You can't say he's being simplistic about it or that he is scratching something "surface level" and not actually then go into a more detailed and complex analysis of what this is and how his simplistic view can be improved upon. That gives the impression that you don't have any idea what he's talking about, but you want to disagree on some level anyway and know that calling something simplistic is very hard to disprove.

 

[Dunki]

You're not addressing his points.

1. His point wasn't that hormone levels have a bigger impact than environmental, simply that they have an impact, something illustrated by the study done on 1-day old infants, environmental factors don't apply here. I've seen the study Dunki talks about before (I think he's posted it like 20 times on GAF in different discussions), but it would be great if he and especially you (since I have no idea where you got the info about scientists being split here) would link the research you site.

2. He never argued that there aren't other factors. He argued that the other factors (the gender structures of our society) are informed by our biological predisposition. Example: Girls are sold dolls which reinforce gender-roles primarily because girls by and large tend to like dolls, not because evil corporations want to make sure women stay perpetually oppressed into traditional gender roles.

3. You can't say he's being simplistic about it or that he is scratching something "surface level" and not actually then go into a more detailed and complex analysis of what this is and how his simplistic view can be improved upon. That gives the impression that you don't have any idea what he's talking about, but you want to disagree on some level anyway and know that calling something simplistic is very hard to disprove.

Thanks for stating this. I know my english is not the best so I appreciate this.

Also I would love to point to the actual study but its pretty difficult to get hold of these. I only know about it because of the Documentary on YouTube. I also found several profs from this documentary but never their actual paper at least for free.

 

[Relativ9]

Thanks for stating this. I know my english is not the best so I appreciate this.

Also I would love to point to the actual study but its pretty difficult to get hold of these. I only know about it because of the Documentary on YouTube. I also found several profs from this documentary but never their actual paper at least for free.

Don't worry about it.

Couldn't find the reference to the 1-day old thing, might be something that was added in whatever article I read it in last time, so I'd like to retract that (and thinking about it, 1-day old babies don't too much but cry and sleep). Appears the study was conducted on babies from 9 months and out, still a significant finding that certainly indicates a lack of meaningful environmental/social factors. But anyway, here's the study directly from the source, you have to pay to get it (as Dunki pointed out), or get it from news articles written about it (which might not be 100% accurate, as illustrated by mistake above).

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/icd.1986

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Don't worry about it.

Couldn't find the reference to the 1-day old thing, might be something that was added in whatever article I read it in last time, so I'd like to retract that (and thinking about it, 1-day old babies don't too much but cry and sleep). Appears the study was conducted on babies from 9 months and out, still a significant finding that certainly indicates a lack of meaningful environmental/social factors. But anyway, here's the study directly from the source, you have to pay to get it (as Dunki pointed out), or get it from news articles written about it (which might not be 100% accurate, as illustrated by mistake above).

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/icd.1986

Thank you for linking the study. I found this bit fascinating “Both boys and girls showed a trend for an increasing preference with age for toys stereotyped for boys.”

It’s well established that far more boys develop autism than girls. This suggests that at a young age when autism develops, girls are indeed more interested in people and their facial expressions on average and thus much less vulnerable to autism.

But at the same time, kids with autism if they are taught at a young age how to read peoples faces, can overcome many deficits that come with autism.

 

[Dunki]

Thank you for linking the study. I found this bit fascinating “Both boys and girls showed a trend for an increasing preference with age for toys stereotyped for boys.”

It’s well established that far more boys develop autism than girls. This suggests that at a young age when autism develops, girls are indeed more interested in people and their facial expressions on average and thus much less vulnerable to autism.

But at the same time, kids with autism if they are taught at a young age how to read peoples faces, can overcome many deficits that come with autism.

I think the study was done to find out more about autism in the first place but the results are so fascinating that they can be transferred t this as well. It also can lead to the assumption that these toys are made with the mind of it selling it better to boys than to uphold some patriarchy bullshit. Companies want to sell not induct political or ideological views.

