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.”
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?”
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?“