21 women killed: this week in masculinism

[Trausti]

I would like to see some academic/scientific sources for the assertion bolded above.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not, for instance, making a call on whether, in general, genetics are more important than environment. I am only saying that genetics has given us more ways to understand how nature plays a role than we used to be able to understand prior to the advances in genetics. If you asked me to make a non-expert guess, I'd guess that it's about 50/50 nature and nurture, albeit there may be genetic influences playing a part on the nurture side, so it's not a simple dichotomy.

Lysenko’s ghost still scares some from acknowledging nature’s role.

 

[ronburgundy]

Note that Trausti claims nearly all of the difference is attributed to masculinism. What does this mean to you?

Absolutely. That’s the Occam’s razor explanation. Blaming systemic this or structural that for natural differences is what idiots do to sound intelligent.

This post shows a lack of basic intellect and a commitment to a faith based dogma without regard for reason or science. There is nothing remotely more parsimonious about biological and genetic explanations for complex human behaviors than environmental/learning explanations. That there are some genetic influences on behavior and that there are some environmental/learning influences on behavior are both established empirical facts beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, since no two persons can be in exactly the same place and time at all moments, we know that the environments each person experiences is different from every other person, whereas genes are not always different, such as with identical twins. So, we always know as fact not assumption that there is variation in environment between the people whose behavior varies in any particular way. And with non-identical twins, we know there is also genetic variation between those persons. Genetic science shows expression of even a single gene is a highly complex process, and that most genetic influence on complex human behaviors results from multiple aspects of the genetic code interacting in countless ways with each other the environmental conditions. Thus, by no stretch is any "natural" or genetic explanation for a complex behavior more parsimonious than one involving learning from the environment. The biological explanation for sex differences in violence gets its support from empirical evidence that shows a causal pathway via testosterone along with other evidence, and NOT b/c biological explanations for behaviors have some inherently a priori benefit in terms of parsimony.

 

[ruby sparks]

Note that Trausti claims nearly all of the difference is attributed to masculinism. What does this mean to you?

Absolutely. That’s the Occam’s razor explanation. Blaming systemic this or structural that for natural differences is what idiots do to sound intelligent.

It's not either/or.

For example, hypothetically, because men are more aggressive, and perhaps bigger and stronger, because of nature, they have tended to end up dominating human societies in certain (not all) ways. The effects of this can obviously still be systemic, because the systems in question can end up reflecting the differences. In other words, you would have at least a partially biological basis for what is called 'patriarchy'. Environment and culture then make their significant contributions also.

The flaw in some of the social theories (eg Feminism) is, imo, that they have generally overstated the nurture component and understated the nature component.

 

[Trausti]

Note that Trausti claims nearly all of the difference is attributed to masculinism. What does this mean to you?

Absolutely. That’s the Occam’s razor explanation. Blaming systemic this or structural that for natural differences is what idiots do to sound intelligent.

It's not either/or.

For example, hypothetically, because men are more aggressive, and perhaps bigger and stronger, because of nature, they have tended to end up dominating human societies in certain (not all) ways. The effects of this can obviously still be systemic, because the systems in question reflect the differences. In other words, you would have at least a partially biological basis for what is called 'patriarchy'. Environment and culture then make their contributions also.

The flaw in some of the social theories (eg Feminism) is that they have generally overstated the nurture and understated the nature.

Gene-culture co-evolution.

 

[Toni]

I would like to see some academic/scientific sources for the assertion bolded above.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not, for instance, making a call on whether, in general, genetics are more important than environment. I am only saying that genetics has given us more ways to understand how nature plays a role than we used to be able to understand prior to the advances in genetics. If you asked me to make a non-expert guess, I'd guess that it's about 50/50 nature and nurture, albeit there may be genetic influences playing a part on the nurture side, so it's not a simple dichotomy.

Lysenko’s ghost still scares some from acknowledging nature’s role.

I'm waiting for links to studies carried out by Nazi 'scientists'.....

 

[Trausti]

Lysenko’s ghost still scares some from acknowledging nature’s role.

I'm waiting for links to studies carried out by Nazi 'scientists'.....

That you’re misinformed on the current state of generics research is on you, not the rest of us.

