Are men not from Mars, but the hardware department of Sears, women from apparel?
Scratch that.
Is the average man from the hardware department, the average woman from apparel?
Nope, that won't do either. One more try:
Is the average, 21st century, middle-class American man from hardware, the average, 21st century, middle-class American woman from apparel?
If so, what the hell was I doing in lawn and garden this weekend?
More seriously now, two recent studies have looked into gender differences. One found a difference. The other questioned a gender difference that may not be as big or innate as presupposed.
For the gender difference discovered, a study of the experimental psychology sort found that men are . . . more sexually hopeful (my words) than females. Or were they more deluded? Lust-impaired?
The research involved 96 male 103 female undergraduates, who were put through a "speed-meeting" exercise -- talking for three minutes to each of five potential opposite-sex mates....
The results: Men looking for a quick hookup were more likely to overestimate the women's desire for them....
The more attractive the woman was to the man, the more likely he was to overestimate her interest. And women tended to underestimate men's desire. [emphases added; source]
Men. Those swine. Horny toads. Poor hyper-desirous bastards. At least sexually speaking.
And women. Dare I say they can be clueless?
On another front, the front that has men being mathematicians par excellant, at least when it comes to the leading edge of the gender average bell curve, one study purports that the male "natural" mathematical endowment may have been artificially enhanced by bad science.
Wisconsin researchers linked differences in math performance to social and cultural factors.
The new study, by Mertz and Jonathan Kane, a professor of mathematical and computer sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, was published today (Dec. 12, 2011) in Notices of the American Mathematical Society. The study looked at data from 86 countries, which the authors used to test the "greater male variability hypothesis" famously expounded in 2005 by Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard, as the primary reason for the scarcity of outstanding women mathematicians.
That hypothesis holds that males diverge more from the mean at both ends of the spectrum and, hence, are more represented in the highest-performing sector. But, using the international data, the Wisconsin authors observed that greater male variation in math achievement is not present in some countries, and is mostly due to boys with low scores in some other countries, indicating that it relates much more to culture than to biology. [emphasis added; source]
Now what to think? In the least we should conclude that simplistic proclamations are likely bogus.
Beyond that, I don't know. But if you want to discuss it, you'll find me shopping for a new socket wrench.
Okay, now I understand why Fox news does what it does. You know, throw inflammatory accusations from the mouths of its talking-heads. Because it works.
WANT TO DEFEAT A PROPOSED PUBLIC POLICY? JUST LABEL SUPPORTERS AS “EXTREME”
Researchers at Ohio State University conducted a number of clever experiments and discovered a link between hyperbolic language and the rejection of the public policy positions.
In one experiment, researchers found that people expressed higher levels of support for a gender equality policy when the supporters were not specified than when the exact same policy was attributed to “radical feminist” supporters.
Relatively speaking, we can see why those PBS intellectuals fail to make a dent in public policy.
Me, I find some forms of political rhetoric to border on linguistic terrorism. The aim is to frighten voters into behaving as they wouldn't otherwise. And so we hear about the evil "radical feminist," "socialist," "environmental extremist" position on the other side of our . . . more neutral, friendlier side.
Why does FOX news use politically inflammatory terms? Not because they are factual, but because they work. Politically speaking. No, they don't actually inform and educate. In fact, they do the opposite. The question is, what do you want from your news?
On another front . . .
Abstinence-only education does not lead to abstinent behavior, UGA researchers find
Previously I've seen a few studies that found a lack of efficacy for abstinence-only programs. And one that went the other way. Here's a link for another one, with a good quantity of data behind it, and some amount of controlling for extraneous variables, that also generated a "doesn't work," conclusion.
An interesting clip from the news release:
Along with teen pregnancy rates and sex education methods, Hall and Stanger-Hall looked at the influence of socioeconomic status, education level, access to Medicaid waivers and ethnicity of each state's teen population.
Even when accounting for these factors, which could potentially impact teen pregnancy rates, the significant relationship between sex education methods and teen pregnancy remained: the more strongly abstinence education is emphasized in state laws and policies, the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rates.
Hmm.
As I've argued before, even it these programs did work, I wouldn't be for them. Why?
I’d opt for sex-ed programs that include not-only abstinence information. For I believe in providing education for education’s sake, with an eye out to pragmatic concerns, sure, but not limited by them. My values include honoring the freedom of all individuals and families to select their own path in a full range of alternatives.
You have likely heard the claim that men think about sex roughly every 3 nanoseconds. Or something nearly as extreme. When I first heard it my immediate response was, "Really?" And then I secretly wondered what was wrong with me. I was apparently made of different stuff than other men. And I didn't measure up. Shoot, whole hours could go by without my thinking about sex. Was I running a quart low on testosterone?
New research out of Ohio State University has generated a more likely statistic. On average, college age men (an important point) think about sex roughly 19 times . . . per day. Not quite as obsessed or sex-crazed. Maybe it is a lot, but it certainly is a lot less than the stereotype portrayed.
However, even at this lesser number, the gender gap remained. College-age women thought about sex roughly 10 times per day.
Interesting.
Another interesting discovery was that there was also a gender gap, though a smaller one, when it came to thoughts about other biological drives: While men thought about food 18 times per day, women did 15 times. For sleep it was 11 times for men, about 8.5 for women.
Men -- those animals. So concerned with their basic drives. Yet women are close behind. Women -- those animals.
Of course, an important question is, "What constituted a thought about sex?" Full intercourse? Mere lust?
