Differences in sexuality between men and women

[Technocrat]

Bear in mind that the following list of studies is by no means exhaustive; this is just a starting point. The following quote is excerpted from "Social psychology and human sexuality: essential readings By Roy F. Baumeister"


"evidence does suggest that women have a milder sex drive.

Women report spontaneous sexual desire less often than men and think about sex less often than men (Beck, Bozman, & Qualtrough, 1991; Eysenck, 1971; Knoth, Boyd, & Singer, 1988; Laumann et al., 1994).

They have fewer sexual fantasies involving fewer partners and less variety of activity (Ellis & Symons, 1990; Leitenberg & Henning, 1995).

Women report less enjoyment of erotica and pornography (see, e.g., Reed & Reed, 1972; Schmidt & Sigusch, 1970; Sigusch, Schmidt, Reinfeld & Wieldemann-Sutor, 1970).

They desire less frequent sex and fewer sexual practices than men (Ard, 1977, Bergstrom-Walan & Nielsen, 1990; Julien, Brouchard, Gagnon, & Pomerleau, 1992; Laumann et al., 1994).

Women initiate sex less often and refuse it more often (Byers & Heinlein, 1989; Clark & Hatfield, 1989; LaPlante, McCormick, & Brannigan, 1980; O'Sullivan & Byers, 1992).

Women desire fewer partners than men (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Miller & Fishkin, 1997) and seek out fewer extramarital partners (Cotton, 1975; Lawson, 1988; Spanier & Margolis, 1983; Thompson, 1983).

Women and girls masturbate less often than men and boys (Arafat & Cotton, 1974; Asayama, 1975; Laumann et al., 1994; Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Sigusch & Schmidt, 1973).

Women rate their sexual urges as less strong than men rate men's (Mercer & Kohn, 1979).

Women are more likely to cite lack of interest and enjoyment as a reason for not having sex (Leigh, 1989)." I suppose all these studies were carried out by bourgeois scientists seeking to uphold the patriarchy, right?

Then there's the fact that the area of the brain dedicated to sex is 2.5 times larger in men than in women. 250% larger is not a small difference - it is a massive difference in brain architecture.

Just because there is a difference in sex drives does not mean that women are in any way inferior to men.

I'll be posting more as I stumble across it - the amount of evidence here is somewhat overwhelming - there's a lot of material to sift through.

[Technocrat]

How do you quantify enjoyment? This is an important question to answer, since one of our objectives is to determine if men and women enjoy sex equally in a quantifiable way. There are three ways in which we can quantify enjoyment:

If I spend more time thinking about something and obsessing over it, then psychology tells us that the reward for receiving it will be greater than if I had not obsessed over it as much. Thus my enjoyment will be enhanced the more I desire something. The more frequently I think about eating cookies, the more rewarding it will be when I do eat the cookie.

Another way to quantify enjoyment would be to measure the frequency that the enjoyment is experienced. That is, if we are measuring the enjoyment that comes from eating cookies, then how often are cookies eaten? If I eat 5 cookies per day and each cookie produces the same amount of enjoyment, then if I eat 10 cookies per day I am going to quantifiably experience more enjoyment.

Still another way to quantify enjoyment would be with brain scans looking at the number of pleasure receptors that are activated. The intensity of the brain scan will reveal how much enjoyment is quantifiably being experienced by two individuals engaging in the same behavior. If person A's brain is lit up more intensely than person B when they are both eating a cookie, then person A enjoys the cookie more.

[Widerstand]

This article (http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/09/men-and-women-are-psychologically-very.php) suggests that sexuality is in fact one of the few regards in which men and women actually differ psychologically.

[Hexen]

Bear in mind that the following list of studies is by no means exhaustive; this is just a starting point. The following quote is excerpted from "Social psychology and human sexuality: essential readings By Roy F. Baumeister"

I suppose all these studies were carried out by bourgeois scientists seeking to uphold the patriarchy, right?

Then there's the fact that the area of the brain dedicated to sex is 2.5 times larger in men than in women. 250% larger is not a small difference - it is a massive difference in brain architecture.

Just because there is a difference in sex drives does not mean that women are in any way inferior to men.

I'll be posting more as I stumble across it - the amount of evidence here is somewhat overwhelming - there's a lot of material to sift through.

It is carried out by bourgeois scientists seeking to uphold the patriarchy. Also the whole brain size argument is the exact same pseudosciences they used during the 19th/early 20th century about white's brains are bigger than other races thus "proving" White Supremacy.

It's nothing more than biological reductionist pseudoscience since Science is not Pure but subjective and flexible which is subject to error and can be bent towards a agenda. My main point here that this science mostly a product from Capitalist societies.

[Technocrat]

It is carried out by bourgeois scientists seeking to uphold the patriarchy. Also the whole brain size argument is the exact same pseudosciences they used during the 19th/early 20th century about white's brains are bigger than other races thus "proving" White Supremacy.

It's nothing more than biological reductionist pseudoscience since Science is not Pure but subjective and flexible which is subject to error and can be bent towards a agenda. My main point here that this science mostly a product from Capitalist societies.

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHA~!!! :laugh:

This is a joke, right?

[Hexen]

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHA~!!! :laugh:

Yeah, the most logical response from a possible closet sexist/misogynist is getting laughed at.

[Technocrat]

Yeah, the most logical response from a possible closet sexist/misogynist is getting laughed at.

The most logical response to a joke is to laugh at it. Especially if it's fucking hilarious like yours was.

The problem with your line of argument is that it could be directed at literally anything that you disagree with. That is, you have not offered an argument-specific refutation, jackass. You could just dismiss any science that you disagree with as bourgeois, since almost all the science has been carried out by capitalist societies! :D

This is also extremely lazy on your part. You could go to the source material and see how the studies were performed in order to determine their validity, but instead you just assume that the scientists have an agenda and automatically dismiss them as "bourgeois". For fuck's sake, I went to the trouble of typing up the names and dates of all those studies so that you could go and read them for yourself. Simply calling something "bourgeois" is not an argument.

Goddamn morons who haven't taken a fucking introductory course in logic. Shit.

Also, suggesting differences between men and women does not make one a sexist.

Arguments like yours are why it's a pointless waste of time to try to offer a well-reasoned, rational argument.

[Technocrat]

Men like casual sex more than woman - pretty straightforward:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/men-like-casual-sex-more-than-women-ndash-scientific-fact-854323.html

[Luisrah]

I think, that from a biological/evolutionary point of view, it makes more sense that men want to have more sex than women.

While women have sex and then carry a child, men don't. So, the more men want to have sex, the more children will be born, however, this isn't as effective in women as it is in men, for the reason I gave above.

What some people fail to grasp in a lot of these things and the white supremacy because of the brain difference is this. We shouldn't dismiss science to save complete and ultimate equality. We should accept science and be cool with whatever it gives us.

Instead of going like:
''It is biologically proven that whites have better brains than blacks'' (just and example)
''That is bourgeois fake, we are all equal, I have a counter-study that proves it is exactly the same, it's all bourgeois racism whatever whatever''

We should go like:
''It is biologically proven that whites have better brains than blacks''
''Ok, so what? Should we not treat them as equals because of that?''

So women usually like to have less sex than men. So what? It doesn't make them any less human. It doesn't make them inferior or superior.
Men are usually better able at physical exercise, but in an advanced society fit to call itself human, can't we accept that but not make it matter? Or must we deny the truth for the sake of equality eventhough it's not the only solution to have equality?

Besides, it is a generalisation, and all generalisations are false, including this one. (Don't know who said that)
All different, all equal.

[¿Que?]

I fail to see how any of that evidence disproves that gender is socially constructed. This particular theory doesn't deny gender differences, rather, it says that those differences result from social processes rather than genetic differences.

As for the whole area of the brain dedicated to sex, my guess is that it is a poorly phrased misunderstanding of the actual science. The brain to body mass ration is on average equal between the sexes. So my guess is not that the area of the brain is larger in men than it is in women, but rather that more of the brain is devoted to sex by men than by women. And I don't see why this cannot be a result of social processes, since neural networks are reinforced through repeated conditioning.

Now for the messy stuff. What about sex, is that a social construction? Well, in fact, our scientific understanding of binary sex differences is itself a social construction, not like the OP suggest a static, universal, objective fact. Thus, we do not consider hermaphrodites as a unique sex, but instead, as anomalous or deviations from the norm. Societies in the past have also considered eunuchs to be a third sex.

So all those studies basically just prove what everyone already knows, and thus are pretty much a waste of time and money in my opinion.

[Hexen]

Men like casual sex more than woman - pretty straightforward:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/men-like-casual-sex-more-than-women-ndash-scientific-fact-854323.html

I'm willing to say that even if that's true I think it has more to do with social conditioning than biologically.

[Technocrat]

I think, that from a biological/evolutionary point of view, it makes more sense that men want to have more sex than women.

While women have sex and then carry a child, men don't. So, the more men want to have sex, the more children will be born, however, this isn't as effective in women as it is in men, for the reason I gave above.

Agreed.


So women usually like to have less sex than men. So what? It doesn't make them any less human. It doesn't make them inferior or superior.Agreed.


Besides, it is a generalisation, and all generalisations are false, including this one. (Don't know who said that)
All different, all equal.Generalizations are not "all false" - if that was true, all science would be false since a large part of science relies on inductive logic. A generalization is just that, a generalization. It means that most of the time, things happen a certain way.

People are equal when it comes to their human rights. They aren't equal with respect to measurable, observable differences between them. A large deal of confusion in leftist thinking arises from equating the two.

I think it is potentially harmful to assume that men and women are the same when it comes to sex. Believing that men and women enjoy sex equally is only going to lead to disappointment and failure in relationships.

[Hexen]

Well the best way to find out is if the women here at RevLeft can tell us if they like casual sex or not.

[Tablo]

All the women I know love casual sex and are much more interested in it than I am.

[Technocrat]

I fail to see how any of that evidence disproves that gender is socially constructed. This particular theory doesn't deny gender differences, rather, it says that those differences result from social processes rather than genetic differences.

The argument is "women enjoy sex as much as men"

The argument isn't over whether the differences are attributable to nature/nurture.

[Technocrat]

I'm willing to say that even if that's true I think it has more to do with social conditioning than biologically.

Wrong. The authors of the study posit a biological explanation - men can HAVE more children, thus they have a HIGHER sex drive. It's pretty fucking simple.

[Technocrat]

All the women I know love casual sex and are much more interested in it than I am.

An interesting outlier.

[Ele'ill]

Females desire varying amounts of sex before, during and after pregnancy.

Some like lots some do not.

It depends on the person.

[Tablo]

An interesting outlier.
Yeah, it is kinda weird. I just don't have as much fun with sex as I used to.

[Technocrat]

Well the best way to find out is if the women here at RevLeft can tell us if they like casual sex or not.

This wouldn't work for the "social reasons" that you keep blabbering about.

[Technocrat]

Females desire varying amounts of sex before, during and after pregnancy.

Some like lots some do not.

It depends on the person.

Of course there is a great deal of variability from person to person, and there are women who like sex more than some men. On average, however, women seem to have a milder sex drive.

[Ele'ill]

Of course there is a great deal of variability from person to person, and there are women who like sex more than some men. On average, however, women seem to have a milder sex drive.



I believe culture can greatly influence such things as sexuality. When science studies subjects it doesn't always take this into account.

[Hexen]

Wrong. The authors of the study posit a biological explanation - men can HAVE more children, thus they have a HIGHER sex drive. It's pretty fucking simple.

Then the authors are sexist which instead of looking at society and it's philosophy it functions under itself they instead try to reduce everything to biological determinism which the worst part that marginalizes women into a single monolithic group and therefore suggesting that it's biologically impossible for women to be promiscuous. It also reduces them into mechanical robots programmed to do certain things rather than human beings.

I think your missing the point that our society is capitalist which perpetuates certain ideals which even has their own science back it up (just like the sources you pointed to as a prime example) just like the 19th century/early 20th century had Eugenics as a accepted science.

[9]

Men like casual sex more than woman - pretty straightforward:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/men-like-casual-sex-more-than-women-ndash-scientific-fact-854323.html


From the article:


One of the first academic studies to investigate positive and negative emotions felt after casual sex has revealed that evolution has not adapted women to having casual sex. Otherwise, they conclude, women would feel better about a one-night sexual partner, instead of feeling "used" and regretful.Wow, what a fucking ridiculous conclusion to draw. Women tend to feel "used" after casual sex, yeah, that's obviously biological - clearly it means they're not adapted to casual sex. Christ. :rolleyes:
This entire article is thoroughly ideological. If you can't see that, you're completely fucking blind. It is observing the fact that more often women tend to feel bad about themselves after casual sex, and then baselessly attributing it to evolution, rather than negative social attitudes toward promiscuous women and female sexuality, which is the obvious culprit (but of course bourgeois ideologues manage to overlook this).

[Technocrat]

This entire article is thoroughly ideological. If you can't see that, you're completely fucking blind. It is observing the fact that more often women tend to feel bad about themselves after casual sex, and then baselessly attributing it to evolution, rather than negative social attitudes toward promiscuous women and female sexuality, which is the obvious culprit (but of course bourgeois ideologues manage to overlook this).

You have it completely backwards.

Once again:

Social explanations, such as the one you are offering, are entirely based on hindsight. "Why did he do that? His culture made him do it". This is unscientific, unverifiable, and impossible to disprove. At least with explanations that take evolution into account, you get a testable hypothesis that can be supported with animal studies, cross cultural comparisons, hormone and genetic studies, brain studies, etc.

[Technocrat]

Then the authors are sexist which instead of looking at society and it's philosophy it functions under itself they instead try to reduce everything to biological determinism

Wrong. Social explanations are reductionist, unverifiable, untestable, unscientific, hindsight-based GARBAGE!

Only explanations which consider the biological AND the social can be taken seriously or considered scientific. Evolutionary psychology and sociobiology posit a coevolutionary theory whereby genes and culture interact to produce behavior.

[Technocrat]

I believe culture can greatly influence such things as sexuality. When science studies subjects it doesn't always take this into account.

So are you going to make that assumption about all the evidence I've provided, which is no where close to an exhaustive list?

[Hexen]

Wrong. Social explanations are reductionist, unverifiable, untestable, unscientific, hindsight-based GARBAGE!

Actually, it's the other way around that Biological Determinism is reductionist garbage.

[¿Que?]

Wrong. Social explanations are reductionist, unverifiable, untestable, unscientific, hindsight-based GARBAGE!

Only explanations which consider the biological AND the social can be taken seriously or considered scientific. Evolutionary psychology and sociobiology posit a coevolutionary theory whereby genes and culture interact to produce behavior.
You shouldn't conflate cultural explanations with socio-structural explanations, which I think is what you mean when you talk about social explanations. These are not the same thing, and to use the terms social and culture interchangeably betrays a lack of understanding of social theory in general.

[kitsune]

What this made me think of is gender differences regarding sex in the animal kingdom. Females generally do not have to compete for mates. Males do. They have brighter colors and ornamental features specifically to attract females. They do little dances and build nests and fight each other for mating rights.

Maybe this is the basis for differences in the way genders regard sex. Males have to think about it more and have more developed neurological structures for sexual pursuit; they are the ones who have to do the pursuing.

Now I'm thinking it would be very interesting to see some studies on how male and female brains light up during arousal, sex, and orgasm.

[Luisrah]

Agreed.

Agreed.

Generalizations are not "all false" - if that was true, all science would be false since a large part of science relies on inductive logic. A generalization is just that, a generalization. It means that most of the time, things happen a certain way.

People are equal when it comes to their human rights. They aren't equal with respect to measurable, observable differences between them. A large deal of confusion in leftist thinking arises from equating the two.

I think it is potentially harmful to assume that men and women are the same when it comes to sex. Believing that men and women enjoy sex equally is only going to lead to disappointment and failure in relationships.

That's what I meant! Generalizations mean that most of the time, it happens that way, so the meaning of saying ''all generalizations are false, including this one'', is that in all generalizations there are exceptions, and even in this generalization, there are exceptions.

And that's what I meant too! :) ''All different, all equal'', meaning that we are all different objectively, but we can all be equals subjectively if that makes sense. Eventhough we are different physically, for example, it doesn't mean we can't respect and treat everyone as equals.

So actually it is Agreed, Agreed, Agreed, Agreed. It was just the fact that I'm portuguese that probably got in the way :lol:

[Widerstand]

Then the authors are sexist which instead of looking at society and it's philosophy it functions under itself they instead try to reduce everything to biological determinism

I have a really hard time following your logic. Will you be willing to explain to me a few things?

Why is it sexist to assume that biological explanations for behavior exist?
Where are they reducing EVERYTHING to biological determinism?
Do you have any arguments that disprove biological determinism playing some, no matter how minor, role in human behavior?


which the worst part that marginalizes women into a single monolithic group and therefore suggesting that it's biologically impossible for women to be promiscuous.

Well, despite the fact that your argument here is quite wrong, because none of these studies contested that promiscuity in women exists, let alone "marginalized" them into "a single monolithic group" (they were merely noting tendencies and average outcomes), I have to question your underlying way of thinking if you think that suggesting a lack of promiscuous behavior, which isn't the case, is sexist.
Sexism refers to the believe, that one sex is "inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other" (Wikipedia); it can also mean "Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women", or "Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender" (thefreedictionary.com).

Does suggesting that, on average, women enjoy casual sex less than men, and that this could have biological causes, infer their inferiority, a minor competence or lesser value? I don't think so, as that would imply that every person who dislikes casual sex is inferior to every other, which is in essence no better than saying monogamy is better than promiscuity. You should not measure a persons worth based on their sex preferences.

Does suggesting that, on average, women enjoy casual sex less than men, and that this could have biological causes, constitute discrimination based on gender? No. Noticing that a certain trend in behavior exists is not the same as discriminating. Discrimination is an active act, done by one group against another groups. Tracing that behavior back to biological causes is not discriminating either.

Does suggesting that, on average, women enjoy casual sex less than men, and that this could have biological causes, promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender? This is not so clear cut. Of course you could say that it reinforces the image of women having to be faithful to their partner while the men can fuck around all they want, but I would say this is a very far fetched connection to make - which doesn't mean it won't be made by some conservative. Though it is obviously wrong. Even if biological determinism would prove to be the absolute explanation for this trend, and I believe this to be unlikely, it does not justify enforcing it on anyone, especially since there are, and these studies don't deny that, obviously a lot of promiscuous women who enjoy casual sex.



It also reduces them into mechanical robots programmed to do certain things rather than human beings.

This is about as far fetched an interpretation as you could give without being absurd. Does saying that humans, on average, enjoy physical activity, because it triggers the release certain chemicals that make us feel good, render ALL OF US into "mechanical robots programmed to do certain things rather than a human beings"? Utter bullshit.



I think your missing the point that our society is capitalist which perpetuates certain ideals which even has their own science back it up (just like the sources you pointed to as a prime example) just like the 19th century/early 20th century had Eugenics as a accepted science.


Actually, it's the other way around that Biological Determinism is reductionist garbage.

Well, personally, I believe that society certainly plays a big part in behavior. But the evidence suggesting that biological factors play their part is simply too overwhelming to dismiss biological factors all together. I don't think we should be having this debate of "nature vs. nurture" really. It's a mix of both. Dismissing either is reductionist garbage.


You shouldn't conflate cultural explanations with socio-structural explanations, which I think is what you mean when you talk about social explanations. These are not the same thing, and to use the terms social and culture interchangeably betrays a lack of understanding of social theory in general.

Would you mind expanding that point a bit? I'm under the impression that cultural phenomenons and social structure are usually related.

[Freedom-Hating Communist]

Sorry, I haven't read the rest of the discussion, so forgive me if I'm just repeating someone else-


"evidence does suggest that women have a milder sex drive.

Women report spontaneous sexual desire less often than men and think about sex less often than men (Beck, Bozman, & Qualtrough, 1991; Eysenck, 1971; Knoth, Boyd, & Singer, 1988; Laumann et al., 1994).

They have fewer sexual fantasies involving fewer partners and less variety of activity (Ellis & Symons, 1990; Leitenberg & Henning, 1995).

Women report less enjoyment of erotica and pornography (see, e.g., Reed & Reed, 1972; Schmidt & Sigusch, 1970; Sigusch, Schmidt, Reinfeld & Wieldemann-Sutor, 1970).

They desire less frequent sex and fewer sexual practices than men (Ard, 1977, Bergstrom-Walan & Nielsen, 1990; Julien, Brouchard, Gagnon, & Pomerleau, 1992; Laumann et al., 1994).

Women initiate sex less often and refuse it more often (Byers & Heinlein, 1989; Clark & Hatfield, 1989; LaPlante, McCormick, & Brannigan, 1980; O'Sullivan & Byers, 1992).

Women desire fewer partners than men (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Miller & Fishkin, 1997) and seek out fewer extramarital partners (Cotton, 1975; Lawson, 1988; Spanier & Margolis, 1983; Thompson, 1983).

Women and girls masturbate less often than men and boys (Arafat & Cotton, 1974; Asayama, 1975; Laumann et al., 1994; Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Sigusch & Schmidt, 1973).

Women rate their sexual urges as less strong than men rate men's (Mercer & Kohn, 1979).

Women are more likely to cite lack of interest and enjoyment as a reason for not having sex (Leigh, 1989)."

This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with inherent differences. The experience of sex and sexality can hve much to do with conditioning and the experience of life in general. If you conducted this research in a society where all traces of sexism had been extirpated (which is NOT anywhere in the modern world), you may get very different results.


Then there's the fact that the area of the brain dedicated to sex is 2.5 times larger in men than in women. 250% larger is not a small difference - it is a massive difference in brain architecture.

That still doesn't necessarily mean anything. Most wiring in the brain is 'soft', not 'hard'- the structure and connections in the brain are incredibly flexible and open to environmental influence. This in no way discounts the possibility of the influene of a sexist society.

Besides, who made these measurements? And for what purpose? Back in the day when they were still trying to provide a biological justification for racism, scientists would go out and 'prove' that blacks had, on averag, smaller skulls and brains than white people did, based on the measurements of very carefully selected subjects- they deliberately selected for smaller skull/brain size so they would get the results they wanted. And for that matter, are neuroscientists really so confident these days that they can pin-point particular 'areas' of the brain which govern absolutely particular behaviours? So far as I know, they're fairly sure about these things, but neuroscientists are even more cautious and tentative about making absolute statements than the rest of the scientific community, because they just don't have as much data or as much of a history and build up as the other fields.

[Freedom-Hating Communist]

Just because there is a difference in sex drives does not mean that women are in any way inferior to men.

But it does have its implications. Does that mean that, in order to make their partners happy, women should just give in and have sex more often, whether they want to or not (as the horrid Lorri Gottlieb and Bettina Arndt suggest)? If a man and a woman are in a relationship, and he wants to have sex but she doesn't, should she just give in because that's 'fair' given his greater sex-drive? Whenever someone tries to make the case for inherent gender differences beyond the physical and minor elements of the mental/emotional, even if they believe they aren't doing so on a sexist basis, it gets very sticky, very quickly.

[Widerstand]

But it does have its implications. Does that mean that, in order to make their partners happy, women should just give in and have sex more often, whether they want to or not (as the horrid Lorri Gottlieb and Bettina Arndt suggest)? If a man and a woman are in a relationship, and he wants to have sex but she doesn't, should she just give in because that's 'fair' given his greater sex-drive? Whenever someone tries to make the case for inherent gender differences beyond the physical and minor elements of the mental/emotional, even if they believe they aren't doing so on a sexist basis, it gets very sticky, very quickly.

This thought construct can wander from "men have greater sex drives than women" to "women should have sex with male partners even if they don't want to" only if one assumes that the interest of men weighs more than, and should be enforced over, that of women, which is in fact sexist.

[Freedom-Hating Communist]

And why can't the male partner just have less sex because the woman has a lesser sex drive and doesn't enjoy sex as frequently? This thought construct can wander from "men have greater sex drives than women" to "women should have sex with male partners even if they don't want to" only if one assumes that the interest of men weighs more than that of women, which is in fact sexist.

And that is almost always the argument that is made- that, because men have a greater sex-drive, women should have sex more. It reveals the sexist roots and trajectory of these sorts of ideas.

[Widerstand]

And that is almost always the argument that is made- that, because men have a greater sex-drive, women should have sex more. It reveals the sexist roots and trajectory of these sorts of ideas.

I realize that studies like these can be used to semi-justify sexist dogmas, but what's important is to realize that they are not inherently sexist, nor do they bear sexist implications. The vast majority, if not all, sexist conclusions drawn from these kind of a studies can be traced to some hidden sexist assumption of the one drawing these conclusions. Which is why a lot of people are so scared of those studies and act all hostile over them. This is wrong. By demanding science to be censored, selectively ignoring certain parts that superficially (yes, they don't really) conflict with our ideologies, or dismissing it altogether, we do but hurt ourselves.

