9 ms·

I am always surprised that well educated people who are definitely not "creationists" but consider evolution as a way human kind developed are ready to ignore e

I am always surprised that well educated people who are definitely not "creationists" but consider evolution as a way human kind developed are ready to ignore evolution when it comes to gender. Clearly man and woman are different physically and mentally as for millenias they played different roles. Why "gender people" keep ignoring that and are claiming that sex is not something inborn and is a "cultural" phenomena is hard to understand. For me gender studies are just new incarnation of Lysenkoism. Lysenko strongly belived (and thousands of soviet scientist) that weeds could spontaneously evolve into food grains because is should cooperate with communistic party. Those who were against that obvious stupidity and claimed that genetics is the way to understand plant evolution were fired or put to jail or executed. Similarly absurdal ideas were brought by soviet lingustics - if any one wants to have good fun, there is no better reading then Stalins's "Linguistics".

SippinLean 9y ago
I think they acknowledge that our society differs from that of our evolutionary ancestors, and that this context matters in determining social policy, and does not amount to "ignoring evolution".
- Jabanga 9y ago
  Postmodernists reject the role evolution plays in human attributes. They reject its effect on intelligence, gender and race.
  - notyourloops 9y ago
    They also wield a lot of social clout, as we've all seen from this event among others.
  - SippinLean 9y ago
    Easily disproved by the entire school of evolutionary psychology and many other modern schools of thought. The question is if there is more to consider in social constructs than simply evolutionary biology.
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      Postmodernists and feminists are generally very critical toward evolutionary psychology and hostile toward its scholars, so you're actually supporting my point.
      - SippinLean 9y ago
        You notably skipped over the majority of my comment, and only added more unfounded sweeping generalizations comparable to your similar ranting about feminists elsewhere. >The question is if there is more to consider in social constructs than simply evolutionary biology.
        Jabanga 9y ago
        Of course there's more to consider than evolutionary psychology.. No one disputes that. What many postmodernists, especially feminists, dispute, is that evolutionary psychology has some explanatory power for human behaviour. And the reason is simple: it contradicts the narrative that systemic racism/sexism is the only possible explanation for race and gender based differences in outcomes.
        SippinLean 9y ago
        Yeesh, more dogma. Is it possible that the truth is more nuanced? You conflate sexual symmetry with gender equality.
        Jabanga 9y ago
        It seems people are fiddling and being their agreeable selves while Rome burns. A Google engineer was just fired, with deafening applause from a multitude of voices, for penning a memo that enumerated numerous facts related to gender based differences in human behaviour and put forth a reasonable opinion on diversity policy that is grounded in said facts.
markdog12 9y ago
Was literally reading about this last night in "The Gene, An Intimate History": https://www.amazon.com/Gene-Intimate-History-Siddhartha-Mukherjee/dp/147673352X/ https://www.amazon.com/Gene-Intimate-History-Siddhartha-Mukh... Couldn't help but think of this troubling incident while reading about it.
omikun 9y ago
You're confusing the way things are versus the way things should be. Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be. There are a host of reasons why things are the way they are now. The memo tries to offload some of that to biological explanations and cites studies. Then he makes a leap of faith and recommends the should based on that. The studies only explain why things are the way they are, not whether that is a good or a bad thing. Specifically, he says at the top of the memo "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business." I'm not aware of any studies that backs this up.
- hasenj 9y ago
  Without further clarification or elaboration, your comment does not seem to make much sense. Consider the extreme case of children vs adults. Should we advocate for policies that force companies to employ children because we think it's more equal that way? I'm not trying to say women are children or anything like that, just taking your position to it's absurd conclusion to show that it's at least questionable.
  - omikun 9y ago
    That's hardly a fair comparison. It's not illegal for women to work (anymore).
    - hasenj 9y ago
      That's not a fair interpretation of my comment. You said: > Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be. But you provide no reason why you want things to be a certain way. For example, if it is true that less women are interested in STEM, then, why do you think that we should have 50/50 men and women in STEM? That just seems like arbitrarily trying to enforce your vision on reality for no good reason.
- vowelless 9y ago
  > Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be Who specifically told you how things should be? I fear I am witnessing the birth of a new religion here and I'm not done recovering from the teachings of the imams I grew up with...
pdkl95 9y ago
I am always surprised when well educated people misunderstand or misrepresent opposing arguments, or reuse data points that seem to support their side as some sort of argument-winning trump card. > claiming that sex is not something inborn Literally no serious[1] person studying gender makes that claim. The reason it's hard to understand is because the actual argument has always ben that both nature and nurture play important roles. As for why "culture" applies, remember that while sex involves genetics (and hormones, etc), gender is performative. Performance happens in a setting, thus acting masculine hap[ens in a culture/setting that defines what "masculine" means. > Clearly man and woman are different physically Obviously true in general, but there are surprises in the details. > and mentally That is technically true, but presupposing that is bad science. Historically a lot of stupid crap was invented to justify the two predefined[2] categories. More importantly, anybody claiming there is a difference needs to explain the specifics of which traits they are talking about, because for most attributes the bell curves overlap significantly. > Lysenkoism If you want to be paranoid, you will find ways to interpret your experience as being persecuted. Instead, I suggest actually listening to the actual arguments being made. [1] I'm sure you can find examples of almost any claim in forum comments. [2] Science should create categories from the observations. If you're starting with the two categories [M, F] and then trying to prove or disprove that, you're doing it wrong. These concepts are more complicated than a simple Boolean flag.

