Can we talk about how some superficial aspects of gender, namely accessories/styles, are hardly set in stone...

what if the society wasn't pious

God kills them then. Just look at how the hippies went extinct.

The San people of southern Africa exhibit a very uniform dress habit between both genders. This indicates that genderized fashions are a development of post hunter gather societies and contribute to the further rift in the world's societies caused by social stratification. If we want to mend that rift genderless or unisex attire should be promoted.

they went away due to massive side effects from drug use(which I guess you can argue is unGodly) but whatever.

They are also stuck in the paleolithic and have an average IQ of 57.

Men have changed more than culturally since 100 000 BC. They have also changed genetically.

I mean yes and no. Malaysia and Indonesia are fine but that's besides the point. You're straying from the disvussion though, you telling me deconstruction of their culture (namely the part with deeply integrating Islam into politics and state) wouldn't helpmany of their countries for the better?

>Oh I are man with big stick and big stuff, I drive big car and build big thing looky mee.

This.
, btfo

Sounds like you have an IQ of 57 too.

>Malaysia and Indonesia are fine
those countries get smited for impiety to this day. just a couple years ago tens of thousands died in malaysia by a volcanic tsunami. Indonesia went through a communist extra-judicial purge a few years back.
>deconstruction
that does not change anything. Arguing over something, in the end, does not change something and explaining something does not matter even if you're right if the person does not want to learn. Which they don't.

When will you realise that IQ is a measure of how well a man grasps patterns which he has created (they don't occur in nature)?

And you're saying the way they dressed men and women dressed differently had a lot to do with it? hahahaha! No, I'm not talking about level of piety in dress either btw(which is kind of what this tribe is lacking). I'm merely talking about differences in actual clothing styles and hair.
Man you /pol/tards will say anything to deny reality:that is what you believe the world is or what is normal is in fact true.

When will you realize that you should learn about IQ by reading actual science articles/books on the topic instead of repeating what you saw on Bill Nye's TV show?

>And you're saying the way they dressed men and women dressed differently had a lot to do with it?
This sentence is not grammatically correct and I have no idea what you're trying to say.

>muh evil pol boogeyman!
Right on cue.

Just to add that even pastoral Khoikhoi people are said to exhibit some degree of social stratification higher than other true San people.

When will you realise that both science articles/books and Bill Nye's TV show present imaginary concepts?

I'm not talking about whether they learn Though, Islam is in the process of undergoing change as we speak just happen to be alive for it( unlike with Christianity). I'm talking about the principal at hand that you are trying to overlook by pointing fingers.

Which makes sense, as pastoralism is more cognitively demanding.

>science is imaginary!

>science is imaginary!
science is imaginary.
I've got no idea how you can disprove this.

Maybe u should stop parroting what you saw on /pol/ posts and Rebel Media.

>I've got no idea how you can disprove this.
Probably a consequence of your tiny brain.

Epic comeback, bro.

That was a really good attempt at trying to disprove my view that science is imaginary.
Why don't you try again?

Nah just that it leads to "more cattle more importance and more woman".

Why would I waste my time arguing with a brainlet? But all right, I'll humor you. I'll try to think of a simple counterexample that you can perhaps understand.

2 + 2 = 4. That is fact. Not imagination.

islam is not changing at all at the moment. There are no imams with doctrines saying anything different than previously. Deconstructing in of itself, is just another way to argue, and is not an innovation in any way and relies solely on trying to read people's minds to figure out the truth which is impossible for everyone save God who doesn't need to know because you can just ask them isntead of put words in their mouths.

It also leads to "I need to think about how I'm going to manage my flock and plan into the future", which smarter people are better at, and thereby more likely to be successful and pass of their genes, thus raising the average intelligence in the tribe over time. And there's cultural effects of course.

>2 + 2 = 4. That is fact. Not imagination.
No, the concept of numbers is imaginary. The concept of numbers didn't exist before man imagined it. Therefore, it is imaginary.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. It's not imaginary. If you take two things, and add them to two other things, you will get four things. That was true even before humans existed.

The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is equal to the number Pi. That is a mathematical truth that will always exist, even after humanity has died out. It is an objective truth.

You mean side effects. It should be telling how peak civility has often lead one back to the primordial egg.

>It should be telling how peak civility has often lead one back to the primordial egg.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean
>arguing with brainlets.

>arguing with brainlets

I mean it doesn't seem like you're very well versed in it yourself. Neither the latest theories in the field of neuroscience. These are are more in depth than cognitive psych under which IQ tests were created.