[Meridian]

What this made me think of is gender differences regarding sex in the animal kingdom. Females generally do not have to compete for mates. Males do. They have brighter colors and ornamental features specifically to attract females. They do little dances and build nests and fight each other for mating rights.
It may make you think of that, as I am sure it makes a lot of people think. But humans are not alike animals. Besides that, gender qualities are far from unison across species of animals. In some races it is completely the other way around.


Maybe this is the basis for differences in the way genders regard sex. Males have to think about it more and have more developed neurological structures for sexual pursuit; they are the ones who have to do the pursuing.
Genders do not regard sex, but a person may. There is nothing which indicates that males have to think about it more. That there is any correlation, which may be true or false, does not imply causation.

It may be a pattern in human behavior, based on a set of observations. Patterns in human behavior are called cultural.


Now I'm thinking it would be very interesting to see some studies on how male and female brains light up during arousal, sex, and orgasm.
Well, brains do not normally "light up". This is a different subject, but: Such studies would only reveal activity in parts of the brain during some stimulus. Conclusions about 'our thinking' from these observations are based on coincidental activity.


This thought construct can wander from "men have greater sex drives than women" to "women should have sex with male partners even if they don't want to" only if one assumes that the interest of men weighs more than, and should be enforced over, that of women, which is in fact sexist.
Well even though I think these "findings" are hogwash like most sociobiology, I agree about that. But don't forget to mention the negative stereotype of men as constantly sex deficient.

[Freedom-Hating Communist]

I realize that studies like these can be used to semi-justify sexist dogmas, but what's important is to realize that they are not inherently sexist, nor do they bear sexist implications. The vast majority, if not all, sexist conclusions drawn from these kind of a studies can be traced to some hidden sexist assumption of the one drawing these conclusions. Which is why a lot of people are so scared of those studies and act all hostile over them. This is wrong. By demanding science to be censored, selectively ignoring certain parts that superficially (yes, they don't really) conflict with our ideologies, or dismissing it altogether, we do but hurt ourselves.

They may not have sexist roots, but the implications are clear. How often have you actually heard a commentator argue that men should have sex less based on these statistics, rather than women have more? If you leave aside societal context, then no, they're not inherently sexist, just highly questionable. The problem is, societal context won't leave you alone; so long as we live in a class-divided society which fosters division based on gender, these results will have sexist implications for the majority of people who read them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They may not have sexist roots, but the implications are clear. How often have you actually heard a commentator argue that men should have sex less based on these statistics, rather than women have more? If you leave aside societal context, then no, they're not inherently sexist, just highly questionable. The problem is, societal context won't leave you alone; so long as we live in a class-divided society which fosters division based on gender, these results will have sexist implications for the majority of people who read them.

That doesn't change the that such findings don't necessarily support such conclusions. It's like criticising evolution because "survival of the fittest" is used to justify eugenic practices such as forcible sterilisation.

[Widerstand]

They may not have sexist roots, but the implications are clear.

The implications are not clear at all. In fact I'm arguing that they simply do not exist unless viewed through a sexist lens.



How often have you actually heard a commentator argue that men should have sex less based on these statistics, rather than women have more? If you leave aside societal context, then no, they're not inherently sexist, just highly questionable.

That commentator is then using them to justify his argument and interpreting them from his already sexist perspective. Face it: The only persons using these studies to justify sexism are sexists. You argumentum ad populum is not necessarily wrong, it's just missing one important fact: The majority of society is in fact sexist or holds sexist views, whether or not they are aware of it or support sexism is irrelevant. That is exactly why they interpret these studies as sexist. Every sex difference will be interpreted in a sexist way by a sexist interpreter. Nobody is turned sexist by pointing out that differences between sexes exist.



The problem is, societal context won't leave you alone; so long as we live in a class-divided society which fosters division based on gender, these results will have sexist implications for the majority of people who read them.

So we should silence/censor/disregard them, no matter how true they may be? That's a very dangerous path you're walking. We should instead make a point embracing all differences between sexes, no matter how profound or superficial they may turn out to be, still viewing these sexes as equals nonetheless, and fight the existing sexist bias that creates these sexist implications, exposing it as the rubbish it actually is.

[Il Medico]

Well the best way to find out is if the women here at RevLeft can tell us if they like casual sex or not.
What women?

[Pastafari Ginger]

I would suggest that some of the reasons women are less intrerested in sex are purely based on consequenses. When a man has sex, the vast majority of the time there are no negative consequenses, no pregnancy, no emotional upheaval, no continuing responsibility. Women are geneticly wired to view sex in an emotional way, why would you take the chance of becoming pregnant and dealing with all that that entails if you did not feel that there was an emotional attachment between you and your partner? So women tend to convince themselves that they "should not" have sex with someone they are not emotionally comitted to. Men are far less likely to feel this internal angst as consequence free sex is the norm for them.
Also from a purely female persepective, sex is far more invasive to the female body, we are the receiver, we are the one who is "entered", who has a foreign body actually inserted inside of us and therefore we have a natural inclination to be more picky about it, to want to see evidence of emtoional attachment, moral stability, etc in a partner before we want to have sex with them. Women seldom plan to have sex with a partner only once, we tend to see it as the beginning of an ongoing thing, unlike men who are able to view it far more casually.
Lastly I think women do feel spontaneous sexual desire, more often and more strongly than men would ever beleive, but we have been conditioned by society to hide it, to be ashamed of it, and to sublimate our desires. A "good girl" does not have sexual desires, that is reserved societally for the "loose women" or "sluts", which are universally looked down on by both men and women. Therefore when we spontaneously experience sexual desire we are far more likely to feel embarassed or ashamed of it and not report or act on it for fear of being perceived as immoral or "bad"

[¿Que?]

In fact genetic or biological determinism can and is used to reinforce sexist, discriminatory practices against women. If women are "hardwired" to be sensitive, or emotional or what have you, then we can logically conclude they have no business undertaking certain types of professions. For example, if women are genetically, biologically or inherently more emotional than men, then we can logically, that is, based on reasonable argument, not misogyny or sexism, conclude that they should not be, for example, ER doctors, because ultimately, they will not be emotionally capable of handling the traumatic experience of dealing with people who might be severely injured.

You can't just say that there are inherent gender differences, and then say that these differences have no implications for society unless you're sexists. This is naive and highly reductionist in my view.

But there is another problem. How do genetic explanations deal with the problem of outliers or exceptions to the rule. If we are genetically determined, then I don't see any reason why any outliers or exceptions should exist, unless of course these are the result of genetic abnormalities. I say again, the only way a genetic explanation can account for variations from the norm is as a result of genetic abnormalities. Take for example a baby born blind, or that one fly they genetically manipulated to grow a leg on it's head. These are genetic abnormalities. And what genetic explanations do is essentially lump say for example, sexually promiscuous women, or women who enjoy a lot of casual sex, in the same category as the fly with an extra leg on its head. To me, this is utterly ridiculous. Sexually promiscuous women are not products of genetic abnormalities, but rather socio-structural abnormalities or cultural transgressors. There's nothing genetic about it really. Well, maybe there's that .1% genetic variation in humans that may predispose someone to behave in certain ways, but predisposition require environmental factors to have any effect whatsoever.

Simple answer, both genetic and environmental, yes. But environment plays a much more direct and determinative role than genetics does. It's not 50/50 by any means.

[Freedom-Hating Communist]

That doesn't change the that such findings don't necessarily support such conclusions. It's like criticising evolution because "survival of the fittest" is used to justify eugenic practices such as forcible sterilisation.

Not true.

a) I first argued that the data and the conclusions drawn from it were questionable at best, then proceeded to argue that they were sexist in trajectory. Arguing that they were sexist without arguing that they were flawed would have been silly, and would have achieved nothing, much as right-wing fundamentalist Christian attempts to dismiss evolution because Hitler's ideology had a vague and questionable relationship with Darwin's work.

b) In a capitalist society, these really are the implications that will be drawn from this research, whether it is correct or not. Similarly, evolution does not lead necessarily to genocide and eugenics, but in some contexts it may be used as justification. This does not justify dismissing it; but it highlights the role of context in the implications of even the most seemingly-neutral of disciplines, science.


The implications are not clear at all. In fact I'm arguing that they simply do not exist unless viewed through a sexist lens.

And, as I have made clear, I am arguing that a sexist lens is precisely the lens through which it will be seen so long as we live in a Capitalist society. It is true that it does not necessarily lend itself to sexism; but that is the way it will be interpreted and used in current social context.

The most important point is that the research is questionable at best; but it would be totally naieve of any of us to assume that right-wingers and mainstream society would not sieze on it as proof of inherent gender divisions and the need for more female submission in personal relationships just because that is not the 'necessary implication'. In the current context, the implications are as clear as crystal; in the abstract, they are not.


You argumentum ad populum

Just so you have the terminology pinned, an ad populum argument is an argument which uses public or majority opinion as proof tat a proposition is right or wrong. I am not doing that; I am arguing that it wll be seen as sexist, not that, because it is seen as sexist, it is sexist. However, as it is seen as sexist or used in a sexist way, it is in effect a reinforcement of sexism, if not in theory.


The majority of society is in fact sexist or holds sexist views, whether or not they are aware of it or support sexism is irrelevant. That is exactly why they interpret these studies as sexist. Every sex difference will be interpreted in a sexist way by a sexist interpreter. Nobody is turned sexist by pointing out that differences between sexes exist.

Only a very small number may be 'turned sexist' by these arguments; butt the fact is, these arguments in the current context give justification for sexism. It may not be a winning argument in itself, but it is just one more bit of ammunition for use against the anti-sexist left.


So we should silence/censor/disregard them, no matter how true they may be?

No. We should disregard them because the data doesn't actually prove anything, whatever grand conclusions are drawn by the interpreters. Notice, again, that I only laid criticism of the concusions drawn from the data as sexist after demonstrating that they were flawed.

The liberal fear of ever seeming to be intolerant, even from a left-wing position, can lead to mighty great time-wasting, sometimes.


We should instead make a point embracing all differences between sexes, no matter how profound or superficial they may turn out to be, still viewing these sexes as equals nonetheless, and fight the existing sexist bias that creates these sexist implications, exposing it as the rubbish it actually is.

Except that the data doesn't come close to proving that these differences actually do exist! What is the point of embracing non-existent differences? If you could demonstrate to me that these differences did exist, and that the data strongly supports the conclusions being drawn, then I'd be happy to do as you suggest- but why bother if they actually don't and it actually doesn't?

[Widerstand]

In fact genetic or biological determinism can and is used to reinforce sexist, discriminatory practices against women. If women are "hardwired" to be sensitive, or emotional or what have you, then we can logically conclude they have no business undertaking certain types of professions. For example, if women are genetically, biologically or inherently more emotional than men, then we can logically, that is, based on reasonable argument, not misogyny or sexism, conclude that they should not be, for example, ER doctors, because ultimately, they will not be emotionally capable of handling the traumatic experience of dealing with people who might be severely injured.

Uhm no. In your example of ER doctors, the logical and egalitarian conclusion would not be that we should prevent them from becoming ER doctors, but rather that society should take increased effort to ensure the mental wellbeing of it's female ER doctors. Society should provide for its member's needs, not prevent them from arising.


You can't just say that there are inherent gender differences, and then say that these differences have no implications for society unless you're sexists. This is naive and highly reductionist in my view.

So how have I been reductionist in the above example?


But there is another problem. How do genetic explanations deal with the problem of outliers or exceptions to the rule. If we are genetically determined, then I don't see any reason why any outliers or exceptions should exist, unless of course these are the result of genetic abnormalities. I say again, the only way a genetic explanation can account for variations from the norm is as a result of genetic abnormalities. Take for example a baby born blind, or that one fly they genetically manipulated to grow a leg on it's head. These are genetic abnormalities. And what genetic explanations do is essentially lump say for example, sexually promiscuous women, or women who enjoy a lot of casual sex, in the same category as the fly with an extra leg on its head. To me, this is utterly ridiculous. Sexually promiscuous women are not products of genetic abnormalities, but rather socio-structural abnormalities or cultural transgressors. There's nothing genetic about it really. Well, maybe there's that .1% genetic variation in humans that may predispose someone to behave in certain ways, but predisposition require environmental factors to have any effect whatsoever.

To the whole "if it's genetically determined why are there different behaviors" argument: Are you contesting that eye color and hair color, amongst other phenotype characteristics, are genetically determined because there are more than one?


