#402

Подписаться 16 тыс.

Просмотров 15 тыс.

50% 1

-----------------Support the channel-----------
Patreon: / thedissenter
SubscribeStar: www.subscribes...
PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter
PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: tinyurl.com/yb...
PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: tinyurl.com/yb...
PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: tinyurl.com/yc...
PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: tinyurl.com/y9...
PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: tinyurl.com/y9...
-----------------Follow me on--------------------
Facebook: / thedissenteryt
Twitter: / thedissenteryt
Anchor (podcast): anchor.fm/thed...
RECORDED ON NOVEMBER 30th 2020.
Dr. David C. Geary is Curators’ Professor and Thomas Jefferson Fellow in the Department of Psychological Sciences and Interdisciplinary Neuroscience Program at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri. He’s the author of several books including Children's mathematical development, Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences, and Evolution of vulnerability: Implications for sex differences in health and development.
In this episode, we talk about “Male, Female”, whose third edition has just come out. We cover topics like the evolutionary origins of sex differences; how sex is defined from a biological perspective; sexual selection, mate preferences, and mating strategies in humans; the development of sex differences in children; sex differences in core knowledge (folk psychology, folk biology, and folk physics); how sex differences translate into educational and occupational attainment; the distinction between sex and gender; and the politics of gender.
Time Links:
00:42 The evolutionary origins of sex differences
04:03 What is sex?
07:28 Sexual selection, mating, and reproductive strategies
34:32 The development of sex differences in children
46:44 Sex differences in core knowledge, and implications for education and professional occupations
1:04:05 Sex and gender
1:14:30 The politics of gender
1:22:51 Follow Dr. Geary’s work!
--
Follow Dr. Geary’s work:
Faculty page: bit.ly/2HRtQ9R
Website: bit.ly/2HTlJtz
ResearchGate profile: bit.ly/39tGZl2
Books on Amazon: amzn.to/33y7xhg
Male, Female (third edition): amzn.to/36kGuYy
--
A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, BO WINEGARD, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, ANJAN KATTA, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, MAX BEILBY, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, OMARI HICKSON, PHYLICIA STEVENS, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JOÃO ALVES DA SILVA, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, TOM ROTH, AND YANICK PUNTER!
A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, SERGIU CODREANU, LUIS CAYETANO, MATTHEW LAVENDER, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, AND NIRUBAN BALACHANDRAN!
AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, AND JAMES PRATT!
I also leave you with the link to a recent montage video I did with the interviews I have released until the end of June 2018:
• MY CHANNEL - THE DISSE...
And check out my playlists on:
PSYCHOLOGY: tinyurl.com/yb...
PHILOSOPHY: tinyurl.com/yb...
ANTHROPOLOGY: tinyurl.com/y8...
#TheDissenter #DavidCGeary #MaleFemale

Опубликовано:

8 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 8

@nevertethered6386 3 года назад

Oh nice! Listened to the Sapolsky interview earlier, both the interviews with Benatar a few months ago and now upon subscribing and scrolling through recent videos I find this interview with the author of yet another book I have been intent on reading :) I look forward to listening. Thanks for your work. Think I might have to become a patron.

@dopaminedrip 3 года назад

a very complete and generalist view. thanks for the educational content, always appreciated by the community and I.

@mattlavender 3 года назад

Another fascinating interview. Dr. Geary is wise to avoid getting embroiled in the politics of the issue. Looking forward to reading the latest edition of his book.

@daveatkinson1042 3 года назад

True, buuuuut, someone halfway reasonable at a certain point has to wade into the politics of the issue, because nothing like rational thought is inhabiting that sphere currently.

@Caio-xb8zc 3 года назад

Great!!!!!

@lulubebe6608 3 месяца назад

1:14:30 I agree that there are definitely a lot of people that write stuff off bcs they are just uncomfortable where it goes with IQ, Race, Intelligence research is a very good example of that. However it seems like neather person or the side it’s willing to acknowledge the faults in their own camp. Are people who run away from evo psy or bio in general because they feel like it’s poisoned against women? Sure But is incredibly attractive to certain subset men bcs is poisoned against women in some ways? Absolutely. I think there are a lot of people that are drawn to it just because they can establish some sort of hierarchy that they themselves haven’t established in their life but they can at least find it in some sort ofsientific literature and they utilize it basically as a weapon or cudel against women This is why is scary when you have all these compasing narratives bcs people get really sucked into them into very negative way

@Ungrievable Год назад

Gijsbert Stoet and David Geary’s study published in the journal Psychological Science in 2018 was wrong (or deliberately misleading) when it claimed that in countries with less gender equality, more women were obtaining higher education degrees STEM fields compared to more gender-equal countries like Norway and Finland. Stoet and Geary, referred to this as the “gender-equality paradox" in STEM. Following internal review, Psychological Science required extensive corrections to the study. A group of scientists and scholars at Harvard called the GenderSci Lab tried to replicate the study and found that Stoet and Geary’s data did not add up. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that Stoet and Geary had used an undisclosed measure of women's representation in STEM rather than the "women's share of STEM degrees" that they had claimed. After making corrections to the study, Stoet and Geary maintained the existence of the gender-equality paradox, but clarified that it related to their own hazy measure of "propensity" for women and men to obtain higher degrees in STEM. The peer-reviewed paper from the GenderSci Lab argues that the negative association between gender equality and women's STEM achievement does not hold when different measures of gender equality and achievement are used. The paper also suggests that the focus on "propensities" in discussions about the factors influencing women's and men's STEM achievement is problematic because it obscures progress in the number of women obtaining university degrees in STEM and ignores the impact of societal factors on individual preferences. Factors biological essentialists love to ignore. To say that women are biologically less capable or largely uninterested in STEM are both incorrect traditional claims. Even people such as Steven Pinker and Charles Murray, used to argue that men were inherently better at science and medicine than women. However, now that women are achieving higher levels of education and outperforming men in many STEM fields, these individuals have changed their prior argument that women are biologically less inclined towards or less interested in STEM fields. Seeing the pattern in Ricardo’s line of questioning in interviews, in what’s emphasized and what isn’t. The particular political bias of the interviewer and interviewee, as well as their world views eventually become clear... Good to have these discussions in a public forum, as it can only move things forward towards finding the truth in the long term. Keep up the good work!