Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The traditional family
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="stevevw" data-source="post: 74756164" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>I also don’t have access to my Uni’s library. I have studies in the area of sociology and psychology specializing in child, adolescent and family. I can google/google scholar the subject and find dozens of articles that support how biological aspects influences gender behavior. So therefore, you should be able to do the same if social constructive influences are more of an influence than biology and find even more. But using your experience is not a good support as it can be influenced by your personal views. That is why peer reviewed articles are best as they are verified by peers for that kind of stuff. Plus The support I have linked is repeated by different sources so that shows it is well supported.</p><p></p><p> I have said several times now that no one is trying to put anyone in boxes. You are using a false dilemma logical fallacy when you take what I have said and turn it into some agenda about forcing parents into roles. Rather I think because you have strong feminist views perhaps this is influencing your perception and that admitting any biological influences you wrongly perceive limit parents to roles when this is not the case. It simply acknowledges what is.</p><p> The point you keep missing is that I am talking about dealing with the breakdown in families. These parents cannot pursue behaviors that make their family flourish as they have done the opposite so need help to change that behaviour. Leaving them to their own devices will only continue the same problems. That was the point of starting this thread as I was frustrated with the same problems being observed and the root causes were not being addressed.</p><p></p><p> Gender specific influences are much more complex than the stereotypical behaviors. They can cover interactions on various relational aspects of being a male and female. The fact that an absent father can result in a lack of discipline for children especially boys or can affect a young girls view and relationships with the opposite sex speaks to the importance of the fathers role in their child's development.</p><p></p><p></p><p> But that just supports my argument that being a single parent is not best. That you need to compensate in other ways. That having two parents is better/best in the first place. I am talking about the avoidable consequences of family breakdowns.</p><p></p><p> No one is saying that. Like you say humans can find ways to overcome these situations to a degree. But that should not be a reason that we don't pursue what is best/better as you said having a father present is better that if they were absent. Once again I feel that you are trying to deny or avoid acknowledging the best/better as a goal as you think it has some agenda behind it.</p><p></p><p>But acknowledging what is best/better is just acknowledging something and people don't have to do that. But if we don't have any idea about what is best/better than we are like lost ships in the night. We usually have an idea for what is best/better with everything why not this area considering we have so many problems.</p><p></p><p> Actually it is most mothers according to the science. Once again no one is saying that. Acknowledging the best/better ideal is not forcing people into that. It is giving advice as to what may be best/better for a child's development according to the science. We do it with everything else, why are you being so resistant with this.</p><p></p><p> No it is because the area or the brain is more active that it affects the way a person see's things and therefore the way they behave, that's all. We now have extensive knowledge of how the brain effects us.</p><p></p><p> No you keep thinking this is about making people do something. It is not and only about acknowledging the facts. If we say that people who followed a CSRIO diet had the best/better outcomes we are not forcing anyone to go on a CSRIO diet. It is merely putting info/adice/recommendations out there for people to use as a guide. They may vary the CSRIO diet and only use some components of it, apply the info in their own way or not use it at all and come up with their own version. But if we don't put that info out there then people are usually lost in what to do.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The article you link is itself a dubious one that makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims and refers to suspect articles that rely on personal opinion rather than qualified critiques. For example the link that claims <span style="color: #00b3b3">“<em>Confirmed is in inverted commas because it’s very easy to “confirm”</em> </span><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/09/dead-salmon-responds-to-portra.html" target="_blank"><em>even the most surreal of notions with</em></a> <em><span style="color: #00b3b3">brain imaging techniques”</span>.</em> Does not work which usually means the link has been pulled for some reason.</p><p></p><p>Then other the link that claims to critique the studies goes on to say <span style="color: #00b3b3">"</span><em><span style="color: #00b3b3">The research itself is a technical tour-de-force which really needs a specialist to properly critique. I am not that specialist. But a few things seem odd about it:"</span> </em>is admitting that the critique doesn’t come for someone qualified enough to critique it. Go figure.</p><p></p><p>But the main article it is critiquing does support what I am saying here.</p><p><em><span style="color: #00b3b3">Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men's brains apparently wired more for perception and coordinated actions, and women for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.</span></em></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #00b3b3"> <em>"Women are better at intuitive thinking. Women are better at remembering things. When you talk, women are more emotionally involved – they will listen more."</em></span></p><p></p><p><em><span style="color: #00b3b3">The findings come from one of the largest studies to look at how brains are wired in healthy males and females. The maps give scientists a more complete picture of what counts as normal for each sex at various ages.</span></em></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #00b3b3"><em>The scans showed greater connectivity between the left and right sides of the brain in women, while the connections in men were mostly confined to individual hemispheres. <strong>The only region where men had more connections between the left and right sides of the brain was in the cerebellum, which plays a vital role in motor control. "If you want to learn how to ski, it's the cerebellum that has to be strong</strong>," Verma said. Details of the study are published in the journal</em> </span><a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1316909110" target="_blank"><span style="color: #00b3b3">Proceedings of </span>the National Academy of Sciences</a>.</p><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently" target="_blank">Male and female brains wired differently, scans reveal</a></p><p></p><p>Another factor that makes the above more valid is that I have posted other articles/papers that say similar things. So they all cannot be wrong. Results are usually validated when they are repeated which seems to be the case. </p><p></p><p>I will leave it at this for the moment as I am a bit busy but will get back to the rest of your post soon.