Don't dumb girls down • Hacker News Board

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#171

Post by philwelch » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:10 PM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #75

To all the people in this thread who seem so absolutely sure that the gender differences are strictly biological, do you fancy telling us what exactly makes you so sure? Last time I checked there was no evidence to support this idea. Obviously there are easily observed physiological differences in brain structure and in the endocrine system etc, however it is a massive leap to go from that to asserting that observed…

I think this is something of a straw man. I think it's the most reasonable position is that most differences have both biological and social causes. The controversy isn't over whether biological causes are the only cause--I don't see many people arguing that--but whether biological causes are there at all.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#172

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:14 PM UTC

hack_edu wrote: post #158

saturn wrote: post #31

None of this advice applies to me, of course. As a man and therefore a child molesting rapist just waiting for my chance to strike, the idea that I could have any sort of conversation with a little girl - let alone sit down on a couch and talk privately - is simply laughable.

There ought to be a Godwin's Law about threads talking about gender on the Internet. Given a certain concentration of comments on the subject, a sarcastic and baseless complaint of the assumption of male guilt (especially absurb, off topic comments about rape!) must appear.

[deleted]

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#173

Post by silverbax88 » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:18 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #170

Alex3917 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"To all the people in this thread who seem so absolutely sure that the gender differences are strictly biological, do you fancy telling us what exactly makes you so sure?" I don't believe gender differences are strictly biological, but I think the balance of evidence points to biology being a factor: 1) The differences in the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders. E.g. .1% of women are diagnoses with autism, vs…

> 5.4% of girls and 14.1% of boys age 11 - 17 have been diagnosed with ADHD. Wait what ?! How did we manage to have a disorder that affects nearly 10% teenagers? There must be something odd with either the school system or the term "disorder" itself, because otherwise, such a flaw would likely have been filtered out of the gene pool. I wonder which it is. (Same remark for learning "disabilities" by the way, though I'…

Disorder: a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; (dictionary.com)

Disorders are of varying degrees. Just because medical science starts figuring out something exists in the gene pool doesn't mean it's serious enough to qualify for "filtering out". It also doesn't mean that every "disorder" has to be disabling in order to exist.

Even if it did, it's a long leap to claim that it would have already been "filtered" out. Humans are dealing with a flood of more incoming data/stimuli than even 40 years ago. We have no idea if humans are actually better at handling it today than in decades past.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#174

Post by michaelchisari » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:20 PM UTC

ctek wrote: post #38

The desire to be attractive is hard-wired into female biology. Fundamentally, we exist to survive and reproduce. Millions of years of evolution have evolved visual cues that signal health - especially reproductive health in both men and women however women's interest in successfully advertising their reproductive health is absolutely essential to what they have evolved over millions of years to do - which is bear chi…

The desire to be attractive is hard-wired into female biology.

Well, that certainly fails to explain the Woodabe.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#175

Post by amalcon » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:20 PM UTC

I mostly agree with the sentiment, but this line stuck out at me:

  25 per cent of young American women would rather win 
  America's Next Top Model than the Nobel Peace Prize.

Only 25%? That's spectacularly good compared to their male counterparts. What percent of young American men do you think would rather win the Super Bowl than the Nobel Peace Prize? It's got to be at least half.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#176

Post by klenwell » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:23 PM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #75

To all the people in this thread who seem so absolutely sure that the gender differences are strictly biological, do you fancy telling us what exactly makes you so sure? Last time I checked there was no evidence to support this idea. Obviously there are easily observed physiological differences in brain structure and in the endocrine system etc, however it is a massive leap to go from that to asserting that observed…

I agree it's easy (and fun!) to oversimplify gender differences as a function of biology. But basic parental investment has always seemed a convincing hard limit to me.

The Bateman Principle sort of sums it up, though reading the Wikipedia page shows it's more complicated than common sense might dictate (as you should expect):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateman%27s_principle

It's not as clear-cut as Bateman thought and there were a lot of methodological problems with his experiments apparently. Nevertheless, different strategies for different sexes.

