|
|
|
dimossi
Skeptic Friend
USA
141 Posts |
 Posted - 12/23/2002 : 14:03:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deborah
Seems like a complex issue, but here is how I see it:
You have several different variables influencing why women skeptics are less visible. For me and many other professional women, TIME.
Although time restraints can be a problem for both men and women, I suspect many women may be less eager to dedicate the time required to participate in debates/discussions. I think most skeptical men would rather forgo some other time required activity for some good debate/discussion.
quote:
I don't have a lot of time to peruse the discussion boards and make lengthy debate or discussion. I work 8-10 hours on any given day, read, exercise, cook, clean, socialize, write, pay the bills, and devote time to my other interests.
Being a single, 32 year old male, I find myself with similar time constraints, but due to my occupation in the tech world it makes it easier for me to become involved with debates/discussions.
quote:
Imagine if I was married with a family. I suspect that married or single moms are even less prevalent in the skeptic community due to the very fact of being a working mother. I can't imagine how a woman maintains the energy to do all those things I mentioned AND raise a child/take care of the family's needs, which most women are doing today!
I don't know if marriage would necessarily hinder one's skeptical involvement - it depends on the relationship. Children, on the other hand, will certainly affect anyone's free time.
quote:
Society's perception of women has been evolving, but it has been a slow process. Career paths such as engineering, science, and math are just beginning to be things that are encouraged as career paths for women. We are beginning to see more and more women scientists and engineers etc..although I suspect this will take some time to manifest itself in ways that will bring visibility to women skeptics.
I agree. It certainly doesn't help that you still have fundamentalists claiming that their particular dogma teaches that women are anything but equal to man.
quote:
Then there is this whole thing about how women communicate. We are social creatures (generally) and very communal with other women. Debating may be seen as threatening to that natural instinct in ourselves. Pulling us apart, rather than together. A friend of mine speculates that debating is a form of competition and that seems to be something more natural to men. He asked me how women compete, and there really was a vagueness to my response. It seems that most women compete socially. The way we look, our social circle, our successes, our material possessions, how caring or giving we are. Rarely have I seen two women debate or compete in a way that seems intellectual. Not to say women are not intellectual. My personal opinion is we have an intellectual advantage over men! Any thoughts on this last point (how women compete)? I'd be interested to see what the other women here think about how we compete with each other. And men, feel free to speculate as well.
I agree that women are usually more social and emotional creatures than men are. IMO, this is the largest factor affecting the number of women skeptics.
First, I think that most women are more susceptible to religion, superstition and other types of magical thinking due to their emotional/social mentality. So I would also then suspect that this makes it even more difficult for a woman to reject such emotionally driven ideologies for a more rational and logical philosophy.
Second, I think that women tend to avoid conflict more than men. (I am reffering to intellectual conflict. Conflict arriving from emotion seems to be an exception. At least it was for many of my x-girlfriends.  )
Third, I agree that it seems that men like to compete in an intellectual banter, more than women. What I wonder is: Is this difference due more to cultural infuences or is this something hard wired into our cognative minds from evolution? |
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." [Philip K. Dick, science-fiction author] |
 |
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 23:35:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Although time restraints can be a problem for both men and women, I suspect many women may be less eager to dedicate the time required to participate in debates/discussions. I think most skeptical men would rather forgo some other time required activity for some good debate/discussion.
Hmmm. I think the same applies to skeptical women. I am giving up 30 minutes of my reading time to post here (not that I consider this intense debate or discussion) and I don't spend my time reading romance novels so I feel that I could be learning something more stimulating from reading. While I enjoy discussion/debate occasionally, I don't find it intellectually necessary. I think my feeling is more of a personality thing than a gender thing. Ever hear of Meyer Briggs Type Indicator? I'm trying to get @tomic to introduce it on this site. I'd be interested to see if there is a correlation between personality type and skepticism.
quote:
Being a single, 32 year old male, I find myself with similar time constraints, but due to my occupation in the tech world it makes it easier for me to become involved with debates/discussions.
Why is it easier for you?
quote:
I agree that women are usually more social and emotional creatures than men are. IMO, this is the largest factor affecting the number of women skeptics.
