[Cushman]

Really? Let's debate. Do you have a study documenting the case of a statistically significant number of children raised in an environment where every single other person isn't constantly treating them like they should behave a particular way because of their genitals? Because otherwise you're just redemonstrating the already well-documented fact that children tend to behave the way they are expected to behave, which doesn't tell us anything useful about genetics.

Okay, that's a cheap shot. I know you don't have any such study. Tell you what, I'll settle for any study demonstrating that the divergence between the mean of all women and the mean of all men is greater than the divergence between individuals of either gender.

In any metric.

[waqf]

As far as I can tell, sarkozy doesn't have a study proving his point (or proving your straw-man version of his point) and you don't have a study proving yours.

Now, why is it that you are entitled to an opinion and he is not?

[Cushman]

As far as I can tell, the person bringing up "countless psychological studies" has a responsibility to provide their own evidence.

I have no problem with other people having opinions. I likewise have no problem with publicly disapproving of opinions which I think are socially harmful.

I don't have any illusions about changing a bigot's mind, but I can hope that others will see my disapproval and think that bigotry is just that much less cool.

[waqf]

I'm intrigued by your willingness to use and to admit to using the metric "socially harmful" (as opposed to, say, "correct") to judge an opinion.

For example, what would you do if your own opinion (that is, your honest best assessment of what the truth actually was) was an opinion you judged to be socially harmful? Would you continue to hold the opinion, but try to avoid mentioning it? Would you publicly lie about your opinion? Would you express the opinion and expect public disapproval? Would you intentionally try to change your own opinion somehow?

[Cushman]

Ooh, that's a fascinating question. I'm not completely sure how to respond, since I think the two are tied together— I use a more or less evidence-based definition of harm.

I mean, looking at it logically, thinking that all women want to have children wouldn't be prejudiced if all women actually did want to have children. Would it still be wrong to say so? I can't see how.

I guess if my assessment of the facts were greatly opposed to my values it'd probably imply some more significant cognitive dissonance.

[sarkozy]

Why are you calling me a bigot? Is it possible you could find a less offensive way of engaging in this discussion? I would appreciate it. I also disagree with you, after all, but have not resorted to calling you names.

[Cushman]

I apologize— I didn't mean to call you a bigot personally, so although I do feel that sex prejudice is a very important and undervalued issue in our culture, I'll admit it was a poor choice of words.

I was merely trying to elucidate the broader point that shaming can be appropriate in the case of "differences of opinion"— after all, bigotry is just the extremity of the belief that one's personal prejudice is well-grounded in fact.

Of course I appreciate that you're willing to discuss this civilly, and I hope you'll forgive the hyperbole.

[sarkozy]

Apology accepted. It's been an enjoyable discussion and I appreciate that you feel strongly about the issue.

[sarkozy]

Down below I posted a study below backing up my point but I will re-post it here in case you haven't seen it.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7075/abs/nature04...

[axod]

> like they should behave a particular way because of their genitals?

Come on. There are countless studies that show the biological differences between the sexes and the way their brains work. It's not rocket science.

If you believe in evolution, surely you believe that over time, the female and male brains have developed for different functions. I've never understood why people disbelieve this and try to pretend that the sexes are identical.

[Cushman]

I'm discussing one such study in a sibling thread. I'd be happy to do the same here if you have one you feel is persuasive.

[axod]

Show me a study that proves that men and women think in exactly the same ways and that there are no biological differences in their programming.

I really can't understand how anyone who accepts evolution (Surely most people), but doesn't accept the idea that perhaps the female and male minds have evolved and optimized to different things.

Given that we have obvious and numerous physical differences, it seems terribly unlikely that we have no mental differences. Especially given that physically and internally the sexes brains differ quite a lot (size, weight, number of neurons etc).

For example:

  Number of neocortical neurons (females) = 19.3 billion
  (Pakkenberg, B., Pelvig, D., Marner,L., Bundgaard, M.J.,
  Gundersen, H.J.G., Nyengaard, J.R. and Regeur, L. Aging
  and the human neocortex. Exp. Gerontology, 38:95-99, 2003
  and Pakkenberg, B. and Gundersen, H.J.G. Neocortical
  neuron number in humans: effect of sex and age. J. Comp.
  Neurology, 384:312-320, 1997.)

  Number of neocortical neurons (males) = 22.8 billion
  (Pakkenberg et al., 1997; 2003)

Males were traditionally hunters, which is why they have greater spacial abilities. Women were traditionally carers, which is why they have greater communicative and caring ability. This isn't cutting edge stuff. Look up the numerous studies. Look at the anecdotal evidence.

I think that if you disagree with the above, there's no point continuing. It'd be like trying to argue with someone who denies evolution.

I completely get that we should not discriminate UNFAIRLY based on any attribute of anyone. But to deny obvious differences that clearly exist is just silly.

[argv_empty]

Show me a study that proves that men and women think in exactly the same ways and that there are no biological differences in their programming.

"The following specific differences in behavior are attributable to biological differences between male and female: _____" is a rather different claim from "There exist biological differences between male and female." I believe the former claim is the one being challenged. Disproof of the latter claim, while sufficient to disprove the former, is not strictly necessary.

[Cushman]

Okay, again, you said there were studies. That means you have to find them, not me.

[axod]

Google is your friend. I'm not about to spoon feed you common sense, just like I can't be bothered to find studies that show the earth isn't flat right now.

And if you're serious, you have to respond to all my other points. For example:

  Do you believe that evolution exists
  Do you accept that women are physically different to men
  Do you accept that womens brains are different to mens

We're talking scientifically here. On average.

Is it racist to say most basketball players are black due to them being on average taller? Or maybe you think their extra height is caused by their environment :/

[Cushman]

Your world may in fact be flat: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/spence/Feng,%20Spence,%20...

Since you mentioned spatial awareness, you'll probably like this one. Having both groups play Medal of Honor for only 10 hours total narrowed the spatial gender gap into nonsignificance, with women benefitting much more than men. The benefits were still visible months later, without any instruction to continue playing.

Considering the wildly different toys and games we encourage boys and girls to play from infancy through adolescence, to say that this calls the idea that the spatial gender gap is genetic into question is quite an understatement.

So, uh... got any evidence that it is?

[krakensden]

Height?

[Cushman]

You'd be forgiven for thinking this is a cheap shot, but nope— Wikipedia lists the difference in mean height for Americans as about 5" (~5'10" for men, ~5'5" for women). If you get three guys together in a room, you've probably already got more variation than that.

The general point here is that there is much, much more overlap between the sexes than there is difference between them. That's why although you certainly can make interesting statistical inferences about populations, applying the same statistics on an individual level (this person is a woman, she's probably [whatever]) is very likely to be false and is equivalent to blind prejudice.

[krakensden]

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr010.pdf

Look at page 11. 19 year old women in the 90th percentile are still shorter than 19 year old men in the 50th percentile. Now, while I was never very good at statistics, I'm pretty sure if we had a running bet over who was taller in any random male/female pairing, I would drain your bank account dry.

[sarkozy]

Let's start with this one:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7075/abs/nature04...

[Cushman]

What is that supposed to show?

It's studying adults, so it can't and of course doesn't make any claims about genetics like you're trying to.

I can only find one place with any information about individuals (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7075/fig_tab/natu...), but according to that one graph the difference among all men is more than twice the difference between the average of all men and the average of all women. Even the cultural implication isn't valuable for making statements about individuals.

Doesn't really look like it answers either of my points.

[sarkozy]

It's one of many studies that demonstrate empirically that women are more empathic than men. My assumption is that the difference relates to genetics but what matters is that there is an observable difference that will have an impact in the real world - especially in the workplace - which is what this discussion is about.

[Cushman]

Found the supplemental PDF: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7075/extref/natur...

The second page has a graph of individuals by "empathic concern" (ignoring the brain activity axis, which is what the study is actually demonstrating...)

Note that although women, on average, have higher scores than men (a mean difference of 2 on a scale of 1-20), almost half of the men have scores higher than the female average, and a quarter of the women have scores lower than the male average.

In more intuitive terms, out of this sample of 16 men and 16 women, the 7 most empathic men were more empathic than the 8 least empathic women. If you were trying to guess how empathic someone you meet is based on their sex, you would do slightly better than just flipping a coin. From this you're getting that "women are more empathic"?

Or are you using a slight statistical association to rationalize your cultural prejudice?

[sarkozy]

The study indicates women, on average, have higher empathy scores than men. But other studies have demonstrated similar results. Such as this one:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2k31831780w417w/

On the "Empathy Quotient" test, the average female score is 47 while for males it is 42.

So, no, I'm not using "a slight statistical association to rationalize" either (a) "a cultural prejudice" or (b) "bigotry" (which you unfairly accused me of in an earlier comment). I could just as easily accuse you of denying the weight of the scientific evidence because of misogyny but that would be silly. The fact is, there is room here for reasonable debate and your attempt to paint this issue in black and white is unjustified.

[Cushman]

I don't think you see my point here. You can't use statistics to judge individuals.

If that study were a hiring situation and you figured that, since "women are more empathic than men", you should only consider the female applicants, you would be tossing out nearly as many qualified applicants as you'd be keeping. It's just not a useful thing to say based on that data.

When you add in the fact that saying "women are more empathic than men" contributes to the broader social condition that empathy is encouraged in women and discouraged in men, and that mean women get a free pass because they're women and caring men can't get a job teaching children because they're men, it becomes a positively damaging thing to say.

And what do you get out of it?