Free to Be Me Childrearing

[charlou]

The proof is in the deoderent -

I fucking hate food scented body stuffs.

Simply clean, and/or fresh body secretions, thanks.

[Coito ergo sum]

The evidence points to different behaviour alright. I can't see much evidence for it being biologically determined,

So....the tendency of girls/women to be attracted to men, and boys/men to be attracted to girls is learned? It's a cultural/environmental thing? We're not "Born This Way?"

[Pappa]

The evidence points to different behaviour alright. I can't see much evidence for it being biologically determined,

So....the tendency of girls/women to be attracted to men, and boys/men to be attracted to girls is learned? It's a cultural/environmental thing? We're not "Born This Way?"

Why do you always paint it so black and white, retorting with such exaggerated remarks? That's not what Seraph said at all. Why don't you go back and re-read his post?

[Coito ergo sum]

The evidence points to different behaviour alright. I can't see much evidence for it being biologically determined,

So....the tendency of girls/women to be attracted to men, and boys/men to be attracted to girls is learned? It's a cultural/environmental thing? We're not "Born This Way?"

Why do you always paint it so black and white, retorting with such exaggerated remarks? That's not what Seraph said at all. Why don't you go back and re-read his post?

Because either some things are at least partly biologically or genetically determined, or they aren't. To that extent it is black and white.

I did read what he wrote? Did you? Apparently not.

Here is his main assertion. "The evidence points to different behaviour alright. I can't see much evidence for it being biologically determined, let alone biologically determined according to a sex divide, though. "

But there IS evidence for certain things being biologically determined.

The reason I brought up the sexual orientation item is because that is one that I thought was universally thought to be at least heavily determined by genetics. Hence the almost politically correct requirement that we are "born this way," and that sexual orientation is not something that is a function of environment or "learned."

I mean - that would at least be one example where there is a difference that we're born with.

Given the massive, incontrovertible evidence that the structures of the brain in men and women are markedly different (and I cited a lot of that evidence above), we reach the following point: men and women's brains are structurally different in many ways, and in at least one way that structural difference appears to result in men being statistically more likely to be attracted to women, and women being statistically more likely to be attracted to men, and that is at least in part determined genetically.

I also cited evidence that other aspects of the way men and women think is a function of the differing structure of the male and female brains.

What baffles me is that it seems to be supremely important to some folks to poo-poo even the possibility that men and women might be, by and large, born somewhat different, brainwise. Why is that? If it is so easy to accept that we are "born this way" relative to sexual orientation, then why is it so difficult to entertain the notion that there may be other differences as well?

[Pappa]

The evidence points to different behaviour alright. I can't see much evidence for it being biologically determined,

So....the tendency of girls/women to be attracted to men, and boys/men to be attracted to girls is learned? It's a cultural/environmental thing? We're not "Born This Way?"

Why do you always paint it so black and white, retorting with such exaggerated remarks? That's not what Seraph said at all. Why don't you go back and re-read his post?

Because either some things are at least partly biologically or genetically determined, or they aren't. To that extent it is black and white.

I did read what he wrote? Did you? Apparently not.

Here is his main assertion. "The evidence points to different behaviour alright. I can't see much evidence for it being biologically determined, let alone biologically determined according to a sex divide, though. "

But there IS evidence for certain things being biologically determined.

The reason I brought up the sexual orientation item is because that is one that I thought was universally thought to be at least heavily determined by genetics. Hence the almost politically correct requirement that we are "born this way," and that sexual orientation is not something that is a function of environment or "learned."

I mean - that would at least be one example where there is a difference that we're born with.

Given the massive, incontrovertible evidence that the structures of the brain in men and women are markedly different (and I cited a lot of that evidence above), we reach the following point: men and women's brains are structurally different in many ways, and in at least one way that structural difference appears to result in men being statistically more likely to be attracted to women, and women being statistically more likely to be attracted to men, and that is at least in part determined genetically.

I also cited evidence that other aspects of the way men and women think is a function of the differing structure of the male and female brains.

