No Gender December: Does it even matter?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2016, 12:51 PM
RE: No Gender December: Does it even matter?



Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 01:22 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2016 09:55 PM by epronovost.)
RE: No Gender December: Does it even matter?
(28-12-2016 07:13 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  In every culture, you notice men kill way more often than women. So yes culture is only a result of evolution, nothing more. To assume that they can pop up without either of those influences would be some sort of creationismTongue

I would say in, many every culture men kill way more often than women; in most culture men kill a bit more than women, but not all that much and in some rarer culture women are the most "prolific" killers. Yes, cultural traits and change have popped up without a radical change in environment and genes, take for example modern democratie. It popped up due to slow and steady social changes until those changes reached a tiping point that caused revolutions and a profound change in social infrastructures, beliefs and organisation that proved itself better than the system they replaced. We could also mention the Great Exploration and Colonisation of the 16th and 17th centuries, stimulated in Europe by a political event, the taking of Constantinopole by the Turks who were ill inclined to trade with European nation for the spices, silk, etc. that their economy needed to grow. The cultural history of the world would have been very different should Constantinople would have endured for one or two century.


(28-12-2016 07:13 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Even in space. So again environment effects culture, like it effects every animal, that is my point.

Which is tautological and disputed by nobody, especially not me since I have mentionned environmental influence, which includes culture, in all of my post on this subject.

(28-12-2016 07:13 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Yeah, no that ain't gonna fly, because I know the paper they are talking about. First, daphna has a clear political bias towards this issue. So much so that when you look into it you realize that her graphs and charts contradict they point she is making, with some even showing that males that tend towards female in brain patterns as rare.

I also know this study rather well and from my point view the vast majority of the human brains are pretty much clustered in the middle, but its true that male brains seems to be noticeably less "eclectic" than those of female which would be consistent, amongst other thing, in a social environment where men have more consistent standards of behavior. Age would also be an important factor since brains, much like bodies mature and changes over time. Late adolescence and early adulthood seems to be the period where dimorphism in terms of brain pattern is the most important.

(28-12-2016 07:13 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Second, that paper assumes that if a man likes one thing "traditionally" female but lifts weights, is a fighter, goes to the shooting range, makes crude jokes and loves cars is similar in brain pattern to the women who does her make up, reads 50 shades of grey, knits, and loves romcoms, but also likes UFC.

Which is exactly what this study demonstrate. The brain section/patterns a men uses to socialise by making crude jokes and chating with his friends while shooting a gun are the same zone stimulated by the women when she chats with her friend while reading smut. Talking is talking and between crude jokes and smut there isn't any god damn difference except the tone and situation. If a man is a fighter and a women loves UFC both of them would stimulate the same zone of their brain, the one linked to violence and agressivity. The man in this situation would also stimulate various other zone. It shows that you can stimulate the brain in different fashion with similar results. Knitting is a very "womanly" thing while fishing is much more "manly", but both develop the same set of skills and require the same attitude. You need to be patient, dexterous, good for fast and precise manipulation. One doesn't mean you are good at the other, but it shows you have the right aptitude.

Even in your lopsided example, there is a lot of similarity in terms of aptitudes and traits between men and women, both loves agression and violence, socialising with other humans, talk/read about sex in very blunt fashion and look attractive. Now imagine the brain of woman who loves to practice martial arts, cooking, drawing, works in an office in data entry and play puzzle games on her Ipad compared to that of a men who works in a lab as an assistant, assemble and paints miniature soldiers, plays adventure video games and likes rugby. Both are developping in their pass times and jobs almost the same set of skills, but in a different fashion and slightly different specialisation. If you were to name their qualities and talents they would almost be identical. Notice that even in my example the man would be described as mostly gender conformist and the woman too.

(28-12-2016 07:13 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Third, the paper assumes that even if males and females share something in common(lets use child care and competing). So if a man takes care of his child, that would be considered some what feminine(at least now), however the paper doesn't say whether there is a difference or not. Like a man and a woman could care for the child, but they dad likes to play rough with the little tots, while the mom likes to nurse them. This would be child care, but one that is more typical of males and another for females. Same with competing. Males and females both compete against one another, but they do it differently. Men for example, pretty much fight or try to sabatoge physically usually (it is why men tend to make up the most murders and murder victims, across every culture). Female's usually try to talk shit about each other or prove themselves better. Fighting does happen, but not as much as men( ain't a lot of female on female murders happening for a reason).

