Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't dumb girls down

smh.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 273 posts

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#221

Post by Tichy »

JonnieCache wrote: post #216
Tichy wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have sources for that? Because I really don't think it is correct. I don't know anybody with anorexia, but I know several therapists. Not that I have inquired much about the problem, but I simply have heard different things. In fact the first hit for "anorexia causes" (with DuckDuckGo) seems to confirm my thoughts: http://helpguide.org/mental/anorexia_signs_symptoms_causes_t... "Believe it or not, anorexia isn…

We are confusing causes with symptoms. Anorexia may well be caused by deeper problems with the person's life, the ones you list in the quote, general sources of depression. However "anorexia" refers to a form of depression that manifests itself in issues with eating and weight. It is not the depression that kills patients, it's the undereating and the vomiting. Therefore it is entirely appropriate to discuss, deal wi…

Sure, you might say the screwed beauty ideals are a symptom. What I was saying is that they are not the cause. And of course the starvation is a problem that has to be dealt with. How is maybe another issue best left to the specialists.

I think you misread that last quote. What they say is that the anorexic persons are not actually striving for some ideal weight that would make them satisfied if they would reach it. So they say precisely that it is not some specific beauty ideal they strive for.

They only wrote it like that because that is what it might look like from the perspective of the anorexic person (if only I could use so much weight, I would be OK).

Anyway, I think we have settled this as far as amateur knowledge permits.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#222

Post by georgieporgie »

This is kind of weird and forced. All social interactions start in a superficial way. Kids don't show up in their own cars ("hey, is that the new Brotus Fundero?"). They don't (usually) wear t-shirts from their last trade show or vacation. They aren't toting new laptops in unique courier bags and holding exotic drinks.

You're basically stuck complementing their dress, hat, or whatever. That's how social interaction works, regardless of gender. You can move on to TV shows, books, and political affiliation later, but you need an opener.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#223

Post by Tichy »

JonnieCache wrote: post #213
Tichy wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? Cosmetic surgery?

I mean pretty much everything that goes on in a hospital. Every time someone is prevented from dying, we are defying natural selection. In a sense, all use of technology raises us above our biology. In another sense of course, all our technological innovations are only a product of our naturally selected abilities, higher cognition, opposable thumbs etc. However, when you take this view, it renders the whole point mo…

You have a too narrow view of Evolution. Of course technology and so enters the equation, enabling us to survive better. Nevertheless we are still subject to evolution.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#224

Post by dgabriel »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #200
JohnsonB wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 differences in behaviour are down to this rather than down to societal factors. It's actually no leap at all. Evolution put those differences in brain structure for a reason. It certainly isn't random, but due to some evolutionary be…

I lot of the people who refuse to accept biological origins of gender differences don't usually have much faith in evolution to begin with. Funny how both the far-right and the far-left tend to agree on things, especially skepticism of science (or at least its casual dismissal) that counters their zealous views.

This is a silly comment. Do you think PZ Meyers doesn't have much faith in evolution (hint: he thinks evolutionary psychology is mostly junk science)? The problem with evo-psyche is that it is relatively new, very little has been proven via repeatable experimentation, but it is easily used to confirm existing bias. Rejecting some claims of evo psych and biological determinism is obviously not the same as rejecting all of evolution.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#225

Post by klenwell »

ap22213 wrote: post #184
klenwell wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it's ironic that in a forum called 'hacker news' I can view perspectives on this topic that are convinced by 'hard limits' on Human ability by extrapolating theories of general animal biology. As if the whole realm of Human invention and innovation should be discarded, because we weren't supposed to go beyond our original biological limits. Luckily, Humans have invented physical and cultural hacks to deal wit…

I agree. But let's bring in an advocate for the devil:

"As if the millions and billions of years of Nature's invention and innovation should be discarded..."

Great. Now I sound like Edmund Burke.

Maybe strong would be a better modifier than hard, as it implies a little more flexibility. Nevertheless, I think some ideas are being conflated here:

Do strong biological tendencies exist?

Can they be hacked or circumvented? Should they be?

What's the cost/benefit? Are you willing to make the investment necessary to do so?

I favor exploring, and acknowledging where warranted, the hard limits so that we may more effectively and humanely answer these questions.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#226

Post by samlevine »

Goladus wrote: post #107

Teaching girls that their appearance is the first thing you notice tells them that looks are more important than anything. Appearance is almost always the first thing you notice about someone. I'm not sure pretending otherwise is especially practical or will really help much in the long run.

This applies to guys as well as girls. My parents made sure that I learned that people judge me on how I look, smell, speak, etc.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#227

Post by msbarnett »

ellyagg wrote: post #218
msbarnett wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously there are examples of cultures where men cook or women hunt, but I can't find any culture around the world where women don't traditionally have nurturing roles. How much of this, do you figure, is survivor bias? If there were just a few dominant cultures historically who happened to have a patriarchal bias and which went on to be profoundly influential over a large volume of the planet (like, say, the Rom…

The Aka represent sex roles that have underlying characteristics familiar to all cultures. Some culture in the world must have the most objectively nurturing fathers, and the Aka happen to be it. But, it's the poorer in their society that are nurturing. High status Aka men who have enough resources accumulate multiple wives and offload nurturing onto them. This wouldn't raise the eyebrows of any student who's studied…

That nurturing roles vary by income would seem to be a solid argument against biological predestination.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#228

Post by orangecat »

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…

For some reason he is also constantly surrounded by very attractive women.

"Some reason" is that he projects confidence and high social status. IQ scores don't really enter into it.

Which was just confusing... there was this smart good looking girl, and she was hanging around acting thick.

Note that she was hanging out with him, not you, even though you would appreciate her intelligence. She's not acting dumb to attract men in general, she's acting dumb to attract men that she finds attractive.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#229

Post by anamax »

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…

> our social/political/economic hegemony

Our?

The fact that some men have status advantages does not imply that being male provides status advantages.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but worrying about whether Bill Gates' daughter has as as good a chance of being CEO as his son isn't all that noble a cause.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#230

Post by neutronicus »

sgns wrote: post #157
kamaal wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your post I get a feeling that the average girl is happy being what she is now. Then I fail to understand whats the need for posts in this thread's original link.And what is the complain all about? Looks like the girlish definition of 'dumb' is a lot more different than ours. If being good looking and beautiful is what makes them feel successful, then why isn't that goal worth chasing . I do know when we talk of…

I suspect that a) the vast majority of womenfolk simply don't exist - that some are outliers doesn't mean that the majority are alike, because give it what you like, b) social conditions are changing, for both men and women there are very contradictory expectations - so it may very well be that there is no way to be (culturally) satisfied, and thus c) the vast majority isn't happy. Add to that d), even if we are all…

I dated a nursing student in college, so I ran in that social circle a bit, and I knew a lot of girls who made no bones at all about wanting marriage (with an appropriately expensive wedding), children, and an end to the professional life as soon as absolutely feasible.
Post reply on HN