Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:...
''Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.''

Are you suggesting I become an 'AEA' member in order to see the 'full text'????

... Just a lot of assumptions. I can't comment on these 'findings' because there is no access to the actual research (if there is any).

You can just click on the PDF?

Skip wrote:People bring their own preconceptions and prejudices to every interaction. They naturally do a lot of interpreting, in both directions.
That is - they'll read the same text differently when it's written by a man, a woman, a girl or a boy, and very often they think they know which of those the writer is from the name - or pseudonym or handle.

Good point. So ForCruxSake must sound masculine, I'm thinking?

Skip wrote:Numbers are a very good idea on exams, but on a forum they would limit our opportunities for self-presentation.

Patrick McGoohan in 'The Prisoner' comes to mind. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" I wonder if he'd been a prime number he'd have felt different.

Skip wrote: Handles often illustrate the convictions or temperament or attitude that we wish to let other poster see. So are avatars...

I know someone who considered joining the forum but wouldn't until they could come up with a good handle. I thought of mine in a jiffy, expecting it to be had, and it was free. Had it not been, I'd have just come up with something else... Anything else. The point was to get going on the forum. What's in a name? "that which we call a rose/ By any other name would smell as sweet"

But I accept that names are important. Naming ourselves is as important naming our children, for some.

Skip wrote: However, I find that the picture in the little box does influence my own response to the poster.

I've noticed several people have left theirs empty, which suggests maybe they just wish to project who they are through their words? Maybe they just don't are about appearances?

Skip wrote: I don't really imagine that there are any participants on philosophy forums under age 5...

Some just behave that way!

Skip wrote:... yet a number of posters have child avatars, from which I infer that they're either proud parents of trying to convey a youthful insouciance - neither of which options particularly endears them to me. Being mindful of that small bias, I can put it aside. Some avatars, I'm attracted or repelled by - sometimes even after many encounters with that poster. Most don't affect me positively or negatively; few amuse me.

I barely notice the emblems or avatars. You are clearly more visually orientated than I.

Skip wrote:When I see a picture of a man or woman, I can't help thinking of it as a self-portrait - not in the literal sense, but of their on-line persona, which is all that matters. When responding to those posters, I tend to address the picture.
So, the label - name or face - does play a part in how I read the post, how I interpret ambiguous statements, how much allowance I make for imprecision, how much effort I put into understanding what they mean, whether I expect them to be receptive to humour, or hostile, or tolerant on particular classes of issue, etc.

But once you engage with them, do the words take over? Over time does your attitude towards their label/face/ name change the more you see of their words? Does what they have to say reach a point where the labels no longer matter because you now have a more rounded view of who they are through what they have had to say? Not to demean men, but if a woman here were to post up a pretty pic of themselves, I think it would definitely have an effect. On the women too, I imagine, if they are competitive. I'm rather glad I've put nothing up, now. Not that it was an intentional choice. I've only just thought about the impact of images here.

Skip wrote:Conversely, when the label is missing or neutral, the content of the poster's messages may conjure a personality. Obviously, their interest and intensity on certain topics will predispose me to think of them as some particular kind of person. Style and language also indicate age and education level. I'm not particularly concerned with either sex or gender: posters who don't show a vested interest in gender issues can be either/or, both/and; whatever.

Interesting. So how old do you think I am? And what level of education do you think I have reached?

I think it made me sit up to have an exchange where someone called me 'a bloke'. I sort of liked it but I wondered when I had suddenly become 'a bloke'? Or why 'a bloke' at all and not 'missus'?

Skip wrote:But I've noticed many posters do make assumptions of another's sex according to the reason/emotion ratio - or what they characterize as reason and emotion. People often consider themselves logical when they're making no sense at all...

Tell me about it! I have to say it doesn't annoy me as much as some of the others here. It's just someone's particular language. Sometimes it's worth sitting through the show to see what comes out the other end. (Though that's not always the case.)

Skip wrote: ...so they'll consider reasonable whatever more or less agrees with their own view and irrational whatever doesn't.

What I find strange is that few people actually ask questions here. It's as if they are here to 'know'. To show off, or peacock, their knowledge, not really to exchange ideas, or build on knowledge. What we all know, respectively, is incomplete, to varying degrees. I definitely come here to supplement what I know. Learn from others. Pitch out ideas, I want to explore, with likeminded people. But there's a lot of bashing that goes on here. It's like an arena sometimes and that's when it feels most masculine to me. It's not always the men doing it.

Skip wrote: People often consider themselves passionate when they merely repeating popular slogans, so will accept those same slogans as profound commitment to an ideal. Whoever sounds like us, we tend to imagine as being like us - including gender. Our self-judgment being as faulty as it is, our judgment of unknown, unseen others is bound to be, as well.

Familiarity gives us a comfort zone. There's safety in establishing how we are similar to others.