If the paper doesnt make the difference between a father taking care of his child by doing manly stuff with it like playing rough and tumble and a women playing boo it's due to the fact that both these activities stimulate the same region of the brain that of carring and nurturing. If you ever play rough and tumble with a child, the big difference is for the child not you. You don't become more agressive or more talented at fighting, as an adult, by playing with toddler in such a fashion. It's so bellow the level of an adult that it's not stimulating in such a fashion; when they are teenagers it starts to become more stimulating. What such a men is doing is the opposite; he is expressing his love and care to a person in certain way. For the brain love is love no matter how rough it looks like. It requires the same zone and stimulate the same hormonal production. There is no brain difference between people who practice BDSM or softcore sex even if they look very different, some even like both equaly. What you are describing is what we call in anthropology a ritual. A specific practice to express something. Men's form of competition and women's form of competition are all highly ritualised and based on what's acceptable and what they are good at. If men are good at fighting and see fighting as an acceptable way to settle dispute they will do so. During the Middle Ages, murders were 12 times more frequent than now amongst men precisely for this reason. Violence amongst men was acceptable and even a desirable way to settle dispute. If our current trend toward crime and violence continue, in 40 years, men violence will reach women violence in terms of murder and assault. Organised crime define strongly how, what and when violence occurs in a society and Organised crime is a sub-culture with its own rules and rituals, environmental inputs and transformation.

(28-12-2016 07:13 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  So yes, men who like doing things like wearing make up and playing with dolls(yes even in sweden, the country were if it was really society effecting behavior would have boys playing with dolls) are still a very small minority. I guess it is fair to say that women aren't as atypical as men, but the typicialites are there none the less.


In ritual and practices yes they are very visible. In terms of aptitudes and brain patterns the differences a reduced and, while still visible, much more light. BTW, dolls also includes things like GI joes, transformers, superheros figurines and all other toys of the same sort (not just dolls in the traditionnal sense of the term). Dolls, in such a context, are human/anthropomorphic creatures used for roleplay. Yes these are the most popular toys even for boys all around the world except for boys age 8 months to 2 years old where they prefer more mobile object since they develop their gross motor skills earlier. When children get older, they start to reduce their usage of simple, one function, toys for more complex ones who encompass several ones, like legos for example, who are both puzzles and dolls or costumes which allow for more immersive and complex rolepalying actions. Amongst adults, no matter the sex, puzzles and melodramatic interactive games are the most popular without regard to gender.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2016, 05:44 AM
RE: No Gender December: Does it even matter?
(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Yes, cultural traits and change have popped up without a radical change in environment and genes, take for example modern democratie.

Then it was there the whole time let me explain

(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  It popped up due to slow and steady social changes until those changes reached a tiping point that caused revolutions and a profound change in social infrastructures, beliefs and organisation that proved itself better than the system they replaced.

This is an example of something always being there. Can you guess which part of human nature that has evolved lead to this? Survival. Hell other animals have democracy too.

(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  We could also mention the Great Exploration and Colonisation of the 16th and 17th centuries, stimulated in Europe by a political event, the taking of Constantinopole by the Turks who were ill inclined to trade with European nation for the spices, silk, etc. that their economy needed to grow. The cultural history of the world would have been very different should Constantinople would have endured for one or two century.

You know when two animals fight over territory? Yeah, those events are that on a much larger scale.

(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Which is tautological and disputed by nobody, especially not me since I have mentionned environmental influence, which includes culture, in all of my post on this subject.

Just making sure

(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I also know this study rather well and from my point view the vast majority of the human brains are pretty much clustered in the middle,

Her graphs say otherwise.

(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  but its true that male brains seems to be noticeably less "eclectic" than those of female which would be consistent, amongst other thing, in a social environment where men have more consistent standards of behavior.


