Dr Winters, makes a pretty proxy response.

Systems Failure

Game of Patriarchy

Response to Prof. Morairty.

Re: Video - Moriarty, villain  or white knight?

I am grateful for the time you have taken in responding to my video, particularly when you have such a busy schedule, having watched your appearance on the MSS, I now understand why you took issue with the title of that video, I can only apologise, it was not intended as a pejorative, but I have to admit was a thoughtless strap line and I understand why you took issue with it.

So I would like to address the points you raised in the order that they were made.

1). My video was made in response to Dr Winters who referred her viewers to your article, your post she suggested, supported her position in relation to dimorphism, my response was intended as a review of the article, as it was presented, in that post you quoted Dr Mason, in my video I addressed that quotation, which I assumed you considered a fair and appropriate representation of his view. My position was that Dr Mason uses the Olympics as an analogy, in order to contrast physical dimorphism between male and female,  and it was dimorphism that might explain the imbalance in sex representation, this is not stated explicitly in the quotation you cite in your article, my argument relating to his position rests heavily, on inference drawn from that quotation, “I don’t think” is not an assertion, it is a guarded term, I make no apology for the use of such terms, it certainly does not make my argument weaker.

2). Your second point is rather lengthy, so I will try to address the main themes as comprehensively as I can, humans are not a highly dimorphic species, but humans are undeniably sexually-differentiated, I don’t think you take a contrary position in this, unlike Dr Winters who seems to view Science through a peculiar ideological lens. Dimorphism is a scientific fact, as certain and as well confirmed as evolution and sexual selection, both are fundamental to evolutionary biology, and sexual dimorphism is a predictable and confirmed consequence of these natural processes, in your appearance on the MSS you seem to acknowledge this, although this acknowledgement was not verbalised, but you did baulk at the suggestion that dimorphism extended “above the neck”, in effect you appear to deny dimorphism any explanatory power in matters related to sex differences in trait or abilities, “where’s your evidence!”, was the immediate retort.

In your response above, you state that “the *influence* of sexual dimorphism on abilities and attributes is an extremely weak effect in many cases”, which seems to imply, that the influence in “some” cases you consider not so weak?  This suggests that there is inconsistency in your view, and this makes me uncertain in relation to your exact position, are you suggesting that some differences in abilities are weak and that other differences are measurable? Or is it the case that you believe dimorphism has no bearing on trait differences between sexes? Or there are no differences at all?

The review article referenced in your post, is I assume, the link to Joel et al. in one of the seventeen comments at PubPeer, which you claimed critiqued at length the first paper cited in your post, these criticism have already been addressed by the authors of the first study, it may be interesting for the reader to know what they had to say in relation to the criticisms of their work by Joel:

“We regret that the critique seems intended to misrepresent our scientific findings.”

The question of nature, nurture and environment is a fair point, the human condition is a product of all these (and genetics) but it is only a matter of degree, as Bishop Berkeley said:

“We have first raised a dust and then complain we cannot see."

You make a request in your post, “show me a study where the influence of societal factors has been credibly normalised”, firstly we have to mindful of what one means by societal, society and culture are often used interchangeably, but each is distinct, cultural influences can be minimised by cross cultural studies, they can be eliminated by comparative studies, an example of a paper that attempts to minimise cultural differences, might be “Gender differences in personality traits across cultures” it collected data from 26 countries 23000 subjects, socialisation can be eliminated by observation of infants, before they reach the cognitive stage where socialisation becomes a possibility, we can also observe our cousins in the animal kingdom, toy preference has been observed and documented in primates, there are many strategies that might be employed, but you might like to consider this: are sex differences a product of society, or is society a product of sex differences?  

From nematode to bonobo, evolutionary biology is resplendent with studies which indicate, that within sexually differentiated species, sexes have distinct biological imperatives, when you presented the two studies in your article, I suspect that it was because the first, you believed was adequately rebutted, and the other supported your position, in this, you are mistaken, the first paper is representative, the second is not, presenting the argument in this way, gives the reader the impression that each should be given equal weight, but this is simply wrong.

There will be no one single unequivocal study that settles this issue, but the amassed evidence points in only one direction, as unsatisfactory as this may seem to a physicist its just the way biology proceeds, I could allow you the point completely relating to the findings in MRI studies, and simply put on the table the observations, made over many years, post mortem, then we have the cross cultural studies, comparative studies, clinical studies, neurological studies, the evidence professor, is overwhelming and far more robust than you suggest, I fail to see how you can accuse Dr Mason of not producing evidence in support of his position, when you have already produced documentation that in part, contains the evidence you demand, I know you do not like the direction that such studies take, you may well contest and argue against the conclusions contained therein, but surely you cannot deny the existence of the evidence itself.

“Note that I am not suggesting, nor do I suggest in the blog post, that the differences are definitively "nurture-derived". I don't have the evidence to do that. However, Mason *is* arguing that the driving force is dominated by genetic dimorphism and he discounts environmental influences.”

I’m sure you will be happy to know that in this regard, I believe you both to be wrong, we are a product of both and many other factors, genetic inheritance being one contributory factor, so lets throw that into the cake mix as well.

3). Fallacy, fallacy, just an observation professor, I’ve noticed an increasing tendency in some parts of the you tube community to seek out fallacies in arguments then present them to the author as if they were delivering some kind of logical coup de grace, I’m not suggesting that this is what you were doing, but (and there’s always a but), if one does feel compelled to point these things out, it is best practice, not to commit the exact same fallacy in the next paragraph, only saying…

4). Yes, I guessed that was what you had in mind, its perfectly valid rhetorical device in debate, and poking ones protagonist is not without its pleasures, particularly if you suspect they might find it irksome, drawing attention to such strategies is equally irritating, interesting isn’t it, the games we play?

Now, having said all that, in regards to your point on misrepresentation, I can understand why you might think that is the case, but the reality of the matter is, that I have not misrepresented in any way. What you the author consider key and what I the reader consider important, may well differ. The points I considered important were I hope, a fair reflection of specific views, contained within the post, they were not paraphrased, but I suspect that what you take issue with, is the omission of some of your points, and what you consider an unfair selection of other points that when taken as a whole, might be considered a general misrepresentation of your position.

I had skipped several points raised in your post, the reason for this is, that your reference to MRI Artifacting for instance, which you suggested as an effective rebuttal relating to the first paper cited, did not seem convincing, and the explanation would have been lengthy and generally unedifying for most viewers, of course such things cannot be discounted, and there may be Artifacting that goes undetected, but would that be significant over many studies, presumably using different machines, and several locations, you must be aware Professor, that such Artifacting is hardly an unknown issue in radiography, most are eliminated by calibration, others by patient preparation, and the most problematic, corrected by the skill and experience of the radiographers responsible for imaging, these highly skilled people are cognisant of the potential for false or obfuscated pathologies, and are capable of  delivering images used for clinical diagnosis, good enough for government work I think, And certainly well beyond the critique of antagonised sociologists. The link to PubPeer and the comments relating to the first paper have been dealt with above.

It is still my position that Dr Mason is essentially correct, although he has pushed the analogy past breaking point, there is a large body of scientific evidence that would support his position, regardless of how one might view such studies, and if at least this much is admitted, then the accusation of being unscientific cannot stand, there are sound reasons, for concluding that dimorphism influences traits, including cognitive traits, the same forces that drive sexual dimorphism in peafowl and sea lions, have operated and continue to operate on humans,  the denial of this, exposes one's underlying agenda, which is, it seems to me, political in nature.

Cheers,

ShinobiYaka.