8 ms·

> it becomes such an emotionally-charged subject for both sides. Yeah but it's not like one side is claiming it's 100% nature and the other is claiming it's 10

> it becomes such an emotionally-charged subject for both sides. Yeah but it's not like one side is claiming it's 100% nature and the other is claiming it's 100% nurture. One side is claiming it's 100% nurture and the other side is claiming it's some mix. The side claiming it's 100% nurture is 100% wrong. But somehow it is verboten to state this publicly or you are shamed.

shadowgovt 7y ago
It's not the claim that natural differences exist, it's the claim they're relevant that'll get a person laughed out of the discussion.
- nicky0 7y ago
  Irrelevant to the individual, but relevant when talking about groups. For example, upon observing that more women than men tend to take up nursing. Do we conclude that there is a gender bias in healthcare recruitment and a distorted soceital expetation of gender roles, or can it be explained as a consequence of the aggregate personality bias between the sexes resulting in more women choosing that career. The personality science comes in to play when trying to answer that question.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Usually, the correct answer is "insufficient data." The systems are circular and self-reinforcing; what does maternity leave look like in the nursing profession, for example?
    - nicky0 7y ago
      All good points. I wasn't actually trying to start a debate about the nursing profession, of course. Just an example of where average personality differences may partially explain observed outcomes.
- manigandham 7y ago
  So they're all irrelevant? That's effectively the same as saying they don't exist in the context of this discussion about their effects. Why do you think nature is completely irrelevant?
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    The underlying political philosophy of the US includes the axiom that people are created equal (misunderstanding from original usage of words notwithstanding). If there are differences, they aren't enough to look at a male job candidate and a female job candidate and say "we should definitely hire the man, because his natural advantages will" etc.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      The topic is nature vs nature, and how 1 side claims that it's all nurture. You said that nature still exists but is irrelevant, which is effectively the same thing. What does this have to do with hiring? When did anyone claim choosing one sex over another based on natural sex-based group differences? Of course hiring should be fair and equal opportunity, there's no disagreement there. However if you accept that then you must also agree that both sexes are interchangeable for most jobs and so there's no such thing as a sex imbalance either since anyone can do the job.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        If by "sex imbalance" you mean the ratio differential currently exhibited in the workplace, the last piece of the reasoning doesn't follow from the first. "Both sexes are interchangeable for most jobs" doesn't imply "there's no such thing as a sex imbalance" if people have historically believed both sexes aren't interchangeable for most jobs and workforce gender distribution reflects that history.
ma2rten 7y ago
Here is the thing. There are probably innate differences between different men and women. There are probably also innate differences between different races. However, this doesn't say anything about individuals. A group of people might be more likely to have trait X, but it doesn't say that any member of that group has that trait. The problem is that people are not very good at thinking probabilistically, so emphasizing differences between groups will lead people to make unwarranted assumptions about members of those groups.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  Why even say this? Everyone with an IQ over 65 knows that this is obviously true. Does anyone really think that when people say things like men are stronger than women, they believe that literally every single man is stronger than every single woman?
  - prutschman 7y ago
    I don't think most people literally believe every man is stronger than every woman. I think it's much more common that someone will say "of course there are some women who are stronger than most men" then go back to tending to, for example, hire men over women for a job requiring the ability to lift 60 lbs, without bothering to strength-test female applicants.
    - ma2rten 7y ago
      Exactly, this phenomenon is also known as unconscious bias.
    - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
      But if you really reflect on that statement, it becomes apparent that the level of irony in what you just said is off the charts.
      - prutschman 7y ago
        Apparently the irony is over my head. Could you explain?
tchaffee 7y ago
Do you have any data to back up your claim that one side is claiming it's 100% nurture? Or is it anecdotal? If we are going with anecdotal data, then here's mine: I've almost never heard anyone say it's 100% nurture. I have heard people claim something close to 100% nature though. Just as one example, the pretty common "boys will be boys" excuse. As in they just can't help themselves because it's in their nature, right?
- austhrow743 7y ago
  I never got that from that statement at all. Just acknowledgement that they're acting according to expectation. It makes no inference that the expectation is there because you can't change it, merely that you haven't.
  - tchaffee 7y ago
    The nature argument doesn't say you can't change it. Just that the source of your inclination is built in genetically and from birth rather than being a result of nurture. Are boys more aggressive due to nature? Considering that we know what testosterone does to behavior and the stereotype exists across most cultures and all of history, I don't think "boys will be boys" means they were nurtured to be that way, at least not to most people.
- wazoox 7y ago
  Oh man, yes, there are lots of people claiming it's all 100% nurture. There even was a media shitstorm in France around the "patriarchy of steak" in 2017. Basically, an anthropologist claimed in her PhD thesis that women are smaller and weaker than men because of millennia of patriarchal oppression. She received support from many famous social scientists, and a long documentary on Arte (the French-German TV channel), countless newspaper articles, etc. See (in French, sorry): http://www.slate.fr/story/155300/patriarcat-steak-existe-pas http://www.slate.fr/story/155300/patriarcat-steak-existe-pas This ideology is absolutely dominant nowadays in social "science" around the world.
  - tchaffee 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

shadowgovt 7y ago

It's not the claim that natural differences exist, it's the claim they're relevant that'll get a person laughed out of the discussion.

