Men don't do exactly the same thing?!? This is an example of lack of self-awareness of your own state.

Hair styles, picking out eyeglasses and sunglasses (or even more strange - getting contact lenses), hats, tattoos, neck ties, suits with shoulder pads, doing curls for bigger arms, facial hair maintenance, bathing way more often than needed for health...

I will allow that certain people don't ornament themselves. If you, specifically, wear overalls with a butt flap (the only truly practical clothing solution) every day no matter what, cut your hair using kitchen shears to keep it out of your eyes, shave only when your mustache makes it difficult to eat, only exercise sufficiently for basic health maintenance, and wear really comfy shoes, I will even allow that you do not self-ornament.

Look throughout history, and you will see that men do exactly the same thing.

Of course I don't claim this, because I know what a gene is. Genes contain instructions for only one thing - constructing proteins. They can't contain instructions for specific behaviors.

When a genotype reliably results in a particular phenotype, we usually call that "genetic." I contend that the process by which genotype -> phenotype is irrelevant, it's genetic so long as genotype -> phenotype for whatever reason.

Of course. Rites of passage, gender division, locating and consuming food, mating (including mating rituals).

We're discussing the criterion "all or nearly all cultures (of a particular species) do x." I don't see what this has to do with that.

I believe ornamentation in humans is biological because it's ubiquitous in human cultures. The details I don't know. I can speculate, but that's a whole different subject (the subject of evolutionary psychology).

They may. Based on my observation in National Geographic, they don't universally. But I don't know off the top of my head of any culture in which men don't ornament themselves at least some of the time, so it's possible they do so in all human cultures.

Doesn't really defeat the point, which is that ornamentation of women is near-universal throughout all cultures, and that I believe women are biologically wired to ornament themselves on this basis.

In order to get at gender differences, I'd need more data. Do men in all or nearly all human cultures ornament themselves? Do they do so as universally as women (or are their ornaments reserved for persons of rank, for example)? If yes to both, then do they put as much effort and time into ornamenting themselves as women?

If the answers are all yes, then I'd say ornamentation isn't an example of a biological sex difference, but it's still an example of a biological trait in humans. If some of the answers are no, then I consider that sufficient grounds to view differences in ornamentation behavior as biological sex differences (in some sense and to some degree, depending on the specifics).

You do. Obviously not a trait of females.

It completely destroys the point. If men either nearly always, or always self-ornament, and women either nearly always, or always self-ornament, you got nothing.

If it is not universal in either case, I would argue your idea to absurdity. People are all genetically predisposed to breath. Not everyone gets to take their first breath at birth.

Genetics is best understood as potential phenotype.

Take my genetics and add a little lead paint eating, and we have not quite BrianTheMick.

You can't derive an understanding of genetics from behavioral phenotype. Things are too complex for our current understanding.

Still not sufficient data. You would need to understand the relationship between all the variables.

For instance, if red heads were treated differently (say, for instance, something reasonable, like special shampoo that had UV filtering properties), and the UV filtering chemicals in the shampoo caused homosexuality, you could correctly state that red heads had a genetic propensity toward homosexuality.

You would be completely correct. Having red hair (a clearly genetically based condition) causes homosexuality. Your understanding would be incredibly incomplete and misleading though.

You would be able to make predictions. You could create a model. Incredibly useful. Also, potentially incredibly dangerous. A little learning is a dangerous thing. Painting with broad strokes. A hundred other pithy warnings of your limitations.

What I do doesn't help us figure out what has a biological basis.

I got "it's biological."

Nothing's universal, but I'm happy to say that mammals are genetically programmed to breathe solely on the basis of phenotype. This isn't an understanding of genetics, it's an understanding that genetics are a determinant of behavior.

In order to say "x is biological?" Nah.

If women in virtually every culture ever have used homosexual-creating shampoo? Nah. Nothing misleading about it - I don't assume genetic traits (even eye color) are unchangeable. If an environmental feature is so universal that it's hard to find exceptions, then generalization is way justified.

In a world like this, I would be 100% correct to see a redheaded person and assume "that person is homosexual." The mechanism is only relevant when two conditions are fulfilled - first, we know what the mechanism is, and second, we are able to change it.

Only then would my "redhead -> homosexual" assumption be unjustified.

And since we don't know any of the mechanisms in the real world, all of these assumptions are currently justified in the real world.

New, contradictory information is easily incorporated. Will I miss the one in ten thousand redheads who aren't lesbians? Maybe, but it's a hell of a lot more efficient if I stick to blondes.

Ideally, yes.

In practice, no.

I have yet to see the ideal met.

Sure they could. To some degree they allmost certainly do that. They contain the information on how to form the cells that make up your body, brain, hormones and etc pretty accurately.

This seems to conflict what with you say below.

The problem is that phenotype is determined by more than just the genotype. If person discovers special relativity does it mean the specific genotype -> special relativity? Does every person need to discover special relativity until you can say that genotype -> special relativity? What if it is just 1/10 people who discover special relativity?

Every cultures has these, but clearly not every culture does them similarly. Culture that doesn't mate or consume food is a culture that couldn't have existed in the first place.

and if x is needed to survive for the culture in the first place, we wouldn't see it if it didn't have x, but x still could have been a one time invention by some guy that then passed on without anyone else being genetically at a disadvantage. All species that go to space have figured out calculus, doen't mean they were genetically destined to do calculus, just that you have specified initial conditions that require calculus or at least calculus makes it easier to the point, that every species allmost certainly knows calculus.

So do you think that a female feral child that grew up with dogs has a greater inclination to wear shiny things than a male feral child that grew up with dogs?

It certainly a reasonable possibility, but not certain. Y-chromosome certainly indicates that there is greater variability in some things, but on what and how significantly is more relevant. Also it could contain severe handicaps for male intelligence.

Suppose that the Y-chromosome is very likely to contain a gene that lowers your IQ by 10 points. That is quite plausible also.

Well can we at least agree that women are nicer people?

We can't agree even about that

Ahaha, hell no.

Obviously women can be pretty nasty too, but yeah I think they are generally probably more empathic and nicer.

Cool!

But wouldn't that hint that men might be more likely to spend more time on technical abstract thinking? I mean, what else do they do with all this mental energy left over from not giving a damn about other people?

ummm... no. Men have relatively bigger amygdalae. In terms of volume male brain is obviously bigger, but neurons are what really matter.

Just google it or something.

One of the strongests known correlations with general intelligence is the number of neurons in different regions. Women generally have a higher ratio of grey matter in their brain indicating a higher number of neurons than males relative to volume.

It is biological that if I drop a person from a height of 100 feet that they will likely stop being a person.

Completely reasonable thing to say. Also, not particularly useful.

Everything about people is biological in a sense. Your line of thinking in this thread is that an elephant is a rope. Correct, yet hopelessly incomplete.

Well done. If it is slightly more realistic, does your take still hold? Let's say, you are still you, and are seeking a female mate. Red haired people are generally protected by sunscreen by their mothers across all cultures. Let's give it 50% use of sunscreen, and that you can easily discount non-sunscreen users as burnt to a crisp. Sunscreen moves people on the Kinsey Homosexuality Scale toward homosexuality by an average of 1 point.

Still justified? Leave out the burnt-to-a-crisp-red-heads, as they are not attractive as mates.

You clearly don't go out to the night scene much.

I find that women are quite nice on the night scene. Almost universally so.

If you're attractive or interesting, women are lovely creatures. Truly one of God's gifts. If you're ugly, insecure or believe in strange misogynistic fairytales from another age, women aren't so nice.

Women are very accommodating toward those stronger than themselves. And merciless toward those weaker than themselves.

I don't call that "kindness." More like "pragmatism."

These statements' converses are not always true.

Agreed. And well said.

I would take that as a compliment if I were particularly lucky in money or power.

Until very recently, I have had neither at all. Still have neither in excess.

Didn't have either at all when I frequented the local bars frequently. Foolish pauper would describe me best. Physical strength was also quite average, in case you were going to go down that road.

In bars it's 80% social skills, 20% looks. Money works, but it's a stand-in. Confidence, charisma, wit, awareness, and adherence to norms are the big markers of dominance and standing.

Those who are insecure, awkward, witless, oblivious, and inappropriate are "the weak" when it comes to nightlife. I highly doubt you're that. Assuming you're in any major urban center in the US (and are in mainstream venues, especially those frequented by 20-somethings), watch for those guys and see how they're treated.

If you can call it "kind," you're simply in denial.