Not 'evidence' as such, more like a half-faded memory. I thought I'd mention it in hopes that someone would offer the actual evidence to back it up.
I have no doubt experiments and research exist to support any number of things. Sadly, in my experience, such experiments are pathetically simplistic and ignore so many vital potentially influencing factors that they end up laughable.
Why? Because it's obscenely demanding to conduct thorough experiements on human beings and their psyche/body. You don't really have a lot of ways to introduce the millions of weighing factors in a test. Even less so, when you base your conclusions on something beyond our control and beyond our own ability to witness the nuances that happen during the period of time said events take place.
However, if anyone can point out the "most popular" evidence to support these things, I'll gladly take a look at it. If I can't find obvious flaws - I'll concede it's very possible that women are physically superior in terms of endurance.
It is nonetheless something I learned while studying and I'm inclined to believe it (even without remembering specifics) until I have evidence to the contrary.
See, that kind of basis seems awfully fickle and weak to me. In fact, I find it impossible to understand how anyone could hold a firm position based on something they only vaguely remember.
That's why I almost exclusively go by my own personal experience, based on careful and extremely interested observation. The human mind is my number one interest in life, and so I have a natural tendency to observe things many might not.
I categorise and challenge these observations and following conclusions on a daily basis - and I have no desire to believe women are in any way inferior. In fact, I find the entire idea of inferiority meaningless when it comes to human beings. There's no way to determine that anyway. Ýou can pick out distinct physical characteristics like muscle-mass and physical strength, but it as nothing to do with being "superior" in an overall sense. It's just a feature.
But there are patterns of behavior that I can't ignore, if they constantly emerge and make themselves obvious. What Jemy calls "confirmation bias" is just another concept that's all too easy to put on others. To automatically assume that any opinion is based on "confirmation bias" is the same as declaring yourself incapable of being objective. So, I don't have any respect for such statements.
If Jemy bothered to listen to what was said before rushing to a conclusion, I might be willing to believe his position was objective - rather than simple arrogance and a need to appear clever.
Fair enough, but since I'm taking that into account we start from a different basis and we can't really disagree.
The reason I don't take it into account, is that I find it hopeless to discern where one thing ends and another begins in terms of physical/societal/cultural impact - at this stage of our knowledge and technology.
What we have right now, are a bunch of completely inadequate theories and measurements of the brain, and social experiences/experiments. There has yet to be a single defining way of saying WHY men and women have their easily observable differences.
Unlike many "science" people, I don't jump on the most popular and supported theory as "fact" - as it suits me. I have to see and understand things, and they have to fit together in a cohesive whole.
You can find a theory to support any foregone conclusion, but that doesn't work for me. I have to form my theories on what I consider to be reality. It's no good to wish for something or muse upon a couple of observations, and then find a scientific theory to support it. At least, you'd have to have a lot more faith in the scientific process than I have.
I mean, I will certainly not disagree that men and women generally behave differently. I'm more interested in why and to what extend these differences are dictated by nature.
Good luck figuring that out
Jemy seems to hold the answer, so it should be within reach!
