Hacker News Reader

Comment by finkston | Hacker News Reader

Well, we're talking about gender here, not sex, and given that there are two genders [commonly represented in literature], it stands to reason that they would have different tendencies of behavior, or else there would be no difference between the genders, and the concept would not exist.

View on HN

Right, of course. Since we live in a universe devoid of power relationships, it stands to reason that two groups described differently are in fact different, since no one has an interest in describing people other than accurately. Like how the Jews used to be all scheming and evil, but really cleaned up their act in the past few decades.

Right, of course, since we live in an universe devoid of genetic differences, it stands to reason that two groups described differently are in fact different.

Genetic differences are FACTS. If you do not account for facts, you're operating in the twilight zone.

It would indeed be hard to argue that there are not genetic differences between people of different sexes.

It does not, however, follow that all perceived differences in behavior between gender groups are genetic at root. It would be rather dishonest of me to say "men in the US like trucks, therefore liking trucks is embedded in the male geneome" without considering that there could be a societal aspect to that behavior.

Genetic differences may be facts, but blindly assigning genetic causation to perceived behavior without completely ruling out other possible influencing factors is just bad science.

Hey, the Twilight Zone was always my favorite show. It's a place between mystery and imagination, a place where the laws of reality are bent, a place where people arbitrarily start thinking you said genes don't exist.

Genetic differences are facts, but if you think that our understanding of what they imply about society is factual, you simply don't understand science.

Like how the Jews used to be all scheming and evil, but really cleaned up their act in the past few decades.

Seems like the Muslims have taken up the Evil Baton.

That said, what if the Jews had been the outgroup that has no obligations to the ingroup and vice versa? In the Middle Ages there were prohibitions on taking interest and charity was encouraged, which meant credit was unavailable, but relatives had potential to be bottomless barrels. We are still seeing this with athletes from an impoverished background. One can see why a group with no such restrictions would be useful, even successful.

I think in East Africa the Indians occupied a similar position in society, and when Idi Amin emulated the Catholic Majesties and expelled the Indians the outcome was equally disastrous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com