Are sex differences "inborn" or "learned"?

[flawlssdistortn]

I remember hearing a story about two mexican identical twins who were seperated by birth and adopted by two different families who just happened to live like 30min apart in the US. The girls never knew of the other until they met by chance through a mutual acquaintance. By this time, each of them were in their twenties, one grew up in a conservative catholic household and the other in a liberal nonreligious household. Despite their varied backgrounds, the twins were strikingly similar in terms of personality and interests.

This reinforces the notion that genetics plays a significant role in who we are. I've met some identical twins (that grew up together) and they seem to be quite different. I think this is because they strive in some way to become different, and create their "own identity."

This kind of flies in the face of the old pop psych idea that environment is everything in terms of who we are. I used to listen to love-line a lot, and ever person who called up with a problem would be grilled by the hosts as to whether they were molested or abused at a young age. The caller's problem could be a medical question about herpes and dr drew would still try to bring it back to her being touched by her uncle when she was 4 or something.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Genetics and environment act together.

Anyone with a meaningful background in biology/genetics knows this. If you get your science news from a major news outlet or the newspaper, don't bother commenting in a scientific discussion. Those sources are notoriously bad at reporting any sort of finding.

 

[Starbuck1975]

This reinforces the notion that genetics plays a significant role in who we are. I've met some identical twins (that grew up together) and they seem to be quite different. I think this is because they strive in some way to become different, and create their "own identity."

Yet there are cases of two twins where one is homosexual and the other is heterosexual...probably the best basis for debating the case of choice vs. genetic wiring.

Anyone with a meaningful background in biology/genetics knows this. If you get your science news from a major news outlet or the newspaper, don't bother commenting in a scientific discussion. Those sources are notoriously bad at reporting any sort of finding.

Although isn't the basis for debate and disagreement is which of these is the more dominant factor in explaining human behavior. Genetics, social conditioning, parental upbringing and many other environmental factors helps to define who you are as a person. But I am not educated in this field beyond my own curiosity, so I could be way off here.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Nah... psychology relies on an interplay of human biology and the psyche. The whole mind/body connection...

I'm thinking more along the lines of how much of a person is hardwired. Psychs tend to believe in a tabula rasa mode because it suits their needs much better. I think genetics plays a larger role in who we are than most people believe.

You're a little behind on modern psychology, though pure behaviourism was certainly a powerful school of thought quite a few years ago.

It's inescapable that biology and experience each contribute to a person's personality and identity; modern behavioural psychology has more to do with fMRI brain-scans than with interviews on a leather couch though. The interplay between biology and socialization is actually pretty cool, and not overly well-understood.

 

[Excelsior]

I think it is both, to be honest.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think that you (and those unnamed "studies") should consult with psych people before coming to any conclusions. My understanding (from others, I'm an engineer ) is that the psych field is increasingly supporting the idea that most personality traits are learned through experiences, not inborn. So while there are obvious differences between the two sexes (the pumbing being an obvious one), I don't think we can say for certain what traits are learned and what are genetic.

So, what does it matter? I think the problem is that if we use our "common sense" to think about "these natural differences" (as you put it) we're likely to come up with conclusions that support our bias. As an engineer, I'm surrounded by male peers, many of them threatened by women in the engineering field, who confidently state that women should not be engineers because they are naturally bad at math and science. Maybe so, but maybe that is learned, girls aren't pushed in math and science like boys are in our education system.

You cite "volumes of scientific data" and "common sense" as your two supports for your (apparent) view that sex differences are inborn. As far as volumes of scientific data, I find that hard to believe without seeing some of it in detail. When the prevailing psych wisdom says that most traits (of any kind) are learned, why would the main differences between men and women be the total opposite. Secondly, it seems obvious to me that our society treats men and women very differently. I find it hard to believe that has no or little effect on their respective traits, when being raised differently affects most people in strong ways. As far as common sense goes, "common sense" is a term I like to use to describe support people use when they have a bias, but don't know what they are talking about. This is science, be scientific.

