7 ms·

We've been watching subtle differences unfold for decades. The PC movement was aghast that anyone dare think that men/women had any differences at all. That's b

by B-Con 13y ago

We've been watching subtle differences unfold for decades. The PC movement was aghast that anyone dare think that men/women had any differences at all. That's been chipped away at for decades now. The proof is now on those who think that they are the exact same, despite mounds of suggestions that there are indeed some notable differences. We don't know the full extent of the differences, but this is not one of those cases where you get to push up your glasses and say "Well, without 100% proof you shouldn't believe it." Every time someone mentions that they think there's a difference between males and females, someone pushes up their glasses and asks "source?", as if the 6th layer of comments on a news aggregater is the place to rehash decades of complicated studies and biology. Accept that the position that there are some differences is a reasonable one and move on, even if you disagree. We don't know how much of it is mental, but we don't know much about "mental" at all right now. We're guessing based on what we do know. Just as long as we all don't let our guesses about the unknowns of science cloud our judgment in specific, concrete situations, we'll be perfectly fine. And merely believing that some differences do exist won't itself cause that.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Accept that the position that there are some differences is a reasonable one and move on, even if you disagree. Accepting that there are some differences does not lift the burden of persuasion off those who assert the existence of a particular difference, in the same way that accepting the idea that there are some murderers in the world doesn't lift the burden of persuasion off those who insist that a particular person is a murderer.
- B-Con 13y ago
  There are a lot of innate differences. But sometimes we observe a difference (say, gender distribution in graduate math) and we don't know why we observe. It is valid to conjecture that perhaps the observed difference is due to one of the innate differences. It isn't proof, but it's valid conjecture in the absence of anything better.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > There are a lot of innate differences. There are also a lot of difference in socialization and social treatment that are not innate differences. > It is valid to conjecture that perhaps the observed difference is due to one of the innate differences. It is also valid to conjecture that perhaps the observed difference is due to cultural/environmental forces and not due to one of the innate differences. There's a big gap between conjecturing that something may perhaps be true (which is a very weak position that doesn't require much support) and asserting that something it true, or probably true, or the best explanation given the available evidence.
    - B-Con 13y ago
      > It is also valid to conjecture that perhaps the observed difference is due to cultural/environmental forces and not due to one of the innate differences. It is. But we originally started with someone conjecturing that it wasn't, and getting told off for it. Don't change it from "believing X is reasonable" to "believing not X is also reasonable".
  - s_baby 13y ago
    >There are a lot of innate differences. But sometimes we observe a difference (say, gender distribution in graduate math) and we don't know why we observe Do you have proof for this assertion?
    - B-Con 13y ago
      The assertion that there are innate differences? Of course. They're flooded with different hormones from birth. Throughout life, the genders will experience vastly different hormones. Their development process is different from very early one. It's not drastically different, but it's a key different very early on. Males and females then go on to have notable differences in physical prowess like strength, coordination, and in other areas like chemically-motivated aggression, etc. We know there are differences. We've chipped away at it for decades, and no one in science disagrees. The problem is that the obvious differences that are manifested are all macro physical, we don't know how the differences extend to the mental area. But then, in these kinds of arguments we don't really even know what we mean by "mental" because, technically, it's all physical. (At least, the part science cares about.) Some people think that it doesn't extend to "mental". Some do. Considering the basic fact that our mental states are very obviously modified chemically, and that males and females get different chemical influences throughout life, I can't think anything but we have to leave that possibility open that there are consistent developmental differences. This is not one of those situations where it's probably most accurate to assume there is no difference until one is proven. Also, stonemetal posted a link elsewhere in this comment thread. No one wanted to reply to that, they just wanted to post "are you sure?" in this thread. And I can't help but wonder if this is supposed to be satire, considering above I posted: > Every time someone mentions that they think there's a difference between males and females, someone pushes up their glasses and asks "source?", as if the 6th layer of comments on a news aggregater is the place to rehash decades of complicated studies and biology.

by B-Con 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Accept that the position that there are some differences is a reasonable one and move on, even if you disagree. Accepting that there are some differences does not lift the burden of persuasion off those who assert the existence of a particular difference, in the same way that accepting the idea that there are some murderers in the world doesn't lift the burden of persuasion off those who insist that a particular person is a murderer.

B-Con 13y ago
There are a lot of innate differences. But sometimes we observe a difference (say, gender distribution in graduate math) and we don't know why we observe. It is valid to conjecture that perhaps the observed difference is due to one of the innate differences. It isn't proof, but it's valid conjecture in the absence of anything better.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > There are a lot of innate differences. There are also a lot of difference in socialization and social treatment that are not innate differences. > It is valid to conjecture that perhaps the observed difference is due to one of the innate differences. It is also valid to conjecture that perhaps the observed difference is due to cultural/environmental forces and not due to one of the innate differences. There's a big gap between conjecturing that something may perhaps be true (which is a very weak position that doesn't require much support) and asserting that something it true, or probably true, or the best explanation given the available evidence.
  - B-Con 13y ago
    > It is also valid to conjecture that perhaps the observed difference is due to cultural/environmental forces and not due to one of the innate differences. It is. But we originally started with someone conjecturing that it wasn't, and getting told off for it. Don't change it from "believing X is reasonable" to "believing not X is also reasonable".
- s_baby 13y ago
  >There are a lot of innate differences. But sometimes we observe a difference (say, gender distribution in graduate math) and we don't know why we observe Do you have proof for this assertion?
  - B-Con 13y ago
    The assertion that there are innate differences? Of course. They're flooded with different hormones from birth. Throughout life, the genders will experience vastly different hormones. Their development process is different from very early one. It's not drastically different, but it's a key different very early on. Males and females then go on to have notable differences in physical prowess like strength, coordination, and in other areas like chemically-motivated aggression, etc. We know there are differences. We've chipped away at it for decades, and no one in science disagrees. The problem is that the obvious differences that are manifested are all macro physical, we don't know how the differences extend to the mental area. But then, in these kinds of arguments we don't really even know what we mean by "mental" because, technically, it's all physical. (At least, the part science cares about.) Some people think that it doesn't extend to "mental". Some do. Considering the basic fact that our mental states are very obviously modified chemically, and that males and females get different chemical influences throughout life, I can't think anything but we have to leave that possibility open that there are consistent developmental differences. This is not one of those situations where it's probably most accurate to assume there is no difference until one is proven. Also, stonemetal posted a link elsewhere in this comment thread. No one wanted to reply to that, they just wanted to post "are you sure?" in this thread. And I can't help but wonder if this is supposed to be satire, considering above I posted: > Every time someone mentions that they think there's a difference between males and females, someone pushes up their glasses and asks "source?", as if the 6th layer of comments on a news aggregater is the place to rehash decades of complicated studies and biology.