I believe you are agreeing to my comment that women are more communal and that we lean towards collaborative communication. I don't recall saying anything about us being more emotional. Although, I can't say I disagree with your comment. I'm not sure that makes us less skeptical as a gender though. I would go a step further to use myself as an example, but I don't think that would serve any purpose because I would be seen as an exception. I think most people would see me as equally skeptical and emotional. @tomic, Kil? What say you?
quote:
First, I think that most women are more susceptible to religion, superstition and other types of magical thinking due to their emotional/social mentality. So I would also then suspect that this makes it even more difficult for a woman to reject such emotionally driven ideologies for a more rational and logical philosophy.
Do you have statistics to back up your theory? I'd be interested to hear them. My guess is if you visited a church you would find as many men as women present.
quote:
Second, I think that women tend to avoid conflict more than men. (I am reffering to intellectual conflict. Conflict arriving from emotion seems to be an exception. At least it was for many of my x-girlfriends. )
Yeah, that is what I stated in my original post. I haven't frequently observed women trying to compete with each other intellectually. That is what sparked my post. I'm curious about the lack of visible intellectual competition amongst women. I'm really interested in what the other women on these boards think.
quote:
Third, I agree that it seems that men like to compete in an intellectual banter, more than women. What I wonder is: Is this difference due more to cultural infuences or is this something hard wired into our cognative minds from evolution?
Our neural connections are formed based upon what we observe and experience through our senses from infancy on. Actually, let me correct myself..our neural connections are already formed at birth and the ones we don't use repitively become weaker/die off. That makes me think that cultural influences play an equal role in our development/differences. |
|
|
|
dimossi
Skeptic Friend
USA
141 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2002 : 08:50:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deborah
Hmmm. I think the same applies to skeptical women.
I agree that the same can apply to women, but I think it is just something that happens less frequently in women than in men. Do you agree? I know that your are indeed one of many exceptions, but don't you think that statistically more women would choose a different way to spend their time than in skeptical endeavours? Of course, this could become less and less of a gender biased stat as culture changes. Unless, there is something hard wired in the brains of females, more than males, that makes them less likely to think skeptically.
On that note, I saw an interesting article in the New York Times today, check it out:
The Origin of Religions, From a Distinctly Darwinian View
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/24/science/social/24CONV.html?tntemail1
quote:
I am giving up 30 minutes of my reading time to post here (not that I consider this intense debate or discussion) and I don't spend my time reading romance novels so I feel that I could be learning something more stimulating from reading.
Again, I think this makes you an exception, but IMO, a good exception. 
quote:
While I enjoy discussion/debate occasionally, I don't find it intellectually necessary. I think my feeling is more of a personality thing than a gender thing. Ever hear of Meyer Briggs Type Indicator?
I don't know much about it, but I will do a little Google search and educate myself. If it does happen to be a personality thing, then could this correlation still be tied to the fact that one particular gender exhibits a particular personality trait more than the other?
quote:
I'm trying to get @tomic to introduce it on this site. I'd be interested to see if there is a correlation between personality type and skepticism.
Sounds interesting. This also makes me think about how I have often pondered the idea that religious types are also the same types of people that are often duped by Multi-level marketing schemes, hoax e-mails and other examples of deception. I wonder if there is a certain personality type that has a correlation there as well.
quote:
quote:
... occupation in the tech world it makes it easier for me to become involved with debates/discussions.
Why is it easier for you?
Easier because I feel that I have greater technical access, freedom, and knowledge than the average person may have. In other words, someone may be an incredibly active skeptic, yet have little technical knowledge, et al.; and thus not participate in online debates/discussions. (I guess I should have specified that I meant online debates/discussions. whoops.)
quote:
I believe you are agreeing to my comment that women are more communal and that we lean towards collaborative communication. I don't recall saying anything about us being more emotional. Although, I can't say I disagree with your comment. I'm not sure that makes us less skeptical as a gender though. I would go a step further to use myself as an example, but I don't think that would serve any purpose because I would be seen as an exception. I think most people would see me as equally skeptical and emotional. @tomic, Kil? What say you?
