Be Excellent To Each Other

I was surprised they didn't use chimps, but, unless they take some kids away from their parents and make them grow up without any influences from adult humans, then it's the closest they are going to get.

Malc

Are you doing this on purpose?

Shit, sorry.

Source

Clearly invalid data.

I have seen pics of them playing poker.

Dogs aren't really playing with toys for fun, though. They're just mock-hunting. Remember they are all vicious killers.

Damnit - one day we're going to talk about this.

Well, chimpanzees aren't humans either, so wouldn't provide any valid data about human gender roles either. A cross-cultural study with humans would be valid, but not another cross-species zoological study.

Put it this way: You weren't born speaking English. No one is born speaking their 'native' language. Language is a cultural construction and is transmitted by human social interaction at a micro and macro level.

Gender roles are the same as languages: Artificial human constructs, nothing more.

There are a few things that are gender-specific, of course.

Piffle and poppycock.

If you're observed behaviours specific to gender in other species (looking after young, foraging, hunting) then the young reenacting those behaviours is perfectly valid and testable. Then moving the idea forward to humans is also testable.

As for language: there are many examples of language that has developed in the animal Kingdom. So much so, two herds of humpback whales cannot understand each other as they have developed the sounds independently.to name but one.

You haven't quite grasped what I've written above.

Of course there's a biologically determined ability to create language in the sense of emitting sounds that can be used for intra-species communication, but that doesn't mean that English, or Mandarin Chinese, or Swahili are 'natural' or are transmitted immutably and biologically via inherited genetic material.

Think about it this way: English is different now compared to how it was spoken in the 17th century. Also British English is different to American English in 2014. Gender roles also vary between cultures and within the same culture, and between eras in history. That's because language and gender roles are both human cultural constructs, they are not fixed in stone by nature forever to remain unchanged.

You were…being serious?

But chimps are quite close to Humans, and it was interesting to see that male monkeys like playing with the same sort of toys that male children stereotypically like to play with. And female monkeys like to play with the same sort of toys that female children stereotypically like to play with.

They explained in the documentary the limitation of the comparison, and they speculated that the "male brain" might be more interested in cause and effect, and what happens when you push something (ie a toy car or train or whatever) and the female brain is more attuned to looking after young (hence dolls and whatnot). And as I said unless you want to raise some children without any adult intervention I can't see how you can do any better study on if the type of toy a child likes is determined by birth or social pressures.

Malc

Sounds like neurobollocks to me.

I'm probably doing the documentary a disservice, just watch it yourself.

Malc

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010 ... delia-fine

But hey, what do these so-called experts know? I'm sure RuySan will be along soon to explain why they're talking nonsense. I bet they're climate change-deniers too!

This is an age old debate but what does seem pretty certain is that any innate differences are probably very, very insignificant in comparison to the effects of the environment.

The thing Malc describes does suggest otherwise. "Boys prefer boys toys and girls prefer dolls, is this environment?" So they removed social cues and used monkeys and result was the same.

It sounded very unscientific to me. How do they know what a boy's toy even is? Sounds like bunk.

Have you watched the documentary Myp?

It's presented with Alice saying she thinks the differences are learnt, and Michael saying he thinks it's inate differences between the sexes. And then they try and prove who is right. He shows stuff like the male monkeys wanting to play with cars and girl monkeys wanting to play with dolls. Whilst She shows baby boys being dressed up as girls and then careres saying they prefer dolls and vice versa.

It's quite well done, and like I said I've probbaly mis-sold it, it's worth a watch if you are interested in learning more about research on if there are differences between men and women.

Malc

Why would monkeys associate car toys with either gender?

I am mentally hand waving that away and going with the girl monkeys pick up more monkey shaped objects in preference to less monkey shaped objects as I am working the thing through on my head. Mind you, the second one picks up a bone, we're all disastered

It's just nonsense. I bet the 'scientists' were just actors wearing labcoats.

The monkeys don't think "these are boys toys, I'm male, I shall play with them"

They see a load of interesting things they have never seen before, then the male ones start playing with the cars and the female ones play with the dolls.

Michael uses this to say that maybe there is something in the male brain that likes playing with toy cars, and maybe there is something in the female brain that likes playing with dolls and maybe this is something that is common across primates in general.

Malc

I would imagine that's one of the questions the documentary tries to answer.

Six-minute ninja'd. Go me.

How many times did they repeat this exercise, and with how many different monkeys? That's just one question that springs to mind.

Lots of maybes there Malc. Doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Did you read the articles I linked to? Proper scientific studies, not Richard Hammond blowing up caravans.

So despite the experiment being reproducable and showing fairly clear cut results as to the behaviour of the monkeys, you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your preconceptions? Give it some thought - there is a potential answer.

Honestly, I'd think it more odd if there weren't differences given the selection pressures involved, the quite distinct hormonal makeup (Hormones being something that is a clear factor in behaviours) and that it would make us fairly uncommon - if not unique - as a species in terms of intra-species competition, but there you go. I don't particularly have an agenda in terms of gender differences*, and I don't think it particularly matters so long as people are generally happy with who they are. So what if they were encouraged to do girly/manly things while growing up, so long as they're happy with who they are when they get there?

Re: Politics. I would've thought the answer was obvious: Who in their right mind would want to enter the braying madhouse that is the house of commons.

* Although I do find the individualism sometimes displayed by strong proponents to be a little concerning.

I watched the documentary some weeks ago and can't remember the details, but they did mention things like that. If you want to know more. I really think you should watch it.

Malc

Well, if you specifically search for your "truth", it's easy to find loads of information validating what you wanted so much.

Try to do the same for the opposite view, you know, and you might find also lots of studies saying otherwise, but i'm sure you wouldn't want to do that.

That's kind of your job, if that's the point you're looking to argue.

Hammond Blowing up a Caravan

Malc

Well apparently that book "explodes experts' consensus of major differences between male and female brains hardwired at birth" so by and large the so-called experts apparently don't agree with it.

If there is one thing I have learned the hard way it's that you just can't trust a TV documentary no matter who made it or how well it's presented, so some independent sources would be appreciated. I can't watch it anyway because iPlayer is blocked outside the UK.

Thanks!

If there's one thing that's unquestionably fucking moronic, it's the argument from authority fallacy of saying "Look, an 'expert' said it, so it must be true". Unless it's an expert that doesn't support your bias, in which case they clearly don't know what they're talking about.

You can have a published, peer-reviewed paper in a high impact journal and still have it disputed, or have other papers that show non-supportive conclusions. It happens all the time.

My gf is biochemist with a phD and works in genetics, and we've discussed the subject at length. In terms of choosing a career path, there isn't any immediate genetic predisposition towards picking a particular career, but there are numerous aspects of human dimorphism that would convey particular advantages. In males this is most evident in jobs requiring physical strength. There's nothing to say a woman can't be strong, or stronger than an untrained male, but more importantly there's nothing that exists by a virtue of sex to predispose them to being, say, a labourer on a building site.

Similarly, men have a greater tendency to take risks. I believe that's primarily hormonal and can lead to other 'interesting' behaviours (le link), but this may also convey an advantage in a career where risk-taking is rewarded. Say perhaps in banking. Obviously a willingness to take risks isn't coupled with innate intelligence, so the simple aspect of being risky is also likely to express more extreme examples of failure rather than playing it safe. At no point would anyone say a woman can't or wouldn't take risks but on the average it might explain some examples of success in that area.

I think it's better to assume there are many factors in play, rather than saying 'HURR PATRIARCHY' or writing something off as 'Shit science' when you haven't had any direct sight of the matter or methods involved. Neither is being able to scrounge up a link to support something comprehensive proof of an argument.

Curio I'd respond more to your points but your reply was a bit confused had lumped together things that I hadn't said. I didn't say there weren't women in low paid jobs or that men prefer certain industries, but neither is there any attempt to right the imbalance of sexual representation in those low-paid traditionally male jobs either.

I actually agree with this. On an even more basic level, men are generally sexually attracted to women and vice versa, so clearly we aren't wired the same sexually. It would be obvious nonsense to claim that this wasn't genetic.

But as soon as we move away from these very basic traits, things that have been said about the differences between men and women throughout the years have mostly been guesswork and fanciful thinking.

And another thing to keep in mind is the huge variance within each gender even in these basic things like risk taking. Making sweeping generalisations is stupid for that reason alone.

Tales of women driven out of careers in software engineering are very common. I know someone who have boasted that a female engineer cited in her exit interview the "rugby club atmosphere" as her reasons for leaving the job and leaving engineering. I have overheard male engineers discussing the fuckability of their coworkers. It is not hard to find tales of female engineers at conferences mistaken for booth babes, or for marketing, or as PAs; anything but a technical role. These people are rarely happy. They can have the career they want or escape the low-level harassment, but not both.

Which but don't you believe in -- the harassment? That they enjoy the job? Or that they should be thicker skinned?

I've worked with a handful of women engineers in my career; probably less than 10% of my colleagues. But they've been in the top 10% of most skilled people I've worked alongside. Why might that be, do you think?

We look at things like 1960's Good Housekeeping now and the 'traditional' role of the woman as the quiet little mouse at home as a ludicrous nonsense and artefact of history. We laugh at anyone that still subscribes to that view, but those people also tend to be pretty thick.

Men have more testosterone, Testosterone is responsible for behavioural traits that include aggression. Some jobs will reward an aggressive personality which men may be more predisposed towards by default. Necessarily fair? No. A natural aspect of human male behaviour? Yes. But being an aggressive caveman won't get you the top job if you don't have the smarts to match, and not all men act like this. Neither are all women placid and meek.

So like I said in my post on Friday, it's fine for men and women to be different if they want to be, and I don't see a need to ensure 50% of each sex in the big jobs (particularly since that logic isn't applied to the 'small' jobs). The key is making sure that everyone knows that they can aspire to be anything they want to be, and try to support them in their aims. If you're doing this in earnest, the issue of aspiration will eventually correct itself and the numbers in industry will sit where they may.



And that's why you don't make generalisations designed to encompass an entire sex, as idiots like Dick 'my anecdotal evidence of software engineers proves my point' Gaywood and myp have throughout this thread. You discuss the predispositions and averages that may explain the greater observed prevalence of a thing, and accept that you're not stating a propositional tautology.

But yes, I acknowledge your persistent need to try to contradict everything I say on principle. Carry on.

Let me try another tack, Dave.

Why Women Quit Technology | Computerworld



If natural sexual bias is your explanation for the preponderance of men in tech -- if women just suck, in other words -- how do so many women qualify? And then having qualified, why do so many leave? And why did software engineering have a much more equitable gender split before the mid-80s? Did women just get genetically worse at computer science around then?

That is a separate issue to what I was talking about. If you want my frank opinion on men as a whole, you're quite welcome to it. (Mainly that it's a wonder that the human race has survived with such... attractive... personalities)

Still not discussing ethics in games journalism huh?