> Natural proclivities is a post hoc rationalization using the sociological process of reification. Meaning: Step 1: Create social incentives that maintain di

> Natural proclivities is a post hoc rationalization using the sociological process of reification. Meaning: Step 1: Create social incentives that maintain differences. Step 2: Measure differences. Step 3: Say those differences are real and natural, since you now have measured them. > The process of gaining knowledge assuming a social construct will always suffer from a tautological fallacy. Meaning: If you want to know whether, say, men and women are different, and you try to collect measurements about those differences, those measurements will always be affected by the underlying assumption that men and women are different. > Any attempt to break the cycle is a epistemological illusion. Meaning: Your measurements of peoples' behavior will always be polluted by whatever beliefs are widespread, including those to do with whatever you're measuring. That about right? I disagree. You can measure, for example, the behavior of male and female orangutans. It will not be affected by human society. The only assumption you are making is that orangutans and humans are similar -- that the former is a good model for the latter. I also have a larger problem with the worldview you are advancing. While it raises useful awareness about certain mistakes that can be made, it is itself unfalsifiable when taken too far. It asserts that everything is socially constructed and that no measurement can demonstrate otherwise.