From a subjective standpoint, going to a large school in central Iowa, I've seen a wide variety of girls here. The more "traditional" girls who view the woman's place as mainly at home, who want to have some kind of traditional female career (nurse, teacher, secretary) if they want one at all (many are here to "meet guys"), etc, etc, tend to come from very rural, conservative parts of Iowa (they also voted Bush, strangly enough ). Not saying there aren't exceptions, but I've noticed more of a skew than randomness would dictate. Makes me wonder how much your upbringing has to do with "natural differences".

Edit: Said objective instead of subjective

Well said.

As for Homosexuality and the OP: Though the OP didn't bring it up, I think it does fit into the conversation. Is every Male who likes Hair Styling, Home Decoration, Fashion, or Nursing a Homosexual? On the flipside, is every Male who likes Football(either kind), Pickup Trucks, Auto Mechanics, and Construction Work Straight? That is the common view, but is that Nature or Nurture?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Is every Male who likes Hair Styling, Home Decoration, Fashion, or Nursing a Homosexual?

That or severely whipped.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Yep a lot of Girly Men out there.

Don't fear the RRR will irradicate them soon enough.

Irradicate? I think you mean eradicate? As in I'd like to eradicate illiteracy?

 

[miketheidiot]

Clearly its the interplay between Genetics and interaction with the environment (both social and probably chemical)

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

This reinforces the notion that genetics plays a significant role in who we are. I've met some identical twins (that grew up together) and they seem to be quite different. I think this is because they strive in some way to become different, and create their "own identity."

Yet there are cases of two twins where one is homosexual and the other is heterosexual...probably the best basis for debating the case of choice vs. genetic wiring.

If i remember right quite a few people believe its due to certain hormonal influences during pregnancy. I suppose i could see how such an imbalance could happen. Also certain life expiriences that one expirienced and the other did not could have an effect, especially if the individual was inclined that way to begin with.

I believe its either fat poeple or homosexuals, or maybe both, typically have slightly abnormal thyroid glands

 

[cwjerome]

I definately think there's both genetic and environmental factors.

I suppose I am a little behind, because feminist dogma and classical Behaviorist psychs are on the decline, and their claims that people's actions are determined solely by the environment are being rejected left and right. But I do think political correctness still ties people's hands when it comes to open discussion. Case in point: the Harvard president's comments on "innate" differences between men and women, and the relative uproar it caused with some people. It's legitimate debate, and people should remain inquisitive and keep an open mind.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I definately think there's both genetic and environmental factors.

I suppose I am a little behind, because feminist dogma and classical Behaviorist psychs are on the decline, and their claims that people's actions are determined solely by the environment are being rejected left and right. But I do think political correctness still ties people's hands when it comes to open discussion. Case in point: the Harvard president's comments on "innate" differences between men and women, and the relative uproar it caused with some people. It's legitimate debate, and people should remain inquisitive and keep an open mind.

your case in point has a caveat, the "uproar" came less from political correctness or feminist concerns but rather his own history as harvard president

... questioned how great a role discrimination plays in keeping female scientists and engineers from advancing at elite universities.

... Summers already faced criticism because the number of senior job offers to womens dropped each year of his three-year presidency.

and even more glaring was the fact that he is an economist giving an economics lecture

I doubt as much controversy would arise had a biologist posed that same question

 

[flawlssdistortn]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Genetics and environment act together.

Anyone with a meaningful background in biology/genetics knows this. If you get your science news from a major news outlet or the newspaper, don't bother commenting in a scientific discussion. Those sources are notoriously bad at reporting any sort of finding.

Omar, stop being a zealot, I didn't say environment had nothing to do with the human psyche. I think we can all agree it's a mix of both genetics and outside influences.

I've heard cwjerome's real case in point before, it's that feminism has conditioned the American public to be too passive, naive, and accepting, basically a bitch, towards any hostile cultures that would do us wrong. (Like France, right?) Anyway, I really doubt people on this forum let anything tie their hands when they have an opinion.

 

[cwjerome]

Loveline... that was back in the day....

funny sh*t