</p><p>kind regards</p><p>Steve</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 74756164, member: 342064"] I also don’t have access to my Uni’s library. I have studies in the area of sociology and psychology specializing in child, adolescent and family. I can google/google scholar the subject and find dozens of articles that support how biological aspects influences gender behavior. So therefore, you should be able to do the same if social constructive influences are more of an influence than biology and find even more. But using your experience is not a good support as it can be influenced by your personal views. That is why peer reviewed articles are best as they are verified by peers for that kind of stuff. Plus The support I have linked is repeated by different sources so that shows it is well supported. I have said several times now that no one is trying to put anyone in boxes. You are using a false dilemma logical fallacy when you take what I have said and turn it into some agenda about forcing parents into roles. Rather I think because you have strong feminist views perhaps this is influencing your perception and that admitting any biological influences you wrongly perceive limit parents to roles when this is not the case. It simply acknowledges what is. The point you keep missing is that I am talking about dealing with the breakdown in families. These parents cannot pursue behaviors that make their family flourish as they have done the opposite so need help to change that behaviour. Leaving them to their own devices will only continue the same problems. That was the point of starting this thread as I was frustrated with the same problems being observed and the root causes were not being addressed. Gender specific influences are much more complex than the stereotypical behaviors. They can cover interactions on various relational aspects of being a male and female. The fact that an absent father can result in a lack of discipline for children especially boys or can affect a young girls view and relationships with the opposite sex speaks to the importance of the fathers role in their child's development. But that just supports my argument that being a single parent is not best. That you need to compensate in other ways. That having two parents is better/best in the first place. I am talking about the avoidable consequences of family breakdowns. No one is saying that. Like you say humans can find ways to overcome these situations to a degree. But that should not be a reason that we don't pursue what is best/better as you said having a father present is better that if they were absent. Once again I feel that you are trying to deny or avoid acknowledging the best/better as a goal as you think it has some agenda behind it. But acknowledging what is best/better is just acknowledging something and people don't have to do that. But if we don't have any idea about what is best/better than we are like lost ships in the night. We usually have an idea for what is best/better with everything why not this area considering we have so many problems. Actually it is most mothers according to the science. Once again no one is saying that. Acknowledging the best/better ideal is not forcing people into that. It is giving advice as to what may be best/better for a child's development according to the science. We do it with everything else, why are you being so resistant with this. No it is because the area or the brain is more active that it affects the way a person see's things and therefore the way they behave, that's all. We now have extensive knowledge of how the brain effects us. No you keep thinking this is about making people do something. It is not and only about acknowledging the facts. If we say that people who followed a CSRIO diet had the best/better outcomes we are not forcing anyone to go on a CSRIO diet. It is merely putting info/adice/recommendations out there for people to use as a guide. They may vary the CSRIO diet and only use some components of it, apply the info in their own way or not use it at all and come up with their own version. But if we don't put that info out there then people are usually lost in what to do. The article you link is itself a dubious one that makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims and refers to suspect articles that rely on personal opinion rather than qualified critiques. For example the link that claims [COLOR=#00b3b3]“[I]Confirmed is in inverted commas because it’s very easy to “confirm”[/I] [/COLOR][URL='http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/09/dead-salmon-responds-to-portra.html'][I]even the most surreal of notions with[/I][/URL] [I][COLOR=#00b3b3]brain imaging techniques”[/COLOR].[/I] Does not work which usually means the link has been pulled for some reason. Then other the link that claims to critique the studies goes on to say [COLOR=#00b3b3]"[/COLOR][I][COLOR=#00b3b3]The research itself is a technical tour-de-force which really needs a specialist to properly critique. I am not that specialist. But a few things seem odd about it:"[/COLOR] [/I]is admitting that the critique doesn’t come for someone qualified enough to critique it. Go figure. But the main article it is critiquing does support what I am saying here. [I][COLOR=#00b3b3]Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men's brains apparently wired more for perception and coordinated actions, and women for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.[/COLOR][/I] [COLOR=#00b3b3] [I]"Women are better at intuitive thinking. Women are better at remembering things. When you talk, women are more emotionally involved – they will listen more."[/I][/COLOR] [I][COLOR=#00b3b3]The findings come from one of the largest studies to look at how brains are wired in healthy males and females. The maps give scientists a more complete picture of what counts as normal for each sex at various ages.[/COLOR][/I] [COLOR=#00b3b3][I]The scans showed greater connectivity between the left and right sides of the brain in women, while the connections in men were mostly confined to individual hemispheres. [B]The only region where men had more connections between the left and right sides of the brain was in the cerebellum, which plays a vital role in motor control. "If you want to learn how to ski, it's the cerebellum that has to be strong[/B]," Verma said. Details of the study are published in the journal[/I] [/COLOR][URL='http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1316909110'][COLOR=#00b3b3]Proceedings of [/COLOR]the National Academy of Sciences[/URL]. [URL='https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently']Male and female brains wired differently, scans reveal[/URL] Another factor that makes the above more valid is that I have posted other articles/papers that say similar things. So they all cannot be wrong. Results are usually validated when they are repeated which seems to be the case. I will leave it at this for the moment as I am a bit busy but will get back to the rest of your post soon. kind regards Steve [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The traditional family
Top
Bottom