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

Quaid · Jul 21, 2014

I'm just not sure how you can discount the significance of evolution and survival in the development of gender division, especially in species who live in groups. Male humans are physically stronger, and have developed roles that exploit this reality. Female lions are physically faster, and have developed their own roles that best serve the group. They have been adopted and refined through evolution. If anything, current human societal trends lean towards suppressing these strengths. For example, lowering minimal physical standards for certain fields to allow women entry, despite limitations of their biology. Sure, maybe it's wrong that women couldn't be firefighters without these changes, but making them has certainly cost our society some efficiency. We have the luxury of being top of the food chain now, though. Since that isn't changing any time soon, I guess it doesn't really matter.

It's about energy efficiency. It's basic and primal.

Palum · Jul 21, 2014

The real, brutal irony of the last 40 pages is that Mist exemplifies everything that does not work with sociology and their social engineering - and why the entire gender studies debacle is a huge misapplication of thought and resources.

Instead of putting their fingers in their ears and pretending that biological preference does not exist (fueled by rage driven fake science), gender studies people should be embracing those differences and creating change by modifying what can be controlled in society. For instance, instead of whining and moaning about how sexism and sexist policies MUST be keeping women out of science and engineering without any concrete proof and furiously creating new outlandish theories, they should be recognizing that social interaction and empathy need to be introduced and/or emphasized in those professions in order to attract more women.

Lendarios · Jul 21, 2014

Mist_sl said:
Where is the DIRECT evidence of biologically driven gender roles? It does not exist anywhere. Whereas I can show decades of direct evidence that you can condition anyone to do just about anything you want, so long as you've got the time and you setup the right incentives. And, you know, absolutely no morals and no institutional oversight.

Roles are a consequence of efficiency. Look at the role of a fighter. It it common sense that males are way way better than females, however u want to slice it, a male will win against a female on a fight.
now why are males better? Because of a clear biological advantage, we produce more testosterone, we have more muscle, we are more aggressive.

Now can u please concede that some roles are genetically predisposed?
Now go ahead and move the goal posts.

Araysar · Jul 21, 2014

Palum_sl said:
The real, brutal irony of the last 40 pages is that Mist exemplifies everything that does not work with sociology and their social engineering - and why the entire gender studies debacle is a huge misapplication of thought and resources.

Instead of putting their fingers in their ears and pretending that biological preference does not exist (fueled by rage driven fake science), gender studies people should be embracing those differences and creating change by modifying what can be controlled in society. For instance, instead of whining and moaning about how sexism and sexist policies MUST be keeping women out of science and engineering without any concrete proof and furiously creating new outlandish theories, they should be recognizing that social interaction and empathy need to be introduced and/or emphasized in those professions in order to attract more women.

why would we want to attract more women to science? Just look at Mist the Scientist

Araysar · Jul 21, 2014

Palum_sl said:
The real, brutal irony of the last 40 pages is that Mist exemplifies everything that does not work with sociology and their social engineering - and why the entire gender studies debacle is a huge misapplication of thought and resources.

Instead of putting their fingers in their ears and pretending that biological preference does not exist (fueled by rage driven fake science), gender studies people should be embracing those differences and creating change by modifying what can be controlled in society. For instance, instead of whining and moaning about how sexism and sexist policies MUST be keeping women out of science and engineering without any concrete proof and furiously creating new outlandish theories, they should be recognizing that social interaction and empathy need to be introduced and/or emphasized in those professions in order to attract more women.

why would we want to attract more women to science? Just look at Mist the Scientist

iannis · Jul 22, 2014

Arbitrary_sl said:
Does anyone want to take the position that human beingsarerational?

I can't even craft a credible devils argument. I can't even begin to craft one.

Not at any level. Personal. Interpersonal. Societal.

White is Black. Hate is Love. Slavery is Freedom.

Mist · Jul 22, 2014

Arbitrary_sl said:
Does anyone want to take the position that human beingsarerational?

We've gotten this far alright. It can't just be all momentum and biology. Something's going on in that meatsack we call a brain. Well, for some of us.

Mist · Jul 22, 2014

Palum_sl said:
sexism and sexist policies MUST be keeping women out of science and engineering

Never once said that. Again constructing strawmen to easily attack. Might want to do something better with your time, because you fucking suck at constructing a logical argument.

Mist · Jul 22, 2014

lendarios_sl said:
Roles are a consequence of efficiency. Look at the role of a fighter. It it common sense that males are way way better than females, however u want to slice it, a male will win against a female on a fight.
now why are males better? Because of a clear biological advantage, we produce more testosterone, we have more muscle, we are more aggressive.

Now can u please concede that some roles are genetically predisposed?
Now go ahead and move the goal posts.

Again, we're not talking about physical tasks. If we were talking about the efficiency of physical tasks, there would be more male nurses and more female computer programmers, because being a nurse requires a whole lot more physical work than being a computer programmer.