 

[TheGraykid]

You're not addressing his points.

1. His point wasn't that hormone levels have a bigger impact than environmental, simply that they have an impact, something illustrated by the study done on 1-day old infants, environmental factors don't apply here. I've seen the study Dunki talks about before (I think he's posted it like 20 times on GAF in different discussions), but it would be great if he and especially you (since I have no idea where you got the info about scientists being split here) would link the research you site.

2. He never argued that there aren't other factors. He argued that the other factors (the gender structures of our society) are informed by our biological predisposition. Example: Girls are sold dolls which reinforce gender-roles primarily because girls by and large tend to like dolls, not because evil corporations want to make sure women stay perpetually oppressed into traditional gender roles.

3. You can't say he's being simplistic about it or that he is scratching something "surface level" and not actually then go into a more detailed and complex analysis of what this is and how his simplistic view can be improved upon. That gives the impression that you don't have any idea what he's talking about, but you want to disagree on some level anyway and know that calling something simplistic is very hard to disprove.

I have a couple of thoughts.

1. I'm also very interested in the 1 day study. I read the study you posted below and would like to point out it's final line is literally "Thus, the results suggest both biological and developmental–environmental com-
ponents to sex differences in object preferences." so I don't know why you would say " still a significant finding that certainly indicates a lack of meaningful environmental/social factors.". I would recommend reading it fully. If you're having trouble accessing the full study I would recommend Googling the name of the study, that normally brings up a pdf that you can read. There's a lot of good literature and studies on all sides of this debate, as you can see in the very study you posted which talks about other studies in the field so it can set the scene.

2. Also, I don't think anyone with sense would say that corporations are selling dolls to women in order to oppress them. The question is how much of what kids want to play with is biological? We can't ignore toy company marketing, what toys are bought for you, what toys your parents chose to play with you with, positive reinforcement from others within your life, gender knowledge and socialisation, none of which are under the influence of any individual. The effects of socialisation on children has been proved a hundred times over. Changing the way we treat kids can have powerful effects on their behaviour. I, personally, don't know how you can begin to properly and fully evaluate "gender predispositions" in a world where you can't separate socialisation from individuals.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I've heard about some ("social influence", "influence through parents", "social pressure") and some of it sounds almost magical, frankly, but I have never seen a full list of those.

Why does it matter?

PS
And I'm not talking only about "gender choices", but there is quite a bunch of "scientists" pushing for "there are no biological differences". (e.g. strength difference is social too)

They actually say that biology can/could play a role in career choices. They are careful about their word choices.

You're not addressing his points.

1. His point wasn't that hormone levels have a bigger impact than environmental, simply that they have an impact, something illustrated by the study done on 1-day old infants, environmental factors don't apply here. I've seen the study Dunki talks about before (I think he's posted it like 20 times on GAF in different discussions), but it would be great if he and especially you (since I have no idea where you got the info about scientists being split here) would link the research you site.

He actually said major impact, and earlier discounted social impacts. Scientists aren't split if biology is can be a factor in various ways, but they are careful about their words, can/could be a factor. Even in the 9-32 months study they don't associate the findings with gender or career politics, but say: "Of interest in relation to child care, educational practice and developmental theory”. The researchers found "consistency with biological explanations of toy preference."

This is usually the case with modern biological studies, they are not quick to subscribe causality, because to be frank, of everything already mentioned.

At the same time we are all well aware of the impact of environmental factors, but we'd never dare say that those extremely numerous and variable factors are the only cause. You just can't right now say that the way things are now is because of biology, and that we need to let that fly. For one it's overstated, and two it doesn't impact company diversity initiatives if we're sticking with Dunki's overall opinion on preferring gender/colorblind initiatives (gathered elsewhere over other topics).

If one actually wants to disqualify or down emphasis on diversity programs and the like, it needs to be tried from a different angle.

 

[strange headache]

The only reason why this is even controversial, is that now one can't claim that gender imbalances in whatever field are necessarily caused by offensive attitudes.
Which we actually can't claim even if environmental impact was bigger than biological one.

