 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / August 2009Re: OT - Common Sex Based Differences
Let's see if I have this right: Doug A: The differences between individual members of the same sex are greater than the differences between the sexes, therefore, any such generalizations about (some alleged) "sex-based differences" are meaningless. I disagree wholeheartedly with the above. (It's much too simplistic). On Aug 19, 5:26 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Let's see if I have this right: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I disagree wholeheartedly with the above. (It's much too simplistic). I have to say I think the intra- differences are likely about the same as the inter-differences between genders. I also have to say that one can generalize about both inter and intra based sexual (tho I probably mean more like gender) differences. > On Aug 19, 5:26 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I have to say I think the intra- differences are likely about the same > as the inter-differences between genders. NOT taken as a group, however. > I also have to say that one can generalize about both inter and intra > based sexual (tho I probably mean more like gender) differences. > On Aug 19, 5:26 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I also have to say that one can generalize about both inter and intra > based sexual (tho I probably mean more like gender) differences. Fill - I think you are spot on with the "differences" statement. I wanted to say "something" on this thread, but you certainly did a good job moreso than what I was considering. I don't believe in my zone of experience that I could categorically state males or females are "X" way. It's much easier to pigeon hole someone into being anal or not (gender blind). I just happen to like the opposite sex with more of an eye towards a relationship. So sue me. I will point out I also like the opposite sex in a friendship way as they seam to relate better to what I think and feel. Bob > Let's see if I have this right: > > Doug A: The differences between individual members of the same sex are > greater than the differences between the sexes, Yes. > therefore, any such > generalizations about (some alleged) "sex-based differences" are > meaningless. No. You got 50% on your reading comprehension exam. Not so good. >> Let's see if I have this right: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You got 50% on your reading comprehension exam. Not so good. No, reread what I wrote. I said, any SUCH generalizations (like some of the ones we've been discussing as a group). Not "any" generalizations. I'm taking 20% off your reading exam. > >> Let's see if I have this right: > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the ones we've been discussing as a group). Not "any" > generalizations. And I'm saying that you got part of what I said right, and part of it wrong. Strangely, I'm telling you that you did not correctly summarize what I believe, and you are contradicting me. You live in a very surreal world. >>>> Let's see if I have this right: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > You live in a very surreal world. I sincerely hope so. Maybe I'm stuck in those Green Mansions. OK. Here's another summary, using a more concrete example. Doug A - presumably you would say this: The differences in physical strength between members of the same sex are greater than the (average) difference in physical strength between sexes, therefore to make any such generalizations (about any such sex based differences) is meaningless. > OK. Here's another summary, using a more concrete example. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > therefore to make any such generalizations (about any such sex based > differences) is meaningless. No, I wouldn't say this. This is something concrete and measurable, and that has been repeatedly measured. It doesn't make sense to say "men are stronger than women" but it does make sense to say "on average, men are physically stronger than women" and to say "the strongest men in most areas are stronger than the stronger women in the same areas." For this summary, I'll have to give your reading comprehension more like 10%, sadly. I've been specific that I'm talking about generalizations about personality and talents, and not about the obvious physical differences. >> OK. Here's another summary, using a more concrete example. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > women" and to say "the strongest men in most areas are stronger than > the stronger women in the same areas." Which is effectively what I have said, but perhaps not so clearly. I certainly don't dispute that. (But if you think I do or did, it was you who had the reading problem here, not me). > For this summary, I'll have to give your reading comprehension more > like 10%, sadly. > > I've been specific that I'm talking about generalizations about > personality and talents, and not about the obvious physical differences. But we can ALSO talk about some of those characteristics, TOO, a point that you have completely ruled out. And THAT is what you are missing and/or dismissing - carte blanche. Example: being the primary caregiver or caretaker. Another example: being able to communicate with each other better, on an emotional level. BOTH are classic examples weighted more heavily in favor of women, due to BOTH nature and nurture (and NOT just one or the other, as I have *repeatedl* asserted). This has nothing to do with the individual differences within members of the same sex - that is ancilliary to MY generalization. <snip - this reply is a bit OT but on the same theme.> A book that helped us a lot was "Why Men don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps" by Piesse. Apparently there are two versions out. We were given the full version to read, but I have seen an abbreviated one in the shops. Why Men Don't Listen: When a man has a problem to solve, another man will suggest solutions. When a woman has a problem to solve, she wants to talk it out to a listening audience. If her husband (quite naturally) suggests solutions, he isn't "listening" as she expects him to, or wants him to. Reading Maps: A woman tends to turn a road map so that the direction they are travelling is towards the top of the map. A man can navigate with the map the right way up. My wife and I are the other way around in that regard, as we tend to be in a few things. (But we are still "one of each." Perhaps that ties in with why we match so well, as we have always sensed.) There are a few similar issues dealt with. Our own example just stresses that they are general rules only, but more one way than the other (which is what this protracted debate is all about.) But the book made us realise that in some ways, we do look at things quite differently. That seems to be the key to better marital communication, and for the purposes of this newsgroup, the issue of what can be established scientifically is a bit of a distraction. Doug and I both believe that we have to deal with the person or couple that we are talking to, and not try to squeeze square pegs into round holes. But what I am also saying, and I agree with Bill here, is that I can have a preconceived notion of the shape of the "hole," so long as I am willing to modify it according to what I actually observe. In that sense, I don't really care what the statistics are. I only need to be aware of my own preconceptions, as Doug is aware of his. This is particularly important for counsellors. I acknowledge that preconceived notions can be dangerous. A man I know has bad osteoporosis. Because he was a man, none of his doctors thought it a possibility. They should have - he was taking a course of prednisolone, and it is a known side effect. An orthopedic surgeon picked it up. Lateral thinking is required. Doug L. > <snip - this reply is a bit OT but on the same theme.> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > solutions, he isn't "listening" as she expects him to, or wants him > to. Definitely good that this book helped you out. This doesn't mean that it is correct about _all_ men and women - it just means that it is correct about you and your wife. > Reading Maps: A woman tends to turn a road map so that the direction they > are travelling is towards the top of the map. This is nonsense. I don't know any women who consistently do that, and of course I know men (including myself) who occasionally do that. I don't even believe this counts as a tendency. > A man can navigate with the > map the right way up. My wife and I are the other way around in that > regard, as we tend to be in a few things. Alright, so even _you_ realize that these stereotypes are meaningless. > (But we are still "one of each." > Perhaps that ties in with why we match so well, as we have always [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what this protracted debate is all about.) But the book made us realise > that in some ways, we do look at things quite differently. To me, this is the valuable point. Not that men and women look at things differently because there is a "man" way to do things and a "woman" way to do things. But rather that there is more than one way to look at things, and on the marriage front, one has to understand that one's spouse may not look at things the same way. > That seems to be > the key to better marital communication, and for the purposes of this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > preconceptions, as Doug is aware of his. This is particularly important for > counsellors. I suppose that can work. I think a far better way for a counsellor to work is to be knowledgable about the variation, without making assumptions beforehand about how a given person is going to fit into the variation. > I acknowledge that preconceived notions can be dangerous. A man I know has > bad osteoporosis. Because he was a man, none of his doctors thought it a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Doug L. <snipped, to cut directly to a very sage point> > But rather that there is more than one way to look at things... I think we can agree on that! But it's somewhat incomplete, and so I'd add: "There is more than one way to look at things, or to not look at things, and that choice is in the mind of the beholder..." Doug Anderson wrote: <snipped, to cut directly to a very sage point> > But rather, that there is more than one way to look at things... I think we can agree on that. But alas, it's somewhat incomplete, and so I'd add: "There is more than one way to look at things, or to NOT look at things, and that choice is in the eyes of the beholder..." Or, alternatively, We see what we want to see, and [sometimes seemingly] ONLY what we want to see..." [ed, rev1] > <snip - this reply is a bit OT but on the same theme.> > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Doug L. Another example, from a different situation: According to the book, men tend to give directions along the lines of: Go 500 meters, then turn left, etc. Women navigate by landmarks. On duty at our Visitor Information Centre, I was trying to direct a couple the male way, and not getting far. My woman colleague intervened and said she would direct the wife the women's way: "You go past Katies women's clothing franchise then Myers Department store, etc. ..." And she probably hadn't heard of the book. Once again, there will be exceptions. Doug L. > A book that helped us a lot was "Why Men don't Listen and Women Can't Read > Maps" by Piesse. Apparently there are two versions out. We were given the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it out to a listening audience. If her husband (quite naturally) suggests > solutions, he isn't "listening" as she expects him to, or wants him to. I read about that in the "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" series of books. I try to ask my wife "So are you doing that sounding board thing or are you asking for technical help?" I have learned that with the sounding board thing I ask for repeats and clarifications and doing that I can often steer her towards solutions when I think a problem does need a solution. I think a problem needs a solution more often than she does. ;^) > Reading Maps: A woman tends to turn a road map so that the direction they > are travelling is towards the top of the map. A man can navigate with the > map the right way up. Sigh. If I were like that I'd be able to play that old video game Asteriods a lot better. > My wife and I are the other way around in that > regard, as we tend to be in a few things. (But we are still "one of each." > Perhaps that ties in with why we match so well, as we have always sensed.) It's interesting to note that our Garmin GPS unit tilts the map so the direction it thinks the car is moving is up. It works for both of us. > Doug Anderson wrote: >> Doug Laidlaw <blackhole@afraid.org> writes: [quoted text clipped - 277 lines] >> stereotype is. No one has any hard evidence, exceptions are >> incredibly common... A general comment here (not in specific reference to this one case): The fact that exceptions exist in the minority of cases does not mean the stereotype is baseless or useless. You seem to be missing that point. In other words, you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Doug Anderson wrote: >> Doug Laidlaw <blackhole@afraid.org> writes: >> [quoted text clipped - 294 lines] >> You misunderstand then. I think stereotypes based on unverified >> assertions about personality difference between the sexes are useless, That is a debateable point! And I wholeheartedly disagree. >> because of my point 1 above (the variation within each sex is larger >> than the difference between them). The fact that variations between the same sex may be so large does not mean that the generalization I stated is baseless or useless. You seem to be missing that point. Again, you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It's a black and white, all or nothing, way of looking at this. >>> You may have >>> been saying only that the statistical difference is so slight as to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> to understand. But I don't think we should confuse our stereotypes >> and prejudices for real knowledge.o And just WHO has this "real knowledge"???? (rhetorical) Let's try it again, because apparently it was too lengthy for some to follow, so I've snipped the heck out of it: Doug Anderson wrote: > Doug Laidlaw <blackhole@afraid.org> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stereotype is. No one has any hard evidence, exceptions are > incredibly common... A general comment here (not in specific reference to this one case): The fact that exceptions exist in the minority of cases does not mean the stereotype is baseless or useless. You seem to be missing that point. Let's try it again, because apparently it was too lengthy for some to follow, so I've snipped the heck out of it: Doug Anderson wrote: >> Doug Laidlaw <blackhole@afraid.org> writes: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> who fail to satisfy those stereotypes should tell you that these >> stereotypes are flawed. If by "flawed" you mean they are not true for all cases, all the time, yes. But that's not what it means. When are stereotypes true for all cases? They generally aren't, but that does NOT mean they are useless. >> I don't feel acrimonious. I do feel like neither Bill nor your are >> able to present any clear evidence of the sorts of differences you >> talk about. Clear evidence (for example) that ... women tend to be the primary caregivers and caretakers in society? Are you seriously denying that? >>> You believe that the differences we talk about don't exist to a >>> material extent. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> You misunderstand then. I think stereotypes based on unverified >> assertions about personality difference between the sexes are useless, That is precisely a debateable point! And I wholeheartedly disagree. >> because of my point 1 above (the variation within each sex is larger >> than the difference between them). The fact that variations between the same sex may be so large does NOT mean that the generalization I stated is baseless or useless. And you seem to be missing that point. >>> You may have >>> been saying only that the statistical difference is so slight as to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> to understand. But I don't think we should confuse our stereotypes >> and prejudices for real knowledge.o And just WHO has this "real knowledge"???? (rhetorical) (and still unanswered) Am I correct here? Sarah Lister wrote: >> On Aug 25, 10:05 am, SamIAm <iam...@drseus.com> wrote: >>> Sarah Lister wrote: [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] >> lurking in my brain I don't try to shore them up and defend them and >> make a case that the people that they don't fit don't count. Who said that?? That "someone doesn't count"?? THAT is something you made up - it was not in there. And that's what I'm talking about when I mentioned to DA about "reading things into things that are not even there". They are figments of one's own [creative] imagination, n'est pas? Que Pasa? Everyone on vacation?? Seems kinda quiet in here, lately! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.