We're talking about occupational choices that revolve around forebrain function. What absolutely no one has demonstrated is what the mechanism is that links biologically driven desires with purely intellectual occupations.

Lejina · Jul 22, 2014

Mist_sl said:
What? Seriously, what?

Well, then enlighten me. I honestly don't know of any scientific theory in soft science. I'm genuinely curious.

My expertise is in microbiology, genetics and electronic (specifically radar and radio). The theories I'm akin with tend to have pretty practical applications and are backed by equally physical experimentation. I do like some sociology, but the whole thing never struck me as the sort of science that could result with solid theories.

Cad · Jul 22, 2014

Mist_sl said:
Again, we're not talking about physical tasks. If we were talking about the efficiency of physical tasks, there would be more male nurses and more female computer programmers, because being a nurse requires a whole lot more physical work than being a computer programmer.

We're talking about occupational choices that revolve around forebrain function. What absolutely no one has demonstrated is what the mechanism is that links biologically driven desires with purely intellectual occupations.

Like two of the papers I linked were about exactly this but you dismissed them out of hand.

Jive Turkey · Jul 22, 2014

Mist, what are your thoughts on the biological predisposition to crime and violence? What about the predisposition to thrill seeking and risky behaviour? Certainly those are all what you would classify as higher brain function activities

Jive Turkey · Jul 22, 2014

Mist_sl said:
And yes, you can definitely condition someone to stop eating all the way down to extremely unhealthy levels of not-eating. We do it to professional models all the fucking time, and all it takes is fleeting fame within the insular modelling culture and not-even-a-lot-of-money.

I just noticed this cheap attempt to claim a point. If you think professional models have been conditioned in anyway, you've lost it. There's a huge difference between the kind of conditioning you were talking about and "maintain this weight and you'll keep your job". Or are you claiming we've all been conditioned to try and keep our jobs?
and I work with them on a weekly basis. It's not the nefarious industry you'd like to imagine it to be.

fanaskin · Jul 22, 2014

Mist_sl said:
The problem is that no university IRB will give you approval to do these kinds of experiments because they're unethical. So in order to get any information about them you have to start digging into Lumie-lizardman territory.

There's the very oldLittle Albert experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediathat every psych undergrad gets shown where they condition little baby 1 year old Albert, who at first loved petting little white lab rats, to eventually be fearful of the white lab rats and eventually to be distressed by all fuzzy objects by repeatedly scaring the fuck out of him with extremely loud clanging noises every time he tried to pet the rat. But that's classical conditioning, not operant conditiong.

try as they did they couldn't scare this monkey to cling to the abhorrent looking construct that offered food vs the fuzzy looking motherly construct that didn't offer food.

Tanoomba · Jul 22, 2014

Cad_sl said:
Eh I think it's a little more nuanced than all that. I think the biological differences are more of a factor than you're making out. I would however tend to agree that social factors are a greater factor than biology. I think the point is, the social factors arise from the differences that biology makes clear. One springs from the other. They are interrelated and inextricable.

Thanks for yet another example of arguing based on "feels". Biological differences are more of a factor because youfeelthey are. Social factors and biological differences are interrelated and inextricable because youfeelthey are. Nicely done.

fanaskin_sl said:
If we could overcome our innate biological framework completely PTSD would never exist.

There's limits and tendencies and no amount of social mysticism will change that, there's an innate biological structure to every creature and every aspect of every creature on the planet except the mystical human mind apparently.

Nothing mystical about it. I mean, I guess it wouldseemmystical if you don't understand how the brain works, but we've actually been able to explain very well, through repeatable experiments and observations, how our external influences shape the development of our brains and ultimately dictate how we behave. On the other hand, youfeelthat biology must be playing a stronger role than modern science is giving it credit for. If I have to choose between a scientifically sound explanation and Fanaskin's "feels", you'll forgive me for sticking with the former.

Lendarios · Jul 22, 2014

Mist_sl said:
Again, we're not talking about physical tasks. If we were talking about the efficiency of physical tasks, there would be more male nurses and more female computer programmers, because being a nurse requires a whole lot more physical work than being a computer programmer.

We're talking about occupational choices that revolve around forebrain function. What absolutely no one has demonstrated is what the mechanism is that links biologically driven desires with purely intellectual occupations.

Jobs are physical tasks. Every single job in the world requires physical tasks. Talk about moving the goal post. Now physical jobs are not representatives of gender differences at DNA levels? Seriously mist, pick an argument and stick to it. You keep jumping whenever someone findsevidenceagainst your point.

You want to talk about "purely intellectual occupations", lets ask you, what is a purely intellectual occupation because Engineering, is NOT one of those!!
Also you are basing your "purely intellectual occupations" argument on the exceptions, yes, the "purely intellectual occupations" are the exception in terms of the amount of societal roles(jobs) there are.

There are 2.1 million soldiers in the USA, and 7.2 million million of teachers, and around 3.5 million nurses. Pick the job where there is more abundant data, Stop cherry picking data.

Lendarios · Jul 22, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
Thanks for yet another example of arguing based on "feels". Biological differences are more of a factor because youfeelthey are. Social factors and biological differences are interrelated and inextricable because youfeelthey are. Nicely done.

Nothing mystical about it. I mean, I guess it wouldseemmystical if you don't understand how the brain works, but we've actually been able to explain very well, through repeatable experiments and observations, how our external influences shape the development of our brains and ultimately dictate how we behave. On the other hand, youfeelthat biology must be playing a stronger role than modern science is giving it credit for. If I have to choose between a scientifically sound explanation and Fanaskin's "feels", you'll forgive me for sticking with the former.

Tanootard, explain why are men better fighters than females. In one word.

biology

Quaid · Jul 22, 2014

Edit: decided not to troll. Too lazy.

Tanoomba · Jul 22, 2014

Jive Turkey_sl said:
Looks like I've got a lot to catch up on, but I just want to point out to tanooba, that if you're looking for an instinct to claim doesn't affect us anymore, hunger might be the last goddamn one you should go after. Not only is it still clearly a driving force, but it's one of the few with an actual physiological result if you ignore it. Stop eating for half a day and, apart from a general feeling of "hunger", you'll start to get abdominal pain. The instinct is so engrained in us that obesity is an epidemic in the developed world. Because, guess what? If we were still roaming around on the plains of Africa, those fatties would be the clear winners. The rest of us who aren't fat have to often make a conscious effort to counteract that instinct to consume by staying active and eating less, more nutritious foods (The fact that this is a conscious decision is not conceding a point, because the instinct is still STRONG). That choice is usually driven by the instinct to be attractive and find a mate.

By your ill-conceived hypothesis, leave an adult with complete amnesia to their own devices and they'd starve to death

Wow, I don't remember the last time anyone missed a point by so wide a margin, peppered with several inaccurate assumptions to boot! Well done.

We live in a developed society and, presumably, all of us have regular incomes. We accommodate for our hunger on a daily basis. We plan for it every time we do groceries, prepare meals, save our leftovers, go out for dinner, etc. Yes, one of the reasons we have to be productive members of society is so we can put "food on the table". Yes, our need to eat is not something that can be ignored. But see, unlike primitive man, our hunger is not what pushes us into action. For primitive man, feeling hunger meant "get off your ass and find some food or you will soon die". For us eating is just a biological function that we take for granted as we are easily able to accommodate for it as part of our daily routine. We eat because we're hungry but we choose when we eat, what we eat, how much we eat, and how often we eat because we live in a society that allows us that degree of freedom in accommodating this biological requirement. Hunger is no longer a "driving force" behind our decision-making any more than taking a shit is. None of us have to worry about where our next meal is coming from, so the fact that we get hungry and need food to survive (as vitally important as that is biologically) is actually not at all important when it comes to the important decisions we make about how we live our lives.

Also, the fact that you're claiming obesity is a result of people giving in to their instincts is ridiculous and based on nothing but your "feels". And no, today's fatties wouldn't be the "winners" in the plains of Africa. See, the plains of Africa don't have McDonald's, and the fatties that have been riding the gravy train would learn very quickly that living on the plains of Africa doesn't accommodate that lifestyle, a lifestyle that developed and was allowed to flourish by itsenvironment.

Tanoomba · Jul 22, 2014

Rhinohelix_sl said:
What she is saying is that girls' tendency to choose careers which emphasize empathy and care-giving while boys choose fields that emphasize logic and risk-taking is completely socially constructed without any basis in biology. Girls liking dolls and boys liking guns are simply outgrowths of our pre-existing (and patriarchal) conceptualization of gender roles, and continued socialization pressures result in teaching and nursing being dominated by females while (good) fields such as engineering and maths are dominated by males.

An argument, which, of course, completely omits that those social roles developed along those lines as a result of a successful division of labor that was itself driven and reinforced by evolutionary biology.

Actually, that argument "omits" nothing of the sort. Even though there are biological reasons the genders have evolved to behave certain ways, those biological forces are currently all but meaningless compared to the effects of the environment on a developing brain. All anyone has done to claim otherwise was cite "feels", whereas there is a tremendous amount of science that shows this to be true.

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

Trump's Staff

what Suineg set it to

Trump's Staff

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Musty Nester

REEEEeyore

REEEEeyore

REEEEeyore

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

scientia potentia est

Karen

Karen

Well known agitator

ジョーディーすれいやー

Trump's Staff

Trump's Staff

Trump's Staff

ジョーディーすれいやー

ジョーディーすれいやー