Simple answer, both genetic and environmental, yes. But environment plays a much more direct and determinative role than genetics does. It's not 50/50 by any means.

I agree with that.

[Widerstand]

The most important point is that the research is questionable at best;

What exactly is questionable? The fact that it is conducted at all or the way in which it is conducted?


Just so you have the terminology pinned, an ad populum argument is an argument which uses public or majority opinion as proof tat a proposition is right or wrong. I am not doing that; I am arguing that it wll be seen as sexist, not that, because it is seen as sexist, it is sexist.

You were arguing that it is sexist because the majority of commentators would interpret it in a sexist manner. Unless I misunderstood you.


And, as I have made clear, I am arguing that a sexist lens is precisely the lens through which it will be seen so long as we live in a Capitalist society. It is true that it does not necessarily lend itself to sexism; but that is the way it will be interpreted and used in current social context.


but it would be totally naieve of any of us to assume that right-wingers and mainstream society would not sieze on it as proof of inherent gender divisions and the need for more female submission in personal relationships just because that is not the 'necessary implication'. In the current context, the implications are as clear as crystal; in the abstract, they are not.


However, as it is seen as sexist or used in a sexist way, it is in effect a reinforcement of sexism, if not in theory.

So should we just shut up about ANYTHING that could be "seen as sexist" or "used in a sexist way"? Because that pretty much means we can't talk about sociobiology at all. I'm not willing to let right-wingers claim this field for themselves just because they already do it, and you shouldn't be either. There is a tendency within the left to distance ourselves from everything right wingers claim for themselves, which is just irrational and potentially harmful. We give up way too much way too fast.



Only a very small number may be 'turned sexist' by these arguments; butt the fact is, these arguments in the current context give justification for sexism. It may not be a winning argument in itself, but it is just one more bit of ammunition for use against the anti-sexist left.

And you prevent it being used as such by saying the researchers are biased, that we should ignore it or that the numbers are biased? No. Attack the sexist lens, not the image it distorts.


No. We should disregard them because the data doesn't actually prove anything, whatever grand conclusions are drawn by the interpreters. Notice, again, that I only laid criticism of the concusions drawn from the data as sexist after demonstrating that they were flawed.

This argument is far different from the most common raving in this thread though. I perceived the majority of arguments made against these studies to be the following:

"The studies are wrong because the researchers are sexist".
"The studies are wrong because the findings imply differences between men and women".
"These studies are wrong because biology can't explain behavior".
"These studies are wrong because I don't like the findings".


Except that the data doesn't come close to proving that these differences actually do exist! What is the point of embracing non-existent differences? If you could demonstrate to me that these differences did exist, and that the data strongly supports the conclusions being drawn, then I'd be happy to do as you suggest- but why bother if they actually don't and it actually doesn't?

I agree that the data in most cases is too vague to support the conclusions presented in the articles, and that they individually don't support the thesis outlined in the OP. However, I think the amount of different data and research supporting the theory make sense in the context of the evolutionary explanation. Then again, I did not actually bother to search for data contradicting it, though it may very well exist. All in all, I don't particularly care about the topic at hand as much as I care about the principal "fuck science if it disagrees with me" attitude and the namecalling and labeling people as sexist it drags along.

[Technocrat]

Now I'm thinking it would be very interesting to see some studies on how male and female brains light up during arousal, sex, and orgasm.

It would be interesting, and they do have studies on that - the difficulty is in making a meaningful comparison between male and female brains. There are massive differences in brain architecture between males and females when it comes to sex, so it's like comparing apples and oranges.

What they can do is study the differences in brain architecture itself and make inferences based on that - e.g. males have a larger % of their brain dedicated to the pursuit of sex.

[Technocrat]

Actually, it's the other way around that Biological Determinism is reductionist garbage.

Christ, did you ignore what I just said prior to you posting this? This isn't "biological determinism," it's "sociobiology" or "evolutionary psychology." Both sociobiology and evolutionary psychology posit a "coevolutionary" theory of human behavior where genes and culture interact to produce behavior. Biological determinism reduces everything to evolution and ignores culture. "Social determinism" ignores evolution and reduces everything to culture. Both "biological determinism" and "social determinism" are reductionist! The only theory that isn't reductionist is evolutionary psychology or sociobiology.

What you are talking about could more accurately be described as "philosophy." Since this forum is Science and Environment, we are discussing science, not philosophy.

[Technocrat]

You shouldn't conflate cultural explanations with socio-structural explanations, which I think is what you mean when you talk about social explanations. These are not the same thing, and to use the terms social and culture interchangeably betrays a lack of understanding of social theory in general.

True, culture and social are not the same thing.

However, both "cultural" explanations and "social" explanations are reductionist and inadequate because they ignore evolution. I use the terms interchangeably here because the arguments against either one apply to both.

For decades this has been the biggest problem with the social sciences. The theories of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology seek to resolve the conflict.

[Ele'ill]

So are you going to make that assumption about all the evidence I've provided, which is no where close to an exhaustive list?


My post wasn't a response to the quote in it. I just wanted you to know that I was addressing the issue of Science and its studies. It was perhaps a bit lazy of me to quote at random like that but whatever. :)

[revolution inaction]

True, culture and social are not the same thing.

However, both "cultural" explanations and "social" explanations are reductionist and inadequate because they ignore evolution. I use the terms interchangeably here because the arguments against either one apply to both.

For decades this has been the biggest problem with the social sciences. The theories of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology seek to resolve the conflict.

a hell of lot of evolutionary psychology is completely pseudo scientific bullshit.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Bear in mind that the following list of studies is by no means exhaustive; this is just a starting point. The following quote is excerpted from "Social psychology and human sexuality: essential readings By Roy F. Baumeister"

I suppose all these studies were carried out by bourgeois scientists seeking to uphold the patriarchy, right?

Then there's the fact that the area of the brain dedicated to sex is 2.5 times larger in men than in women. 250% larger is not a small difference - it is a massive difference in brain architecture.

Just because there is a difference in sex drives does not mean that women are in any way inferior to men.

I'll be posting more as I stumble across it - the amount of evidence here is somewhat overwhelming - there's a lot of material to sift through.

I don't think the fact that men have more of a certain part of their brain showing activity when having/thinking about sex really proves anything innate about women or men. Its quite likely that Europeans have 250 percent of some part of their brain light up than tribal Africans who don't do maths nearly as much.

In this society, women are far more likely to be punished for having sex, and men far more likely to be rewarded. I don't know about you, but I don't feel comfortable attributing facets of people's behaviour today to mysteriously linked biological imperatives when there is an obvious social explanation.

Futhermore, a lot of the articles linked which seem far too bold and certain for what research they've done, and then going even futher to callously attribute such things to biology rather than looking to a social reason. It seems to be a bunch of evolutionary biologists justifying their paycheck by finding yet another "innate evolutionary drive" without even trying to find another cause.

[Crux]

Bear in mind that the following list of studies is by no means exhaustive; this is just a starting point. The following quote is excerpted from "Social psychology and human sexuality: essential readings By Roy F. Baumeister"

I suppose all these studies were carried out by bourgeois scientists seeking to uphold the patriarchy, right?

Then there's the fact that the area of the brain dedicated to sex is 2.5 times larger in men than in women. 250% larger is not a small difference - it is a massive difference in brain architecture.

Just because there is a difference in sex drives does not mean that women are in any way inferior to men.

I'll be posting more as I stumble across it - the amount of evidence here is somewhat overwhelming - there's a lot of material to sift through.
No, but the results are a result of patriarchy controlling and defining female sexuality, thus the lower enjoyment of both sex and porn (which by and large is made for men).
I see nothing overwhelming about this at all. Many thing's previously suggested to be biological have turned out be social. Biology is political too.

[¿Que?]

Uhm no. In your example of ER doctors, the logical and egalitarian conclusion would not be that we should prevent them from becoming ER doctors, but rather that society should take increased effort to ensure the mental wellbeing of it's female ER doctors. Society should provide for its member's needs, not prevent them from arising.
Well, I think the fundamental problem here is that you equate logical with egalitarian. If on the other hand, logical is taken to imply efficiency, then your argument falls flat, since your hypothetical egalitarian society relies on increasing resources necessary to accommodate innate differences.

To the whole "if it's genetically determined why are there different behaviors" argument: Are you contesting that eye color and hair color, amongst other phenotype characteristics, are NOT genetically determined because there are more than one?
This is a valid point. Some differences are genetically determined. Phenotypic differences are the result of that .1% variation in human genetic makeup. But that pretty much exemplifies reductionism, doesn't it? The idea that because phenotypes are genetically determined, then so is every other aspect of the human condition. In any case, with phenotypes, we can usually point to a gene or group of genes which determine the phenotype. There are no genes which determine sexual preferences or criminal activity or any other type of human behavior. BTW, I fixed your post so that it would make sense.

[Widerstand]

Well, I think the fundamental problem here is that you equate logical with egalitarian. If on the other hand, logical is taken to imply efficiency, then your argument falls flat, since your hypothetical egalitarian society relies on increasing resources necessary to accommodate innate differences.

Nope, I'm combining logical and egalitarian, I'm not equating them. From a perspective focused on equality, I think my solution to be the most logical. If I came from a perspective focused on efficiency, I would likely agree with your scenario.



This is a valid point. Some differences are genetically determined. Phenotypic differences are the result of that .1% variation in human genetic makeup. But that pretty much exemplifies reductionism, doesn't it? The idea that because phenotypes are genetically determined, then so is every other aspect of the human condition.

Eh, my point was, that "different behaviors exist" is not really an argument against genetic determination of behavior. Though I'd say it's safer to speak of genetic and biological influence, rather than determination (and genetic influence certainly exists: XXY syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXY), XYY syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome), Trisomie 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_Syndrome)).

I'm not trying to argue for either form, biological or social, of reductionism.



In any case, with phenotypes, we can usually point to a gene or group of genes which determine the phenotype. There are no genes which determine sexual preferences or criminal activity or any other type of human behavior.

*We have not discovered any genes that do. I'm not saying we ever will, but I'm not ruling out the possibility yet.


BTW, I fixed your post so that it would make sense.

But it doesn't make sense with your fix O_o

Here's my original (with an added comma):

"Are you contesting that eye color and hair color, amongst other phenotype characteristics, are genetically determined, because there are more than one?"

Rephrased:

"Are you disagreeing that eye color and hair color, amongst other phenotype characteristics, are genetically determined, because there are more than one?"

Rephrased again:

"Are you, on the grounds of there being more than one, disagreeing that eye color and hair color, amongst other phenotype characteristics, are genetically determined?"

Rephrased one last time:

"Are you saying that, because human phenotypes differ, they can not be genetically determined"

[¿Que?]

True, culture and social are not the same thing.

However, both "cultural" explanations and "social" explanations are reductionist and inadequate because they ignore evolution. I use the terms interchangeably here because the arguments against either one apply to both.

For decades this has been the biggest problem with the social sciences. The theories of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology seek to resolve the conflict.
Actually, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology tend to be much more reductionist than most social theories, which in extreme form, tend to particularize human behavior to the extent that no generalization can be made. This is in fact the exact opposite of reductionism, but presents a problem in its own way. A purely contextual approach (say as with postmodernism) denies that any meaningful generalization is possible, as every experience and every individual is unique and sui generis.

The main objection I have to sociobiology and evolutionary psychology is that it posits human differences, say gender differences, as static and immutable. When they say things like men are "hardwired" to be more sexually aggressive or other such things, they ignore how socio-structural conditions largely determine male behavior, and that in fact there is no genetic basis for their arguments. Most of their evidence is the same evidence used in social science, that is survey data, behavioral experiments and things like that. In other words, by and large, they're not looking at genetic material but rather patterns of human behavior, which can be used to support other theories as well.

Let me give you an example. I did a project for a class and found that white, male, Christian, Southerners are more likely to own guns than the general population. This is a statistical fact. But can we assume that this is due to genetic or biological differences, or even evolutionary differences between whites, christians, southerners, or men. It really does sound silly in this context, don't it.

[¿Que?]

Nope, I'm combining logical and egalitarian, I'm not equating them. From a perspective focused on equality, I think my solution to be the most logical. If I came from a perspective focused on efficiency, I would likely agree with your scenario.
Well, it sounds like you're splitting hairs here, but since you essentially agree, I'm not going to push the issue.



Eh, my point was, that "different behaviors exist" is not really an argument against genetic determination of behavior. Though I'd say it's safer to speak of genetic and biological influence, rather than determination (and genetic influence certainly exists: XXY syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXY), XYY syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome), Trisomie 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_Syndrome)).
I don't think I ever made that argument. But you're right. There are genetic influences, but I was arguing against genetic determinism.


*We have not discovered any genes that do. I'm not saying we ever will, but I'm not ruling out the possibility yet.
I don't think we ever will. At most we'll find genes which influence behavior, like you said. None that determine behavior.


But it doesn't make sense with your fix O_o

Here's my original (with an added comma):

"Are you contesting that eye color and hair color, amongst other phenotype characteristics, are genetically determined, because there are more than one?"

Rephrased:

"Are you disagreeing that eye color and hair color, amongst other phenotype characteristics, are genetically determined, because there are more than one?"

Rephrased again:

"Are you, on the grounds of there being more than one, disagreeing that eye color and hair color, amongst other phenotype characteristics, are genetically determined?"

Rephrased one last time:

"Are you saying that, because human phenotypes differ, they can not be genetically determined"Right, my mistake. I think I understood your point just the same. My point stands.

[anticap]

All I've gleaned from this thread is that Technocrat needs to simmer down a notch and read some Feyerabend (http://marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm). Sheesh. :blink:

[Technocrat]

All I've gleaned from this thread is that Technocrat needs to simmer down a notch and read some Feyerabend (http://marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm). Sheesh. :blink:

Can you explain your argument without referencing obscure works? This isn't a philosophy forum - this is "Sciences and Environment".

[Technocrat]

Actually, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology tend to be much more reductionist than most social theories, which in extreme form, tend to particularize human behavior to the extent that no generalization can be made. This is in fact the exact opposite of reductionism, but presents a problem in its own way. A purely contextual approach (say as with postmodernism) denies that any meaningful generalization is possible, as every experience and every individual is unique and sui generis.

The main objection I have to sociobiology and evolutionary psychology is that it posits human differences, say gender differences, as static and immutable. When they say things like men are "hardwired" to be more sexually aggressive or other such things, they ignore how socio-structural conditions largely determine male behavior, and that in fact there is no genetic basis for their arguments. Most of their evidence is the same evidence used in social science, that is survey data, behavioral experiments and things like that. In other words, by and large, they're not looking at genetic material but rather patterns of human behavior, which can be used to support other theories as well.

Let me give you an example. I did a project for a class and found that white, male, Christian, Southerners are more likely to own guns than the general population. This is a statistical fact. But can we assume that this is due to genetic or biological differences, or even evolutionary differences between whites, christians, southerners, or men. It really does sound silly in this context, don't it.

Nowhere in either sociobiology or evolutionary psychology are human differences said to be static or immutable - or universal. This is a straw man. The environment determines which behaviors, encoded in our genes, become activated.

Here is your logic:

You observed a common behavior (gun ownership) among a group of people (southern white christian males) and then concluded that it couldn't be attributable to evolution.

Since this group of people displayed a behavior that could not be explained with evolution theory, therefore no group behavior can be explained with evolution theory.

The logic doesn't hold.

Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology takes into account both the environment and evolution. Most other theories are unscientific, worthless, philosophical garbage.

Noxion already said it: Just because some people may abuse a science for their own agenda doesn't mean the science itself is to blame. Otherwise we could say that evolution theory itself was garbage because some people believe in Social Darwinism.

Any theory which ignores evolution is incomplete. Explanations which are hindsight based are untestable - which means they have no place in science! At least with evolutionary psychology, you get a testable hypothesis which can be confirmed with hormonal studies, genome studies, animal studies, cross cultural comparisons, etc.

The critics of EP are dead wrong - it is the purely cultural explanations that are based on hindsight. You can literally invent any explanation you want when you are using hindsight - and it can never be proven wrong!

[Technocrat]

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003650.html

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Nowhere in either sociobiology or evolutionary psychology are human differences said to be static or immutable - or universal. This is a straw man. The environment determines which behaviors, encoded in our genes, become activated.

Here is your logic:

You observed a common behavior (gun ownership) among a group of people (southern white christian males) and then concluded that it couldn't be attributable to evolution.

Since this group of people displayed a behavior that could not be explained with evolution theory, therefore no group behavior can be explained with evolution theory.

The logic doesn't hold.

Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology takes into account both the environment and evolution. Most other theories are unscientific, worthless, philosophical garbage.

Noxion already said it: Just because some people may abuse a science for their own agenda doesn't mean the science itself is to blame. Otherwise we could say that evolution theory itself was garbage because some people believe in Social Darwinism.

Any theory which ignores evolution is incomplete. Explanations which are hindsight based are untestable - which means they have no place in science! At least with evolutionary psychology, you get a testable hypothesis which can be confirmed with hormonal studies, genome studies, animal studies, cross cultural comparisons, etc.

The critics of EP are dead wrong - it is the purely cultural explanations that are based on hindsight. You can literally invent any explanation you want when you are using hindsight - and it can never be proven wrong!

tbh here you just repeat what you said earlier or strawman the other dudes arguments. Do you not realize that?

[anticap]

Can you explain your argument without referencing obscure works? This isn't a philosophy forum - this is "Sciences and Environment".

My primary argument is that you're an arrogant spaz. That argument needs no explanation; this thread stands as irrefutable evidence.

My secondary argument is that you clearly worship at the altar of "science." Again, I submit your posts to the jury. I suggested that you read that page (a whopping ~45-minute read) in the vain hope of shocking you out of your arrogance.

[revolution inaction]

My primary argument is that you're an arrogant spaz. That argument needs no explanation; this thread stands as irrefutable evidence.

My secondary argument is that you clearly worship at the altar of "science." Again, I submit your posts to the jury. I suggested that you read that page (a whopping ~45-minute read) in the vain hope of shocking you out of your arrogance.

i don't know if science is the right word here because, science doesn't support Technocrat's claims, it is more like a scientific aesthetic, something that dresses it's self in the language and appearance of science, but contains none of the content. a bit like those who support an state that waves a red flag, and love the pictures of parades and military hardware.

[anticap]

i don't know if science is the right word here because, science doesn't support Technocrat's claims, it is more like a scientific aesthetic, something that dresses it's self in the language and appearance of science, but contains none of the content. a bit like those who support an state that waves a red flag, and love the pictures of parades and military hardware.

Hence the sneer-quotes. :)

[¿Que?]

Nowhere in either sociobiology or evolutionary psychology are human differences said to be static or immutable - or universal.
Yes they do, because if genes determine our behavior, then change in patterns of behavior can only be attributable to change in genetic makeup. Yet, we know that sexual behavior varies across culture. When they did a study of AIDS in Africa, they found that people in Muslim countries were contracting AIDS at lower rates than other areas. The conclusion was that Islamic morals kept people from having sex as much as in other countries, where sexual morality was more lax. In this case, culture played a very big role in determining sexual activity.


This is a straw man. The environment determines which behaviors, encoded in our genes, become activated.
Well, this is more or less what I've been saying. Sure, we have predispositions to behave certain ways, but ultimately, culture and social structure will determine these patterns.

Here is your logic:

You observed a common behavior (gun ownership) among a group of people (southern white christian males) and then concluded that it couldn't be attributable to evolution.

Since this group of people displayed a behavior that could not be explained with evolution theory, therefore no group behavior can be explained with evolution theory.

The logic doesn't hold.
My point is that I don't see based on the evidence why this type of behavior can't be explained with evolutionary theory, whereas other types of observed behavior can. The fundamental question is as follows: when we observe patterns of behavior through survey data, what does that data say about why those patterns exist? Not much really.

Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology takes into account both the environment and evolution. Most other theories are unscientific, worthless, philosophical garbage.
I disagree.

Noxion already said it: Just because some people may abuse a science for their own agenda doesn't mean the science itself is to blame. Otherwise we could say that evolution theory itself was garbage because some people believe in Social Darwinism.
Well, there are two issues here. There's the science and then there's the implications of the science. I'm holding both to the fire.

Any theory which ignores evolution is incomplete. Explanations which are hindsight based are untestable - which means they have no place in science! At least with evolutionary psychology, you get a testable hypothesis which can be confirmed with hormonal studies, genome studies, animal studies, cross cultural comparisons, etc.
Strawman. Often, social theories undergo the rigors of the scientific method just as evolutionary theories do.

The critics of EP are dead wrong - it is the purely cultural explanations that are based on hindsight. You can literally invent any explanation you want when you are using hindsight - and it can never be proven wrong!
Well, let's just be clear, there are social structural theories and then there are cultural theories. Proponents of each camp don't necessarily agree. I happen to come from the former view, so I would say that there are big problems with purely cultural explanations. I don't dismiss them altogether, but I tend to be wary.

To give an example, let's say we wanted to explain the higher rates of teen pregnancy in the inner city. We could point to differences in values, beliefs and attitudes about sex, which are more permissive of sexual behavior. This would be a cultural explanation. Alternatively, we could point to the lack of adequate sexual education in inner city schools, financial barriers restricting access to abortion, or similar barriers restricting access to contraception. This would be a structural explanation. As you can see, cultural explanations tend to put more weight on individual choices and the values, beliefs and attitudes which influence those choices, whereas structural explanations tend to point to external causes. Each brings with it its own set of problems, but both could be considered environmental factors. Anyway, I just wanted to clear up that distinction. Sorry to go off on a tangent like that.

[¿Que?]

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003650.html
This study is based on survey data. Sort of confirms what I've been saying.

[Technocrat]

tbh here you just repeat what you said earlier or strawman the other dudes arguments. Do you not realize that?

How so? I merely exposed the logical force of his argument and revealed it to be inadequate. Nowhere did I use a "straw man." A straw man is an intentional mischaracterization - this is completely different from paraphrasing someone's argument to reveal its logical force.

[Technocrat]

This study is based on survey data. Sort of confirms what I've been saying.

The difference is that there is actual corroborating evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis, but no such corroborating evidence for cultural hypothesis - other than more hindsight-based explanations for observations!

The evolutionary hypothesis takes into account cultural factors. There is a huge amount of corroborating evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis which you have chosen to ignore, e.g., Testosterone is the hormone responsible for sexual desire in men and women. That alone should be a big hint. In lab studies, they can give both male and female rats more testosterone and it increases their sex drive. The obvious conclusion is that men, having more testosterone, have higher sex drives as well! They have even done further studies on this to reveal that although women's bodies are more sensitive to testosterone, the small amount produced by their bodies does not, on average, produce an equivalent effect as what is produced by a man's body.

[Technocrat]

Hence the sneer-quotes. :)

Science supports my claims. The only ones without any support are those spouting bullshit philosophical theories that are ignorant of basic realities like evolution.

[Technocrat]

Yes they do, because if genes determine our behavior, then change in patterns of behavior can only be attributable to change in genetic makeup. Yet, we know that sexual behavior varies across culture. When they did a study of AIDS in Africa, they found that people in Muslim countries were contracting AIDS at lower rates than other areas. The conclusion was that Islamic morals kept people from having sex as much as in other countries, where sexual morality was more lax. In this case, culture played a very big role in determining sexual activity.

The patterns of behavior are already encoded in our DNA but lay dormant until activated by an environmental cue. This it is what I have been saying all along - a "coevolutionary" process.


Well, this is more or less what I've been saying. Sure, we have predispositions to behave certain ways, but ultimately, culture and social structure will determine these patterns. Good - there is absolutely no disagreement, then. I suspect that you are a student of philosophy? My point is that most disagreements are over differing terminologies.


My point is that I don't see based on the evidence why this type of behavior can't be explained with evolutionary theory, whereas other types of observed behavior can. The fundamental question is as follows: when we observe patterns of behavior through survey data, what does that data say about why those patterns exist? Not much really.Survey data suggests a possible explanation. Then we can use other forms of evidence to confirm or deny it. Other forms of evidence exist for sociobiological or evolutionary explanations, but they don't exist for cultural or socially based explanations.


Strawman. Often, social theories undergo the rigors of the scientific method just as evolutionary theories do. Please give me just one example of a hindsight-based theory which is "scientific." The difference is between using hindsight or forward causality.


To give an example, let's say we wanted to explain the higher rates of teen pregnancy in the inner city. We could point to differences in values, beliefs and attitudes about sex, which are more permissive of sexual behavior. This would be a cultural explanation. Alternatively, we could point to the lack of adequate sexual education in inner city schools, financial barriers restricting access to abortion, or similar barriers restricting access to contraception. This would be a structural explanation. As you can see, cultural explanations tend to put more weight on individual choices and the values, beliefs and attitudes which influence those choices, whereas structural explanations tend to point to external causes. Each brings with it its own set of problems, but both could be considered environmental factors. Anyway, I just wanted to clear up that distinction. Sorry to go off on a tangent like that.I understand the difference - the problem with both of the above explanations is that it still ignores evolution/biology. The problem with ignoring biology is that it is based on things which we know to be true because we can observe them happening.

