Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It’s also bad science to judge *individuals* by *statistical averages.*
Most serial killers are white men. That doesn’t mean that I’m likely to be a serial killer.
For some reason, people don't get this in regards to the bold.
Researchers/scientists even make this declaration in their reports of findings, but people still continue to use science to further their discriminatory opinions/ideas.
Note, I'm not speaking about the OP but just in general and posing this as a reason why both kids and adults oftentimes refuse to consider scientific research.
They automatically get defensive when faced with studies and their averages.
There are biological differences that make the female and the male mind perform differently on average. Yet I've never seen anyone deny or ignore the science that women are generally speaking better at some mental tasks on average like multi-tasking and there is a biological basis for it...while on the other hand I do see people denying/ignoring science that there is a biological basis for the male mind on average to outperform female minds in some areas....or that hormones such as testosterone and estrogen do play a role on the brain. For example, Testosterone impacts spatial processing power.
These biological differences could spell out into career differences just as muscles can.
I've never seen anyone deny or ignore the science that genetics plays a role in your structural traits of your body like how tall you are, but I do see people deny or ignore the science that genetics plays a role in the structure of your brain and this structure impacts intelligence, memory, processing, etc...
Is there a general rule of thumb for when I am to deny or ignore science to comply with modern PC?
It’s also bad science to judge *individuals* by *statistical averages.*
Most serial killers are white men. That doesn’t mean that I’m likely to be a serial killer.
No one is saying to judge individuals by statistical averages.
You are not comprehending my argument if that is what you think I am saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
On the blue, as I stated, they deny that the average/mean applies to all within a particular group or gender. Most do not deny that the average/mean exist, just that it does not represent everyone in a particular gender or group of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi
You know why we don't just definitively state, "Men are better at these tasks, women are better at those tasks, and that's just the way it is"? Because, as a previous poster pointed out, the data is based on averages and generalizations, of course, but there's more to it. What if some of that is culturally based, as well? Is it a static eventuality, or could it be changed by a change in societal behavior? Where are the outliers? How average is "average"? There's so much that we don't know about the brain, that we don't know about how it affects our natural abilities, that it's ludicrous to make a blanket statement and just accept it. That isn't how science works. If we have a "yes, but," we need to see where the "but" leads. That's how science works. So it isn't that "the left" doesn't accept verified science, it's just that this bit may not mean what you think it does.
That is not what is happening.
What is happening is that people are flat out denying well established science.
It is well established science that (1) men have more testosterone on average due to biological causes (genetics), (2) testosterone impacts your muscle and even your brain and therefore (3) men having more muscle than women on average is at least in part biological (genetic) and cannot be explained by today's culture alone.
I have multiple students deny the above and one who claimed it is sexist to claim that men have an inherent biological advantage on average with muscles.
Should I not teach testosterone? Should I teach it and not mention that the chemical isn't evenly distributed among all people?
***Obligatory PC Disclaimer*** Yes women can build muscle, yes some women are very strong, yes some women are stronger than some men, yes women should exercise and do sports, YES it would be foolish to judge an entire gender as a group on this issue...but that doesn't change the science and it is absurd to suggest that men outperform women in the Olympics solely because of culture and zero percent biology.
Which is what they are doing...they are denying science and claiming that men average more muscle than women due 100% to cultural causes in today's society and that it could change right now if our culture changed.
These same students will not speak up if it is brought up that women have a biological advantage over men. They accept science if it says women have an advantage over men. They reject science if it says men have an advantage over women.
Why is it okay to reject blatant science in some cases that women have an advantage (generally speaking), while these same people reject the exact same science that men have an advantage in other cases (generally speaking).
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
On your students, I'd ask how old they are. I love kids/young people but I don't consider their views to be representative of general society. I often engage with youth and 20 somethings as well and they have some very unlearned/ignorant views and comments about a variety of things. That is because they are young and in many cases idealistic. Youth comes with inexperience and so students choosing not to believe biological science is nothing that I would take seriously.
It is not just (some of my) high school kids...(and it is a minority, but growing minority each year that deny basic science)...
I had a coworker in her 50s reject the centuries of observations and modern scientific research that suggests some dog breeds typically have strengths in some areas better than other dog breeds. You kind of have to be purposefully ignorant to reject this.
