4 ms·

The rejection is not in not wanting men to go to war, or in favouring any particular social order, but in denying innate sex differences. According to Junger,

by blfr 12y ago

The rejection is not in not wanting men to go to war, or in favouring any particular social order, but in denying innate sex differences. According to Junger, these theories are strongly rooted in academia, and particularly the social sciences. “I have friends who are anthropologists and primatologists and evolutionary psychologists … [who are under] an enormous amount of pressure to generate data that shows that all gender differences are cultural.”

kijin 12y ago
The very definition of "cultural" is in dispute between the right and left wings. The right wing typically operates on a narrower definition of "cultural", which goes hand-in-hand with their emphasis on individual responsibility. The left wing operates on a much broader definition, which goes hand-in-hand with their emphasis on collective responsibility. The social sciences tend to gravitate towards the latter because who doesn't like scope creep? (The right wing, on the other hand, seems to restrict the scope of the social sciences by slicing off a large chunk of it to the biology department.) I personally prefer the idea that something can be both biological and cultural. Pretty much any change that happened to us in the last few tens of thousands of years is both biological and cultural. Unfortunately this idea doesn't seem to be popular among those with stronger ideological commitments one way or another.
fennecfoxen 12y ago
> “I have friends who are anthropologists and primatologists and evolutionary psychologists … [who are under] an enormous amount of pressure to generate data that shows that all gender differences are cultural.” You would think that, no matter what your goals for the roles of gender (or sex) in society are, you would achieve these goals best by deliberately seeking out and investigating the properties of the underlying biology (and culture) with the utmost of academic and intellectual integrity, and only afterwards pushing for the policies you prefer to realize that world. Then you would have the advantage of using a position of Enlightenment, instead of Ignorance. Maybe in a few more generations when people look back at us the way we look back on the Victorian era.
- Crito 12y ago
  > "You would think that, no matter what your goals for the roles of gender (or sex) in society are, you would achieve these goals best by deliberately seeking out and investigating the properties of the underlying biology (and culture) with the utmost of academic and intellectual integrity, and only afterwards pushing for the policies you prefer to realize that world." That is how it is supposed to work, but reality is never so clean. One of the best modern examples of doing it backwards (starting with a conclusion, and then working backwards from there), is so called "intelligent design"/"creation science". Many different groups and movements are guilty of it, but the ID scene is relatively unique in the lengths that they went to present themselves as legitimate scientists. See: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School...) Those nutjobs insisted that they were real scientists, despite the glaring contradictions with their nonsense and the scientific method. His comparison was rather apt.
  - kijin 12y ago
    ID was nuts because it tried to present itself as a description of the past. But if you're trying to issue prescriptions for the future (i.e. what kind of world do you want to create?), there's nothing fundamentally wrong about first identifying where you want to go and then cherrypicking biological and psychological traits to manipulate in order to get there. It would be just like writing a program to get the results you want.
    - Crito 12y ago
      Descriptions of the past are not nuts. History, the legitimate peer-reviewed study of history, does the same. Evolutionary biology tells us much about the past, as does much of physics. None of that is problematic. ID was nuts because of their flawed methodology. > "But if you're trying to issue prescriptions for the future (i.e. what kind of world do you want to create?), there's nothing fundamentally wrong about first identifying where you want to go and then cherrypicking biological and psychological traits to manipulate in order to get there." Do not confuse policy forming / social engineering with science.
csours 12y ago
I have a (lefty) colleague who sincerely believes that testosterone does not significantly affect personality[0]. I understand that human history has been overwhelmingly male dominated, and that this has undesirable consequences and side effects. I think these effects and ideas should be counteracted "with prejudice"[1] to use a policing term. I don't think counteracting the horrible facts of the past should include re-writing scientific facts we now know. 0. Perhaps it is prejudice and incorrect teaching that leads me to think that testosterone has effects on personality, if so, please correct me. 1. I mean that women and men (and others) should be considered morally, politically, socially, and economically equal (and probably some others); any argument to the contrary can be discounted immediately. I personally think that men and women (and others) are "not the same" emotionally or physically, but that these differences are A GOOD THING.
- meheleventyone 12y ago
  The science is much less settled on the link between testosterone and personality than you think. Some interesting discussion of it here: http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/cognoculture/testosterone_and_human_aggression_or_180520 http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/cognoculture/testosteron... It's hard to tease out what behaviour is culturally learnt and what is caused by innate biological differences. Folk wisdom about testosterone is just one example. The downside is that these "biotruths" are used as justification for discrimination.
  - kristofferR 12y ago
    Sure, but there's a lot of people who basically claim that the massive hormonal and genetical differences between the genders have no impact on personality, behavior and interests.
    - meheleventyone 12y ago
      The evidence from studies into testosterone suggests that those people might actually be right or at least the hormonal differences between the sexes (and between members of the same sex who suffer hormonal imbalances for whatever reason) are not as important in defining personality, behaviour and interests as folk wisdom would hold.
kristofferR 12y ago
> “I have friends who are anthropologists and primatologists and evolutionary psychologists … [who are under] an enormous amount of pressure to generate data that shows that all gender differences are cultural.” This documentary is really interesting in that regard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs It's a Norwegian documentary from 2010 about "Why do girls tend to go into empathizing professions and boys into systemizing professions? Why does the labor market become more gender segregated the more economic prosperity a country has?" A lot of the scientists interviewed didn't even bother to consider evidence that innate sex differences exists.
- pluma 12y ago
  Human sexual dimorphism? Ridiculous. Humans aren't animals. Funny how the far right and far left so often suffer from the same defects if you look close enough.

