Rich, even your response here reads to me as extremely embittered and angry, as did your comments on the blog I wrote years ago that started all of this. I don’t deny your “right” to be offended or angry about anything you choose to be. Only you can control your reactions. If someone offends you, there are many ways you can react. Just as you were offended by my original post, I was taken aback, personally hurt, and frustrated by your comments which seemed to be brewing with anger and hatred. I have a right to those feelings, as well. I think it’s sad that we have had this falling out, especially considering that my dad does not talk to any of his family, save your mom, on occasion. I was pleased to have a connection to family on the Cuban side.

So, the very fact that she found semi-heated argumentation a grounds for ostracizing me, and was obviously able to justify it for this length of time, only proves my assertion that she exaggerates her victimhood. She obvioulsy still thinks she was the victim, good thing for her she sent the mean monster away before he disagreed with anything else she wrote. What’s funny is that if this situation had been reversed and she had been offended by something I wrote and I ended up breaking off the friendship because of that, she’d be claiming victim status about that as well. The same way she can’t accept that I had a right to be offended by an offensive comment, she is incapable of seeing how I can also be a victim.

For any psychology students who would like to see how adhering a little too strongly to any generalized “factual” dogma like “Women are the choosers” can affect the way a person interprets conflicts, this is all a pretty good example. Notice it was “chosen” for me how I should interpret an offensive stereotype about my gender. Notice how it was “chosen” when I was supposed to differentiate between humor and fact; of course, you would have actually had to read blog in question: There was nothing “educational” about pointing out studies that show that women are “better” at communication than men without going into a little more detail about which forms of communication women are better at and what potential applications these skills might have, in a nutshell it was basically “Studies show that women are better at communication than men, imagine the implications! Women could be used in (such and such a job) instead of men”. Again, all I saw was a bunch of popular science sound bites being used to jokingly belittle men, and, as they say, every joke can have its truth, so since it was mostly “joke” (and nothing substantially educational), I saw that the “joke” was on me (i.e. my gender). If I go into a room full of women and start pointing out things that men are better at make derogatory jokes at the expense of the women, is it my place to choose how they should take it, to choose how they should feel.

No, it isn’t. The only way someone could use this type of reasoning is if they have somehow let their beloved dogma intrude on other aspects of their cognitive functions, hence why it is damaging to have the need to hold so hard onto simplistic self-empowering “facts”. Even in her reply to my comment on this blog she is arguing about the “choosers” thing, as if to “win”, becasue it is of the utmost importance to her that she be able to hold onto that “sacred truth”. Interestingly, she denies “chooser” status when it implies accountability: In our original argument, I pointed out that if women are the choosers, why do so many choose to stay in horrible relationships, to which she replied, in so many words, “Women can’t choose to break-up, the same goes for men.” I’m guessing she was alluding to some sort of biological slavery meant to ensure propogation of our species, which I actually would agree with in the sense that people don’t actually have freedom of choice, we’re just a system of chemical reactions. So, in that sense, nobody, women nor men, choose who to have sex with. The odds for how many potetnial partners a female can have are simply better, but there is no “choice” involved.

Contradiction? Yes, it is ridiculous to staunchly defend a statement that goes against one’s own scientific beliefs simply because they like the empowering ring of it. It’s even more ridiculous to end a friendship over an argument about it.

Regardless of what she thinks I “didn’t get”, the fact remains that I HAD A RIGHT TO POINT OUT OFFENSIVE COMMENTS FOR WHAT THEY WERE. My punishment for doing so was being told to, basically, go away. I never once insulted her, unless not liking her writing counts, so her whole basis for ostracising me seemed to be centered around the fact that I kept pushing for a little concession, which she wouldn’t even give in the slightest. She couldn’t even say “I understand how that could be offensive.”

Apparently, it’s OK to write a comment like “Women are stupid c***s”… as long as there is a little emoticon following the comment. And apparently I would still be walking the moral highground if I wrote something like that and then belittled a woman’s right to take offense.

Of course, that isn’t true, not by my ethical code, which involves something called “fair play”. I also live by a little thing called “accountability”, meaning that I take responsibility for my actions. So if I were to write something offensive even as a “joke”, I would accept the fact that someone might be offended. What’s funny is that Breuk noted in her blog that she was expecting a backlash, and when she got one it was too much for her.

I like how she also, once again, went on to defend her “choosers” belief using examples that I don’t actually argue with. My entire point is that it’s an overly simplistic way of looking at the situation. Comments like that are from the realm of popular science, which, as we all know, is about as relevant as pop music. It was popular to believe that, because of a few studies, women were better at communication than men. However, for someone who obsessively searches for the truth, it can be found that there IS no clear answer. For one, other studies among other age groups showed men to be better, and the results also fluctuate based on regions of origin of participants. Also, “communication” is a vague word. Men tend to be better at communicating certain things, women others. So, saying “Women are better at communication” is scientifically irrelevant. Empowering? Maybe, for someone who prefers a simplistic, gender biased point of view. Me, I get my empowerment from my own actions and positive attributes (many of which are not typically masculine).

In retrospect, there was nothing actually educational or in-depth about the blog in question, so all I really saw was a sneaky, tongue-in-cheek way of saying “Women are better.”
Yes, that was the overall theme of the blog. If I had written a similar blog favoring men and using half-hearted “science” to, even jokingly, back up my claims, i would have expected to either be ridiculed or end up doing some apologizing.

And I certainly never would have ended a friendship simply because I couldn’t take the heat.

I happen to love men (which is one of the reasons I can get so angry at them! The people we love have the most power to rile us up). As far as marriage proposals, given your example, women would be the ones who either accept or reject the proposal, thereby choosing. The man proposing doesn’t usually have other women lined up. What the “choosing” thing comes down to really is sex, which is the only way we pass on genes. Even in married life, many women find sex outside of marriage, thereby passing on the genes of the man they have chosen for whatever characteristics they found desirable.

The commenter who was not offended at the “men think with their d*cks” statement obviously also saw the emoticon that went with it, indicating it was tongue in cheek.

I have an edge to my writing, but I defend myself against this character assassination put forth by Rich. In the adult years that he had known me, I was a VERY young woman who lived with a charming, intelligent, charismatic man, who called me names, threatened to strike me, through objects and liquids at me, and told me I was worthless and that no one else would ever love me. If he’d like to hold the bitterness and confusion I felt in those years against me, that is his prerogative.

During “years of knowing” Rich personally, being blood related even, I was surprised at his extreme response. Certain parts of my article were intended to be factual, with tongue in cheek comments thrown in. No contradiction there.

And really, that’s all there is to say.

I’m the guy breukellen is referring to in her last comment, and what she says is very misleading.

For one, the “few more ideas” she posted in her blog were hardly “ideas”, but rather sexist nonsense which she used valid scientific studies to support. For isntance, she thinks that women, because of allegedly superior innate communication skills, should be involved (as if they’re not already) in big business deals and negotiations INSTEAD of men. Yes, instead of men.

I did not send her “hate mail”. I expressed offense, particularly the blatantly degrading stereotypes she felt she had some scientific authority to propogate, like telling one of her commentors that “Men think with their d*cks.” He was not, offended, and she asked me why I was offended if he wasn’t. Apparently, because I’m male, I’m supposed to think as if I’m part of a single entity. However, she doesn’t believe that SHE should have to, as made clear by her disagreement with some of the female commentors above.

I never said the comment about women was completely benign, I said that COMPARED to some her statements the comment was benign. I also never called her a man-hater, I alluded to her mysogynistic tendencies, and that was more related to behavior I witnessed during years of knowing her personally.

Furthermore, she contradicted herself during our arguments multiple times, perhaps most obviously by saying in one instance that her writings weren’t meant to be taken seriously, and then trying to claim that her generalizations were fact. She likes soundbites, like “Women are the choosers.”, which empower her, but is blind to the vagueness of language and the fact that truth is context-dependent. So when I asked her what she would think if I said “Men are the choosers.” (again, context sensistive: men usually choose who to hit on, who to ask to marry them, often whether or not to cheat on a spouse or abandon a relationship) and her reply was that the statement wouldn’t mean anything to her because it isn’t true. That was the general theme in our arguments, and she used clever semantics consistently whenever anything threatened to take men out of a negative light.

Just wanted to clear things up. Also, the question about men generally preferring less intelligent women is a simple one. I shouldn’t even have to explain it, so I’ll just give a hint: What is our primary evolutionary function?
To pass on our genes.

Do the math.

As males are more detached, logical, androgenous and seem to have invented just about everything-it seems that males are bringing about the singularity.

Will there be a female opposition to the singularity?

Will the point that the singularity negates the fact that you want or need to get laid strike fear into the hearts of women as it stops them being wanted or needed.

In fact, more religious people might want to bring about the singularity than women (as it could bring them closer to god, or be a god or something).

I would be interested in a religious females view on the singularity, yet not from the p.o.v. that she want to love god selflessly by merging with him or something because that just seems that she might want sex with the singularity.

It is inherantly and in totality the point where change in all areas of human endeavor as a whole transform from a growth curve to an event horizon.

The distance in time between bubbles of change events compresses to zero while the number of events in the clusters increase exponentially.
Bang you go from a change curve to a horizontal explosion of constant and constantly accelerating major change events.

Prediction of the change past the initial event horizion is impossible.
And yet you are all hung up on transcending humanity and creating god machines. You are hung up on predicting the unpredicatable.

WRONG!
Your premis is that YOU DON”T KNOW! YOU CANNOT KNOW!

A path this takes could just as easily be that we genetically modify ourselves into dragons that fly through space sucking up solar radiation while trading dragon porn through quantum communications.

The fact is that it is an explosion in all directions. Everything will happen.
You will wake up in the morning and have to adapt to a new world with a new set of rules. Each and every day.
We must, because we can.

“two, that most readers of “hard” science fiction are men.
(”Hard” sci fi defined by me: Futuristic fiction more preoccupied with physics than psychology.)”

i will agree with that. but i don’t know why it matters for the singularity. i’m interested in the singularity because it represents a confluence of sociobiology and technology. i went to the summit at stanford last year and your anecdote about kurzweil doesn’t surprise me. and i think there were relatively few chicks. in reading science fiction, i prefer allegorical fiction that extrapolates social memes and events to the technical fiction that tends to read more like a patent brief. made up technology isn’t as interesting to me as made up wars and superentities. however, i’m still not certain i can distinguish the two as clearly as you do… where does vernor vinge fit in, for example? i consider him “high” sci-fi, but is he a high hard one? neal stephenson?

“When I discovered evolutionary psychology, I learned that was not true. Hang a mobile and a face over a three-day-old babies. The boys look more at the mobile, and the girls look more at the face. Release toddlers in a playground. Boys play more with trucks, girls play more with dolls. Before they can talk, before they can walk, girls and boys show different interests.”

i was pleased to see you folks note that people can feel offended by such generalizations, but you’re not forgiven yet. here you are making them again. as useful as evolutionary psychology may be, it still shortchanges the fact that i am not a unicorn. i am a chick, and i dig the singularity. to distill my being and thirty years of choices down to biology isn’t fair, though it may be scientific. i imagine this is where the eugenics comments come in. i heart science, but it also scares me a little because it works. why shouldn’t someone point this out in legislation as a reason not to fund programs to push women into science?

“Acknowledging innate differences is not the same as imposing them. I use humor in my book, because we really need to develop a sense of humor about gender differences… Most scholars in the social sciences emphasize the diversity of human behavior. I am interested in what is universal about human behavior.”

that all is probably true, but starting there is a mistake. where are the human beings immune to social constructs you’re using for a control? i somehow manage to be a socialist texan too. the only thing universal about human behavior is our capacity to surprise each other like this. what are you relying on those stereotypes for anyway? stop bending over the box and talk to us again. thanks for the cites, but i don’t trust meta-analysis much. why should i be like someone from 30 years ago? this imposition of gender differences comes out of traditions too. if we acknowledge imposed gender differences as if there is no societal component, we may never get a chance to see the truly innate ones.

“The Singularity is the best thing to happen to sex since some final stages of primate-homonid pelvic evolution enabled face-to-face intercourse among hominids (without losing the ability for rear access).” Forget whacked-out body suits, will ecstacy be legal by then, and will they sell it in a special Viagra-MDMA stack?

After publishing the comment I’d posted here, with a few more ideas thrown in on my blog, I received some very angry hate mail. I was feeling like shit, and wondering if I really was wrong. I was told that your statements were completely benign and that I was a man-hater. Your reply has made me so happy. Sometimes men DO know just what to say. :)
PS I thought the joke about sex after the singularity was pretty funny.

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Female_chimps_teach_us_about_sexbased_learning_differences.html

These female chimps are the ones who excel in tool use. Not the males.

Some of the female responders seem to be taking you out of context, Joe. As a young woman who has loved science fiction since she learned to read, I did cringe at aspects of this interview, however I understand the basis of what you are trying to say.

The problem is that it didn’t come out exactly right. This ties in perfectly with your point that men and women have different predisposed skills. When men are trying to explain something, it often comes out “wrong”. If I had a nickel for every time my boyfriend said something which initially offended or hurt me, and then he said “I didn’t mean it like that, it came out wrong”, I’d be rich. This is a trend I’ve noticed with every man I have ever been close with, in relationships, or even just friends. Usually I am able to decipher his original intent, put it into better words, ask if that is what he meant, and he says with relief “yes, exactly”. Women are better with language and communication than men are. Do men get their boxers in a knot over me saying that? No. In fact, most of them agree with it. These women who are so disturbed over your statements should realize that it goes the other way too. It isn’t AGAINST women. One of the reasons women are so defensive is that we have a very long history of being severely discriminated against. In a time when there is still debate about our right to choose, a backlash is probably healthy. We need to keep the flame of justice alive if we are to keep progressing to being treated as full citizens.

The part about “chicks” not liking science fiction does make me cringe because I think of myself as a smart, analytical “chick”. I see other girls who are all about partying and reality tv and high heels, and they just bore the hell out of me. But I am still a girl! I am still a chick. I am cool, have a sense of humor, and try not to take things too personally. I wear sneakers, and jeans, but like to think that I am still sexy. We shouldn’t have to be one or the other (a nerd, or a “chick”). Something about the way this was spoken made me feel like women who like science fiction are less of women. Once again, I know that was not the intent, but just to make you aware. It often seems to me that men are less interested in women who are intellectual.

JOE PLEASE READ THIS: Before you write an entire book whose very title could be fairly interpreted in a sexist light…

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Female_chimps_teach_us_about_sexbased_learning_differences.html

These female chimps are the ones who excel in tool use. Not the males.

One more thing… I just discovered Joe Quirk on Youtube today while searching for video of sperm. I immediately bought his book on amazon. Can’t wait for it to arrive.

To answer your second question: The only way to figure out brain influences in adults is to completely eliminate the effect of genes in one group, and completely eliminate the effect of environment in another group. That’s been done.
Identical twins separated at birth share identical genes but not environment. Adopted siblings share similar home environments but no genes.
The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (MISTRA), run by Thomas Bauchard, David Lykken, and Nancy Segal managed to track down down 115 pairs of identical twins reared apart and 4 sets of reared-apart triplets. [I still need to check my numbers on the 115.] Twins reared apart had been separated for, on average, 30 years. Some of them didn’t even know they had a twin. They compared them against 217 pairs of identical twins reared together and 114 pairs of fraternal twins reared together.
The twins completed Multidimensional Personality Questionnaires, which quantified their habits, basic personality traits, occupations, hobbies, and their opinions on abortion, capital punishment, and gun control. Their siblings, parents, and spouses also completed questionnaires.
Just by comparing questionnaires, the researchers could predict if they were identical or fraternal to 96% accuracy. Yet whether they were raised in the same family or different families didn’t seem to make much difference.
20% of similarity among twins is attributed to sharing same womb environment. [Devilin, Daniels & Roeder, 1997]
Okay, so MISTRA’s twin studies tell us a lot about what is controlled by genes when environment is eliminated. Can we find a study that tells us what is controlled by environment when genes are eliminated?
The Colorado Adoption Project (CAP) studied 245 adopted children against 245 non-adopted to examine genetic and environmental influences on children’s behavior. [Also check The Texas Adoption Project.]
They put these subjects through a battery of standardized tests, measuring everything from their feelings about their relationships to their feelings about their feelings about their relationships. (My wife would love taking these tests. She would also love to take a test about her feelings about her feelings test.)
When we compare the twin data to the adoption data, we come up with earthshattering conclusion: My therapist owes me a lot of money, and so does yours.
The best book of all about the real evidence for where personality comes from is written by Judith Rich Harris, and it’s called THE NURTURE ASSUMPTION: WHY CHILDREN TURN OUT THE WAY THEY DO. It’s a wonderful, revolutionary read.
http://www.amazon.com/Nurture-Assumption-Children-Turn-They/dp/0684857073
This evidence is ripe for popularization. I want to push forward the proposal that the reason more women are in Oprah’s audience and more men attend Singularity conferences is because of innate differences in their natural interests.
No evidence shows one sex is superior to another, but it does show that when your brain gets masculinized or feminized by hormones in the womb, there are cognitive trade-offs.
It’s very important to me that any evidence I popularize does not arm sexists. My goal is to illuminate relationships. I was a loser in love until I discovered this subject, and it enlightened my love life Any suggestions on how best to present this stuff would be appreciated.