nicky0 7y ago
Irrelevant to the individual, but relevant when talking about groups. For example, upon observing that more women than men tend to take up nursing. Do we conclude that there is a gender bias in healthcare recruitment and a distorted soceital expetation of gender roles, or can it be explained as a consequence of the aggregate personality bias between the sexes resulting in more women choosing that career. The personality science comes in to play when trying to answer that question.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Usually, the correct answer is "insufficient data." The systems are circular and self-reinforcing; what does maternity leave look like in the nursing profession, for example?
  - nicky0 7y ago
    All good points. I wasn't actually trying to start a debate about the nursing profession, of course. Just an example of where average personality differences may partially explain observed outcomes.
manigandham 7y ago
So they're all irrelevant? That's effectively the same as saying they don't exist in the context of this discussion about their effects. Why do you think nature is completely irrelevant?
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  The underlying political philosophy of the US includes the axiom that people are created equal (misunderstanding from original usage of words notwithstanding). If there are differences, they aren't enough to look at a male job candidate and a female job candidate and say "we should definitely hire the man, because his natural advantages will" etc.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    The topic is nature vs nature, and how 1 side claims that it's all nurture. You said that nature still exists but is irrelevant, which is effectively the same thing. What does this have to do with hiring? When did anyone claim choosing one sex over another based on natural sex-based group differences? Of course hiring should be fair and equal opportunity, there's no disagreement there. However if you accept that then you must also agree that both sexes are interchangeable for most jobs and so there's no such thing as a sex imbalance either since anyone can do the job.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      If by "sex imbalance" you mean the ratio differential currently exhibited in the workplace, the last piece of the reasoning doesn't follow from the first. "Both sexes are interchangeable for most jobs" doesn't imply "there's no such thing as a sex imbalance" if people have historically believed both sexes aren't interchangeable for most jobs and workforce gender distribution reflects that history.

ma2rten 7y ago

Here is the thing. There are probably innate differences between different men and women. There are probably also innate differences between different races. However, this doesn't say anything about individuals. A group of people might be more likely to have trait X, but it doesn't say that any member of that group has that trait. The problem is that people are not very good at thinking probabilistically, so emphasizing differences between groups will lead people to make unwarranted assumptions about members of those groups.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago
Why even say this? Everyone with an IQ over 65 knows that this is obviously true. Does anyone really think that when people say things like men are stronger than women, they believe that literally every single man is stronger than every single woman?
- prutschman 7y ago
  I don't think most people literally believe every man is stronger than every woman. I think it's much more common that someone will say "of course there are some women who are stronger than most men" then go back to tending to, for example, hire men over women for a job requiring the ability to lift 60 lbs, without bothering to strength-test female applicants.
  - ma2rten 7y ago
    Exactly, this phenomenon is also known as unconscious bias.
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    But if you really reflect on that statement, it becomes apparent that the level of irony in what you just said is off the charts.
    - prutschman 7y ago
      Apparently the irony is over my head. Could you explain?

tchaffee 7y ago

Do you have any data to back up your claim that one side is claiming it's 100% nurture? Or is it anecdotal? If we are going with anecdotal data, then here's mine: I've almost never heard anyone say it's 100% nurture. I have heard people claim something close to 100% nature though. Just as one example, the pretty common "boys will be boys" excuse. As in they just can't help themselves because it's in their nature, right?

austhrow743 7y ago
I never got that from that statement at all. Just acknowledgement that they're acting according to expectation. It makes no inference that the expectation is there because you can't change it, merely that you haven't.
- tchaffee 7y ago
  The nature argument doesn't say you can't change it. Just that the source of your inclination is built in genetically and from birth rather than being a result of nurture. Are boys more aggressive due to nature? Considering that we know what testosterone does to behavior and the stereotype exists across most cultures and all of history, I don't think "boys will be boys" means they were nurtured to be that way, at least not to most people.
wazoox 7y ago
Oh man, yes, there are lots of people claiming it's all 100% nurture. There even was a media shitstorm in France around the "patriarchy of steak" in 2017. Basically, an anthropologist claimed in her PhD thesis that women are smaller and weaker than men because of millennia of patriarchal oppression. She received support from many famous social scientists, and a long documentary on Arte (the French-German TV channel), countless newspaper articles, etc. See (in French, sorry): http://www.slate.fr/story/155300/patriarcat-steak-existe-pas http://www.slate.fr/story/155300/patriarcat-steak-existe-pas This ideology is absolutely dominant nowadays in social "science" around the world.
- tchaffee 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]