Posted: Jan 29, 2019 9:35 am
Thommo wrote:Not exactly no. And you're right, that wouldn't follow.
I'm cautioning against the idea that even a very large observable difference in average features of the brain would necessarily translate into a difference in behaviour (or performance) of equally large degree.
So, for example an average difference in brain sizes might not translate into any meaningful difference (within humans - not cross species) in preferences or abilities. That's not to say it will not, but that it might not.
Yup.
That man, the one voice-acted at the start of the radio discussion I posted above, he was the inventor of sociology or something, did you hear what he said? Here it is again:
https://abcmedia.akamaized.net/rn/podca ... 101113.mp3
Incredible, really, what one could openly say in those days. And so wrong. It's an example of why I think Jordan Peterson's view of patriarchy as 'mostly benign' is flawed. Not that I want to get back into the Peterson rut.
Thommo wrote:The only way you'll ever find out how equal people can be is if you try and achieve equality and see how far you get.
And here we could meet the objections to trying too hard to do that, of 'forcing the issue', especially with the 'dreaded' quotas.
My personal opinion is, on the whole, to give it a go, and yeah, some quotas if necessary, in certain situations (politics for example). I am, rightly or wrongly, optimistic that more female participation in things like business and politics (and in other areas) and heck possibly even domination, would be a good thing. Perhaps that's just me and my biases and optimism. Nor am I revering the feminine or (I hope) wearing rose-coloured spectacles about women.
To put it another way, I am quite happy to give them anything (assuming they do want it) and see how it works out. In many ways, men have had their turn for a long, long time and things could definitely have been done a LOT better imo.
