About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 100

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 4:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
True enough
Glad to provide you with something "true enough" for your tastes. But that might imply that what I said wasn't completely true. If so, what wasn't true about it?

Post 101

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 4:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr




(edit - that purr was meant for MSK, not Dean.... I like it when my man keeps me in line)

(Edited by katdaddy on 1/03, 5:38am)


Post 102

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 7:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah & Michael N,

Ed:
Informed reasons for statistical differences – that is my quest here.

Sarah:
So what you're saying is, you want to see the spirits of women everywhere crushed under the collective boot of male domination?

Michael N.
Ed, what weird posts. Perhaps I can match that.

I have a friend who believes that the more uptight a man is the smaller his...


Post 103

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 7:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,
Until you collect the data, and until I see your data collecting methods and the data myself, I'm not going to consider these claims as having any merit.

As to claims of the fact of statistical difference, don't posts 81 & 82 suffice?

As to claims of understanding, I admit to have here only made conjecture -- and not even bold conjecture. It strikes me that the mere exploration seems taboo to many. It strikes me as something postmodern. If no difference had been admitted as evidence (e.g. 81 & 82), then my trap would be shut. It seems odd that after evidence is on the table, others would like discussion to stop (or to be more superficial).

Ed


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 104

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 8:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK wrote:

That's a lot of effort you are expending to explain women
Michael, you may be joking, but your statement presumes that men don't need to be explained -- but the phenomena of "woman-hood" does. The issue -- and since this is the 4th or 5th time I've stated this, perhaps it will sink in -- is explaining the statistical difference between genders. Why the difference?

If you go back and replace "women" with "men" in the quotes above, then around half of them would seem absurd. Why is that?

Ed


Post 105

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 9:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,
Why the difference?
Are your really so PC as to think that the only difference between men and women would be genitals, breasts and breeding capacity?

The human organism is a wonderfully complex integration of many biological systems, so the differences needed in these systems just for the reproduction requirements alone would account for much, including impacts on hormone production, differences in parts of the brain, average size and so forth.

Anyway, is your "why" question asked in a scientific context, meaning, which parts are different between men and women and where? Or in a philosophical context, meaning the why of everything - including the existence of two sexes? (In this case, the only proper answer is, "Because that's the way it is.")

Michael


Post 106

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 9:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK:

Or in a philosophical context, meaning the why of everything - including the existence of two sexes? (In this case, the only proper answer is, "Because that's the way it is.")


Wait a moment... the existence of two sexes is not a "brute fact", but is something that is amenable to scientific research. There are reasons that this is a good strategy from an evolutionary point of view. I'm too lazy to look up the references now, however...



Post 107

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 12:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK,

Are your really so PC as to think that the only difference between men and women would be genitals, breasts and breeding capacity?
Nope. Heck, I'm not PC at all. Could give a hoot about being PC. Cater to the passively-absorbed sensitivities of the public-at-large? Forget about it. Not THIS truth-seeker. Not THIS understander.

The human organism is a wonderfully complex integration of many biological systems, so the differences needed in these systems just for the reproduction requirements alone would account for much, including impacts on hormone production, differences in parts of the brain ...
Yup, agreed. That was what my posts 81 & 82 were all about.

Anyway, is your "why" question asked in a scientific context, meaning, which parts are different between men and women and where? Or in a philosophical context, meaning the why of everything - including the existence of two sexes?
I'd say that a scientific "why" is actually a knowledge "how" (e.g. what mechanism drives this?) -- and a philosophic "why" is an understanding "why." To tell you the truth, I'm interested in both questions, though not quite sure that both could ever be adequately answered.

An example scientific inference from relatively larger brain-bridges in women seems to go far in explaining a relatively-superior ability to multi-task in women, as compared to men.

An example philosophic (teleological, evolutionary, naturalistic) explanation of improved mathematical or spatial skills in males, might be the elevated importance of the hit-or-miss factor in hunting. Hunts might last over a week, and may only produce sporadic results. This places extremely high genetic pressure on a male's ability to get the number of animals (predatory or prey) right -- and to guage the distance, angle of approach/escape, etc.

You may say that I'm being "scientific" with this last explanation, because I brought up evolution. This is not true, though. When scientists talk about findings (when they relate findings to larger conceptual schemes), then they are talking as philosophers -- not scientists.

Ed


Post 108

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 12:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Brain May 'Hard-Wire' Sexuality Before Birth":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031022062408.htm

"Men And Women Differ In Brain Use During Same Tasks":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051201165615.htm

Post 109

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 5:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:
I'd say that a scientific "why" is actually a knowledge "how" (e.g. what mechanism drives this?) -- and a philosophic "why" is an understanding "why." To tell you the truth, I'm interested in both questions, though not quite sure that both could ever be adequately answered.

The only meaningful "why" questions are scientific "why" questions. In science (more general: in real life) there is in fact no difference between "how" and "why". Every "why" question is ultimately a "how" question. We can do an experiment, for example measure the speed of a falling object or the force exerted by an extended spring and conclude that it can be described by some simple relationship (distance proportional to the time squared, force proportional to the extension). Many people would call this result a simple fact, but it is of course a theory, a model of the real world. We could easily come up with thousands of different theories that can explain the observed data. Here Occam's razor is of course a useful instrument to make everything as simple as possible but not simpler (to use Einstein's words). If we now ask why this theory works, we're in fact looking for a more encompassing theory, of which our first, simple theory is a subset, a necessary consequence. If we find such a theory, we now have the feeling that we have gained more understanding of what we observe, but we've in fact only replaced a relatively simple and specific theory by a more general, "deeper" theory. Of course we can ask now why this theory works, and so on, until we arrive at some TOE. So all our "why" questions lead to trying to find increasingly more general theories that can explain our data.

