tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post116778625660344545..comments2023-12-17T19:35:07.459-08:00Comments on Bouphonia: The Innate Psychology of WomenPhilahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167957180350273982007-01-04T16:33:00.000-08:002007-01-04T16:33:00.000-08:00A request: please don't use Goedel's theorem in th...<I>A request: please don't use Goedel's theorem in these kinds of arguments. It really doesn't say what you think it says, and it causes me close-to-physical pain to see it used in an otherwise sensible argument. </I><BR/><BR/>If you mean science is not a formal system in the same way mathematics is, I would agree Godel's theorem is not applicable. I consider, in blog disscussions, however, a metaphor for a far more complex argument that all forms of reason incorporate other fields of understanding, because no one field owns a monopoly on all human knowledge. Using empiricism, Hume established that nothing can be said about any topic worth considering, and therefore philosophy was useless. What he's often accused of establishing, and he didn't, was that we can't talk about anything at all. But as Hume recognized (how can anyone deny it?), no field of human endeavor, even philosophy, encompasses the whole of human experience.<BR/><BR/>And whenever I encounter someone who thinks science does just that, well.....Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167937055828001012007-01-04T10:57:00.000-08:002007-01-04T10:57:00.000-08:00A request: please don't use Goedel's theorem in th...A request: please don't use Goedel's theorem in these kinds of arguments. It really doesn't say what you think it says, and it causes me close-to-physical pain to see it used in an otherwise sensible argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167916920730057992007-01-04T05:22:00.000-08:002007-01-04T05:22:00.000-08:00Alternatively, one might try a study focusing on w...Alternatively, one might try a study focusing on why men are having so many fewer children now that they have access to contraception and internet pornography. Perhaps the community records of a 17th-century Hasidic community in northwestern Rumania would be the best source of data?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167882798997612772007-01-03T19:53:00.000-08:002007-01-03T19:53:00.000-08:00Thanks for the comments!What seems obvious to me i...Thanks for the comments!<BR/><BR/>What seems obvious to me is that it's politically and scientifically dubious to assume that the reproductive behavior well-off women are displaying <I>now</I> is a hangover from the past. There are lots of reasons to consider this...um...premature. Given the number of things that can affect a woman's willingness to be impregnated, it's far from objective to pursue this sort of explanation before, say, cultural ones.<BR/><BR/>I'd also tentatively question the extent to which Mormons could be described as "preindustral" - especially in the years between 1875 and 1895 - and the claim that their earlier, closely knit communitarian society had nothing that could be described as day care.<BR/><BR/>And last, I think it'd be reasonably scientific to ask women who aren't having lots of kids <I>why</I> they're not having lots of kids. You know...just to see what they say.Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167874012881637942007-01-03T17:26:00.001-08:002007-01-03T17:26:00.001-08:00"What makes women so goddamn picky about the peopl..."What makes women so goddamn picky about the people they're willing to have sex with, even though it seems eminently reasonable that they should toss it up to anyone who wants it?"<BR/><BR/><BR/>Some of us are choosy. Sue us!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167874000837048882007-01-03T17:26:00.000-08:002007-01-03T17:26:00.000-08:00Studying Mormon couples? To find out about the "in...<I>Studying Mormon couples? To find out about the "innate psychology of women"? hmm</I><BR/><BR/>Just so. <BR/><BR/>The study is plainly skewed if it didn't also take in Mormon triples, quadruples, quintuples and ... what's the noun for "53 people in a marriage"?Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03497633585969336572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167872434345330612007-01-03T17:00:00.000-08:002007-01-03T17:00:00.000-08:00"...why women all over the world have been having ..."...why women all over the world have been having fewer children whenever they get access to contraception..."<BR/><BR/>ummmm, because contraception is...ah...um...contraceptive?<BR/><BR/>"...why women all over the world have been having fewer children whenever they get...more education..."<BR/><BR/>ummmm, because it opens their lives to more options/possibilities than motherhood?<BR/><BR/>gads, why do highly educated people so frequently overlook common-sense answers to simple questions?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167869199594394042007-01-03T16:06:00.000-08:002007-01-03T16:06:00.000-08:00I'm not aware that there is any such thing as an "...<I>I'm not aware that there is any such thing as an "innate psychology" of an anything.</I><BR/><BR/>What? Everything with a mind has an innate psychology. What are you talking about? <BR/><BR/>How do you think you, e.g., know how to speak?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167868572242080782007-01-03T15:56:00.000-08:002007-01-03T15:56:00.000-08:00Well *I* thought the post is plenty scientific...Well *I* thought the post is plenty scientific...Thershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14072224569922847217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167866526488077222007-01-03T15:22:00.000-08:002007-01-03T15:22:00.000-08:00I see no obvious reason why the advantages of two-...<I>I see no obvious reason why the advantages of two-legged walking among communities in past societies should've created "selective pressures" favoring bipedalism in modern industrialized societies.</I><BR/><BR/>First, tell me if you notice any difference between pioneer communities with very limited resources and "modern industrialized societies." Then, tell me how you reconcile the findings here with findings that consistently show <A HREF="http://devdata.worldbank.org/wdi2006/contents/Section1_1_5.htm" REL="nofollow">higher birth rates</A> in countries with fewer resources.<BR/><BR/>Sheesh.Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167865905223975452007-01-03T15:11:00.000-08:002007-01-03T15:11:00.000-08:00(I think I've found Dennett's target audience, btw...<I>(I think I've found Dennett's target audience, btw.)</I><BR/><BR/>[insert smiley face here]Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167865813495109292007-01-03T15:10:00.001-08:002007-01-03T15:10:00.001-08:00This research is so incredibly wrongheaded for so ...This research is so incredibly wrongheaded for so many reasons. <BR/><BR/>Using 19th century Mormon women is so wrong on the face of it because it fails to control for one very important factor that *reduced* the number of children born per mother.<BR/><BR/>That factor was *polygamy* and the reduced access that each woman had to her husband overall when she was in competition with other women (even if they switched off every night as was one practice).<BR/><BR/>It's already been determined that Mormon women in polygamous marriages had fewer children than their monogamous sisters. It's been a long time since I read the study, so I do not remember the reasons why that was the case. I do know that polygamous women more often than not ended up having to work in ways that their monogamous sisters back East did not, simply because if they didn't, they wouldn't eat. Other polygamous women worked for wages, ran boarding houses and otherwised worked their butts off to keep their families going, because their husbands, unless they were wealthy, could not provide so much support for the family.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, after the death of Brigham Young in 1877, the US government began a significant campaign to arrest, try, convict and incarcerate polygamous men. Even if they didn't end up in stripes at the prison in Sugar House, men had to stay away from their wives and families for months or even years on end. Conversely, families dispersed to Canada and Mexico to avoid polygamy prosecutions. (It was apparently legal to have one family in Canada, one family in the US and a third in Mexico, and husbands would travel in between.) This polyg hunt went on intensely from 1877 to 1890 and less intensely from 1890 to about 1906, when it slacked off until about 1930. At that time, the Mormon church had so disposed of polygamy that leaders had no problem assisting state authorities in rooting out polygamists and sending them to prison.<BR/><BR/>All of this led to limited access for wives to their husbands, and as a result, a lower rate of birth (even so, still high compared to the 20th century). <BR/><BR/>Using Mormon women is so atypical to most (at least) Western womens' experience that it should disqualify this study right out of the gate. I know why they used Mormon women, because the genealogy for these women has been done in a most meticulous fashion. But failing to control for polygamy is just nuts. I don't know *how* you could control for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167865801626418712007-01-03T15:10:00.000-08:002007-01-03T15:10:00.000-08:00doesn't it make sense that women would choose to c...<I>doesn't it make sense that women would choose to control the one area in which they can extend their life by reducing the number of chances they take that might result in death?</I><BR/><BR/>In theory, sure. In practice, en masse, and to an extent that necessarily overrides proximate causes? Maybe not so much.<BR/><BR/>Some women report that they can't actually afford to have kids, financially speaking. Others feel that, in comparison to earlier generations, they can choose not to have children without suffering certain types of censure. I don't think it's "anti-reductionist" to point those aspects of human culture. Quite the opposite, in fact.Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167865472040344332007-01-03T15:04:00.000-08:002007-01-03T15:04:00.000-08:00Last anony post was me.Last anony post was me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167865374421592562007-01-03T15:02:00.000-08:002007-01-03T15:02:00.000-08:00Oh, and the problem with being reductionist is not...Oh, and the problem with being reductionist is not that it reduces illogical or inaccurate answers out of existence, but merely that it excludes them from consideration.<BR/><BR/>All formal systems of thought do that, of course. As Godel established, any formal system can generate a statement which can only be answered by appeal to a meta-system to that system. So science, as any other philosophy, is inherently limited an incapable of answering questions it can raise (the same is true, of course, of formal logic; which is why it is a useless tool for truth divination, but can tell you whether or not a statement made within the terms of the formal structure is valid or not).<BR/><BR/>Science can do no more than that: tell you what is valid within the terms it covers. Is it true that human beings are merely thermodynamic machines? Science cannot answer. It may be able to say whether or not that conclusion is valid, as a scientific statement. But it cannot say the statement is true.<BR/><BR/>And trying to say that it can, is neither materialism or reductionism. It is simply an error in understanding.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167865240501028562007-01-03T15:00:00.000-08:002007-01-03T15:00:00.000-08:00So when female chimps typically die around the ons...<I>So when female chimps typically die around the onset of menopause, it's not inaccurate to say that "humans experience [menopause] but chimps and many other species do not."</I><BR/><BR/>No, it's not inaccurate. Just somewhat misleading.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for splitting that hair, all the same.Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167865163837459402007-01-03T14:59:00.000-08:002007-01-03T14:59:00.000-08:00"This difference in cost between men and women fit...<I>"This difference in cost between men and women fits with evolutionary explanations for the observation that women tend to be choosier than men when selecting mates."</I><BR/><BR/><I>That's not quite clear, since at least one of the traditional criteria for female "choosiness" (reproductive vim and vigor) seems in this case to result not only in early mortality for the mother, but a poor prognosis for her offspring:</I><BR/><BR/> <I>[T]he more offspring parents had, the less likely each child was to survive to reproductive age.</I><BR/><BR/>The leap from "Vim and Vigor" to having more kids, is perhaps not well justified. Even if it turns out to be true, which seems likely, then the chance of children surving to reproductive age is not the evolutionarily important statistic. <BR/><BR/>Rather, the number of children who survive to reproductive age is the important measure. This number does <I>not</I> always go down as the number of children goes up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167865079910748042007-01-03T14:57:00.000-08:002007-01-03T14:57:00.000-08:00Sorry, but the field is so rich, and there's just ...Sorry, but the field is so rich, and there's just so much fertilizer piled up.<BR/><BR/><I>"In contrast to women, [Non-human primates] go through the natural menopause at ages very close to their average lifespan and thus have a much shorter postmenopausal span."<BR/><BR/>So when female chimps typically die around the onset of menopause, it's not inaccurate to say that "humans experience [menopause] but chimps and many other species do not."</I><BR/><BR/>Huh? So, "chimps and other species (of primates?)" do go through menopause, but just tend to die shortly thereafter? Meaning human females live after menopause because of diet and healthcare improvements chimps (and other species) don't have access to (which is what Phila said)? But chimps (and other species) do experience menopause? They just experience it close to their "natural" lifespan? (which is natural only because of the factors like diet and healthcare, which can be altered)?<BR/><BR/>So, I'm confused. Do chimps (and other species) experience menopause, or don't they? Is it's occurrence lower because of lifespan, but it still occurs? Or do they not experience it at all? Because the quoted statement from the article doesn't indicate anything other than "the evolution of menopause...which humans experience but chimps and many other species do not," leading one to assume chimps and "other species" do not experience menopause at all, for reasons explainable by evolutionary theory.<BR/><BR/>But apparently they do, just not for very long.<BR/><BR/>So, where, again, is the snark? Or, indeed, the error in the post? <BR/><BR/>(I think I've found Dennett's target audience, btw.)Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167864999697904922007-01-03T14:56:00.000-08:002007-01-03T14:56:00.000-08:00It is an interesting question to ask whether there...<I>It is an interesting question to ask whether there are reasons for sexual selectivity among human women, beyond simple assuming that it is a choice. </I><BR/><BR/>Of course it is. And the question is asked - and answered, for better or worse - all the time. I can take issue with specific theories without making any larger claim about the project itself. Right?<BR/><BR/><I>If you want to speculate about things like a soul, or a self, or other items that I have yet to be convinced exist, than reductionism isn't going to be your cup of tea.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, I do tend to speculate about things like a "self." You've got me pegged there, alrighty. I honestly do not think that every decision made by human beings is driven by biological imperatives. Biological <I>processes</I>, sure; imperatives, not so much.<BR/><BR/><I>But, as it stands, science IS a reductionist enterprise and it is perfectly legitimate to investigate </I><BR/><BR/>I don't recall saying that science isn't, or shouldn't be, reductionist. Or that it's "illegitimate" to investigate the effects of heredity and competition. But I guess you divined my <I>real</I> opinion through some peculiar ability of your "self." <BR/><BR/>If that's the argument you want to rebut, perhaps you should devote your attentions to people who've actually made it.<BR/><BR/><I> to treat it as this post does, as being an absurd question to ask, is an implicit rejection of the scientific project.</I><BR/><BR/>Since you were discerning enough to read this post as "an implicit rejection of the scientific project," I'm confident that you'll pick up right away on this far less ambiguous message: Go fuck yourself.Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167864453252612762007-01-03T14:47:00.000-08:002007-01-03T14:47:00.000-08:00Now, it may be hubris to assume we can untable the...<I>Now, it may be hubris to assume we can untable these factors, and this study certainly doesn't do nearly good enough of a job of trying, but to treat it as this post does, as being an absurd question to ask, is an implicit rejection of the scientific project.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm struggling to find the rejection of scientific reasoning or scientific method in this post. Here, for example:<BR/><BR/><I>One of the other problems we've been trying to explain in human reproduction is why women all over the world have been having fewer children whenever they get access to contraception or more education," says Dr. Penn.One might do better to study why women so often tend not to get access to these things, which is really a far more interesting question, and possibly even has some bearing on the problem that's worrying Dr. Penn. </I><BR/><BR/>Is the critique wrong? How, pray tell? Is it inherently "anti-science" to critique scientific method as not rigorous enough to produce a valid conclusion? You've just put a lot of scientific journals out of business.<BR/><BR/><I>But what do I know? My brain is mostly scientist.</I><BR/><BR/>As long as no one is relying on your reasoning....of course, my brain is mostly philosopher, so logic and rhetoric take up a lot of space.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167863868905106092007-01-03T14:37:00.000-08:002007-01-03T14:37:00.000-08:00Traditionally, there are three times of life where...Traditionally, there are three times of life where one is likely to die: at birth (both genders), old age (both gender), in war (male), or in childbirth (female).<BR/><BR/>Given that one has no control over old age (it can be seen as a goal, since the alternative is worse), and little personal control over whether you survive being born (as an aside, reducing infant mortality rates definitionally will increase the average lifespan; also definitonally, women of childbirthing age have survived their own birth), doesn't it make sense that women would choose to control the one area in which they can extend their life by reducing the number of chances they take that might result in death?Ken Houghtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01440837287933536370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167863194441995292007-01-03T14:26:00.000-08:002007-01-03T14:26:00.000-08:00The NIH workshop report you link to says:"In contr...The NIH workshop report you link to says:<BR/><BR/>"In contrast to women, [Non-human primates] go through the natural menopause at ages very close to their average lifespan and thus have a much shorter postmenopausal span."<BR/><BR/>So when female chimps typically die around the onset of menopause, it's not inaccurate to say that "humans experience [menopause] but chimps and many other species do not."<BR/><BR/>Please, next time you're tempted to snark about things you don't know much about, study your links more carefully. You might learn something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167862729234987482007-01-03T14:18:00.000-08:002007-01-03T14:18:00.000-08:00You know, this post seems very science-phobic. It...You know, this post seems very science-phobic. It is an interesting question to ask whether there are reasons for sexual selectivity among human women, beyond simple assuming that it is a choice. If you're a mechanist, if you believe that humans are essentially thermodynamic machines, then there is a reason for everything they do, a reason that can ultimately be reduced to physiological processes. If you want to speculate about things like a soul, or a self, or other items that I have yet to be convinced exist, than reductionism isn't going to be your cup of tea. But, as it stands, science IS a reductionist enterprise and it is perfectly legitimate to investigate whether there are mechanisms derived from first principles of heredity and competition that generate complex human behavior.<BR/><BR/>Now, it may be hubris to assume we can untable these factors, and this study certainly doesn't do nearly good enough of a job of trying, but to treat it as this post does, as being an absurd question to ask, is an implicit rejection of the scientific project.<BR/><BR/>But what do I know? My brain is mostly scientist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167862586620797402007-01-03T14:16:00.000-08:002007-01-03T14:16:00.000-08:00Shorter Phila:I see no obvious reason why the adva...Shorter Phila:<BR/><BR/>I see no obvious reason why the advantages of two-legged walking among communities in past societies should've created "selective pressures" favoring bipedalism in modern industrialized societies.<BR/><BR/>These days, who needs legs? I've got four wheels, baby! Let's Roll!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1167862398149954732007-01-03T14:13:00.000-08:002007-01-03T14:13:00.000-08:00Or at least get jiggy with it more often.Choosy mo...<I><BR/>Or at least get jiggy with it more often.</I><BR/><BR/>Choosy mothers get Jiffy.NYMaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10863355110457910935noreply@blogger.com