Are gender differences in personality traits mostly due to culture or biological differences? (Split from “choose gender option”)

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Treat people based on who they are, not based on what plumbing they use to piss. 

It has nothing to do with what plumbing they use, and everything to do with psychology.

I know a lot of people deny there are any differences psychologically between the genders, how the perceive information, etc, simply because there are exceptions, but I think it's ludicrous not to use the information I know. 

A lot of these differences are also not simply there because of sexism and bigotry, they're there because of hormones. And, unsurprisingly, what might not hurt a man may hurt a woman, or vice versa.

When I'm with my male friends, and one of us does something stupid, they're gonna get called stupid and we're all gonna laugh about it.

When I'm with my female friends, I don't call them stupid if one of them does something stupid. All of them but one would get really upset if somebody said that to them.

Likewise, with my male friends, when one of us accidentally hurts someone else's feelings, we don't rail on them for being jack asses or something. They apologize and move on.

When I'm with my female friends, when one of them hurts someone else's feelings, the other girls will rail on them for being cruel and mean after she apologizes, and they laugh about it. I typically don't join in as it feels offensive to me, but they also have never done it to me.

Am I being sexist by treating them differently? It's not that I'm not nice to men and only nice to women, it's that things that hurt people are usually very different across genders.

 

Anyways, this is getting off topic. It was a nice discussion, but I'm out.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Raider5678

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

It has nothing to do with what plumbing they use, and everything to do with psychology.

I know a lot of people deny there are any differences psychologically between the genders, how the perceive information, etc, simply because there are exceptions, but I think it's ludicrous not to use the information I know. 

A lot of these differences are also not simply there because of sexism and bigotry, they're there because of hormones. And, unsurprisingly, what might not hurt a man may hurt a woman, or vice versa.

When I'm with my male friends, and one of us does something stupid, they're gonna get called stupid and we're all gonna laugh about it.

When I'm with my female friends, I don't call them stupid if one of them does something stupid. All of them but one would get really upset if somebody said that to them.

Likewise, with my male friends, when one of us accidentally hurts someone else's feelings, we don't rail on them for being jack asses or something. They apologize and move on.

When I'm with my female friends, when one of them hurts someone else's feelings, the other girls will rail on them for being cruel and mean after she apologizes, and they laugh about it. I typically don't join in as it feels offensive to me, but they also have never done it to me.

Am I being sexist by treating them differently? It's not that I'm not nice to men and only nice to women, it's that things that hurt people are usually very different across genders.

 

Anyways, this is getting off topic. It was a nice discussion, but I'm out.

It's not a very fair tactic to first present your 'off topic' position, then avoid having to defend it by claiming "off topic - I'm out".

[Raider5678]

Just now, zapatos said:

It's not a very fair tactic to first present your 'off topic' position, then avoid having to defend it by claiming "off topic - I'm out".

Fair point. What do you disagree with?

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

When I'm with my male friends, and one of us does something stupid, they're gonna get called stupid and we're all gonna laugh about it.

When I'm with my female friends, I don't call them stupid if one of them does something stupid. All of them but one would get really upset if somebody said that to them.

There is nothing biological about this. It's cultural, and culture is made up of countless individual acts and decisions. By deciding not to let gender inform how we treat people, culture itself changes.

20 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Am I being sexist by treating them differently?

Yes

[zapatos]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

Fair point. What do you disagree with?

Thanks!

What makes it sexist is when you treat (or think of) individuals within a group as all having the same traits that are simply 'common' within the group.

Similarly you should not treat all blacks, jews, white males, Catholic Priests, etc. the same simply because of traits that are common in their group.

Nothing wrong with being thoughtful about your actions in case a person does have a certain trait, but you shouldn't take actions as if you know they have a trait.

[iNow]

...And I say this knowing you're doing so with good intent and no malicious ends in mind.

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

There is nothing biological about this. It's cultural, and culture is made up of countless individual acts and decisions. By deciding not to let gender inform how we treat people, culture itself changes.

Proof that it's cultural and not biological?

I mean, I know people who were raised in drastically different situations, and across gender lines share many similar personality traits.

Surely, if it was cultural, then you'd see drastic differences in how women act across cultures correct?

I have a hard time with this argument because it's rather vague to simply blame culture, and automatically discount biology when we know hormones can and do affect how we think, and men and women have different hormones.

 

Let's look at animals, for example. In some species, there is a "dominant" gender. And while I'm not saying humans should be like animals and have a dominant gender, I am saying that it indicates that biology does in fact play a big part in psychology, even outside of culture. Unless animals have a culture which they're born with?

Edited December 20, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Will you kindly please elaborate a bit for me?

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Will you kindly please elaborate a bit for me?

If you're going to say it's all culture and biology plays absolutely no role, then you need to prove it.

If that's not what you meant, then please clarify.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

What makes it sexist is when you treat (or think of) individuals within a group as all having the same traits that are simply 'common' within the group.

Similarly you should not treat all blacks, jews, white males, Catholic Priests, etc. the same simply because of traits that are common in their group.

Nothing wrong with being thoughtful about your actions in case a person does have a certain trait, but you shouldn't take actions as if you know they have a trait.

I don't think it's sexist, I think it's being logical.

While I don't know for a fact that all girls will get offended at a joke regarding their weight, if I know that a majority of them will, I can simply not do it to any of them. What I described was taking a negative action, as in not doing something, because it has a high chance of hurting someone if I do it to a particular gender.

That being said, on the flip side, why should I not make the same joke to a guy who I know won't get offended and will laugh at the joke, simply because I won't make the joke to someone of the opposite gender?

 

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If you're going to say it's all culture and biology plays absolutely no role, then you need to prove it.

I reckon it’s a good thing I didn’t say it even imply that, then. 

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

That being said, on the flip side, why should I not make the same joke to a guy who I know won't get offended and will laugh at the joke, simply because I won't make the joke to someone of the opposite gender?

A better question, if after all you’re not sexist, is why wouldn’t you make that same joke to someone of the opposite gender?

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I reckon it’s a good thing I didn’t say it even imply that, then. 

Then please clarify this, as it seems that you're saying there is nothing biological about it, and it's all culture:

1 hour ago, iNow said:

There is nothing biological about this. It's cultural, and culture is made up of countless individual acts and decisions. 

 

[iNow]

There nothing biological or gender based about about how people react when you call them stupid. 

Jesus, Raider. This isn’t exactly rocket science. Reread the thread in context. 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Treat people based on who they are, not based on what plumbing they use to piss. 

 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

We can appreciate that folks have a different background and that sex (and even skin color) often informs one’s personality, but it’s really such a tiny component of what makes a person overall that it’s generally safe to ignore as background noise. 

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

By deciding not to let gender inform how we treat people, culture itself changes.

 

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

if you’re not sexist, why wouldn’t you make that same joke to someone of the opposite gender?

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

I don't think it's sexist, I think it's being logical.

And when the white cop says "I don't think it's racist to pull over black drivers and search them for drugs", is he just being logical?

[Raider5678]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

There nothing biological or gender based about about how people react when you call them stupid. 

Then you're going to have to prove it. 

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

And when the white cop says "I don't think it's racist to pull over black drivers and search them for drugs", is he just being logical?

No. And that is nothing like what I said, and you know it.

Again, I simply pointed out to the hormonal differences between men and women, and that in some cases, they react different ways to different things. So, as a result, using what I know is a common trait, I just don't do something.

Again, if you want to simply say that biological differences do not play a part, and that hormones do not play a part in how someone thinks, then you're going to need to prove it. 

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Jesus, Raider. This isn’t exactly rocket science. Reread the thread in context. 

I read the thread. And I'm saying I don't believe its only culture. I also provided reasoning as to that, and additionally I provided reasoning as to why I think it's also biological as well.

Jesus, iNow. This isn't exactly rocket science. If you want to make a claim, you need to prove it. 

[zapatos]

44 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No. And that is nothing like what I said, and you know it.
 

Sure it is. Both you and the cop are taking some fact you know (or believe) to be fairly common within a group, and applying it to all the individuals within the group as if it applies to ALL of them.

That is core to racism, sexism, and bigotry in general.

 

Quote

Again, I simply pointed out to the hormonal differences between men and women, and that in some cases, they react different ways to different things. So, as a result, using what I know is a common trait, I just don't do something.

Again, acting as if ALL women react one way and ALL men react another is sexist.

 

Quote

Again, if you want to simply say that biological differences do not play a part, and that hormones do not play a part in how someone thinks, then you're going to need to prove it.

I don't remember saying or implying that. Can you show me where I did?

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Sure it is. Both you and the cop are taking some fact you know (or believe) to be fairly common within a group, and applying it to all the individuals within the group as if it applies to ALL of them.

That is core to racism, sexism, and bigotry in general.

 

So pointing out there are generally hormonal differences between men and women is being a racist and a sexist?

Better yet, what do you suggest I do? There is an either-or approach in your stance. Either I do the approach that will generally offend one group and not the other, or I do the approach that will not offend one group and will offend the other. (Again, generally.)

I don't see why I must purposefully go out of my way to say something I know is going to hurt someone, in the name of tearing down gender stereotypes which can be adequately proven to partially be in under the influence of hormones.

Likewise, I don't see why I must refuse to say something to anyone, even if they find it funny, simply because it may offend someone else if it was directed at them.

 

Additionally, you may continue to claim I'm saying absolutes, but I'm not. I'm simply saying, that until I know the person better, I can simply not say something that might offend them. 

 

While you didn't use this argument yet, I'm certain it will be said later on "Well why don't you just not assume anything about anyone until you know them?". The argument that I must withhold any and all assumptions of what they might be like is ludicrous. Am I simply suppose to stare at them and not say anything until I know who they are? Just because not absolutely EVERYONE will be disturbed if I bring up a dead relative of theirs, does that mean I must ignore the fact that it will disturb many people? Anything I do is based on the assumption of what they might be like. 

 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

I don't remember saying or implying that. Can you show me where I did?

I said it. You disagreed with it. I thought that implied that you held that position. 

Edited December 20, 2018 by Raider5678

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Again, if you want to simply say that biological differences do not play a part, and that hormones do not play a part in how someone thinks, then you're going to need to prove it. 

Why should they? You are implying there are important differences, so why not outline them? That way we can take a look at the literature and see whether you are correct. How, for example, do any of your examples correlate with hormones and which ones in particular? The overall point you should be thinking about is whether the differences you perceive are indeed connected to biological mechanisms or not. Just because there is different biology, it does not mean that it has a meaningful difference in the aspects you are looking at. It is not to say that there may not be differences, but the question then is also how large are these differences (especially psychological ones) and how much do cultural aspects magnify or minimize them. What, in other words, is the effect size?

[zapatos]

35 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So pointing out there are generally hormonal differences between men and women is being a racist and a sexist?

No one said anything like that.

You seem to be so busy defending your position that you aren't taking the time to read (and understand) what others are saying.

 

Quote

While you didn't use this argument yet, I'm certain it will be said later on "Well why don't you just not assume anything about anyone until you know them?". The argument that I must withhold any and all assumptions of what they might be like is ludicrous. Am I simply suppose to stare at them and not say anything until I know who they are? Just because not absolutely EVERYONE will be disturbed if I bring up a dead relative of theirs, does that mean I must ignore the fact that it will disturb many people? Anything I do is based on the assumption of what they might be like.

That's a first. Not many people actually admit they are building a straw man before knocking it down.

Quote

I said it. You disagreed with it. I thought that implied that you held that position. 

So... I guess this means you aren't going to show me where I did that?

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Why should they? You are implying there are important differences, so why not outline them? That way we can take a look at the literature and see whether you are correct. How, for example, do any of your examples correlate with hormones and which ones in particular? The overall point you should be thinking about is whether the differences you perceive are indeed connected to biological mechanisms or not. Just because there is different biology, it does not mean that it has a meaningful difference in the aspects you are looking at. It is not to say that there may not be differences, but the question then is also how large are these differences (especially psychological ones) and how much do cultural aspects magnify or minimize them. What, in other words, is the effect size?

Important differences include levels of aggressiveness.

Testosterone has been proven to increase levels of aggressiveness in humans, male or female. That being said, males naturally produce more testosterone than females. You can say that the aggressiveness isn't actually hormonal but instead, it's cultural, but if you're going to say that you need to ignore how animals behave as well, with some species having a more aggressive gender. 

Additionally, we know it can be directly linked to hormones in males because transexuals who take testosterone have been shown to have higher levels of aggression afterward. 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/helenthomson/2017/12/21/testosterone-treatment-makes-transmen-more-aggressive-especially-if-their-periods-persist/#1871bc975b9d

 

There is a counter-argument that testosterone isn't solely linked to aggression:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm

However, the article essentially says that they display lower levels of aggression in an attempt to climb a "hierarchy". And the attempt to climb in social status is typically known as ambition, which is a form of aggression. So it kind of does a 180. Additionally, this outlook isn't something I just randomly made up, this outlook is reaffirmed by this study:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/attraction-evolved/201707/does-testosterone-really-just-make-men-aggressive

It's important to indicate that aggression is not solely violence and murder, it's linked to a lot of things. 

Edited December 20, 2018 by Raider5678

[MigL]

Any physical or mental trait associated with a certain group will follow a Gaussian distribution ( bell shape ), with the 'normal' being the section between 5% and 95%.
If you compare any specific trait between genders ( or even between what some call races ), you will find large and variable amounts of overlap between the two distributions.
Say we are considering the trait of physical strength.
There is a large overlap between the two distributions for males and females; some wimpy men are much weaker than a typical female, while some Russian female shot-putters are stronger than even football players, as examples.
The 'normal' may almost completely overlap, but the extremes ( the 0-5% and 95 -100%  ) will not.
The two bell shapes are slightly ( or more, depending on trait under consideration ) offset.

IE the differences between gender ( or the trait we call race ) are only manifest in the extremes.

[CharonY]

And how does any of this connect with the claims in OP? To give an example, all you are saying that men are more aggressive. You are omitting two important questions. The first is how does it connect to your initial hypothesis. You claimed, for example that men just laugh things off, whereas women get upset. Is it because men are inherently more aggressive? How does that follow. In other words, does this trait actually have any tractable impact on what you experience to be gender differences?

The second aspect is even assuming the difference is significant. How is distribution? Are all men more aggressive than all women? Or is there an overlap? How large is it? Note that the second aspect is really less important. Rather, you should figure out whether a perceived difference in behaviour is really linked to biology or is it just that you select a biologicak difference and then try to use it to explain all differences you see (whilst neglecting the arguably larger impact of societal behaviour modulation).

 

Edit: crossposted with MigL who made my second point much clearer.

 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Any physical or mental trait associated with a certain group will follow a Gaussian distribution ( bell shape ), with the 'normal' being the section between 5% and 95%.
If you compare any specific trait between genders ( or even between what some call races ), you will find large and variable amounts of overlap between the two distributions.
Say we are considering the trait of physical strength.
There is a large overlap between the two distributions for males and females; some wimpy men are much weaker than a typical female, while some Russian female shot-putters are stronger than even football players, as examples.
The 'normal' may almost completely overlap, but the extremes ( the 0-5% and 95 -100%  ) will not.
The two bell shapes are slightly ( or more, depending on trait under consideration ) offset.

IE the differences between gender ( or the trait we call race ) are only manifest in the extremes.

Would this be considered an almost complete overlap?

[CharonY]

The interesting bit is that even in a trait that arguably shows the highest sexual dimorphism, there is still a huge overlap over the middle range. Thus MigL's point largely stands. However, if the difference in this particular trait is already not hugely categorical already (assuming the data is correct), how much smaller do you think are differences in behaviour that are even more subtle (say, withstanding insults).

[iNow]

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

You seem to be so busy defending your position that you aren't taking the time to read (and understand) what others are saying.

QFT

[Javaxcore]

I am no expert, but I would imagine that if you were left without human contact kept healthy and as happy as possible, you wouldn't know what gender was. Happy to be shown evidence to the contrary