 

[ruby sparks]

Gene-culture co-evolution.

I broadly agree, albeit I am not an expert by any means. The paradigm may be controversial for all I know, because of the way it is handled, but in principle it makes sense to me, based on what little familiarity I have with it. Nature and nurture interacting, in a sociobiological way.

 

[ruby sparks]

Though unfortunately for us blokes, and speaking generally, it seems it's still our natured/nurtured maleness that causes the additional problems with violence, aggression and other 'dominant'* behaviours.



*I hesitate to use the word 'toxic' because it puts some off, but I do think that in all honesty it's an apt word.

 

[Trausti]

Note that Trausti claims nearly all of the difference is attributed to masculinism. What does this mean to you?

Absolutely. That’s the Occam’s razor explanation. Blaming systemic this or structural that for natural differences is what idiots do to sound intelligent.

This post shows a lack of basic intellect and a commitment to a faith based dogma without regard for reason or science. There is nothing remotely more parsimonious about biological and genetic explanations for complex human behaviors than environmental/learning explanations. That there are some genetic influences on behavior and that there are some environmental/learning influences on behavior are both established empirical facts beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, since no two persons can be in exactly the same place and time at all moments, we know that the environments each person experiences is different from every other person, whereas genes are not always different, such as with identical twins. So, we always know as fact not assumption that there is variation in environment between the people whose behavior varies in any particular way. And with non-identical twins, we know there is also genetic variation between those persons. Genetic science shows expression of even a single gene is a highly complex process, and that most genetic influence on complex human behaviors results from multiple aspects of the genetic code interacting in countless ways with each other the environmental conditions. Thus, by no stretch is any "natural" or genetic explanation for a complex behavior more parsimonious than one involving learning from the environment. The biological explanation for sex differences in violence gets its support from empirical evidence that shows a causal pathway via testosterone along with other evidence, and NOT b/c biological explanations for behaviors have some inherently a priori benefit in terms of parsimony.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15374416.2020.1731820

 

[Trausti]

Though unfortunately for us blokes, and speaking generally, it seems it's still our natured/nurtured maleness that causes the additional problems with violence, aggression and other 'dominant'* behaviours.



*I hesitate to use the word 'toxic' because it puts some off, but I do think that in all honesty it's an apt word.

Toxic masculinity.

 

[Toni]

Lysenko’s ghost still scares some from acknowledging nature’s role.

I'm waiting for links to studies carried out by Nazi 'scientists'.....

That you’re misinformed on the current state of generics research is on you, not the rest of us.

You’re the one who brought up Lozensko.

 

[ruby sparks]

Toxic masculinity.

Sure. Male 'dominance' has an upside. And certainly isn't necessarily toxic by any means.

A male ape beating or raping a female ape, or attacking a 'lesser' male ape, may have been a better example.

 

[ronburgundy]

This post shows a lack of basic intellect and a commitment to a faith based dogma without regard for reason or science. There is nothing remotely more parsimonious about biological and genetic explanations for complex human behaviors than environmental/learning explanations. That there are some genetic influences on behavior and that there are some environmental/learning influences on behavior are both established empirical facts beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, since no two persons can be in exactly the same place and time at all moments, we know that the environments each person experiences is different from every other person, whereas genes are not always different, such as with identical twins. So, we always know as fact not assumption that there is variation in environment between the people whose behavior varies in any particular way. And with non-identical twins, we know there is also genetic variation between those persons. Genetic science shows expression of even a single gene is a highly complex process, and that most genetic influence on complex human behaviors results from multiple aspects of the genetic code interacting in countless ways with each other the environmental conditions. Thus, by no stretch is any "natural" or genetic explanation for a complex behavior more parsimonious than one involving learning from the environment. The biological explanation for sex differences in violence gets its support from empirical evidence that shows a causal pathway via testosterone along with other evidence, and NOT b/c biological explanations for behaviors have some inherently a priori benefit in terms of parsimony.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15374416.2020.1731820

IOW, you haven't the slightest clue what the concept of parsimony is that you claim as a basis for your conclusions. That study in no way supports your claim that biological explanations for behavior are more parsimonious. It supports my argument that the biological contribution to any particular behavior is an open empirical question and that support for biology in any particular behavior comes only from the particular evidence that addresses that question and not from such explanations being more parsimonious.