SippinLean 9y ago

I think they acknowledge that our society differs from that of our evolutionary ancestors, and that this context matters in determining social policy, and does not amount to "ignoring evolution".

Jabanga 9y ago
Postmodernists reject the role evolution plays in human attributes. They reject its effect on intelligence, gender and race.
- notyourloops 9y ago
  They also wield a lot of social clout, as we've all seen from this event among others.
- SippinLean 9y ago
  Easily disproved by the entire school of evolutionary psychology and many other modern schools of thought. The question is if there is more to consider in social constructs than simply evolutionary biology.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    Postmodernists and feminists are generally very critical toward evolutionary psychology and hostile toward its scholars, so you're actually supporting my point.
    - SippinLean 9y ago
      You notably skipped over the majority of my comment, and only added more unfounded sweeping generalizations comparable to your similar ranting about feminists elsewhere. >The question is if there is more to consider in social constructs than simply evolutionary biology.
      - Jabanga 9y ago
        Of course there's more to consider than evolutionary psychology.. No one disputes that. What many postmodernists, especially feminists, dispute, is that evolutionary psychology has some explanatory power for human behaviour. And the reason is simple: it contradicts the narrative that systemic racism/sexism is the only possible explanation for race and gender based differences in outcomes.
        SippinLean 9y ago
        Yeesh, more dogma. Is it possible that the truth is more nuanced? You conflate sexual symmetry with gender equality.
        Jabanga 9y ago
        It seems people are fiddling and being their agreeable selves while Rome burns. A Google engineer was just fired, with deafening applause from a multitude of voices, for penning a memo that enumerated numerous facts related to gender based differences in human behaviour and put forth a reasonable opinion on diversity policy that is grounded in said facts.

markdog12 9y ago

Was literally reading about this last night in "The Gene, An Intimate History": https://www.amazon.com/Gene-Intimate-History-Siddhartha-Mukherjee/dp/147673352X/ https://www.amazon.com/Gene-Intimate-History-Siddhartha-Mukh... Couldn't help but think of this troubling incident while reading about it.

omikun 9y ago

You're confusing the way things are versus the way things should be. Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be. There are a host of reasons why things are the way they are now. The memo tries to offload some of that to biological explanations and cites studies. Then he makes a leap of faith and recommends the should based on that. The studies only explain why things are the way they are, not whether that is a good or a bad thing. Specifically, he says at the top of the memo "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business." I'm not aware of any studies that backs this up.

hasenj 9y ago
Without further clarification or elaboration, your comment does not seem to make much sense. Consider the extreme case of children vs adults. Should we advocate for policies that force companies to employ children because we think it's more equal that way? I'm not trying to say women are children or anything like that, just taking your position to it's absurd conclusion to show that it's at least questionable.
- omikun 9y ago
  That's hardly a fair comparison. It's not illegal for women to work (anymore).
  - hasenj 9y ago
    That's not a fair interpretation of my comment. You said: > Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be. But you provide no reason why you want things to be a certain way. For example, if it is true that less women are interested in STEM, then, why do you think that we should have 50/50 men and women in STEM? That just seems like arbitrarily trying to enforce your vision on reality for no good reason.
vowelless 9y ago
> Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be Who specifically told you how things should be? I fear I am witnessing the birth of a new religion here and I'm not done recovering from the teachings of the imams I grew up with...

pdkl95 9y ago

I am always surprised when well educated people misunderstand or misrepresent opposing arguments, or reuse data points that seem to support their side as some sort of argument-winning trump card. > claiming that sex is not something inborn Literally no serious[1] person studying gender makes that claim. The reason it's hard to understand is because the actual argument has always ben that both nature and nurture play important roles. As for why "culture" applies, remember that while sex involves genetics (and hormones, etc), gender is performative. Performance happens in a setting, thus acting masculine hap[ens in a culture/setting that defines what "masculine" means. > Clearly man and woman are different physically Obviously true in general, but there are surprises in the details. > and mentally That is technically true, but presupposing that is bad science. Historically a lot of stupid crap was invented to justify the two predefined[2] categories. More importantly, anybody claiming there is a difference needs to explain the specifics of which traits they are talking about, because for most attributes the bell curves overlap significantly. > Lysenkoism If you want to be paranoid, you will find ways to interpret your experience as being persecuted. Instead, I suggest actually listening to the actual arguments being made. [1] I'm sure you can find examples of almost any claim in forum comments. [2] Science should create categories from the observations. If you're starting with the two categories [M, F] and then trying to prove or disprove that, you're doing it wrong. These concepts are more complicated than a simple Boolean flag.