TED Community » N TIMOTHY AHO

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Social Sciences - Neuroscience - Ethics - Philosophy - Gender Studies

Talk to me about

Tribalism, Feminism, Gender, Sex, Social Psychology, Equalism, Masculism, Monogamy, Polyamory, Polygamy, Polyandry, Religion, Philosophy, Law, Taboo, Age of Consent

People don't know that I'm good at

Listening (especially to TED speakers!)

My TED Story

TBD - I'd love to speak with, challenge and be challenged by- other [social] scientists about gender and other social issues and how the tribe socializes based on interactions between the sexes.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +22.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A comment on Talk: Isabel Behncke: Evolution's gift of play, from bonobo apes to humans

  Mar 22 2011: Did she mention they are polyamorous?
• +3

  A comment on Talk: Courtney Martin: Reinventing feminism

  Mar 10 2011: Yo TED organizers, can we get an alternative viewpoint on gender issues up there sometime? I nominate Roy Baumeister (www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm) or perhaps another social psychologist rather than someone with just an opinion! + a mouth! (like me!)
  
  For fk's sake its like fox news around here sometimes...
• +2

  A reply on Talk: Courtney Martin: Reinventing feminism

  Mar 10 2011: well Robert, you've hit an unfortunate bump here-- a sampling of the far-to-common western female mindset. It's either this or some other form of religiosity it seems.
  
  Now, I just economize and recommend:
  1) Social Psychology > Feminism
  2) Roy Baumeister's "Is there anything good about men?" http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm - a sample of #1
• +1

  A comment on Talk: Deb Roy: The birth of a word

  Mar 10 2011: What if we tied in brain scan imagery in the wordscape as well...
• +21

  A comment on Conversation: comments

  Dec 15 2010: Why would TED think it fine and good to hold a conference that divides by gender and generally focus on how good women are and how bad men are? Is it okay to go the other way? or some other way like race or class?
  
  Yeah, lets have a TEDrich so we can exult the wealthy and deride the poor
  
  Or a TEDwhite ...! time to reject this divisive approach to gender as we would with race or other fiction. There are no "Women's issues" that are separable from men's- there are only human issues that we need to take a more rigorous approach than can be found in this oversimplified, unscientific analysis.
  
  I see the assumption that things are better for everyone with more women in charge, but I see no proper support for this claim. Class and power issues still remain and the economy is not doing any better, structurally.. and the easy way out is to point to all the ills and blame men. WTF? really?
  
  Men are plenty creative and can work in the new economy just fine. Get over it.

• A reply on Talk: Tony Porter: A call to men

  Dec 15 2010: I disagree: Generally-speaking, to magnify the differences between the sexes is to ignore the overwhelming similarities. Grouping all men (or women) together is not only sexist, it also introduces framing error in description/prescription.
  
  The main problem found with those who talk about gender is the tendency to assume that gender is a proper starting point rather than assessing other characteristics first. Including such would provide a fuller and more accurate depiction of social dynamics and status assignment than what we commonly see in those who teach/preach about gender.
  
  Did you read that link to Roy's speech? thoughts?
• +13

  A comment on Talk: Hanna Rosin: New data on the rise of women

  Dec 15 2010: Good n bad here.
  
  Bad: plenty of oversimplified semi-descriptive analysis and assumptions. As I've noted elsewhere: it's a common error to to assume all contexts break down on gender.
  
  Good: I did like her criticism of cultural exaggeration at the end- it's a really annoying aspect of today's USA- though it can be found elsewhere too.
  
  It's probably a good idea to reject sexist generalizations about men (and women)- anecdotal or otherwise like feminist doctrines that assume all contexts break down on gender. Grouping all men together is not only sexist, it also introduces framing error in description/prescription.
  
  It is so because, generally-speaking, to emphasize the differences between the sexes is to ignore the overwhelming similarities.
  
  As a scientist, I recommend an objectivity-seeking approach-- check out Roy Baumeister's take on things in "Is there Anything Good about Men": http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
• +1

  A comment on Talk: Halla Tomasdottir: A feminine response to Iceland's financial crash

  Dec 15 2010: It's probably a good idea to reject sexist generalizations about men (and women)- anecdotal or otherwise like feminist doctrines that assume all contexts break down on gender. Grouping all men together is quite hypocritical.
  
  It is so because to emphasize the differences between the sexes is to ignore the overwhelming similarities. There is no female view that is of concern- just as there is no male of any more import.
  
  As a scientist, I recommend an objectivity-seeking approach-- check out Roy Baumeister's take on things in "Is there Anything Good about Men":
  
  http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

• A comment on Talk: Tony Porter: A call to men

  Dec 15 2010: It's probably a good idea to reject sexist generalizations about men- anecdotal or otherwise (like feminist doctrines that assume all contexts break down on gender, and proceed to hypocritically lump all men together).
  
  As a scientist, I prefer an objectivity-seeking approach-- check out Roy Baumeister's take on things in "Is there Anything Good about Men":
  
  http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
• +1

  A reply on Talk: Kim Gorgens: Protecting the brain against concussion

  Nov 23 2010: x's 2
  
  We have enough paranoia and neurotic people and our govt. drives it with nonstop fear campaigns. I've always thought there is something wrong with having a TSA, NSA, DOD, homeland security dept, CIA and FBI...