I imagine if aliens from other planets were to land on earth, that that is how we would try to connect with them, by establishing parity... before we hit them over the head, or bomb the crap out of them, to take what they own!

Arising_uk wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:...
''Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.''

Are you suggesting I become an 'AEA' member in order to see the 'full text'????

... Just a lot of assumptions. I can't comment on these 'findings' because there is no access to the actual research (if there is any).

You can just click on the PDF?

I did and it went to a 'not available' page. That's as much effort as I'm going to make, thanks. You never look at my links, or even read my comments properly. I'm not saying there's no bias. The Berlin Philharmonic didn't have any female members until 1982. Is that bias? Or were female applicants just not good enough? I suspect the orchestra is more concerned with being the best than appeasing political correctness.

Arising_uk wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:...
Last week, I heard that how the GCSE examination system changed the way it undertook marking. It attributed examinees with numbers, which is what is written on papers, instead of names, to identify those taking the exam. Examiners could not identify gender. Its been noticed that girls have consistently performed better since the change. Who'd have thought that?

Another interesting example was the change in how GCSE's as opposed to 'O' levels were assessed and graded, i.e. coursework counted to the end result rather than just exam results. This appears to have led to girls doing better and, maybe, some boys doing worse since it was introduced. Although this may change over here in the near future as the Tories seem to be going back to the old exam-pass system so we'll see if the result holds.

Fair point. It's not quite going back to the old system. They won't be expected to take them all at the end of their final GCSE year: year 11. When I took O'levels, we took one exam early and all the rest at the end of one year.

My son is in the second year of implementing the new system. He will take one exam, at the end of this year, year 9,two next year, in year 10, and the rest in year 11. How many any child will be allowed to take in year 11 is determined by where they fall into the comprehensive banding system, at his school.

The rest will fall in line with the old model: no coursework, no set texts allowed in the exam to refer to, for quotes, and greater limits placed on calculator use in Maths.

So self-absorbed.

ForCruxSake wrote: Good point. So ForCruxSake must sound masculine, I'm thinking?

Not particularly, to me; it sounds gender-neutral. I meant like Henry Quirk does, and Tommy Paine, and all the aggressive types.
Of course, now that you've made an issue of it, I'm strongly inclined toward female. So, it's possible that the next time I encounter e.g. Awfukit, I'll start wondering, just idly, whether he's a she.
I have a different handle for each forum, but they tend to be on a pattern: private jokes and short: easy to recall and type accurately.

But I accept that names are important. Naming ourselves is as important naming our children, for some.

That's far from universal. Some people use their real name as a point of pride; some are more reticent; some like to impersonate a famous philosopher, or an important idea, or make a point of their nationality. It's always indicative of some attitude - if only laziness - but not always obvious, especially if you don't know their points of reference.

I've noticed several people have left theirs empty, which suggests maybe they just wish to project who they are through their words? Maybe they just don't are about appearances?

Or don't know how to retrieve a picture they like and reduce it to the wee box. I've managed it once, with help. Mostly, it's not worth the effort. For Skip, I have no suitable image in mind.

I barely notice the emblems or avatars. You are clearly more visually orientated than I.

In one of my lives, I'm a visual artist; in another, I write fiction - it's inescapable

But once you engage with them, do the words take over? Over time does your attitude towards their label/face/ name change the more you see of their words?

Self-presentation - in walking life or on line - is not accidental. But, as i said, the label and illustration play only a small part in forming an image. Thought it has happened that an off-putting avatar belonged to a sympathetic poster, that's rare. Their words, more often than not, reinforce the first impression.

Does what they have to say reach a point where the labels no longer matter because you now have a more rounded view of who they are through what they have had to say?

Sure. Besides, when you keep seeing the same picture over time, it's like a cereal box - blends into the background.

Interesting. So how old do you think I am? And what level of education do you think I have reached?

This is the firs thread on which I've ever seen you; not much to go on a single issue, but that one is self-reflexive.... OK. Youngish, I'd imagine; good vocabulary and communication skills... college, maybe university, a reader; humanities or management, not far into a career; not very high on the totem pole.

why 'a bloke' at all and not 'missus'?

Missus is just grody - do people still call anyone that? I don't mind how posters address me - even the rude or dismissive names. I try to be polite, regardless, though can't always beat down the sarcasm.

It's as if they are here to 'know'. To show off, or peacock, their knowledge,

I know I am.

I imagine if aliens from other planets were to land on earth, that that is how we would try to connect with them, by establishing parity... before we hit them over the head, or bomb the crap out of them, to take what they own!

henry quirk wrote:"the 'I' is not gendered AND thus also does not have a sex."

'I' always has a context, is always situated, always issues from 'one' who is most defintely male or female.

That is: 'I' has no meaning outside its use by one who will be one or the other.

