Ooops, there goes the whole evolutionary psychology debate. They lose.

[Bonobo]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-hardwired-difference-between-male-and-female-brains-could-explain-why-men-are-better-at-map-reading-8978248.html



Researchers found that many of the connections in a typical male brain run between the front and the back of the same side of the brain, whereas in women the connections are more likely to run from side to side between the left and right hemispheres of the brain.

This difference in the way the nerve connections in the brain are “hardwired” occurs during adolescence when many of the secondary sexual characteristics such as facial hair in men and breasts in women develop under the influence of sex hormones, the study found.

“It's quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are,” said Rubin Gur of Pennsylvania University, a co-author of the study.

“Detailed connectome maps of the brain will not only help us better understand the differences between how men and women think, but it will also give us more insight into the roots of neurological disorders, which are often sex related,” Dr Gur said.

[In_The_Wind]

1. uh huh

[img][/img] [img][/img]

[MadrasT]

2. That article is about neurobiology, not evolutionary psychology. n/t

[Bonobo]

3. You're right.

Still, many of the debates we have concern whether or not their are biological differences between men and women. Since that is now a settled issue, it would be reasonable -necessary in fact- to conclude that they are evolutionary responses to various advantages conferred upon women and men by such biological differences.

The next question to me would be to ask what kind of advantages were provided by such differences. Assuming that such a thing could be hypothesized, the question would be whether or not those differences still play a role in behavior today and whether or not they have any place in a discussion of cultural issue regarding the sexes.

THAT is getting quite close indeed to what evolutionary psychologists do.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Honestly, speaking of the way brains operate, I just wish I knew what magical word mojo could dispel

the attachment some- many, really- humans have to their labels and categories. To the ever-present mistaking the map for the territory, going into the restaurant and trying to eat the menu, as it were.

I hear tell that certain entheogens, alkaloids, or ergot derivatives can be effective at this in the proper use and context, but I wouldn't really know anything about such dark and obscure matters.

Because in so many debates, people aren't actually arguing against positions or ideas or assertions, so much as categories. That's "libertarian"! That's "evo-psych!"

When probably even the most assiduous "left-wing" attacker of "libertarianism" subscribes to "libertarian" ideas like allowing same-sex couples the freedom to live as hetero ones, marry, etc. Or not filling our prisons with pot smokers. One would hope.

Similarly, when "evo-psych" is tossed around like invective... do people honestly believe that there are no evolutionary or biological processes which factor into our behavior?

Probably the most absurd iteration of this worldview comes in the form of the folks who believe that "PIV" is an unnatural act, invented and implemented by some spooky male conspiracy. But, I have been assured, that is a fringe worldview which no one (honest!) subscribes to, for reals.

[nomorenomore08]

6. I don't think it's an over-generalization to say that we're built for boning, as it were.

That is, after all, how all of us got here.

As for those misguided few who are "anti-PIV" - not just celibate themselves, which is a legit lifestyle choice, but insisting that others be - I can only speculate as to what their deal is. And it may be worth noting that even the notorious Andrea D. herself did backtrack on some of the more extreme positions in her writing.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Couple things; one, it should go without saying but I'll say it anyway, everyone has the right to

structure their sex life or lack thereof, however they want, assuming Consenting Adults and all that.

So to be not engaging in PIV, personally, does not even imply celibacy, etc. I mean, Lesbians are inherently not going to be engaging in PIV, although it is interesting how in some of these blogs special vitriol and hate is reserved for lesbians who even use, you know, anything which could be considered a proxy for a phallus, in their sexuality. Apparently they aren't meeting the rigorous blame-a-tronic standards, either.

Rather, it's the philosophical positioning on the act itself, the broad demanding (not to mention, prima facie absurd) edicts to other people that penetrative sex must be abolished- that the act is inherently evil and oppressive, not to mention "unnatural"... it treads WAY into whack-a-doodle territory.

And speaking of Dworkin - which is really the source on a lot of these notions- it remains my take, and that of even many of her allies, that she had some serious mental issues, to the point that by the time she died she was hallucinating and fully broken from anything resembling reality.

But she did not as far as I am aware actually backtrack on her comments, she realized that some of them didn't play well so she tried to fudge them with semantic obfuscation, but she remained pretty extreme in viewpoints on sexual relationships, up until the end.

I view her as a sad figure, more than anything else. She was obviously tormented by invisible demons of her own creation.

[nomorenomore08]

9. I agree, pretty much. She could come off fairly reasonable at times but basically she was nuts.

Sad figure? Oh yes, absolutely, especially given her horrific experiences of abuse in early adulthood, which went a long way towards shaping her worldview. Some of her stuff - more her fiction than her "philosophy" or whatever - is actually fairly interesting on a literary level, somewhat like the Marquis de Sade (whom she was somewhat obsessed with, and whom Susie Bright has compared her to).

[nomorenomore08]

5. I don't doubt that there's some validity to the "evo-psych" thing. But it's not quite that simple.

What I'm pretty sure of is that both biology and social conditioning are powerful influences on our behavior. Neither one should be discounted - whereas I see people dismissing one or the other wherever convenient for them.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. I think you're right.

We are extremely complex. Also, there are plenty of, for instance, relatively common primate behaviors which could be argued to be "evolutionarily" driven which are still simply abhorrent.