to go back to the first episode of “brainwash” again for a sec (watch it! you’ll love it! here or here.) — one of the norwegian social “scientists” (and i use that term very, very loosely — they oughta change the name of their discipline, really) asked:
“The fascinating thing with this science is why they are so concerned with finding the biological origin to gender? Why this frenetic concern?”
now i know that’s one of those … whatchamacallits … rhetorical questions that you’re not really supposed to answer, and that he was only asking it as a way to silence these horrible evolutionary psychologists/ sociobiologists (how dare they ask such questions?! don’t they know that’s practically immoral?) — but i sometimes like to ignore rhetorical questions and answer them anyway — just to annoy those people (is that just me, or does anyone else do that? (~_^) ).
someone, somewhere, i can’t remember where just now (was it over at that crazy place, bloggingheads?), rhetorically asked me why anyone would want to look for a biological basis of genocide, ’cause you wouldn’t want to study genocide! genocide is an evil thing! yuck! i responded something about perhaps wanting to find out what causes peoples to become genocidal so we could try to PREVENT them in future, but that’s not a good enough reason apparently.
anyway — why so concerned about finding a biological origin to gender or whatever? afaiac, it’s not that hbd-ers or sociobiologists have got a concern to find biological origins — it’s just that there must be some there ’cause we are biological creatures, after all, and natural selection and evolution must apply to us as well, no? but, of course, a lot of politically correct people refuse to understand that — ’cause they don’t want to believe that.
but i’m preaching to the choir, aren’t i? (~_^)
here’s a couple of excerpts from the dialogue towards the end of the first episode of “brainwash,” after harald eia showed the norwegian social “scientists” (gender researchers) what some real scientists had to say about gender differences:
Eia: “I show her [egeland] Baron-Cohen’s studies on the newborns. And I tell her about Dieseth’s studies that show boys and girls prefer different toys from the age of nine months.”
Egeland: “When he observes this, he’s seeing what he’s looking for. He wants gender differences, and innate ones.”
Eia: “So he finds what he’s looking for?”
Egeland: “Yes. It’s interesting to see how much energy one can spend to try to explain something like gender differences biologically.”
Eia: “I feel they say it’s an element of biology here, and also of culture. But you think it’s only culture.”
Egeland: “Yes….”
Eia: “What is your scientific basis to say that biology plays no part in the two genders’ choice of work?”
Egeland: “My scientific basis? I have what you would call a theoretical basis. There’s no room for biology in there for me. That would… And I feel that social sciences should challenge thinking that is based on the differences between humans being biological.”
Eia: “Is it the social science’s task to challenge biological thinking? Shouldn’t science find out why things are the way they are? Couldn’t Egeland just see what she wants to see if she has determined biology has no relevance?
*****
Lorentzen: “The fascinating thing with this science is why they are so concerned with finding the biological origin to gender? Why this frenetic concern?”
Eia: “You say there are no innate differences that explains interests. What do you base it on?”
Lorentzen: “I must rely on science when I try to explain the relations here. So far science hasn’t been able to prove a genetic origin to gender differences, outside of the reproductive organs.”
Eia: “Because you don’t recognize that these studies show this.”
Lorentzen: “But they have a missing link!”
Eia: “How do you know it’s not innate?”
Lorentzen: “I say that the moment they can say for sure….”
Eia: “You said that there are no innate differences in feelings, interests…. How do you know there are none?”
Lorentzen: “My hypothesis is that there are none. Science hasn’t shown any. Then I must work from that level….”
Eia: “You presume there are no differences until the opposite is proven?”
Lorentzen: “Yes.”
*****
Eia: “They [the real scientists] didn’t say that everything was about biology. On the contrary, it was the Norwegians who said that nothing was about biology. Why are they so sure? And is it so dangerous with elements of biology? But most importantly, can you, as a scientist, understand the world if you don’t consider every possibility?“
exactly! (^_^)
previously: brainwash and brainwash e01: the gender equality paradox
(note: comments do not require an email. male and female brains.)
