|
Post by brandt on Oct 13, 2010 14:04:35 GMT 10
Gender is a social construct as you so aptly pointed out. Sex is determined by biology. The problem that we now run into is that there is little or nothing in our brains and our societies that are not influenced strongly by our evolved differences and mechanisms. Evolutionary psychology has addressed some of these questions.
Brother Phillip, I have just finished reading a certain book (again) that you might be interested in. It is called The Blank Slate by Pinker. It is available in paper back. I think that you will enjoy it.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 13, 2010 21:18:49 GMT 10
The problem that we now run into is that there is little or nothing in our brains and our societies that are not influenced strongly by our evolved differences and mechanisms. True. However that influence is not static. It has, as you say, evolved. In the West, gender roles have vastly changed from when Anderson first penned the rule excluding women and even from when Mackey, et al., ostensibly elevated his changeable rule to the status of an Ancient Landmark. I am not familiar with Pinker's book, so I will try to obtain a copy - Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Oct 14, 2010 7:13:58 GMT 10
If you can't get the book from your local store let me know and I will send you a link. Unlike many books in the genre this is actually readable, along with The Murderer Next Door by David Buss (it also addresses some sex differences). Please note that they are not talking about gender per se.
It is my contention that not all gender differences are a matter of socialization. Some parts of our culture are the result of our evolved biological mechanisms.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 15, 2010 22:58:41 GMT 10
Despite mixed reviews, I have lodged an inter-library loan request for Pinker's book, " The Blank Slate: The modern denial of human nature". In the meantime: It is my contention that not all gender differences are a matter of socialization. Some parts of our culture are the result of our evolved biological mechanisms. Does your use of the term "evolved biological mechanisms" encompass what Richard Dawkins calls " memes" (as distinct from "genes")? If so, I would agree with your contention. However, "memes" are, by definition, both subjects and products of socialization. If not, are you referring to instinctual differences? Apart from such things as the infant sucking responses, human instincts are notoriously elusive. Albeit, Noam Chomsky has argued persuasively against the notion of Tabula rasa suggesting we are at least hard-wired for language. Assumptions of gender differences vary widely between cultures. Indeed, one would be surprised if there were absolute gender differences in character, given that even physical sexual differentiation comes rather late in embryonic development, with corresponding components of even primary sexual features being characteristics of both sexes. For instance, both males and females produce Estrogen and Testosterone; men have nipples; other common features develop fairly late: penis or clitoris; ovum or testes; scrotum or labia, etc. When it comes to behaviors which might be considered instinctual, in some cultures, men suffer the Couvade Syndrome (sympathetic pregnancy); women can be elite warriors; and, as we are now increasingly seeing, men can display "mothering" behaviors. As for the subtitle of Pinker's book, " The modern denial of human nature," I suggest we would first need to define human nature. As Leslie Stevenson's essay, Seven Theories of Human Nature, succinctly states about the notion of the being A human nature, there are widely diverse theories about what it is (he discusses those of Christianity, Freud, Lorenz, Marx, Satre, Skinner and Plato and, in doing so, merely gives us a taste of the diversity of theories). In seeking to live within such frameworks, humans have acted as if the "good life" consists of accumulating wealth and knowledge or living as simply as possible; self-indulgence or self-punishment; the life of a warrior or one of charity; sensuality or asceticism; living in the wider society or only with others of like mind (or even as a hermit), etc., etc. BTW, reading a review of, " The Murderer Next Door: Why the mind is designed to kill," by Buss, I was struck by the use of US data to support his thesis. Given that the US has an exceptionally high murder rate for a developed country, might not the great differences between nations, had he considered them, indicate cultural rather than innate origins for such propensities? We read:This research does not square with my understanding of human nature here in Australia.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Oct 16, 2010 0:15:00 GMT 10
When we study sex differences we find similar divisions of labor by sex in most cultures (ranging from what can best be described as "primitive" to modern cultures). We also have strong evidence that small matters such as sense of direction, mental rotation skills, and many other physical attributes (I include brain function as a physical attribute) do show distinct sex differences.
Some of our social differences, due to the difference in sex, are most likely due to biology. There are few evolutionary tradeoffs that we have made. For example the remarkable abilities of the human brain requires a great deal of development. It is so pronounced that the brain is not even fully developed until our early 20's. Our young are also exceptionally vulnerable for a longer period of time than is experienced by many other animals. For the survival of our species we developed into social animals which allowed a division of labor. Since men do not lactate in any regular manner it fell to the female of our species to feed the child.
