Very clear and helpful, Gregg; thank you!

Wishing you and all on the list a holiday season of peace and good will.
Given the cultural atmosphere right now in America and the world, it’s
worth reflecting on the human need for holidays as sacred seasons of hope
to sustain the human spirit when the grounds for animal optimism are
shrinking faster than the Arctic  ice cap....

All good wishes

Frank

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:27 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi TOK List,
>
>
>
>   I hope this finds you well. Things seemed to have settled in my work
> life, and I look forward to being more active on this list in the first
> part of 2020. In that spirit, I wanted to share this article on sex/gender
> differences in personality, as I thought it was interesting, on target and
> worth the read:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blogs.scientificamerican.com_beautiful-2Dminds_taking-2Dsex-2Ddifferences-2Din-2Dpersonality-2Dseriously_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2aDvyw1lMs0UojnAMXbqGSoUHXCG3NfYBkk4j72smeo&s=6F4ldKiSFzsgktt85lCMgGZgRjWGH78RFOWolZFp-K8&e=.
> It does a nice job detailing the descriptive differences in key areas that
> create a gestalt that is both real and important and apparently universal
> (i.e., have been consistently found cross cultural contexts).
>
>
>
> Here is the snapshot:
>
>
>
>  Critically, all four studies converge on the same basic finding: when
> looking at the overall gestalt of human personality, *there is a truly
> striking difference between the typical male and female personality
> profiles….* Consistent with prior research, the researchers found that
> the following traits are most exaggerated among females when considered
> separately from the rest of the gestalt: sensitivity, tender-mindedness,
> warmth, anxiety, appreciation of beauty, and openness to change. For males,
> the most exaggerated traits were emotional stability,
> assertiveness/dominance, dutifulness, conservatism, and conformity to
> social hierarchy and traditional structure.
>
>
>
> Kaufman proceeds to dialogue about the kind of implications and
> conversations that can be productively had on this issue, given how
> potentially polarizing conversations about sex/gender differences can be.
> The sentiments offered are very similar to the reflections I offered on the
> heels of the James Damore Google Memo fiasco
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201708_in-2Ddepth-2Danalysis-2Dthe-2Dcrisis-2Dgoogle&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2aDvyw1lMs0UojnAMXbqGSoUHXCG3NfYBkk4j72smeo&s=H8yiAyxXiO5IINR0htIpuB1GR_dMUOaXCZr24VVndy8&e=>.
> Attached are some of my other blogs on this topic. I am looking to do
> another blog on this issue endorsing Kaufman’s review, but also adding to
> and critiquing it from a ToK System lens. One of the things I want to use
> this issue to help people realize is how faulty our frames are for even
> thinking about the gender debate. Consider, for example, Kaufman’s comment
> about how we might explain the differences between the sexes/genders:
>
>
>
> All of the findings I've presented up to this point are merely
> *descriptive; *they don't prescribe any particular course of action, and
> they do not say anything about the complex interplay of genetic and
> cultural influences that may cause these differences to arise in the first
> place. It is very difficult finding evidence that would indicate just *how
> much* of sex differences are due to society vs. genetics (although it's
> most certainly a mix; more on that later). Even the brain findings
> discussed above don't reveal the* causes* of the brain development.
> Experience is constantly sculpting brain development.
>
>
>
> Folks, this is just wrong in the way it is framed. There are NOT two
> causal vectors here. The genes/biology/nature versus
> learning/sociology/nurture is *WRONG* at *every* level of framing. So too
> is that idea that nature and nurture interact to cause our psychological
> states of mind. Yes, there is indeed a biophysiological/genetic
> level-dimension of analysis (hereafter LDA). And yes, there is a
> sociocultural/person LDA. And yes, we do need both to understand our mental
> states. But just pull out your trusty ToK map of the ontic reality (Matter,
> Life, Mind, Culture) and scientific onto-epistemology (Physics, Biology,
> Psychology, Sociology) and you will see that there is also a
> physical-material LDA. AND, most importantly, there is ALSO
> neuro-mental/psychological/animal LDA.
>
>
>
> To understand the complex adaptive behavioral patterns of human
> sex/gender, we need the THREE LDAs of Life, Mind, and Culture as playing a
> causal role in development over time, not just two! It is NOT that Life and
> Culture are the vectors that cause Mind! That is absurdly inaccurate.
> Rather, there are 3 complex adaptive LDAs that we need to understand.*
> First*, there are biophysiological genetic features that line up with
> concepts like anatomy, hormones, and physiological processes such as the
> menstrual cycle or sexual maturation. *Second,* there are the
> psychological archetypes. This is the level of pre-cultural human primate
> mental behavioral archetypal energies. And, surprise, surprise, there are
> pre-cultural archetypal masculine and feminine energies that are NOT social
> inventions. The Influence Matrix maps the human relational system prior to
> Culture. And it shows very clearly the kinds of self-other relational
> framing that is typically different in a yin yang (self-other) way in
> archetypal masculine and feminine energies. *Third,* there are the
> socially constructed roles. Theses justification systems that people invent
> over time that are part and parcel to the Culture context that we behave in
> as self-conscious persons. As Lene Anderson has communicated to me, these
> can be framed like religious belief systems. We can construct our beliefs
> about gender roles much like we construct beliefs about religious
> worldviews.
>
>
>
> The bottom line, folks is that SCIENTIFICALLY, it is NOT the case that
> genes and society cause mind! Rather, Life, Mind, and Culture are complex
> adaptive LDAs that operate in complicated material and social environments.
> That is a totally different frame for understanding patterns of human
> behavior. As ToKers, let us all try to get rid of the foolish bio-nature X
> social-nurture = Mind and get people seeing the world via the much more
> accurate ToK ontic reality/scientific onto-epistemology worldview.
>
>
>
> With it we might actually be able to achieve some level of coherence in
> our understanding of these complicated issues.
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
-- 
Francis J Ambrosio
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Senior Research Associate CNDLS
Georgetown University
202-687-7441

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1