This is a separate problem with cultural/social explanations: aside from being unverifiable and based on hindsight, they do nothing to actually explain anything - since all you've done with a cultural explanation is raise the question "Well, how did the culture get to be that way" - which inevitably leads you back to evolution, since biology precedes culture by billions of years (I'm sure I'll get some philosophers to disagree with this somehow). The bottom line is that no behavior can be explained with culture alone. Culture alone does not determine anything.

[Technocrat]

This is turning into a debate between sociocultural explanations and evolutionary psychology. Does a new thread need to be started?

[anticap]

I'm going to defend Technocrat a bit here, in that I vaguely recall hearing about a major change in fruit fly research, where it was once thought that the brains of the sexes were essentially the same, but the view now is that they are inherently different. The old view was based on the ability to manipulate genes to induce opposite-sex behavior, but newer research suggests that this view was incomplete and thus flawed. And IIRC the new research does map to other species.

I'm not big on taking notes or bookmarking everything, and this is not something that I'm particularly interested in, so I can't be more specific.

[Technocrat]

My primary argument is that you're an arrogant spaz. That argument needs no explanation; this thread stands as irrefutable evidence.

My secondary argument is that you clearly worship at the altar of "science." Again, I submit your posts to the jury. I suggested that you read that page (a whopping ~45-minute read) in the vain hope of shocking you out of your arrogance.

The thread stands as irrefutable evidence that some people who have received their education in the "social sciences" or "philosophy" are fucking clueless when it comes to evolution - they literally don't know how to handle it because they have been taught antiquated ways of thinking. If this is not true than all the critics should be able to answer the following question without any problems: How does evolution and biology fit into your theory? You can't just ignore evolution theory because you find it personally distasteful, for whatever reason.

Okay, I read the page you linked to and found nothing to disagree with. So what was your intended point?

All scientific explanations must be taken with a grain of salt, because science can never state anything with 100% certainty. Those who deal with science understand this and don't feel the need to state it every single time an assertion is made.

[anticap]

Are you going to continue being an asshole?

I don't think calling you an arrogant spaz, once, makes me an asshole, considering your consistent behavior in this thread. To the contrary, I think you jumping to that conclusion only bolsters mine.

But I agree with your implicit suggestion that we drop it.

[Technocrat]

I'm going to defend Technocrat a bit here, in that I vaguely recall hearing about a major change in fruit fly research, where it was once thought that the brains of the sexes were essentially the same, but the view now is that they are inherently different. The old view was based on the ability to manipulate genes to induce opposite-sex behavior, but newer research suggests that this view was incomplete and thus flawed. And IIRC the new research does map to other species.

I'm not big on taking notes or bookmarking everything, and this is not something that I'm particularly interested in, so I can't be more specific.

Recent studies have revealed that there are quite literally massive differences in brain architecture between males and females, but that almost all of these differences relate to the areas of sex, aggression, and motor skills. That is, men and womens' brains are remarkably similar in almost every respect - the areas in which they show a great deal of difference are the areas of sex, aggression, and motor skills.

[revolution inaction]

Testosterone is the hormone responsible for sexual desire in men and women. That alone should be a big hint. In lab studies, they can give both male and female rats more testosterone and it increases their sex drive. The obvious conclusion is that men, having more testosterone, have higher sex drives as well!

but rats are not humans, there can be quite significant differences between how animals and humans respond to chemicals.
Also you do not state here what the relative sex drive of male and female rats is.



They have even done further studies on this to reveal that although women's bodies are more sensitive to testosterone, the small amount produced by their bodies does not, on average, produce an equivalent effect as what is produced by a man's body.

What kind of studies? do you mean the physical effects, or are you talking about what level of sex drive is reported?

you also fail to consider that the amount of testosterone produced could be influenced by social factors.

[Technocrat]

I don't think calling you an arrogant spaz, once, makes me an asshole, considering your consistent behavior in this thread. To the contrary, I think you jumping to that conclusion only bolsters mine.

But I agree with your implicit suggestion that we drop it.

Okay, I apologize. I am being defensive because I have to argue against like 10 idiots. I was accused of being a woman-hater for suggesting that differences exist between the sexes, almost right off the bat. I think in this light my defensiveness is pretty understandable and justifiable. I get pissed when I'm trying to have a rational discussion and I just get called names for it.

[Technocrat]

but rats are not humans, there can be quite significant differences between how animals and humans respond to chemicals.

True, but their systems are similar enough to our own that we can make comparisons. That's why animal studies work in the first place. It's an argument by analogy, and it is used in medicine frequently.


Also you do not state here what the relative sex drive of male and female rats is.Males have a higher sex drive. Females given testosterone saw an increase in their sex drive.


What kind of studies? do you mean the physical effects, or are you talking about what level of sex drive is reported?They have done studies on the physical effects as well as survey data. I'll post this when I find it - there's a lot of material to dig through.


you also fail to consider that the amount of testosterone produced could be influenced by social factors.Yeah, but you fail to recognize that any "social factors" would have to be reduced to biological factors, or at least you would have to include the biological in your theory for it to be valid -

There is no such thing as an irreducible social fact! Durkheim was wrong!

[Technocrat]

I started a new thread for discussion of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/evolutionary-psychology-sociobiology-t141578/index.html?p=1862329#post1862329

Please keep this thread on-topic.

[revolution inaction]

Yeah, but you fail to recognize that any "social factors" would have to be reduced to biological factors,

this rests on the assumption that all social things are biology determined, a ridicules assumption




or at least you would have to include the biological in your theory for it to be valid -

nothing about humans can be outside of what out biology allows of at lest at the current time. this is masivly different from starting wiht the assumption that all differences between humans, particularly between men and women, or between "races" are biological determined.
Until we have evidence of differences that can't have a social origin we should not assume that any commonly believed, or existing difference between men and women has an origin in genetics.
and it is compleatly unscientific to look at something where there is apparently a difference between men an women, declare if to have a genetic origin and then claim it to be and adaptation to something about the lives of our r distant ancestors, which happens far to often in evolutionary physiology.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Can someone care to point out for me the number of cultures in which men exhibit higher sex drives than women, versus the number of cultures in which women exhibit higher sex drives than men?

Biological influences aren't binary factors - they can effect different cultures to varying levels of severity. So even if one can find a handful of examples of women or cultures in which the women are just as promiscuous if not more so than the men, that doesn't mean there isn't a measurable species-wide trend of differences in sex drive between men and women

[Technocrat]

this rests on the assumption that all social things are biology determined, a ridicules assumption



This is OT, I started a separate thread for this debate. Go read the essay by Moxon and the responses to it. In fact, I posted the link to it right before you made this post.

[Quail]

Technocrat, could you please explain how you came to draw the conclusion that women enjoy sex less than men? Perhaps I'm being dense, but I can't see how you made the leap from "men have a higher sex drive" to "men enjoy sex more".

[Technocrat]

Technocrat, could you please explain how you came to draw the conclusion that women enjoy sex less than men? Perhaps I'm being dense, but I can't see how you made the leap from "men have a higher sex drive" to "men enjoy sex more".

Okay, I'll re-post this for you.



How do you quantify enjoyment? This is an important question to answer, since one of our objectives is to determine if men and women enjoy sex equally in a quantifiable way. There are three ways in which we can quantify enjoyment:

If I spend more time thinking about something and obsessing over it, then psychology tells us that the reward for receiving it will be greater than if I had not obsessed over it as much. Thus my enjoyment will be enhanced the more I desire something. The more frequently I think about eating cookies, the more rewarding it will be when I do eat the cookie.

Another way to quantify enjoyment would be to measure the frequency that the enjoyment is experienced. That is, if we are measuring the enjoyment that comes from eating cookies, then how often are cookies eaten? If I eat 5 cookies per day and each cookie produces the same amount of enjoyment, then if I eat 10 cookies per day I am going to quantifiably experience more enjoyment.

Still another way to quantify enjoyment would be with brain scans looking at the number of pleasure receptors that are activated. The intensity of the brain scan will reveal how much enjoyment is quantifiably being experienced by two individuals engaging in the same behavior. If person A's brain is lit up more intensely than person B when they are both eating a cookie, then person A enjoys the cookie more.


I'm stumped as to how someone could desire something less than someone else but enjoy it equally. It doesn't fit with psychological theories of reward.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Technocrat, could you please explain how you came to draw the conclusion that women enjoy sex less than men? Perhaps I'm being dense, but I can't see how you made the leap from "men have a higher sex drive" to "men enjoy sex more".

People with higher sex drives tend to enjoy more sex?

[Quail]

People with higher sex drives tend to enjoy more sex?

People with a higher sex drive have more sex, yes, but I don't see how that translates to them having more enjoyable sex.


Still another way to quantify enjoyment would be with brain scans looking at the number of pleasure receptors that are activated. The intensity of the brain scan will reveal how much enjoyment is quantifiably being experienced by two individuals engaging in the same behavior. If person A's brain is lit up more intensely than person B when they are both eating a cookie, then person A enjoys the cookie more.

As I said in the other thread, gathering valid data this way would be very difficult because of the various factors that can make sex more or less enjoyable for people.


If I spend more time thinking about something and obsessing over it, then psychology tells us that the reward for receiving it will be greater than if I had not obsessed over it as much. Thus my enjoyment will be enhanced the more I desire something. The more frequently I think about eating cookies, the more rewarding it will be when I do eat the cookie.

I haven't really studied psychology, so you'll have to provide something to back this up.

[Technocrat]

People with a higher sex drive have more sex, yes, but I don't see how that translates to them having more enjoyable sex.

One of the ways you can read "men enjoy sex more than women" is "men enjoy sex more frequently than women" - this is one of the ways we can quantify enjoyment. You seem to be taking a more subjective view of enjoyment, which is fine, but someone originally made the argument that men and women were the same when it comes to their enjoyment of sex. To even make this argument, you have to quantify enjoyment.


As I said in the other thread, gathering valid data this way would be very difficult because of the various factors that can make sex more or less enjoyable for people.

It would be more difficult to do this kind of study because of the differences in brain architecture between males and females when it comes to sex, but we can make inferences from the difference themselves.


I haven't really studied psychology, so you'll have to provide something to back this up.Logic should suffice:

If person A wants something less than person B wants it, person A is going to experience less satisfaction from receiving it than person B.

[Quail]

One of the ways you can read "men enjoy sex more than women" is "men enjoy sex more frequently than women" - this is one of the ways we can quantify enjoyment. You seem to be taking a more subjective view of enjoyment, which is fine, but someone originally made the argument that men and women were the same when it comes to their enjoyment of sex. To even make this argument, you have to quantify enjoyment.


That's true, but I suppose if you're using ambiguous sentences it's a good idea to clarify what you mean.



It would be more difficult to do this kind of study because of the differences in brain architecture between males and females when it comes to sex, but we can make inferences from the difference themselves.


We can, but we can't make leaps of logic. Also, any inference that you do make is only a hypothesis until you gather some data to test it.


Logic should suffice:

If person A wants something less than person B wants it, person A is going to experience less satisfaction from receiving it than person B.

That isn't actually what you're saying about men and women though. Women want sex less often but that doesn't mean they want the sex with less passion (for want of a better word) than men.

[¿Que?]

The difference is that there is actual corroborating evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis, but no such corroborating evidence for cultural hypothesis - other than more hindsight-based explanations for observations!
Fortunately for me, I'm not defending cultural hypothesis. You either have not been reading what I've been writing, or you are willfully ignoring a crucial difference.

The evolutionary hypothesis takes into account cultural factors. There is a huge amount of corroborating evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis which you have chosen to ignore, e.g., Testosterone is the hormone responsible for sexual desire in men and women. That alone should be a big hint. In lab studies, they can give both male and female rats more testosterone and it increases their sex drive. The obvious conclusion is that men, having more testosterone, have higher sex drives as well! They have even done further studies on this to reveal that although women's bodies are more sensitive to testosterone, the small amount produced by their bodies does not, on average, produce an equivalent effect as what is produced by a man's body.
No I have not ignored that. If you'll recall, we both agree that biology and environment both play a role. But higher testosterone levels do not necessarily guarantee higher levels of promiscuity. As with the example of Islamic and non Islamic African countries, cultural factors play a very important role. As averse as I am to cultural explanations, even I have to concede that culture may have played a role here. Having said that, the strongest effect is probably coming from social structures, institutions such as the legal apparatus and organized religious institutions which make cultural transgression either too difficult or too risky to undertake.

[NGNM85]

Only radical leftists could spend five pages debating the painfully obvious.

[¿Que?]

Survey data suggests a possible explanation. Then we can use other forms of evidence to confirm or deny it. Other forms of evidence exist for sociobiological or evolutionary explanations, but they don't exist for cultural or socially based explanations.
Yes they do. Going back to my explanation of higher rates of teen pregnancy in the inner city. A social structural explanation that can be corroborated in many different ways. First, we can take statistics to confirm that higher rates of pregnancy do exist. We can also look at income levels or rates of obtaining medical insurance (which we will probably find at lower rates/levels in the inner city). We can also measure the rates of abortions or contraception use in the inner city versus more affluent areas (we will probably find higher rates in the more affluent areas). We can also check to look at qualitative data to get a sense of doctor/patient relationships in the inner city as compared to more affluent areas. All this will probably point to the fact that young women in poor neighborhoods are not more promiscuous than women in more affluent areas, but rather, they are structurally disadvantaged and thus result in higher rates of pregnancy. No cultural explanations needed or desired!

Please give me just one example of a hindsight-based theory which is "scientific." The difference is between using hindsight or forward causality.
This is a strawman, comrade. Read a sociology methods book and get back to me.

I understand the difference
It does not appear as if you do.

- the problem with both of the above explanations is that it still ignores evolution/biology. The problem with ignoring biology is that it is based on things which we know to be true because we can observe them happening.

This is a separate problem with cultural/social explanations: aside from being unverifiable and based on hindsight, they do nothing to actually explain anything - since all you've done with a cultural explanation is raise the question "Well, how did the culture get to be that way" - which inevitably leads you back to evolution, since biology precedes culture by billions of years (I'm sure I'll get some philosophers to disagree with this somehow). The bottom line is that no behavior can be explained with culture alone. Culture alone does not determine anything.
I never even made a vague implication that such was the case, so I really don't see why you keep bringing up culture. I am arguing the case for socio-structural explanations. Please try to respond to the arguments I make, not the ones your favorite sociobiology gurus are responding to. And please, for the second time, do not equate social and cultural as if they were the same thing. They are not.

What I see happening here is that you consistently ignore the effects of social structures on behavior. At most, biology or genetics suggest predispositions, whereas the ultimate arbiter of behavior, the "decider" if you will, is most likely the social structure. Also, it is reasonable to assume that social structures can have biological or genetic effects. For example, I'm sure you've heard about the study with the young girls hitting puberty at younger ages. A possible cause points to chemicals found in plastics, which are mass produced in a capitalist economy. Wallah! Economic conditions affecting the age of puberty onset in young women. In other words, social structure.

[Nuvem]

I've read through every single post on this entire thread and I've come to one final conclusion.

This is why the Left has so many problems with sectarianism. You people can get into bitter arguments over whether or not women crave sex as much as men. Dear holy shit people, it isn't that big of a deal to get bent out of shape over. What's important is to remove the social stigma on female sexuality and to develop society's morality to the point that women can enjoy sex with as much freedom as men. Outside of that, it doesn't very well matter whether or not women want it as frequently or urgently as men do. One way or the other they'll have sex, masturbate or fantasize about it as much as they damn well please and quantifying it for research's sake isn't really important- at least not important enough to spark this much debate!

[Widerstand]

And please, for the second time, do not equate social and cultural as if they were the same thing. They are not.

It would maybe help to know where exactly you draw the line?

[Technocrat]

What I see happening here is that you consistently ignore the effects of social structures on behavior. At most, biology or genetics suggest predispositions, whereas the ultimate arbiter of behavior, the "decider" if you will, is most likely the social structure.

I don't disagree with your premise here that "biology or genetics suggest predispositions" but I disagree with the conclusion "the social structure is the ultimate arbiter of behavior".

Read the paper by Moxon "culture is biology"

It is meaningless to say that the social structure determines behavior if the social structure itself depends on biology - you are just raising the question: "how did the social structure become that way?" There are no "irreducible social facts", if that is what you mean by a social structure.

[Technocrat]

I've read through every single post on this entire thread and I've come to one final conclusion.

This is why the Left has so many problems with sectarianism. You people can get into bitter arguments over whether or not women crave sex as much as men. Dear holy shit people, it isn't that big of a deal to get bent out of shape over. What's important is to remove the social stigma on female sexuality and to develop society's morality to the point that women can enjoy sex with as much freedom as men. Outside of that, it doesn't very well matter whether or not women want it as frequently or urgently as men do. One way or the other they'll have sex, masturbate or fantasize about it as much as they damn well please and quantifying it for research's sake isn't really important- at least not important enough to spark this much debate!

That's really why I haven't been putting as much effort into this as I could. Entire dissertations have already been written about the subject - I'm really not up for putting that much effort into it.

[Technocrat]

What I see happening here is that you consistently ignore the effects of social structures on behavior. At most, biology or genetics suggest predispositions, whereas the ultimate arbiter of behavior, the "decider" if you will, is most likely the social structure. Also, it is reasonable to assume that social structures can have biological or genetic effects. For example, I'm sure you've heard about the study with the young girls hitting puberty at younger ages. A possible cause points to chemicals found in plastics, which are mass produced in a capitalist economy. Wallah! Economic conditions affecting the age of puberty onset in young women. In other words, social structure.

Girls entering puberty earlier isn't a behavior.

Even if it was, you cannot attribute the above purely to social structure, because you reference the girl's biology in talking about the chemicals.

If the explanation was purely cultural, then it would go something like "the manufacture of plastics directly causes girls to enter puberty earlier". This isn't the case, the manufacture of plastics causes them to leech into the water supply (or something) where they are ingested and cause adverse reactions with the person's biological systems.

This is a poor example though, because as I said, it isn't a behavior.

[Technocrat]

That's true, but I suppose if you're using ambiguous sentences it's a good idea to clarify what you mean.

That was my intent with the second post I made in this thread.


We can, but we can't make leaps of logic. Also, any inference that you do make is only a hypothesis until you gather some data to test it.The inference from larger brain mass dedicated to sexual pursuit is that "men think about/desire sex more frequently" which can be corroborated with a number of different studies. You're right though that none of this proves anything, it just suggests a possibility - that's the way all science is.

[¿Que?]

It would maybe help to know where exactly you draw the line?
I would say that the term social is a much more general term used to describe human behavior at a level above the individual. You could be referring to socialization, social structure, social processes, social system, social construction and on and on. To put it in a very simplistic or reductive way, when we speak of "the social" we are generally referring to something that is experienced as an external force, pressure or constraint. True, everything social is on some level the result of individual actions, but note that when I mention actions I am speaking in the plural. Whatever is meant by social it is usually something which transcends any single individual, such as with institutions like government, church or corporation, which through social processes, tend to span several human individual lifespans.

Culture too tends to outlast the human lifespan. Culture, in this context, would be defined as shared attitudes, goals, values and practices. The fact that they are shared would give some credence to the idea that they fall under the purview of "the social," however they should not be equated mostly because while it may be that things cultural are also social, not all things social are culture. But I think the main difference between social and culture lies in the fact that culture is experienced internally or subjectively. The only times culture appear to us as external is in reference to "the other" or cultures which are not our own.

Take the example of inner city or poor areas and rates of pregnancy. This is the third time I've brought this up, mostly because it is an excellent example. Suppose you're trying to explain why there are higher rates of teen pregnancy in the inner city or poor neighborhoods as opposed to more affluent ones. One explanation could be culture. We could say that poorer neighborhoods share certain attitudes, beliefs, and values about sex that more affluent areas don't. These attitudes and beliefs, we could say, result in higher levels of sexual activity, because we assume that they are more lax, or if we can't confirm higher levels of sexual activity, then we could say that the attitudes pertain to abortion or contraception use. The end result is the same, increased rates of teen pregnancy.

But rather than blame culture, we could also look at (social) structural causes. Poorer neighborhoods have less access to health care, which in turns results in less access to contraceptives or abortion. This explanation says nothing of the culture of poorer neighborhoods, rather it explains the higher rates of teen pregnancy on structural causes. If we assume that sexual activity is for the most part on par in both poorer and affluent neighborhoods, then the higher rates of pregnancy in poorer neighborhoods must be the result of lack of access to preventative measures, which can be explained in terms of economic inequality.

[¿Que?]

I don't disagree with your premise here that "biology or genetics suggest predispositions" but I disagree with the conclusion "the social structure is the ultimate arbiter of behavior".

Read the paper by Moxon "culture is biology"

It is meaningless to say that the social structure determines behavior if the social structure itself depends on biology - you are just raising the question: "how did the social structure become that way?" There are no "irreducible social facts", if that is what you mean by a social structure.
It seems to me that you do not hold your own conclusions to the same scrutiny that you hold mine. Let's forget social structure and culture for a second and speak more generally about the environment. You trace the lines of causality to the evolutionary process which you mistakenly reduce to a mere biological phenomenon. This is reductionism par excellence. It point to the fundamental error in positivist thought which assumes that to understand something it is necessary to divorce it from the context in which it occurs. Doesn't your own biological explanation beg the same question you posed of social structure? How did our biology come to be the way it is? Of course, you'd point to the obvious answer: evolution, yet have you truly understood what constitutes an evolutionary process, aside from a biological phenomenon. To put it simply, can you have evolution without the environment? The answer is a resounding, no! Evolution is a process which involves a complex interplay of biological forces and environmental (natural and social) forces. There is no linear chain of causality which ends with biology. This is simply false, even from an evolutionary perspective.

[¿Que?]

What I see happening here is that you consistently ignore the effects of social structures on behavior. At most, biology or genetics suggest predispositions, whereas the ultimate arbiter of behavior, the "decider" if you will, is most likely the social structure. Also, it is reasonable to assume that social structures can have biological or genetic effects. For example, I'm sure you've heard about the study with the young girls hitting puberty at younger ages. A possible cause points to chemicals found in plastics, which are mass produced in a capitalist economy. Wallah! Economic conditions affecting the age of puberty onset in young women. In other words, social structure.

Girls entering puberty earlier isn't a behavior.

Even if it was, you cannot attribute the above purely to social structure, because you reference the girl's biology in talking about the chemicals.

If the explanation was purely cultural, then it would go something like "the manufacture of plastics directly causes girls to enter puberty earlier". This isn't the case, the manufacture of plastics causes them to leech into the water supply (or something) where they are ingested and cause adverse reactions with the person's biological systems.

This is a poor example though, because as I said, it isn't a behavior.
I realize you have a lot of people you're responding to, but please try to read my arguments more carefully. Of course I reference the girls biology. My argument was that social structure can affect biology. That is, I'm trying to explain to you how social structure and culture as well cannot simply be epiphenomenon of our biological makeup. It's a two way street. Biology can affect social structure and culture, but these in turn can also affect biology. How I'm supposed to make this argument without referencing biology is a mystery to me.

Further, what do you attribute changes in biology to? More biology?

[Technocrat]

Biology can affect social structure and culture, but these in turn can also affect biology.

This is true, but biology predates culture. Therefore it is incorrect to assign primacy to culture in explaining behavior. You seem to be making two different arguments.

So, if biology predates culture, and biological change requires culture, then how was there any biological change before culture?

[Technocrat]

To put it simply, can you have evolution without the environment? The answer is a resounding, no! Evolution is a process which involves a complex interplay of biological forces and environmental (natural and social) forces. There is no linear chain of causality which ends with biology. This is simply false, even from an evolutionary perspective.

Of course, evolution is an interaction between genes and the environment. The objection I'm making is to the idea of "irreducible social facts" that determine human behavior, which seems to be the argument you were making. The paper by Moxon explains this in more detail.

[¿Que?]

This is true, but biology predates culture. Therefore it is incorrect to assign primacy to culture in explaining behavior. You seem to be making two different arguments.

So, if biology predates culture, and biological change requires culture, then how was there any biological change before culture?
Yes, I'm making two different arguments, but they are both related. On the one hand, I'm making a general argument about environmental factors, which is generally applicable to all organisms. More specifically, I'm making an argument for the effects of social structure, which is more specifically geared toward humans.

As for culture, it is not that important to the argument I'm trying to make. I am most certainly not arguing for the primacy of culture. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up culture, since it is not central to the argument I'm making.

