Posted: Dec 23, 2012 1:28 am
Mr.Samsa wrote:Beatsong wrote:The fact that there are similar, clear and consistent differences between the behaviours of the sexes in those other species most related to us - without any influence of culture - is the first clue.
But the point I was making was that there is no necessary reason for us to think that we should expect to find them. There are good reasons to suspect that there may be differences, like you mention, but I don't think this justifies a strong claim like "we should expect to find them".
We may be interpreting the phrase "expect to find them" differently. I didn't see that as suggesting that there is positive, undeniable proof of them; only that the likelihood that they are there is higher than the likelihood that they are not. I saw "expect to find" as referring to where we think we are most likely to find the evidence, in the absence of having sound the evidence YET.
Thus we are talking about what seems plausible, rather than what there is already evidence for. As I described, the idea that the human sexes evolved with similar behavioural differences to our closest relatives, seems more plausible than the idea that they created some extraordinary exception within the field of mammalian biology. The idea that the brains of the sexes developed differences in tandem with the organs and processes that it interacts with, is more plausible than the idea that it didn't.
Actually there is already empirical evidence emerging for differences between the female and male brain, although I would obviously admit that it's a very new area of enquiry with massive complexity of which we have only just scratched the surface. But the OP was not about that; it was about what seems more likely given the admittedly incmplete state of our knowledge.
Beatsong wrote:We then basically have two ways of accounting for the differences between human males and females:
1. Just like chimpanzees etc, we have evolved different behavioural patterns for males and females, connected with their different physiology, reproductive nature etc.
OR:
2. All of those other species evolved such different behaviours, but at the point that our evolution split off from theirs, we miraculously reversed all that and quickly re-evolved men and women to behave largely the same way instead. Even more miraculous, however, we then invented culturally imposed norms of behaviour and designed them especially to LOOK as if they were evolved ones like those other species had!
It's pretty obvious which side Occam is shaving on here.
Occam's razor doesn't work that way. You have to present the evidence first and find which explanation accounts for the most data with the least amount of assumptions - we don't simply look at the answer which is the simplest.
But what I've presented IS evidence. It may not be definitive proof, but it is evidence. All mammals suckle their young, have hair, are warm blooded etc. etc. If we discovered a species that conformed to the accepted description of "mammal" in every way we know of except for one, then we would expect, before finding the evidence to confirm it, that that remaining way would conform as well - at the very least, that it is more likely to conform than not.
Importantly, there are huge and significant differences in the physiological and psychological development of humans compared to chimps, so using the same pseudo-Occam's principle, we could equally say that it is unreasonable to assume that similarities in other species will translate to humans.
Nobody's assuming anything - we're simply talking about what is most likely. And 98% of the genetic makeup to chimpanzees and humans is the same. We have much the same organs situated in the same places doing the same things. Of course there are differences, but given the total variety of organisms in the world and the variety of ways it is possible for them to develop, the differences are massively dwarfed by the similarites.
The point is not that there are no differences, but all I'm saying is that we need evidence before even bringing up Occam.
But don't you also need evidence of the opposite?
In fact it seems to be you who is doing the assuming. You seem to think we should assume a default starting point that there are no differences between men and women, and that evidence gained from other species is irrelevant, until we have absolute compelling evidence to the contrary. But you have not provided any basis for that assumption. There is no actual reason why a difference of zero between human males and females is any more likely than a difference of some other magnitude.
So until you provide some evidence why we should think there will be no (or hardly any) hardwired difference between male and female behaviour, I am happy to go along with the OP in simply examining the evidence we have either way, and coming to a provisional estimation of which seems more likely. Given the massive complexity of the subject and the number of interacting variables, I suspect we're going to be in pretty much that place for a good while yet.
Sure, we can certainly argue that the brains of men and women could have evolved differently to deal with different issues. The problematic part is the assumption that differences in the physiology of the brain will result in differences in behavioral patterns.
But they invariably do, in every area that we know anything much about.
