There is currently very little evidence linking the measured expression of specific genes in the brain with phenotypic traits such as personality. Scientists find it hard enough even to link almost certainly genetic attributes (such as various cancers and other disease) to a consistent set of genes in analyses of differential gene expression.
Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)
171–180 of 212 posts
Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fortunately that narrative is starting to fall apart, due to folks who have taken on critical studies of these topics and gone on for hundreds of pages each. One of the recurrent problems though is defining oppression. What usually happens is that folks project assumptions about the way society works based on the US today to times and places that are very different. Two things I have come to conclude though: 1. In mo…
Any examples of (2) -- or links to something that discusses this phenomenon? Thanks.
Sure. Here are a few examples.
1. In Middle Eastern cultures, the husband's mother has a very strong matriarchal role to play in the family. These are formally some of the most patriarchal cultures in the world, and in particular the young wife is one of the lowest-status members of the household. (But the highest status is that of the husband and of his mother.)
2. This may seem very anecdotal, but if you have ever watched "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" there is this discussion about head of household vs neck of household. My wife (Chinese-Indonesian) always points to that scene as how women operate in Chinese-Indonesian culture.
Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
While you are correct that this particular study offers no real evidence in the nature/nurture debate, my understanding of neuroscience is that the existence of early differences in gender-based behavior are so well established in the discipline that to publish on that result is no longer interesting to neuroscientists. What remains at this point is to figure out a mechanism behind that result. So the line of inquiry…
I recently came across a link to this book, which I have not yet been able to read: http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Storm-Flaws-Science-Differences/... Published just a few years ago, it criticizes much of the research on sex differences, and from the reviews it makes a very exhaustive and compelling case. I'm curious if these are some of the studies it criticizes. (I don't have an opinion on this either way as I have no…
I've read through "The Delusion of Gender"- http://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-D..., where an Oxford, Cambridge, and UCL-educated Doctor of Psychology wrecks havok through Simon Baron-Cohen and his ilk's research.
It's a little boring, but systematic.
Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what your comment actually means. What gulfs? Men and women are complimentary. The masculine and the feminine interplay between each other and cooperate toward mutual benefit. There is no gulf. I reject the notion that we somehow have to eliminate the feminine and the masculine, to be left with some sort of androgynous average. That's just nonsense. And yes, some men can be feminine and…
There is way too much false dichotomy in your comment. Boiling people down to being merely masculine or feminine is highly oversimplifying the human condition.
Don't boil people down to "merely" masculine or feminine. But acknowledge that some traits individuals possess are masculine or feminine.
Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what your comment actually means. What gulfs? Men and women are complimentary. The masculine and the feminine interplay between each other and cooperate toward mutual benefit. There is no gulf. I reject the notion that we somehow have to eliminate the feminine and the masculine, to be left with some sort of androgynous average. That's just nonsense. And yes, some men can be feminine and…
No, there aren't, but a lot of people are firmly convinced that there are. Feminism and "political correctness" and your alleged "angry emotional mobs" exist as a necessary backlash to the (historically overwhelmingly popular) idea that Man and Woman are as complimentary and irreconcilable as opposite poles of a magnet. These people don't just assert that "boys, on average, prefer trucks to dolls," but that boys shou…
>These people don't just assert that "boys, on average, prefer trucks to dolls," but that boys shouldn't be allowed to play with dolls, or wear dresses, or cry, or like other boys.
Well, there are things called social norms. That they should be allowed to do such things is also a social norm. I don't see any real argument about one being better than the other.
Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)
#176Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fortunately that narrative is starting to fall apart, due to folks who have taken on critical studies of these topics and gone on for hundreds of pages each. One of the recurrent problems though is defining oppression. What usually happens is that folks project assumptions about the way society works based on the US today to times and places that are very different. Two things I have come to conclude though: 1. In mo…
Any examples of (2) -- or links to something that discusses this phenomenon? Thanks.
In the west, men are typically expected to provide for women.
Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that actually true? Speaking as a male who feels no particular need for higher upper body strength, I've certainly felt pressured at times. Somehow my sister never is.
Testosterone is an independent factor in muscle mass and accounts for the majority in strength difference. Also, muscles in the upper body have a higher androgen receptor count and therefore respond greater to serum testosterone levels and physical stimuli.
+1. The few women with high testosterone are also better are building muscle, have higher sex drives, and female babies with high testosterone are less interested in faces than things, much like male babies (Baron Cohen at Cambridge, let me hunt a link if you need it)
Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so, there's a vast amount of LGBT authors who advocate the idea of sexuality as a social construct, be it homo-, hetero- or other sexualities
It seems odd to me that sexuality is a social construct even though gender is not. We know that gender is not merely a social construct because we know that gender dysphoria is not merely a social construct. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder#Biolog... ) There isn't a logical conflict there of course, sexuality could be a social construct despite gender not being that simple, ...it just seems odd…
I don't think that's what phaer meant.
The concept of sexual orientation is a social construct. Unquestionably. It's an idea that's pretty much unique to our culture (modern western countries primarily). Other cultures throughout history had different concepts that were quite different.
The fact that different people experience sexual or romantic attraction differently, and that not everyone is simply attracted only to the opposite sex, is not a social construct. It's a fact.
So it can be both. Just like gender is both.
Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any examples of (2) -- or links to something that discusses this phenomenon? Thanks.
Sure. Here are a few examples. 1. In Middle Eastern cultures, the husband's mother has a very strong matriarchal role to play in the family. These are formally some of the most patriarchal cultures in the world, and in particular the young wife is one of the lowest-status members of the household. (But the highest status is that of the husband and of his mother.) 2. This may seem very anecdotal, but if you have ever…
This is the saddest thing on this thread. Purportedly about a scientific paper detailing findings of genetic research. Somewhere along the way, we find you writing a lengthy objection to what you think feminism is, which unsurprisingly makes all the good points on your side and all the wrong points stacked on the opposite side. I can't even begin to object to your characterization of feminism, as your rendering is so beyond recognition that I can't accept that you would even be honestly interested in that line of thought.
First, that you have made it so far in life with such a thorough and articulated idea of what feminism is without even considering that you might have a slightly lopsided perspective, that perhaps your rebuttal to feminism perhaps coincides a little too conveniently with what you believe and doesn't seem to challenge you in any way -- that should be applauded as a feat of human obstinance par excellence.
Also unsurprisingly, when given a chance to substantiate your very large claims you provide an absurd caricature of Arab cultures, and some comment your wife made while watching a movie. It is literally amazing to me that -- unless you are posessed of remarkable self-awareness -- you are able to, given this evidence, continue to adhere to a worldview which is predicated on the supremacy of your beliefs, and that you can continue to believe in that supremacy even having looked over your own writings.
Literally, the only substantiation you have provided are abject speculations. You have simply declared your interpretation of a Jefferson quote to mean whatever you want it to mean, you have not at all demonstrated that women possessed political influence at the time, nor have you attempted to show how very obvious mechanisms against those efforts -- e.g. lack of suffrage, complete lack of female representation -- are mitigated or made irrelevant by any of this.
Your recollection of the history of feminism is pure fantasy, a Potemkin village constructed solely to assuage yourself apparently. That you cannot apparently analyze even to a first order your arguments herein and find them lacking suggest that to me that you are predisposed to accept the products of your own prejudices without much deliberation.
The facile composition of your argument coupled with the smug manner in which you present them, the certitude that you have reached meaningful conclusions with this lazy thinking -- well, I am left astounded.