 

[Trausti]

That you’re misinformed on the current state of generics research is on you, not the rest of us.

You’re the one who brought up Lozensko.

You apparently don’t know who he was.

 

[Trausti]

Toxic masculinity.

Sure. Male 'dominance' has an upside. And certainly isn't always toxic.

A male ape beating or raping a female ape, or attacking a 'lesser' male ape, may have been a better example.

Well, maybe. But is it controversial to observe that this behavior, good or bad, is in the main genetic and not the product of gorilla socialization?

 

[ruby sparks]

Toxic masculinity.

Sure. Male 'dominance' has an upside. And certainly isn't always toxic.

A male ape beating or raping a female ape, or attacking a 'lesser' male ape, may have been a better example.

Well, maybe. But is it controversial to observe that this behavior, good or bad, is in the main genetic and not the product of gorilla socialization?

As I said, if I had to guess regarding humans, I'd plump for 50/50 nature/nurture, with the caveat that nature affects the nurture too (even nurture is partly down to nature in other words). 50/50 seems to be a not unusual split, from what science I've read.

As to the mix in gorillas, it may not be the same as in humans. Can a gorilla foresee the consequences of its actions or behaviour, or reason or reflect about them, as we do? Can a gorilla learn the way we do, or inhibit its own behaviour? I don't think so. And I say that while being sceptical about supposed human free will. At best, we have more sophisticated cognitive abilities, that's all.

 

[Trausti]

This post shows a lack of basic intellect and a commitment to a faith based dogma without regard for reason or science. There is nothing remotely more parsimonious about biological and genetic explanations for complex human behaviors than environmental/learning explanations. That there are some genetic influences on behavior and that there are some environmental/learning influences on behavior are both established empirical facts beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, since no two persons can be in exactly the same place and time at all moments, we know that the environments each person experiences is different from every other person, whereas genes are not always different, such as with identical twins. So, we always know as fact not assumption that there is variation in environment between the people whose behavior varies in any particular way. And with non-identical twins, we know there is also genetic variation between those persons. Genetic science shows expression of even a single gene is a highly complex process, and that most genetic influence on complex human behaviors results from multiple aspects of the genetic code interacting in countless ways with each other the environmental conditions. Thus, by no stretch is any "natural" or genetic explanation for a complex behavior more parsimonious than one involving learning from the environment. The biological explanation for sex differences in violence gets its support from empirical evidence that shows a causal pathway via testosterone along with other evidence, and NOT b/c biological explanations for behaviors have some inherently a priori benefit in terms of parsimony.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15374416.2020.1731820

IOW, you haven't the slightest clue what the concept of parsimony is that you claim as a basis for your conclusions. That study in no way supports your claim that biological explanations for behavior are more parsimonious. It supports my argument that the biological contribution to any particular behavior is an open empirical question and that support for biology in any particular behavior comes only from the particular evidence that addresses that question and not from such explanations being more parsimonious.

If you’re contending that there is little inherited basis for behavior, I am in awe.

Is there any tangible difference between the blank slate and creationism?

 

[Trausti]

Well, maybe. But is it controversial to observe that this behavior, good or bad, is in the main genetic and not the product of gorilla socialization?

As I said, if I had to guess regarding humans, I'd plump for 50/50 nature/nurture, with the caveat that nature affects the nurture too (even nurture is partly down to nature in other words). 50/50 seems to be a not unusual split, from what science I've read.

As to the mix in gorillas, it may not be the same as in humans.

Don’t know about 50/50. Certainly depends on trait or behavior. But acknowledging the prominent role of heredity makes the world simpler to understand.

 

[Toni]

How much of the significant difference is caused by masculinism?

Nearly all of it? While it’s apparently controversial on the forum to state it, humans are a sexually dimorphic species.

Do you know what masculinism is?

 

[Trausti]

How much of the significant difference is caused by masculinism?

Nearly all of it? While it’s apparently controversial on the forum to state it, humans are a sexually dimorphic species.

Do you know what masculinism is?

Touche. I read that as masculinity and not the humpty dumpty definition used by Don.