>I mean it doesn't seem like you're very well versed in it yourself.
I'll admit I haven't studied it in university, but I'm pretty well versed through self-study.

>Neither the latest theories in the field of neuroscience
Enlighten me, what do they say? I'm a dumb brainlet who's only aware of the latest studies which are identifying genes coding for intelligence...

>numbers are imaginary maaaan!

>That was true even before humans existed.
Humans only exist in the consciousness. Never mind the fact that there was nothing before humans existed, the 'reality' which humans' consciousness has created only exists within the mind, and so the activity of adding is only present within the mind.

>. Never mind the fact that there was nothing before humans existed,
Wait, are you some kind of young earth creationist?

But Malaysia and Indonesia again by themselves are doing fine. They are the example of what happens when Islam is not overtly political and just stays a religion. Why are you overlooking that?
Idk what nonsense about volcanic eruptions you were talking about but it is dribble and not related to this conversation.
Anyway u am talking about gender expression stop talking about Islam. I,hate how you righ ring nuts have to bring it up as an example of why every single ideology liberals happen to support is wrong. It's getting old. Islam is an easy example of how ridiculous social constructions can be. End of story.

>Wait, are you some kind of young earth creationist?
The concept of a young earth creationist is imaginary, created by man to supplement his imaginary purpose.

If I punch you in the face is that imaginary too? Faggot.

>End of story.
no reason to even talk to a close-minded zealot.

>If I punch you in the face is that imaginary too?
Faggot.
Yes. The concept of inhabiting a body and flaying that body's imaginary arm at another imaginary body in the name of the imaginary concepts 'anger' and 'confusion' would be entirely imaginary.

But if I actually punch you in the face, in the real world?

I know your IQ is probably too low to consider a hypothetical situation but I'm asking you to make an effort.

cuck. I bet you'd whine if I chopped off your arms and torched your house. You should look up the guy who preaches this utilitarian stuff you're talking about, his head got chopped off and put on display.

>I know your IQ is probably too low to consider a hypothetical situation but I'm asking you to make an effort.
I already told you that you're imagining the concept of IQ. It has no reality except in that reality your mind creates.
>But if I actually punch you in the face, in the real world?
'The real world' exists only in your mind. You would be committing an imaginary act against an imaginary object.

Yes, this is the best argument Idealists can field.

"Genes coding for intelligence..."
Ok my self-studying genius, tell me what aspects of intelligence are these genes "coding" for in these articles you were reading. Are they inheritable or not? And if they are inheritable have they found them able to me modulated? And what's the difference?( I want to see how much molecular and cell biology you understand from your self studies)?
Genes have been showing more and more to be a complex system,more than Mendelian, since the early 2000s. For one thing, alot of the genes in our DNA don't code for actual traits, mainly regulators, others just junk). Brain function in itself is a whole other beast.

Do you honestly believe that the world will end when you die?

I wouldn't call it idealist, more like materialist taken to the extreme. And all of that because I suggested (in my first post) that bushmen have a low IQ.

Lol. The lengths libturds will go to defend their pet niggers.

>Do you honestly believe that the world will end when you die?
Yes. Your concept of 'the world' which is the only one that exists will end when your mind ceases to imagine.

I'm on my phone. idc if you're from /pol/ or not, it just sounds like the stupid unsubstantiated drivel that they usually spew. Now tell me, is that really what you think about gendered fashion and IQ considering what I said?

>Ok my self-studying genius, tell me what aspects of intelligence are these genes "coding" for in these articles you were reading
G

> Are they inheritable or not?
G is highly heritable.

>And if they are inheritable have they found them able to me modulated?
The non shared environment has some limited influence on g.

Oh wait, are you talking about the genes? Yes, user, genes are inherited.

>And what's the difference?( I want to see how much molecular and cell biology you understand from your self studies)?
I feel like you're trying to introduce epigenetics in this conversation as if that somehow is the CONCLUSIVE REFUTATION that blacks are truly as smart as everyone else.

>For one thing, alot of the genes in our DNA don't code for actual traits,
That doesn't refute anything I've said.

> For one thing, alot of the genes in our DNA don't code for actual traits, mainly regulators
So what? Genes regulating brain growth would probably influence the individual's intelligence...

>everything including humans are a construct of 'the mind'
>not idealism

I'm closed minded yet you gave no refutation of the point that Maylasia and Indonesia have Islam minus politics and are fine as a result? Nothing except some incoherent rambling about divine retribution for something by a natural disaster? You sound like a religious nut yourself ironically. Then you spend the entire time shitting on an entire religion just because the violent people coming to certain countries are being taught to internalize it in specific way(social construction) that is different from how the the aforementioned Muslims who are not violent extemists's are internalizing it.

