Eiuol

It's the idea of Darwinian evolution analogously applied to socioeconomics. The strongest in terms of economics (i.e. the richest people/families) will survive, much like how the strongest members of a species will likely live the longest. Presumably, economic fitness is transferred through inheritance, not necessarily ability, thus enabling the richest people to have the best quality life due to their fortune of being born into a rich family, hardly any different than being born with certain genetic traits, regardless of "deserving" negative traits. It sounds like Hellboy is saying that inheritance is an unfair way to enable people to get money. The problem I find in Hellboy's reasoning is that we have to think about how inheritance is decided. Merely because of being born to the right family? Or because the heir earned and demonstrated ability? Atlas Shrugged gets into this point quite a bit! Francisco had to earn the d'Anconia name through hard work and demonstrated ability. He earned his inheritance rightly through taking education and virtue seriously. Jim Taggart on the other hand expected money and reward only because he was a Taggart, which is totally unjust. I suspect there is no disagreement up to here. But then I will expect Hellboy to ask "It's well and good that Francisco earned his inheritance. But wouldn't the Jim Taggart's of the world be reason enough to ban inheritance, or at best make inheritance useless for a just society?" Sure, it may be true that the original creator of the wealth of a business may determine who deserves what amounts of money, but that doesn't equal a just transfer of wealth. People can and do fail to make just decisions. Inheritance seems to propagate undeserved wealth as well as deserved wealth, with the former creating extreme problems of justice. In any case, I think the issue here is how one can determine what is a just transfer of wealth in any context, whether it be grocery shopping or passing on an inheritance. Objectivism rejects intrinsic value and would thus reject an intrinsic monetary value for labor or goods, so how can an objective decision be made? My idea is that it entirely depends upon what an individual is aspiring towards.

I wonder how long the movie has been out on Hulu? It is listed under the most popular list for today, but not for the week.

Much appreciated about the comments. The trouble with motives of characters here is that they don't have any real dreams, yet I want to convey that they are lying to themselves about how they believe they're going somewhere with their life. Wurther is just a gambler of no real aspirations except for a lot of money and striking fear in others. The MC naive, believing that something good can be made of a bad situation, while I want to have the reader see how the MC's life was already ruined by choosing to go all that way to Saturn. Life-changing decisions have no going back. I agree that going over philosophical ideas in such a situation is not plausible. Such is the difficulty in writing when I as the writer have a lot to say.

What I meant by what sort is if you went to some in-state doctors, or if you went for something like contacting neurologists are other people at well-known hospitals or universities. I'm sure a medical mystery like this is very stressful, but from what I know of doctors in general, there must be someone out there working on research at least indirectly related to your condition.

And I probably could find a type of business that you can start now that could not be started in 1947, namely, just about any business started online. So, if you decide to argue that point, please use a variety of examples to indicate how the entire economic system is notably worse, rather than how some aspects that have gotten worse, when others may honestly be better.

Atlas Shrugged is something I indeed find inspirational, and I like to hear others say the same. I'm wondering, what sort of doctors have you tried contacting?

Well, several of my posts in that thread address both questions (which are nearly identical questions anyway).

Any different from this thread?

Did you read sharpdressedman's post? It is quite good. Although it is oriented towards a formal look, the post conveys well why you really ought to care beyond "it's comfy". You could wear sweatpants and a bland white t-shirt that is comfy, but there's a reason that's a fashion nightmare. Nothing about a just-woke-up style will indicate valuing say, a strong work ethic. Style should convey something about you, just as your taste in art says something about you.

