• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

21 women killed: this week in masculinism

But acknowledging the prominent role of heredity makes the world simpler to understand.

I agree, so long as it's not overstated. Same goes for nurture/environment.

And in any case, if I say to you that whatever the causes, males are, in general, more aggressive and violent, would you not agree? You may wish to nuance it or add caveats, such as that the role of women's anger or other undesirable behaviours is often underplayed, or that other typically male traits under-appreciated, but you would surely still agree, because it's stating the obvious.

It's not a trick question or a trap. The caveats I suggested above are some of the ones that spring to my own mind.
 
Yet... all of the incel threads that pop up in here are always against women. They never actually address legitimate male issues, other than "*insert court* forces man to pay child support for child *insert issue*". This again exposes how little incels actually care about men's issues... and how much more they care about putting women in their place.

MRA and Incel are two different movements, although there's certainly an overlap.
 
Are you saying that being an engineer is more demanding and demands more, longer hours than does being a nurse?

Are you saying that people who are engineers don't wish they could spend more time with their infant children?

Are you saying that people who are nurses wish to spend more time with their infant children than people who are engineers?

Are you saying that only men want to or can or should be engineers?

Are you saying that only women want to or can or should be nurses?


Are you saying that only inborn characteristics of gender drives career choices or aptitudes? Drives desire to spend time with infant children?

Please clarify.

Reality: People choose professions to a substantial degree based on their personality. Highly social people choose professions that involve a lot of interacting with others. People who aren't very social choose professions that have a lot less social interaction. A highly social person in a low-contact profession is not going to be happy, a low social person in a high contact profession is not going to be happy. This is a part of why you find those on the autism spectrum to be highly concentrated in the low-contact professions. (I have seen estimates that a majority of good programmers--a field that's very low contact--are on the spectrum, although I don't know of any good studies of this. If you count those who aren't far enough along it to receive an actual diagnosis I would be amazed if it wasn't true, though.)

Thus I would expect the engineer to not want to spend as much time with a child as a nurse.

Note that this is not gender-specific, but the autism spectrum is mostly male and thus drives the highly male nature of the high skill low contact professions.
 
Yet... all of the incel threads that pop up in here are always against women. They never actually address legitimate male issues, other than "*insert court* forces man to pay child support for child *insert issue*". This again exposes how little incels actually care about men's issues... and how much more they care about putting women in their place.

MRA and Incel are two different movements, although there's certainly an overlap.

No overlap.
 
Men even commit far more homicide than women. But as acknowledging natural difference is forbidden in our Woke age, I guess this is due to systemic sexism. What can we do to encourage women to commit their proportionate share of homicide? For equity, of course.

Well, just a thought - maybe discouraging male violence would help make the women's share more proportionate?
Nah - much easier to snark about making women more violent.
Typical conservotard "solution".

You really read that as advocating for more female homicide offenders and not that the sex difference in offenders is mostly nature? Wow. Just wow.

WHOOSH!

Don't get your panties in a bunch.
Just making fun of your juvenile, unproductive snark. Not everyone needs the obvious pointed out to them.
 
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.

EWkUIVoUwAAMtCS


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

Even though I have responded to your posts repeatedly throughout the thread telling you that genetics is off-topic, maybe your side issue is salvageable after all. Your paper says you can try to tackle both the heritable aspect and environmental aspect of bullying. So what's the analogy to domestic abuse? You can't possibly be talking about estrogen pills, CRISPR gene editing, chastity devices, abortions, and FEMA reeducation camps for potentially future abusive men, so specifically what policies do you want to introduce to stop male aggression at the genetic level versus cultural masculinism?
 
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.

<snip>

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

It's funny but also somewhat said when someone as obviously ignorant about biology and psychology and what constitutes a parsimonious explanation in a specific scenario tries to be snarky at someone like ronburgundy.
 
...the sex difference in offenders is mostly nature....

As far as I am aware, the jury is out on 'mostly'. I admit it is not my field, but I'd be keen to see better overall evidence of something that might approach a consensus.

It would not surprise me if it were the case. I have no horse in the race.

And obviously, even if it turned out to be, say, two thirds nature (hypothetically) I'd still be keen to attend to the remaining third, if that's where the traction could be most readily gained in terms of mitigating some of the problems.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure he knows better, but the allure of snarking about male violence is irresistable to some.

I blame the feminists. If they didn't tend to underplay nature so much, there'd be no need for anyone to counter them by going roughly as far in the opposite direction. :)
 
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.

EWkUIVoUwAAMtCS


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

Even though I have responded to your posts repeatedly throughout the thread telling you that genetics is off-topic, maybe your side issue is salvageable after all. Your paper says you can try to tackle both the heritable aspect and environmental aspect of bullying. So what's the analogy to domestic abuse? You can't possibly be talking about estrogen pills, CRISPR gene editing, chastity devices, abortions, and FEMA reeducation camps for potentially future abusive men, so specifically what policies do you want to introduce to stop male aggression at the genetic level versus cultural masculinism?