by blfr 12y ago

kijin 12y ago

The very definition of "cultural" is in dispute between the right and left wings. The right wing typically operates on a narrower definition of "cultural", which goes hand-in-hand with their emphasis on individual responsibility. The left wing operates on a much broader definition, which goes hand-in-hand with their emphasis on collective responsibility. The social sciences tend to gravitate towards the latter because who doesn't like scope creep? (The right wing, on the other hand, seems to restrict the scope of the social sciences by slicing off a large chunk of it to the biology department.) I personally prefer the idea that something can be both biological and cultural. Pretty much any change that happened to us in the last few tens of thousands of years is both biological and cultural. Unfortunately this idea doesn't seem to be popular among those with stronger ideological commitments one way or another.

fennecfoxen 12y ago

> “I have friends who are anthropologists and primatologists and evolutionary psychologists … [who are under] an enormous amount of pressure to generate data that shows that all gender differences are cultural.” You would think that, no matter what your goals for the roles of gender (or sex) in society are, you would achieve these goals best by deliberately seeking out and investigating the properties of the underlying biology (and culture) with the utmost of academic and intellectual integrity, and only afterwards pushing for the policies you prefer to realize that world. Then you would have the advantage of using a position of Enlightenment, instead of Ignorance. Maybe in a few more generations when people look back at us the way we look back on the Victorian era.

Crito 12y ago
> "You would think that, no matter what your goals for the roles of gender (or sex) in society are, you would achieve these goals best by deliberately seeking out and investigating the properties of the underlying biology (and culture) with the utmost of academic and intellectual integrity, and only afterwards pushing for the policies you prefer to realize that world." That is how it is supposed to work, but reality is never so clean. One of the best modern examples of doing it backwards (starting with a conclusion, and then working backwards from there), is so called "intelligent design"/"creation science". Many different groups and movements are guilty of it, but the ID scene is relatively unique in the lengths that they went to present themselves as legitimate scientists. See: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School...) Those nutjobs insisted that they were real scientists, despite the glaring contradictions with their nonsense and the scientific method. His comparison was rather apt.
- kijin 12y ago
  ID was nuts because it tried to present itself as a description of the past. But if you're trying to issue prescriptions for the future (i.e. what kind of world do you want to create?), there's nothing fundamentally wrong about first identifying where you want to go and then cherrypicking biological and psychological traits to manipulate in order to get there. It would be just like writing a program to get the results you want.
  - Crito 12y ago
    Descriptions of the past are not nuts. History, the legitimate peer-reviewed study of history, does the same. Evolutionary biology tells us much about the past, as does much of physics. None of that is problematic. ID was nuts because of their flawed methodology. > "But if you're trying to issue prescriptions for the future (i.e. what kind of world do you want to create?), there's nothing fundamentally wrong about first identifying where you want to go and then cherrypicking biological and psychological traits to manipulate in order to get there." Do not confuse policy forming / social engineering with science.

csours 12y ago

I have a (lefty) colleague who sincerely believes that testosterone does not significantly affect personality[0]. I understand that human history has been overwhelmingly male dominated, and that this has undesirable consequences and side effects. I think these effects and ideas should be counteracted "with prejudice"[1] to use a policing term. I don't think counteracting the horrible facts of the past should include re-writing scientific facts we now know. 0. Perhaps it is prejudice and incorrect teaching that leads me to think that testosterone has effects on personality, if so, please correct me. 1. I mean that women and men (and others) should be considered morally, politically, socially, and economically equal (and probably some others); any argument to the contrary can be discounted immediately. I personally think that men and women (and others) are "not the same" emotionally or physically, but that these differences are A GOOD THING.

meheleventyone 12y ago
The science is much less settled on the link between testosterone and personality than you think. Some interesting discussion of it here: http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/cognoculture/testosterone_and_human_aggression_or_180520 http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/cognoculture/testosteron... It's hard to tease out what behaviour is culturally learnt and what is caused by innate biological differences. Folk wisdom about testosterone is just one example. The downside is that these "biotruths" are used as justification for discrimination.
- kristofferR 12y ago
  Sure, but there's a lot of people who basically claim that the massive hormonal and genetical differences between the genders have no impact on personality, behavior and interests.
  - meheleventyone 12y ago
    The evidence from studies into testosterone suggests that those people might actually be right or at least the hormonal differences between the sexes (and between members of the same sex who suffer hormonal imbalances for whatever reason) are not as important in defining personality, behaviour and interests as folk wisdom would hold.

kristofferR 12y ago

> “I have friends who are anthropologists and primatologists and evolutionary psychologists … [who are under] an enormous amount of pressure to generate data that shows that all gender differences are cultural.” This documentary is really interesting in that regard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs It's a Norwegian documentary from 2010 about "Why do girls tend to go into empathizing professions and boys into systemizing professions? Why does the labor market become more gender segregated the more economic prosperity a country has?" A lot of the scientists interviewed didn't even bother to consider evidence that innate sex differences exists.

pluma 12y ago
Human sexual dimorphism? Ridiculous. Humans aren't animals. Funny how the far right and far left so often suffer from the same defects if you look close enough.