There is a reason why certain dog breeds tend to be used for drug/bomb/tracking sniffing dogs from law enforcement and other dog breeds aren't used as often or even at all for those same tasks. Sure all dogs can sniff...and can be trained...isn't there biological (genetic) attributes why some breeds are generally better at it?
There are people on this very board (presumably adults) that have rejected the science that genetics plays a role in things like bone length, fast twitch muscles, and even brain structure.
My question revolves not around judging by the group or anything of that angle (only idiots judge individuals by their gender or skin color, etc....), but my question is why some people are rejecting reality and science that there are biological causes for why some people have certain attributes or strengths while accepting it in other cases.
No one is saying to judge individuals by statistical averages.
You are not comprehending my argument if that is what you think I am saying.
That is not what is happening.
What is happening is that people are flat out denying well established science.
It is well established science that (1) men have more testosterone on average due to biological causes (genetics), (2) testosterone impacts your muscle and even your brain and therefore (3) men having more muscle than women on average is at least in part biological (genetic) and cannot be explained by today's culture alone.
I have multiple students deny the above and one who claimed it is sexist to claim that men have an inherent biological advantage on average with muscles.
Should I not teach testosterone? Should I teach it and not mention that the chemical isn't evenly distributed among all people?
***Obligatory PC Disclaimer*** Yes women can build muscle, yes some women are very strong, yes some women are stronger than some men, yes women should exercise and do sports, YES it would be foolish to judge an entire gender as a group on this issue...but that doesn't change the science and it is absurd to suggest that men outperform women in the Olympics solely because of culture and zero percent biology.
Which is what they are doing...they are denying science and claiming that men average more muscle than women due 100% to cultural causes in today's society and that it could change right now if our culture changed.
These same students will not speak up if it is brought up that women have a biological advantage over men. They accept science if it says women have an advantage over men. They reject science if it says men have an advantage over women.
Why is it okay to reject blatant science in some cases that women have an advantage (generally speaking), while these same people reject the exact same science that men have an advantage in other cases (generally speaking).
It is not just (some of my) high school kids...(and it is a minority, but growing minority each year that deny basic science)...
I had a coworker in her 50s reject the centuries of observations and modern scientific research that suggests some dog breeds typically have strengths in some areas better than other dog breeds. You kind of have to be purposefully ignorant to reject this.
There is a reason why certain dog breeds tend to be used for drug/bomb/tracking sniffing dogs from law enforcement and other dog breeds aren't used as often or even at all for those same tasks. Sure all dogs can sniff...and can be trained...isn't there biological (genetic) attributes why some breeds are generally better at it?
There are people on this very board (presumably adults) that have rejected the science that genetics plays a role in things like bone length, fast twitch muscles, and even brain structure.
My question revolves not around judging by the group or anything of that angle (only idiots judge individuals by their gender or skin color, etc....), but my question is why some people are rejecting reality and science that there are biological causes for why some people have certain attributes or strengths while accepting it in other cases.
I and others responded to your last question with the fact that people often perceive science as a threat to them as an individual - attempting to lump them in a lesser group of averages/statistics.
On your co-worker, I agree that he/she is probably just willfully ignorant. I have come to accept the fact that the world is filled with a lot of stupid (willfully ignorant) people. It doesn't bother me much anymore.
Will note though on the items you cited above, you can find a lot of scientific research that can confirm and/or deny someone's opinion on those subjects in regards to their heritability where some scientists believe that environmental factors are more likely to affect those items. I think that is where some people also get upset about in regards to "science deniers." The fact that there are so many scientific studies that people actually can chose to deny a particular study that they feel is refute by another study.
The whole vaccines causes autism debate comes into play. There have been a few studies that show that autism does have some sort of relationships with vaccines but there have been a vast amount of otherrs that show that it is not caused by vaccines. Yet we have a large amount of Americans today who actually do believe that vaccines "cause" autism and they stop vaccinating their children. They do this because there are scientific studies about everything and science is about proving/disproving things.
However, in regards to basic biology - like women and men are biologically different genders- those things, if someone denies them, they are willfully ignorant (i.e. being stupid) IMO.
There are biological differences that make the female and the male mind perform differently on average. Yet I've never seen anyone deny or ignore the science that women are generally speaking better at some mental tasks on average like multi-tasking and there is a biological basis for it...while on the other hand I do see people denying/ignoring science that there is a biological basis for the male mind on average to outperform female minds in some areas....or that hormones such as testosterone and estrogen do play a role on the brain. For example, Testosterone impacts spatial processing power.
