Sex differences, evo psych and the SSSM alternative

Implicit in my posts on evolution as the organizing principle of life is a belief in evolutionary psychology -- the idea that our minds are shaped in certain important way by our evolutionary past. While we can choose to live differently, those same tendencies will arise anew in each generation.

To be clear, the vast majority of our thoughts and preferences seem to be shaped in all the interesting ways by culture, including the kind of music, art, or literature you like. So are food preferences and no end of social customs. But evo psych says that some interesting ones are innate.

The alternative view, the standard social science model (SSSM), holds that ALL the interesting aspects of our lives are the result of the social constructs of our society. These are arbitrary, and by changing the social constructs we can change and improve ourselves. A crucial implication of this view is that once society is transformed, new generations will naturally absorb these improved habits from those around them and there will be no tendency to regress towards the unjust ways that have dominated the history of our species.

There are few if any pure SSSMers. Most would believe that there is an innate basis for most people having a primary sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Or they might think it innate that there is an urgent desire in men to continue a sexual encounter until orgasm, and far less interest in doing so after that point. The relevance of these preferences to human reproduction is obvious.

Ignoring minor exceptions of that kind, SSSMers will tend to believe that all aspects of our psychology are plastic. Movement feminists seem to be predominantly SSSMers. Among their goals are erasing any psychological differences between men and women. In the ideal society they think we could and should create, boys will play with dolls as often as girls do, and likewise for girls and trucks. Boys will be no more aggressive than girls. Women will want to be soldiers as often as men do, and men will want to work in daycare centers as often as women do.

Evolutionary psychologists have grave doubts that such results could be possible without extreme effort (if they are possible at all), and that the effort would have to be expended anew in each generation.

The enlightened evo psych view would suggest that parents offer both trucks and dolls to both boys and girls, but to respect their preferences. That means not chastising boys for playing with dolls or girls for playing with trucks, but also not making your boy feel guilty if he does not feel like playing with dolls. It also means not berating yourself if your children make gender-typical choices, on the assumption you have been indoctrinating them in the ways of sexism by your unconscious behaviors. It means encouraging women to be soldiers and men to be child care workers, but not being surprised or upset if both end up as small minorities in their professions.

Many feminist SSSMers rejection evo psych explanations with a passion that calls for explanation. My best guess is that they view women versus men (or feminism versus patriarchy) as a war. War justifies many sins, including treating truth as a subsidiary virtue. Anything that could be used by an opponent must be declared to be not just false but evil. If you accept that females will tend to be more interested in spending time with young children than men are, an enemy could go on to argue that women ought to stay home and not work outside the home. That would be a huge mistake in reasoning, and can be vigorously disputed on its own terms. It is an impermissible leap to go from a statistical distribution to inferring the desires of individuals. We don't make tall people play basketball or strong people do manual labor. But if you see it as a war, it's best to attack on every front at once, and to deny that there are any innate differences at all, since some of them could be misused. The long-term effect on thoughtful people, however, is to conclude that feminists will ignore truth in any that suits them. It's surely not limited to feminists -- opponents such as extreme men's rights activists or religious conservatives will do the same thing. Partisans are not trustworthy.

So what of those who value truth above all, wherever it leads? We too would like to create a better world.

I have a suspicion that transforming society to be more just and equitable might profit from understanding that some of our preferences are innate.

For beliefs and preferences that are just unhelpful constructs, it should be a relatively straightforward matter to decide to value different things. We could even feel guilty if we don't get on with the transformation. We see no merit in our outdated, sexist attitudes. They are simply to be discarded and forgotten.

On the other hand, if you see your tendencies that might seem sexist as adaptations that were helpful in the human environment of evolutionary adaptation, you could honor them and respect them as your starting point. They are part of your human endowment. You can then decide to adopt new ways of behaving and new values without needing to deny what came before. If those old tendencies keep popping up into your awareness, you will understand why and feel no need to judge yourself harshly for it. You can focus on transforming your behavior.

For example, older men who find lithe women in their 20s (or even teens) especially attractive can note that fact and not judge themselves for it, but also note that approaching such women is not in line with the values they have chosen. Trying to deny the attraction is not going to work or is going to cause great turmoil.

Women who feel a draw to rich, muscled men in sports cars who treat other people badly can also note that fact, not judge themselves for it, but also ignore the men. Denying the attraction is an obstacle to self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is empowering. The party line might be that people should judge others by their character and not their physical appearance, but do ordinary women really believe that at a gut level a short, bald, clumsy guy is just as attractive as a tall, graceful one with a full head of hair?

If we accept that some attitudes and preferences might be held mostly by men and others held mostly by women on an innate basis, we can relax and focus attention on the issues that really matter, which is what people do, not what lurks in their minds.