How so?

You jokingly viewed males and lesser than females. I was joking in my response too … unless you were serious?

If you were serious and you cannot fathom why that comment is ‘sexist’ then you clearly have no idea what ‘sexism’ is. You are not stupid though and know what I was referring to … so why the game of ‘what do you mean?’

Provocation is the only reason I can see. So I am ‘provoked’ … merely to see if you go anywhere with this or have glaring double-standards :)

AI would choose the one they wish to suffer the most I imagine. A lone human is no longer ‘human’ they are just a defunct dead-end doomed to misery and suffering in pure solitude.

Who would likely suffer more I wonder. A man or a woman? If inflicting suffering was the purpose of the AI.

"And thus spoke the little old woman: You go to women? Do not forget the whip" (for her to use!)
~Freddy Zarathustra

You jokingly viewed males [as] lesser than females. I was joking in my response too … unless you were serious? — I like sushi

I was "joking seriously". :smirk:

If I wanted to be more Chinese I would have to have skin colour and feature alterations under surgery to Match the biological reality of ethnic Chinese eating loads of Chinese food and learning to speak mandarin would not make me Chinese. — Andrew4Handel

It depends. I would actually say that being ‘Chinese’ is a cultural item rather than a biological one. Being ‘Chinese’ is not genetic as someone born to Chinese parents and raised in the US would, cultural speaking, be american if they were raised in the US and spoke only English and educated under the US system.

Nationalities are nationalities not genetic distinctions. There is obviously some ‘genetic’ similarity between peoples living the same regions for very obvious reasons.

The question underneath all this is the riddle of trying to define ‘culture’ … which is problematic as it covers practically everything a d is likely why many jump on the bandwagon when something is attributed to ‘culture’. Such ubiquitous terms are easy prey to misuse by over-application.

Nice false analogy there. Traits are behaviour not biologically given. You ignore the fact the traits you qualify as feminine or masculine are exhibited by the other gender as well. A black person cannot act as if he's a white man by changing his behaviour. A man can act "feminine" by changing his behaviour and vice versa. Your "traits" are therefore gender stereotypes and not informed by biology (alone). Behaviour is in any case relational: caring for others, submitting to others, aggressive towards another, etc. You cannot ignore the sociology which is rive with the confirmation bias and people's average need to belong (and therefor fit) to one of these categories. The statistics don't prove traits, they prove bias. If both sexes are capable of the same behaviour, you'd expect a normal distribution of them among the populace.

It seems to me that male traits are seen in a more positive light than female ones still and that traits like nurturing, caring and kindness and forgiveness are seen as weaknesses. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. That has been a common trend for a long time. The ‘fairer’/‘weaker’ sex. Undoubtedly there are many hang ups still around that propagate these ideas. In reality all psychological traits are seemingly neutral. Even ‘moderation’ is bad in some circumstances.

In some cultures what you or I may refer to as ‘bravery’ would been deemed as ‘cowardice’. ‘Rashness’ viewed as ‘quick reactions’ depending on the success or failure of the action. We are fickle and stupid creatures, but it appears our ‘stupidity’/‘mistakes’ occasionally stumble upon novel solutions to hard problems.

The larger extent to which women have been, and are being, liberated across the globe is still transitioning and likely always will be. Stagnation is death. If no women/men are complaining it is not because there is nothing wrong, it is because they have lost their voice in the public sphere.

There has been a rather large push to create more female role-models in mass media. There are many different conflicting forces controlling these so-called ‘role-models’. Undoubtedly Wonder Woman was something of a sex symbol that was created to cater to both men’s and women’s fantasies.

I do sometimes get a little concerned when people act like ‘beauty’ is some kind of cultural creation. The hyper sexuality prevalent in advertising works. Everyone used to mock people like Mary Whitehouse but I think they probably did not listen carefully enough. There are certainly factors in society that are almost completely unchecked and out of governmental/social control. ‘Memes’ if you will.

All that said, I think there are good number of people wary of the power of AI and the influence it can exert over vast numbers of people. I do not think we are dumb enough to handover complete ‘control’ simply because we are scared of responsibility.

I never said feminine/masculine traits are defined by sex. In fact I made that blatantly clear so read more carefully.

The rest of what you said has no bearing I can see. In terms of psychological traits there is a lot of variation to the point where stating any single man or woman must have this or that trait is complete nonsense. You can make some statistical bets because there are some reasonably large difference (as in ratios of 3:2).

