Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Just as irresponsible as attributing them to biology  |
Which I haven't done (and which are argued against earlier),
Quote:
|
Generalizing a theory for the entire human race based on abnormal samples is very Freudian of you
|
The interesting thing about 5-alpha reductase deficiency is that it has a very specific, narrow effect on testosterone production. I used the example in the context of a much wider range of evidence encompassing both clinical and normal populations.
Quote:
|
Look we have very good evidence that socialization is a major factor in gender-role-stereotypes. Look at what used to happen 200 years ago. Something traumatic would happen and the woman would faint. Might take weeks for her to recover from the shock. That doesn't happen so much any more now does it? But then we no longer treat women like tall infants who need constant care and pampering lest they break.
|
I would then argue that we have good evidence that socialization may be a factor in fainting 200 years ago. This says nothing about particular sex role socialization today, nor does it say anything about why in particular women were socialized to react in such a way (which may or may not have biological underpinnings).
Quote:
|
In which case you and I are closer to agreement on this thread than you think - namely that it's pretty pointless because none of us has done that investigation, nor are we qualified to do so. The OP spouted some blatant, vague, and unsubstantiated stereotypes and then wanted us to chew on them.
|
I agree.
Quote:
|
OK, we bit, but the bottom line is that none of us is a psychologist engaged in a study of gender differentiation etiology
|
I disagree.
Quote:
|
so the thread can't really go anywhere. It's kinda like asking how to fix a '65 mustang in a floral arrangement forum.
|
That's funny!
Quote:
|
You're getting way off the track here. People didn't just witch up the idea of evolution while lying in bed at night. They saw evidence in the fossil record and put it together. You seem to be suggesting that we conduct thought experiments and then claim that the results mirror reality.
|
I'm not getting off track, nor am I suggesting that we use thought experiments. I'm suggesting that we rely on empirical evidence collected by qualified individuals.
(And I argued against the position of the OP...)
Quote:
|
What I AM suggesting is that without that experimental data we can never be 100% sure that our theories on this branch of gender psychology are correct.
|
Absolutely, but even then, it's never 100%.
Quote:
|
'I'm also suggesting that this is OK - we don't NEED to know, especially if the cost of knowing is the destruction of the experimental subjects' lives.
|
I don' think that the only alternative to not knowing is destroying people's lives.