agelastos
Member
- Feb 7, 2020
- 206
- 516
- 217
Not butting in at all. Thanks for the thoughtful pushback. I agree it’s more complicated and it’s a spectrum. I was talking in averages, but I should have been clearer that there’s lots of overlap and many exceptions. The people-vs-things tilt is a group pattern, not a rule for any one person.I hope you don't mind me butting in, even though it wasn't addressed to me. But I think you got a point there, but also think you don't. What I mean is, I kinda agree with what you said, and looking at myself I do kinda feel like that fits. But I also like to categorize, I work in a technical field (though I also have a small artistic background) and I percieve myself as having a scientific outlook on life. I think there's merit in what you said, but also feel that it's more complicated. And it's definitely more of an spectrum than an either/or situation.
Think of these broad gender generalizations as ideal types (in the Weberian sense): exaggerations used as analytical tools to study and compare actual phenomena. Very few people, if any, fit those extremes exactly. For example, I’m terrible at math and far more interested in art, the humanities, and the behavioral sciences than in the natural sciences. But, even if there are many exceptions, these patterns still shape us through culture. Averages feed into gender roles, training, and expectations, which then feed back into how we act (affecting the averages), and so on, and so forth.
Edit: Removed pointless speculation about gender norms and the dual-inheritance theory.
Edit 2: Put some of it back in.
Last edited: