The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why God Is Probably a Guy
Margaret McG did some cutesy sexism when she referred to God as a "she." I've been polite, now I'm annoyed...
1) Males are more varied than females on nearly any trait measured. Genius and villany are usually male because of that variation that fills jails and supplies Nobel laureates. And the disproportion between male and female prize winners is a matter of merit rather than mere gender bias. Admitting more females to high acclaim means, in some disciplines, admitting 190 males who reach the same standards as that one female. (Check Charles Murray, Human Accomplishment) It follows that God, as a solitary event, is probably male. 2) Females never occur in solitary states. There are, however, mosaic genders that have split gonads but emerge from high androgen levels. Female engineers (not the train drivers) often show those kinds of profiles. (See data by Patti Hausman (cited in Pinker: The Blank Slate) Cheers to Larry Sommers... JimB |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why God Is Probably a Guy
JB: Margaret McG did some cutesy sexism when she referred to God as a "she." I've been polite, now I'm annoyed...
MM: First, I referred to Her as "She" not "she" and now I'm annoyed . . just kidding. Being annoyed is a feeling - a conscious awareness of an emotional state - that indicates in this case that one of your important beliefs has been threatened. Such emotionally charged beliefs are always part of a web of mutually supporting beliefs that people do not change because of logical inconsistency. It discourages me that you are allowing your emotions to enter into your responses. It discourages me that you even have those feelings - because that means you are probabaly unable to consider my arguments objectively. I also suspect that I've tweaked some of your other important beliefs in that web that you haven't mentioned. JB: 1) Males are more varied than females on nearly any trait measured. Genius and villany are usually male because of that variation that fills jails and supplies Nobel laureates. And the disproportion between male and female prize winners is a matter of merit rather than mere gender bias. Admitting more females to high acclaim means, in some disciplines, admitting 190 males who reach the same standards as that one female. (Check Charles Murray, Human Accomplishment) MM: You actually cited the author of the "The Bell Curve"? OK, who runs this website? Do you know your moderators? The only contest that matters is for who gets the most DNA riding around in the cells of future offspring - not who earns the greatest notoriety in their time according to the silly rules established in their patriarchal society. And the DNA contest does not really have winners or losers - species happen. Then they die out and are replaced by others. Only silly humans can see that as some kind of contest. If you want to see contests, try this one - we're all losers because we're not going to get out of this alive. Since human populations have always been very even sex-wise, it seems obvious to me that so far anyway, we need both sets of co-evolved male and female traits (whatever those objectively are) to survive as the species that we are in the environment that we inhabit. See, I'm not here to wage war with you on behalf of the forces of post-modernism. But, subjective feelings like your annoyance at my use of "She" when referring to a fictitious God should be the subject of a debate in EP - not the means for waging it. JB: It follows that God, as a solitary event, is probably male. MM: Somehow, that statement fails to surprise me. IMO it follows that God, as a solitary event (I'm doubting that even you know what that means in this context) is probably fictitious. But, if you choose to propose a God, even metaphorically, then He's your God, not mine - give your metaphors whatever gender you wish. Note: Male pronoun use extended as a courtesy so as not to further annoy and risk making this discussion completely irrelevant. JB: 2) Females never occur in solitary states. There are, however, mosaic genders that have split gonads but emerge from high androgen levels. Female engineers (not the train drivers) often show those kinds of profiles. (See data by Patti Hausman (cited in Pinker: The Blank Slate) Cheers to Larry Sommers... MM: Darn - I hoped you were serious about this stuff. At this point Margaret wonders if joining this discussion group was such a good idea. My time here may be just about up. If there are at least a few evolutionary psychologists here that value scientific inquiry into EP sans ideology please announce your presence at this time. Or, is that all evolutionary psychology really amounts to - as I've been warned? Last edited by Margaret McGhee; January 16th, 2006 at 07:49 PM.. Reason: Clarifcation. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why God Is Probably a Guy & Thanks
MM,
Thanks for doing what I wanted you to do... JB |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why God Is Probably a Guy
And thank you for giving me hope. I'd much rather be part of your experiment to illustrate some larger truth than the alternative. This would account for the pretty outrageous nature of some of your statements. I actually thought of that while composing my last post. I figured there's one way to find out - so in that sense you're part of mine now too. Kewl!