Lol, a crummy baker baking crumby cake is what I pictured. XD In another thread a similar point was made about how once you are born, your chromosomes really don't have as much of a use anymore after birth. Regarding the concept of sex, this is relevant to the extent chromosomes aren't really an essential consideration, unless a biologist wants to better understand early development. Conversation has moved more towards psychological distinctions of sex, which is how gender is distinguished, although I see gender as mostly behavior which is almost entirely related to social norms. To use your analogy, my focus is on what would it mean to quack like a woman versus quack like a man? Gender concepts are alright in the context of a specific culture (what I meant by an emic concept earlier). Correlation is adequate when you do not have time to thoroughly analyze a concept, such as a lion confronting you on a safari, or a cab driver on an intense schedule (although you probably understand predatory animals well enough to know lion behavior for sure). We have time, so correlation only is inadequate for making conclusions in our discussion. True, neuroscientists do not even have a full understanding of the brain as a whole, but that does not mean we non-neuroscientists are in a justified position to make generalizations to make up for their lack of knowledge. If you want to talk more about the neuroscience, give me some studies to read. We'd get more done by avoiding heavy science, and instead talking about actual observations of males and females "in their environment" to establish that there is actually a female or male "way" of acting, aside from just how Western society works. One's sex might not establish a uniquely or even notably "female" style, similar to how being Asian in genetic terms does not lead one to being good at math. Maybe a little bit, but other factors matter more. Think of how Rand tried to explain masculinity and femininity. She didn't cite any neuroscience; she went for an abstract argument, albeit one I think is baseless.

No, the cause is important to evaluate if your observations are not mere correlation. True, that the statistic holds is a fact, but if you went on to change the context to outside the sample, your statistics are useless. Without a principle developed by understanding causation, the statistic is pretty useless, especially because you wouldn't know where the statistic would or would not apply. Assessing morality is enabled by looking at causality, but making scientific claims or useful concepts also depends upon causality. If you want your claims about gender to hold, we need to discuss causes, otherwise, we only have correlation. So far, you've mentioned some anecdotal evidence, which is okay, and studies that are basically only studies on correlation. Grames suggested earlier (post #65) that testosterone levels and estrogen levels bring about observed gender behavior. This is plausible. The only issue I have with that claim really is that I don't know how *much* an individual is affected. As I brought up with the "Asian's are good at math" stereotype, Asian genetics could possibly have *some* influence, but first language seems to have a much stronger impact than any other factor I can think of.

Nitpick: We're talking about neuroscience. Biology is related, yes, not the focus of analysis here. Where did you get the 99.6% from? Is it made up to prove a point, or do you have evidence that the number is that high? In what way does this *lead* to genderized behavior? I agree. What counts more is causality. Pointing out, for example, that most crimes at gunpoint committed in NYC are by black males. The cause probably has nothing to do with anyone being black. Perhaps the neighborhoods where those crimes are committed are predominantly black and very poor. I'm guessing at possibilities here, but I am quite certain in any case that the supposed accurate stereotype here may be based on totally false premises, but only works out by mere correlation. Stereotypes may stem from something valid, but are themselves invalid. The "Asian's are good at math stereotype" can be explained by things aside from being Asian. It's well known that East Asian languages have a type of structure very conducive to mathematical thought, thus those who grow up speaking East Asian languages will be better at math than those who grew up learning English, all things being equal. Cultural features can inform what may lead to mathematical ability, too. If an Asian-American kid has parents that are Chinese immigrants, it would make sense that language will be part of their life growing up, so they'd be good at math. The same kid would have a brain scan that will reflect this ability. Now, if you grab an Asian-American raised by non-immigrant parents that aren't attached to Chinese culture any more than American and don't speak Chinese around the house, I'd bet that they'd be pretty average at math, and not intrinsically better than anyone else. One friend of mine is really good at math (for a career field that needs math a lot) and lived in China for 8 years when she was a child, which reflects the "stereotype", but there is reason to believe that her math ability reflects what her first language was. Also interesting because it quite clearly violates the idea that men are better at math than women. I would say that *maybe* femaleness or maleness affects ability, but compared to factors like language and games played while growing up, the causality is weak at best.

I'm not asking about the free online tests alone, I'm talking about the free online ones in comparison to someone certified administering the test. An online test taken to evaluate if you have a personality disorder would be useless, but that doesn't mean an actual psychologist cannot take other aspects into consideration to legitimately diagnose a personality disorder on top of using a similar test. Has anyone here taken an MBTI test administered by someone certified, or know how it may differ if not?