That Eia is brilliant – he immediately & spontaneously thinks of just the right questions to ask at the right time – I’ve been in & around this field for a few decades & I can’t do that. He makes it look easy, & it’s not… I wonder what his IQ is!
Thanks for the great documentary-link!
@aurini – spread the Good News! (~_^)
Norwegian Mood
In episode 1, Harald Eia brilliantly solves the Norwegian paradox, but in all the movies, he presents us with another one, left unsolved:
- In Norway, common Norwegian people are mostly progressive; while many scientists, as well shown in the movies, seem to be mindless, narrow-minded and what you’re Norwegian reader calls “members of the Inquisition”
-In the USA, most of the people are what you know they are, while many scientists, as well shown too in the movies, are so beautifully mindful and broad-minded.
As an European, I recognize that Norwegian Society is an old free and rich society, one of the most advanced in the world (even for Northern Europe), so much so that the deep “nature” of the common people is allowed to fully express itself trough and thanks to the “culture”, and not against it, like in most of the world. (Same case as the first paradox, the “gender paradox”)
They just have the possibility, with no risk, to be themselves, fully themselves, no less, because such a society protects greatly from the fault, allowing average people to reach their upper physical and mental limit.
No less, and even a little more…too much in fact.
Isn’t it strange that in the movies, the ‘bad” scientists in Norway, are those who share a really “super cool” physical appearance, while the “good” ones (no irony) look just “average” and “normal”?
Those Norwegians scientists are not little “Grands Inquisiteurs”, but just men and women with capacities, but allowed to reach and go farther the ultimate limit of their capacities.
Now that they act the leading part in the play, no wonder if they “desperately try to impose quasi-religious political doctrines”, and if they settle in the denial, refusing any contradiction, even if we know it’s an imposture.
In everything, mentally and physically, they go too far, but the only people around to see that, are just, on an average, the same.
In the USA, for the common people the fault is not very often allowed. And a lot of them fail.
And for the top scientists, the fault is not allowed at all, and the best of the whole world watches over.
I over-simply wander, with a little help from Tocqueville, Tocqueville and Tocqueville again, “la tyrannie de la majorité”, if this was not to be expected from the beginning.
Thanks for sharing the way you do in your blog, what you are thinking and harvesting.
@j.f. – “Now that they act the leading part in the play, no wonder if they ‘desperately try to impose quasi-religious political doctrines’, and if they settle in the denial, refusing any contradiction, even if we know it’s an imposture.”
well, that’s the thing, isn’t it? — having a “vested interest” in … whatever.
these norwegian gender researchers are consulted by the government for their advice — even working for the government i suppose, called up by the media for their opinion when there’s a news story related to gender … of COURSE they’re going to deny that there’s any possibility that their theories might be wrong! they’d be out of a job, not to mention be out of fashion. that would just be too much.
@j.f. – “Thanks for sharing the way you do in your blog, what you are thinking and harvesting.”
thanks for saying so! (^_^)
After watching the impression I get is that Lorentzen and Egeland don’t know or are not willing to apply the scientific method. They base their argumentation on hypotheses (or, at least for one with no studies, they have not shown any support based on fact). What are they trying to refute? The other researchers don’t merely speak about the theories, they support them with facts. Even if some may be slightly biased while other statistics are very good, at least they present facts with the tools they have at their disposal. The only fact Lorentzen and Egeland seem to have is their arguments, which leads one to the embarrassing question: what have they been doing as researchers to try to prove their hypotheses and, instead, to provide give a theory based on facts (in this case using statistics)? Refuting statistical data with “it is a weak study” or “why are they even interested in this question” is very weak. At least they could try to show some flaw in the statistical assumptions which underlined those studies, but I suppose they don’t even bother themselves in looking at the articles nor the respective data.
@cvr – “After watching the impression I get is that Lorentzen and Egeland don’t know or are not willing to apply the scientific method.”
yup! (^_^)