These biological differences could spell out into career differences just as muscles can.
I've never seen anyone deny or ignore the science that genetics plays a role in your structural traits of your body like how tall you are, but I do see people deny or ignore the science that genetics plays a role in the structure of your brain and this structure impacts intelligence, memory, processing, etc...
Is there a general rule of thumb for when I am to deny or ignore science to comply with modern PC?
OP, stop moving the goal posts. Your original post questioned why people deny the science of differences in the brains of men and women. Now you're moving on to physical attributes when you, yourself, stated, well, the second bolded part.
What MY point was above is that you cannot attribute all differences in cognitive performance and skills solely on genetic predisposition. There is more to it, and we have to look at whole cultures and history as well to see the full impact. You can have nature, but you also have nurture.
Yes, men have an advantage (on average) physically. But that's not the same as capacity of brain function at all.
There are biological differences that make the female and the male mind perform differently on average. Yet I've never seen anyone deny or ignore the science that women are generally speaking better at some mental tasks on average like multi-tasking and there is a biological basis for it...while on the other hand I do see people denying/ignoring science that there is a biological basis for the male mind on average to outperform female minds in some areas....or that hormones such as testosterone and estrogen do play a role on the brain. For example, Testosterone impacts spatial processing power.
These biological differences could spell out into career differences just as muscles can.
I've never seen anyone deny or ignore the science that genetics plays a role in your structural traits of your body like how tall you are, but I do see people deny or ignore the science that genetics plays a role in the structure of your brain and this structure impacts intelligence, memory, processing, etc...
Is there a general rule of thumb for when I am to deny or ignore science to comply with modern PC?
The differences between individuals even within the same sex is greater than the average difference between sexes. Therefore biological differences is not the best explanation for the difference between men and woman with regard to careers.
Additionally, the rest of your post is riddled with science errors. Testosterone is found in both men and women it just varies in its level. Height is a function of both genetics and environmental factors. There is little evidence to suggest women are actually better at multitasking beyond things related to walking.
So in general, as a woman, and a scientist, in a male dominated field btw, I can tell you that you need to relearn science before you actually talk about denying anything.
OP, stop moving the goal posts. Your original post questioned why people deny the science of differences in the brains of men and women. Now you're moving on to physical attributes when you, yourself, stated, well, the second bolded part.
What MY point was above is that you cannot attribute all differences in cognitive performance and skills solely on genetic predisposition. There is more to it, and we have to look at whole cultures and history as well to see the full impact. You can have nature, but you also have nurture.
Yes, men have an advantage (on average) physically. But that's not the same as capacity of brain function at all.
I haven't moved the goal posts - read my original post.
I am clearly asking why people will accept science that says women have an edge over men and deny science that says men have an edge over women. I see it more and more.
No one said that all cognitive differences between individuals or groups are genetic. You and other posters keep throwing out strawman arguments and red herrings to avoid what I am saying.
P.S. Are you saying that there is no sound science saying that there are some general differences between the male and female brain?
The differences between individuals even within the same sex is greater than the average difference between sexes. Therefore biological differences is not the best explanation for the difference between men and woman with regard to careers.
Your post is riddled with strawmen and red herring arguments. Are you really a scientist or pretending to be one?
No one said that biological differences between men and women are the "best explanation" for the differences between careers. Does it not play a role in it? Are you telling me that there are no biological differences between genders accounting for the differences in males dominating the lumber jack field?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Additionally, the rest of your post is riddled with science errors. Testosterone is found in both men and women it just varies in its level. Height is a function of both genetics and environmental factors. There is little evidence to suggest women are actually better at multitasking beyond things related to walking.
So in general, as a woman, and a scientist, in a male dominated field btw, I can tell you that you need to relearn science before you actually talk about denying anything.
Yes, women have testosterone too. A real scientist wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement. Do you honestly think that men and women have testosterone at similar levels? Do you honestly think that differing testosterone levels don't play an impact on anything with the body?
Yes, height is genetic and environmental. I have already pointed this out. Name a single country where men don't have a height advantage over women on average. Genetics NOT environment is why men have a height advantage over women when talking about broad populations. If you were a scientist I wouldn't have to spell this out for you.
Genes explain why men are taller than women on average within the same environment.
Quote:
The research, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism this week, identifies one gene on chromosome 15 and one on the Y chromosome as contributors to height in men. These genes may also help explain why men are taller than women.
The genes operate independently but have an additive effect, said Dr Justine Ellis, who authored the study with colleagues Professor Stephen Harrap and Dr Margaret Stebbing from the Department of Physiology at the University of Melbourne.
"If you have the tall version of both of these genes you will be taller than a person who only has the tall version of one of them," she said.
The Y chromosome is the male sex chromosome, absent in women. The gene on chromosome 15, called CYP19, codes for aromatase - an enzyme that converts testosterone into oestrogen in both sexes. Oestrogen influences height because it is responsible for bones fusing over at the ends, which stops people growing.
Aromatase seems to have its effect mainly on long bones, like those in the legs, said Dr Ellis. Men and women generally have similar-sized bodies, but men tend to have longer legs.
"That's why there is a difference in height between men and women - because the legs are so important in determining height," she explained.
I haven't moved the goal posts - read my original post.
I am clearly asking why people will accept science that says women have an edge over men and deny science that says men have an edge over women. I see it more and more.
No one said that all cognitive differences between individuals or groups are genetic. You and other posters keep throwing out strawman arguments and red herrings to avoid what I am saying.
P.S. Are you saying that there is no sound science saying that there are some general differences between the male and female brain?
I'm saying that there are factors other then just genetics. Environmental factors cause adaptations, so it isn't as simple as just "hard wiring." So it's not denying science to say, "It's more complicated than that." How is that a denial of science? Are there differences in brains? Yes, there are. Are they clearly on gender lines? I don't know. It doesn't seem clear cut to me that it's just hard-wired ability. How a society behaves has a lot to do with it. How a culture defines masculine and feminine influences measurement over time. Where does all that end and the pure scientific explanation for brain function begin? I don't know. I will make NO absolute statements, as I am not a scientist.
I think YOU need to read your original post. You asked about brain function, and said you had "never seen anyone deny or ignore the science that genetics plays a role in your structural traits..." It's right there. You said it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
When is it okay to deny or ignore science?
There are biological differences that make the female and the male mind perform differently on average. Yet I've never seen anyone deny or ignore the science that women are generally speaking better at some mental tasks on average like multi-tasking and there is a biological basis for it...while on the other hand I do see people denying/ignoring science that there is a biological basis for the male mind on average to outperform female minds in some areas....or that hormones such as testosterone and estrogen do play a role on the brain. For example, Testosterone impacts spatial processing power.
These biological differences could spell out into career differences just as muscles can.
I've never seen anyone deny or ignore the science that genetics plays a role in your structural traits of your body like how tall you are, but I do see people deny or ignore the science that genetics plays a role in the structure of your brain and this structure impacts intelligence, memory, processing, etc...
Is there a general rule of thumb for when I am to deny or ignore science to comply with modern PC?
Why is it okay to reject blatant science in some cases that women have an advantage (generally speaking), while these same people reject the exact same science that men have an advantage in other cases (generally speaking).
On this, wanted to specifically address this but I don't agree that it is "okay" for people to say that women have an advantage.
I noted earlier as did another poster above me that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that men are worse at multi-tasking than women.
I also do not think that women, in general, are more intelligent than men.
I think that many of the issues you have with the so-called denying of science is that the science you are trying to prove is not 100% related to heritable genes - like intelligence or an affinity for math and other academic subjects. Even in the case with the dogs being stronger in some skills or activities, that is not based 100% on biology or genes.
IMO I think that you are a very one way or no way sort of guy/gal it seems and you want others to think that way and when they don't, you believe they are "denying science" when they are not. They just are acknowledging the scientific fact that genes are not 100% at play in regards to behavior, intelligence and even some physical biological examples like "fast twitch muscles" and other being good at particular sports.
There are environmental things in play for all of these.
Now in regards to actual biological differences - as noted, men and women are biologically different genders. This is because of their inherited genes. Of course, even with people there are outliers (i.e. hermaphrodites and/or intersex persons) but biologically people have specific genes that make them a male or a female. There are specific genes that make a dog a dog and not a cat.
How a being is reared, their nutrition, their culture (and what is valued or not valued) basically their environment are huge drivers of behavioral traits and IMO all scientists agree that environmental conditions are a factor in a whole swath of behavioral and physical traits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
