Reclaiming (evolutionary) biology! (thinking about what Heather Brunskell Evans said)

I wonder if some gendered behaviour in animals is in some ways socialised too. Many seem to know straight away if a newborn is male or female. Often males born are in danger from older males who sometimes kill the helpless little thing before he becomes a threat. It must make mother hippos, for example, treat their sons differently from their daughters.

I don't think it has to be rational and conscious to be learned rather than innate.

Yes, I agree it's very much peer-group enforced. Children at that age seem to be very much into categorising everything, as a natural psychological process of making sense of the overwhelming amount of information they're receiving about the world around them. So they might not at first distinguish between dogs and cats, for example, but they quickly learn that there are lots of categories of animals, and what distinguishes them.

there's been some fascinating work about how young children seem to have an innate tendency to be "essentialist" in their thinking, which could be part of what causes this heavy insistence on differences between boys and girls - they are perhaps predisposed to look for/believe in deep "essences" for categorisation. So pre-schoolers tend to believe that a Chinese baby raised by English-speaking parents would speak Chinese rather than English, for example. The second paragraph of this article gives some examples of this:

www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/79159

I'm not trying to sound defeatist, though, because children's conceptualisations do change and mature as they get older - well, obviously, in the example of native language! But how to deal with/prevent early bullying around this issue is a difficult one.

Socialisation has so much to do with gendering. I say that as a mum.

It is really sad for parents to bring a lovely, sensitive son into the world, then he comes back from nursery as a boorish, confrontational little dickhead. It's the peer group socialisation. Kids pick on each other for liking girls stuff or boys stuff and it's hard for teachers to prevent it. If you have to discipline kids for bullying about gender non-conformity then it is too late. A child is going to have been shamed and it only needs to happen once to scar them for life and have a permanent impact on their behaviour.

Also knowing kids from playgroup, growing through nursery, then school, the gendered behaviour definitely widens. You also notice a difference in girls who have older brothers and boys with older sisters in that they tend to emulate them and defy their own gender stereotypes a bit. You also notice a difference in the kinds of toys parents have in the home depending on whether their eldest child is a boy or a girl.

I feel hugely uncomfortable about reducing the impact of socialisation. For me, I didn't even consider myself a tomboy, I had hobbies and interests but many things I didn't pursue because I was scared to be gender-defying. I still feel bitter about pretending to want a shite Raleigh Sapphire when I actually wanted a BMX. God I fucking hated that thing. I also feel depressed to think of all the shite I did -going through the motions, not being into it, ballet, playing with fucking dolls for God's sake, so depressing.

I just don't see the obvious boy/girl differences at baby/toddler level.

The chimps definitely learn from each other. Using grass stalks to tease termites out of the nest, for instance, is almost certainly ‘cultural’.

It’s interesting how so many modern primatologists are women too:

Women receive the majority of Ph.Ds in primatology. Londa Schiebinger, writing in 2001, estimated that women made up 80 percent of graduate students pursuing Ph.Ds in primatology, up from 50 percent in the 1970s. Because of the high number of women, Schiebinger has even asserted that “Primatology is widely celebrated as a feminist science”.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primatology

Thank-you for that link Manderleyagain. All feminists should watch it and I agree with the title of the video, 'Feminism is ignorant about modern science'

www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7Q9GvR1Mnk

So many on here are desperate to defend the lie that the majority of differences observed between the sexes is down to socialisation. As Kestral pointed out, that lie is often exposed when us women have children.

This thread, and similiar threads, has reminded me why I always had a problem with feminism. So much of it is built on an ideology that has been created by female academics with little real life experience. I never felt they spoke for me and I don't think it's coincidence that so many of the big name feminists have no children.

To be honest I'm cross that a baseless ideology has been allowed to shape social policy for so many decades but I'll be even crosser if the new baseless trans ideology shapes social policy in the future.

A group of predominately childless female academics is slightly preferable to a group of predominately childless male academics.

But in my ideal world I would re educate all those feminists. I wouldn't chose a gulag but I'd send them all to work in a nursery for 6 months. I bet none would come out believing in that socialisation baloney.

I mean, some might argue that because they're animals, all that intricate social behaviour must be driven by instinct, which shows that, theoretically, instinct could underlie (at least) a lot of our social behaviour. And I think that's true of some things at least, like our need to be part of a group, especially when younger.

But on the other hand, chimpanzees supposedly have the intelligence of a 3 year old human, so there would seem to be a fair amount of thinking involved as well? Although I don't know if that intelligence extends across all domains...

Social behaviour among chimps is amazingly sophisticated. I read jane Goodall's two books about observing a troupe of chimps in the wild, and honestly it's like reading a soap opera. She had names for all of them, and described their behaviour, relationships and personalities so well. She was criticised for this 'unscientific' behaviour, but it certainly made her books extremely readable!

There are a lot of parallels with human behaviour, but of course chimps are our distant cousins, not ancestors. It's easy to think: 'oh, they're so much like us in some ways' - but I'm not sure what conclusions can really be drawn from that.

The first episode of Dynasties is about the struggle for primacy among chimps.

What surprised me is that it’s not just about naked aggression even among male chimps, it’s about 🍋making alliances.

Strength and intimidation will only get you so far. Sometimes you have to be prepared to pick fleas off your colleagues.

I was also impressed at how the male chimps banded together in order to defend an elderly female chimp on whom a younger male chimp was taking out his aggression.

"I think a lot of sexual jealousy for example is a manifestation of mate guarding instinct."

Sure, and the fact that sexual jealousy is common in both males and females indicates something interesting - that both sexes are sexually competitive and choosy (aka they are driven to find a great mate and to keep them focused on the family as it were).

This is in stark contrast to many mammals where only the males are competitive and the females are choosy. That is, where male and female interests are more opposed.

The pattern seen in humans is also seen in other primarily monogamous species (with occasional extrapair matings) such as many aquatic birds.

ElonMusk

Now thats all out the window but our psychology still has maybe hang ups about sex that don't apply ?

Yes, that too makes a lot of sense to me. And I think younger people try to overcome those hang ups by sheer force of will, only to find very often that you just can't, because they're so deep-rooted. And I agree with you about the root of men's sexual jealousy, because how else to explain how often it is so utterly intense and irrational?

But as you point out, we also have evolved very sophisticated brains that can to some extent over-ride these psychological feelings, or at least prevent us from acting on them in a way that damages others or ourselves.

ManderleyAgain

The humanities and social sciences have abandoned the idea that we are animals.

Humanities definitely have, and I'm not at all surprised at your examples of lead balloons. Social sciences vary, however - cultural anthropologists tend to be very anti-innateness. Psychology, on the other hand, has begun adjusting to the evidence regarding heritability, which of course implies some things are partially innate. There are still some hold-outs, particularly among therapists who are invested in the theory that psychological problems are all Mum's/Dad's fault, but things have been moving in the right direction for a while.

AspieandProud

Yes, thinking about our unadaptedness to modern society is fascinating! It makes a lot of sense. The current maladaptiveness of our craving for sugar is a striking and example, IMO.

Just a thought. We are evolutionarily adapted to an earlier environment, not to the present. We are stil primed to panic at the rustling of the grass. We haven’t stopped evolving but our bodies are logging begins. That’s why we are stressed out most of the time (or maybe that’s just me!)

I have read the OP and only skimmed the thread, but this reminded me of something I listened to ages ago. An I Our Time conversation between Germaine Greer and Helena Cronin (Darwinian philosopher) from 1999.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00545b0
I looked up Helena Cronin and there is a recent talk too, rather annoyingly called on youtube 'Feminism is ignorant about modern science':

At a conference recently ish (in the humanities) an audience member said she thought young children (not making a gender point as it happens) have an innate desire to care for other things which is played out through toys/pets etc. That sounds likely to me. But it went down like a lead balloon with the speakers. A long time ago I saw the same in reference to psychological studies which show that the ability to override impulse may be heritable - also went down badly in a room full of academics in the humanities. The humanities and social sciences have abandoned the idea that we are animals. It is much easier to view power relations as purely a result of culture and language if you forget they we are animals.

Fascinating thread.

I had always thought a lot of the behaviours stereotypically associated with each sex had a lot of evolutionary truth to them. However our brains and ideas evolve much faster than the rest of our biology...or parts of our brain maybe ?

I think a lot of sexual jealousy for example is a manifestation of mate guarding instinct.

I find it fascinating to consider how contraception and particularly the birth control pill has changed the reality of sexual intercourse. Like we are perhaps evolved to have hang ups about sex and certainly not to be having sex with men whom we did not want to get pregnant by given the cost etc. Now thats all out the window but our psychology still has maybe hang ups about sex that don't apply ? Out great grandmother's did not have to deal with the possibility of their partners having had sex with dozens of women prior to them for example.

I think a result is that people now think a lot more about sex than they used to. In the past I suppose they would accept you don't do it unless babies.

LangCleg Only part way through that interview, but just wanted to say it's really, really interesting. And I laughed out loud at the inspired phrase "self-appointed ideological beadles"!

Dealing with a shed load of illnesses in this house so can't follow the discussion well but I'm watching this as mentioned on WH. Couple of early nods to basic genetic temperament in a baby leading to then how we respond to shape that temperament and possibly going to cover gender bias/ stereotypes and other biases. Might include some bits pertinent to the ideas here.

Babies: Their Wonderful World, Series 1: 1. Becoming You: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bt7v16 via @bbciplayer

Just copy pasted reply in the other thread to here. This is a response specifically to the article by Colin Wright which was linked above.

I have to call BS on some of Wright's claims in this article. In general his claims are based on research in animals, where one can do a common garden type experiment to tease out sex differences if desired. These experiments are not possible in humans, for obvious ethical and societal reasons.

"the evidence for innate sex-linked personality differences in humans is overwhelmingly strong."

In humans, sex differences in personality traits are persistent and measurable (though quantitative, not qualitative as he admits). This is not the same as innate unless one does a proper environmental control. Which is not possible in humans as discussed above.

"Sex-linked personality differences are very well documented in our closest primate relatives, too, and the presence of sexual dimorphism ... dramatically intensifies these differences... Given that humans are sexually dimorphic and exhibit many of the typical sex-linked behavioral traits..."

Wright fails to acknowledge that humans have experienced recent evolution of reduced sexual dimorphism as monogamy with biparental care has become the main mode of reproduction in the human lineage. This is similar to what happens in pair-bonding birds. If anything, we should expect that compared to other mammals and primates, humans will have less intense sex differences in behavior (much like albatrosses have fewer sexually dimorphic behaviors than do, say, peacocks).

"social justice view ... insists that humans are special in that evolution has played no role in shaping observed sex-linked behavioral differences"

A ridiculous strawman. The PoV opposite his is that there is no evidence - and really cannot be in humans - that any specific sex-associated behavior is innate versus learned. Because the experiments we would do in animals to tease these out are unethical. Most Evolutionary Biologists (including those he derides) would assume that any behavioral trait in humans is due to a combination of environmental, genetic, and gene by environment factors - but would also know as he apparently doe snot, that teasing this out is not possible.
(Note also that "sex-linked" is not the correct terminology for what he means).

I do agree of course, with his view that sex is not socially constructed.

The traditional tool for teasing out environmental influences was twin studies.

Find a pair of identical twins brought up separately and see how they turned out.

That's not how twin studies are generally done. There are not enough identical twins separated at birth to be able to perform any group-wide analysis on them.

What twin studies actually do is to compare monzygotic (identical) twins with dizygotic (fraternal) twins. Monozygotic twins share 100% of their genetic make-up, whereas dizygotic twins share only 50%, so if monozygotic twins are more similar on some particular measure than dizygotic twins, that is taken as evidence that there is some heritable component to what was measured.

Whatever’s there. Autism, for one thing, seems to effect more men than women, and is more socially impairing, even if it is under diagnosed in girls.

I agree more research into autism and other conditions is necessary, as is tailoring ways to detect, manage and treat conditions for both sexes so that girls don't get overlooked. It is also important to keep an open mind as to whether there are biological and/or envionmental/sociological reasons boys and girls present differently.

I also agree with you about brain size. It is like height. Women just tend to have smaller skulls but because some men also do, you can't use it as definitive evidence of brain sex.

3) Because if we put all our eggs into the basket of "all sex differences are due to socialisation, and that's why women should be treated equally", what happens to our case if science later reveals that actually there are some significant differences?

I was going to make this point too. Treating people equally is a moral imperative rather than something that rests on the assumption that we are all exactly the same. If that assumption proves unfounded then the moral case would be undermined. We have to treat people equally even if it turns out we are not the same.

And treating people equally means that you don’t get a free pass just because you have a higher level of testosterone that contributes to that behaviour.

Is that what you're reading about, or is it other aspects?

Other aspects. Mostly based on ethnographical research and often rooted in materialist leftist politics. It is not particularly feminism-friendly - tending to see all waves of feminism as identity politics. Good interview with a prominent academic in the field here:

www.injustice-film.com/2018/01/02/interview-prof-steve-hall-ultra-realist-criminology/

You already can tell the difference between a male and female brain. They both weigh the same but women's are smaller and denser. No new-fangled science required.

Size is only a statistical difference. A brain isn’t female just because it’s smaller or has denser folds.

Can’t remember the name but there was a male novelist, considered a literary genius in his time, who turned out to have a tiny brain when they autopsied him.

What other brain differences are you looking for?

Whatever’s there. Autism, for one thing, seems to effect more men than women, and is more socially impairing, even if it is under diagnosed in girls.

Also drugs effect men and women differently. If you want to treat depression or schizophrenia you need to know about brain differences.

One of the problems with studying drugs for depression or schizophrenia is that they were generally tested on men. If there isn’t a sex difference then that wouldn’t matter.

A lot of the objections to research like this seems to echo the objections to evolution. That’s what the Scopes trial was about. If we are just apes what’s to stop killing or throwing feces at each other?

But admitting we are animals doesn’t mean abandoning the fact we are capable of rational behaviour.

So anyway. I would say. Of course men are more violent!

What I have found quite interesting though through chatting to a lot of people is often the blokes who are enormous naturally (not through taking roids or endless working out) are often quite peaceful men who just got their job as a bouncer or whatever because they look the part. That was a real eye-opener for me about masculinity. I remember this one bouncer lamenting how his dad never said anything positive to him as a kid and he seemed to have this forgotten artist in him longing to be actualised. Bless him. Then at the opposite end you can get men who are slightly built, fairly hairless who spend all their time watching violent porn and lose their temper in a flash.

I believe a lot of male violence and misogyny is actually peer group socialised rather than being something parents can do much about though.

Good luck with the shopping.

My money is on hormones affecting the brain, mixed with socialisation, environmental privileges and having a male body which is bigger and stronger than women's, with no vulnerability about becoming pregnant and with an added dick and a gnawing, near constant urge to stick it in things.