Blogging

[scottydog]

Just posted a blog about possible gender differences in heroism & villainy. I hope feminists don't come after me!

[RJDiogenes]

Uh oh. I haven't read it, but we may be in for some disagreement.

[scottydog]

Uh oh. I haven't read it, but we may be in for some disagreement.

I can handle disagreement, no worries!!

[Lupine]

Great article, Scotty! And so far no flame wars over it.

[scottydog]

Great article, Scotty! And so far no flame wars over it.

Thanks, Lupy! I'm a bit surprised I haven't been seared yet. Certainly Baumeister is not without his critics.

[RJDiogenes]

Well, I responded. A bit long winded, but this is one of my pet peeves.

And I see you used that page of cartoons that I found. I love those.

[scottydog]

^I don't see your comment on the blog, RJ. I hope it didn't disappear in cyberspace somewhere!

[RJDiogenes]

It did disappear!

Fortunately, I did save a backup-- I'd be very upset if I had to do that much work all over again.

Re-posting now....

[scottydog]

Ah, there it is! Thank you. A very thoughtful response. One of Baumeister's key claims is based on DNA evidence showing that we're descended from twice as many women as men -- i.e., about 80% of all women who have ever lived have reproduced but only 40% of men. Baumeister says that it would be shocking if these vastly different odds of reproductive success didn't produce personality differences. From reading your comment, I'm assuming you disagree and that you believe that men's and women's personalities and motivations are essentially the same.

I definitely lean toward Baumeister on this point. It's not a matter of better or worse, just slightly different. I would also argue that anyone (man or woman) who prefers to "nest" and raise children is just as heroic, if not more heroic, as someone who takes risks by boldly exploring and creating.

By the way, Baumeister is also the psychologist who, beginning in the late 90s, began to challenge the conventional assumption that low self-esteem is the cause of so much of the anti-social behavior in our world. His research supported the opposite notion, namely, that overly inflated self-esteem (especially unstable self-esteem or unjustified self-esteem) is at the root of so much human aggression.

[Madeliaette]

I would have to say that to be one

who prefers to "nest" and raise children

in the current era is becoming somewhat heroic - with all the flack against moms who do not work outside the home....

[RJDiogenes]

Ah, there it is! Thank you. A very thoughtful response. One of Baumeister's key claims is based on DNA evidence showing that we're descended from twice as many women as men -- i.e., about 80% of all women who have ever lived have reproduced but only 40% of men. Baumeister says that it would be shocking if these vastly different odds of reproductive success didn't produce personality differences. From reading your comment, I'm assuming you disagree and that you believe that men's and women's personalities and motivations are essentially the same.

I'm not sure where he gets his statistics, or over what time frame they're supposed to represent-- it's been pretty clearly demonstrated that all modern Humans are descended from one mitochondrial Eve-- but he doesn't appear to understand genetics. Men and women are not separate species evolving in either competition or isolation. If there really were separate sets of male and female genes and twice as many women as men were reproductively successful, that would distribute those genes throughout the population, which consists equally of men and women-- producing exactly the opposite effect than what he proposes. But, in fact, men and women are virtually identical genetically, except for the Y Chromosome, the sole function of which is to trigger male sexual development.

I definitely lean toward Baumeister on this point. It's not a matter of better or worse, just slightly different. I would also argue that anyone (man or woman) who prefers to "nest" and raise children is just as heroic, if not more heroic, as someone who takes risks by boldly exploring and creating.

Well, I don't know if I'd say that answering the call of the wild is heroic, it being the default behavior. In fact, in a disastrously overpopulated era, I'd say that resisting the urge to reproduce is more heroic. But, out of curiosity, what do you think are the psychological differences between men and women and how can we use that information to create gender-specific laws, employment policies, college admission policies et cetera? What is the best way to design a separate-but-equal society?

By the way, Baumeister is also the psychologist who, beginning in the late 90s, began to challenge the conventional assumption that low self-esteem is the cause of so much of the anti-social behavior in our world. His research supported the opposite notion, namely, that overly inflated self-esteem (especially unstable self-esteem or unjustified self-esteem) is at the root of so much human aggression.

So he believes that high self-esteem causes anti-social behavior, while hedging his bets by qualifying the definition of high self-esteem to really mean low self-esteem (inflated, unstable, unjustified). And he proposes a scientific basis for chauvinism. I'm guessing there's a political agenda at work here.

[scottydog]

One of Baumeister's key claims is based on DNA evidence showing that we're descended from twice as many women as men -- i.e., about 80% of all women who have ever lived have reproduced but only 40% of men.

I'm not sure where he gets his statistics, or over what time frame they're supposed to represent...

