Reply to Re: Let's talk terrorism
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
But women are clearly different from men. They've got boobs, they're usually smaller, with less muscle mass. If there are large physical differences, why would you assume there probably aren't any mental differences? That's illogical.
It's only illogical if you look at in just those stark terms. First of all, let's do away with the term *any* and replace it with something like is "enough of a difference to make a difference"? While, yes, there are statistical differences between male and female brains, the difference is both minute and varied enough that if you looked at any one brain you would very likely not be able to tell if it was from someone who was male or female.
This falls in line with the fact that in the grand biological scheme of sexual dimorphism, we aren't actually that differentiated. Our brains are wired to categorize and associate things with meanings and feelings. That doesn't always mean how we categorize is always right.
Speaking of which...
Same applies to races. For instance, white and black people not only have different skin colours, their facial structure is different as well, and we've lived in very different kinds of habitats for a hundred thousand years. The question in my mind isn't IF genetics affect the abilities of different races, it's what/how significant the differences are, compared to the effects of nurture.
Ah, race. The process of which we assign people to different categories based on how they look. Of course, how someone looks and how someone is genetically predisposed to thinking are two extremely different things. Add to the fact that the members of various "races" have actually traveled and interbred with each during those thousands of years and you get that DNA proliferating through the generations, influencing its decedents even if they may now look more like members of that race. Anyway, long story short: Race is an extremely poor way to look at genetic differences; it is primarily a social construct assigned by humans to differentiate.
Why not? If you agree there are (genetic) differences between how men and women think, it seems weird to dismiss the idea that those differences extend to the desire/ability to attain leadership positions as well. In my experience, women are generally much less ambitious than men when it comes to work.
Again, is this more due to social pressures or biology? I personally believe an enormous amount of who were are and how we act is determined by environment.
I think it's the same reason why boys usually like to play with toy cars and girls like to play with dolls, which, I'm personally convinced through anecdotal evidence, is a natural rather than learned inclination
Unless we had an experiment where we raised a child from birth, completely isolated from our greater culture at large and the parents' biases, this is, at best, a poor test to determine if preferences are genetic or social. Based on my own anecdotal evidence, I believe it is a mixture of both with some kids always choosing heavily with one gender or another and others who would be less differentiated, but go along with what they were assigned because it gives them a place in culture.
He doesn't really cite any specific examples of what kind of obstacles he's faced. Everyone has hardships and meets people who try to deter them from the path they want to take; I'm not at all convinced he's actually had a much harder time than someone else. Instead, since he IS black, he might be unduly attributing the bad experiences he's had to his race.
As someone who has lived their entire life in North America and tries to listen to the various people here, I definitely believe him. Here's a better interview and has an excellent example of the social pressures faced by him specifically because he was black.
It's only illogical if you look at in just those stark terms. First of all, let's do away with the term *any* and replace it with something like is "enough of a difference to make a difference"? While, yes, there are statistical differences between male and female brains, the difference is both minute and varied enough that if you looked at any one brain you would very likely not be able to tell if it was from someone who was male or female.
This falls in line with the fact that in the grand biological scheme of sexual dimorphism, we aren't actually that differentiated. Our brains are wired to categorize and associate things with meanings and feelings. That doesn't always mean how we categorize is always right.
Speaking of which...
Same applies to races. For instance, white and black people not only have different skin colours, their facial structure is different as well, and we've lived in very different kinds of habitats for a hundred thousand years. The question in my mind isn't IF genetics affect the abilities of different races, it's what/how significant the differences are, compared to the effects of nurture.
Ah, race. The process of which we assign people to different categories based on how they look. Of course, how someone looks and how someone is genetically predisposed to thinking are two extremely different things. Add to the fact that the members of various "races" have actually traveled and interbred with each during those thousands of years and you get that DNA proliferating through the generations, influencing its decedents even if they may now look more like members of that race. Anyway, long story short: Race is an extremely poor way to look at genetic differences; it is primarily a social construct assigned by humans to differentiate.
Why not? If you agree there are (genetic) differences between how men and women think, it seems weird to dismiss the idea that those differences extend to the desire/ability to attain leadership positions as well. In my experience, women are generally much less ambitious than men when it comes to work.
Again, is this more due to social pressures or biology? I personally believe an enormous amount of who were are and how we act is determined by environment.
I think it's the same reason why boys usually like to play with toy cars and girls like to play with dolls, which, I'm personally convinced through anecdotal evidence, is a natural rather than learned inclination
Unless we had an experiment where we raised a child from birth, completely isolated from our greater culture at large and the parents' biases, this is, at best, a poor test to determine if preferences are genetic or social. Based on my own anecdotal evidence, I believe it is a mixture of both with some kids always choosing heavily with one gender or another and others who would be less differentiated, but go along with what they were assigned because it gives them a place in culture.
He doesn't really cite any specific examples of what kind of obstacles he's faced. Everyone has hardships and meets people who try to deter them from the path they want to take; I'm not at all convinced he's actually had a much harder time than someone else. Instead, since he IS black, he might be unduly attributing the bad experiences he's had to his race.
As someone who has lived their entire life in North America and tries to listen to the various people here, I definitely believe him. Here's a better interview and has an excellent example of the social pressures faced by him specifically because he was black.