Now we might perhaps think that the only "real facts" are the data that we measured. But these are of course also based on theories of the measurement process. The same is true for every fact in daily life. Some theories are so strongly confirmed that we simply forget that they are theories, they are just too obvious. The fact that we can't walk through a wall is a theory, albeit a theory with very solid evidence. Theories that are so strongly confirmed are called facts, theories which still have to be confirmed (or rejected) are hypotheses. For example, sometimes people make a distinction between the fact of evolution (species evolving in the course of time, as indicated by the fossil evidence), and the theory of evolution (evolution as the result of random mutation and natural selection). But both are of course theories, as the step from finding fossils to the interpretation of that find is also a theory. The evidence for that theory is so extremely strong that we call it a fact, while the evidence for the "theory" of evolution is "only" very good (in fact so good that I wouldn't object to calling it also a fact). So every meaningful "why" question is ultimately a scientific question, looking for a theory that can describe our data in a "meaningful" (i.e. without too many ad hoc hypotheses) way our data. Philosophical "why" questions that can't be answered by science may perhaps fulfill a psychological need, but they have no real meaning.

Post 110

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 5:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cal,

In science (more general: in real life) there is in fact no difference between "how" and "why". Every "why" question is ultimately a "how" question. We can do an experiment, for example ... 
"Why" even do an experiment, Cal? Is the answer to this question scientific, or philosophical?

Ed


Post 111

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 12:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

"Why" even do an experiment, Cal? Is the answer to this question scientific, or philosophical?


There are "why is" questions and "why should" questions, or descriptive, empirical questions and prescriptive questions. I thought it was obvious that implicitly was assumed that the "why" questions in this discussion are of the first kind, not of the "why should" kind, as your quoted question seems to be. The question "why do people do experiments" is a scientific question, however, that can be answered by the history and sociology of science.

Post 112

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 10:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cats & dogs, flowers & tools. Cats have the attitude, "we can be friends, if you'll come to me". Dogs have the attitude, "I'm here, so lets be friends". Flowers are attractive. Tools are for action, to change things.

Going back to the theme of "liberal" cultural subversion/perversion, it seems like the corrupt top cultural/corporate/media leadership wants middle-level female, passive, non-competitive leadership to passivate lower-level male competition.

But it can hardly be denied the media promotes effiminate males and masculine, dominating female identities. Their is no doubt more than my personal prejudice here.

Scott

Post 113

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 7:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott, yep, it seems like the majority wants to think men and women are the same, and wants to pressure them to be the same too.

Post 114

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 8:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And it really seems like what we've got here is the good ol' bifurcated gender complete with rules 'n regulations. Why is it evil to emasculate men but alright to masculinize women (with the alternative being relegated to man-worshiping)?

Sarah

Post 115

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 8:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah, I'd say that its evil to do it to both men and women, what a waste of time! : )

Edit: completely changed this post since I misunderstood Sarah's Post #114, and didn't want to waste the vertical scrolling space.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 1/04, 9:09pm)


Post 116

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 8:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I didn't say everyone, and I wasn't really replying to your post [edit: but the whole thread]... just observing to no one in general.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 1/04, 8:29pm)


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 117

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 5:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am finding this discussion about what people mean by masculinity and femininity puzzling.  Some of the traits traditionally associated with each gender can serve anyone of any gender or orientation well in some times and poorly in others.

There are times to compete and times to cooperate.

There are times to suppress emotions and times to express them.

There are times to act assertively and times to remain passive.

All of these behaviors can fall under one's own control via reason.  Reason can inform us about how to behave in these manners and more importantly why we should do so.  Focusing on the benefit in context needs to drive our behavior selection.

I would like to have the widest possible pallet of emotions and actions from which to paint the canvas of my life for maximum long-range flourishing.


Post 118

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 5:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I thought this thread was about romance.  Dammit how am I supposed to make matches in this type of environment.  Where is the love?  Sure men and women are wired differently, but you boys ain't passing around enough compliments, flowers and chocolate to even get out the door.  C'mon people... Love, not biology!

Kat
underemployed matchmaker


Post 119

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 10:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well said, Luke.

Kat,

Sure men and women are wired differently, but you boys ain't passing around enough compliments, flowers and chocolate to even get out the door.
Kat, you're going to kill me for this but -- why is it that, statistically, women love it when men buy them flowers? I'm trying to understand. Maybe folks'll say "don't try to understand, brother, go with the flow!" But, but, but what if I REALLY like it when I understand things? What am I to do then? [blank out]

I already understand chocolate (the phenylethylamine from chocolate chemically mimics the feeling of love), but I don't quite have a handle on the flowers thing. How come other gifts aren't as good as flowers? What makes flowers especially good gifts for (many) women?

By the way, I admire your tenacity in the making of a match. You go girl!

Ed



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.