That is: you may not know the sex/gender of 'Joe' (on-line) but absolutely you know 'Joe' is male or female. So, when 'Joe' sez 'I' this is not a neutral or neutered pronoun therefore 'I' is always gendered/sexed.

If a human being is unable to answer the question who/what am I?, then they are unable to provide a full and true account if I am gendered or not.

The human body can be male or female but that does not mean that 'I' am also.

ken wrote: The human body can be male or female but that does not mean that 'I' am also.

Which side of I?
From the inside, I have/am an identity. My identity is situated in a body that has sexual characteristics, and consists of a set of experiences, memories, relationships, knowledge, feelings and associations that probably pertain to a gender. (Probably, because there are individuals who don't conform to any documented gender.)
From the outside, every newly-encountered other I is a cypher - unknown: potentially any sex, gender, age, ethnicity or species.

At some point I remember thinking, this is a woman.

But I don't recall the details.

Walker wrote:At some point I remember thinking, this is a woman.

But I don't recall the details.

About whom did you have this thought?

Skip wrote:

ken wrote: The human body can be male or female but that does not mean that 'I' am also.

Which side of I?
From the inside, I have/am an identity. My identity is situated in a body that has sexual characteristics, and consists of a set of experiences, memories, relationships, knowledge, feelings and associations that probably pertain to a gender. (Probably, because there are individuals who don't conform to any documented gender.)
From the outside, every newly-encountered other I is a cypher - unknown: potentially any sex, gender, age, ethnicity or species.

Recalls of the Rastafarian and then later Bob Dylan's "I and I". The two contrast as one suggests connectedness to self and the other division of self.

Dylan's song suggests a divided self: an inner nature, an unseen face, that has to live with his more 'outward' self, the person who has to engage with others, despite himself.

Skip wrote:

ken wrote: The human body can be male or female but that does not mean that 'I' am also.

Which side of I?
From the inside, I have/am an identity.

So, which one is it? Does the I have an identity, or, is the I an identity? There is a huge difference.

Skip wrote:My identity is situated in a body that has sexual characteristics, and consists of a set of experiences, memories, relationships, knowledge, feelings and associations that probably pertain to a gender. (Probably, because there are individuals who don't conform to any documented gender.)

You start off with the 'My' word so that means the I has an identity.

I agree that "My identity" is everything you say here. BUT who/what is the I, which has an identity, is the issue. What is the identity of the I Itself? I propose the Identity Known as I does not have a gender.

For example any person can identity themselves as, and be identfied as, male or female, but that is only My identity. It is not who/what I really am.

I am not gendered.

Skip wrote:From the outside, every newly-encountered other I is a cypher - unknown: potentially any sex, gender, age, ethnicity or species.

All just labels used to separate persons into separate groups.

To me, you are all a series of black marks on a white background on a screen. I don't know what you look like and that's maybe for the best because the reality tends to be such a disappointment

Anyway ... these black marks, by convention, represent approximate representations of ideas bubbling in a human mind that said human hopes to share. It tends to be about as thankless a task as housework, but we do it anyway. Probably something to do with a general impulse of life to spread its influence any way it can etc.

For the record, FCS, I found your U/N witty and, I suppose, "masculine" in the sense that some humans are usually expected to be more refined and demure than other humans. It's all rather silly when you stand back and think about it.

ForCruxSake wrote:I think therefore I am... but am I a man or a woman?

What you ARE is real/unchanging. What you ARE NOT is changing/unreal.

The I that experiences life from the perspective of a man is the same I that experiences life from the perspective of a woman or any other ''thing'' named.

There/Here is the same place...where I AM ..and I NEVER CHANGES ....I /me/ you /them/ us/ all ...are THAT

Man and Woman exist only as conceptual experiences arising in I .. but can never be I...because I don't change, what does change are experiences arising and falling in I.

I the unchanging ONE is here now without stopping or starting.. self-evident.

I cannot be located, yet I am the source of every location.

I am Consciousness alone which is one and 'where' it is, there is it wholly present. . . it cannot be located or separated out into bits and parts of separate consciousnesses.

That would be like trying to look at yourself as if you were outside of yourself looking back.. you consciousness can't do that...it's one directional.

Whatever is seen, is in the seeing. What ever is known is in the knowing.

Can the seer be seen? NO ..it's already what's seeing.

Can the knower be known? NO.. it's already what's knowing.

Is there seeing? YES

Is there knowing? YES

It's all one being every one.

"The human body can be male or female but that does not mean that 'I' am also."

When Joe sez 'I' he self-refers.

If Betty sez 'I' she self-refers.

Seems obvious: 'I' is ALWAYS gendered.


And if a guy looks down, sees his johnson, and claims to be anything other than a guy, it's not that his gender (or the gender of his 'I') is in question: he's just a loon.