Do you find that your skepticism and emotional feelings clash? If so, in what ways?
Maybe we need to quantify the emotions we are talking about. Because you can be a secular humanist that feels more altruistic than your average religious zealot, yet the religious zealot may be more susceptible to emotional self-gratification influences than the humanist/skeptic.
quote:
quote:
First, I think that most women are more susceptible to religion, superstition and other types of magical thinking due to their emotional/social mentality. So I would also then suspect that this makes it even more difficult for a woman to reject such emotionally driven ideologies for a more rational and logical philosophy.
Do you have statistics to back up your theory?
I didn't at the time I wrote this; it was pure speculation on my part, although I thought I had seen some stats that supported this.
I did find this poll:
Weekly Church Attendance:
ALL MEN: 32%
ALL WOMEN: 44%
Catholic Men: 26%
Catholic Women: 49%
Protestant Men: 42%
Protestant Women: 50%
Source:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/church_poll020301.html
quote:
I'd be interested to hear them. My guess is if you visited a church you would find as many men as women present.
Even if that were so, how many men would be there just because their wives made them go? 
quote:
Yeah, that is what I stated in my original post. I haven't frequently observed women trying to compete with each other intellectually. That is what sparked my post. I'm curious about the lack of visible intellectual competition amongst women. I'm really interested in what the other women on these boards think.
Our neural connections are formed based upon what we observe and experience through our senses from infancy on. Actually, let me correct myself..our neural connections are already formed at birth and the ones we don't use repitively become weaker/die off. That makes me think that cultural influences play an equal role in our development/differences.
Good point. I find cognitive science fascinating. Have you read any of Steven Pinker's books? |
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." [Philip K. Dick, science-fiction author] |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2002 : 17:03:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
On that note, I saw an interesting article in the New York Times today, check it out:
The Origin of Religions, From a Distinctly Darwinian View
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/24/science/social/24CONV.html?tntemail1
I couldn't access this article without signing up with the NY times.
quote:
I didn't at the time I wrote this; it was pure speculation on my part, although I thought I had seen some stats that supported this.
I did find this poll:
Weekly Church Attendance:
ALL MEN: 32%
ALL WOMEN: 44%
Catholic Men: 26%
Catholic Women: 49%
Protestant Men: 42%
Protestant Women: 50%
Source:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/church_poll020301.html
I did access this article and review the poll results. A random sample of 1008 people is no where near a statistically valid sample for our US population of 288,769,045 (2000 census). I'm looking for some data on this as well. Hopefully, I'll have some to share when I get back home.
I will respond to the rest of your post when I get back to Portland this weekend.
Bye!
|
|
|
|
dimossi
Skeptic Friend
USA
141 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2002 : 20:57:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deborah
I couldn't access this article without signing up with the NY times.
Well, here it is:
[article deleted]
PhDreamer: Sorry Dimossi, I believe posting the article in its entirety is a violation of fair use. I suspect the NY Times requires registration at least partly for this reason. Perhaps you could summarize or post pertinent quotes?
|
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." [Philip K. Dick, science-fiction author] |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2002 : 23:49:21 [Permalink]
|
My girlfriend is a skeptic. She posts very rarely on this or any other site. I think she liked the study that Reasonable Doubt brought up. Men seem to like pulling each others chains. They do it for fun. She believes that men are socialized to compete in sports, debate or what have you. Woman are more socialized to look for common ground. So for a woman to get involved in a debate on a forum like this, she is basically saying that the differences out weigh any common ground.
To put it another way, there is less reason for woman to post on a site like this. The disagreements exist, but since woman feel less need to compete for a win, they may also feel less need to argue.
That is not to say that woman are passive. It may, however, mean that woman choose their battles differently than men do....
Of course, there are exceptions.... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2002 : 00:31:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
My girlfriend is a skeptic. She posts very rarely on this or any other site. I think she liked the study that Reasonable Doubt brought up. Men seem to like pulling each others chains. They do it for fun. She believes that men are socialized to compete in sports, debate or what have you. Woman are more socialized to look for common ground. So for a woman to get involved in a debate on a forum like this, she is basically saying that the differences out weigh any common ground.
To put it another way, there is less reason for woman to post on a site like this. The disagreements exist, but since woman feel less need to compete for a win, they may also feel less need to argue.
That is not to say that woman are passive. It may, however, mean that woman choose their battles differently than men do....
Of course, there are exceptions....
*Raises hand*
On the forums, I'm fairly civil most of the time.
But for some reason, when I'm on PalTalk, and a female woo woo enters the room, I go ballistic. Guess whenever I hear a nasal female voice saying "Well, yu all skeptics maya thank yu know it awl, but mah bibull sayas yu all are goin to hell." Or we get some broad in there who claims to be able to read our futures, because of the power the aliens gave her the last time she was abducted. I go right off the shelf, okay?
Yes, there is the stereotype that women believe in more woo woo things than men. I don't know if it's true, but the stereotype persists nonetheless.
In these cases, the guys are usually much nicer than I am. One guy offered to calm me down personally. Ripping out my phone line and duct tape was mentioned. I was really pissed that night.
Here's the problem: IMO, the notion that women are more in tune with nature and therefore more spiritual is a load of horsecookies. This harkens back to the days when females were given cake courses to take in school because, hey, they're gonna get married after graduation, right? News flash people: those days are over. Whenever I hear some female yapping about how "spiritual" she is, I think it's a euphemism for "I'm too lazy to pick up anything more technical than a Sylvia Browne book".
I'm 43 years old, spent 20 years in the military. I feel like I've been fighting an uphill battle against this my whole life. So when some "earth mother" decides to infest our chat room, personifying and perpetuating the "spiritual woman" crap, I must admit I go spare.
*Sorry, this was probably totally off topic, but it's a rant I've had building up for some time.*
|
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2002 : 06:02:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dimossi
quote:
Originally posted by Deborah
I couldn't access this article without signing up with the NY times.
Well, here it is:
Thank you very much |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2002 : 16:14:31 [Permalink]
|
Dimossi
Church Attendance Rates by Gender
I have to concede to you on this. I did a lot of research on the web and was unable to find a lot (hell..any) of thorough data from non-religious sources on this topic. I perused a lot of data and for the most part it seems to support the ABC poll data (even though those results are not statistically valid!). The only links I feel are worthy to use here are listed below. I prefer the first one because they cite a lot of the sources that collected the data and they seem fairly reputable. The folks in the second link seem to agree with you that religion (or lack of) is hard-wired in the brain. Men are prone to riskier behavior and irreligous beliefs are deemed to be risky behavior. So men, are more likely to lean towards skepticism for this reason than women. I think women are kind of forced to lean towards less risky behaviors because of family obligations. I think that women are more attracted to the church for what it promotes in the way of community, social support, family..etc.. This also supports my belief that we need a more community based atheist, agnostic, skeptic organization. Any potential co-founders out there 
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm
http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/02434.htm
There was another article I read that gave an explanation of why men attended church, but I can't seem to find it any longer. It basically stated that men began attending church when they married and began having families. So, perhaps with much prodding from the spouse, but perhaps because of biological reasons as well..to keep their family intact and focused on community, social support, family...it seems men only begin to focus on this in later years whereas women are constantly focused on it. Do men's testosterone levels decrease with age? That could explain their receptiveness to religious belief as they grow older perhaps?
Meyer Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
Below are some links that will give you a good idea of what personality typing is all about. I have been nudging @tomic to add a dating service to this site (preferably using MBTI). This way, skeptics have an easier time meeting other skeptics and then they can meet, spawn, and populate the world with little skeptics  . Just for the record, I am an INFJ. Any single, ENFP/ENTP skeptics out there want to test this MBTI theory out? 
http://www.personalitypage.com/info.html
http://www.typelogic.com
This one is for @tomic
http://www.nua.ie/surveys/index.cgi?f=VS&art_id=905357576&rel=true
"Women now account for 52 percent of home Internet users".
DiMossi
I have not read any of Pinker. What book title do you suggest? Maybe you could write a book review of your favorite one for our book review folder?
|
|
|
|
dimossi
Skeptic Friend
USA
141 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 11:52:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deborah
Church Attendance Rates by Gender
I have to concede to you on this.
quote:
I did a lot of research on the web and was unable to find a lot (hell..any) of thorough data from non-religious sources on this topic. I perused a lot of data and for the most part it seems to support the ABC poll data (even though those results are not statistically valid!). The only links I feel are worthy to use here are listed below. I prefer the first one because they cite a lot of the sources that collected the data and they seem fairly reputable.
Ah, yes, the Religious Tolerance web site, although it has lacks in its design, it contains a wealth of useful information.
quote:
The folks in the second link seem to agree with you that religion (or lack of) is hard-wired in the brain. Men are prone to riskier behavior and irreligous beliefs are deemed to be risky behavior. So men, are more likely to lean towards skepticism for this reason than women. I think women are kind of forced to lean towards less risky behaviors because of family obligations. I think that women are more attracted to the church for what it promotes in the way of community, social support, family..etc.. This also supports my belief that we need a more community based atheist, agnostic, skeptic organization. Any potential co-founders out there
Thanks for doing the research on this subject Deborah. As far as the community based non-theist/skeptic organizations go -- I totally agree that there should be more of them, although, IMO, there really seems to be quite a few non-theist/skeptic organizations. I think it may be the community/fellowship element that may be lacking in many of these organizations. I guess it depends where you look and what your requirements would be in order to fulfill that communal and social need.
Some examples of possible good non-theist/skeptic organizations:
Universal Unitarians -
http://www.religioustolerance.com/u-u.htm
There is actually a UU church right up the street from me. I have to admit that I have only attended one time and it was for a forum and not the regular sermon. Based on what I know of the UU church (at least this local one), it seems like a nice "substitute" for those that still desire the social elements of a church. This includes singing, speakers, and other church elements without one particular dogma being preached and adhered by of the whole congregation.
Secular Humanists -
http://www.religioustolerance.com/humanism.htm
(In my case a local organization called HUSBAY - Humanists of Sarasota Bay Area) -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sarasota_Humanists/
Humanists organizations tend to focus on the humanitarian principles that might be shared by some religions. They just omit the supernatural and focus on what is known to be real. HUSBAY has a decent sized membership and has monthly meetings that include guest speakers.
I have started my own "spin-off" of the HUSBAY group, called Free Inquiry Forum; it consists of weekly meetings in an open forum format. http://www.freeinquiryforum.com
quote:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm
http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/02434.htm
There was another article I read that gave an explanation of why men attended church, but I can't seem to find it any longer. It basically stated that men began attending church when they married and began having families. So, perhaps with much prodding from the spouse, but perhaps because of biological reasons as well..to keep their family intact and focused on community, social support, family...it seems men only begin to focus on this in later years whereas women are constantly focused on it. Do men's testosterone levels decrease with age? That could explain their receptiveness to religious belief as they grow older perhaps?
Good points. The most common reason for decreased testosterone levels is aging. The levels can also decrease during acute and chronic emotional stress, over training, physical inactivity, after the use of anabolic steroids, excessive use of alcohol, prescription or recreational medication and certain diseases.
quote:
Meyer Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
Below are some links that will give you a good idea of what personality typing is all about. I have been nudging @tomic to add a dating service to this site (preferably using MBTI). This way, skeptics have an easier time meeting other skeptics and then they can meet, spawn, and populate the world with little skeptics . Just for the record, I am an INFJ. Any single, ENFP/ENTP skeptics out there want to test this MBTI theory out?
I will take a look at your links about MBTI.
Some links that may interest you:
Free Thinker's Match Maker: http://www.secularsingles.com/
Atheist Singles: http://atheistsingles.com/
Freethought Singles: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/singles/
Oh, and BTW, I am single. I guess I need to figure out if I am ENFP/ENTP. 
quote:
http://www.personalitypage.com/info.html
http://www.typelogic.com
This one is for @tomic
http://www.nua.ie/surveys/index.cgi?f=VS&art_id=905357576&rel=true
"Women now account for 52 percent of home Internet users".