Beatsong wrote:The idea that behaviour can be completely separated from physiology is ridiculous, so if there are different physiologies, there will be differences of behaviour. We know for example that behaviour is influenced by hormones - witness PMT, puberty and menopause. We also know that human males and females have a very different hormonal makeup from each other. Do the math.
It's not ridiculous at all. Knowing that there are different physiological effects in different sexes gives us reason to suspect that there are differences in brain physiology, and differences in brain physiology gives us reason to suspect that there are differences in behavior, but this isn't a deductive argument and one does not necessarily lead to the other. It would be premature and unscientific to assume that we should expect to see behavioral differences due to differences in brain physiology.
Again, I haven't assumed anything. But given the importance of the brain in all aspects of behaviour where its role has been studied, it would be more likely that the two are linked than not - which is the way the OP was framed. If evidence emerges to the contrary, then I will be surprised but I won't ignore it. You presumeably agree with this anyway because if you didn't, why would one give you "reason to suspect" the other?
Beatsong wrote:Recent studies have found, for example, that girl babies born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (who produce excessive androgen hormones) produce behaviour more like that traditionally considered "typically male", than like that of other girls. And this continues even after their hormone levels have been normalised - ie the effect of the particular hormonal balance on the developing brain is permanent.
And that's interesting but it would essentially work against the point you're making. If men and women have evolved different brains due to the differences in levels of hormones and other brain chemicals, then flooding a "female brain" with "male chemicals" would tell us nothing about how a "male brain" is affected by or processes "male chemicals".
No that doesn't make any sense. Postulating differences between male and female brains doesn't suggest that they are like aliens from different planets and nothing is similar about them! Any reference to such difference is a reference to statistical averages. For example the idea that men are better at maths and women are better at language. The jury is still out on the nature/nurture question in relation to that, but ignoring that for the moment, it doesn't mean that the way women process language tells us NOTHING about ho men process language! They are differences of degree, emphasis, etc. within the same basic organ. And indeed we know that certain sex hormones do have similar effects upon the behaviour of men and women, so it would make complete sense that they also have similar effects upon brain development.
And the fact that these kinds of behaviours are pretty much universally seen in the males of mammal species rather than the females, is just a co-incidence of learning? Like, one day a male happened to do it, and ever since then all the males in every subsequent generation have learnt to do it from their dads, while it's never occurred to any females to do it? And this just happened to be the case in every species where aggressive sexual rivalry is observed?
You are presenting a very narrow form of learning there. Learning is not limited to explicit learning (i.e. teaching) or observational learning (seeing another individual perform the behavior). It also comes about through the natural interaction with its environment. When you have organisms with the same basic traits and they're placed in the same basic environment, then it is inevitable that they will perform some behaviors which are exactly the same purely as a result of environmental factors. For example, a popular example when teaching this topic of species-specific constraints producing universal behaviors is the fact that all people, of all cultures, of all times, have always eaten hot liquids from a curved container (e.g. bowl or cup) rather than something flat like a plate. Is this because there are innate predispositions which lead to a "eat-soup-from-a-bowl instinct"? Of course not, it comes about because being burnt is aversive to all humans, and the fact that flat plates result in hot liquids like soup spilling over into our laps.
Interesting angle. But how are the environmental factors influencing the males of most mammal species so very different from thos influencing the females, that this learning would be so consistently stratified along sex lines?
The fact that learning often produces universal behaviors is exactly that; a scientific fact. The existence of these behaviors is what prompts us to be able to distinguish an innate cause from a learnt one when looking at universal behaviors. Sure, in many cases we can argue that it's "reasonable" to assume innate over learning, or we can assume that it's probably an evolutionary adaptation, but science requires more than that to reach conclusions - we need evidence. I have absolutely no problem accepting that there are sex differences in the manifestation of mating behaviors, but if someone presents a specific example that they believe demonstrates this, then I'll be interested and ask them for a link to the study which attempted to distinguish innate explanations from learning explanations. If no studies can be found, I'll remain skeptical of concrete conclusions.
But what you actually seem to be saying is that if no studies can be found, you'll ASSUME that the sex differences are due to learning rather than innate factors.
Why?