She Also Falsely Assumed That A Neurosurgeon Would Know Everything There Is To Know About The Brain When The Fact If The Matter Is That There Are Many Things About The Brain That Hasn't Been Figured Out Yet...
Very true. There are differences between men and women, intelligence and a lot of other abilities have a strong genetic component and there even are differences between races. That re just facts. Empirical facts don't imply values, but of course todays humanitarian, egalitarian values are pretty absurd when one knows about the facts. Why different people should be, for example, equal before the law is not obvious and in fact I think they shouldn't.
No, it is obvious why everyone should be equal before the law. Even as a cold hearted rationalist it doesn't make sense to judge an individual based on the average characteristics of their group, because there is much more variation within the same group than between different groups.
@@entertainingideas The more information available, the more precise the laws could be, but I'm not a fan of those kinds of laws anyway. I was just talking about this recently with some friends regarding drugs, where the two main positions are: ban drugs or legalize drugs. But I thought it would be much better to ban drugs for those people who are of low discipline and would become addicted and legalize them for superior people.
I'd suggest you have a look at The Gendered Brain by Gina Rippon. A renowned cognitive neuroscientist. You've formed an opinion wrapped around someone using inclusive language and not based on fact here.
@@entertainingideas Neuroscientifically speaking there is no difference between brains of either sex. The woman is correct. Her use of the words 'assigned' doesn't devalue her point. She's just using inclusive language.
You‘re right, I shouldn‘t dismiss her point based on her use of „assigned“. And I‘m not. I am dismissing it, because it‘s in blatant contradiction to the facts. Just look it up on the website of the NIH or any other trustworthy source. To your point that she‘s using „inclusive“ language: Whom exactly are you excluding by describing someone as either male or female?
She Also Falsely Assumed That A Neurosurgeon Would Know Everything There Is To Know About The Brain When The Fact If The Matter Is That There Are Many Things About The Brain That Hasn't Been Figured Out Yet...
Very true. There are differences between men and women, intelligence and a lot of other abilities have a strong genetic component and there even are differences between races. That re just facts. Empirical facts don't imply values, but of course todays humanitarian, egalitarian values are pretty absurd when one knows about the facts. Why different people should be, for example, equal before the law is not obvious and in fact I think they shouldn't.
No, it is obvious why everyone should be equal before the law. Even as a cold hearted rationalist it doesn't make sense to judge an individual based on the average characteristics of their group, because there is much more variation within the same group than between different groups.
@@entertainingideas The more information available, the more precise the laws could be, but I'm not a fan of those kinds of laws anyway. I was just talking about this recently with some friends regarding drugs, where the two main positions are: ban drugs or legalize drugs. But I thought it would be much better to ban drugs for those people who are of low discipline and would become addicted and legalize them for superior people.
I'd suggest you have a look at The Gendered Brain by Gina Rippon. A renowned cognitive neuroscientist.
You've formed an opinion wrapped around someone using inclusive language and not based on fact here.
@timmk94 What am I missing exactly?
@@entertainingideas Neuroscientifically speaking there is no difference between brains of either sex. The woman is correct.
Her use of the words 'assigned' doesn't devalue her point. She's just using inclusive language.
You‘re right, I shouldn‘t dismiss her point based on her use of „assigned“. And I‘m not. I am dismissing it, because it‘s in blatant contradiction to the facts. Just look it up on the website of the NIH or any other trustworthy source. To your point that she‘s using „inclusive“ language: Whom exactly are you excluding by describing someone as either male or female?