By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
A_C_E said:
DonFerrari said:

It may be a joke, and I'm not theist so I don't care about it. But it seemed like you were attacking me as having religious believes for the differences between men and women.

And my point is not who cook more or vanity (although it probably is quite gender oriented even if we have men that like make up). I'm talking like woman inclining more to emotional and man to rational. Man taking more risks and woman choosing safely. Man choosing reprodution and woman protection and prosperity, etc... You could say all of them are social constructions and the brain have no difference and no justification for those things, but if they showed spontaneously it may have a reason for it. And that may derive from the inerent differences between genders. To refute gender differences in the name of equality grant no one any progress whatsoever.

Men think more with the left side of the pre-frontal cortex which controls rational/calculated thought process. Women have a more active amygdala which controls the emotional sensors. But nowhere have I refuted differences in the name of equality. Instead I have stated that no psychological behavior is bound by sex. To evaluate someone on gender is to ignore so many progressive avenues. Women on average may be better at one thing but that does not mean an individual woman will be better that the next individual man. I'm arguing for the process of evaluation, on all fronts, not just gender.

Man, I just see you in a crazy spin. It's obvious that a man or woman may be more inteligent, rational, science orientated or any single indicator you want. But when you look on averages or pick extremes on the same side man and woman will have pronounced differences. But you want to pick opposite extremes and get a very small intersection to validate your points.

We have provided several differences in physical, homornes, brain activities and etc but you want to insist on a not proved notion that they basically have no interference on psychological (even if on real world those differences are very apparent, but then discredit then as social constructions).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."