10 ms·

To all the people in this thread who seem so absolutely sure that the gender differences are strictly biological, do you fancy telling us what exactly makes you

• JohnsonB 15y ago
  >Obviously there are easily observed physiological differences in brain structure and in the endocrine system etc, however it is a massive leap to go from that to asserting that observed differences in behaviour are down to this rather than down to societal factors. It's actually no leap at all. Evolution put those differences in brain structure for a reason. It certainly isn't random, but due to some evolutionary benefit, and given that these differences are in the brain, it actually necessitates that there will be differences in behavior resulting purely from these physiological differences. It doesn't say what those differences are, but that there will be some, and then good science would tell us to learn what specifically those are. In addition, in terms of evolution, you would expect there to be reliable, biologically caused behavioral differences between men and women due to the importance of specialization. Evolutionary, you don't have hundreds of thousands of years of men and women specializing in certain tasks without there being some built-in, biologically caused preferences in terms of what interests guide each gender.
  • JonnieCache 15y ago
    Oh I agree that behavioural differences are to some extent caused by biology, and that biology has been determined by evolution. That is obvious, for the reasons you state. What I am attacking is the idea that we can be at all certain about which behaviours are biologically influenced and which are socially constructed, or about the extent to which each factor is influential. Both factors self-evidently interact in highly complex ways to produce the behavior we observe. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to isolate either one of them, largely due to ethical problems with the experiments that would be necessary. The only thing that we can be certain of IMO is the fact that all behaviour is inextricably influenced by both nature and nurture.
  • acdha 15y ago
    In other words, you missed the point entirely: this is more continued evidence-free speculation, complete with hand-wave theorization that there has been a gender-based task division matching the dominant Western religious-driven socialization for hundreds of thousands of years when we have no data for more than a small percentage of that period and considerable evidence that the proposed specialization wasn't globally true even during that small period of time where we do have data. It's highly likely that there are measurable differences in the capabilities between male and female brains but neuroscience is very far from being able to explain anything high-level enough to start speculating about the complex skills relevant to these discussions: say, hypothetically, that we found evidence suggesting male brains tend to be 10% faster at detecting the path of a fast moving object or recognizing orientation of geometric shapes - does that tell you anything about someone's ability to write a research paper or debug a program? The other major confound is that many people rely on MRI data to support claimed differences and even assuming that the technology is precise enough and the relevant brain structures well understood enough (neither of which is really true) all that will tell you is what the brain looks like now, not why: children who play the piano extensively will have different brain structure but it's from years of practice causing hypertrophy, not because there's a pianist gene pre-ordaining that they would be good performers. Finally, "Evolution put those differences in brain structure for a reason" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanism: there are many, many examples of things which exist by accident (e.g. the crazy design of our eyes) or because they're connected to something which is beneficial enough to compensate for the drawbacks.
    • JohnsonB 15y ago
      >In other words, you missed the point entirely: this is more continued evidence-free speculation, Actually it's not evidence-free, it is a simple application of evolutionary theory. The "point" of the OP's post, as he stated directly, was that there was no "evidence" supporting the theory that observed gender difference are biologically caused. Pointing out that different brain structures between male and females means different behavior that would necessarily be observable directly refutes that point. > complete with hand-wave theorization that there has been a gender-based task division matching the dominant Western religious-driven socialization for hundreds of thousands of years Again, application of theory. Tens of thousands of years ago, our low level of technological development necessitated specialization. A family back then would have no other option than division of tasks based on gender because, for example, someone had to stay close to camp and care for children and someone had to go out on the physically more demanding food gathering tasks. Which genders do you think would do what? If you can visualize some way it would be more efficient for the males to constant shuttle back to camp from a hunting trip to tend the baby instead of just staying out as the job required, or for the females to do the hunting with their significantly less muscular bodies and the males to tend to the infants at camp without breasts, then by all means, do. Otherwise its a fairly obvious conclusion to be drawn from simple establish facts (women are statistically less muscular, men don't have breasts.) >It's highly likely that there are measurable differences in the capabilities between male and female brains but neuroscience is very far from being able to explain anything high-level enough to start speculating about the complex skills relevant to these discussions Who said anything about "high-level" being the criteria? You seemed to have pulled that qualification out of thin air. >The other major confound is that many people rely on MRI data to support claimed differences and even assuming that the technology is precise enough and the relevant brain structures well understood enough That misses the point, we don't have to understand the brain structure to know that a physiological difference in the brain will cause behavior differences, it's functionally necessary. You don't have different brain structures without an equivalent differences in behavior. It's also not important that we can't detect less significant differences in brain physiology because MRIs aren't more precise than they are; they have a specific scanning resolution and can therefore detect features reliably that are above the minimum resolving dimensions of the MRI. Those are the features being talked about here. And as far as the assertion that some of these brain differences are caused by nurture, there are simply some gender based brain differences that are too consistent and develop too early to be explained by anything as variable as culture or upbringing. >Finally, "Evolution put those differences in brain structure for a reason" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanism: there are many, many examples of things which exist by accident Actually, that is a fundamental misunderstand of evolutionary mechanisms, it is essentially impossible to have reliably observed features in a species that are not caused by evolutionary benefit. A side effect feature which you are proposing is a moot point, because side effect features are still connected to some other distinct feature that is beneficial evolutionary, and if the side effect feature is only observed in one gender then the primary-beneficial feature which causes it is still also in one gender only, and we are still in a situation where one gender is different from another via physiological brain differences.
  • drzaiusapelord 15y ago
    I lot of the people who refuse to accept biological origins of gender differences don't usually have much faith in evolution to begin with. Funny how both the far-right and the far-left tend to agree on things, especially skepticism of science (or at least its casual dismissal) that counters their zealous views.
    • dgabriel 15y ago
      This is a silly comment. Do you think PZ Meyers doesn't have much faith in evolution (hint: he thinks evolutionary psychology is mostly junk science)? The problem with evo-psyche is that it is relatively new, very little has been proven via repeatable experimentation, but it is easily used to confirm existing bias. Rejecting some claims of evo psych and biological determinism is obviously not the same as rejecting all of evolution.
• jcromartie 15y ago
  I feel like there has to be some kind of biological root (even if it's indirect, like if it comes out of social pressures which are based in sexual dimorphism) when nearly every culture in the world seems to have pretty much the same sort of normative ideas about men and women.
  • rmc 15y ago
    when nearly every culture in the world seems to have pretty much the same sort of normative ideas about men and women. You're saying Saudi Arabia is like USA now? Have you even watched the TV show Mad Men? 1960s USA was different from 2000s USA.
    • onemoreact 15y ago
      Sorry, same sort of normative ideas + Reductio ad absurdum = what you said. Clearly, there are cultural differences. However, name one country that’s military is made up of significantly more women than men. Far more women in the US go to college today than men do, go back 50 years and the ratios was very different. So clearly cultural norms change, yet there is less cultural diversity than you would expect if biology was not significant. Edit: Another vary important thing to realize is that these biological traits are not universal. For example there is a huge amount of individual diversity in the amount of hormones produced at various stages of development. Some of these produce noticeable external changes and other impact the brain far more than the rest of the body. Multiply those differences with different developmental experences and the average says very little about the individual.
      • deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      • rmc 15y ago
        There has been loads of cultural change, even in the USA. For example, it's no longer accepted that all women really want is to have kids & raise a family. (There are several instances of this in Mad Men, from Betty Draper's psych issues at the start) This change is due to 'second wave feminisim', have a look at this book which covers it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique . To think that all that has is the ratios in university is ignoring attitudes, which did change. Yes, women are not the largest ratio of militaries, however the attitude to women in military has change. Today people would balk at the idea of putting 5 years in the military, we think they should be protected, and being in the military would harm them. This used to be the attitude to women in the military. Attitudes have changed.
• rdtsc 15y ago
  To convince yourself of the opposite of one fact you are suggesting -- that endocrine system doesn't play a major role in behavior, try administering yourself testosterone shots (ok don't actually do it (!) this is just for the argument's sake). You'll notice how you'll start feeling more agressive. You might start behaving more aggressively. If you stop after a while you might look back and even say something like "wow, I can't believe that was me acting that way". Now imagine that the change is permanent (you don't stop taking those shots). Pretty sure you'd end up making small (and not so small decisions) in your life that will, in the end, amount to a very different situation than if you didn't start taking extra testosterone.