I tend to score INTJ every time I take the test, but looking at my score, I'm relatively low on a thinking with a score of 25. I'm very high on judging, at 89. This has made me wonder to what extent the MBTI is accurate, or at least how questionable a free online one is. While I relate well to any INTJ description I've seen, I also relate well to INTP and INFJ, depending on the context. My preferred judging trait seems to stem from a strong feeling trait, but is expressed as thinking due to the extent I try to explain emotions in an objective way. Worded differently, I make judgments really fast with strong attention to my emotion to realize what my judgment is, but I heavily think and really try to check the validity of my judgment. When I make a judgment, I always search for more information that may alter my judgment, when I know I'm lacking information, which may come across as perceiving trait in intellectual discussions. This sort of complexity I observe in myself leads me to question how an MBTI tests really gets at one's preferred personality style. Is there anyone here knowledgeable about the MBTI test? Has anyone taken a the free version, and also a paid version administered by someone certified. I'm wondering a paid version may be more accurate, or if I should put aside the test as a whole as sophisticated astrology. In terms of psychology at least, how much empirical evidence is there to suggest if the MBTI categories are meaningful or representative?

That's the point, is it not? Even if having eight arms and gills made you something besides homo sapiens, you'd still have your rational faculty, in addition to some physical traits that may leave you off better than before.

Even anecdotal, such as "women are more empathetic". It's something I observe to be generally true, but I think it is sufficiently explained by a cultural influence rather than any gender tendency.

The studies cited in there I would really need to take the time to look at and read. I've heard of studies indicating that men have more gray matter than women. Taken as is, that could indicate that how people are raised has impact on how their brain functions, with a corresponding physical change. I wonder if white/gray matter studies have been performed with infants. My question applies to all questions about brain architecture, meaning that I'd ask the same about the limbic cortext being larger in women. Cross-cultural studies would help a lot as well. Another issue I have is mentioning how men relied on one small area of the brain to complete a task, while the majority of women used both sides of the brain. This is misleading. I've heard elsewhere that really all the brain scans in those studies indicate is that those areas are more active than other areas, not that other areas are inactive. I don't know if the studies could indicate exact levels of activity in a brain; only judgments of less or more may have been possible. Why certain areas are at least more active probably could be explained by learned thinking habits picked up over time. Mentioning studies is fine, but at least for now, I'm wondering about some real life examples. I don't have any examples to offer except totally cultural ones. Concepts about masculinity and femininity need not require neuroscience knowledge to find any essentials that may exist. Also, gender is more like a second-level concept relating to character traits, so even supposing some of the stated differences are true, it's a separate claim to say the differences lead to notable character traits (that is, not really perceptual like a person's sex is, but requires some reasoning beyond that level).

This still relates to my question. What does it mean for someone to be male, besides their sexual parts? I have no issue with you saying that you find a particular sex to be attractive, much like any other physical appearence preference, except strong enough to be a deal breaker. But to say you find someone's sex to have a spiritual attraction with it? That doesn't make sense to me. There isn't anything I notice about males and females *by their nature* that makes their sex spiritually attractive. What inherent "femaleness" makes a female more attractive for you than a male? Or, similarly, what makes you think of yourself as male (a question directed specifically about your own self-identity)? In your two posts, you seem to imply that regardless of the physical changes made with hormones and surgery, a male to female transgender person is still undeniably male in some way, meaning that any male has some inherent spiritual feature. Note that I'm not asking in physical attribute terms, but as you phrased it, spiritual terms. The whole topic of gender possibly being an anti-concept is about this mainly. Wouldn't it in fact be *bad* to raise someone according to a strong sense of gender identity - a concept that varies depending on a culture? The experiences between a little girl or boy are only different due to how their parents or teachers taught them, or see them as. Just because a culture thinks males and females fit into different roles doesn't mean they should be raised any differently. If on the other hand you think that gender identity is going to be important regardless of the culture, I know of no evidence for that.

Depends on why. Reduction ad absurdum, sure, but it's also not applicable because I doubt anyone would have a *reason* to want to become a worm, while there are reasons to have sex reassignment surgery. Of course, that isn't to say there aren't bad reasons. You'd have to demonstrate what in fact would be *harmful* as a result.

A better analogy is what could indicate if someone is "really" black-haired when they dye it blond? You could look at their genes, but we're not biologists walking around taking DNA samples. There are no character traits that go with black-hair any more than certain traits go with tall people. I would treat someone's sex the same way. How can you know if someone is "really" male? You can look at their chromosomes, but who even cares except a biologist or doctor? There are no character traits that go with males or females, except for high frequencies of characteristics observed in a culture. As an emic concept, gender can make sense to the extent that gender roles/norms even apply to a culture. And if you want to alter your sex, although it's more complicated, it's not really all that different than dying your hair. There isn't some inherent "maleness" or "femaleness" or "black-hairedness" to deny if you alter your body. I also say there is no such thing as "maleness" anyway in terms of character.