There's the rub! Let's assume for a second that societal imbalances are, to various degrees, the result of biological behavior patterns. It would essentially mean that 'the patriarchy' or whatever -ism and -phobia the radical ideologues are claiming to be ailing modern societies, really isn't that much of a problem after all. It would mean that the current basic principles of western societies are indeed working as intended. If the postmodern social constructionists would be forced to admit to that, their very raison d'être would be challenged. Their whole premise basically hinges on the assumption, that the vast majority of people are full of nefarious biases, them being the exception of course.

They are not interested in academic rigor, they are interested in establishing hegemony over other scientific disciplines. Hence why they consider science and facts themselves as being sexist.



The thing with social constructionism (not to confuse with constructivism) is that it's in essence a hen and egg problem. Sure, culture influences people, but they ignore to what extent people influence culture. For example, they assume that evil corporations are perpetuating gender stereotypes for their own economical gains and in order to 'keep women down'. By perpetuating that narrative, they create another bogeyman so that people rally behind them, essentially fortifying their academic existence.

What if corporations aren't inherently evil, but merely profit-driven by satisfying demand while conforming to people's desires? There simply would be no 'enemy' to fight against, essentially invalidating their whole premise. I have yet to see one single scientific evidence that corporations are indeed 'evil' in that specific way. If you think about it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense either, because it would effectively be much more profitable if you could simply market the same products to both, men and women alike.

Lets take another example: sex sells. Humans are sexual creatures, but it works differently for men and women. It would be ridiculous to assume that corporations seek to 'objectify women'. As profit-driven entities they merely seek the best marketing strategy. Funnily enough, women tend to be much more attracted by expensive luxury items, than men and they find sexual ads more appealing when they convey a sense of commitment:

Women who saw the ad combining the $10 watch and sexual imagery reported anger, disgust and upset on seeing the spot but their reactions were less severe on seeing the expensive item. Men’s reactions did not change regardless of the price. [...] The experiments found women’s spontaneous dislike of sexual ads softened when the ad could be interpreted in terms of commitment-related resources being offered by men to women, while men’s positive attitudes towards sexual ads were “relatively unaffected” by the inclusion of relationship commitment cues.

In fact, if you would be a smart business, you would focus men and women differently, because that's how you best market your product. In essence, biological behavior patterns in customers oftentimes dictate the marketing strategies of businesses that seek to maximize their appeal.

A sexual appeal is a strong psychological appeal, second only to self-preservation. In humans, as in all animals, sexual desire is an instinctive reaction as we search for the perfect mate (Taflinger, 1996). Sexual imagery used in advertising for products like perfume, makeup, and clothing, then, can be explained or rationalized in part by this mating desire in humans: We want to look good to attract a mate and to propagate our species. However, sexual imagery has been shown to have a stronger persuasive ability for men than for women. It may be because men have a different set of criteria for selecting a mate than women do:

Men traditionally tend to recognize that a woman who is young, healthy, and beautiful will be a good mate. Therefore, many advertisers use sexual imagery to get a man's attention and then associate buying the product with getting a mate (Taflinger, 1996). These types of messages focus on instinctual or physical types of meaning in messages. For women, the persuasive power of sexual imagery works on a somewhat different level. A healthy, fit male model will attract the attention of many women and may even create desire for the product.

Women, though, also pay attention to the long-term potential of a man - for example, his ability to be a good father and to provide them with money, power, and prestige. All these factors are almost impossible to put into any single advertisement (Taflinger, 1996). Arguably, then, it is difficult for advertisers to use sex successfully to sell to women. Instead, advertising uses romance to make a sexual connection with women. Romantic images are less blatant and more ambiguous than traditional sexual messages: They provide images of courtship, relationships, and the process of falling in love. Sexual imagery in advertisements directed toward women becomes much more intellectual than physical (Taflinger, 1996).

