How the APA interprets research on gender differences

Read this 1 page article- http://www.apa.org/research/action/difference.aspx

This brief article has a lot to say, however, the following quote is extremely pertinent and therefore deserves attention:

…even where there are patterns of cognitive differences between males and females, “differences are not deficiencies.” She continues, “Even when differences are found, we cannot conclude that they are immutable because the continuous interplay of biological and environmental influences can change the size and direction of the effects some time in the future.”(emphasis mine)

I think too many people, men and women, get bogged down by the idea of differences implying some type of value statement when in fact differences do not need to be viewed this way. When we use the word “equal” we do not mean totally and utterly the same in every facet possible.  If this is the standard of equality, then nothing is truly equal. However, equal has a much deeper meaning as it relates to dignity and intrinsic value as an individual human being. Humans are ends in themselves- not simply means to an end. Nor should our intrinsic value be measured by some external number or outcome. If we measure people’s value merely on what they can produce then we are on a slippery slope to a place that has historically been the cause of much pain and death.  Men and women have differences but so does every individual within each group.

The question to me is not, whether or not our genes and the environment impact our views and behaviors. The question is- which views and behaviors ought we to have? This question presupposes that we have agency to act outside of the restraints of our sociobiological situation and that there is an objective (opinion independent) standard by which to measure good vs. bad (and what a “good” society or individual might look like).  However, this this view immediately throws out naturalistic determinism (no free will) as well as the idea of complete moral relativism. I am under the impression that the vast majority of today’s leading social scientists and psychologists in gender research, take for granted the fact that they are aiming to create a “good” society in the objective sense.  For on their worldview, “good” is simply a social construct and therefore they cannot complain when someone disagrees.

Offensive? It shouldn’t be. True? You tell me.

Lent goes deeper.

Refining and Reforming

cena-lent ………..for Ivan

Like many things in the liturgical calendar, Lent is what you make of it. For some people, lent is a time to give up Facebook or dessert, stripping away a worldly pleasure to more identify with Christ’s suffering. Some use it as second act for failed New Year’s resolutions. But Lent goes deeper. The events and seasons on the liturgical calendar can be great guides, facilitating worshipful experiences and reflections that deepen one’s understanding of God and their need of Him. Seasons like Advent often guide believers into a deeper understanding of the brilliant hope found in the coming of Jesus Christ while awaiting His return. In contrast, Lent is a season of darkness.

The six-week season of Lent begins with Ash Wednesday. Familiar to many only by the external sign placed upon foreheads, Ash Wednesday services act as a mirror for the Church, assisting believers to better understand the…

View original post 646 more words

The 5:1 ratio of positive to negative feedback

I read a book recently by William Gentry called “Be the Boss Everyone Wants to Work for: A guide for new leaders” and he makes the simple but profoundly true observation: “…strive to give five positive pieces of feedback over a period of time before you must deliver a negative one.” he bases this suggestion on research done by relationship experts John and Julie Gotterman in their work investigating successful marriages vs. those ending in divorce. according to the research- the ratio of positive to negative interactions for successful/married couples is typically around 5:1, whereas, unstable marriages show a ratio of 0.8:1.

In his book he also points to research showing how non-verbal communication (facial expression, tone, body gesture and proximity, eye contact, etc..) makes up anywhere between 65%-93% “..of the total emotional interaction between two people.”

I know I needed this reminder!