Here's a link to the research showing we're descended from more women than men --> http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200408 ... _sys.shtml

I definitely lean toward Baumeister on this point. It's not a matter of better or worse, just slightly different. I would also argue that anyone (man or woman) who prefers to "nest" and raise children is just as heroic, if not more heroic, as someone who takes risks by boldly exploring and creating.

But, out of curiosity, what do you think are the psychological differences between men and women and how can we use that information to create gender-specific laws, employment policies, college admission policies et cetera? What is the best way to design a separate-but-equal society?

Here I may share your concern that focusing on slight differences between groups of people -- whether we're talking gender differences or racial differences -- can be dangerous. Obviously men and women are more alike than they are different, and Baumeister (and I) may be doing everyone a disservice if our message is taken in any way to say that women can't (or shouldn't) become scientists or men can't (or shouldn't) be stay-at-home parents. This reminds me of that book published in the 90s called The Bell Curve which played up possible racial differences in intelligence, which may exist to a teeny tiny degree but which may give license to racist beliefs and policies. The last thing we should want to do is make an already divisive society even more divisive.

By the way, Baumeister is also the psychologist who, beginning in the late 90s, began to challenge the conventional assumption that low self-esteem is the cause of so much of the anti-social behavior in our world. His research supported the opposite notion, namely, that overly inflated self-esteem (especially unstable self-esteem or unjustified self-esteem) is at the root of so much human aggression.

So he believes that high self-esteem causes anti-social behavior, while hedging his bets by qualifying the definition of high self-esteem to really mean low self-esteem (inflated, unstable, unjustified). And he proposes a scientific basis for chauvinism. I'm guessing there's a political agenda at work here.

He certainly doesn't mind taking a politically incorrect position. Actually, I really oversimplified his statement on self-esteem. Here's a link that captures some of the complexity of his message on the topic --> http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/25 ... umeister25

[RJDiogenes]

Here's a link to the research showing we're descended from more women than men --> http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200408 ... _sys.shtml

That's an interesting theory to explain the apparent variance between the genetic drift of the Y Chromosome versus Mitochondrial DNA, and there may be some truth to it (though it seems at odds with the usual realities of mating among primates and other mammals), but the authors make no claims as to any implications in gender-differentiated behavior. As I said, men and women are a single species-- even if women are twice as successful reproductively as men, there are still equal amounts of girls and boys born, so any successful genes are spread equally throughout the population. This does not argue in favor of psychological differences, but against them.

This reminds me of that book published in the 90s called The Bell Curve which played up possible racial differences in intelligence, which may exist to a teeny tiny degree but which may give license to racist beliefs and policies.

The racial allegations of The Bell Curve were debunked by Stephen Jay Gould, among others. He once wrote something along the lines that even if all people on Earth died with the exception of a remote tribe in New Zealand, the Human race would still retain 99% of its genetic diversity; the differences we see among people are incredibly superficial in the overall scheme of things.

He certainly doesn't mind taking a politically incorrect position. Actually, I really oversimplified his statement on self-esteem. Here's a link that captures some of the complexity of his message on the topic --> http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/25 ... umeister25

This pretty much convinces me that he has a political or ideological agenda. His proposals here are too sloppy and his terminology too contradictory to be taken seriously. The most obvious example is his use of humility as the opposite of high self-esteem. Low self-esteem is the opposite of high self-esteem; pretension is the opposite of humility. The truth is that those with high self-esteem are more likely to be humble, because they have nothing to prove. Esteem is a resource and it obeys the same rules as any other. If you have more than enough food, you're more likely to share. If you have just enough, you keep what you've got. If you don't have enough, you go looking for more-- and if it gets bad enough, you steal from somebody. And if somebody who has more than enough shares with you, you don't have to steal.

Basically, he makes the amateur mistake (or deliberate error) of accepting reported self-esteem as real self-esteem. Then he seeks to redefine high self-esteem by substituting examples of narcissism. And his off-side remarks in the second and last paragraphs also indicate that he has ulterior motives. He may not be at the level of a Creationist, but he certainly seems to be one of those people who believes that a woman's place is in the kitchen and that men should shut up, keep their eyes down and do their work.

[Renie]

Oo, interesting debate going on here.

I've got a new blog post up (finally!). It's another piece on storycraft, but really you could use it with any kind of artful writing. The genesis is that sometimes I hear other writers discussing whether or not using imagery is necessary to a story, or if it counts as 'over-writing.' In my opinion, imagery is not about description per se, but emotion, and emotion is integral to a story (the reader has to care).

Good Imagery Deepens the Emotion of a Story

Like usual, I would love your feedback and comments. Cheers

[RJDiogenes]

Seriously? There are writers who think that imagery is "over-writing?" Even Hemingway used imagery of a sort. Anyway, I commented.

Oo, interesting debate going on here.

I think I scared off scotty with my single-mindedness. I did say this was one of my pet peeves.