Well that is because of a little something known as sexual selection. I wish I could find the picture, but it pretty much has an entire list of things a man must do to get a woman, and for a woman to get a man it says, just don't be fat. And this has gone on for millions of years. I mean women don't line up to have sex with men who take traditionally "feminine" jobs, but then when men see ronda rousey(spelled this wrong) the starting fapping at the speed of light, and her job is to beat people like a man. Hell there was a study done with monkeys and toys. Never seen these toys their entire lives. And the vast majority of boys played with the trucks, very little of them played with the doll. In fact the chart of that study was similar to a study done to little humans in the same way. Male primates don't care about what a female does(except if she kills people) they only care if dat pussy thight boii.

(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Age would also be an important factor since brains, much like bodies mature and changes over time. Late adolescence and early adulthood seems to be the period where dimorphism in terms of brain pattern is the most important.

It is why more studies go towards kids and sexual dimorphism. I mean if kids demonstrate sex prefrences before they can be socalized, we have to study humans like we do other animals, which bothers people for some reason.

(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Which is exactly what this study demonstrate. The brain section/patterns a men uses to socialise by making crude jokes and chating with his friends while shooting a gun are the same zone stimulated by the women when she chats with her friend while reading smut. Talking is talking and between crude jokes and smut there isn't any god damn difference except the tone and situation. If a man is a fighter and a women loves UFC both of them would stimulate the same zone of their brain, the one linked to violence and agressivity. The man in this situation would also stimulate various other zone.

Well no. Notice how the woman only likes one masculine thing and the man likes one feminine thing. The paper wants to take them and say they are no different, even though clearly by their interest they are different. If they liked the same things, then yes their brains would look the same. So no just because they do one thing different from the norm( I ain't even going to spin some way that would even take the breaking away) doesn't mean they are similar and there is no differences between their brain.

(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Even in your lopsided example, there is a lot of similarity in terms of aptitudes and traits between men and women, both loves agression and violence, socialising with other humans, talk/read about sex in very blunt fashion and look attractive.

Sure males and females do have similar enjoyments but are done differently. Let me use sex as an example. When it comes to pornography, men usually watch that. When it comes to books like 50 shades, you can say only women read that. Both have to do with wanting sex, but are done differently. And this is across cultures. Did humans 2 million years ago all come together and decided that in every culture men will love porn and women romantic novels? No. Sorry, but socialization can only go so far.

(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Now imagine the brain of woman who loves to practice martial arts, cooking, drawing, works in an office in data entry and play puzzle games on her Ipad compared to that of a men who works in a lab as an assistant, assemble and paints miniature soldiers, plays adventure video games and likes rugby. Both are developping in their pass times and jobs almost the same set of skills, but in a different fashion and slightly different specialisation. If you were to name their qualities and talents they would almost be identical. Notice that even in my example the man would be described as mostly gender conformist and the woman too.

Well as I said, men and women do the same thing, but they do it differently. The paper wants to take everybody who does one thing out of the norm and say there is little sexual dimorphism in the human brain, even though the other traits show their is.

(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  If the paper doesnt make the difference between a father taking care of his child by doing manly stuff with it like playing rough and tumble and a women playing boo it's due to the fact that both these activities stimulate the same region of the brain that of carring and nurturing. If you ever play rough and tumble with a child, the big difference is for the child not you. You don't become more agressive or more talented at fighting, as an adult, by playing with toddler in such a fashion.

Actually there is. There are two hormones vasporesson (spelled this wrong) which is found in males and oxytocin which is found mostly in females. Vasopressin leads to male aggression, in fact it plays a part in why men are always killing each other. However vasopressin and oxytocin have one thing in common. Both lead to the parents wanting to care for their children. You can see what I am getting at. Even if the same part of the brain is used for child care, it is clear that they produce very different hormones, and thus behavior.

(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Men's form of competition and women's form of competition are all highly ritualised and based on what's acceptable and what they are good at.

And they are similar to other cultures as well. Men always fight women usually talk shit.

(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  If men are good at fighting and see fighting as an acceptable way to settle dispute they will do so. During the Middle Ages, murders were 12 times more frequent than now amongst men precisely for this reason. Violence amongst men was acceptable and even a desirable way to settle dispute. If our current trend toward crime and violence continue, in 40 years, men violence will reach women violence in terms of murder and assault. Organised crime define strongly how, what and when violence occurs in a society and Organised crime is a sub-culture with its own rules and rituals, environmental inputs and transformation.