How would you know whether or not one is male "deep inside"?

SFreeman, I would bet your friend is mainly taking a stance that mind trumps body, as a type of mind body dichotomy. When people make a distinction between sex and gender, it typically is physical traits versus psychological character traits, respectively. Whether or not these distinctions are important with regards to masculinity or femininity is the topic of discussion, basically. Your friend seems to be just taking something related to the mind and implicitly suggesting that a mind is somehow more powerful. So, it is sufficient for her to say "if someone says they're female, they are!" In this sense, gender is already working like an anti-concept, and destroying the concept of sex in the process. I'm not saying alteration is wrong, only that there isn't even an attempt at objective definition on your friend's side. A "brain sex' does not seem any different than expanded definition of male or female. At the least, your brain does not necessarily lead to any particular character trait. I do not know the science on brain differences between the sexes, but I can't tell you what traits must follow at a statistically higher rate due to any brain differences. If there are at least a couple well-established causal relationships, then that is likely to be your basis of a better conception of gender. I'm quite sure working with cars is traditionally seen to be a "masculine" job. For Western culture as far as I've seen, it does matter. Still, my point is that a gender role is not what defines masculinity or feminity, and you seemed to agree. If a man did all those things in public, sure, if we go by cultural standards, he is being feminine. As I was saying earlier, I don't think a concept of gender *in this manner* is playing a helpful role as all concepts should. The distinctions cover too much ground. Perhaps this means gender is a valid concept like altruism is a valid concept, but keeping it as wholly distinct from one's sex rather than an interchangeable word is harmful and even collectivistic. Presuming a rational culture, I would bet that distinctions between masculine and feminine would lose meaning to the degree that people think for themselves. A concept of sex would matter, but masculine/femine would be useless beyond application to types of clothing made for male or female body types. Nowadays, gender works pretty fluidly anyway. People don't fit into hard categories of masculine or feminine; it's more like a continuum that is correlated with how the average male or female of a culture thinks, whether or not that's good.

Right, it's your value system that leads to your dislike. Your value system is in your power to alter, but you can't make changes in a day. The more integrated a choice, the harder it is to choose a different one. Sexuality as a sense of life topic is one where the choice is so integrated that it's difficult to change (and may be influenced - not caused - by biology). Aesthetic preferences are quite similar. You will be unable to will yourself to like it, just as a communist would be unable to simply start reading Rand and enjoy it immediately. Changing ideas and preferences take time, and a lot of the time changes never happen. Volition isn't the power to make a choice at a moments notice; It's the ability to direct your course of life in the long-term. The rest of my previous post was directed at the OP in general, and some of what Jaskn wrote.

Hoping that my post right at the end of page 1 doesn't get lost, you don't seem to be discussing any conceptual basis. I would much rather talk about how the concept gender is treated than reason with what looks an awful lot like postmodern jargon on sexuality that is more about word use than objective meaning. All I see is naturalistic fallacy.

I can't go grab the book Jane Eyre, go to a comfy, quiet room, then choose to enjoy the book for even five minutes. Do I not choose my "book orientation"? =P I certainly have volitional power to alter preferences, even though it's impossible to suddenly start liking a book on will alone. I see sexual orientation as very similar - the preference grows from initial choices as a child, as well as some biological circumstances. Sexual orientation is not really out of the realm of volition - unlike height. Perhaps some preferences are outside the norm, but that hardly makes it bad. As far as sex reassignment surgery, I do not see it as anything more than complex plastic surgery. Wanting breast reduction surgery, wanting to alter your nose, and so on, isn't really mutilation, even though it could be viewed as such. We're talking about modern medicine, not botched jobs in a motel room (which some transgender people have stupidly done and ruined their entire life). It really is quite amazing how you can be modified without losing functionality, or even improve life as a whole. Anyone who has had major, invasive surgery is changed physically in an amazing way, and is fine later. People go through brain surgery, get hips replaced, get rods stuck in their back, or get artificial hearts implanted. I would bet sex reassignment surgery is not even *close* to as dangerous, and if modern medicine could do all that, I certainly believe sex reassignment surgery works out in the end.