1) why do you think women are more spiritual than men?
2) religious texts are largely written (collected in most cases) by people in a position of authority, thus, if women were to write (collect) these volumes, they would be in a position of authority and would be doing so for largely the same reasons as the men who did. Why would we assume they would act any differently?
Originally posted by inimalist
see, I was only making arguements here that I had seen others make, so maybe the lesson is "stick to what you know inimalist, or be made a fool"so, in that light, coming out of a 2nd year course on perception, I understand more about psychophysics than did Fechner or Wundt.
it just doesn't have the same ring though...
Actually, I think your point would have been better made using the second version. That makes perfect sense and no one could functionally argue with that. That second version works, great, because our abilities to observe and measure perception have increased, greatly, since Gustov Fechner's and Wilhelm Wundt's works.
Like I said before, though, your point was not lost on me and it was a good point...I just took a tangential issue with you giving physics students too much credit. 😆
Originally posted by inimalist
no, we can even talk genetically, but I mean more in a behavioural sense. The differences between these men's spatial abilities and what not and women is the same as the difference beween their abilities and that of all other males who don't fall into that category. Them being male, sure, might be a prerequisite of this ability, but being male really has no part in that ability.Its the all X are Y, not all Y are X thing.
Okay, I see your point. I actually understand/knew that before you clarified, but I did not know that that was what you were trying to say.
Also, can you tell me why the top world chess players are male? Why is that? For me, coming from a medical approach, androgen receptors just don't cut it because this is the brain. It's not as simple as saying "well, he has more of a certain complex of receptors than she does." Contrary to the atrocious colloquial saying the brain is NOT a muscle but it would certainly be much easier if i could explain the chess phenom with specific-tissue receptor frequencies by a function of gender. 😬
Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, I think your point would have been better made using the second version. That makes perfect sense and no one could functionally argue with that. That second version works, great, because our abilities to observe and measure perception have increased, greatly, since Gustov Fechner's and Wilhelm Wundt's works.Like I said before, though, your point was not lost on me and it was a good point...I just took a tangential issue with you giving physics students too much credit. 😆
Okay, I see your point. I actually understand/knew that before you clarified, but I did not know that that was what you were trying to say.
Also, can you tell me why the top world chess players are male? Why is that? For me, coming from a medical approach, androgen receptors just don't cut it because this is the brain. It's not as simple as saying "well, he has more of a certain complex of receptors than she does." Contrary to the atrocious colloquial saying the brain is NOT a muscle but it would certainly be much easier if i could explain the chess phenom with specific-tissue receptor frequencies by a function of gender. 😬
Men the selfish ones.
both genders are equally full of shite. look at what some women have done with feminism: they turned it from "equality for women" to "women are superior" (again, i said "some" and not all). not even going to get into the double standards that they've created in everything.
hell, if history and social studies mean anything, then women are just as vicious just from another angle. look at Thatcher. look where exactly colonizations started from (european matriarchy). look at Cleopatra.
btw, there've been plenty of religions that had women as leaders or monks (greece, india, persia, mesopotamia) and they didn't change shite. let's stop pretending that women are noble and more spiritually inclined than men are. they're both equally full of shite.
give a man a child on his lap and lets see how well he plays chess.
Gautama left his wife and kids to go sit on a hill top
Originally posted by Deja~vu
1. I'm not saying that women are more spiritual. I'm saying they have less testosterone.
so?
Originally posted by Deja~vu
2. Monks were not women.
well, yes, but monks also had very little part in the writing or collection of religious texts
Originally posted by alltoomany
Men the selfish ones.
nonsense, though your lack of any evidence indicates this as well
Originally posted by alltoomany
give a man a child on his lap and lets see how well he plays chess.
are you implying that a man can't be a father and also be good at chess?
because that IS sexist and discriminatory. modestly offensive too. I work with many male scientists who are commited fathers, though that is of course anecdotal
Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, I think your point would have been better made using the second version. That makes perfect sense and no one could functionally argue with that. That second version works, great, because our abilities to observe and measure perception have increased, greatly, since Gustov Fechner's and Wilhelm Wundt's works.Like I said before, though, your point was not lost on me and it was a good point...I just took a tangential issue with you giving physics students too much credit. 😆
Oh, it works, just "einstein" and "physics" are things even lay people have heard of. JND, detection thresholds and d', not so much.
for some reason the discovery of tri-chromatic vision ranks lower than theorizing about wave particle duality.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, I see your point. I actually understand/knew that before you clarified, but I did not know that that was what you were trying to say.Also, can you tell me why the top world chess players are male? Why is that? For me, coming from a medical approach, androgen receptors just don't cut it because this is the brain. It's not as simple as saying "well, he has more of a certain complex of receptors than she does." Contrary to the atrocious colloquial saying the brain is NOT a muscle but it would certainly be much easier if i could explain the chess phenom with specific-tissue receptor frequencies by a function of gender. 😬
it wont be a receptor thing at all, or, I guess that might be some type of mechanism or consequence, but just having more of one type of receptor or another isn't going to be the most significant cause. The brain is more about how systems are connected and distributed.
straight up, I don't know, at all. However, I do study attention and other things that are a function of the parietal cortex, so I could speculate. Spatial reasoning skills and things of the like are thought to be governed by the same systems that deal with maths. Chess for sure! It may be that men are better able to utilize this information through greater connectivity between the frontal and parietal lobes, or, somehow information from the spatial systems might be more "salient" to men's decision making processes, or, there just might be a greater amount of cortical area in men's parietal lobes. These aren't mutually exclusive, and actually might all be differnt ways of explaining the same thing, however, I don't think the last option is true (more cortical mass), and the second seems off, given how much variability there is within gender in terms of decision making... My guess is that it has to do with greater connectivity in some type of distributed spatial-frontal network.
Though, again, just to stress, we would probably find just as much difference between these chess playing men and women as we would between them and other men. Even if it is the distributed network thing, it is probably safe to assume that you brain or mine are not wired in such a way.
I'm also not 100% convinced that it is genetic, but I do lean that way.
Originally posted by inimalist
1) why do you think women are more spiritual than men?2) religious texts are largely written (collected in most cases) by people in a position of authority, thus, if women were to write (collect) these volumes, they would be in a position of authority and would be doing so for largely the same reasons as the men who did. Why would we assume they would act any differently?
You don't think that many religious edicts regarding how women should conduct themselves would be different if women had a direct hand in it? Take Sharia for example: during a trial, a woman's word is worth only half that as a man's. Or during cases of rape, a woman must bring not one, not two, not three, but four witnesses to testify on her behalf, or else she won't have a case, and the rapist will walk.
I'm no scholar or any kind of expert on the matter, but I have a distinct feeling that if women had any hand in the matter, things would be a tad different. (Call it a hunch)