And were did you think this came from? Do you think that one day humans just all came together and choose what men and women would be different in? No, like every social animal, our social structure is nothing more than an expression of our evolution. Nothing more.

(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  In ritual and practices yes they are very visible. In terms of aptitudes and brain patterns the differences a reduced and, while still visible, much more light. BTW, dolls also includes things like GI joes, transformers, superheros figurines and all other toys of the same sort (not just dolls in the traditionnal sense of the term).

I love this argument so much. Alright, lets say they are dolls. What do all those dolls you named have in common? All have to do with violence. Little boys love violence. If you gave them a choice between tracer or ken, I am pretty sure people will choose tracer because she shoots people to death.

(28-12-2016 01:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  When children get older, they start to reduce their usage of simple, one function, toys for more complex ones who encompass several ones, like legos for example, who are both puzzles and dolls or costumes which allow for more immersive and complex rolepalying actions. Amongst adults, no matter the sex, puzzles and melodramatic interactive games are the most popular without regard to gender.

Well nobody would argue men and women would differ in puzzles. Tongue

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2016, 04:46 PM (This post was last modified: 30-12-2016 12:24 AM by epronovost.)
RE: No Gender December: Does it even matter?
(29-12-2016 05:44 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Then it was there the whole time let me explain

This is an example of something always being there. Can you guess which part of human nature that has evolved lead to this? Survival. Hell other animals have democracy

Reduction to the absurd. Everything can become everything else after being reduced to a certain point. I'm not sure that many animal have parliament and representative system in their social organisation, check and balance of power, a judiciary system or even a professionnal bureaucracy, all core elements of modern democracy.

(29-12-2016 05:44 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  You know when two animals fight over territory? Yeah, those events are that on a much larger scale.

Again reduction to the absurd. My argument was to present that massive cultural changes in social organisation, beliefs, way of life, education; all changes that can affect radically how human lives can appear without major changes in the physical environment (like climate and terrein) and genes. No cultural changes are not bound to changes in a more fundamental sources for human behavior. Of course changes in genes and environment can also create cultural changes, I guess we can start to observe some as we speak with climate change and concerns starts to become more and more pressing.

(29-12-2016 05:44 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Her graphs say otherwise.

Nope. Clearly 80% of overlap (maybe a bit more, I think the exact number in the text 84%, but I am not sure). There is a difference, but you see clearly that most people are in the middle of the graph, the neither clearly female or male zone, and that both have continuous overlap with about 20% of all clearly male brains belonging to women and vice versa. Maybe her graphs have been misconstructed compared to her sample, making the distinction between men vs women brain a bit moot in the grand scheme of things, but, after reading some response to this study, it's not the case. The graphs are very representative of what is mentionned.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468.figures-only

Even Guidice, the man who made a rather lengthy methodological critique of the study mentionned above on the ground, amongts other thing, that the what qualifies a brain as overlaping was too generous arrives at 46% of people having clearly mix-gender brain and about 10-15% of both clearly men and women brains belonging to someone of the other gender. In short, Guidice argues that the result of Daphne are too big due to a very arbitrary selection criteria. Yet, the fact that the brain of men and women strongly overlap remains. Guidice still has only around 70% of rate of success in assessing to what sex belongs a brain which isn't all that great considering he has only too choices, but not negligeable. Here's the link of the criticism. Yet, I still think he falls in the pifall of thinking that a man activity is going to produce a radically different brain pattern than a women activity which require similar aptitude. I believe that many practices that differs between men and women are actually convergent when it comes to structure. They are different, but they look alike and can serve and adapt to new roles and new practices.

http://cogprints.org/10046/1/Delgiudice_...l_2015.pdf

(29-12-2016 05:44 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Well that is because of a little something known as sexual selection. I wish I could find the picture, but it pretty much has an entire list of things a man must do to get a woman, and for a woman to get a man it says, just don't be fat.


Celibate I presume? /joke

I could get you the same joke, but from a women's perspective where the list of requirements is a mile long and the only requirement for men, the punch line of the joke, is "must not stink".

