New Study Vindicates Harvard's Larry Summers

P

Planetary Eulogy

Member
Jul 21, 2003
458
4
18
Visit site
It turns out that sex-related neurological dimorphism is more extensive than once thought, less responsive to cultural conditioning than some have suggested, and probably results from in utero exposure to sex hormones.

As with recent studies which conclusively demonstrate that race is genetically trackable and that racial disparities in IQ scores are biologically based, I will be interested to see how liberals try to explain this one away.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000363E3-1806-1264-980683414B7F0000
 
i'll get to a detailed explanation later but the first thing i have to say is your source is Scientific American, much like Popular Science, a magazine (which i used to subscribe to) that simplifies studies so that the general populace can understand. they're also known for sometimes misleading and incorrect articles over the years. moreso however, they love to present what they see as controversial issues, because of course those sell many copies.

while that will not cause me to immediately discount them, i will of course be more wary of what i see and what sources they have quoted it coming from. i'll get more detailed later.
 
Scientific American is not quite like Popular Science in that it has both an editorial and peer review process. You're right in stating that it presents what are essentially study abstracts rather than studies themselves, but, in this case, they're dealing with a soon to be published peer reviewed study rather than with merely a summation of existing research.
 
hmmm. what i'm seeing is comparisons between male and female brain structures and responses. however, all but 2 (or 3) of the studies that came to these conclusions involved rats, monkeys, or other animals besides humans. the studies involving humans were interesting, however i was skeptical and reviewed their cited sources (they had none, but provided "more info" at the end). the first is another SCIAM article, the others seem reasonable enough.

what i find from the article is merely what we always stereotype anyway: men and women are more proficient at different tasks and situations. that it is supposedly genetic and not social hardly changes the assumption. i would not however, say that either men or women are the smarter sex.

as for the racial differences, i completely disagree until proven wrong.
 
Interesting if it is in fact true, but I don't see anything new or ground-breaking about it besides perhaps the specific tests they employed to come to these conclusions. Didn't scientists already know that men and women are essentially hard-wired to think differently in some situations? There is variation between the sexes in behavioral response to the same events and/or stimuli throughout the animal kingdom; it would reasonably follow that the same is true for humans.
 
I hold off on racial discussions, but it is very very obvious Female and Male brains are wired much differently; have different strengths and weaknesses.


I blame the feminism movement that chose thirty years ago to find their liberation in turning women into men. It has not, nor ever will work. Perhaps it was the only way for women to obtain power; power at the cost of feminity.
 
speed said:
I blame the feminism movement that chose thirty years ago to find their liberation in turning women into men. It has not, nor ever will work. Perhaps it was the only way for women to obtain power; power at the cost of feminity.
Click to expand...
:hotjump: Turning women into men? How? Last time I checked, I didn't have a penis, and my wages were still ~.70 per every man's dollar.
A hundred years ago women couldn't vote, couldn't own property, and women were property, to be given to their husbands by their fathers. What type of femininity are you talking about?! Please oh please enlighten me! :Shedevil:
 
Ah you are so literal. By women demanding to take the same jobs, play the same sports, forcing women to choose work over family. Hell making women almost into men on the sexual front. How many women went out cruising for men, or engaging in multiple short affairs ( Male sexual patterns), relationships etc since Women got the right to vote?


Ive actually said this to some very liberal women and they all surprisingly agreed with me.
 
In most past societies a woman's natural primary function has been maternal. They have more emotional sensitivity for example, and simply more skill in nurturing children and caring for the home environment. For some reason it was decided (not necessarily by women) that maternal jobs are inferior to doing typical men's jobs, and so women began chasing what was originally seen as success for males to quash this sense of inferiority. This evolved considerably, as we know. Nowadays, women automatically call you sexist if you even suggest that a woman should be in the home, yet what they don't realise is (at least with me) that they're not being called inferior; if anything they're being shown that men need them to do what men can't - that they have a different role but a no less important one.

p.s. please no dreaded "there are exceptions" posts, oh goodness please
 
i'd agree with that. not that caring for children and defending a family is any minor task. if anything, it is equally if not moreso important in my mind than income and whatever society brands as "manly" pursuits.

this is clear when you look at the generational changes in modern society, specifically that of the united states. familes generally seem to spend less time guiding and caring for their kids than they used to. it shows in the news with all the school shootings and other horror stories.
 