Because these marketing strategies appeal to our hard-wired biological conditioning, they work so well, that they pose the risk of become too reductive. By focusing too much on these marketing strategies, they can lead to the creation of overly simplistic stereotypes. This is where cultivation theory comes in. But, it must be said that these marketing stereotypes are not the result of 'evil' businesses, but merely of people's ingrained behavioral tendency to like them so much (men and women alike). To construe some sort of ideological crusade out of that, is quite frankly absurd. In this regard, there is nothing wrong with products appealing to men, just as much as there is nothing wrong with products appealing to women. It's human nature.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

I have a couple of thoughts.

1. I'm also very interested in the 1 day study. I read the study you posted below and would like to point out it's final line is literally "Thus, the results suggest both biological and developmental–environmental com-
ponents to sex differences in object preferences." so I don't know why you would say " still a significant finding that certainly indicates a lack of meaningful environmental/social factors.". I would recommend reading it fully. If you're having trouble accessing the full study I would recommend Googling the name of the study, that normally brings up a pdf that you can read. There's a lot of good literature and studies on all sides of this debate, as you can see in the very study you posted which talks about other studies in the field so it can set the scene.

2. Also, I don't think anyone with sense would say that corporations are selling dolls to women in order to oppress them. The question is how much of what kids want to play with is biological? We can't ignore toy company marketing, what toys are bought for you, what toys your parents chose to play with you with, positive reinforcement from others within your life, gender knowledge and socialisation, none of which are under the influence of any individual. The effects of socialisation on children has been proved a hundred times over. Changing the way we treat kids can have powerful effects on their behaviour. I, personally, don't know how you can begin to properly and fully evaluate "gender predispositions" in a world where you can't separate socialisation from individuals.

No One is claiming that biology doesn’t play a role in differences on average between men and women. Brain development happens in stages. Only 1/4 of women get autism, more men get schizophrenia than women.

But biology isn’t everything. Many genetically identical twins don’t all develop the same mental illness. This is why any psychiatrist worth his salt does a “biopsychosocial assessment” on the people they are treating. The pros are well aware that biology matter, but psychological experiences and stressors matter just as much and societal expectations and biases play a big role as well.

There is overwhelming evidence that biology isn’t destiny and identical twin studies has proven that for decades.

So given this well documented fact, what benefit is there for people to attribute certain jobs, roles or personalities to certain genders. There is no much variation, so many other factors that are as important or more important than biology that categorizing people based on gender (whether its done by the left, or by the right) is silly.

The rights point of view is that the left differs in how in treats men and women, and that is sometimes unfair. They are absolutely correct.

The lefts point of view is that society overall differs in how it treats men and women, and pigeon holes women into certain roles, and that is unfair. Many of these expectations and stereotypes that society puts into women are often disadvantages to women and may discourage women from making the lifestyle choices that they want to make. They are absolutely correct as well.

Only when we acknowledge that both these things exists, and also accept that individual factors matter far more than biological differences, can we move past using stereotypes that disadvantage any person based on their gender.

 

[Dunki]

No One is claiming that biology doesn’t play a role in differences on average between men and women. Brain development happens in stages. Only 1/4 of women get autism, more men get schizophrenia than women.

But biology isn’t everything. Many genetically identical twins don’t all develop the same mental illness. This is why any psychiatrist worth his salt does a “biopsychosocial assessment” on the people they are treating. The pros are well aware that biology matter, but psychological experiences and stressors matter just as much and societal expectations and biases play a big role as well.

There is overwhelming evidence that biology isn’t destiny and identical twin studies has proven that for decades.

So given this well documented fact, what benefit is there for people to attribute certain jobs, roles or personalities to certain genders. There is no much variation, so many other factors that are as important or more important than biology that categorizing people based on gender (whether its done by the left, or by the right) is silly.

The rights point of view is that the left differs in how in treats men and women, and that is sometimes unfair. They are absolutely correct.

The lefts point of view is that society overall differs in how it treats men and women, and pigeon holes women into certain roles, and that is unfair. Many of these expectations and stereotypes that society puts into women are often disadvantages to women and may discourage women from making the lifestyle choices that they want to make. They are absolutely correct as well.

Only when we acknowledge that both these things exists, and also accept that individual factors matter far more than biological differences, can we move past using stereotypes that disadvantage any person based on their gender.

Again... If this were the case you would see differences in other countries with vastly different cultures. But you do not see them.

 

[gioGAF]

Whenever this topic comes up, I keep wondering:
"Why would people focus on the disparity in STEM fields?"

I guess those same people don't care that there isn't equal representation when it comes to brickmasons, crane operators, mechanics, logging workers, plumbers, roofers, carpenters, etc.

Since some people tend to think career choices have nothing to do with being male or female, why are they not fighting harder for equality in the fields I have listed. They are almost 100% dominated by males.

Seems like there might be more to this agenda...

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Again... If this were the case you would see differences in other countries with vastly different cultures. But you do not see them.

No actually you do. Even by Peterson’s own admission, countries like Saudi Arabia where women are not sexualized see women going into STEM fields at much higher rates than men.

Maybe it’s the portrayal in the media of women as sexual objects in the east that contributes to more women that is the issue. Or maybe it’s something else.

But to say that there are no differences in these patterns in countries with different cultures is outright false.

 

[Dunki]

No actually you do. Even by Peterson’s own admission, countries like Saudi Arabia where women are not sexualized see women going into STEM fields at much higher rates than men.

Maybe it’s the portrayal in the media of women as sexual objects in the east that contributes to more women that is the issue. Or maybe it’s something else.

But to say that there are no differences in these patterns in countries with different cultures is outright false.

The pattern is and not by Peterson is that the more equal a women feels in a country the more they go back to more "traditional" jobs. So in a highly misogynsitic country like Iran women feel more like that they have to fight for equality so they ofte chose these kind of fields. In Norway it is the complete opposite. Women there feel liberated and equal so they rather do what they want to to. And this is a pattern you can witness in at least 100 of these tested countries.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

The pattern is and not by Peterson is that the more equal a women feels in a country the more they go back to more "traditional" jobs. So in a highly misogynsitic country like Iran women feel more like that they have to fight for equality so they ofte chose these kind of fields. In Norway it is the complete opposite. Women there feel liberated and equal so they rather do what they want to to. And this is a pattern you can witness in at least 100 of these tested countries.

Again, this an example of jumping to conclusions.


For all we know, it is actually the hypersexualizaion of women and women’s bodies in american, European and Japanese media that accounts for why more women in America, Japan and Europe subconsciously think of themselves as sexual objects and focus far more on things like makeup when compared to women in other parts of the world.

The fact is, we don’t actually know why far more women pursue stem fields in the rest of the world when compared to the US and Europe. Any guess we make as to why these differences exist is just that, a guess. But the fact that women do choose very different courses of study in different countries shows us that culture plays a huge role, not just biology.

 

[Dunki]

Again, this an example of jumping to conclusions.


For all we know, it is actually the hypersexualizaion of women and women’s bodies in american, European and Japanese media that accounts for why more women in America, Japan and Europe subconsciously think of themselves as sexual objects and focus far more on things like makeup when compared to women in other parts of the world.

The fact is, we don’t actually know why far more women pursue stem fields in the rest of the world when compared to the US and Europe. Any guess we make as to why these differences exist is just that, a guess. But the fact that women do choose very different courses of study in different countries shows us that culture plays a huge role, not just biology.

When we are talking about scandinavia the most equal countries in the world this does not make any sense. How has sexualization anything to do with becoming a teacher, lawyer nurse more than an IT specialist for example? And again it is not why more women study it is more why women in more equal countries do not want to do it.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

When we are talking about scandinavia the most equal countries in the world this does not make any sense. How has sexualization anything to do with becoming a teacher, lawyer nurse more than an IT specialist for example?

