kim@emory.UUCP (Kim Wallen {Psychology}) (05/19/84)
In the discussion about environmental -vs- constitutional causes for differences between males and females it seems that environmental is being used as equal to "social environment". It is clear that the social environment we grow up in has a powerful impact on how we develop, but I think it is a mistake to ignore biological differences. Let me give a racial example which might make my point clear. (This example is based upon real information.) In studying school performance of inner-city kids it was found that X-kids developed more slowly and scored lower on IQ tests. There seem to be four alternative responses to this information: 1. The information is incorrect. There is no difference between X and Y. 2. The information is correct and is the result of cultural differences, either in bias in the test or different early experience. 3. The information is correct and results from constitutional differences between X and Y. 4. The information is correct, but we don't know the cause. It may be cultural, there may be a constitutional component or it may be an interaction between the two. It seems to me that each of these respones is appropriate at different times for different issues. Demonstrably "cooked" data like those of the British twin study should result in outright rejection. Rejection should be based upon analysis (as in "the Mismeasure of Man") not desire for the results to be incorrect. Position 2 and 3 are really subsets of 4, but are usually applied as the only alternatives if 1 is not the case. Choosing between 2 and 3 and ignoring 4 is the most dangerous choice we can make. The likelihood that it is either 2 or 3 is small in most cases, while the likelihood that it is the 4th possibility is great. To end the example. The CDC recently reported that blood lead levels in X-kids were 6 times as high as for Y-kids living in comparable environments. Lead has well-known damaging effects on neural development, but no reason is known for the difference in lead level. The implications of this difference are scary for the intellectual development of X-kids. However in terms of the example, if we were to argue that any difference in performance between X-kids and Y-kids was strictly cultural then we would not pursue organic causes which might interact with specific environmental conditions to produce the differences seen. If it turns out that X-kids have a predisposition to accumulate lead (genetic) then a given environment (one in which leaded gasoline is used) is much more dangerous to them than Y-kids who do not have this predisposition. Without this knowledge, no cultural cure (i.e. change in socialization) will prevent this interaction between predisposition and environment. I would argue that when a difference is presented between two groups we first ask: Is the difference important? Does its magnitude suggest that some action needs to be taken. In the example of mathematical ability there may or may not be a difference between males and females, but the difference is too small to have a clear implication for any individual. However the difference between blacks and whites in the incidence of sickling and males and females in the incidence of heart disease does have direct implications for individuals. Once the importance of a difference has been demonstrated then all possible contributing factors should be studied. So what do we do if it is discovered that males are predisposed to have their lives significantly shortened by stress due to the nature of the actions of testosterone, whereas women are buffered from these effects because of the nature of the actions of estrogens? That now becomes a social policy issue. If a social goal is for all members to lead healthy productive lives we develop social systems to buffer males from stress and encourage females to undertake stressful occupations, or we attempt to eliminate stress from all occupations. The point is that the social implications of a difference depend upon the goals of the society and are not inherent in the difference itself. One last example. Suppose that females are predisposed to find nurturing offspring rewarding and fullfilling, whereas men can nurture babies, but the experience is less central to their needs. What could society do to deal with this? I would argue that the best long-term response is to value the predisposition of women more highly. If a women truly finds it extremely rewarding to have children why shouldn't society facilitate that without presenting an either/or choice. The issues should be how does society reward women who want to commit their skill and talent to raising the next productive generation? Certainly this would mean that males who have the same desire would be able to avail themselves of this option, but most importantly women would be allowed to acknowledge their desire to raise children without feeling that they had to reject being a respected and worthwhile part of society while doing it. The problem is that such options will never be developed by a society that believes that humans are completely labile and that what we are is strictly a result of our socialization. In such a world-view any difference holds the potential for discrimination because if the person had been raised differently they would behave/think/hope differently so ultimately the blame lies with some parent/person/sex/ institution. Only when we have the courage to attempt to understand the little biological biases built into us can we address forthrightly the question of what we as a society should do with them. The monthly reminder that only females have the capacity to create another human life alters one's world view independent of any socialization process. The fact that a male can never know for certain who his children are is a biological fact and probably biases his world-view. To ignore these differences is to miss the opportunity to discover what makes each sex unique and loses the potential for discovering strengths which could benefit society.
tron@fluke.UUCP (05/22/84)
This is response to Kim's article:
From kim@emory.UUCP Sat May 19 04:59:59 1984
>> The monthly reminder that only females have the capacity to create another
>> human life alters one's world view independent of any socialization
>> process. The fact that a male can never know for certain who his children
>> are is a biological fact and probably biases his world-view. To ignore
>> these differences is to miss the opportunity to discover what makes
>> each sex unique and loses the potential for discovering strengths
>> which could benefit society.
I real;ize you are trying to stress woman's role in procreation but I
think that no matter how important that role is it still takes a woman
and a man to create another human life. I know with all certainty whom
my children (actually child) are and though my world-view may be biased
it is not by this fact. I offer that your world-view is perhaps biased
by your perception of sex roles in procreation.
Kim, aside from this minor point I thought your article was excelent.
Peter Barbee
decvax-+-uw-beaver-+
ihnp4--+ allegra-+
ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron
sun-+
ssc-vax-+