  • antihero 15y ago
    Who's to say that you are acting aggressively simply because of having more testosterone. Perhaps it's having more testosterone in relation to what you're used to? Sure, testosterone is a factor, and it may have contributed to the trend of men to be more aggressive than women, however, women have demonstrated that they can be just as aggressive if not more aggressive with far less testosterone than men. To say we should give up and let our biology dictate who we are despite having plenty of examples to the contrary is rather defeatist.
    • rdtsc 15y ago
      > To say we should give up and let our biology dictate who we are despite having plenty of examples to the contrary is rather defeatist. Sorry for misunderstanding. I wasn't saying that, just highlighting that biological makeup, specifically the endocrine system, can affect behavior quite bit. It should not be used as an excuse but it should be acknowledged as well. Small tendences when averaged over a lifetime can create quite different outcomes in the end. Think of a stream that slowly etches a rock and we end up with the Grand Canyon in the end. So just to repeat again, I am not for sending all girls to home-ec classes and prep only boys for engineering and science, just showing that biological differences are there and they can affect behavior, perception & learning in significant way. Ignoring those factors, might end up being detrimental in the long run.
• adrianbye 15y ago
  the social/behavioural problems of aspergers (autism spectrum disorder) are diagnosed in men at a 4x greater ratio than women.
  • antihero 15y ago
    Leading us to believe that Autism may have a genetic root. But does that mean we should treat women differently from men? Fuck no.
    • burgerbrain 15y ago
      When men start treating women in the workplace as they would treat other men, HR blows a gasket.
      • notJim 15y ago
        This is sort of the argument "Well yeah, women would be perfectly welcome around here, as long as they act and respond just like men!"
        • burgerbrain 15y ago
          So am I supposed to treat them the same, or am I supposed to change my behavior?
• Tichy 15y ago
  I think what sexual organs you have is very likely influenced by biology alone. And looks, too - different hormones affect your skin, bone development and so on. It is of course possible for men to swallow the right hormones and also grow boobs (and also for women to swallow hormones and not grow boobs, I suppose). Some chose to do so, and I have nothing against it. I question if we should make it a standard that people should freely decide if they want to grow boobs or not (I mean they can decide freely now, they are just not usually encouraged to ponder the issue much). I am not saying it would be wrong, just that it isn't obvious to me that it would be a more desirable world to live in. Behaviors are another matter, however, genders have different realities (like the 9 months pregnancy period mothers face for bearing children) which automatically leads to behavior differences. It would be weird if it would not lead to behavioral differences.
• Duff 15y ago
  Sure, and it's an equally massive leap to say "OMG! Little girls want to be reality TV stars instead of <insert "good" profession here>!" and assume that this is some sort of problem driven by sexism. The folks who deal in this controversy have a vested interest to keep it controversial. Don't hold your breath for rational explanation.
  • bigfudge 15y ago
    How is your comment relevant to the OP? How does she demonstrate an interest in controversy?
    • Duff 15y ago
      The original article referenced is promoting a book by Ms. Bloom called "Think: Straight Talk for Women to Stay Smart in a Dumbed-Down World". I have not read this book, but the publishers description of the book is on Amazon.com's listing. Here's a snippet: "In this provocative, entertaining, educational, and thoroughly researched book, Lisa outlines the ways that we as a society, and particularly women, have fallen off the intellectual path, and, very specifically, points to how damaging this has been to us on many levels. Lisa shows us the fallout--but she also provides the solutions for "Reclaiming the Brain God Gave You" and seizing back control of your mind and your life. Think is delivered in a no-nonsense manner that will make you laugh, make you question yourself, make you squirm, but, most important, make you start thinking again." Ms. Bloom believes that women live in a world of "stark paradox" and wrote a provocative book to talk about it and encourages readers to think. That implicitly says to the world "This book is controversial", as controversy and paradox are generally what make us think. That's not to say that controversy is bad. But you're not going to reach a rational conclusion until a consensus driven by generally-accepted fact is reached.