So, is this the kind of experiment where once you've announced that I've been on candid camera you can explain the larger truth to us all? I'll bet it has something to do with evolved gender differences as they relate to boinking. Or, do I not only have to be the rat in the maze - but have to figure out what the experiment is? Here's a guess - Men have evolved to seek status and power because that makes them attractive to women and that gives them more and better reproductive (boinking) opportunities. Women may appreciate the winners but we can hardly be interested in games where machismo is the currency in play. And so, we resent finding ourself unwittingly drawn into them. That can threaten our identity. Just as failing to engage in such games at every opportunity can threaten some men's. Margaret |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why God Is Probably a Guy
Quote:
-C Last edited by Carey N; May 14th, 2006 at 12:36 PM.. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why God Is Probably a Guy
Hi Carey,
I think our disgreement is one of perspective. I was pointing out that winning and losing are concepts that only exist in human brains. They are particular mental images that result from human consciousness and ego. No other living organisms exhibit the ability to understand the concept (have the mental image of winning or losing in their CNS). Yet, the evolution of life proceeded very well for billions of years (at least) without the idea of winning or losing even existing in any form of consciousness. I was not referring to the uderlying mechanism of natural selection - which I agree with. I am just proposing that it is a pecularly human thing to see evolution in terms of winning or losing. It seems as silly to me as hanging a sign over the cattle ramp leading to the killing room in a meat packing plant that says "Hooray for humans". There is probably several orders of magnitude greater amounts of cattle DNA in this world than would have been the case if humans had not decided that breeding them was to our benefit. Or, if cattle had not already evolved characteristics that would allow humans to see them as animals that we would benefit from if they were protected from other predators until they had calved a few times to increase our security and wealth before we decided to eat them and make boots and jackets out of their skin. Margaret Last edited by Margaret McGhee; March 7th, 2006 at 07:40 PM.. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why God Is Probably a Guy
Quote:
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Winning, Losing, and Natural Selection
Quote:
If an animal has no "images" at all in the sense that humans do (by virtue of their unique form of language and imagination), obviously it has no "mental image" of winning and losing. Humans represent in a way that other known species do not. What's the argument from that? That because species X has no human-like mental image of something that it therefore doesn't exist? On the other hand, if this claim is that other species do not represent winning and losing in their nervous system at all, then this is quite obviously false! For example, it seems to me that you'd be hard pressed to find a better illustration or more meaningful illustration of winning or losing being represented in the nervous system of an organism than the primate status hierarchy. An ape has its reproductive chances, its social relations and its entire future significantly altered as the result of how its nervous system represents the outcome of a fight. A win means a very different life than a loss, and without a doubt this is reflected in the nervous system of the individual. See Jane Goodall's or de Waal's work for persuasive examples. I think most people would agree that human concepts are special because human imagination is special, and human langauge is special. But it sure ain't true that we invented winning and losing or the biological significance of winning or losing! True, natural selection is not about winning or losing, it is about variation, fecundity, and reproductive fitness. I would agree that viewing this as winning or losing requires an additional layer of abstraction. For example, I could win a fight, the victory could be represented as such in my nervous system, yet I could also be killed or sterilized in the process and unable to reproduce. In Darwinian terms, I would make no further genetic contribution to the population, even though I won. So "winning" can sometimes be a very different thing from contributing genes to the population. Neither winning/losing nor natural selection depends upon human understanding or human concepts in order to be realities of nature! kind regards, Todd |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why God Is Probably a Guy
Hi Todd,
You use primate social hierarchy as an example of winning and losing being important to their reproductive success. I would suggest that your use of the terms winning and losing are out of place from an EP perspective of ape behavior - and that those are terms that humans might attach to ape behavior in a mistaken belief that apes think like us. At least I'd suggest that that's the case without some evidence that non-human primates understand the concepts of winning and losing - and not just that some chimps have the desire to intimidate other chimps and not be intimidated by them in social situations. Is a red ant that attacks a predatory beetle thinking in terms of winning or losing? Or, is it simply doing what evolution has given it the behavior to do? How is the red ant different from a pygmy chimp? Do you have evidence that the chimp understands what winning and losing means? Or, is the chimp just doing what evolution has given it the behavior to do? I know chimps have exhibited some ability to develop abstract images of simple things like colors, toys and fruit. Also that they can learn to retrieve those things and ask for them. Recently, I read that a research chimp had communicated the complex message that it had a toothache and wanted it fixed. But I am not aware of any evidence that a chimp can hold a mental image of something as complex as the meaning of winning in their mind - as opposed to the evolutionarily understandable emotional hormonally driven desire to intimidate and not be intimidated in a social confrontation. Are you suggesting that the chimp knows what the abstract meaning of winning is and it can be driven by a desire to not be seen as a loser among the band or that it wants to fulfill its own image of itself as leader among chimps - and not just by an emotional desire to intimidate other chimps? If so, can you provide a link to this research? Quote:
Thanks, Margaret Last edited by Margaret McGhee; March 8th, 2006 at 10:19 AM.. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why God Is Probably a Guy
Margaret,
You deliver this quote: Quote:
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|