Posted: Jan 02, 2013 11:08 pm
Reeve,
It seems that your question has raised the usual ‘dance the tangent’ and drowning in the semantic bog seems inevitable that occurs when we try to ‘communicate’ even in the name of rationality.
What exactly do you mean by hardwired, and why are you framing the question in this way, instead of trying to just understand the differences and similarities between men and women and then describe them as they are in simple terms, instead of trying to prove or disprove a specific premise based around the ambiguous terminology ‘hard wired’?
If we are trying to understand reality rather than defending preconceived positions, surely the logical starting point is to ask if physical differences can/do create behavioural differences in living entities. If there is a case where having 4 as opposed to 2 legs, or wings as opposed to fins leads to behavioural differences then a basis is established that physical differences will affect behaviour. Then assess if we can forecast these behaviours to be consistent across all members of the group in all situations etc.
Logically the argument does hold that a physical difference will often affect the behaviour but accurate projections and type will vary depending upon the environment, the degree of physical difference etc. So it means that while it is certainly possible that our physical state affects our behavioural state, each case should be assessed based upon various criteria.
Then you need to decide if the above cases can be described as ‘hardwired’ and I think this is where you will run into trouble using a non specific and ambiguous term like this. If we are born with legs does this mean we are ‘hardwired’ to walk, or fins making us ‘hardwired’ to swim?
Since I have so far taken a distant position from human males and females, lets ask if having a penis and testes with their associated hormones and functions will produce different behaviours from someone with a vulva and ovaries also with their implicit differences (assuming a normal phenotype). There are differences in musculature, brain chemistry etc, between men and women and while some are controversial, there are enough to be sure that there are physical differences between men and women. Do these differences make us behave differently? Does taking a standing piss versus a sitting one, qualify as a behavioural difference? Does being a ‘penetrator’ as opposed to a ‘penetrated’ make us behave differently, and if it does can we accurately and consistently project those different behaviours, and if we can, shall we define them as ‘hard-wired’
My perception of the debate thus far is that some of the posters are defending political positions and are supporting (or not) the OP along the lines of how this will affect their political position.
It seems that your question has raised the usual ‘dance the tangent’ and drowning in the semantic bog seems inevitable that occurs when we try to ‘communicate’ even in the name of rationality.
What exactly do you mean by hardwired, and why are you framing the question in this way, instead of trying to just understand the differences and similarities between men and women and then describe them as they are in simple terms, instead of trying to prove or disprove a specific premise based around the ambiguous terminology ‘hard wired’?
If we are trying to understand reality rather than defending preconceived positions, surely the logical starting point is to ask if physical differences can/do create behavioural differences in living entities. If there is a case where having 4 as opposed to 2 legs, or wings as opposed to fins leads to behavioural differences then a basis is established that physical differences will affect behaviour. Then assess if we can forecast these behaviours to be consistent across all members of the group in all situations etc.
Logically the argument does hold that a physical difference will often affect the behaviour but accurate projections and type will vary depending upon the environment, the degree of physical difference etc. So it means that while it is certainly possible that our physical state affects our behavioural state, each case should be assessed based upon various criteria.
Then you need to decide if the above cases can be described as ‘hardwired’ and I think this is where you will run into trouble using a non specific and ambiguous term like this. If we are born with legs does this mean we are ‘hardwired’ to walk, or fins making us ‘hardwired’ to swim?
Since I have so far taken a distant position from human males and females, lets ask if having a penis and testes with their associated hormones and functions will produce different behaviours from someone with a vulva and ovaries also with their implicit differences (assuming a normal phenotype). There are differences in musculature, brain chemistry etc, between men and women and while some are controversial, there are enough to be sure that there are physical differences between men and women. Do these differences make us behave differently? Does taking a standing piss versus a sitting one, qualify as a behavioural difference? Does being a ‘penetrator’ as opposed to a ‘penetrated’ make us behave differently, and if it does can we accurately and consistently project those different behaviours, and if we can, shall we define them as ‘hard-wired’
My perception of the debate thus far is that some of the posters are defending political positions and are supporting (or not) the OP along the lines of how this will affect their political position.