3 ms·

Authority of experience, based on anecdotal evidence, is not a valid way to argue scientific issues. Further, you have not addressed well known exceptions to y

by curi 19y ago

Authority of experience, based on anecdotal evidence, is not a valid way to argue scientific issues. Further, you have not addressed well known exceptions to your claims, such as tomboys and males who do not love to be outdoors.

Tichy 19y ago
However, all you provide is your belief, which frankly to me seems to be driven by your wishful thinking. I personally don't know if men and women are wired differently or not, but I can't understand your concept of belief. Give us some scientific evidence, and I will mentally assign your claim a probability. But I won't believe it.
- curi 19y ago
  I have provided some arguments (for example, about universality). I have also provided some (as yet unanswered) criticism of the other view. If you don't understand my comments, and wish to, you could ask questions, and I will be happy to explain further. Evidence would not be the right thing to provide, because I am not predicting different human behavior than the mainstream theory, I am simply explaining the same evidence in a different way. So evidence can't resolve this dispute. (Setting aside evidence from analysis of brains which is beyond our present technology.)
  - Tichy 19y ago
    Well the universality thing is really a very weak argument. The brain is quite universal, but it still is specialized, for example for image processing. It is a finite resource, you only have so many neurons in a brain, and only can train them on so many tasks. So it probably makes sense to devote more neurons to some tasks than to another. Of course you may ask, when is it decided what specialization is chosen, genetically or by nurturing. Clearly we can learn and specialize on things through nurturing, but some things we are also born with, for example a language instinct. So I don't think your argument is an argument at all. I don't know if you are a woman or a man, but one thing I notice is that women can always tell me what everybody else is talking about in a cafe. I can only concentrate on the woman I am talking to, and blank out all the other people in the room. Maybe it is a personal deficit of mine (bad hearing or whatever), but I could imagine it is a women thing (broader attention). Just an example.
    - curi 19y ago
      Apes do image processing too; that is from a time before intelligence. The meaning of one's mind being born specialized is that either it's incapable of some functions (not universal), or it's pre-loaded with enough complexity to make some functions easier and others harder. And further, the claim has to go on to say that we don't put layers of abstraction over this and do whatever we want anyway, low level complexity be damned. Do you have an argument this is the case? You give language instinct as an example. So, do you have any argument that our DNA contains knowledge to facilitate language in particular? But perhaps more importantly, an argument that this is done differently for different people, in such a way as to cause differences in adult personalities?
      - Tichy 19y ago
        As far as I know it has always been the case that people developed a language. For example there are cases where children had been raised in total isolation from society, and they developed their own language (I think even single children). So it seems to me it is fairly certain that something in the brain makes it develop a language. Your "image processing is not intelligence" again refutes itself: so you admit that there are some things in which brains might differ. Surely, even if some parts of the brain are universal, the ultimate development must depend on the inputs available. For example, no humans have ultrasonic "vision" like bats, because they lack the respective organs. It follows that it is possible for brains to be different, depending on the body that provides the sensory inputs. Also, it is not clear in my opinion that apes are not intelligent. Btw. I am still not claiming that women can not be good at maths - of course they can be, there are many examples. I guess I am not even claiming that the difference between men and women with respect to founding startups is not cultural. But I am claiming that the culture is not arbitrary, but has evolved because of the biological preconditions. Not arbitrary means it can not simply be explained by "repression through men".
        curi 19y ago
        As far as I know it has always been the case that people developed a language. For example there are cases where children had been raised in total isolation from society, and they developed their own language (I think even single children). So it seems to me it is fairly certain that something in the brain makes it develop a language. That does not follow. For example, maybe they developed language because it's very useful. @image processing: There are things inside brains which can/do differ, the issue is what effect this has on adult minds. And personality in particular. For example, how does the difference survive layers of being interpreted to remain a difference in adults personalities? @ "repression through men" -- My position is that culture is largely transmitted, unintentionally, through behavior of parents. Further, mothers appear to have more influence over children than fathers. And female friends appear to influence young females more than their male friends. And I think the same sorts of things are done to both male and female children, just differently.
- curi 19y ago
  Here is a kind of evidence you might like: the amount of raw data available for genetic differences is on the order of 15 megabytes. A bit small, isn't it? That's maybe 25 ASCII novels, or fewer if they are long. And we have to fit all differences between humans and apes into those bits, too. Consider how much more information our culture has in it.
  - Tichy 19y ago
    I am not arguing against culture, but you can't deny that your paltry amount of genetic data actually IS sufficient to make the difference between human and apes. Or are you saying the difference is merely cultural, too? I think you defeated your own argument here...
    - curi 19y ago
      You have argued against culture's influence, by saying that, today, there are genetic differences which cause high level personality traits in adults, such as being feminine. I know 15megs is enough to implement intelligence, but how much do you imagine is left over to throw in quirks and differences? Certainly many orders of magnitude less information than our culture has it it. Less than our personality has in it. Also bear in mind that to write intelligence in 15 megs, you need a very good programming language. Concise, powerful, lots of libraries, very good abstraction, high level of generality. And it will be targeted towards writing powerful, general, reliable things. On the other hand, these features will be inconvenient when you want to code weird special cases and hacks, so that kind of code will take more lines to write.
      - Tichy 19y ago
        That's the same kind of argumentation the creationists use "see how complex life is, surely it could not just have developed by chance". Well duh, but it has. What do you know about how many genes are required for a behavioral difference? I am really asking you! Don't just throw around numbers like "surely xyz genes can not be enough to make a difference". I think just one gene can be enough in some cases. Maybe some hormone has a higher concentration in the blood of person A than in person B, and zing, totally different personality. Or whatever - I am not a biologist, but I suspect that neither are you.