Women also have a greater investment in offspring. Eggs are a finite resource while sperm is relatively cheap. It benefits a woman to invest heavier in offspring. We see this in comparative studies in other animals as well. This differential investment also has led to differences in long- and short-term mating strategies between men and women.
Any animal experiences the greatest competition from its own species. Within the species a sex experiences the greatest competition from its own sex. Males compete over access to females. Females compete over access to males. There is not, my wife assures me, a female conspiracy to make me servile and sensitive. There is no male conspiracy to keep women down. It would serve a male animal well to get other males out of the picture.
An interesting point which I believe is important to an ongoing discussion of mixed gender lodges, there is no distinct sex difference in our evolved mechanisms for "reciprocal altruism." It appears that this occurs amongst and between sexes with little variation. There is always some "noise" in any system but the small differences are not statistically significant.
Women can absolutely be elite warriors and men can be caregivers. There is more variation on the "bell curve" amongst men than amongst women suggesting greater competition amongst men than amongst women. There are more male geniuses but also more that are commonly regarded as "retarded" or mentally deficient. There is overlap amongst these two curves though. We have phenomenal female athletes but amongst the elite runners in the world males are disproportionately represented. Males are also disproportionately represented in nearly every physical measure at both ends of the extremes.
Pinker and many others have argued that the persistance of -isms is not a matter of lack of inclusiveness but a blind adherence to the idea that differences do not exist. Differences do exist. Accepting and embracing those differences can only enrich society. The difference in oil paints or water colors do make the artist.
Our culture(s) did not show up on the scene ready made and then forced upon us. They were the product of our interactions with each other, and our environments, tempered by our biological abilities and limitations. We spend a great deal of time and energy examining group dynamics and environmental impacts but little time on the interaction between nature and nurture. Our nurture would not exist without our nature. A common analogy. We all carry a gene that will encourage the growth of a callus but the callus will not appear without the repeated impact and/or friction from our interaction with the environment.
This is a very interesting field of research that has serious implications.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 16, 2010 10:47:55 GMT 10
...we find similar divisions of labor by sex in most cultures... Unless we can find such division in ALL cultures I suggest those differences are memetic rather than genetic (even if we found a common difference it may still be memetic, albeit, especially successful). You appear to have hit the nail on the head by referring to our exceptionally long nurturing period. It is BECAUSE we have such slight and so few genetic, instinctual responses that we require such a long period of memetic indoctrination. We really are The Plastic People of the Universe (Adepts mould themselves).
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Oct 17, 2010 3:54:09 GMT 10
If the standard is all cultures then that standard would have to applied with equal conciseness on the null hypothesis. If there are no inherent sex differences then we should find no differences in all cultures. The remarkable amount of evidence, much can be found with a search amongst eHRAF (awesome data base), points to distinctive sex differences while not determining why the differences exist. If we are to approach this subject from a null nature or human nature that is entirely taught we run into the problem of explaining the persistence over time of these sex differences in the cultures studied and the development of these differences around the globe between cultures that had no contact with each other. We would also have to answer the question of where it came from in the first place. If we taught our behavior somebody would have to teach it to the first teacher.
Our long, comparatively, period of maturing has more to do with astounding complexity of our brains. For example, the fusiform gyrus and its role in face perception and the unfortunate limitations resulting in the uncanny valley and the other-race effect, is not that plastic. Nor is much of our brain that plastic. We do see plasticity in recruitment of the optic portions of our brain for reading Braille in blind people. That does suggest a high degree of plasticity. There are various agnosia in which due to trauma, disease, or genetic malfunction in which other parts of the brain do not take over functions.
You mentioned Chomsky and his works. He did provide some rather compelling evidence for his Language Acquisition Device (LAD). In our development we run into several periods of "experience expectant" and "experience dependent" events. The most horrible expression of this and the results of maltreatment is found in the Romanian orphanages. This supports the role of care and nurturing in our development. As it stands now it appears most likely that there is a dynamic interaction between biology and environment.
The blank slate ideas have not proven to be true under the lens of science. That being said it is important to note that no differences between the sexes should be construed as a statement of superiority of one over the other. There are things that women are far better at than men, demonstrably so. On the same token there are things that men are far better at than women, also demonstrably so. Our biologies do influence our behavior as is found in the studies on violence and aggression with testosterone. We also have evidence to support the sex differences in that females that are exposed to high levels of testosterone before birth show more behavior that is "typically male" and predispositions towards "typically male" fields of study. These studies have been backed up with comparative animal studies showing the biology does dramatically influence behavior.
It is good to be talking with you again Brother Phillip. Fraternally, Brandt
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 18, 2010 6:17:48 GMT 10
Thank you: Likewise, I enjoy talking with you, Bro. Brandt. If the standard is all cultures then that standard would have to applied with equal conciseness on the null hypothesis. If there are no inherent sex differences then we should find no differences in all cultures. Here I suggest Popper's model applies: The exception does not make the rule, it falsifies it. For some gender roles to be common to more than one culture is no more remarkable than that they should share common languages or that fashions should spread. Such is the nature of memetic change. While not directly pertaining to gender, for some idea of the power of memetics as revealed by Cognitive Psychology, I refer to Pygmalion Effect Theory, supported by: The Oak School experiment; Jane Elliott's Blue Eyes / Grey Eyes experiment; the Stanford Prison experiment; the Milgram experiment; and The Third Wave. Gender Theory is encompassed by this field of study.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Oct 18, 2010 12:58:07 GMT 10
Popper's model would apply if we were talking about strict maths that did not have so many potentially confounding variables in the model. For example it has been found that around the world and in every culture but one men prefer a certain body shape in women (waste-hip ratio around .7). The one culture that did not prefer this has a distinctive shape that does reflect the hourglass shape so that found it alien.
If a culture shares, distinctively, sex differences with another in which there are no geographic or linguistic connections it would be remarkable if we rely upon a blank slate and ignore empirical differences. Jane Elliot was brilliant in that she concocted a quasi-experiment that illustrated in clear form one of the key problems in society. Unfortunately Elliot's experiment was flawed in several regards, or at least could have been drastically improved to provide more powerful results. Luckily it has been done by other researchers so my hat is still off to Jane Elliot. Oak school, and the several other experiments and naturalistic observations have added a great deal to our understanding of "in-group bias." It tells us that it happens and why it happens. It doesn't state how. In other words, is it all learned or is it learning impacting a normal biological mechanisms. Are people naturally xenophobic. It appears so. The good news is that the individual's idea of tribe is informed by culture.
Stanford Prison and the Milgram experiments should frighten people. None of the above should signify that there is no human nature or that we are entirely made by culture. A similar argument was advanced years ago by Tipper Gore and her Parents' Music Resource Center (PMRC). Zappa or one of the others testified that the idea that Ozzy Osbourne's music caused suicide is ludicrous because most songs are about love. If music influenced anything we would all be in love.
People have inherent worth, not because of a lack of differences but because of the differences. If every person is only a product of their culture then we have some hard decisions to make. No person has worth since they would be interchangable parts in the machine of society. This of course would also suggest that all persons of Arabic descent and of the Islamic faith are suicide bombers. Suicide bombing is not a behavior that passes on well, but it happens for other reasons. I am sure that you can pick that apart but you know what I am getting at.
The idea of a blank slate demands that individuals do not matter. Sex differences exist, in come cases the differences are large. In other cases the differences are negligible.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 19, 2010 6:13:32 GMT 10
The idea of a blank slate demands that individuals do not matter. Au contraire mon frere, individuals do not matter if we are moulded by instinct or the hard-wired dispositions constituting "Human Nature." Socialization gives rise to a varying and flexible mould, within which we participate to varying degrees in shaping our Selves as unique individuals (else we are drones). My point about any exceptional culture falsifying the rule of there being one, fixed "Human Nature" takes into account that a culture consists of thousands of individuals. For any one culture to evolve a peculiar notion of "Human Nature" would involve the prevailing majority to participate in perpetuating and enforcing that notion, not merely a few exceptional individuals overcoming some "natural" psychological restraint. That some cultures independently evolve similar notions is no more remarkable than, for instance, that that both some mammals and some reptiles (Ichthyosaurs) independently evolved dolphin-like forms or that insects, birds and bats independently evolved the means of flight. One key to differentiating between genetic and memetic differences being that, taking an infant from one culture to another results in its genetic differences remaining fixed while, in matter of memetics, it is moulded according to those of its adoptive culture.
|
|