Idealism is the philosophy that there exists abstract concepts outside of the human experience, so once again, it's the opposite of idealism. It's materialism, the concept that everything in the world exists through the human senses.

Read up on the proper definition of these terms.

Actually, forget what I said, it's the complete opposite. My bad.

Youre kind of making lots of assumptions but you have demostrated some rudimentary knowledge about molecular biology so I'll engage you.
I didn't necessarily bring in discussion of epigenetics into this argument. I just wanted to see your grasp of biology from self study before you read articles.
I would like those articles too.
Anyway, have you self studied advances in neuroscience? Epigenetics would only be one part of it, as with heritable genes. One thinghowever, as much you accuse people of trying to "prove" Blacks are as smart as everyone else with epigenetics you seem quite desperate to "prove" they are not. Many the studies done so far just disprove that they are not. You may see this as b.s. in your mind but it's just an odd place to start from as a scientist if you isolate the less easily studied internal environment is cause before studying the more easily manipulated
external variables first. The goal of experiments btw. Anyway, I don't even have to get into genes. I'm just talking about cognition and learning. It's been shown that the brain is remarkablly plastic, though the window for that plasticity is not indefinite. The number of integrated synapses in the brain seem to add to the complexity of brain function and be related to IQ. Synapses are readily generated by a stimulating environment and learning. The extent to how long and to what capacity is not known though and is still under investigation.

>One thinghowever, as much you accuse people of trying to "prove" Blacks are as smart as everyone else with epigenetics you seem quite desperate to "prove" they are not
Well yes, just I'd also try to prove that the earth isn't flat. The arguments for "proving that the earth is flat" and "proving that the earth is not flat" are not of the same weight.

> Many the studies done so far just disprove that they are not
I'd be very interested to see these studies. They must be hiding, because I've never seen them.

> It's been shown that the brain is remarkablly plastic, though the window for that plasticity is not indefinite
So is the body, yet body growth is determined by genes.

> The extent to how long and to what capacity is not known though and is still under investigation.
Well, without getting into synapses, we can estimate the influence of education on IQ (and by proxy, on g). And that influence is tiny.

as the cause* before studying
my bad
Also I poorly worded a sentence. Epigenetic patterns are still inheritable too.

You don't get my point. As a scientist you don't really set our to "prove" with your experiments, you disprove. You "proving the earth isn't flat" would be disproving the earth is flat.
Setting up an experiment to prove the earth is flat would be impossible. Best to set up an experiment to disprove the earth is round and work from there.

>Education and other parts of the environment have little effect on IQ

I guess that's why IQ has been increasing quite rapidly over the past century.
I'll admit there is no solid reason as to why but are you going to propose all humans have been evolving this past 100 years?
Also if G isn't influenced by the actual neuronal connectivity which drives brain function, perhaps IQ isn't as useful as we thought, outside of measuring learning disabilities.

>the body is plastic and is determined with genes.
You're joking right? Yes, it is an extent but the cases of a person just being short, for example, due to nothing but genes (familial short stature) is not common. Even so, nutrition and disease is ruled out first. And overall, nutrition and environment still play a major role in growth so I'm a bit flabbergasted you made that as an anology to your idea of intelligence. many a nation of people have grown much taller over time due to changes in nutrition.
Btw, did you know that proper nutrition also influences some aspects of brain growth? Just saying.

listen you idiot, we don't have higher IQ due to choice of fashion for genders. That's as related as the flavor of Ice cream you chose today causing causing the rain. if that,was thw case, our IQs would be dropping, they continue to rise. Certain groups have been lucky( and i dont use luck sutblely) enough to obtain land that is fertile for their population to thrive and succeed. There are other influences such as proximity to other cultures for trade as well as implimentaton of gender distribution of labor.
Stop talking arguing about shit like clothing choice.It's one of the most superficial aspects of gender right behind the colors.

wtf? I wanted to post about modern gender expression and outfit choice as more fluid concept considering variation too of masculine and feminine fashion historically and you racists and /pol/tards find away to turn it into something about IQ, Islam, or race. Nevermind how demostratively unrelated. I can't believe people keep indulging you in this shit.

so when Roman men were wearing dresses despite their idea of masculinity being the same one we basically label as toxic today, they weren't that different from these tribes who are pretty much closer to how we are today in terms of gender roles? Were the Romans more intelligent than us now?
Besides, you missed the entire point of OP's thread if you're talking about the nongendered. I'm talking about our views of gendernormative fashion today being biased an ignorant of historical cultures.

>?
you will never know because you are a retard

never know what? Nice comeback btw.
I just want us to stop sporting forced ideas of specific gender expectations on all aspects of life. It shouldn't even be an issue with things like clothing when we have exhaustive evidence that it's an aspect of gender that is definitely not stable. That's even if you don't believe certain behaviors are as well.

Because it is, as you said, in opposition of today's perception of gender expression. We perceive it as feminine for men to wear skirts and make up, so we are opposed to it. But similarly, men who wear these things do it BECAUSE of the reaction it provokes, because they know it is considered wrong. And nobody likes an attention seeker no matter what they're wearing.

Appearance matters, this is undeniable

They dress out of necessity, not choice. Of course men and women will wear the same fur covering, when fur is the only thing available to wear

Why is this all have to be so groundbreaking and challenging to the sexual norms?
Ffs it's just fashion. You wear what you do because that's how your culture happened to have it. Romans didn't wear pants not because they were sexually liberated, but because pants were just a foreign barbarian thing.

This really isn't so crazy an idea.

it's not about being sexually liberated and no shit they only wore what they wore because of the cultural norm.
Obviously the trend now is men wear pants and shorter hair. My argument is why so many brainlets internalize it so much that the concept that anyone could not follow this trend (which anyone is allowed to do at anytime in terms,of fashion trends ) is an abomination. It's clear a lot of people are still pretty uneasy about men wearing dresses/skirts even more than women dressing less traditional(particularly men). It's simply a person not following a fashion trend, which is really no big deal. Autists and nerds do all the time, only on a different scale that is deemed more appropriate for some reason. No need to screem homophobic insults or more ridiculous consider the down fall masculinity or something. We have proof that clothing is just clothing.

Not really. Some people are just genuinely sick of just sticking to one type of clothing to achieve a look just because of their gender, gay and straight alike.
They shouldn't be demonized for doing so. People should be given the option to go against any trend they don't care for be it gender related or not. If you still want to wear cargo pants or flipflop with socks you're entitled to do so without contempt. People will secretly judge you but whatever. The same should be said of gendered clothing.There shouldn't be such a big deal made about it. Luckily I think we're seeing more about and more of that with less opposition. I just wish people would chill out.
Also make up is actually one of those things that have cobsistently been more of and feminine thing throughout history, though not exclusively. I wasn't really talking and out make up.

meant
consistently*
talking about*
My bad. I'm guilty of phone posting.

>Setting up an experiment to prove the earth is flat would be impossible
Complete horseshit, ever heard of foucault's pendulum?

>I guess that's why IQ has been increasing quite rapidly over the past century.
Non shared environment, such as nutrition, has an effect, yes.

>Yes, it is an extent but the cases of a person just being short, for example, due to nothing but genes (familial short stature) is not common.
What? Of course it's common! Do you think all people are genetically 6 feet tall but environmental factors cause the height distribution?

>many a nation of people have grown much taller over time due to changes in nutrition.
Right, just like the increase in intelligence due to improved nutrition.

You vave refuted nothing I have said. Checkmate brainlet.

This fella has apperantly never heard about the 17th century.

Other tribal societies with relatively limited resources but with a more sophisticated means of existence also exhibit differences in fashions. This shows that the cause may be rooted in the fundamental divergence from the primitive way of life.

> your head this far up your own ass should warp space time greatly
No. Girls dress the way their mothers and contemporaries dress. To dress differently is to make a statement.
Similiar case for males, you dress the way you can afford to repressent yourself. Trying to make subjective value atrbutes as monumental dictate for clothes is... bad.
And yes, gender roles exist for a reason.

> If you take two things, and add them to two other things, you will get four things. That was true even before humans existed.
>somebody must have lit the ''Kantian beacon'' and now the vigilante is out to strike down the crime
Nope. When you grasp the concept that transcends language- yes you are right, but this only holds true to posibility that intelect without language is possible and that if it is possible than it operates on something innate. For Kant that's apriori principles. For Locke thats bogus.
What I am getting at is that your point is only as legit as you can hold the belief of intelect being universal in a sense that alien life will operate under same ''tools'' as humans, just in greater or lesser extent. I asume that there is no more inteligent lifeform on earth than mankind.

Designing such an experiment would be invalid is my point. You wouldn't gain any true knowledge compared to setting up an experiment set up to disprove. hence why experiments are not set up this way.

Yes genes influence the extent of height and no I wasn't saying everyone is capable of growing 6 feet. Gender for example is another factor in this(sex hormones). You're anology is not worjing for you regardless. The main difference is ,unlike brain growth and intelligence, we have definitively tracked the limits genes set on general growth with charts. pic related. As in whether, like general growth,a window period exists or not, when it is, and to what extent it is modifiable if that period exists. From all the evidence so far, this period possibly does exist for brain function.
The amount of body of research around linear growth vs. brain growth, function IQ, and intelligence are no where near equally established to make definitive claims about anyone being naturally smart or dumb beyond interference. They try to obtain a body of knowledge about differences in this general growth in different ethnicities with charts as well. They aren't as extensive as studies with gender differences have been in general to growth though. This goes more studies with intelligence and brain function.
Hell even with gender, we aren't sure the differences in the brain structure and function we find are really an element of one group working better than the other when all is said and done. Moreover, to what extent are these differences linked to executive function(what actually matters) and behavior as compared to other functions.
To pretend that we have all the evidence to answer these question, let alone make grand claims about others(like you do)with just IQ is pretty foolhardy and unscientific.If you don't understand this, then maybe you need to start questioning your motives as well as your own scientific literacy.

There is nothing genetic about men and women HAVING to dress one way or another. Even if you argue that all culturess create a divergence in gender expression to some extent(I did not really argue against this, the another user did), you're missing the point. The fact that all these differences in gender expression arose in different ways, and we are AWARE of this(this is the most important part), shows the futility of any intelligent person ever saying there is one way a man or woman must dress. Of course if you insist on being a brainlet then of course you won't see it.
Thats what you anti social constructivist seem to not grasp.Just because something happens a certain way, doesn't that is the only way it can happen. If that makes sense. And no I'm not a total social constructivist. I just believe that there is undeniable proof for certain things.

oops meant to put a linear growth chart but you kind of get the point. I hope.

men will enter a golden age of hair when genetic engineering eradicates balding genes and there will no longer be jealous bald men around to claim long hair is gay and effeminate

they dress according to their piety. You are just a fake fuck who thinks he can read minds because you eat shit for a living.

Sick to the back teeth of self-styled intellectuals like yourself thinking your so smart because you've noticed that humans don't work like machines. Yes there are seemingly illogical habits that all humans posses, but they serve the greater purpose of social cohesion. You're not smart for noticing that men don't HAVE to dress a certain way. But you're the fucking brainlet for not realising that it's a side effect of the incredibly useful and successful enforcement of gender roles which are, in fact, genetic.

Now fuck off

This isn't the spirit of what I'm trying to teach here but, you deserve a(you) regardless. Good job for making me laugh.

how am I not aware of it being an example that gender as,a concept(mainly sex) is real and inevitable when I just admitted that all cultures have created some type of divergence in gender roles? Notice I said Gender is real btw, not gender roles. So relax brainlet. The mode of which gender expressions develops in not of crucial importance. With that said, so are most attempts at it's enforcement in reality.Clothing most of all(that shouldn't even be a question at this point)
To reiterate, yes designation of specific roles are/were useful to varying degrees all a lot various points in time, but you confuse that with necessity, and even worse biology.

>necessity
It is not "necessary" in the sense that eating and sleeping are necessary, but it is crucial to maintaining social order and overall, a productive society.
>biology
Males and female exhibit different behaviours in every part of the animal kingdom, clothing is to humans what feathers are to birds, they differ depending on the sex of the animal in question

Is it possible for you to declare that some cultures are superior to others?

and seriously did you just say "higher purpose?" I hate stirner posting as much as the next guy but talk about your spooks.There is no purpose to anything we do. It's simply what we decide.
Unless you're religious, then I can't really argue with you as you have chosen to believe in an intractable one.

Not really. It kind of boils down to subjective experience in evaluating all the pros and cons of each.
You can claim to objectively speak for everyone but it wouldn't be valid and it would be impossible to prove.

kek.
actually you know what, I'm done with you.
This dude just compared clothing to feathers. Like the actual extensions of a bird's body to pieces of fabric and materials sewn and colored in a specific way. I'm done.

I do read minds, mostly by what they express trough written language and in a way by ''reading'' spoken and body languages.
Piety is for divine to adress and judge, to larp as a believer is a sin though.
And yes, you are the daily intake of shit I stumbled on today.

>they said this
name them