Please slow down and be careful when you read. You've misunderstood my core point while also parroting back other things I said back in a highly patronising way.
>> You do realize that brains change in response to their experiences, right?
I made the argument that it's a combination of both nurture and nature. To quote myself: "It seems absurd to me that [...] there are so few people making nurture AND nature arguments."
What does the nurture argument mean to you other than the idea that are brains change as a result of experience?
I simply disagree that nurture and nature are mutually exclusive. Nature means that there might also be gene differences which cause different brains to start with or the later production of brain-altering hormones.
>> we still have no credible way to map those differences to phenotypes as complex and deep into development as "ability to program".
Likewise, I already said: "I'm not trying to make the argument that [...] I know the precise underpinnings of a decent model."
>> That said, if programming involved a lot of playing with toy cars, you might have the beginnings of an argument.
Why are you so obtuse? I did not make the argument that programming has anything to do with toy cars. I responded to a post which implies the differences between men and women are all stereotypes and that the differences which do exist are individual and bear no relation to their gender.
My argument is this:
1. Our brains are physically different.
2. Given that our brains are wired differently, it's highly unlikely for there to not also be differences in personality, desire and aptitude.
3. I agree with the nurture argument.
4. I also agree with the nature argument.
5. I think the burden of proof is with those that believe these are mutually exclusive to prove that this is the case.
6. In this context, I believe that both nature and nurture cause differences in society.
7. It looks like there are brain differences in boy/girl infants previous to socialisation not just in humans but also in monkeys.
8. I make a point that there is not enough empirical evidence right now for anybody to create a precise model of what is happening.
9. I make the point that we needlessly politicise the argument when we should just wait for science to come to some kind of agreement.
10. I make the point that it's not just traditionalists that are having difficulty with ingesting scientific results. I value those that can stop and change their value system based on any facts that they receive.