I'm fore-transitioning the following because I think it spotlights the kernel of the nub of the gulf between us (getting a bit Ob+ myself, there...).....
Radovarl Wrote:
*** The point I was making is that "brains" (by which I presume you mean minds) ***
No, I mean brains. Brains do a LOT more than minds, whatever 'minds' are, 'zactly. Even yogis don't (and can't) have complete conscious control over, e.g., the circulatory and immune systems (heart-rate, immuno-suppression, etc), reflexes (pupil dilation, gagging, etc), micro-expressions (fleeting facial reactions), pain, arousal (of various kinds), etc, etc. Not to mention traits like intelligence and personality. Brains are bigger than minds. So is art.
*** are shaped in large part by nurture, and the nurture male minds receive is very different from that of female minds. One can be socialized as a typical male while being biologically female, or vice versa, with a whole continuum in between. ***
One CAN be socialized. But can you point me t'ward evidence that the socialization could ever WORK?
Socialization experiment
In part, 'blank slatism' -- of which you seem an advocate -- reflects a failure of IMAGINATION... You accept that males/females, 'blacks'/'whites' differ on the OUTSIDE because the outside is VISIBLE. Brains AREN'T, so you imagine there's NO difference there, except when it's imposed by the visible environment. 'Tain't so...
** >What, as opposed to 'wrestling' in a meek'n'mild manner? I intuit from your general prose that you're male; I intuit from your semantics that you're OB+...
I'm not at all clear if this is meant to be facetious, but my blood type happens to be B- ("OB-"), so your guess is close :). ***
I shoulda mebbe said 'Ob+' (= Obama-positive). You seem to prefer surface to substance, so I'd guess you like th'old Ob'. Or HAVE liked him, at least.
*** >I WOULD say that opposing sociology to genetics is like opposing chemistry to physics... but I WON'T. It's REALLY like opposing alchemy to physics, given the junk status of sociology, as a discipline. Not sure why you put 'causes' in quotes or why 'genetic' can only imply 'gender'.
I would say opposing sociology to genetics is like opposing sociology to biology, two very different levels of analysis. ***
I think you're confusing 'level of analysis' with 'level of analysandum.' Physics, chemistry and biology operate at different levels in both senses. Sociology's raw material is wider and more complex than biology's, but sociology is NOT a science. Most sociologists would HATE it to be, 'coz you can't reach conclusions in advance and manipulate your results in science (or leastways, not as easily and not for as long).
*** I would also say that an enthusiast of the despised genre of weird poetry and fiction insulting an entire academic discipline is vaguely ridiculous. ***
Can't see the logic. Am I s'posed, as a fan of a despised genre, to support the KKK or Celine Dion, 'coz they're despised too? IMFFHO, sociology is junk (mostly). So are theology, the various 'studies,' literary/artistic criticism and great swathes of economics and philosophy.
*** I put "causes" is quotes because I don't think it's possible to disentangle the complex genetic, social, and other factors that play into artistic expression in a given individual. All this toward explaining my misgivings about your assertion that an artist's characteristics can be intuited from their art. ***
Well, you'd surely agree that one CAN intuit CAS's high intelligence from his prose. If so, you accept that one can 'disentangle' a factor that played into his artistic expression. An' yes, I know there was MUCH more to CAS than (genetically mediated) high intelligence. But it was (to coin an expression) necessary-if-not-sufficient...
*** >'Per se' is a kinda linguistic fog-machine, so I don't know exACtly what you're saying there. That certain traits aren't, probabilistically, more male than female, and vice versa...?
Pardon me; it must be my "OB+ semantics" (whatever the heck that means) leading my astray. I think you're confusing ontology and epistemology here. There is no such thing as "probabilistic" traits. Something (or someone) either has a trait or doesn't--it either "is" or "isn't" something. ***
Eh? Does alcohol (to choose merely the first obvious example) not affect an individual's 'traits'? I didn't mean '"probabilistic" traits.' Or I'd've said '"probabilistic" traits.'
*** The question of science (despised social science or otherwise) is how this is the case in any particular instance. If what you mean to say is that, surveyed statistically, certain traits are more often observed in males than females, then I have no objection. ***
That is what I meant.
*** >I'd add Joan Aiken: some v. strange stuff in her stories. Y'see, I never DENIED the distaff could get down'n'dirty.... That's why I spoke of TENdency and LIKElihood:
I'm with ya on tendency, but again I think you're being sloppy with likelihood. Just because in most cases we are unable to trace the "down 'n' dirty" to specific causes, doesn't mean that determinism isn't the rule; it just means our methods of gathering data and our analytical framework are unequal to the task. ***
I'm a determinist too. But I think members of your political-and-philosophical tendency decide a-priORi that the task is too big for analysis. OTHerWISE you might yourself forced to ideologically unacceptable conclusions...
*** >Do Aileen Wuornos or Lizzy Borden mean violent crime isn't more 'male' than 'female'? A-course, women SOMETIMES commit violence by male proxy: the violent impulse can be there WITHOUT the physical ability to express it. The thing is... literature/art-in-general is an arena in which impulse can be translated very easily into expression. There are no PHYSICAL constraints on either gender community there. But clear patterns of literary/artistic self-segregation exist on gender... as on other variables of human difference. An' despite decades of feminism, they're not exactly fading awayyy...
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I don't dispute that women in our society are less often violent criminals and less often weird artists. As far as physical inadequacy, this is true only by comparison to the average male. ***
Indeed. An' the average -- or exceptional -- male is physically inadequate by comparison with a gorilla, elephant or great white shark. IOW, my point is about intra-group dynamics. Human evolution has been shaped, in part, by intra-group competition. An' so the differing physical capabilities of men and women will have been both a product OF and influence ON their different evolutionary pathways, i.e. different genetics.
*** >If I'm RIGHT that you're a) male; and b) reading mostly males, here's my advice: EMBRACE your inner sexist, dude! You KNOW it makes sense... And SCIence.....
I am neither a sexist ***
Heh! It's HIGHLY sexist to assume that YOU, as a mere male, could EVER absolve yourself of sexism. That's up to the oppress-ED gender community, not up to a member of the oppress-ING g.c. SOME feminists would say that a male is sexist qua male, because he BENEFITS from patriarchy whether he wishes to or NOT. Similarly, mutatis mutandis -- an' a-fortiori -- for RACISM. If you're white (as I intuit/deduce you are) and claim NOT to be racist, you merely conFIRM your racism...
More advice: learn The Rules, dude! 'Logic' and 'justice' are, after all, central tools in the genocide-box of white patriarchal oppression... (if you'll pardon the tauTOLogy....)
*** (nor a feminist, incidentally). But now I'm clear that you are... ***
Yup! Guilty as charged. I'm a sexist: also, a racist (Ob---): a homophobe: a xenophobe: etc, etc. In short: I'm a rotten'n'reprehensible reprobate. In shorter: I'm a REALIST...
So I care about facts and logic, not about labels.....