What else might we be excluding from our theories in this moment? Leave your thoughts in the comments. Watch more of Carol being challenged by other philosophers here: iai.tv/video/loving-oneself-and-loving-others?RUclips&
I think she's right in going "beneath" the gender dichotomy. Beneath the water level are human constructs confused with reality. Looking temporally through history, humans have continually and gradually collectively increased their degrees of freedom. That freedom grants us with affordances to critique the status quo. Systems of justification are being exposed and the good ol boys don't like that one bit. Once you discover new degrees of freedom, new opportunities for action, called affordances, become accessable. Our negotiation patterns reveal a lot. We should be critiquing traditional negotiation cultural norms that preference limiting others' degrees of freedom. The age old obsession with behavioral control distorts affordance recognition which hides value from perception. Reconfigurability fitness enables choice beyond entanglement in enduring conflicts
What is reason? the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. not an analogy for masculine and feminine nor a destination box to create a fictional narrative for brainbabble. Anything said after, even if it could be misconstrued as some sort of predisposed or taught bias, is the speakers actual bias. Closer to that, then exposuring some grand understanding of an underlying exclusion. People who 'help' others but never mastered themselves before pissing in the critical development pool. Her politics has polluted her efforts to 'help' others.
I honestly don't know what she's on about. I'm nearly 60 and my entire life I've been aware that many studies indicate that men and women often think differently about moral problems, approach solving practical problems differently, and have differing approaches to solving ethical dilemmas etc. I can't help but think we know about these differences because the field of psychology has made deliberate attempts to ensure women's POV are represented in the field of psychology. And yet her essential premise seems to be there's been a general failure to account for "different voices" (e.g. women's voices) in the field?? I'm having trouble reconciling my direct experience with that. Or is she simply say that although women have been part of these studies, their POV has been misrepresented or maligned due to gender biases??
@@neologian1783 i believe what she is saying is closer to the latter. not that boys and girls are different but that they learn that they need to perform a certain way to be "valid/real" boys and girls. that the overarching gendered system that patriarchy demands has not only caused girls to hide their "human voice", but boys too.
@@archiereed2198Well, that's silly. Maybe humans are the one species on the planet that evolved to have no sex differences in behavior, only for every culture we have good data on to recreate the exact sex differences that evolution would predict. But that seems incredibly unlikely.
_In a Different Voice_ was published two years after Lawrence Kohlberg published his _Philosophy of Moral Development_ , many chapters of which had been previously published in other books or peer-reviewed journals. What was astonishing about Kohlberg's book was that all of the empirical data came from studies of boys or men, and nowhere does he _even mention_ the moral development of girls or women. Gilligan says, apparently referring to Kohlberg's writing or speech not included in this book, that this was because Kohlberg regarded women and girls as being morally inferior.
@@TwisterTornado And you are a tool. See how easy that is? So much easier than giving a good faith response to a good faith question. You are part of the problem IMO and not part of the solution. But whatever....I'll not waste any more time on it.
Not to disagree with her or her point in general, but i dont know anyone who thinks of "reason" or "self" as masculine. Nor "emotion" as feminine. She said it so matter of factly, and even said the interviewer would give those answers, and honestly i think thats her bias.
do you read much? the entire study of history, philosophy, economics, psychology, literature, every single hard science (I could go on) have lengthy histories of equating the masculine with logic and reason and femininity with emotion. Just because your friends don't state that they think as much doesn't mean anything. I think your bias is that you assume your experiences apply universally. There's no way you could study the history of pretty much any subject prior to (and even after) second-wave feminism and make the claim that those associations were not assumed in every field of study in the west. She said it matter of factly because it is simply a matter of fact for anyone who has studied history.
@Will140f oh, shut up. No need to be a patronizing loser. Yes, I read, do you? Because you clearly didn't read my comment, seeing as nothing you've said here contradicts anything I wrote, and yet you feel the need to talk down to me. I acknowledge that most fields may have had those ideas in history, but i still think it's silly to assume that the average person holds the same opinions today, and she implied it's normal to think that way. The whole point is that it shouldn't be normal, obviously. And shut up about my "bias" when all I'm saying is that she asked him a question and then answered for him. I'm not assuming anyone's answer, silly. I'm calling out her for doing that very thing. And you for assuming I'm making assumptions. Sorry if your sad little mind thinks of logic as masculine and I hurt your feelings.
Hysteria in the past used to be diagnosed to largely women. Also lucky you for never hearing the phrase” men think logically while women are too emotional “ 😂 I gotta move to wherever you are, very progressive
So the girl who answered the question of whether or not he should steal the drug didn't actually answer the question? They actively avoided the direct question and veered to an optimum, i.e. where society should be structured in such a way whereby inelastic supply/demand is unconstrained by financial position, this is not answering the direct question of whether or not the man should steal the drug, it is an invalid answer imo. The answer is also not mutually exlusive to stealing the drug as the boy said to do, therefore I fail to see how it's a radically different way of viewing the problem, the boy answered your question directly and the girl answered your question with an optimal radicality, disconnected from the reality of the scenario.
@@Betweoxwitegan That is the point she was making though, to question and not immediately accept as necessary and true the parameters that you are presented with in order to see if a situation can be responded to in a novel way that leads to a different and perhaps more preferred result.
@@tylermaxwell1990 Anyone can do that though, she just didn't answer the question. Like if I'm at work and my boss says "which is a better logo colour in your opinion green or blue?" And I say well what if we do "Y" so we don't need a logo? That's not answering the question, sure it can be helpful but if you're asked in a clinical setting a question, you answer it directly. If there was a follow-up question like "Based on your previous answer how would you structure society to account for the decision of the man to steal or not steal the drug?" They would likely give pretty similar answers, I'm also not sure as to the sample size of the questionnaire, if it's just a one to one comparison then that's hardly enough.
@@Betweoxwitegan you think like the kind of man being discussed in the video. "if you're asked in a clinical setting a question, you answer it directly" based on what? you have this assumption that you need to answer yes or no, but says who? why? it doesn't somehow invalidate the test. if the majority of men asked said yes or no but the majority of women asked questioned the framing of the question itself rather than choosing Y or N, that in itself is an incredibly useful finding for the study. the whole point is that the setup of the question as a yes/no question is limiting. If my boss asked whether i liked the green logo or the blue logo better and I thought they were both ugly a/f I would say "neither." There's not some unwritten law against deconstructing a question that forces respondents into a reductive or dishonest answer. Sometime the answer is neither yes or no. In fact most of the time answers are not so simple.
@@Will140f The question was asked whether or not the man should steal the necessary good based on a contextual framework, you should not override that framework because then you are veering off the question. It's like if I asked "which do you prefer apples or oranges" and you responded with "bananas" like sure you may prefer bananas but you completely override my inquisition, in a cultural context I could discern that you meant you don't really like apples or oranges and you like bananas more (or you were joking) but again, I asked which fruit do you prefer out of a binary choice, thus you should directly clarify which you prefer (if any) and then state your external preference, etc. I'm not saying that one shouldn't impose an individual framework onto the question, I'm saying that they should first answer the question in the perceived to be intended framework and then add onto it, completely ignoring the intended framework is nonsensical.
What else might we be excluding from our theories in this moment? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
Watch more of Carol being challenged by other philosophers here: iai.tv/video/loving-oneself-and-loving-others?RUclips&
She is brilliant. Context is everything.
shes far from brilliant
I think she's right in going "beneath" the gender dichotomy. Beneath the water level are human constructs confused with reality. Looking temporally through history, humans have continually and gradually collectively increased their degrees of freedom. That freedom grants us with affordances to critique the status quo. Systems of justification are being exposed and the good ol boys don't like that one bit.
Once you discover new degrees of freedom, new opportunities for action, called affordances, become accessable. Our negotiation patterns reveal a lot.
We should be critiquing traditional negotiation cultural norms that preference limiting others' degrees of freedom. The age old obsession with behavioral control distorts affordance recognition which hides value from perception.
Reconfigurability fitness enables choice beyond entanglement in enduring conflicts
What is reason? the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
not an analogy for masculine and feminine nor a destination box to create a fictional narrative for brainbabble. Anything said after, even if it could be misconstrued as some sort of predisposed or taught bias, is the speakers actual bias. Closer to that, then exposuring some grand understanding of an underlying exclusion.
People who 'help' others but never mastered themselves before pissing in the critical development pool.
Her politics has polluted her efforts to 'help' others.
Sisters, speak up
whats the lifecycle of these psychological theories
I honestly don't know what she's on about. I'm nearly 60 and my entire life I've been aware that many studies indicate that men and women often think differently about moral problems, approach solving practical problems differently, and have differing approaches to solving ethical dilemmas etc. I can't help but think we know about these differences because the field of psychology has made deliberate attempts to ensure women's POV are represented in the field of psychology.
And yet her essential premise seems to be there's been a general failure to account for "different voices" (e.g. women's voices) in the field?? I'm having trouble reconciling my direct experience with that. Or is she simply say that although women have been part of these studies, their POV has been misrepresented or maligned due to gender biases??
@@neologian1783 i believe what she is saying is closer to the latter. not that boys and girls are different but that they learn that they need to perform a certain way to be "valid/real" boys and girls. that the overarching gendered system that patriarchy demands has not only caused girls to hide their "human voice", but boys too.
@@archiereed2198 Very helpful. I intend to go back and listen again with a different ear. Thank you!!
@@archiereed2198Well, that's silly. Maybe humans are the one species on the planet that evolved to have no sex differences in behavior, only for every culture we have good data on to recreate the exact sex differences that evolution would predict. But that seems incredibly unlikely.
