Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA05869 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:57:39 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Gender Bias For Memes Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:13:10 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIAEKBCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <B6E47FBD3879D31192AD009027AC929C368963@NWTH-EXCHANGE> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Bruce Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 July 2000 5:26
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: Gender Bias For Memes
>
>
> Just starting to read some of this .....
> Very interesting premise going on....
> Males and Females DO NOT think alike and therefore do not interpret the
> same.
> This difference has been the brunt of jokes for a very long time.
>
> Personally I feel how a statement is interpreted falls along a lot more
> lines than gender.
> 1) language being spoken
> 2) Culture
> 3) education
> 4) experience
> 5) gender
> In that order.
>
I think you need to be careful here. For example, the categorisations I
assert as fundamental are the distinctions of objects and relationships and
these are sourced in the neurology (what/where) regardless of gender.
In our culture (at least) males are more object oriented and females more
relationships oriented. Hormone biases, chemistry, can influence this.
Zoom-in on the general distinction of male and hetero males are more object,
homo males more relationships, homo females more object, hetero females more
relationships.
The nature of the 'root' dichotomy, object/relationships applied recursively
leads to a spread of types and scale analysis will shift perceptions. e.g.
Object --- Relationship
=======================
Species -- male/female
male -- female
sameness bias -- difference bias
individual (diff) -- group (same)
As you zoom-in so you see entanglements. This comes from the method which I
suggest is recursive dichotomisation.
If you apply these distinctions to the set of all teachers then you will
find most teachers have a relational bias. BUT since there is a bias to
females in teaching so the results of a profession is clouded by gender.
This too can colour all of 1-4.
Thus all of 1-4 when analysed would contain within them the basic
object/relationship distinctions. Thus quantitative precision is more object
oriented since it goes for the point. Qualitative precision is more
relationships oriented, more biased to patterns, the field, rather than the
point. Males are more biased to quantity, females to quality. (this can vary
across species).
For language its use can reflect these biases. Thus the more relationships
oriented can use talk to get high; there is no need to achieve anything, no
point; just that the quality of the talk is enough to get high on. The
object oriented want to get to the point, to achieve a goal -- closure
rather than remain open. In most circumstances I would suggest that females,
the over-educated, managerment types etc., are happy in a 'just talk'
context since there is a bias to emphasising relational processes -- the
space in-between objects, the world of harmonics. The relationships oriented
will go more for, or accept, delayed gratification. The object oriented will
seek instant gratification.
These are of course generals, when you zoom-in to the neocortex you find
scaling, same behavioural patterns, different scales, thus the
object-relationship distinction is very Left hemisphere/right hemisphere.
But zoom-in to EITHER hemisphere and the object-relationship distinction is
at the lobe level (temporal-parietal). Zoom-in to a specific lobe and again
you find the same patterns with interdigitations in the frontal lobes of
connections favouring the object-relationships patterns (go 'out' to
language and you have the same structures, nouns-verbs).
There is one bias that seems more fixed, that of particular to that of
general and the work on laterality shows a left bias to single context,
fundamental, and a right bias to multi-contexts, harmonics.
I think therefore that the 1-4 are more contexts within which the
object/relationship biases are reflected according to experience in that
context. (and so experience is next to gender in your list).
When you use a tool such as the MBTI (or my template) you find patterns that
show the entanglements of these distinctions. Thus rationalists seek
algorithms and formulas, they look at the many in a context of one. This is
a way of dealing with all of the differences as in "I know what is BEHIND
that". This is an object bias (fundamental) within which we analyse
harmonics etc. I think that there are more males in this area than females
although with education so these gender-biases start to change in that mind
allows for a difference to gender.
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 26 2000 - 00:58:34 BST