We can take a thousand women and a thousand men off the street and be reasonably confident that the ‘differences’ (where they are commonly seen at their largest) will play out … it is statistics neither prove nor disprove ‘bias’ anymore than ‘explorer’ proved or disproved the existence of a teapot orbiting Saturn.

The reasons these traits propagate will obviously be due to many different factors including ‘culture’. I am certainly not saying it is black and white.

Anything else to put into my mouth?

AI would choose the one they wish to suffer the most I imagine. A lone human is no longer ‘human’ they are just a defunct dead-end doomed to misery and suffering in pure solitude.

Who would likely suffer more I wonder. A man or a woman? If inflicting suffering was the purpose of the AI. — I like sushi

Very antinatalist and antitranshumanist in tone. The idea is to protect humanity. I wonder if AI would go Ultron on us.

Can you read? Who did I reply to?

Would an AI designed to protect mankind - if it comes down to choosing only one of two, a last man xor a last woman (imagine a spaceship has room for only one person) - choose the man or the woman? — Agent Smith

1. The AI (assuming a droid of some kind) could choose to sacrifice (disassemble / repurpose or jettison) itself in order to protect both humans.

2. Maybe the AI would make more room in the spaceship by relocating to the outside of the spaceship and attaching itself and yet remain 'plugged-in' so that it can continue to 'protect & serve' as long as possible.

3. Maybe, instead, the AI would clone them both, preserve their embryoes and then euthanize both donors while they sleep (tossing the carcasses out of the airlock). :up:

The solution, Smith, need not be binary. :nerd:

It is interesting to think would the AI beings and even the transhuman beings of the future be binary beings or androgynous? The further one goes beyond the basics of biology the more likelihood of beings beyond stereotypical gender. Some of the fantasy/science fiction authors, including that written by females, including Marion Zimmer Bradley and Ursula L Gun, create characters who incorporate characteristics of both gender, which include physical androgyny. This may be an echo to the archetypal or mythical hermaphrodite. The prefix trans is involved in transgender, transhumanism and may correspond with the idea of transformation as well.

In society womens’ ‘traits’ (if we can call them that?) are generally not rewarded because they are good for roles/jobs that tend to see long term benefits rather than short term benefits - hence the pay of teaching and nursing. — I like sushi

The value of roles such as nursing and teaching stems from an understanding of when and where to relinquish or hand over control/power to another. A quality teacher or nurse is someone who doesn’t derive professional value from demonstrations of their own capacity or control, but from increasing/restoring the capacity of others.

The structures that govern teaching and nursing roles, their decision-making and rates of pay, however, are still determined according to demonstrations of control. It was once believed (and in many cases still is) that a ‘good’ teacher should be able to demonstrate control over their students and influence on their thinking with regurgitated facts, etc. Schools remain, for the most part, focused on maximising control and accountability (ie. minimising uncertainty), and in doing so they can stifle or damage the valuable nurturing aspect of the teaching-learning relationship for many students and teachers.

It’s far from a perfect system (wherever you are) and I’ve personally found that the most effective healing, teaching and learning actually occurs in those ‘grey area’ moments with low control and high uncertainty. But it’s never really clear who can take the credit for what took place…patient or nurse, teacher or student…

We can discuss all of this in terms of primarily men’s or women’s ‘traits’, but at the end of the day devaluing the ‘traits’ associated with roles that increase or restore capacity in others has less to do with gender, and more to do with ego.

I hear ya loud and clear sir. I didn't think of every possibility - that's what creative peeps do and I'm not. It seems it's not possible to answer this question without a deep understanding of biology, psychology, and humanity.

Kinda. :up:

I wasn't looking at the dilemma you posed from a human perspective but from the perspective of the AI (e.g. HAL 9000).

I wasn't looking at the dilemma you posed from a human perspective but from the perspective of the AI (e.g. HAL 9000). — 180 Proof

:ok: HAL 9000 would've considered those options you mentioned?! :scream: I wonder what HAL 9000's assessment of humans would look like? Very reasonable or ok, could do better or batshit crazy?

"HAL 9000's" just an example of AI, don't geek down that rabbit hole. :sweat:

:lol:

I assumed it was me :D guess not. I can read. There was no tag and it was directly under my post and fit enough for me to assume as I did.

If not no biggie ;)

The structures that govern teaching and nursing roles, their decision-making and rates of pay, however, are still determined according to demonstrations of control. — Possibility

I have no idea why you think that?

It is generally more simplistic. If you invest in ‘training’/‘educating’ then the pay off comes literally decade/s down the line. It is understandable why - in an economy based on profit - many people prefer to invest in what pays off next year/month/week rather than what pays off in 20 years or so … people have to eat and sustain themselves so the majority of what they have will be invested in tomorrow, next month/year rather than further down the line.

Of course the wealthy are more able to determine a better path for their children but overall the majority of people have to play in a system where they cannot pay their way out (in terms of better/best education possible).

Education is a tricky subject. Everyone has different ideas and governments tend to ignore what works in favour of what is already in place. Finland is the only country who did the sensible thing.

A man can act "feminine" by changing his behaviour and vice versa. — Benkei

How could I act feminine?

The best characteristics of a woman: compassion, forbearance, fortitude, generosity, humour, integrity, loyalty, mindfulness, patience, resourcefulness, truthfulness, understanding.
The best characteristics of a man: compassion, forbearance, fortitude, generosity, humour, integrity, loyalty, mindfulness, patience, resourcefulness, truthfulness, understanding.

On The movie database IMDb's "Top 100"

The top move rated movie is the Phallocentric The Shawshank Redemption with 2,676,899 votes cast

followed by The Godfather and The Dark Knight

Of the top 100 only 2 have female leads including Silence of the Lambs and two or three more have joint female leads and only one of the films is about the female experience.

You might say "Psycho" has a female lead although she is someone who is brutally stabbed to death in the shower in the nude in the movie so not really aspirational.

The best characteristics of a woman: compassion, forbearance, fortitude, generosity, humour, integrity, loyalty, mindfulness, patience, resourcefulness, truthfulness, understanding.

The best characteristics of a man: compassion, forbearance, fortitude, generosity, humour, integrity, loyalty, mindfulness, patience, resourcefulness, truthfulness, understanding. — Vera Mont

:100: :up:

Gender ideology doesn't make sense especially if you don't recognise biological reality as a basis for traits. — Andrew4Handel

The funny thing is that this sort of misguided critique of gender identity almost systematically ignores the distinction between biological sex and sociocultural gender (or, at a minimum, seeks to blur the distinction as much as possible). Obviously there are biological differences between the sexes, and traits that are biologically based: chromosomes, genitalia, differences in average height/weight/etc. No one is claiming that there is no such thing as biological sex, "trans activists" (i.e. reasonable people who are not transphobic) are not "denying biology". This common canard is a ridiculous strawman. But the other side tends to deny/ignore gender, and how it differs from biological sex.

And the kind of traits you keep talking about are generally not traits dictated by biological sex, but traits associated with socially-enforced gender roles and expectations- that women are caring and nurturing and so on, that men are strong and assertive and aggressive and all that.

But as Benkei already pointed out, these are traits that are distributed among both sexes (and so we're talking about statistical distributions, rather than a binary a "yes" or "no"), and are dictated by social expectation/convention, not biology (and so therefore the differences can probably be accounted for entirely by social convention, without invoking biology at all- we're talking about social norms that have been in place and been enforced for centuries, after all):

Men can be and often are nurturing and caring and creative. Women can be and often are assertive and aggressive and logical/analytic. And similarly for other traits associated with one particular gender role over another; these are matters of social convention, and so are in some sense arbitrary. These traits and roles are part of our normative expectation/model for how members are a particular sex are supposed to be like... not an accurate descriptive account of biologically-based traits. Again, social convention, not biology.

And even as far as biology goes, the story is far more complicated than you seem to realize: biological sex and sexual traits form a spectrum, not a binary male vs. female, so even the matter of biological sex (as opposed to gender) is not so straightforward as you let on.

And the kind of traits you keep talking about are generally not traits dictated by biological sex, but traits associated with socially-enforced gender roles and expectations- that women are caring and nurturing and so on, that men are strong and assertive and aggressive and all that. — busycuttingcrap

Women are more caring and nurturing they are consistently more involved in caring roles and males are always incarcerated at much higher rates and commit the vast majority of sex crimes.

As a male growing up no one discouraged me from being caring and encouraged me to commit violence and sex crimes.

There are biological explanations for this especially since a woman carries a child for nine months and can breast feed it and is best suited for the primary child care role.

I posted a study in a previous thread I stared about Changing Sex that showed that Trans women exhibit the same criminality patterns as biological males. I can repost it here if you want it.

Obviously there are biological differences between the sexes, and traits that are biologically based: chromosomes, genitalia, differences in average height/weight/etc. No one is claiming that there is no such thing as biological sex — busycuttingcrap

Here's an article entitled the Myth of biological sex:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/06/15/the-myth-of-biological-sex/?sh=5da28cc876b9

"But, biological sex isn’t as straightforward as they likely think, and there is no one parameter that makes a person biologically male or female"

Opinion: Biological Science Rejects the Sex Binary, and That’s Good for Humanity

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/biological-science-rejects-the-sex-binary-and-that-s-good-for-humanity-70008

"The oceans are filled with species of fish that change from one sex to another midlife, and some who change back again. There are invertebrate hermaphrodites and ladies-only lizards who reproduce by recombining their own chromosome"

Because women and mens bodies differ that is good reason to expect their psychology to differ. Using outlying cases of developmental disorders that affect men or women (to create an imaginary spectrum) and using other species that can change sex or are hermaphrodite as examples is tool to undermine the importance or relevance of widespread sex differences.

Right, there are differences in the statistical distributions of certain traits or behaviors between the sexes (including biological differences). This was already acknowledged. But given that both males and females exhibit these different traits or behaviors, and that these traits are part of normative social expectations (being enforced century after century) its clear that this isn't being driven by biology- there is no biological reason why women should wear dresses and bake cookies and wear pink or why men shouldn't talk about emotions/feelings, wear pants instead of dresses, and so on- but rather sociocultural norms and expectations. Gender, not sex. And of course there is individual variation as well.

So the distribution of different traits among the sexes is far more complicated than you let on, as is the matter of biological sex itself. And of course sociocultural gender remains distinct from biological sex: much of what you're talking about owes to the former, not the latter. Without accounting for these facts, your analysis/critique amounts to fan-fiction regurgitating tired social expectations and tropes.

And of course you were discouraged from being caring or emotional or other traits associated with female gender roles. Its just usually not explicit: its not like your parents or teachers come out and directly tell you that being caring or nurturing makes you an unmanly wimp (or whatever)... although this does happen occasionally- I was definitely told more than once that e.g. crying was for girls (and I know I'm far from alone there).

But usually its more implicit: gender norms/roles presented through culture and society, and enforced via social pressure- think of the comic book, cartoon, or action movie heroes that are presented as role models for young boys: tough, stoic, aggressive, violent: Batman beating up bad guys, action movies with Keanu Reeves or Bruce Willis kung-fu'ing the bad guys into submission, and so on. If a boy wears pink to school or cries during a sad movie, they are usually going to be mocked and teased for it. So, culture, and social pressure, enforcing normative gender expectations... not biology.

"But, biological sex isn’t as straightforward as they likely think, and there is no one parameter that makes a person biologically male or female" — Andrew4Handel

This was precisely the point of the Scientific American article I previously linked: the traits you're talking about as inherently male or female are often matters of gender and social expectations as much/more than biology, and even biological sex is not binary and is far more complicated than you've acknowledged here.

Because women and mens bodies differ that is good reason to expect their psychology to differ. Using outlying cases of developmental disorders that affect men or women (to create an imaginary spectrum) and using other species that can change sex or are hermaphrodite as examples is tool to undermine the importance or relevance of widespread sex differences. — Andrew4Handel

Well, no. Having different genitalia doesn't imply that their psychology is inherently different, especially not in the binary sort of way that transphobes like to portray. And what differences there are are matters of different averages and distributions (rather than a binary yes/no), and many of them are the result of socially-enforced gender norms (not biological sex).

As for the spectrum of biological sex, it is very real, and quite well-documented; denying this only serves to undermine your credibility and make you look more like a committed partisan with an axe to grind rather than a reasonable observer interested in the truth.

there is no biological reason why women should wear dresses and bake cookies or men should be the bread-winner or protector — busycuttingcrap

This perhaps could be challenged by replacing should with are inclined to, no?

Stereotypes, perhaps. But averaging all peoples, men are generally of larger muscle mass and perhaps as a result tire less. Life, regardless of the plush comforts of society or in the context of a single person alone on an entire planet, requires physical work. Whether the result of our current biological inclinations can be changed/altered (enter the taboo topic of "genetic trauma" which can be redeemed as the adaptability and salvageability of the human condition) does this not hold true?