_In a Different Voice_ was published two years after Lawrence Kohlberg published his _Philosophy of Moral Development_ , many chapters of which had been previously published in other books or peer-reviewed journals. What was astonishing about Kohlberg's book was that all of the empirical data came from studies of boys or men, and nowhere does he _even mention_ the moral development of girls or women. Gilligan says, apparently referring to Kohlberg's writing or speech not included in this book, that this was because Kohlberg regarded women and girls as being morally inferior.
@@TwisterTornado And you are a tool. See how easy that is? So much easier than giving a good faith response to a good faith question. You are part of the problem IMO and not part of the solution. But whatever....I'll not waste any more time on it.
Not to disagree with her or her point in general, but i dont know anyone who thinks of "reason" or "self" as masculine. Nor "emotion" as feminine. She said it so matter of factly, and even said the interviewer would give those answers, and honestly i think thats her bias.
do you read much? the entire study of history, philosophy, economics, psychology, literature, every single hard science (I could go on) have lengthy histories of equating the masculine with logic and reason and femininity with emotion. Just because your friends don't state that they think as much doesn't mean anything. I think your bias is that you assume your experiences apply universally. There's no way you could study the history of pretty much any subject prior to (and even after) second-wave feminism and make the claim that those associations were not assumed in every field of study in the west. She said it matter of factly because it is simply a matter of fact for anyone who has studied history.
@Will140f oh, shut up. No need to be a patronizing loser. Yes, I read, do you? Because you clearly didn't read my comment, seeing as nothing you've said here contradicts anything I wrote, and yet you feel the need to talk down to me. I acknowledge that most fields may have had those ideas in history, but i still think it's silly to assume that the average person holds the same opinions today, and she implied it's normal to think that way. The whole point is that it shouldn't be normal, obviously. And shut up about my "bias" when all I'm saying is that she asked him a question and then answered for him. I'm not assuming anyone's answer, silly. I'm calling out her for doing that very thing. And you for assuming I'm making assumptions. Sorry if your sad little mind thinks of logic as masculine and I hurt your feelings.
Hysteria in the past used to be diagnosed to largely women. Also lucky you for never hearing the phrase” men think logically while women are too emotional “ 😂 I gotta move to wherever you are, very progressive
So the girl who answered the question of whether or not he should steal the drug didn't actually answer the question? They actively avoided the direct question and veered to an optimum, i.e. where society should be structured in such a way whereby inelastic supply/demand is unconstrained by financial position, this is not answering the direct question of whether or not the man should steal the drug, it is an invalid answer imo. The answer is also not mutually exlusive to stealing the drug as the boy said to do, therefore I fail to see how it's a radically different way of viewing the problem, the boy answered your question directly and the girl answered your question with an optimal radicality, disconnected from the reality of the scenario.
@@Betweoxwitegan That is the point she was making though, to question and not immediately accept as necessary and true the parameters that you are presented with in order to see if a situation can be responded to in a novel way that leads to a different and perhaps more preferred result.
@@tylermaxwell1990 Anyone can do that though, she just didn't answer the question. Like if I'm at work and my boss says "which is a better logo colour in your opinion green or blue?" And I say well what if we do "Y" so we don't need a logo? That's not answering the question, sure it can be helpful but if you're asked in a clinical setting a question, you answer it directly.
If there was a follow-up question like "Based on your previous answer how would you structure society to account for the decision of the man to steal or not steal the drug?" They would likely give pretty similar answers, I'm also not sure as to the sample size of the questionnaire, if it's just a one to one comparison then that's hardly enough.
@@Betweoxwitegan you think like the kind of man being discussed in the video. "if you're asked in a clinical setting a question, you answer it directly" based on what? you have this assumption that you need to answer yes or no, but says who? why? it doesn't somehow invalidate the test. if the majority of men asked said yes or no but the majority of women asked questioned the framing of the question itself rather than choosing Y or N, that in itself is an incredibly useful finding for the study. the whole point is that the setup of the question as a yes/no question is limiting. If my boss asked whether i liked the green logo or the blue logo better and I thought they were both ugly a/f I would say "neither." There's not some unwritten law against deconstructing a question that forces respondents into a reductive or dishonest answer. Sometime the answer is neither yes or no. In fact most of the time answers are not so simple.
@@Will140f The question was asked whether or not the man should steal the necessary good based on a contextual framework, you should not override that framework because then you are veering off the question. It's like if I asked "which do you prefer apples or oranges" and you responded with "bananas" like sure you may prefer bananas but you completely override my inquisition, in a cultural context I could discern that you meant you don't really like apples or oranges and you like bananas more (or you were joking) but again, I asked which fruit do you prefer out of a binary choice, thus you should directly clarify which you prefer (if any) and then state your external preference, etc.
I'm not saying that one shouldn't impose an individual framework onto the question, I'm saying that they should first answer the question in the perceived to be intended framework and then add onto it, completely ignoring the intended framework is nonsensical.
@@Betweoxwitegan why? Why should they accept the question as posed? What happens because they don’t?
Lame interview! watched the who video to hear something interesting and substantial.
14:42 bookmark