That last paragraph read like a parody of academia.

More steaming crap masquerading as insight, courtesy of John Tierney.

"As anyone who pays attention to such things knows, there's a name for the long-standing debate about where these differences come from: Nature versus nurture. But now, the Times reports, new research is showing that both theories may be wrong -- or at least have different effects from what you might expect. "

Actually, as anyone who pays attention to such things knows, biologists have known for a long time that neither hypothesis is sufficiently explanatory on its own, and that both genes ("nature") and environment ("nurture") have profound effects on individual development.

Neither is "wrong." But neither tells the whole story without the other. So it may very well be that in an environment relatively free from the stressor of overt gender-based oppression (and I include the mandates placed on men to uphold stereotypical "male" roles as well), our genetic traits have more opportunity to shine through. And gender stereotypes exist for a reason: they are somewhat true, on average.

There's no "bad" for the nurturists, or "bad" for the naturists here; there's only a constantly evolving understanding of all the complexities that go into making us who we are. That's what science is. Both perspectives have something to contribute, and even a hypothesis that turns out to be dead wrong was still useful in getting answers along the way.

There might possibly be a "bad" for the dogmatic feminists. What this study reinforces for me more than anything else is that nature doesn't give a damn about our politics. It works the way it works; we only do what we can with it.

I'm curious what the effect size is. With a sample of 40,000 small differences will be statistically significant, but perhaps not substantively.

I'd also like to see how they controlled for spuriousness. It could be that the same cultural ideas that lead to non-egalitarian societies also produce the similarities in emotional behavior. The same cultural ideas that lead to more egalitarian societies may produce less similarities. This isn't saying that the differences are somehow "natural" but instead the product of the same culture that produces the structural-level differences.

This gem nailed it down for me: Translation: When people don't have to worry as much about basic survival (as they do in agricultural societies and poorer countries), the differences between the sexes become more pronounced.

How much money did they have to piss away to come up with this conclusion. Sure, if husband and wife are scrambling for survival, they will each roll up their sleeves and do what has to be done. Get a little further ahead on the curve and each will revert to their NATURAL predispositions.

It's natural for a woman to want to do more of the nurturing, the damn thing grows in THEIR body, not in a man's.

The sexes are different. Doesn't make one better than the other, it just makes each better suited ON AVERAGE to different applications. Being better suited ON AVERAGE doesn't mean the other can't handle the function either.

As I said, pretty much a vague look at the obvious, but women's studies majors everywhere will still find a way to whip themselves into a frenzy over it.

I know. I married one circa 1983.

If you're a woman in a traditional society, you're spending a lot of time doing "woman" things and your role is a lot clearer (I'd suspect) than it is in a place like the USA.

Wouldn't it make sense then that women would be able to express their more masculine characteristics in this setting? Because they're doing different stuff from men--the same way I can be more aggressive playing a girl's only sport than a co-ed one where the guys are always just throwing the ball to each other.

This is probably the most fascinating thing Broadsheet has published in the 3 years I've visited this site.

My thoughts about this new research --- it makes sense. As much as feminists probably don't want this new research to make sense, it makes sense.

And I'm okay with it, because I'm emotionally flat.

To Gwool: It's not as absurd and wasteful to do a study to confirm these things as it may appear. Facts that seem obvious and intuitive are shown to be false every day.

It was once "obvious" that time behaved the same way everywhere, for instance.

I would like someone smarter than me to explain how this fits in with the most primitive types of social constructs: hunter/gathers. For instance, the Yanamamo Indians beat their wives regularly, and the women in that society expect to be abused. When I say abused, I don't mean the expansive definition of upper class white woman of abuse, but abuse in the form of being chased out of your house with a machete. Warfare is common in the society, as is raids for stealing women.

Nature, nurture, statistics, and tendencies don't matter when you're dealing with individuals.

Even if 95% of the time Women (or Men or puppies or bawdy drunken sailors) do _____, when you are dealing with an individual you may well be dealing with the other 5%. So rather than pre-judge, use the cues you have and respond accordingly.

And (and this is the part that trips up so many folks) don't freak out... you've just met an exception to what you thought was a rule. Don't be scared. You don't need to stone anybody. Everything will be OK. Just be a decent human being.

nothing that flourishes in nature is un-natural. the 'command' societies were better warriors, and better producers, and hence more procreative than egalitarian societies. so we have capitalism and presidents and professional armies to extend and maintain the will of those at the top.

i'm not one of those, so i argue for egalitarian democracy.

others come to a different conclusion: they play a role in society that maximizes their personal wealth and freedom by assisting in the dominance of others, and profiting from it. women have been using emotional judo on men for a long time, on the principle that sharing a pillow with a powerful man may require an outward display of 'girly' behavior, but is vastly more comfortable than being the free companion of a drudge. this policy may have had genetic consequences by now, it is certainly part of the common cultural heritage of modern society.

women can support themselves in modern society, and prosper, without displaying overt 'feminine' behavior. even so, there are usually men whose favor is valuable and who respond to 'seductive' behavior. a woman would have to be crazy not to use it. where human society is diverse and stratified, behavior will be diverse and appropriate to the tactics of survival.