The first step is acknowledging the role of nature, which you seem to have great difficulty doing.
 
Even though I have responded to your posts repeatedly throughout the thread telling you that genetics is off-topic, maybe your side issue is salvageable after all. Your paper says you can try to tackle both the heritable aspect and environmental aspect of bullying. So what's the analogy to domestic abuse? You can't possibly be talking about estrogen pills, CRISPR gene editing, chastity devices, abortions, and FEMA reeducation camps for potentially future abusive men, so specifically what policies do you want to introduce to stop male aggression at the genetic level versus cultural masculinism?

The first step is acknowledging the role of nature, which you seem to have great difficulty doing.

I don't have any difficulty admitting that genetics plays a role (and possibly a significant role) in aggression but that was never the question and I wrote that to you 10 times in the thread. The question was how much can be attributed to masculinism. You chose to not look up the term. In order to try to make your responses relevant to the op, I asked you how much of masculinism is genetic and you never responded except to say that I hate biology. Now, I am trying once again to get you to be a productive participant in the actual topic by now allowing for your genetic discussion into the ramifications, i.e. what can we do with that in terms of solutions. You're still crying that I hate biology, America, and freedom or whatever. I am actually well-versed in biotechnology, genomics, and genetics, having had a career in this field and I still apply it daily in my hobbies, but try to get on board with productive discussion. So again:
...specifically what policies do you want to introduce to stop male aggression at the genetic level versus cultural masculinism?
 
1. The main isssue as Don sees it: "Something can and should be done to help reduce the problems associated with the undesirable male behaviours in question".

2. The main isssue as trausti sees it: "Bloody lefty feminists and sympathiser types are always doing men down. Yes, men do, in general, display such behaviours, more than women, but I'm buggered if I'm going to agree with that statement if there's feminists and lefty type sympathisers listening. It'll be the thin edge of the Marxist wedge, that's what it'll be".

Did I get that right? :)
 
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.

Dc_fIkoX4AEIjnz


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

So, in addition to being completely ignorant of what the concept of explanatory parsimony refers to you also have zero basic reading comprehension skills. I explicitly said multiple times that genetic influence on some behaviors is a fact, and that there is strong evidence for sex-linked biological variables on the behaviors of physical aggression in particular. Where you a wrong is in claiming that biological explanations (what you mischaracterize as "natural" b/c the environment is also "natural") explanations are more parsimonious. Your irrational assumption of granting "nature" explanations more parsimony over "nurture" explanations reveals a ideological dogma that inherently biases in favor of genetic/biological explanations independent of the actual evidence. That your dogma led you to the evidence supported conclusion this time is luck and irrelevant to your irrationality.
 
So the genetics crowd now support large welfare payments for the lazy who are born lazy?

Or are they just using genetics as excuse to justify behavior they support/condone?
 
So the genetics crowd now support large welfare payments for the lazy who are born lazy?

Or are they just using genetics as excuse to justify behavior they support/condone?

The latter, I think. The evidence is provided by the fact that they don't realize that cultural/social behavioral mitigation is actually a thing. It cuts right back to the Naturalistic Fallacy: something existing as it is does not mean that thing OUGHT CONTINUE existing as it does.
 
So the genetics crowd now support large welfare payments for the lazy who are born lazy?

Or are they just using genetics as excuse to justify behavior they support/condone?

The latter, I think. The evidence is provided by the fact that they don't realize that cultural/social behavioral mitigation is actually a thing. It cuts right back to the Naturalistic Fallacy: something existing as it is does not mean that thing OUGHT CONTINUE existing as it does.

In some ways, because it is accepted as and demonstrated to be a significant factor in behaviour, and for differences between the sexes, it is a pity that what is called the Nature component is often judged somewhat off limits for general discussion. Obviously, it could be (and I'd guess is, in scientific circles) discussed without invoking the Naturalistic Fallacy at all.

Testosterone is probably the first example that springs to mind, and has already been mentioned by someone who knows a lot more about it than me. I read that men have an average of 8 times the amount in their systems compared to women. That's a LOT more, and, if (as I believe is the case) testosterone (of itself or in conjunction with other body chemicals or genes) gives rise to (makes men more prone to) more aggression and possibly other 'competitive/assertive' behaviours, including urges to mate, then.....that would have significant explanatory power when we look at male behaviours, obviously.

Also, I read (on wiki, I confess) that "fatherhood decreases testosterone levels in men, suggesting that the emotions and behaviour tied to decreased testosterone promote paternal care".

I'm sure it's not as simple as that, obviously, not least because nurture will play a significant part also.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure he knows better, but the allure of snarking about male violence is irresistable to some.

I blame the feminists. If they didn't tend to underplay nature so much, there'd be no need for anyone to counter them by going roughly as far in the opposite direction. :)

It's amazing that you could type such a statement and attempt to play it off as a joke.

Unless you actually agreed with it, a little bit.
 
Back
Top Bottom