• Peaker 15y ago
  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-pre...
• Alex3917 15y ago
  "To all the people in this thread who seem so absolutely sure that the gender differences are strictly biological, do you fancy telling us what exactly makes you so sure?" I don't believe gender differences are strictly biological, but I think the balance of evidence points to biology being a factor: 1) The differences in the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders. E.g. .1% of women are diagnoses with autism, vs .7% of men. Similarly, 5.4% of girls and 14.1% of boys age 11 - 17 have been diagnosed with ADHD. And 12.3% of boys and 7.1% of girls have been diagnosed with a learning disability. 2) Different psychoactive drugs tend to effect the sexes in different ways, suggesting that there is something in the chemical makeup of men and women that effects consciousness that is different to begin with. We can see this both qualitatively and by looking at the differences in the statistics for usage patterns. 3) The fact that certain drugs can make a person more or less empathic, or can make flowers more or less pretty (brighter colors), or whatever, shows that it's definitely possible that many of the purported differences in gender are attributable to biology. 4) Cognitive development research that can find cognitive differences between the sexes as early as a few weeks in age. 5) The fact that women tend to become more like men in their late 40s when their sex hormones are fading away. And the other way around. And how this effects people's behavior, e.g. this tends to be the age that most women start businesses. 6) The fact that sexual orientation seems to be determined be prenatal hormone exposure, combined with the fact that SSRIs and other serotonergic drugs can temporarily make people attracted to the 'wrong' gender. (E.g. make straight people gay, make gay people straight, etc.) I think it's telling that these drugs that alter our consciousness also impact/determine our sexual orientation. It strikes me that sexual orientation is probably profoundly connected with sensory perception, emotional processing, and consciousness in general. It would presumably only take a few tiny differences in consciousness at birth to produce fairly large differences in twenty or thirty years. We tend to work at things we're already good at, and neural nets can be strengthened like any other muscle, especially if there is social encouragement pushing in one direction or the other.
  • loup-vaillant 15y ago
    > 5.4% of girls and 14.1% of boys age 11 - 17 have been diagnosed with ADHD. Wait what?! How did we manage to have a disorder that affects nearly 10% teenagers? There must be something odd with either the school system or the term "disorder" itself, because otherwise, such a flaw would likely have been filtered out of the gene pool. I wonder which it is. (Same remark for learning "disabilities" by the way, though I'm less confident.)
• Symmetry 15y ago
  Rather than just arguing about this, we ought to be looking for the scientific studies on the topic, since this is certainly an area that scientists are interested in. When we look at achievements gaps between boys and girls in math we can see that it tracks the amount of sexism in a society very neatly - so much so that it seems unlikely that there is any biological difference in math abilities in general[1]. On the other hand there is some pretty good evidence that there are personality traits that systematically differ between men and women in aggregate. Men tend to have higher concientiousness and women higher agreeablness, for instance. On the other hand [1] There are some spatial abilities that make up a small fraction of "math" there is some evidence that women are worse at.
