Women!!!!!

[ThorinOakensfield]

Originally posted by CM
Dammit why can't these creatures be straight forward and not so damn confusing - can anybody tell me that?
Frankly if you want to say something you say it directly and honestly.
Not with guarded compliments and weird games.
ARRRRGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

So who can answer that question?
Why are women so confusing?

Fas it may just be you who has such a hard time handling women. You may lack the skills needed.

[fable]

Originally posted by AbysmalNature
No there are differences biologically in the brain between men and women, there are differences in brain chemistry, agression levels, and many other things which might influence behavior. It is not all learned,

Neither CE nor myself is saying nature isn't a small part of the equation. What I mentioned above, and what (presumably) you're reacting to, is the idea that most actions that distinguish girls from boys and men from women are not inate. They are socially developed. And that goes for aggression, as well.

[AbysmalNature]

Yes but that agression is not all learned, the cultural reinforcement has a underlying biological basis. Which means that even given a massive education program, men on the whole would always be more agressive then women, and cultural education would follow this, reinforcing traits which are biological in origin.

There are significant physical differences between men and women, men have more upper body strength, women have more endurance, men think better in three dimensions, women think better in two dimensions, these are quite significant differences that are biological in nature. There are many differences between each sex, but as I said before these are tendencies, not iron clad rules, environment can significantly offset biology for a while anyway.

If most of the behavior patterns of each gender were determined by learned behavior, why have gender roles not yet changed. Why despite ten or twenty years of education is there still a divide between men and women, and still most do not understand each other. Perhaps it is biological in origin, perhaps not, too complex to say one way or another, and there is still not enough evidence yet to support it either way.

[fable]

Originally posted by AbysmalNature
Yes but that agression is not all learned, the cultural reinforcement has a underlying biological basis. Which means that even given a massive education program, men on the whole would always be more agressive then women, and cultural education would follow this, reinforcing traits which are biological in origin.

I don't know of any studies or evidence showing that men are more aggressive than women. Men are *trained* to be more aggressive, because traditionally in Western society they've been the breadwinners and fighters, while women were stuck raising the kids; but that doesn't make men more biologically aggressive. It only makes them more suitable for going to work and kill, since having a kid strapped to your breast kinda gets in the way of both.

There are significant physical differences between men and women, men have more upper body strength, women have more endurance, men think better in three dimensions, women think better in two dimensions, these are quite significant differences that are biological in nature.

I'm with you on the first two--but men think better in three-dimensions, women in two? I've not heard this before. Where did you find it, and what exactly do you mean? I know my wife handles three dimensions much better than I do. And she smirks when she does so, too. She tries to hide it, but she does. The scum.

If most of the behavior patterns of each gender were determined by learned behavior, why have gender roles not yet changed. Why despite ten or twenty years of education is there still a divide between men and women, and still most do not understand each other. Perhaps it is biological in origin, perhaps not, too complex to say one way or another, and there is still not enough evidence yet to support it either way.

I'm assuming, here, you refer to popular, average Western culture as a whole--because in significant areas of professional culture--politics, medicine, academia, big business--women now hold a signficant percentage of coveted leadership roles and have proved themselves as acute and ruthless as their male counterparts. Gender discrimination is harder to find up top, and gender roles have changed repeatedly. The rank and file are another matter...

The reason behavior patterns haven't changed in popular, everyday culture is the same reason that married couples in most Western cultures still are listed under law by the male's last name, despite the fact that the woman has long since (more than a thousand years) ceased to move literally from her parental household into that of her husband's: the habit of cultural conventions. They're stiff, arbitrary, and resistant to change.

If you disagree with this, perhaps you can give us several gender roles that you believe are based on biological rather than social conditions.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by AbysmalNature

If most of the behavior patterns of each gender were determined by learned behavior, why have gender roles not yet changed. Why despite ten or twenty years of education is there still a divide between men and women, and still most do not understand each other. Perhaps it is biological in origin, perhaps not, too complex to say one way or another, and there is still not enough evidence yet to support it either way.

Eh? Gender roles have changed countless times in recorded history, I'm not talking 20 years here but different cultures for the last 2000 years or so.

Also, I notice that you mention differences in the brains of men and women, and you refer to studies that demonstate this. I'd very much appreciate if you'd like to post references or links to those studies, since I've never seen any studies that show significant differences between male and female brains at a funtional level.

A long time ago, I posted what is known in neuroscience and biological psychology, I don't remember exactly everything now, but AFAIR (I'll check tomorrow when I come to work and have access to all the research data bases) the findings are:

All these data is at group level, ie you only see the differences when you compare groups, not when you compare individuals.

1. Women have smaller brains than men, since brain size is correlated to body size. Asians have smaller brains than Caucasians.

2. Some studies show women have a thicker corpus callosum than men, but data are inconsistent.

3. Women have less lateralized language functions, ie language functions are more distributed over both hemispheres whereas men have language funtions more concentrated in one hemisphere, usually the left if you are right-handed.

4. Women score better in arithmetic tests, whereas men score better at mental rotation tests. Women also has faster visual perception and faster hand/finger motorics.

men think better in three dimensions, women think better in two dimensions, these are quite significant differences that are biological in nature.

??? I don't understand what you refer to here. What do you mean by 3 and 2 dimensions, what kind of tasks are used to measure this? Perhaps I know what it is but we call it by other terms, so please explain. Whatever you mean, I'm amazed to see that you claim differences in cognitive functioning are biological in nature - what studies have you been reading and what are the biological mechanisms behind this? Sure all processes has a biological correlate if we don't believe in an abstract soul, every thought we think and every emotion we feel, of course correspond to biochemical events in our brains - but biology has nothing to do with the question of whether something is learned or inherited. Biology is best descibed as the field where our genes interact with our environment. Genetics don't determine all of our intracellular events, like long term potentiation (remember Kandel who got the Nobel prize 2000 for this?) that is believed to play an important role in learning. Aren't you mixing up biological and genetic causes here?
However, regardless of whether you actually mean biological or genetical, it's a fact that very little is known about the biology behind cognition. And if you refer to genetics, even less is known, so I'd be extremely interested in knowing where you have got your information from.

[Der-draigen]

@fable and CE -- So gender-specific hormones have nothing to do with behavior? I always thought testosterone was responsible for male aggression and explained everything about the male sex drive, conqeuror instinct, tendency to be more violent than women, etc. etc. Testosterone isn't conditioned by society I don't mean to be sarcastic but I simply don't believe you can say that all behaviors are learned and biology has very little to do with behavior. This is far from an open and shut case from what I understand. Last time I checked, scientists and behaviorists etc. were still debating the nature/nurture thing.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Der-draigen
@fable and CE -- So gender-specific hormones have nothing to do with behavior? I always thought testosterone was responsible for male aggression and explained everything about the male sex drive, conqeuror instinct, tendency to be more violent than women, etc. etc. Testosterone isn't conditioned by society I don't mean to be sarcastic but I simply don't believe you can say that all behaviors are learned and biology has very little to do with behavior. This is far from an open and shut case from what I understand. Last time I checked, scientists and behaviorists etc. were still debating the nature/nurture thing.

Nonono, the nature-nurture debate is not solved and will not be for a long, long time to come. What I am arguing, is that the gender roles, as they look in Western society today, are learned and not genetic. Also, since AbysmalN seemed to believe there are important differences between male and female brains, I wanted to point out that this is not the case. Should anyone be further interested in that particular subject, I'll be happy to post references or explain what is known about the brain at a functional level.

However, the nature-nurture debate is a lot more complicated that to attribute a single substance like a hormone, to specific behaviours. Testosterone is a good example - whereas it's one of many components needed for the development of male primary and secondary (when reaching adolescence) physical characteristica, it's not the cause of aggression, violent behaviour and sex drive. A bit about sex hormones can be read in this thread
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showt ... genumber=2
if you wish to know more, feel free to ask but I have to say it was a few years ago I took neuroendocrinology. I try to keep updated though since I'm running a study in this area.

[Obsidian]

Well, I do believe that men and women both have testoterone and estrogen, just in varying levels. Not sure, I'm not a med student. Yet... Back to poor old CM here, I say go for it. What have you got to lose? Worst case scenerio is that she says no. Boohoo. Obviously, thanks the sociatel inflicted gender roles where the guy HAS to ask the girl out, its up to you big guy.
Have I mentioned that really bugs me? Everything girls go threw mentally about guys, I'll bet that guys go threw in their own way as well. In my dating life, I've been asked out twice directly by girls. They may show plenty of interest in you (which is your case CM) but they don't feel they HAVE to ask you out, that they are forced to get there message across through other means.

So basically, just ask her out in a non-stupid way. What do I mean? Don't ask her to go back to your apartment to exchange bodily fluids (Man, A Beautiful Mind has some awesome lines). Ask her to something non threatening and clear. Like coffee, or a walk in the park, just the 2 of you. A walk works wonders!!! It's never failed me!

[fable]

Originally posted by Der-draigen
@fable and CE -- So gender-specific hormones have nothing to do with behavior? I always thought testosterone was responsible for male aggression and explained everything about the male sex drive, conqeuror instinct, tendency to be more violent than women, etc. etc. Testosterone isn't conditioned by society I don't mean to be sarcastic but I simply don't believe you can say that all behaviors are learned and biology has very little to do with behavior. This is far from an open and shut case from what I understand. Last time I checked, scientists and behaviorists etc. were still debating the nature/nurture thing.

As CE pointed out, we're not arguing the absence of "nature" in the argument. The whole discussion of this arose because I related an incident regarding a poster on another board, who believes "nurture" simply isn't involved at all. This is a very complex question, but there have been studies done that show how families begin to socially condition their infants in the first two years of life by sexual differentiation. Nurture does play a big part (though not the only part).

As for testosterone, the argument that it is responsible for aggression has been superceded by newer research. Among other interesting findings, it was discovered that the number of violent criminals who displayed an abnormally high testosterone level was approximately equivalent to the number whose level was abnormally low. Violent female prisoners did not display unusually high levels of testosterone, either. It is properly safer to say that testosterone may have a role in sexual aggression but if so, it is conditioned through many other factors; and there is no evidence to date it has any role in non-sexual behavior.

[AbysmalNature]

I read it somewhere in some science journal, I can not honestly point it out though. There were some differences between the brains of men and women, the differences being what I mentioned previously. These differences were supposably attributable to the hunter gatherer culture which existed for quite a long period of time. The idea was that since men did more hunting they needed to think more in terms of how weapons flew through the air, in other words three dimensional thinking, whereas women who did primarily gathering thought better in terms of two dimensional thinking because that was the kind of thinking that was required for gathering more fruits and vegetables in the wild. Bare in mind, these are differences between the brains of men and women, but according to the article I read, the neuronal paths could be through education relearned, so as I said it is a tendency, but it is still a difference. Also isn't it true that men use one part of their brain more than others, whereas women use both, seem to remember reading that somewhere. But yes there are differences between the brains of men and women, and simply saying that it is all a result of the environment is flying in the face of current scientific thinking. Like Der said there is still quite a lot of questions which need to be answered, trying to say either way whether there are significant differences is not being true to reality and the arguments which are being flung right now.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by AbysmalNature
I read it somewhere in some science journal, I can not honestly point it out though. There were some differences between the brains of men and women, the differences being what I mentioned previously. These differences were supposably attributable to the hunter gatherer culture which existed for quite a long period of time. The idea was that since men did more hunting they needed to think more in terms of how weapons flew through the air, in other words three dimensional thinking, whereas women who did primarily gathering thought better in terms of two dimensional thinking because that was the kind of thinking that was required for gathering more fruits and vegetables in the wild. Bare in mind, these are differences between the brains of men and women, but according to the article I read, the neuronal paths could be through education relearned, so as I said it is a tendency, but it is still a difference.

With all respect AbysmalN, I have to say that this sounds like a highly speculative article, are you sure it was a real scientific journal and not a popular science journal? Sure there are a few brain researcher around who have different hypthesisis about potential differences between men and women, but I've never heard any serious brain researcher discuss this on a neural pathway level - on the contrary, the current consensus in that there are no differences between male and female brains at a functional level, ie at the level of receptor systems/pathways. Do you remember what methods they use to examine the brains? And how many people were examined?

Anyway, let's say some differences were found. To jump to the highly speculative conclusion that this would be due to how men and women lived during the hunter/gatherer society, is speculative to the verge of being unserious.

Also isn't it true that men use one part of their brain more than others, whereas women use both, seem to remember reading that somewhere.

This is not true, you are correct, it just shows how much crap is written about the human brain when in fact we don't know a lot at all.

But yes there are differences between the brains of men and women, and simply saying that it is all a result of the environment is flying in the face of current scientific thinking. Like Der said there is still quite a lot of questions which need to be answered, trying to say either way whether there are significant differences is not being true to reality and the arguments which are being flung right now.

Like Fable points out, neither him or me are saying that differences between men and women or between individuals are due to environmental factors only - but we both want to stress how stereotypes, culture and popular media are exagregating differences and attributing things to genetics that are not genetic. Also, remember that biology and genetics are not the same, even though I know it sometimes seems so when popular press simplifies things.

PS - do you know a bit of how the brain works? If so, I'll try to summarize current scientific thinking about the human brain: The older anatomical view has to a large extent being replaced with a functional view. It is believed that receptor systems and pathways hold a greater explanation value that anatomy - ie minor differences at an anatomical level does not mean a lot, whereas differences in pathways and receptor distribution means more. A pretty example is schizophrenia - for almost 100 years, researchers have been looking for specific anatomical differences between schizophrenic patients and healthy people, Nothing consistent and specific has ever been found, but when looking at a receptor level, it was found that schizophrenic patients have different dopminergic activity, which is reflected in differences in dopamin receptors.
However, at receptor level, as far as we know now, there are no differences between men and women for any of the major transmitter systems. Individual differences however are very large. Perhaps the future will show more differences between men and women, but at present, it's mere speculation.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot - to what extent receptor distribution is determined by genetic factors, is totally unknown, we've actually just started a huge project where this will be one of the main issues to investigate

[Tom]

My little contribution to the debate.

I think that just as animals are born with an instinctive set of behaviours to act like males or females, so are humans.

This seems to me to be common sense. We know that there are clear behavioural differences between the sexes in animals that we can’t maintain is nurture based. In most mammals there a difference is behaviour that is clearly based on the sex of the animal.

It can’t be disputed that human males are more violent and aggressive than human females (just look at criminals convicted for violent crimes). But I also think this is partly based on features we inherit based on our sex.

I believe this because the same trait is present in other mammals like chimps etc. where males are more aggressive.

Also I saw some research somewhere that in the human male brain there is a part of the hypothalamus that is twice as big as it is in the female brain. I don't think that this had anything to do with aggression though but rather to do with gender identity.

[fable]

Originally posted by Tom
It can’t be disputed that human males are more violent and aggressive than human females (just look at criminals convicted for violent crimes). But I also think this is partly based on features we inherit based on our sex.

I believe this because the same trait is present in other mammals like chimps etc. where males are more aggressive.

There are also several mammalian species where the females are more aggressive and prone to violence; and humans are not chimps. If Jimmy is allowed to beat another 4-year-old in the sandbox with a small shovel because his parents think he's being "manly," while Suzy is told to "be more like a little lady," of course Suzy will be more repressed in the expression of emotion, while Jimmy will have parental approval lurking in the back of his mind whenever he lets go in later years. This much is demonstrable; what isn't clear is what role (if any) nature plays in the expression of violent emotions by the respective sexes.

[Nullen]

stuff!!!

Originally posted by fable


There are also several mammalian species where the females are more aggressive and prone to violence; and humans are not chimps. If Jimmy is allowed to beat another 4-year-old in the sandbox with a small shovel because his parents think he's being "manly," while Suzy is told to "be more like a little lady," of course Suzy will be more repressed in the expression of emotion, while Jimmy will have parental approval lurking in the back of his mind whenever he lets go in later years. This much is demonstrable; what isn't clear is what role (if any) nature plays in the expression of violent emotions by the respective sexes.

wow it's a good thing that people can't get in here and read this stuff....you guys scare me.....now we're getting into the animal realm

[Beldin]

Originally posted by CM

So who can answer that question?
Why are women so confusing?

Nice Discussion, but I think it's all quite simple: Because they like to keep us on our toes.....

So - No worries !


Beldin, the Hunchback

[Gwalchmai]

Originally posted by CM
But heck a majority of you are americans, maybe you can give me an insight into the american female psyche.

Don't look at me. I've been trying to figure that one out for 40 years. No luck.

Just treat her as you would any other good friend that you want to spend time with. If it works out, great! If not, well at least you tried. Be open and honest.


@Voodoo: Should you have published those rules? I thought men were supposed to figure those things out on their own....

@C. Elegans: Possibly another problem might be that in recent decades, Gender Roles have been re-defined, and re-re-defined, and re-re-re-defined (etc.) to the extent that there is no single set of rules that define how women and men should act in any given culture. Now we have the problem of having to figure out which gender role she/he is adhering to and which is expected of us. What do you think of that?

@Der-Draigon: I can’t tell you how many times a woman has told me that she felt confident in her abilities to love more than one man at the same time! If a woman has sex with a man, it is assumed that she loves him (or them, if there are other lovers), but love isn’t a given for men. It is assumed that men always separate love and sex. How fair is that?

@Bloodstalker: Thanks for the translations!

@Fas: I agree with CE’s Fable’s, Der-D’s, Viv’s, and Tom’s advice.

[Tybaltus]

Excavation Report! : Beldins 1st SYM post

Originally posted by Beldin
Nice Discussion, but I think it's all quite simple: Because they like to keep us on our toes.....

So - No worries !


Beldin, the Hunchback

Ah yesterday I targeted Eery's first SYM post, now its Beldin's turn.

Sounds the same as he always has.

[Eerhardt]

I have to agree with Tyb, that Beldin always has a answer for such matters...

As to the subject at hand: I think it's in my best interest if I refrain from any comments on women which may or may not be used in a court of law

[Beldin]

Re: Excavation Report! : Beldins 1st SYM post

Originally posted by Tybaltus
Ah yesterday I targeted Eery's first SYM post, now its Beldin's turn.

Sounds the same as he always has.

..and my first post EVER was this.

No worries,

Beldin

[Aqua-chan]

So, Fas... Why are MEN so simple? Let's go into that question for a while.