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

Sebudai_sl said:

Where's the society in which the traditional occupational proclivities for men and women are significantly different than they are now?

Click to expand...

Things are developing a bit differently in Africa than they did in the west.

We don't have a lot of examples, because *all* human societies have assigned women by necessity to the care of children (and the household after the development of civilization) for tens of thousands of years. It's been self-reinforcing for all of that time.

Now, I'm going to say, I don't think that these traditional gender roles with regards to occupation are abadthing across the board. I just don't think they're biologically based, and I think society loses out a little bit every time an exceptionally intelligent woman is discouraged from going into certain fields, or an exceptionally intelligent man is discouraged from certain other fields. But, lets face it, most people fall in that average range on the bell curve and are basically interchangeable, and whether they go into one field or another based on their gender doesn't really matter for society. So yeah, I think the whole Norwegian gender theory thing is bullshit just for different reasons.

Arbitrary_sl said:

Who teaches the freshly hatched turtle to seek the shore? How does the salmon know to return to its spawning ground? Who instructs the spider how to balloon?

Click to expand...

And absolutely none of those things have anything to do with sexual dimorphism in brains.

Arbitrary_sl said:

You sound positively Catholic when you take the position that biological differences between genders are a thing found only in the lesser animals.

Click to expand...

Your examples of inherited behaviors that you just listed weren't even sexually dimorphic. Freshly hatched turtles seek the shore regardless of their fucking gender.

Cad_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

What you're describing is actually exactly what I'm saying,modelling, generation after generation.

Do you seriously think those traits only get passed on to the male babies? Do you really think that's how genetics works? That somewhere tucked up on your runty Y chromosomes there's some genetic information that only gets passed on to the male babies? It's actually only the X chromosomes that get to pass gender-specific information on from the mother to child. Men do not.

But if we're talking about your runty Y chromosomes, I'll hand you a point none of you were informed enough to make. Because of your runty Ys, men display greater degrees of genetic variations at the very very extreme ends of the intelligence scales, about 4x more likely to be in the >145 IQ range and also 4x more likely to be in the <55 IQ range, most likely because you're missing a few flecks of genetic information that make women slightly more normative compared to each other. But we're talking about an extremely tiny percentage of the population here and strictly IQ, not anything that would actually affect occupational choices. There's no occupation I can think of where only >145 IQ people can apply, but if there was, there would certainly be more men in those. So yeah, there's probably always going to be more male chess grandmasters than women. But for the rest of the IQ scale, it overlaps with only the tiniest of variations for both genders.

Arbitrary_sl said:

You keep taking the position that all of our behavior is learned in society.

Click to expand...

That's not my position. I certainly did not say thatallbehavior is learned. My position is that the vast majority ofsexually divergent behaviorsare learned and reinforced through societal forces and not the result of structural dimorphism in the brain. And what structural dimorphism that DOES exist in the adult brain is the result of hormones, which are themselves influenced at least 50% by societal forces, and that those hormones vary in levels so greatly between individuals even of the same gender that they cannot possibly explain the vast differences in occupational patterns along gender lines.

fanaskin_sl said:

what's "runty" is that code for man hating?

Click to expand...

"By one estimate, the human Y chromosome has lost 1,393 of its 1,438 original genes over the course of its existence"

Runty. Degenerate would be another valid word.

You better hope that none of the important brain infos are on there.

ITT: People who don't know anything about psychology or genetics arguing about psychology and genetics.

I did not say identical. I said the differences were very small and not nearly large enough to account for the massive differences in outcomes with regard to occupational choices, and that they had to be multiplied by large, external factors in order to account for those massive differences.