I conclude that some amount (how much?) of what we identify as gender differences flow out of these different strategies that are rooted in sexual reproduction, which requires a fundamental dichotomy of types. Still, I'm all for individuals cutting against the grain.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#177

Post by Alex3917 » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:23 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #170

Alex3917 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"To all the people in this thread who seem so absolutely sure that the gender differences are strictly biological, do you fancy telling us what exactly makes you so sure?" I don't believe gender differences are strictly biological, but I think the balance of evidence points to biology being a factor: 1) The differences in the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders. E.g. .1% of women are diagnoses with autism, vs…

> 5.4% of girls and 14.1% of boys age 11 - 17 have been diagnosed with ADHD. Wait what ?! How did we manage to have a disorder that affects nearly 10% teenagers? There must be something odd with either the school system or the term "disorder" itself, because otherwise, such a flaw would likely have been filtered out of the gene pool. I wonder which it is. (Same remark for learning "disabilities" by the way, though I'…

"How did we manage to have a disorder that affects nearly 10% teenagers?"

A combination of rising maternal age, increased body load of many environment contaminants, terrible diets, ubiquitous TV watching before age 2, parental drug use (everything from starbucks to antibiotics), etc. From a draft version of the latest EPA report:

"Between 1993 and 2007, the rate of preterm birth rose from 11.0% of births in 1993 to 12.7% of births in 2007. This increase was statistically significant. [...] Long-term motor, cognitive, visual, hearing, behavioral, social-emotional, health, and growth problems may not become apparent for years, and may persist throughout a child’s life. The birth of a preterm or low birth weight infant can have significant emotional and economic effects on the infant’s family."

"The role of environmental contaminants in contributing to ADHD, either alone or in conjunction with certain genetic susceptibilities, is becoming better understood, as a growing number of studies look explicitly at the relationship between ADHD and exposures to environmental contaminants. Recent epidemiological studies (most published since 2006) have linked increased levels of lead in hair and blood, mercury in blood, phthalate metabolites in urine, and the pesticide chlorpyrifos in cord blood (indicative of prenatal exposure) with increased likelihood of ADHD.

Additionally, many of the behaviors that are observed in children with ADHD have been associated with elevated exposures to certain environmental contaminants. Several studies have found a relationship between attention problems, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, which are common behaviors of ADHD, and exposures to lead, PCBs, mercury, and certain pesticides. Animal studies that examine the link between environmental exposures and animal models of ADHD, or common ADHD behaviors, provide supporting evidence that exposures to lead, PCBs, mercury, and pesticides may contribute to ADHD."

http://www.epa.gov/ace/ace3draft/draft_pdfs/ACE3Neurodevelop...

I'm sure it's probably overdiagnosed as well, but the enormous difference between sexes is still very telling.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#178

Post by Tichy » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:53 PM UTC

pharrington wrote: post #51

127 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human biology is not that quick to change. It demonstrates a large amount of hubris to even think it should be. Women marry up and across dominance hierarchies. Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the long run for men and for society. I thought that the girl in your story was very smart, and even if people had treated her like a pretty doll for her entire life she would still be th…

>Human biology is not that quick to change This implies that biology is why in most cultures men have higher status potential than women. Not only does this ignore lots of horribly obvious things, but in turn implies an understanding of how physiology affects behavior. Besides current science barely having a rough idea of some hormones' areas of effect (eg low testosterone levels having some positive or negative effe…

"in turn implies an understanding of how physiology affects behavior"

Sorry, but I think in some cases we can infer how physiology affects behavior. For example if you are big and strong, you can act differently than if you are weak and small. You don't need to get down to hormone level to see such things.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#179

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:54 PM UTC

wgren wrote: post #54

127 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human biology is not that quick to change. It demonstrates a large amount of hubris to even think it should be. Women marry up and across dominance hierarchies. Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the long run for men and for society. I thought that the girl in your story was very smart, and even if people had treated her like a pretty doll for her entire life she would still be th…

>Human biology is not that quick to change. No, but a lot of things with regards to our current expected behaviour of genders is in fact social, not biological. A lot of 18th century male behaviour would today be regarded as effeminate. Red was once the color of choice for baby boys, and blue for girls. >Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the long run for men Hang on, did anyone p…

[deleted]

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#180

Post by ArbitraryLimits » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:55 PM UTC

ErrantX wrote: post #49

I was musing on this the other day (beware; anecdote alert!). I went out for some drinks with a friend of mine from a long time ago - he is certainly not the sharpest of individuals, but a laugh and good fun in small doses (even if a lot of the jokes include farts :S). For some reason he is also constantly surrounded by very attractive women. I've seen him out and about before and thought "I'd like to have some of th…

I for one certainly do not expect smart, attractive women to make fart jokes when out on the town.