What baffles me is that it seems to be supremely important to some folks to poo-poo even the possibility that men and women might be, by and large, born somewhat different, brainwise. Why is that? If it is so easy to accept that we are "born this way" relative to sexual orientation, then why is it so difficult to entertain the notion that there may be other differences as well?

No really, you don't get it. Nobody has been poo-pooing the possibility that men and women might be different, they've just been saying that the evidence for specific differences is slight and often inconclusive. Sometimes differences are more marked across all persons in a study than between the sexes. Also nobody has said that sexual orientation isn't mostly due to genetics, so you using it as an example has just been a strawman.

[Hermit]

No really, you don't get it. Nobody has been poo-pooing the possibility that men and women might be different, they've just been saying that the evidence for specific differences is slight and often inconclusive. Sometimes differences are more marked across all persons in a study than between the sexes. Also nobody has said that sexual orientation isn't mostly due to genetics, so you using it as an example has just been a strawman.

Strawman indeed. Coito keeps conflating biological differences with social behaviour, so the meaning of what I said simply has not sunk in: "While there are pretty obvious differences between males and females on the biological level that are demonstrably genetic, most differences of behaviour along sex lines have not yet been shown to be rooted in genes. There definitely seems to be a correlation between hormone levels of testosterone and oestrogen and behavioural tendencies, but an aversion to get dirty or a liking to be showered with jewelery are not therefore genetic. Sexual attraction, by the way, is not in itself a form of behaviour."

[JimC]

No really, you don't get it. Nobody has been poo-pooing the possibility that men and women might be different, they've just been saying that the evidence for specific differences is slight and often inconclusive. Sometimes differences are more marked across all persons in a study than between the sexes. Also nobody has said that sexual orientation isn't mostly due to genetics, so you using it as an example has just been a strawman.

Strawman indeed. Coito keeps conflating biological differences with social behaviour, so the meaning of what I said simply has not sunk in: "While there are pretty obvious differences between males and females on the biological level that are demonstrably genetic, most differences of behaviour along sex lines have not yet been shown to be rooted in genes. There definitely seems to be a correlation between hormone levels of testosterone and oestrogen and behavioural tendencies, but an aversion to get dirty or a liking to be showered with jewelery are not therefore genetic. Sexual attraction, by the way, is not in itself a form of behaviour."

I would contend that many, if not most aspects of sexual attraction, or at least the way it is manifest in a given human, fall clearly under the heading of human behaviour, and that there are significant, real differences (on average) between males and females in this regard. As in all behaviours, there is usually a significant overlay of culturally determined factors. The genetic basis for tendencies towards homosexual behaviour also seem to be established, given reports I have read from various sources.

Overall, I think some populist evolutionary psychologists have overstated the case for genetic influence on behaviour, particularly in gender-specific areas, but that doesn't mean that they are of minor importance.

[Hermit]

I would contend that many, if not most aspects of sexual attraction, or at least the way it is manifest in a given human, fall clearly under the heading of human behaviour...

Sexual attraction is predominantly genetic, yes. Behaviour arising from it is predominantly social. My comments are in response to claims that women's liking for being given diamonds and their dislike of getting dirty is mostly a matter of genetics.

[JimC]

I would contend that many, if not most aspects of sexual attraction, or at least the way it is manifest in a given human, fall clearly under the heading of human behaviour...

Sexual attraction is predominantly genetic, yes. Behaviour arising from it is predominantly social. My comments are in response to claims that women's liking for being given diamonds and their dislike of getting dirty is mostly a matter of genetics.

Behaviour is behaviour; the causal strands leading to a particular example will often involve a genetic and a cultural component, although some behaviours may almost entirely derive from one or the other. For example, a reflex motion of withdrawing one's hand from extreme pain is clearly an imperative from our genes; typing words in this post derives from culture (although culture imposed on a background of genetically derived hominid smarts and co-ordination)

I agree that using genetics to make claims about dirt, diamonds and women is extrapolating beyond what is wise.

[charlou]

I agree that using genetics to make claims about dirt, diamonds and women is extrapolating beyond what is factual.