• 1gor 15y ago
  > our social/political/economic hegemony. Hm, sorry, what hegemony are you talking about? I always wonder why people who go all excited about gender issues can't accept that women are not men and do not have to be like men? Your 'hegemony' (I assume you speak the well known thesis about male-dominated society) may not actually exist, and the 5 year old's desire to look attractive may not be bad at at all. Imagine, there are two dimentions to the world. One is manifesting itself in social power structures, money, status, smart jobs, Nobel awards etc. The other is completely different and involves sense of belonging, security, plans about rising children and actual time to spend with children, emotional connection with friends, caring, feeling etc. It just could be that most of women are not interested in the masculine dimension of this life. Heck, I dare say they may not even be particularly fit for the struggle/rat race due to their biology, exceptions notwithstanding. But they are powerful masters of another, parallel universe, which is always here with us, and where majority of men just not quite make it. I think of many girls/women I've known in life who absolutely hate to spend their precious time on stupid things like going to work, making sure your last project is a success, competing, 'achieving' in the eyes of others etc. This distracts them from their sacred passion in life -- that is to rise a child, to shape the child's mind and soul and to protect him/her. And protection means having a secure, clean and comfortable house. And yes, that means having a strong competitive man next the them who would provide for all of that. Basically, that means a family. (The idea of the family seems to have been discredited both by the idiotic religious right and no less idiotic crusading left, but a strong family has a clear evolutionary biological advantage. It ensures the partners reproduce and their children get competitive advantage while growing in a happy/secure place. On the other hand, a lone over-achiever may as well become the richest man in the cemetery). A young girl is conditioned to think about her looks because this will help her later to chose her mate and to create her family. And yes, she will be chosen for the large part because of their biological traits (beauty). And that's not a bit shameful or reproachable. Thankfully, beauty is not the only criteria, so chill, you gender activists and spare me the flaming. Of course not only looks matter in life, and child beauty contests are a horrible thing. But still, it is normal for the girls to try to look beautiful, just as it is normal for the boys to try to be strong.
  • bigfudge 15y ago
• philwelch 15y ago
  I think this is something of a straw man. I think it's the most reasonable position is that most differences have both biological and social causes. The controversy isn't over whether biological causes are the only cause--I don't see many people arguing that--but whether biological causes are there at all.
• klenwell 15y ago
  I agree it's easy (and fun!) to oversimplify gender differences as a function of biology. But basic parental investment has always seemed a convincing hard limit to me. The Bateman Principle sort of sums it up, though reading the Wikipedia page shows it's more complicated than common sense might dictate (as you should expect): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateman%27s_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateman%27s_principle It's not as clear-cut as Bateman thought and there were a lot of methodological problems with his experiments apparently. Nevertheless, different strategies for different sexes. I conclude that some amount (how much?) of what we identify as gender differences flow out of these different strategies that are rooted in sexual reproduction, which requires a fundamental dichotomy of types. Still, I'm all for individuals cutting against the grain.
  • ap22213 15y ago
    I think it's ironic that in a forum called 'hacker news' I can view perspectives on this topic that are convinced by 'hard limits' on Human ability by extrapolating theories of general animal biology. As if the whole realm of Human invention and innovation should be discarded, because we weren't supposed to go beyond our original biological limits. Luckily, Humans have invented physical and cultural hacks to deal with the biological costs of child-rearing. Many types of family structures, economic structures, languages, social establishments, and physical creations have been invented to help us reproduce. In fact, Humans couldn't even exist as they do today, with their big heads, if it weren't for those original hackers. As Humans go, where there's a will there's a way. And, that generally seems to be the implied rule on this forum. But, for some reason, when it comes to gender, we're willing to sacrifice 50% of our population by using language that demonstrably reduces probability of success. The point is: we should be encouraging all children to never assume that hard limits exist, especially when based on incomplete information. And, even when hard limits are reached, there is always another way around.
    • klenwell 15y ago
      I agree. But let's bring in an advocate for the devil: "As if the millions and billions of years of Nature's invention and innovation should be discarded..." Great. Now I sound like Edmund Burke. Maybe strong would be a better modifier than hard, as it implies a little more flexibility. Nevertheless, I think some ideas are being conflated here: Do strong biological tendencies exist? Can they be hacked or circumvented? Should they be? What's the cost/benefit? Are you willing to make the investment necessary to do so? I favor exploring, and acknowledging where warranted, the hard limits so that we may more effectively and humanely answer these questions.
• anamax 15y ago
  > our social/political/economic hegemony Our? The fact that some men have status advantages does not imply that being male provides status advantages. Not to put too fine a point on it, but worrying about whether Bill Gates' daughter has as as good a chance of being CEO as his son isn't all that noble a cause.
• notJim 15y ago
  I honestly think the nature vs nurture thing is a red herring. The difference between individuals in either population are far greater than the differences between the two populations. Sure, maybe statistically women are a few ticks higher or lower on certain measures than men, but when you look at women and men at the individual level, there is going to be a very broad spectrum, and yet women will still be treated differently.