Gallantry over Docility said:
In most past societies a woman's natural primary function has been maternal. They have more emotional sensitivity for example, and simply more skill in nurturing children and caring for the home environment. For some reason it was decided (not necessarily by women) that maternal jobs are inferior to doing typical men's jobs, and so women began chasing what was originally seen as success for males to quash this sense of inferiority. This evolved considerably, as we know. Nowadays, women automatically call you sexist if you even suggest that a woman should be in the home, yet what they don't realise is (at least with me) that they're not being called inferior; if anything they're being shown that men need them to do what men can't - that they have a different role but a no less important one.

p.s. please no dreaded "there are exceptions" posts, oh goodness please
Click to expand...
interesting point. the question is whether women should be (indirectly) punished for pursuing other paths outside the home, and the answer to me is no.
 
Silent Song said:
not that caring for children and defending a family is any minor task. if anything, it is equally if not moreso important in my mind than income and whatever society brands as "manly" pursuits.
Click to expand...

I meant exactly that at the end of my post, in case it was unclear.

interesting point. the question is whether women should be (indirectly) punished for pursuing other paths outside the home, and the answer to me is no.
Click to expand...

Punishment would certainly be a last resort, I favour bringing apart the value system that encourages women to neglect maternal pursuits, rather than harming the women themselves...
 
@ GoD: Last resort? I don't see that punishment would EVER be appropriate. You make it sound as though "neglect" of "maternal pursuits" is a crime, yet raising a family is not, and shouldn't be, something every woman has to do or want. It may be an important task, but that doesn't automatically make it appropriate for, or appealing to, every woman. And it's not as though there's any shortage of people on the planet these days. If anything, I think we as a society would benefit from less women choosing to have children.
 
NeverIsForever said:
@ GoD: Last resort? I don't see that punishment would EVER be appropriate. You make it sound as though "neglect" of "maternal pursuits" is a crime, yet raising a family is not, and shouldn't be, something every woman has to do or want. It may be an important task, but that doesn't automatically make it appropriate for, or appealing to, every woman. And it's not as though there's any shortage of people on the planet these days. If anything, I think we as a society would benefit from less women choosing to have children.
Click to expand...

I find that women on the whole are naturally better at jobs that require less physical strength, more tenderness and finesse, etcetc. Society makes that sentence sound "sexist", it isn't, I am in no way suggesting women are "inferior". Wanting a society that discards individualism in favour of living in harmony with the processes of nature, I want both men and women in their natural roles. I don't want to punish anybody, I'd rather have society alter what women aspire to rather than forcing them to do what they don't want to do.

I do agree about over-population but that's really a separate issue.
 
"do what they don't want to do" are you implying that women naturally want to do the things described above, as opposed to so called manly pursuits? i may disagree with this.

i agree that there are tasks and situations that men and women are independently better at, but to suggest that they therefore must adhere to those guidelines is a bit extreme. we are all born with different but similiar brains, so that if a woman feels her life need is to join the army, or become an executive, all power to her in pursuing it.

what i think you're saying (that i would agree with) is that the problem arises when society portrays this mentality as the _only_ option, and that more "stay at home" lifestyles are those of the oppressed. that causes those jobs to be less desirable, which in turn leaves a void for guiding the youth of our generation. i think there are valid reasons for both men and women to aspire to any of the professions and stations there are to be. if there is a void, it needs to be filled by whomever is most capable and compatible
 
Silent Song said:
"do what they don't want to do" are you implying that women naturally want to do the things described above, as opposed to so called manly pursuits? i may disagree with this.
Click to expand...

I meant that if I wanted to actively make more women work at maternal jobs rather than jobs they're less apt for, I'd change the values in society so that more women want to do so, rather than just forcing them to do it against their will. Being of the opinion that desires are largely a result of society's values, of course.

It's not so much that they "must" but that, ideally, they should want to.
 
So in a perfect world women would aspire to raising children and men would aspire to...everything else? Society can glorify a mother's tasks to the extreme, but that doesn't change their nature: physical pain, constant hard work, and a time commitment of at least 18 years.

And ideally, people would choose their careers based on what they find fulfilling, not what societal values dictate to them. Unfortunately it's a concept that we as a society can't quite seem to grasp.
 
I don't think I said "just raising children", I think that's their primary function but not their only one. In an ideal society, people would accept that life can be harsh and embrace the struggle instead of making personal comforts their primary pursuit, methinks.

Part of human nature is being devoid of freedom from external influences; we're shaped by our environment. What difference does it make what or who is doing it, except from a superficial moral perspective (you may indulge in that all you like but you'll get nowhere with me)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back