Equal by what standard? Are men shown walking around in their underwear as often as women in Scandinavian television and billboards etc. Or is the sexualization of women in Scandinavian countries by the media far higher than it is in other parts of the world.

In places like Iran and SA, many women report that they don’t feel like sexual objects, and far fewer women shave, or wear makeup.

That disgusts most western men, the idea of women walking around unshaven, where as a guy that doesn’t shave is considered normal. This is a perfect example of how society and culture conditions us. It is normal and expected that women invest far more time and work into their appearance than in places like Saudi Arabia.

So again, to claim that both genders are more equal in the West is faulty. In some ways they are more equal, but when it comes to sexualization of women’s bodies they are actually far worse. And these expectations feed into behavior as well.

If women in the West are expected to spend an hour each day on their appearance, then of course they would be more predisposed to wanting their apperance to be seen and noted. This may well tilt them toward more social jobs. Again this is just a guess. But most of Peterson’s interpretations of studies are the same, guesses.

Society and people are far too complicated for us to be able to point to a couple of studies and say they answer the nature vs nurture debate. Anyone that confidently claims to have the answer is full of shit.

 

[Dunki]

Equal by what standard? Are men shown walking around in their underwear as often as women in Scandinavian television and billboards etc. Or is the sexualization of women in Scandinavian countries by the media far higher than it is in other parts of the world.

In places like Iran and SA, many women report that they don’t feel like sexual objects, and far fewer women shave, or wear makeup.

That disgusts most western men, the idea of women walking around unshaven, where as a guy that doesn’t shave is considered normal. It is normal and expected that women invest far more time and work into their appearance than in places like Saudi Arabia.

So again, to claim that both genders are more equal in the West is faulty. In some ways they are more equal, but when it comes to sexualization of women’s bodies they are actually far worse. And these expectations feed into behavior as well.

If women in the West are expected to spend an hour each day on their appearance, then of course they would be more predisposed to wanting their apperance to be seen and noted. This may well tilt them toward more social jobs. Again this is just a guess. But most of Peterson’s interpretations of studies are the same, guesses.

Society and people are far too complicated for us to be able to point to a couple of studies and say they answer the nature vs nurture debate. Anyone that claims to have the answer is full of shit.

First of all. Are you right now defending countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia where women can not even wear a fucking skirt because they get arrested? If so? What is wrong with you? Ever heard of sexual freedom? And this is really something that would disgust me....

Secondly. I do not know how it is in the US but on Billbords you see more naked men these days than naked women. And again sexualization has nothing to do with your job choice. A nurse for example is a fucking tough job in which you do not wear make up. Teachers do not wear make up or sexualize themselves. Lawyers of course will care about their appearance. You do not suddenly do not become a IT specialist because you do not need to shave anymore. When you dealing with customers you need a good appearance men or women. Also in IT.

 

[strange headache]

No actually you do. Even by Peterson’s own admission, countries like Saudi Arabia where women are not sexualized see women going into STEM fields at much higher rates than men. [...] For all we know, it is actually the hypersexualizaion of women and women’s bodies in american, European and Japanese media that accounts for why more women in America, Japan and Europe subconsciously think of themselves as sexual objects and focus far more on things like makeup when compared to women in other parts of the world.

Yes, clearly women in Saudi Arabia go into STEM because they are forced to wear Burkas and hijabs... listen to yourself
(and not because of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, as admitted in your very OP)

By your ridiculous standard, STEM in the 1920's should have been flooded with women.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Good strawman there. First of all, I clearly compared the US and Europe to be rest of the world. I don’t see why you choose to cherry pick SA and Iran if you are trying to debate my point overall

Every single culture has pros and cons.

Sexual freedom is a very very good thing.

But hypersexualization of one gender over the other by the media, has negative effects to. Pointing out this fact doesn’t mean that I am defending the worst aspects of handpicked countries.

Feeling that each and every single aspect of the West is superior to each and every single aspect of the rest of the world is narcissistic idiocy.

