4 ms·

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 limi

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.

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.