(January 19, 2016 at 4:21 am)pool the great Wrote:(January 19, 2016 at 4:03 am)Irrational Wrote: 1. Yeah, that's just one example. Is that the only one you can come up with to back up your points empirically?
2. I don't trust anecdotes as much as I do empirical studies. And plus, what may be true of dogs and cats are not always true of human beings. That itself has been empirically supported, time and time again. We are far more complex beings than dogs and cats.
Forgive me for asking, but why exactly is the scientific proof that a relatively higher testosterone in an average male body is the causation for aggressive, competitive and other related characteristics not enough to convince you that it is not because of social conditioning that males are aggressive, competitive etc but because of their inherent nature? Is that a logical fallacy I see?
Because you can't make such a confident conclusion by providing just one example. Not to mention that studies have shown the opposite of what you're mainly arguing.
Here's an article for you to check out:
http://www.apa.org/research/action/difference.aspx
