Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,018
47,105
They do develop along slightly different lines due to hormones, but hormones are highly influenced by external forces
Does being influenced by external forces somehow make them not differentiate the brain/bodies of humans? Why do you keep repeating that as if it makes them ineffective?
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,887
138,036
Does being influenced by external forces somehow make them not differentiate the brain/bodies of humans? Why do you keep repeating that as if it makes them ineffective?
cause she's confusing what is possible vs what is probable
 

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
28,242
75,980
why can't small differences lead to large discrepancies in complex systems?
Look, we really think we've got something here when it comes to women not going into engineering and we are going to bring this up over and over and over again as proof of something something.
 

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,862
23,128
why can't small differences lead to large discrepancies in complex systems?
They can. But the complex system we're looking at is the occupational patterns, not the brain. So yes, very very small differences in brain are multiplied by very very powerful sociological forces to create the occupational patterns we see. You guys are making my point for me.
 

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,862
23,128
Look, we really think we've got something here when it comes to women not going into engineering and we are going to bring this up over and over and over again as proof of something something.
There's absolutely no significant differences in mathematical ability between girls and boys. This is both scientifically provable and provable by sheer data. So it has to be societal forces.
 

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
28,242
75,980
You are trying to use "small differences" to also include small outcomes from those differences and then blaming everything else on society.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,887
138,036
They can. But the complex system we're looking at is the occupational patterns, not the brain. So yes, very very small differences in brain are multiplied by very very powerful sociological forces to create the occupational patterns we see. You guys are making my point for me.
we'll that's one way to twist my point which is that small biological differences in complex systems like the brain can lead to largely different outcomes of attitudes of individuals. you can remove the "very very powerful sociological forces" which is meaningless since we have this thing called history and a myriad historical examples of different societies that have different "very very powerful sociological forces"

occam's razor that shit
 

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
So again, where's the society where the majority of engineers were women and the majority of nurses were men?
 

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
28,242
75,980
There's absolutely no significant differences in mathematical ability between girls and boys. This is both scientifically provable and provable by sheer data. So it has to be societal forces.
Where as entering a highly competitive field with substantial monetary rewards may be massively advantageous for a male when it comes to passing on one's genes the exact opposite is true for a woman. The women throughout history that were of that mindset were just less likely to sire a bunch of successful offspring and have their genes passed on. The highly competitive males that took risks (and got paid on them) were able to sire piles of children.

The dude going into Engineering so he can buy a sports car and a fancy house so he can bang lots of women isn't doing what he does for reasons any different than why the peacock is dancing around with his pretty feathers.
 

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,862
23,128
Where as entering a highly competitive field with substantial monetary rewards may be massively advantageous for a male when it comes to passing on one's genes the exact opposite is true for a woman. The women throughout history that were of that mindset were just less likely to sire a bunch of successful offspring and have their genes passed on. The highly competitive males that took risks (and got paid on them) were able to sire piles of children.

The dude going into Engineering so he can buy a sports car and a fancy house so he can bang lots of women isn't doing what he does for reasons any different than why the peacock is dancing around with his pretty feathers.
So you agree that it's sociological and not biological. Glad we're on the same page. Thanks.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,887
138,036
So you agree that it's sociological and not biological. Glad we're on the same page. Thanks.
so there's no such thing as biological evolution then? you sound like one of those "professors" that claimed disease was a social construct.
 

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
28,242
75,980
The decisions we make today are molded by the decisions of our successful ancestors and the traits that they passed on to us.

But I can understand why you find such an idea disturbing. The knowledge that your little cunty habits and mannerisms won't be passed on to a new generation of women, that as far as the species of mankind is concerned you will prove to be nothing more than an anomalous and irrelevant blip no more important to your species than an aborted goat, might keep you awake at night.
 

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,862
23,128
The decisions we make today are molded by the decisions of our successful ancestors and the traits that they passed on to us.

But I can understand why you find such an idea disturbing. The knowledge that your little cunty habits and mannerisms won't be passed on to a new generation of women, that as far as the species of mankind is concerned you will prove to be nothing more than an anomalous and irrelevant blip no more important to your species than an aborted goat, might keep you awake at night.
Lost argument on basically every level, including lacking a high school level understanding of the difference between DNA and genes; resorts to ad hominem.

EDIT: You're also still confusing learned behavior with genetic traits.
 

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
Where's the society in which the traditional occupational proclivities for men and women are significantly different than they are now?
 

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
28,242
75,980
Oh man, I know that playbook.

Tanoomba! Did you hack Mist's account? YOU AREN'T OVER AT HER PLACE ARE YOU

Our genetics impact out behavior. The traits that successful males passed on and the traits that successful females passed on are not the same. Men and women are not the same. If we were the same we probably would have died out at the start. There isn't anything negative about being different.

Unless you have some ridiculous agenda that you are trying to advance but that would be silly.
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,018
47,105
So you agree that it's sociological and not biological. Glad we're on the same page. Thanks.
Mist, I think what he's describing is the biological basis for the way males choose jobs/careers/activities vs. the way females do. Males tend to be driven to pick those kind of jobs because our ancestors were more successful like that, so those traits got passed on.

But just curious - what do you actually consider biological? You're basically saying everything we do is sociological, which is okay I don't really have any problem with that, but I'm wondering what your criteria is so we can talk with equivalent terms.