Eugine_Nier comments on Definitions, characterizations, and hard-to-ground variables - Less Wrong

3 Post author: Sniffnoy 03 December 2010 03:18AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (8)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 03 December 2010 06:34:49AM 1 point [-]

OTOH, there is a story to be told about why proto-humans whose brains had states homologous with the states of our brains that we label "gender," "status," and so forth succeeded in passing their genes along to the present day, while their siblings who lacked such states did not.

Which suggests that there is -- or at least was -- something in the world that these brain states correlate with non-accidentally.

That story heavily involves the different roles the genders play in reproduction. In particular the something that the brain states correlate with is whether you contribute sperms or eggs to the next generation.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 03 December 2010 03:00:39PM 0 points [-]

Sure, it would be startling if that weren't a big part of it.

It also probably relates to whether fetuses gestate inside you or not, and to whether you lactate. It might relate to how you bond emotionally to a one-week-old, though then again it might not. It might relate to the selection criteria you use to choose mates. It might relate to the selection criteria you use to choose allies. Etc.

If we actually want to understand "what gender is," it behooves us to understand the things that it relates to and the things that it doesn't. And because each of those things is being altered by social changes in different ways, knowing what gender actually relates to helps us predict and understand the effects of various social changes on people of various genders.