(29-12-2016 05:44 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  And this has gone on for millions of years. I mean women don't line up to have sex with men who take traditionally "feminine" jobs, but then when men see ronda rousey(spelled this wrong) the starting fapping at the speed of light, and her job is to beat people like a man.


Nevermide the fact that Rousey is currently celibate while male teachers and nurses, both feminine jobs, are married or in couple at the same rate than the rest of the male population. Fantasm and reality are sometime very different.

(29-12-2016 05:44 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Hell there was a study done with monkeys and toys. Never seen these toys their entire lives. And the vast majority of boys played with the trucks, very little of them played with the doll. In fact the chart of that study was similar to a study done to little humans in the same way. Male primates don't care about what a female does(except if she kills people) they only care if dat pussy thight boii.

Yes, indeed, as mentionned before, boys age 9 months old to 2 years prefer mobile toys and puzzles over dolls. Before 9 months old, they prefer dolls and afterward they prefer toys with multiple functions and disguise. Other primates that have been studied for toy preferences demonstrated that indeed, there is gender dimorphism in terms of behavior and toy preferences. Than again this comes at little surprise since other primates exhibit stronger sexual dimorphism than humans.

(29-12-2016 05:44 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  It is why more studies go towards kids and sexual dimorphism. I mean if kids demonstrate sex prefrences before they can be socalized, we have to study humans like we do other animals, which bothers people for some reason.

Studies on gender dimorphism are especially interesting for baby because they open a window on the maturation process and child development. The period during which there is the least dimorphism between men and women is between age 6 and 13. Gender difference are set between 10 to 18 monts of age amongst human, before that they aren't really clear and difficult to study due to the age of the participant. Studies on babies of less than 6 months old are very difficult to conduct and have very small samples for various reasons. Human socialisation starts pretty much at birth. A baby without human contact, even bellow 3 months old, have a tendency, to develop problems later in life. Its crazy what a lack of snuggle can make.

(29-12-2016 05:44 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Sure males and females do have similar enjoyments but are done differently. Let me use sex as an example. When it comes to pornography, men usually watch that. When it comes to books like 50 shades, you can say only women read that. Both have to do with wanting sex, but are done differently. And this is across cultures. Did humans 2 million years ago all come together and decided that in every culture men will love porn and women romantic novels? No. Sorry, but socialization can only go so far.


One enjoying the same thing in a different way doesn't bequeath a fundamentally different brain structure. The brain, being a multipurpose tool will use the same structure and the difference will be subtle. Even within people enjoying the same activity there is difference in motivation, attitudes, etc. that aren't to be underestimated either. Brains are, to a certain degree, all unique yet similar afterall.

In the detail section, no 50 Shades of Grey and written smut is also a thing enjoyed by men and so is visual porn. The idea that women favor written pornography accross all cultures is both wrong and stupid. Writting was the privilege of a very small elite since about 3000 years, when writting was developped, up until the late 19th century, what do you think non-litterate culture and people consume as pornography? They make dirty drawings and tell smutty stories. Do you seriously think that non-litterate women were waiting "vagina drying under the sun" to finally learn how to read to consume porn? Of course not, they made drawings of slutty dudes (or gals sometime), built a wide array of sex toys in bronze, clay, leather or stone and sang dirty songs like everybody else. Writting in itself isn't something we evolved to create, we happenned to have used several of our traits to develop it, but we were not naturally selected to master it in the traditionnal sense of the term.

(29-12-2016 05:44 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Well as I said, men and women do the same thing, but they do it differently. The paper wants to take everybody who does one thing out of the norm and say there is little sexual dimorphism in the human brain, even though the other traits show their is.


There is little sexual dimorphism because, despite the fact that you are doing different things for different reasons, you are developping the same aptitudes and using the same ressources. On a fundamental level AKA at the brain level, they are much more similar than they outwardly appear. Just like in my example of fishing vs weaving. Both activity don't look alike at all, but they require the same aptitudes and similar attitudes. That's why people who practice very different acitivities pick up more quickly on new activities than others people. I could have mentionned dance and martial arts, both call on very similar traits and aptitudes and its not rare to see a dancer finding martial arts easy to learn and vice-versa. This is because half the connection are already there if you allow me the expression. The brain of a martial artist and that of a dancer are thus very similar. Women love dance, men love martial arts, men and women are similar in terms of brain strucutre and that's what's studied in this specific studies. It doesn't talk about all the other difference in hormones and development or even size, it concerns itself with neural network and structure. In that, it founds that there is little difference.


(29-12-2016 05:44 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Actually there is. There are two hormones vasporesson (spelled this wrong) which is found in males and oxytocin which is found mostly in females. Vasopressin leads to male aggression, in fact it plays a part in why men are always killing each other. However vasopressin and oxytocin have one thing in common. Both lead to the parents wanting to care for their children. You can see what I am getting at. Even if the same part of the brain is used for child care, it is clear that they produce very different hormones, and thus behavior.


Yeah I do think I know where you are getting at. The same feeling can stimulate the brain of a men in a different manner than that of a women but the study talks about brain structure and neural networks both of which are influenced by hormones, but also a host of other factor. My question to you though is does vasopressin creates a very different neural structure than oxytocin when it comes to love and caring? I also heard that pregnant women, sex and babies stimulated the production of oxytocin in a men body and supressed vasopressin. Is that correct?

(29-12-2016 05:44 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  And they are similar to other cultures as well. Men always fight women usually talk shit.


Actually men talk shit just like women in 99.9% of the cases of conflict. Combat is very rare for obvious reasons. Men are simply, in our culture, more likely to fight than women, but incidence of conflict solved by fighting are abnormal in the first place and in sharp decline since the 70's as violence is being less tolerated amongst men. In all culture, human talk to solve their conflict first, the speed at which they fight is dependant on their rituals and practices. To marry, Sarmatian women had to kill three ennemies in battle according to Herodotus, but I wouldn't consider him a very reliable source on the subject. Other, more reliable, but later sources mentionned they had to fight in three battle. The more ennemies they killed the more value they gained in the marriage game. When two women with a comparable "score card" were competing for the attention of the same men, trial by combat was fairly common as in all culture that value highly violence. No need to tell you that Sarmatian were terribly violent people by modern western world standards. Many culture value violence amongst men, a rare few amongst women, some, like the Sarmatian, amongst both and others don't value violence at all.

(29-12-2016 05:44 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  And were did you think this came from? Do you think that one day humans just all came together and choose what men and women would be different in? No, like every social animal, our social structure is nothing more than an expression of our evolution. Nothing more.

I know you are exagerating for the purpose of the argument, but your staunch defense of cultures being only the product of evolution and physical environment is purely ridiculous. Look at the graph at page 1. How could women pass in 40 years from 12% of the population working in agriculture to 50%. Did they all mutated at the same time or were we affected by a weird strand of parasite that does the opposite of toxoplasma gondii? It seems that this radical change is due to a cultural change and very little to do with genes or physical environmental changes (maybe a reduction of the level of infection of toxoplasma gondii is the cause, but it seems unlikely since this parasite wasn't exactly very common in North America). Cultures are an emergent propriety, they stem from environment and an evolutionnary history, but are also self referential it can also affect and change itself without the direct pressure of evolutionnary forces and physical environmental changes.

(29-12-2016 05:44 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I love this argument so much. Alright, lets say they are dolls. What do all those dolls you named have in common? All have to do with violence. Little boys love violence. If you gave them a choice between tracer or ken, I am pretty sure people will choose tracer because she shoots people to death.


Except that now, you are exiting the premise of the study that demonstrate toy preferences amongst boys and girls. Baby age 8 months to two years old select puzzles and mobile toy over all doll types, including violent ones. I agree with you that boys would pick action dolls like GI Joe (I suspect a tracer doll is type of action figurine, I'm getting old) over Ken. Since boys start to favor violent toys later in their development, it would be premature and imprudent to remove cultural norms as an influence of the equation. Playing with violent toys (or violent video games) isn't linked to higher level of agressivity either. Even if boys were to be demonstrated more agressive and violent (which is dubious since several studies have demonstrated girls to be about just as agressive and violence prone), it's not linked to their love of violent toys and vice-versa.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: