The Tool Page: Opinion - View Single Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdLogic

Eh I think we're largely in agreement and might be talking past each other. My last line was admittedly an over-zealous use of 'illusory' to emphasize that the dichotomy of genes or memes might be a false one. I had to look up Rosenthal, but from my understanding of stereotype threat and observer-expectation bias I don't think they refute a gene-centered view of sexual behavior. It's not entirely clear to me that such behavior is meme-driven. That memes can spread (by whatever means) is tempting and probably true, but their influence over behavior still must reduce to the genetic policies encoded in our brain.

Well, I'm not going to defend memes in regards to gender-typing. I'm much more attuned to Ecological Systems Theory.

Quote:

Ecological Systems Theory, also called "Development in Context" or "Human Ecology" theory, specifies four types of nested environmental systems, with bi-directional influences within and between the systems. The theory was developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner, generally regarded as one of the world's leading scholars in the field of developmental psychology.
The four systems:
Microsystem: Immediate environments (family, school, peer group, neighborhood, and childcare environments)
Mesosystem: A system comprising connections between immediate environments (i.e., a child’s home and school)
Exosystem: External environmental settings which only indirectly affect development (such as parent's workplace)
Macrosystem: The larger cultural context (Eastern vs. Western culture, national economy, political culture, subculture)
Later, a fifth system was added:
Chronosystem: The patterning of environmental events and transitions over the course of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_systems_theory

I think it is probably the case that the genetics determine some basic behavioural propensities. Inclinations to perform sexual behaviour and to whatever extent we are each equipped with certain receptors. But I don't know that structural differences are actually the result of raw genetics. For example they say that the splenium (corpus callosum) is larger in women. But this could just as easily be due to a lifetime of living in dichotomous society. These genetics propensities would create an almost ubiquitous dichotomy across the planet, such that in general females would be submissive, nurturing, etc... but I also think that the reason cultures differ in this respect so much is the sheer adaptability of the brain. It would also explain the differences within sexes and would be a cost-effective solution for evolution. The brain itself is not that cose-effective. Other species have different gender roles, lions as an example. We share a common ancestry with two living species, Chimpanzees and Bonobos. The social dynamics, gender-roles and mating habits of these two species are drastically different. Males dominate chimpanzees, but females pack together and dominate in bonobo societies. A female bonobo will murder a male bonobo for avoiding sex. So it is difficult to draw a strict paradigm simply from our evolutionary ancestry.