There are many many things that the West got right, but the hyper sexualization of women likely has adverse effects on women as well. And this (or some other negative cultural aspect else that is even less obvious) may well account for the different careers women pick here versus other parts of the world.

 

[Dunki]

Good strawman there. First of all, I clearly compared the US and Europe to be rest of the world. I don’t see why you choose to cherry pick SA and Iran if you are trying to debate my point.

There are no black and whites in the world. Everything has pros and cons.

Sexual freedom is a good thing.

But hypersexualization of one gender over the other by the media, has negative effects to. Pointing out this fact doesn’t mean that I am defending the worst aspects of handpicked countries.

Feeling that each and every single aspect of the West is superior to each and every single aspect of the rest of the world is narcissistic idiocy.

There are many many things that the West got right, but the hyper sexualization of women is not one of them.

You argued that women in Saudi Arabia have it better because they do not need to shave and do not need to wear short shirts and therefore they are more "confident" or whatever you will call it to go into STEM fields. You argued that women here do not go into these fields because of the over sexualization which makes not any sense. By the way please show me any long term study that show that media or hyper sexualization in media has any influence on people

I can show you one long term study done in Germany based on sexualzation in video games which do not show this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ollieb...een-gaming-and-sexist-attitudes/#4766aad11436

The study itself: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2014.0492

You have NO evidence at least I am not aware of any evidence that sexualization has anything to do with less women in STEM.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

And you have zero evidence that it does not. That study doesn’t say that. No study can support the claims that Peterson’s proponents make about women.

Peterson doesn’t get to have it both ways. He doesn’t get to claim that the different career choices that men and women in the West make is due to biology.

And then claim that studies that show women in other countries don’t make those same career choices somehow also supports his claim that it is again because of biology, even though that example blatantly contradicts his claim.

He is making many assumptions in claiming this. That’s precisely what I am pointing out.

Where the hell did I say women in SA have it better? Stating that one small aspect of a persons life might be better is not the same as saying they have it better overall.

If you seriously can’t see the point I am marking about Peterson discounting potential alternate explanations and instead have to jump to these straw men, I am not sure what purpose there is to continuing this debate.

 

[Dunki]

And you have zero evidence that it does not. That study doesn’t say that. No study can support the claims that Peterson’s proponents make about women.

Peterson doesn’t get to have it both ways. He doesn’t get to claim that the different career choices that men and women in the West make is due to biology.

And then claim that studies that show women in other countries don’t make those same career choices somehow also supports his claim that it is again because of biology, even though that example blatantly contradicts his claim.

He is making many assumptions in claiming this. That’s precisely what I am pointing out.

Where the hell did I say women in SA have it better? If you seriously can’t see the point I am marking and instead have to jump to these straw men, I am not sure what purpose there is to continuing this debate.

I will say it again.... Peterson did not say this....

Honest question: Have you ever watched this? If not I highly recommend it to watch it first and then argue again about what you heard in there.

 

[strange headache]

And you have zero evidence that it does not. [...] He is making many assumptions in claiming this. That’s precisely what I am pointing out.

What, the numerous studies and expert opinions that have been linked in this very topic are not enough for your linking? How about you actually start engaging with the overwhelming proof that people have been providing to you?

In places like Iran and SA, many women report that they don’t feel like sexual objects, and far fewer women shave, or wear makeup. [...] That disgusts most western men, the idea of women walking around unshaven, where as a guy that doesn’t shave is considered normal.

After all this, the best you can come up with is 'women don't go into STEM because they have to shave'. Yeah sure, but we are the misguided ones, right? By this point you've reduced yourself to parroting sex-negative feminist talking points, how desperate.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

Not a single one of these studies concludes that the different career choices men and women make is mainly due to biological differences. Anyone that says this is misreading the literature and ignoring innumerable alternative explanations.

Again with the personal attacks. The fact that you feel threatened enough to have to resort to personal attacks tells me all I need to know about who is desperate here. I don’t see any point in continuing this debate until people can set the personal attacks aside and start discussing what the studies actually show.