6 ms·

The very point of the question was to address a gender difference that's independent of any specific society. The phrasing was: "spatially across the world, an

by alecst 3y ago

The very point of the question was to address a gender difference that's independent of any specific society. The phrasing was: "spatially across the world, and temporally throughout history." He then talks about innate differences in animals which leads to matriarchal societies (he claims in elephants and bonobos.) Then speculates that there may be a similar distinction in humans. How do you find this simplistic? How is this "gender essentialism"?

tovej 3y ago
It's gender essentialism because he makes a foregone conclusion that "there will be static gender differences across cultures" and then he implies that they are unavoidable and due to innate gender factors. He looks at an outcome, and then draws a conclusion about the mechanism behind the outcome which supports his position. He does this without proposing an experiment to verify his hypothesis about the mechanisms. Just finding a correlation with gender says nothing about any "innate mechanism".
- rafaelero 3y ago
  It's his opinion based on his reading of the science, lol. And a reasonable one with which I mostly agree. If you think you have a better theory that explains gender differences, by all means, tell the world! But don't vilify people who have different outlooks over the data.
  - tovej 3y ago
    There is no question that biology plays a role in gender outcomes, but the view that gendered outcomes in society are 100% explainable by biology and unavoidable is the bio-essentialist view, which is naive and simplistic. Why would Harari's -- a historian's -- hot take be preferable to the consemsus ofof gender researchers and sociologists who actually study gender in experiments and statistical studies? I don't think I'm vilifying anyone by saying this. But if that's where we're heading, yes, I think he's a grifter, same as Michio Kaku. He goes far beyond his area of expertise to make big statements that give him publicity.
    - rafaelero 3y ago
      > Why would Harari's -- a historian's -- hot take be preferable to the consemsus ofof gender researchers and sociologists who actually study gender in experiments and statistical studies? Everyone can decide for themselves. Speaking for myself, sociologists are notorious for downplaying the importance of genes to individual/group outcomes (something that, IMO, should be consensus) and I imagine they will try to push a blank slate agenda whenever they can. So I adjust my trust in them accordingly.
      - tovej 3y ago
        I know sociologists, and I call bullshit on them downplaying the "importance of genes". Sociology looks at statistical evidence and argues about the mechanisms of societal outcomes based on that. Even if we accept your comment that sociologists don't know what their talking about, Harari is not the right alternative to turn to. Harari is not a biologist, he is a historian. If you ask evolutionary biologists, they tend to agree with the sociologists.
      - drekk 3y ago
        Everyone can be wrong for themselves, sure. I'll stick to the biologists, geneticists, and endocrinologists over a historian trying to sell books. That's adjusting my trust accordingly
        rafaelero 3y ago
        > I'll stick to the biologists, geneticists, and endocrinologists over a historian trying to sell books. You make it look like there's a consensus between them. It's unfortunate that Harari gets this bad press. I've read his books and listen to a bunch of his podcasts and he looks very open-minded and scientific based. I see myself disagreeing with him a lot of times, but I don't get mad at him because he tries to speak the language of science, which is good enough for me.

by alecst 3y ago

tovej 3y ago

It's gender essentialism because he makes a foregone conclusion that "there will be static gender differences across cultures" and then he implies that they are unavoidable and due to innate gender factors. He looks at an outcome, and then draws a conclusion about the mechanism behind the outcome which supports his position. He does this without proposing an experiment to verify his hypothesis about the mechanisms. Just finding a correlation with gender says nothing about any "innate mechanism".

rafaelero 3y ago
It's his opinion based on his reading of the science, lol. And a reasonable one with which I mostly agree. If you think you have a better theory that explains gender differences, by all means, tell the world! But don't vilify people who have different outlooks over the data.
- tovej 3y ago
  There is no question that biology plays a role in gender outcomes, but the view that gendered outcomes in society are 100% explainable by biology and unavoidable is the bio-essentialist view, which is naive and simplistic. Why would Harari's -- a historian's -- hot take be preferable to the consemsus ofof gender researchers and sociologists who actually study gender in experiments and statistical studies? I don't think I'm vilifying anyone by saying this. But if that's where we're heading, yes, I think he's a grifter, same as Michio Kaku. He goes far beyond his area of expertise to make big statements that give him publicity.
  - rafaelero 3y ago
    > Why would Harari's -- a historian's -- hot take be preferable to the consemsus ofof gender researchers and sociologists who actually study gender in experiments and statistical studies? Everyone can decide for themselves. Speaking for myself, sociologists are notorious for downplaying the importance of genes to individual/group outcomes (something that, IMO, should be consensus) and I imagine they will try to push a blank slate agenda whenever they can. So I adjust my trust in them accordingly.
    - tovej 3y ago
      I know sociologists, and I call bullshit on them downplaying the "importance of genes". Sociology looks at statistical evidence and argues about the mechanisms of societal outcomes based on that. Even if we accept your comment that sociologists don't know what their talking about, Harari is not the right alternative to turn to. Harari is not a biologist, he is a historian. If you ask evolutionary biologists, they tend to agree with the sociologists.
    - drekk 3y ago
      Everyone can be wrong for themselves, sure. I'll stick to the biologists, geneticists, and endocrinologists over a historian trying to sell books. That's adjusting my trust accordingly
      - rafaelero 3y ago
        > I'll stick to the biologists, geneticists, and endocrinologists over a historian trying to sell books. You make it look like there's a consensus between them. It's unfortunate that Harari gets this bad press. I've read his books and listen to a bunch of his podcasts and he looks very open-minded and scientific based. I see myself disagreeing with him a lot of times, but I don't get mad at him because he tries to speak the language of science, which is good enough for me.