Wow, I am surprised at that one.
quote:
I have not read any of Pinker. What book title do you suggest? Maybe you could write a book review of your favorite one for our book review folder?
I haven't read any of Pinker's books yet either, but I have one on my bookshelf that is in the "to read" queue. The one I have is called "How the Mind Works". http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393318486/qid=1041274081/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/103-6574235-8443852
I would love to write a book review after I finally read it, although that could be awhile from now.
In reason,
David |
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." [Philip K. Dick, science-fiction author] |
|
|
|
dimossi
Skeptic Friend
USA
141 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 14:05:59 [Permalink]
|
Hey, check out this great article I read today regarding what makes people superstitious:
Hostages to fortune - http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,858608,00.html
quote:
Ask a psychologist, a sociologist or an anthropologist what makes us superstitious - why we queue in market towns for tarot readings, why we fill in our lottery tickets with the same lucky ballpoint every time, and risk back injury avoiding the cracks between paving stones - and they will tell you the same thing. When people feel that they have no control over events, they will suspend their belief in the rational and step into a world where the rules seem more flexible.
Edited to change "...makes us superstitious" to "...makes people superstitious". |
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." [Philip K. Dick, science-fiction author] |
| Edited by - dimossi on 12/30/2002 15:34:43 |
|
|
|
dimossi
Skeptic Friend
USA
141 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2003 : 10:57:02 [Permalink]
|
Another article. One that I don't necessarily agree with, but it has to do with this thread's topic:
Why are men less religious? It may be form of risk-taking just as criminal behavior is. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-12/uow-wam121802.php |
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." [Philip K. Dick, science-fiction author] |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2003 : 11:28:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dimossi
Why are men less religious? It may be form of risk-taking just as criminal behavior is. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-12/uow-wam121802.php
Or it may be a consequence of alien design, or it may be the side effect of a mild preference for beer, or it may be ...
The referenced article states, in part:quote:
Recent studies of biochemistry imply that both male irreligiousness and male lawlessness are rooted in the fact that far more males than females have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses, especially those involving immediate gratification and thrills.
My questions are:- What studies?
- Why the term 'imply' rather than 'indicate'?
- What the hell is "an underdeveloped ability to inhibit"?
It all sounds a bit like the 'scientific' speculation dished out on the Discovery channel. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2003 : 16:27:52 [Permalink]
|
DiMossi:quote:
Why are men less religious? It may be form of risk-taking just as criminal behavior is. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-12/uow-wam121802.php
Consequent Atheist:quote:
Or it may be a consequence of alien design, or it may be the side effect of a mild preference for beer, or it may be ...
The referenced article states, in part "Recent studies of biochemistry imply that both male irreligiousness and male lawlessness are rooted in the fact that far more males than females have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses, especially those involving immediate gratification and thrills."
My questions are:- What studies?
- Why the term 'imply' rather than 'indicate'?
- What the hell is "an underdeveloped ability to inhibit"?
It all sounds a bit like the 'scientific' speculation dished out on the Discovery channel.
Consequent Atheist:
I've found that most people are willing to answer questions regarding their work so I have emailed the author of the article and inquired about the "recent studies of biochemistry.." that he referenced. He'll be back from holiday on the 3rd. 
Dimossi:
I think I understand why you asked me about Pinker now. I looked him up and browsed through some of his published articles. I found my way to an online debate about human happiness between him and Martin Seligman. I'm going to point you to this article for two reasons. One, because I think it's interesting, and two, because Martin Seligamn mentions something in one of his replies that I am very supportive of, which is the identification and application of our strengths (he mentions it as he is referring to the "Good Life", which I'm not as caught up in as the signature strength references).Upon first glance, this seems VERY similar to the concept of a book I was exposed to a couple years ago called Now, Discover Your Strengths ,Marcus Buckingham and Donald O. Clifton. When I purchased the book I was given a code to take a test developed by the Gallup Organization to identify what my five signature strengths were. I'm about to take the Segilman version and see how similar it is to the Gallup test.
http://www.slate.msn.com/id/2072079/
http://www.authentichappiness.org
Maybe I should start a new topic for this!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
