Sigh. I was merely amplifying the point that working class women, one of whom I observed at close hand for years, didn't have much opportunity to pursue literary careers — Bitter Crank

You're right. Sorry if my previous post seemed flippant: I'm currently responding while nkbjJR is crawling over me. :joke: can't get a break from them brats even in the 21st century!

It's the story-telling about how specific traits result from specific evolutionary effects that bothers me. — T Clark

Traits are derived from evolution. Look at 100 dogs: they all exhibit very similar traits. Why do they all have the same traits (like the ability to follow the human gaze)? Because they all carry the same traits established by evolution. These aren't all inflexible behaviors, of course. They can be quite plastic.

Story telling, as you put it, is just a shorthand method of describing evolution. A process which has been going on for a billion years is too slow to point out events. We can describe how an animal is changed by breeding (silver fox experiment, development of better milk cows, the fast growing chicken fryer, etc.) because those events have been under human control for a relatively short interval of time

So, do take the story telling with a grain of salt. Throw out explanations that run along the lines of "evolution was working toward an ape that could run fast." No. Evolution doesn't have destinations, it only has vague tendencies.

Kapesh?

How old is NKBJ Jr.?

but it's at least highly plausible that greater height enables greater top speeds (more useful in plains) and hinders mobility in dense brush (a hindrance in jungles). — VagabondSpectre

First - I have no way of knowing how plausible it is and I doubt you do either. If you want to set me straight on that, please do.

Second - You didn't present it as a possible, plausible explanation. You presented it as fact.

He just turned 1 year old last week. He's officially figured out how to say "mamam" and tell the dog "guh te beh" ("go to bed") :heart:

Never was. Patriarchy and matriarchy are projectiles developed for gender warfare. The historical use of these terms is not ancient. In the Google Ngram below, the two terms had virtually no use in print prior to 1900. Patriarchy started taking of around 1970, and rose like the hockey stick curve.

Soooo.... When women weren't allowed to vote or own property or husbands were allowed to beat their wives that was called....?

Story telling, as you put it, is just a shorthand method of describing evolution. A process which has been going on for a billion years is too slow to point out events. — Bitter Crank

Sure, I believe that all organisms on Earth come from a common ancestor and that they developed from that ancestor based on genetic changes interacting with the environment. That's called evolution by natural selection. The problem with the story-telling is that 1) evolution doesn't usually work in such a simplistic way, and 2) even if it does in a particular case, there usually no evidence for a particular chain of causation.

And no, evolution doesn't have "vague tendencies." It doesn't have any tendencies.

"Plausible" has any number of connotations. One of them being possible. The context of my explanation made it clear that I was taking up a narrow focus for the sake of the discussion (the point I made). I even made a secondary post just to clarify that fact.

You didn't present it as a possible, plausible explanation. You presented it as fact. — T Clark

You're objecting to a moot point (I might be wrong about the specific causes of height variation, but my point is that adaptive variation exists); I said we should expect to see height correlate with environment, and we do! I'm not wrong that we do see differences in the height distributions between different ethnic groups, and I never suggested that the causal factors I supposed are the only ones in existence. That said, environment must be a factor of some kind in genetic selection for height. You haven't added to, or taken away, anything meaningful from my original post.

And no, evolution doesn't have "vague tendencies." It doesn't have any tendencies. — T Clark

Eyeballs have evolved separately dozens of times in the grand history of life on earth. We might say that evolution has a tendency to innovate and refine eyes when evolving life finds itself in a light filled environment. Creatures found in isolated caves often have no functional eyes because they have never needed to evolve them in the first place, or because their inter-generational lack of use has degraded the eyes their ancestors once had.

Evolution is the very tendency of life (or things) to adapt and optimize, to change, according to the environment it finds itself in.

that was called....? — NKBJ

Life as men and women knew it.

I'm not lauding the lack of women's suffrage, or women's lack of control over wealth (that condition was not universal), or husbands beating wives (that wasn't universal either), and so on. The relationship between men and women varied over time and place. The favored ancient society we know most about (and we don't know all that much) -- Athens -- appears to be pretty repressive toward women. On the other hand, Aristophanes' Lysistrata (performed in the same Athens) depicts women as persons with executive agency. (The wives went on a sex strike to stop a war.)

Some clay tablet records from trading cultures in the Levant show women running their own independent businesses. Rome was a mixed bag, as were the various barbarian tribes.

What is objectionable about the term "patriarchy" is that it is a retro-projection of current dissatisfactions, applied to most of history. People: men women, adults, children, slave, free, rich, poor, able, hobbled, etc. have always both accepted the world as they have found it and lived within the existing paradigm. It doesn't mean that there was an active patriarchal regime making sure that women were kept in their place.

We know that some people were definitely concerned about women's place in the world. The Apostle Paul was quite concerned that women should stay in their place, at least in church. Paul, of course, was quite influential on one particular western institution. I doubt very much that his view of things was unopposed in his own time.

My wife is a better, more moral, harder working, less selfish, tougher, thicker skinned person than I; but compared to my ex-wife we agree that I come out on top in these qualities. Neither one of them know jack about philosophy or science, though. Just my anecdotal evidence. Out of the three of us, my ex-wife is most likely to end up behind bars. I am second, and my wife has no chance of being incarcerated. Given what my ex-wife gets away with, it is rather surprising she has never been in the clink. She always gets favorable treatment from the authorities, though.

Your ex-wife must be quite the deal.

She’s a colorful character.

It sounds like you do believe in patriarchy but you just don't want to call it that. Either way, sounds like we believe the same things.

Back to journaling: journaling has historically been considered a feminine occupation and men (i.e., those in charge of what became "the canon") decided it didn't have literary merit because of that. They did not decide that on the basis of the actual merit of the journals written by women who otherwise were, let's call it "discouraged" from writing anything of more "traditional" or "masculine" literary value.

The fact that women have worked against such odds historically and have made it into the canon DESPITE such opposition tells me that women are indeed very much capable of greatness and that the ratio of great women and great men would be much more equal had the playing field been level for the past millennia.

That's an interesting anecdote. And certainly some women are more criminal than some men. Yet the fact remains that most criminals are men.

The fact that women have worked against such odds historically and have made it into the canon DESPITE such opposition tells me that women are indeed very much capable of greatness and that the ratio of great women and great men would be much more equal had the playing field been level for the past millennia. — NKBJ

I agree. My cousin and I both got straight A’s in high school. She did better on the ACT and for her intelligence and hard work she got a full ride to Marquette University. I had to settle for half of my tuition being paid at Loyola University Chicago. She’s a brilliant accountant, but she probably could’ve done anything. I’m an immoral lay-about, so she’s a better person than I am.

I’m an immoral lay-about, so she’s a better person than me. — Noah Te Stroete

:rofl:

Well, at least you can be honest about it.

Well, at least you can be honest about it. — NKBJ

It’s been tough to admit over the years that I haven’t been the best person; but as I get older I don’t seem to care all that much anymore. :razz:

I agree but with the proviso that women are better than men only in the narrow sense of legal behavior. I mean women tend to be more law abiding than men.

Does this ''docile'' nature influence other aspects of a person, like intelligence, creativity, etc.? I don't know. I wish it did because the world would be a much better place.

I agree but with the proviso that women are better than men only in the narrow sense of legal behavior. I mean women tend to be more law abiding than men. — TheMadFool

Aren’t the vast majority of serial killers men? And rapists? And drug dealers (although there might be closer to parity here)? The mob bosses? Mob enforcers? It shouldn’t surprise us that men tend to desire power more so than women, so there are more men in power. This shouldn’t be the case, though. Just look at where a history of rule by men has gotten the planet. Maybe we should let the women have there shot at fucking up as the men have. It couldn’t get any worse, and I would bet we would see improvements (dare I say).

It’s been a long time since women ‘had’ to have children. It might be difficult for them to refuse that possibility but they have had that choice for a long time. Art does take a big commitment, just look at the men who chose it over their family. Children or art, that’s the choice.

You're objecting to a moot point (I might be wrong about the specific causes of height variation, but my point is that adaptive variation exists); I said we should expect to see height correlate with environment, and we do! — VagabondSpectre

Again, you didn't just say that adaptive variation exists, which I would have no problem with, you gave a detailed description of specific body differences between men and women and claimed they were caused by specific differences in their social and biological roles.

Eyeballs have evolved separately dozens of times in the grand history of life on earth. We might say that evolution has a tendency to innovate and refine eyes when evolving life finds itself in a light filled environment. — VagabondSpectre

It is my understanding that this is not true, so I checked. The underpinnings, infrastructure if you will, of reactivity to light have been around since just about the beginning. The photoreactive proteins and structures and some of the light-reactivity related genes are present in some of the currently living organisms near the split between vertebrates and invertebrates. It's not as if vision just popped into existence in completely unrelated organisms by coincidence. There was history involved.

Evolution by natural selection, as envisioned by Darwin, only represents adaptation by specific organisms to changes in specific local environments. There is no master plan or pattern. No tendency. Dolphins and sharks both have fins and are streamlined, but it's not because nature tends toward fins and streamlining. Evolution has no direction. No guiding principle.

Therefore, for the sake of talking about society or culturally, does that fact that prison populations are predominantly male mean or imply that females are socially superior to males? — Wallows

I think men can obviously be quite dangerous to others. Most men are not afraid of women, mentally or physically. A lot of men aren’t even afraid of each other. But I don’t think this means women are necessarily socially superior, it’s just that their weapons of choice are different.

We might say that evolution has a tendency to innovate and refine eyes when evolving life finds itself in a light filled environment. — VagabondSpectre

I don’t think that’s how evolution works. It’s almost the other way around. Genes that randomly create eyes that cope with light contribute to survival, they don’t adapt to conditions. Unless I’ve misunderstood your post.

Here in the US prison populations are predominantly represented by a huge bias or tendency to be male-oriented.

Therefore, for the sake of talking about society or culturally, does that fact that prison populations are predominantly male mean or imply that females are socially superior to males? — Wallows

I haven't read this thread, just want to express an opinion which is factually true, yet politically in some disrepute.

From the fact that both the prison population and the Nobel prize winner population skew strongly male; we can conclude is that men have a much wider distribution of achievement. When I was in grade school I noticed that the "good girls" just did what they were told, and "did well" in school on that basis. Women cluster to the middle ... not too many serial killers, and not too many Nobels.

Now yes I should mention for the record that I am well versed in my sexual politics. I lived in the SF Bay area most of my life. So of course I'm perfectly well aware that the latter fact is very much due to the awful sexism of science. As a math person I know that when Hilbert was trying to argue the faculty into allowing Emmy Noether to become a privatdozenten at the University of Göttingen, at that time the finest center of advanced math in the world -- after all Hilbert was there -- Hilbert said, before the faculty senate: "After all we are a university, not a bathhouse!" Hilbert lost, they wouldn't let her in.

So I get all this. But still. Isn't is possible that there is some innateness in the fact that women's achievement level tends to cluster in the middle; and men's is all spread out ... a lot of criminals and a lot of geniuses. Personally I believe it's the testosterone. Drives you to the extremes.

Is it really considered bad form to mention this? I gather it is. So be it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether

It probably is bad form to mention it, but I think you may be right.

Is it really considered bad form to mention this? — fishfry

If by "bad form" you mean unsubstantiated claptrap based on unsystematic, biased observation, then yes, it is bad form. Don't try to pretty it up with some sort of truth to power act.

Again, you didn't just say that adaptive variation exists, which I would have no problem with, you gave a detailed description of specific body differences between men and women and claimed they were caused by specific differences in their social and biological roles. — T Clark

You only appeared to object to a particular sub-point involving height, which wasn't actually about sexual dimorphism. That women exhibit a smaller variance in height, and a smaller average height, than men is the observation that the main thrust of my post attempts to explain (the point in question was explaining the context for adaptive divergence). The raw observation is undeniable, and the fact that men are capable of reproductive success across a wider range of heights really isn't that controversial. Evolutionary thinking along these lines is never a certainty, and though we often have mathematical models that can back them up, they're still quite persuasive without them.

Your posts always seem as if I'm attempting to oversimplify things, when in reality my intention is to provide models and questions that beget a deeper level of attention to complexity. Why is there more variance in the height of men than the height of women? You can say it's all directionless happenstance, and that we can never begin to know, but I say an evolutionary perspective (a la commonly cited reasons for sexual dimorphism) can get us started down a usefully predictive road.

Show me the skulls of a male and female of a species I've never encountered, and I might be able to predict something insightful about the behavior of the organism. Are the skulls identical in size and shape? Are there any unique features? Is one thicker than the other? If skulls are identical, we can surmise that the both the male and female of the species have a similar phenotype. That they both share the same general form suggests that they both perform the same set of tasks in general. "Pair-bonding" species which involve both parents contributing to the rearing of offspring generally have males and female that are hard to distinguish from each-other. "Tournament" species which involve male-male competition for access to reproductive females (and where the male might not contribute to the raising of the offspring) typically have very high levels of sexual dimorphism. There are exceptions, and a spectrum of causal factors to consider (humans are a notable in-between; we exhibit a high variance in sexually dimorphic traits), but at least we have something to work with.

It is my understanding that this is not true, so I checked. The underpinnings, infrastructure if you will, of reactivity to light have been around since just about the beginning. The photoreactive proteins and structures and some of the light-reactivity related genes are present in some of the currently living organisms near the split between vertebrates and invertebrates. It's not as if vision just popped into existence in completely unrelated organisms by coincidence. There was history involved. — T Clark

Photosynthesis was around since nearly the beginning (or maybe at the beginning), but photosynthesis does not an eye-ball make. You start with a patch of photo-sensitive cells on or near the skin of an organism, which can confer the advantage of knowing what direction light is coming from. Over many stages of subsequent alterations, each with their own adaptive benefit, refined eye-balls emerge. Different styles of eye-ball have followed similar evolutionary steps across a range of different organisms. Is any of this objectionable?

Evolution by natural selection, as envisioned by Darwin, only represents adaptation by specific organisms to changes in specific local environments. There is no master plan or pattern. No tendency. Dolphins and sharks both have fins and are streamlined, but it's not because nature tends toward fins and streamlining. Evolution has no direction. No guiding principle. — T Clark

The guiding principle is "what works" in the long run. "Fins" are a trait we tend to see in creatures that have evolved in aquatic environments. The principles are ultimately physical; fins happen to work well in water to create locomotion.

"Evolutionary convergence" (the tendency for similar adaptations to evolve in different organisms that exist in similar situations) is not controversial.

The filtering of "what works" that happens over generations is the driver of evolution. It adapts through trial and error.