by curi 19y ago

Tichy 19y ago

However, all you provide is your belief, which frankly to me seems to be driven by your wishful thinking. I personally don't know if men and women are wired differently or not, but I can't understand your concept of belief. Give us some scientific evidence, and I will mentally assign your claim a probability. But I won't believe it.

curi 19y ago
I have provided some arguments (for example, about universality). I have also provided some (as yet unanswered) criticism of the other view. If you don't understand my comments, and wish to, you could ask questions, and I will be happy to explain further. Evidence would not be the right thing to provide, because I am not predicting different human behavior than the mainstream theory, I am simply explaining the same evidence in a different way. So evidence can't resolve this dispute. (Setting aside evidence from analysis of brains which is beyond our present technology.)
- Tichy 19y ago
  Well the universality thing is really a very weak argument. The brain is quite universal, but it still is specialized, for example for image processing. It is a finite resource, you only have so many neurons in a brain, and only can train them on so many tasks. So it probably makes sense to devote more neurons to some tasks than to another. Of course you may ask, when is it decided what specialization is chosen, genetically or by nurturing. Clearly we can learn and specialize on things through nurturing, but some things we are also born with, for example a language instinct. So I don't think your argument is an argument at all. I don't know if you are a woman or a man, but one thing I notice is that women can always tell me what everybody else is talking about in a cafe. I can only concentrate on the woman I am talking to, and blank out all the other people in the room. Maybe it is a personal deficit of mine (bad hearing or whatever), but I could imagine it is a women thing (broader attention). Just an example.
  - curi 19y ago
    Apes do image processing too; that is from a time before intelligence. The meaning of one's mind being born specialized is that either it's incapable of some functions (not universal), or it's pre-loaded with enough complexity to make some functions easier and others harder. And further, the claim has to go on to say that we don't put layers of abstraction over this and do whatever we want anyway, low level complexity be damned. Do you have an argument this is the case? You give language instinct as an example. So, do you have any argument that our DNA contains knowledge to facilitate language in particular? But perhaps more importantly, an argument that this is done differently for different people, in such a way as to cause differences in adult personalities?
    - Tichy 19y ago
      As far as I know it has always been the case that people developed a language. For example there are cases where children had been raised in total isolation from society, and they developed their own language (I think even single children). So it seems to me it is fairly certain that something in the brain makes it develop a language. Your "image processing is not intelligence" again refutes itself: so you admit that there are some things in which brains might differ. Surely, even if some parts of the brain are universal, the ultimate development must depend on the inputs available. For example, no humans have ultrasonic "vision" like bats, because they lack the respective organs. It follows that it is possible for brains to be different, depending on the body that provides the sensory inputs. Also, it is not clear in my opinion that apes are not intelligent. Btw. I am still not claiming that women can not be good at maths - of course they can be, there are many examples. I guess I am not even claiming that the difference between men and women with respect to founding startups is not cultural. But I am claiming that the culture is not arbitrary, but has evolved because of the biological preconditions. Not arbitrary means it can not simply be explained by "repression through men".
      - curi 19y ago
        As far as I know it has always been the case that people developed a language. For example there are cases where children had been raised in total isolation from society, and they developed their own language (I think even single children). So it seems to me it is fairly certain that something in the brain makes it develop a language. That does not follow. For example, maybe they developed language because it's very useful. @image processing: There are things inside brains which can/do differ, the issue is what effect this has on adult minds. And personality in particular. For example, how does the difference survive layers of being interpreted to remain a difference in adults personalities? @ "repression through men" -- My position is that culture is largely transmitted, unintentionally, through behavior of parents. Further, mothers appear to have more influence over children than fathers. And female friends appear to influence young females more than their male friends. And I think the same sorts of things are done to both male and female children, just differently.
curi 19y ago
Here is a kind of evidence you might like: the amount of raw data available for genetic differences is on the order of 15 megabytes. A bit small, isn't it? That's maybe 25 ASCII novels, or fewer if they are long. And we have to fit all differences between humans and apes into those bits, too. Consider how much more information our culture has in it.
- Tichy 19y ago
  I am not arguing against culture, but you can't deny that your paltry amount of genetic data actually IS sufficient to make the difference between human and apes. Or are you saying the difference is merely cultural, too? I think you defeated your own argument here...
  - curi 19y ago
    You have argued against culture's influence, by saying that, today, there are genetic differences which cause high level personality traits in adults, such as being feminine. I know 15megs is enough to implement intelligence, but how much do you imagine is left over to throw in quirks and differences? Certainly many orders of magnitude less information than our culture has it it. Less than our personality has in it. Also bear in mind that to write intelligence in 15 megs, you need a very good programming language. Concise, powerful, lots of libraries, very good abstraction, high level of generality. And it will be targeted towards writing powerful, general, reliable things. On the other hand, these features will be inconvenient when you want to code weird special cases and hacks, so that kind of code will take more lines to write.
    - Tichy 19y ago
      That's the same kind of argumentation the creationists use "see how complex life is, surely it could not just have developed by chance". Well duh, but it has. What do you know about how many genes are required for a behavioral difference? I am really asking you! Don't just throw around numbers like "surely xyz genes can not be enough to make a difference". I think just one gene can be enough in some cases. Maybe some hormone has a higher concentration in the blood of person A than in person B, and zing, totally different personality. Or whatever - I am not a biologist, but I suspect that neither are you.