Fortunately, the news release disclosed this bit of information:
a thought about any aspect of sex: sexual activity of any kind, fantasies and erotic images, sexual memories and any arousing stimuli.
Hmm. Arousing stimuli? So if a man or woman leans against a washing machine while reaching for the detergent--would any below-the-belt 'tingle' count as a "thought about sex"?
My guess is that the numbers may have been higher had the students monitored their thoughts at Miami Beach during spring break.
Recent research has declared that Americans move dramatically toward acceptance of homosexuality. That move has largely occurred over the past couple decades. Which is fast, in historic terms.
The change toward acceptance of homosexuality began in the late 1980s after years of remaining relatively constant. In 1973, 70 percent of people felt same-sex relations are "always wrong," and in 1987, 75 percent held that view. By 2000, however, that number dropped to 54 percent and by 2010 was down to 43.5 percent.
What has accounted for the change? The researchers do not speculate. But allow me to.
I see two factors as playing major roles in the greater acceptance of homosexuals.
1) Individuals coming out of the closet--hordes of people admitting, "Yes, I'm gay, deal with it." People we live next door to; people we work with; people in our own families.
Oh, gee. Homosexuals aren't dangerous. They are real people. Just like you and me. I actually know some. And like them.
2) Hollywood. For those not fortunate enough to have out-of-the-closet non-heterosexuals in their lives, we can thank Hollywood for exposing masses of people to not only the harmlessness of homosexuality, but to the creativity and humanity of flesh-and-blood gays and lesbians.
Atheists tend to be reviled as much or even more than homosexuals. Can this change? Will it?
Similarly, I see two things expediting the diminishment of this prejudice.
1) Individual atheists coming out of the closet.
Consider this personal experience: Once, just following a general psychology class I taught, a perceptive and bold student asked me, in private, about my beliefs. Her second question was point-blank: "So . . . you're an atheist." I responded, "Well . . . yes." Her eyes widened and she admitted she had never met one before. Had I been quicker on my feet I would have corrected her--at least not one that she knew of.
When atheists come out of the closet, it helps to dispel the notion that we are sharp-toothed subversives. Put a face on "atheist" and you've got a community member just like any other, with the exception of a belief in a deity.
2) Hollywood. More and more television programs are including religious dissenters and atheists in their cast of characters. Esteemable, likeable characters.
In my opinion, the future looks brighter for those "differently sexed" and those of differing beliefs, or none altogether. But no, it has little to do with erudite discussions of logic and polite discussion in academic settings. Instead, what matters is who we associate with in real life, or in the virtual life on screen.
Weird, but possibly true.
Lord, please keep me from sleeping with my secretary. I know it is wrong, but man, is she hot! Especially in that short, yellow dress. And Lord, if I do lose control and make it with her on my desk, please avert thine divine eyes. I don't think I could perform under those circumstances.
A deity is frequently turned to when a person knows the values and rules of their social group, but needs some assistance on the follow through. He or she seeks encouragement to take the high road. In 12-step programs, drug addicts surrender to a "higher power." And it may help. A bit. If people believe there is some invisible alpha watching their every move, perhaps they are more likely to stay in line. A god, in this facility, props up their super-ego to the point it becomes a super-duper ego, capable of turning down a drink even while away on a business trip.
The personal-advisor sort of great alpha is an omni-present, invisible chaperone who keeps a person from violating the standards that one part of their brain would like them to obey. Other parts of their brain may have different mandates.
Can this ghostly presence people perceive as a background agent in their lives tip the scale and influence behavior? My guess: sometimes. For some people, maybe a lot; for others, a little; for many, not at all. But that is only an educated guess. I prefer not to base beliefs and conclusions upon guesses.
Those who engage in undesirable behavior naturally become frustrated. Why can't their body follow their thoughts? The body, the carnal self, is thus their adversary. Which is the origin of the term Satan. Adversary. So there you have it, the body is evil. It tempts us to transgress our marriage vows. It makes us get angry at others. It forces us to crave water when we are thirsty, and sleep when we are tired. Bad body.
My point: bodily urges can be good as well as problematic. Condemning the body and engaging in self-flagellation, verbal or otherwise, doesn't strike me as smart, or pragmatically advisable. To use psychiatrist-speak, the ongoing battle between the superego--the inner judge--and the id--the inner gorilla--causes people unending angst. Help! And so they ask, What would Jesus do? Keep that question in mind 24-7, and you'll have that gorilla on a very short leash. Unless it is provoked beyond the control of a flimsy string of self-talk.
If we could only listen to our hearts we would hear the quiet voice of a god telling us what to do. Or so believers insist. But that damn inner monkey makes such a racket. And he's always there, hulking in the corner. Say your prayers, sing songs, read the Bible. Whatever you do, stay away from bananas.
I certainly don't advocate caving to all physical urges. I just think that the key to behaving well is more complex than religion proclaims.
Supernatural explanations are incredibly simplistic next to the tangled, causal chains that operate in the natural world. In this regard, one could understand why an intellectual simpleton (relatively speaking) would prefer supernatural explanations. Yes, there are many reasons people believe--including the cognitive convenience of ready answers when dealing with frustrating issues. In terms of our "baser instincts," why not paint the whole matter black-and-white, with bodily urges representing temptation and earthly sin, and moral teachings the high road, the pull of heaven and a god?
Why not? Beyond the questionable efficacy that comes with applying it, the belief perpetuates an antiquated view of the what and how of human behavior.
Recent Comments