[Geoff]

Do women want to ride the motorbikes and get dirty? In my experience, they don't.

I brought my two (one girl, one boy, now in their early 20's) up pretty equally, I think - both did tree climbing, biking, cooking, cleaning, painting, whatever, and both still enjoy activities traditionally ascribed to the opposite sex, though both are firmly heterosexual (so far).

My daughter (driving) and her best friend...

08octvacation evil bikers in turkey.jpg (40.06 KiB) Viewed 1169 times

[charlou]

Love it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Do women want to ride the motorbikes and get dirty? In my experience, they don't.

I brought my two (one girl, one boy, now in their early 20's) up pretty equally, I think - both did tree climbing, biking, cooking, cleaning, painting, whatever, and both still enjoy activities traditionally ascribed to the opposite sex, though both are firmly heterosexual (so far).

My daughter (driving) and her best friend...

08octvacation evil bikers in turkey.jpg

The question was generally speaking. About 90% of motorcycles in the US are owned by men. One would think if women wanted to ride motorcycles as much as men, that the percentage of motorcycles owned by women would reflect the fact that they are about 51% of the population.

[charlou]

Do women want to ride the motorbikes and get dirty? In my experience, they don't.

I brought my two (one girl, one boy, now in their early 20's) up pretty equally, I think - both did tree climbing, biking, cooking, cleaning, painting, whatever, and both still enjoy activities traditionally ascribed to the opposite sex, though both are firmly heterosexual (so far).

My daughter (driving) and her best friend...

08octvacation evil bikers in turkey.jpg

The question was generally speaking. About 90% of motorcycles in the US are owned by men. One would think if women wanted to ride motorcycles as much as men, that the percentage of motorcycles owned by women would reflect the fact that they are about 51% of the population.

WTF does that have to do with genetics?

[Coito ergo sum]

I agree that using genetics to make claims about dirt, diamonds and women is extrapolating beyond what is factual.

About women? Well, certainly generalizations can be made about women and men, and there is evidence which I have cited that suggest that the male and female brains are structurally different, leading to different ways of thinking and different ways of processing emotions. It's not too much of a logical leap to entertain the notion that these evident differences can result in different generalized behavioral tendencies, temperaments, predilections, etc.

As for specifics, like dirt and diamonds, I don't recall that that anyone made the genetic claim with respect to those two things. I certainly made the claim that it did not appear that women wanted to ride motorcycles and get dirty as much as men. That may well be environmentally caused, but it does appear to be true. After all, 90% of motorcycles are owned by men, so it would seem to be not unreasonable to conclude that women tend not to want motorcycles as much as men. The same can be said about men and make-up. The numbers are so disparate that whatever the cause, it does appear that men tend not to care as much about wearing make-up as women. I'm sure someone can post a picture of a man wearing make-up, of course. However, anecdotes don't counter the numbers.

As for diamonds, it is certainly a legitimate question to ask whether there is a genetic reason for women to be so overwhelmingly fond of diamonds, far more than men are. I haven't seen any studies on the subject, but it is an interesting question.

I did find a study on the fact that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder.

Newborn babies prefer to look at attractive faces, says a UK researcher, suggesting that face recognition is hardwired at birth, rather than learned.

Alan Slater and his colleagues at the University of Exeter showed paired images of faces to babies as young a one day old and found that they spent more time fixated on the more attractive face.

"Attractiveness is not in the eye of the beholder, it's innate to a newborn infant," says Slater.....


Almost all the babies spent more time looking at the more attractive face than the less attractive one, says Slater

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6 ... faces.html

Now, there wasn't a sex based distinction in that study, but what that study does tell us is that a preference for something CAN be genetic or "innate" and we CAN be "born with" a preference for something rather than another thing (attractive things rather than unattractive things). Given the evident structural differences between men and women's brains, it's not too much of a leap that the explanation for why men prefer doing things LIKE riding motorcycles more than women, and women prefer doing things like wearing make-up or wearing jewelry more than men, might well be a function of the structures of the brain.