"Leadership and Enterprising-ness are mainly masculine qualities"

A lot of the stuff you speak of is not "common" or "basic" knowledge. And these sort of debates, this whole subject matter, is a hugely controversial material. Even as you said, on the upper eschalons of the study.

I agree that a lot of the material in Evolutionary Psychology and Race and Intelligence debates is way over my head. That doesn't mean I can't take a side, however. I agree with the Social Constructionist sides, and you can claim even high level scientists whom take a Social Constructionist standpoint have been debunked and defeated, but I do not think so. If you're going to tell me I'm too ignorant to understand mental hardwiring differences between men and women, such as things about jealousy, you're certainly not going to convince me.

I'm no neuroscientist, but I've more experience with this debate and issue than most people. You learn by debating. And trying to defeat me by saying I'm not qualified to debate, in a debate you started to try to squash my Social Constructionism, is not the way to convince at all. I don't believe you, I don't think you're right, and I have even more of a grudge than before. You can be sure I'll loudly proclaim that gender roles are a Social Construction the next time I get. And a lot of incentive to show a lack of jealousy in males and a complex towards the issue and finding them. As if I had enough gender complexes as it is.

God, what a brain wracking experience. I keep coming here too, when I need to stop. Thanks though, thanks for continually implying I'm wrong because I'm an idiot. Clearly you have nothing you need to back up or prove, because you're a well studied expert on the human mind and I am an Egalitarianist idiot. And I'm talking through irritation again. I need to find an ignore button.

edited 25th Feb '11 5:44:41 PM by Ukonkivi

Del Diablo, Let me break this down to the simplest level. Just because I argued with Ukon doesn't mean that I am in automatic opposition to everything she says. My one major bone of contention with her was that there is the question of whether gender has biological basis. Or more specifically neurobiological basis. I never made any points as to degree of difference or superiority/inferiority (aside from some demonstratives) because I don't know the answer to that question. I am merely stating the blindingly obvious qualitative existence of a difference in the neurobiology between the male and the female of the species. Hell I even acknowledged that you can get genetic males with female biology and that alot of the differences might be from hormones in utero. I don't have to do more than prove that disparate points exist because I am merely demonstrating existance not degree.

So let me do this one more time because I just know that this is going to zip right by. All I ever took offense to was the idea that gender is a wholly social construct. All that is required to disprove that is a single demonstrable difference. I have provided.

Ukon, if that is the way you learn then I am happy to help. But a word of warning. I have found that oppositional work is great at honing the edge of your rhetorical knife but not so good at coming to an understanding of your opponents position.

edited 25th Feb '11 6:09:41 PM by Shrimpus

: Why are you posting the first long block of text instead of just writing the second one?
You have still not approached the problem: Why is "gender" as "we view it" not a "social construct"? And why are you not debatting that instead of spewing lots of text?
Another problem: If anything can be everywhere, why does it make sense to classify it by the area we thought it was first in, when is not remotely true? Just questioning your language and terms here.
You say "blindingly obvious qualitative existence of a difference in the neurobiology between the male and the female of the species", i say "why is that not just bullshit?".

Edit: My kingdom for a working markup for italics

edited 25th Feb '11 6:16:22 PM by del_diablo

@Ukon: Again, you are talking you are arguing against a raving racist when you are not. Your preconceptions about his kind of argument are coloring your reaction.

Argue against the argument he's making, not the argument you hope or suspect he's making.

@Shrimpy: I found a counter article for some of the studies mentioned in that article.

Formatting on this site is not the best. I sympathize.

Because its not worth debating. I already posted the relevant evidence.

Oooh.... interesting! Gimme a few minutes to digest that!

Okay, so it confirmed a few long standing suspicions and correlated with some other things I have read. One of the most interesting things that I found was the modularity issue. I had never actually known that EP proponents believed in a modular consciousness... ick... I am more in line with the author in the adapted to adaption context. The second case actually reconfirms the limbic activation on the fMRI in the japanese study. The first case of cheating strategy is never something I ever found to be convincing and I was unaware of the third case.

I can say that it casts even more doubt on EP. But that is not something new. I have never been interested in the why of the equation, only what the equation looks like.

edited 25th Feb '11 6:38:47 PM by Shrimpus

Taller people and deeper voices = more willing to listen to.

More testosterone = more risk taking.

edited 26th Feb '11 10:58:15 AM by Erock

@Shrimpy: hmm?

@Erock: But why would being taller or having a deeper voice make people more willing to listen, if those weren't masculine things?