Gender Stereotypes and Tropes which I strongly dislike

[Russ]

Are you a creationist or a feminist? If so, say it straight up, because neither is compatible with sociobiology and I'd rather not waste my time.

When it comes to the discussion of evolution I am neither a feminist nor a creationist, but I guess you think you might need a quick and easy label for such things.

If you want one you could say I am a "Gouldist", that is I believe that the most accurate description of modern evolutionary theory has been articulated by the late Stephen Jay Gould. I am sure you have read all of his works, particularly those on the field of evolutionary biology. He believes, as do I, that there is almost no evidence for the theories of that field and it suffers brutally from poor reasoning, often in fact backwards reasoning.

Now as you are probably aware the other large camp of evolutionary theory is led by Dawkins, I am not in the Dawkins camp. But you should know that Dawkins himself is equally critical of evolutionary psychology in much of its work, particularly the camp led by Wilson.

Some of the things you say are actually simply factually untrue, or out of date old myths.

For instance the latest research tells us that differences in spatial reasoning skills between men and women are NOT genetically based. You claimed the reverse.

Secondly evolution does not "design" anything. Further we, that is humans, are not particularly good at reproducing at all. We have crazy long gestation periods, very low fecundity and our infants are unable to function independently for a long period of time. None of this makes us particularly good at reproducing at all.

You also seem to be interested in simply spouting your own opinion rather than having a conversation about the science around the issue. "It's true. I know it is." is not a scientific argument, it is actually something that one might more expect to hear from someone espousing a religious faith.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

This is exactly the type of thinking that gives us stupid stereotypes.

No not really. And stereotypes are not stupid. Not in literature nor in life. They have been and are critical. But that's an entirely different question.

You complain of rigging the question but then re-rig the question. The question being asked was simplified and without qualifiers, all your what-ifs are pointless vs the original question. The assumption in all such hypotheticals is that both are equally savable but equally doomed. Which do you save?

If you feel that is rigged to the 12 year-old girl being the only answer, you just proved the DNA point... although not really, but it could be argued thusly. On an anthropological or sociological level, you would have proved some point about the culture in which you exist.

If you argued that you would save the male, that absolutely would speak to the culture within which you live, or to your individual psychological biases. And there would probably be a sociological driver for that if that was common in your culture.

 

[X Equestris]

I'm not sure any society has ever seriously invested in female warriors until North Korea, honestly, and NK has never sent those women into serious warfare. I think the differences in sex we have today were coded into our genes before we were even humans. I mean, homo erectus probably dealt with tribal warfare in the same way we did it. The idea of a society ceasing to exist for the reason you say probably never came to pass. Men were always sent to war. If they were defeated, the women were enslaved and absorbed into the population of the victors. That's typically how it went. Modern ideals changes things. Slavery is wrong, we now learn, so we just slaughter the women and children alongside the men. Thank democracy we're civilized now.

A number of tribal societies used their women in war. The Scythians, some of the German and Celtic tribes, etc. One thread common to all of them is that they were typically kept in reserve, staying closer to home, if possible. Usually the only time women warriors were advancing into enemy territory was during migratory events. Marius mentions the Cimbri and Teutones having their women fight with bow and arrow from war wagons before descending and fighting beside their male relatives. "Civilized" societies weren't afraid to use their women in siege defenses, either.

Most likely, any society that sent out their women in offensive warfare or hunting died out in the tribal stages as they were outbred by their neighbors who didn't. After all, have you ever seen a matriarchal society send out their women as the primary fighters and keep their men at home? Why is that? And the answer that I keep seeing, from people far more educated than myself, is that men are--from a purely biological perspective--more expendable. Who can regrow a population faster: five men and one woman, or one man and five women?

 

[X Equestris]

No not really. And stereotypes are not stupid. Not in literature nor in life. They have been and are critical. But that's an entirely different question.

You complain of rigging the question but then re-rig the question. The question being asked was simplified and without qualifiers, all your what-ifs are pointless vs the original question. The assumption in all such hypotheticals is that both are equally savable but equally doomed. Which do you save?

If you feel that is rigged to the 12 year-old girl being the only answer, you just proved the DNA point... although not really, but it could be argued thusly. On an anthropological or sociological level, you would have proved some point about the culture in which you exist.

If you argued that you would save the male, that absolutely would speak to the culture within which you live, or to your individual psychological biases. And there would probably be a sociological driver for that if that was common in your culture.

The issue is that the girl in question is just that, a girl. Humans care about children. If you want to prove that men are more protective of women, things have to be equal to take out other variables. That's basic scientific method stuff. And the child factor is a big variable that needs to be accounted for. Make the scenario one with two 12 year olds, one male and one female. Or change it to an adult woman and a boy. Does nearly everyone choose the woman still?

 

[Russ]

Anyone trying to erase the notion of some things being hard-wired by DNA is a fool, but at the same time, DNA folks often over-simplify and draw questionable but entertaining conclusions.

There is very little evidence that many, if any, of our behaviours (as opposed to our physical morphology) are "hard wired" in a significant way.

For instance there have been a number of studies of the heritability or genetic component of "mate selection" which would seem to be a very important evolutionary behaviour. However most studies suggest genetic factors only play a role at maybe a 5-6% level in mate selection so it is virtually a non-factor.

So beyond not really having evidence for many of the claims of the evolutionary psychology ideas, we also have to ask ourselves or come to a consensus of "when does it matter"? It heritability is only a 5% factor in a behaviour is it worth even mentioning?

EP theory really is hamstrung by a near complete lack of evidence, as well as the existence of so many behaviours that run contra to its basic principles.

 

[Russ]

A number of tribal societies used their women in war. The Scythians, some of the German and Celtic tribes, etc. One thread common to all of them is that they were typically kept in reserve, staying closer to home, if possible. Usually the only time women warriors were advancing into enemy territory was during migratory events. Marius mentions the Cimbri and Teutones having their women fight with bow and arrow from war wagons before descending and fighting beside their male relatives. "Civilized" societies weren't afraid to use their women in siege defenses, either.

Most likely, any society that sent out their women in offensive warfare or hunting died out in the tribal stages as they were outbred by their neighbors who didn't. After all, have you ever seen a matriarchal society send out their women as the primary fighters and keep their men at home? Why is that? And the answer that I keep seeing, from people far more educated than myself, is that men are--from a purely biological perspective--more expendable. Who can regrow a population faster: five men and one woman, or one man and five women?

I could add to the list of cultures that invested in female warriors, including primitive, modern and in between. Israel, Russia, etc. In addition the US has now opened up all of its combat roles to women, as many other first world countries had already done before them.

But the logic you advance is simply unquestionable, from a mathematical perspective men are simply lower value for cultural population growth.

The next question of course is "what does this mean" from the question of the role of genetics in behaviour.

It is not a gene that tells us that we need more women to reproduce than men, it is our reason, our consciousness. There is no evidence that the math involved in that every simple calculation is genetically encoded in us.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

There is very little evidence that many, if any, of our behaviours (as opposed to our physical morphology) are "hard wired" in a significant way.

For instance there have been a number of studies of the heritability or genetic component of "mate selection" which would seem to be a very important evolutionary behaviour. However most studies suggest genetic factors only play a role at maybe a 5-6% level in mate selection so it is virtually a non-factor.

So beyond not really having evidence for many of the claims of the evolutionary psychology ideas, we also have to ask ourselves or come to a consensus of "when does it matter"? It heritability is only a 5% factor in a behaviour is it worth even mentioning?

EP theory really is hamstrung by a near complete lack of evidence, as well as the existence of so many behaviours that run contra to its basic principles.

All psychology is hampered by quackery, in my opinion, and evolutionary psychology is far from immune to that. But I will argue any side of a debate I find fun, LOL. I will agree that the tendency would be to save the 12 year old girl in the initial scenario. Why? That's where it gets interesting! I don't claim to know the answer, but it is fun to bicker about.

If I have a camp to fall into, it is: Skeptic. Of everything treated as dogma, religious, scientific, and otherwise. I would be that stereotype. And its a good one.

 

[Russ]

All psychology is hampered by quackery, in my opinion, and evolutionary psychology is far from immune to that. But I will argue any side of a debate I find fun, LOL. I will agree that the tendency would be to save the 12 year old girl in the initial scenario. Why? That's where it gets interesting! I don't claim to know the answer, but it is fun to bicker about.

If I have a camp to fall into, it is: Skeptic. Of everything treated as dogma, religious, scientific, and otherwise. I would be that stereotype. And its a good one.

I heartily agree that skepticism or at least an evidence based approach to matters that can be dealt with in an evidence based fashion is a good idea.

I think EP is even more vulnerable to very poor reasoning due to the fact that it calls for speculation about prehistoric behavior that we really have almost no information on.

For instance while we cannot really do an experiment about who we would dive in to save if they were drowning, to an even larger degree we cannot know and have no evidence at all about who a human a mere 20,000 years ago would have jumped in to save if faced with the same choice.

Let's say there is a tendency to save person X when drowning. That is all well and good, but it does not lead to the conclusion that Vanilla suggests. In order to prove it is an evolutionary genetic trait you have to do one of two things:

1) prove that it is not the result of cultural or more transient factors (almost impossible), or more classically:

2) prove that there were once two distinct types of people, those that would dive in after X and those that would dive in after Y, and that the X group survived and passed on that genetic trait and the Y group failed because of their Y trait or their lack of the X trait in similar environments.

Speculation is fun, but proving evolutionary processes and connections is hard freakin' work!

 

[valiant12]

In a scenario of 3 females all equally savable, aged 2, 16, and 30, biological logic would suggest saving the 16 year-old first

The youngest girl is most vulnerable. I will save her first.

 

[Heliotrope]

No one seems to be taking into account other cultures here. Did you know that in ancient China a man was forbidden to touch a woman he was not married to, even to rescue her? In the case Vanilla gives, if it were to take place in ancient China, the man would only be allowed to rescue the other man because rescuing the girl would involve touching her, which was punishable by death. Or how about the vast amount if female infanticide that has occurred in Asia and India over the past thousand year, purely because boys are seen as more valuable?

 

[ascanius]

There is very little evidence that many, if any, of our behaviours (as opposed to our physical morphology) are "hard wired" in a significant way.

Question, if things like autism have a genetic basis, it does, and many other mental disorders, and affect behavior. Then why isn't it the other way too, that normal everyday behaviors have a genetic basis.

I think there is a fifty fifty interaction genetics and environment.

For instance the latest research tells us that differences in spatial reasoning skills between men and women are NOT genetically based. You claimed the reverse.

Yeah, the research I've read is saying the opposite.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

The youngest girl is most vulnerable. I will save her first.

Precisely. But is that the most logical using the viewpoint of reproductive necessity? Probably not.

Oh thes questions are so much fun! LOL.

But also a huge waste of time.

 

[Russ]

Question, if things like autism have a genetic basis, it does, and many other mental disorders, and affect behavior. Then why isn't it the other way too, that normal everyday behaviors have a genetic basis.

I think there is a fifty fifty interaction genetics and environment.

I think you might be mixing two different issues, probably unintentionally.

One issue is does biology impact behaviour? The short answer is obviously yes, to a degree. If I have a vision problem, or a physical or mental dysfunction I will obviously behave differently because of it. It is also the case of physical and mental differences that are not unhealthy or dysfunctional.

Now there is an argument that based on our modern understanding of epigenetics that the nature/nurture argument is a distinction without a difference. We now know that many genes are turned on or off based on the environment that they are in and thus for any genetic trait or behaviour there may be a environmental factor.

But what EP says is that we have certain behavioural traits wired into us because of natural selection and that we can discern or discover what they are and determine what environmental factors caused them to come into existence. That is a vastly different claim than simply "some physiological or mental traits will more likely result in certain behaviours."

The field of EP suffers from a significant lack of real evidence, some very poor reasoning and what is commonly called the panglossian error or the spandrel problem.

Yeah, the research I've read is saying the opposite.

What I understand was some of the best work in the field was the study published in the Proceedings in the National Academy of Science. It is well discussed here:

Men are better at spatial reasoning? Erm, you might want to think again

 

[Devor]

*ahem*

Moving right along . . .

 

[Miskatonic]

*ahem*

Moving right along . . .

Deja Vuuuuuuuuu.

 

[ascanius]

I think you might be mixing two different issues, probably unintentionally.

One issue is does biology impact behaviour? The short answer is obviously yes, to a degree. If I have a vision problem, or a physical or mental dysfunction I will obviously behave differently because of it. It is also the case of physical and mental differences that are not unhealthy or dysfunctional.

Now there is an argument that based on our modern understanding of epigenetics that the nature/nurture argument is a distinction without a difference. We now know that many genes are turned on or off based on the environment that they are in and thus for any genetic trait or behaviour there may be a environmental factor.

But what EP says is that we have certain behavioural traits wired into us because of natural selection and that we can discern or discover what they are and determine what environmental factors caused them to come into existence. That is a vastly different claim than simply "some physiological or mental traits will more likely result in certain behaviours."

The field of EP suffers from a significant lack of real evidence, some very poor reasoning and what is commonly called the panglossian error or the spandrel problem.



What I understand was some of the best work in the field was the study published in the Proceedings in the National Academy of Science. It is well discussed here:

Men are better at spatial reasoning? Erm, you might want to think again

I'll be honest that I don't know much If anything about PE. However If we agree that behavior is influenced by genetics I don't really see what the problem is with assuming that such behavior/genetics have a evolutionary precursor, what that is exactly yeah we don't know, hopefully someone invents a time machine soon.

Second, look at that study closely, they don't actually prove that spatial ability has no genetic base/hard coded. They prove that education has an influence on spatial ability, something we already know. I'm serious, really look at the study, they are comparing differences in females who are uneducated and educated and comparing those results to educated males. All it really shows is education can increase spatial ability, especially among females. The authors even go on to say that this is important for legislators to increase participation in the sciences among females. I read both the blog and the actual study and.... it really grates me. A better test would have been to compare two uneducated groups then we have an equal group and are ONLY looking at genetics instead of adding education into the mix. What I'm saying is I don't think this study is going to stand up very well to peer review an the basis that is shows that spatial ability is NOT hard coded in the genes of males and not females. I didn't look for what peer review or conflicting evidence may or may not exist.

 

[Russ]

I'll be honest that I don't know much If anything about PE. However If we agree that behavior is influenced by genetics I don't really see what the problem is with assuming that such behavior/genetics have a evolutionary precursor, what that is exactly yeah we don't know, hopefully someone invents a time machine soon.

The problem is that science is supposed to be concerned with the provable truth, not "assumptions" and PE or sociobiology makes many claims based on no evidence and poor reasoning. That is not science it is speculation.

In the study of darwinian evolution there are ways to prove things scientifically. PE just tends to ignore the need for evidence for a series of "just so" stories, which is not science, or proof.

Let me give you an example. Let's say there is a modern behaviour we call X. PE may well come along and say "This behaviour is hard wired into humans because of condition Y in the environment a long time ago."

So that is their thesis. We then are supposed to ask the scientific questions which are:

a) what is the evidence for that claim?
b) how can you be certain that X is the result of biological evolution at all? (there are accepted ways of doing this)
c) how can you tell us with certainty that it was condition Y that caused X, not D, E, F or G?
e) how can you prove that is not a spandrel or evolutionary by-product?

EP most of the time cannot answer these questions adequately. It makes claims that are often unsupportable. Thus it is bad science. They then make various policy and political claims and suggestions based on this bad science which is also problematic.

Second, look at that study closely, they don't actually prove that spatial ability has no genetic base/hard coded. They prove that education has an influence on spatial ability, something we already know. I'm serious, really look at the study, they are comparing differences in females who are uneducated and educated and comparing those results to educated males. All it really shows is education can increase spatial ability, especially among females. The authors even go on to say that this is important for legislators to increase participation in the sciences among females. I read both the blog and the actual study and.... it really grates me. A better test would have been to compare two uneducated groups then we have an equal group and are ONLY looking at genetics instead of adding education into the mix. What I'm saying is I don't think this study is going to stand up very well to peer review an the basis that is shows that spatial ability is NOT hard coded in the genes of males and not females. I didn't look for what peer review or conflicting evidence may or may not exist.

I am surprised to see your comments on the study it is really top notch, if you know how most studies of this type are conducted.

Firstly, despite your claim, by being published in the Proceedings, it already has stood up to peer review. It is a pretty darned good journal.

Secondly the populations used are great. The sample size is excellent. And as you should know the vast majority of studies of this type are usually conducted on undergraduate students in first world countries, which really skews the data wildly. Getting to study these two groups was just fantastic quality science.

And the study does show that it is more likely that cultural factors lead to the differences between men and women in spatial abilities. The differential between men and women in a patriarchal society is significant. There is no differential between the scores of men and women in the matrilineal society. The only changing variable of course is the culture, and thus it would appear that culture, not genetics is the prime causative factor of the differential. The authors are clear that their data shows the importance of nurture in the spatial gap question. Proving a negative is almost impossible, but in this case they prove the importance of culture and education in the gap. I trust you will agree with me that culture and education are not genetically determined.

There is a second lesson from the study, that education makes both sexes better at this cognitive task. A separate but equally supportable conclusion.

 

[DMThaane]

I am surprised to see your comments on the study it is really top notch, if you know how most studies of this type are conducted.

Firstly, despite your claim, by being published in the Proceedings, it already has stood up to peer review. It is a pretty darned good journal.

That's not entirely true. Hoffman admits that the study has shortcomings and that it shouldn't be seen as the definitive study on the topic but as a proof of concept. You can find this on the Proceedings website linked to the original study or linked to the reply alleging methodological problems. The study is important evidence but it is not the final word that so many internet sites take it, uncritically, as being.

That said, it is also not the only study on this topic to reach similar conclusions. While there does not seem to be substantial proof the evidence I've seen favours nurture over nature, at least as much as that dichotomy is even useful.

 

[Russ]

That's not entirely true. Hoffman admits that the study has shortcomings and that it shouldn't be seen as the definitive study on the topic but as a proof of concept. You can find this on the Proceedings website linked to the original study or linked to the reply alleging methodological problems. The study is important evidence but it is not the final word that so many internet sites take it, uncritically, as being.

It is my understanding that in science, there is rarely a "final word." The authors' careful and perhaps even humble drafting of their conclusions, enhances its credibility with me.

And my posting of the study was not to suggest that the difference is proven "nuture" but to refute an earlier claim by someone that it had been proven genetic.

 

[FifthView]

For me, the stake in the heart of much of the drivel coming from evolutionary psychology–and, indeed, from much popular science, in general–is the persistent effort to draw a universal on the basis of statistical data.

Whenever such a "scientist" claims that, say, in 89% of cases of X the result is Y–they usually fail to mention that 11% of cases do not result in Y. Yet they will exclaim eureka! and say they have found an absolute. Often, 65% or 75% will be an adequate "determinant" for them.

This holds true for many branches of science. So, in X% of cases, high sugar intake leads to Y; but in 100-X% of cases, it doesn't. Hmmm.

This doesn't mean that nothing important is being discovered or that no relationships between X and Y exist. But only that other variables also exist within the equation. But this also doesn't mean that a meaningful relationship between X and Y certainly exists; without revealing those other variables, how can we know the importance of the relationship between X an Y?

I'm grossly oversimplifying above. But also admitting that I am!