[¿Que?]

Of course, evolution is an interaction between genes and the environment. The objection I'm making is to the idea of "irreducible social facts" that determine human behavior, which seems to be the argument you were making. The paper by Moxon explains this in more detail.
Well, I glanced at the paper, I haven't had a chance to read it in full. But he does not seem to mention social structure at all. He talks about culture a lot, but as I have said many times in this thread, there is a difference.

I'm familiar with Durkheim, although I'm not sure what he means by irreducible social facts. From my understanding, though, I think Durkheim is saying that we cannot understand social facts by breaking them down to their component parts, namely, an aggregate of individual human behavior. Or to put it another way, when the level of abstraction is focused on individual behavior, then the concept of social facts is no longer meaningful. In so far as social facts are more or less the same thing as social structure (which I think a close reading of Durkheim would reveal this to be false) I would tend to agree. Social structure generally speaking is a concept used to describe general trends in behavior. It cannot explain why you as an individual chose Coke over Pepsi. It can, however, shed light on why Coke sells better than Pepsi.

To be honest, you're probably right that the social sciences do not take into account biology, evolution and genetics enough. But I think it's important not to make the opposite mistake, which is to give too much weight to these things in explaining behavior. The issue is way broader than a simple debate about free will. Structural theorists are often accused of not taking into consideration the problem of agency and, as I was accused today, of assuming inevitable conclusions (at least from an historical perspective). To sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists these accusations will probably sound very familiar.

[Unkut]

Women often don't orgasm from sex as easily as men, so this trend could be purely physical rather than psychological. However this can be remedied with proper sexual education

[GreenCommunism]

it doesn't make any sense for woman to have less of a sex drive, since there are 105 men for every 100 woman on this planet (men are expected to die and with the suicide+danger rate of activities men engage into it stabilize to close equality by 25 years of age)

does it make sense from an evolutionary viewpoint for woman to be more picky? by the way, is there a real reason why woman tend to pick older mens other than sexist oppression?

[Nwoye]

is there a real reason why woman tend to pick older mens other than sexist oppression?
well women begin puberty before men, so from the onset they're going to be interested in older (if only slightly) members of the opposite sex. Also, older men bring more maturity, intelligence, emotional and economic stability, and are often more ready to "settle down" so to speak than their younger counter parts.

However I don't think it's as if desiring a slightly older partner is somehow exclusive to women; I and I'm sure loads of other men find all of the above qualities very attractive in women.

[GreenCommunism]

well women begin puberty before men, so from the onset they're going to be interested in older (if only slightly) members of the opposite sex.
ah sorry, i did not see the obvious.


Also, older men bring more maturity, intelligence, emotional and economic stability, and are often more ready to "settle down" so to speak than their younger counter parts.

i meant that biologically speaking as opposed to society wise, why would it be that way, i just have a very mechanistic view of sex as in both gender find themselves attractive due to genetics etc then proceed to creating life.

[¿Que?]

i meant that biologically speaking as opposed to society wise, why would it be that way, i just have a very mechanistic view of sex as in both gender find themselves attractive due to genetics etc then proceed to creating life.
Well, let's see. In terms of evo-psych, preference for older men had to have produced an evolutionary advantage. Older men tend to be associated with higher status in the group, which afforded their mates with better protection against dangers to self and offspring, and better access to food and resources.

Of course, in the context of socially constructed gender hierarchies, that explanation is totally ludicrous. Women's preference for older men, if we can even say that such a trend exists, and not some fabricated misconception perpetuated by a society at odds with the idea of women as autonomous beings, may represent acquiescence and acceptance to this very culture, an inversion if you will of what I suspect is the real trend, and that is older men's preference for younger women.

Now of course, older men generally do have higher status in society, and they do, even today, generally have greater access to resources. These empirical facts lend themselves just as easily to a materialist explanation as they do an evolutionary one. Throughout every epoch in history, social relations have been predominantly defined by the means with which material needs are met. As women become more economically independent, their preference for older men will decrease, as securing vital resources no longer factors in to their choice of mate selection. My guess is that empirical data could back this up. Popular lore does suggest that economically independent professional women indeed favor younger men, however there is also a trend suggesting that women date "up", or men who make more money than them. That still doesn't falsify the materialist explanation, and in fact, the only thing that really would entails proving that economically independent women are just as or more likely to pair up with older men that make less money than younger men or older men that make more money. This is also the only way I can think of that would make evo-psych a likelier explanation than the materialist one, since the process of genetic replication is not a conscious decision. In other words, since women are "hardwired" to prefer older men, the conditions outlined only explain how they became hardwired that way, the actual preference is explained genetically. Good luck with that one!

[GreenCommunism]

Older men tend to be associated with higher status in the group, which afforded their mates with better protection against dangers to self and offspring, and better access to food and resources.
the question is, is there more of a definite ingrained genetical difference more than the actual different age of puberty

i don't think there was such a quick evolution, why did old men gain more status? isn't as a result of civilisation.

[¿Que?]

the question is, is there more of a definite ingrained genetical difference more than the actual different age of puberty
To the best of my knowledge, differences in age of puberty are genetic differences, so I think you're drawing a distinction where none exists.

i don't think there was such a quick evolution, why did old men gain more status? isn't as a result of civilisation.
First of all, it is a general misconception that evolution occurs as a steady, gradual progression. I can't find a source, since I don't recall the name of the theory, but I believe scientist generally agree that the process of evolution occurs as long periods of relative stability followed by short periods of dramatic change.

These types of status hierarchies can be observed throughout much of the animal kingdom, such as with chimpanzees and other primates, as well as wolves and dogs. So it is reasonable to assume they developed long before human beings even existed. This does give some credence to an evolutionary perspective, but I am not arguing that status hierarchies exist because of material conditions, but rather that material conditions determine the specific nature of those status hierarchies. Take a pack of wolves and put them in an environment where food is scarce. Now imagine that same pack of wolves but in an environment where there is no competition for food, every wolf can eat how much he/she wants, whenever they want. I would be a fool to argue that status hierarchies occur in the former but not in the latter. However, I would be equally foolish to suggest that those status hierarchies would not be fundamentally different.

However, it is worth considering that human beings are not wolves nor chimpanzees. Just because status hierarchies such as these have existed in the past and exist throughout the animal kingdom, does not prove that we are "hardwired" to create them, although it does provide evidence. But our ability to communicate abstract concepts unlike any other species in existence, has resulted in social arrangements that are uniquely human, for example the extent to which we are able to exploit natural resources, our level of technological advancement, art, adapting the environment to us rather than the opposite, just to name a few. The point is that there are things that lend support to evolutionary perspectives by looking at the animal kingdom at large, however there are things which cannot be explained in evo-psych terms by observing the animal kingdom, because unfortunately, they are conspicuously absent.

In any case, evo-psych tends to rely heavily on cross-cultural analysis, which introduces many problems, not least of which are racist/essentialist assumptions about what exactly constitutes cultural differences. In their analyses, cultural differences are regarded as so fundamental, irreconcilable, and divergent, that any similarity could only be attributable to the only thing that they see in common with those "others," basically, their genetic makeup. It ignores the possibility that there might be some basic laws which govern all forms of social organizations, for example the role that scarcity plays.

[GreenCommunism]

To the best of my knowledge, differences in age of puberty are genetic differences, so I think you're drawing a distinction where none exists.

i meant the age difference between both gender's puberty. is it the exact one as the age difference. for example there was a study about age difference and the time couples lasted, those over 5 year difference didn't last as long as those under 5 years , and those under 1 year of difference did not last as long as a 2 year difference. it would have been interesting if there was a difference of gender who had the age difference instead of always being male being older, see if there is any difference.

[Technocrat]

In any case, evo-psych tends to rely heavily on cross-cultural analysis, which introduces many problems, not least of which are racist/essentialist assumptions about what exactly constitutes cultural differences. In their analyses, cultural differences are regarded as so fundamental, irreconcilable, and divergent, that any similarity could only be attributable to the only thing that they see in common with those "others," basically, their genetic makeup. It ignores the possibility that there might be some basic laws which govern all forms of social organizations, for example the role that scarcity plays.

Materialist theories rely on cross-cultural analysis to the same extent, if not more so, than evo-psych theories. At least with evo-psych you can also do animal studies, hormone studies, genome studies, etc to at least find some corroborating evidence, instead of just inventing more hindsight-based explanations - your "basic laws which govern all forms of social organizations." There are no "irreducible social facts" that exist in some Platonic way. Behaviors are genetically encoded and depend on environmental cues for activation. This is the most scientifically sound explanation.

[¿Que?]

Materialist theories rely on cross-cultural analysis to the same extent, if not more so, than evo-psych theories.
Social theories, both materialist or otherwise, tend deal with issues of racism and essentialism directly, and as a result must contend with the problem of cultural relativism. Be that as it may, on the issue of essentialism evo-psych tends to be dismissive ("we're just being objective!").

At least with evo-psych you can also do animal studies, hormone studies, genome studies, etc to at least find some corroborating evidence
Please don't repeat arguments that I have already responded to. Very Fox newsish of you.

As I have articulated earlier, social theories rely on various types of data, such as, survey data (of which there is a wide variety), historical records, cultural artifacts, economic data, government documents, etc


instead of just inventing more hindsight-based explanations - your "basic laws which govern all forms of social organizations."
If you're going to disparage an entire discipline, then I should hope you can back it up. Unfortunately for you, to prove that social science is based on hindsight, you would have to basically provide enough published journal articles showing hindsight logic in order to make it a plausible argument.

Guess how many I have to find showing the opposite to counter your claim?


There are no "irreducible social facts" that exist in some Platonic way.
You keep repeating the same things over and over again, but you haven't acknowledged any of my counter arguments.


Behaviors are genetically encoded and depend on environmental cues for activation. This is the most scientifically sound explanation.
Actually, that's not too scientific at all. It ignores that genetics itself is preconditioned on certain environmental factors. Genetics developed through evolution as a result of adaptation to the environment. And evolution is an ongoing process, therefore, your argument is a gross oversimplification.

Also, you can't just say behaviors, you have to specify what types of behaviors are genetically determined. I'll give you that genetic influences behaviors, perhaps it creates predispositions and what not. But this varies tremendously on the context and type of behavior. There are certain behaviors which show more evidence of genetic influence, and some which show less. To say that all behavior is genetically determined or encoded is simply wrong.

Let's just do a thought experiment. Let's consider why more people buy coke over pepsi. Back in the 80's pepsi introduced an ad campaign which showed, quite convincingly, that most people preferred the taste of pepsi over coke, on account of the higher sugar content. I'll give you that on a certain level, genetics may explain why so many people like sugary snacks. But how does genetics explain that people were buying more coke than pepsi, when it was basically proven that people preferred the taste of pepsi over coke.

Here's where I get to the heart of the matter. What evo-psych and sociobiology is doing is attempting to bridge the gap between the social and natural sciences. And this is actually more difficult than they think.

[Technocrat]

genetics itself is preconditioned on certain environmental factors. Genetics developed through evolution as a result of adaptation to the environment

That is exactly what I meant. It seems like you are only interested in arguing over word definitions.

[Technocrat]

Let's just do a thought experiment. Let's consider why more people buy coke over pepsi. Back in the 80's pepsi introduced an ad campaign which showed, quite convincingly, that most people preferred the taste of pepsi over coke, on account of the higher sugar content. I'll give you that on a certain level, genetics may explain why so many people like sugary snacks. But how does genetics explain that people were buying more coke than pepsi, when it was basically proven that people preferred the taste of pepsi over coke.


Easy.

People respond to environmental cues - in this case, advertising. The sweetness of the snacks is just one environmental cue. People's preference for a more sugary snack is overpowered by the more powerful environmental cue - the illusory status (being "cool") associated with consuming a certain product. People desire status more than they desire a sweet snack. Status improves the chances that one's genes will be passed on to the next generation, so over time, a "status" gene emerged.

There's no reason why EP couldn't explain this one.

[Technocrat]

Here's where I get to the heart of the matter. What evo-psych and sociobiology is doing is attempting to bridge the gap between the social and natural sciences. And this is actually more difficult than they think.

Now you're getting somewhere.

You can't just ignore biology or evolution, which is what a purely "sociocultural" explanation does.

I never said that EP / sociobiology was perfect - just currently the best theory running.

I'm sorry I don't have the time to give you a more detailed refutation of your arguments - I do actually have other things to do, you know! Not that you aren't busy, but I am rather short of free time lately.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is a really interesting thread. Very informative. :thumbup1: