Between Men and Women
Of course, tabula rasa is not to be denied. There is no secondary, abstract information carried in DNA of the kind from which ideas are composed. DNA cannot carry musical compositions, book learning, propensity toward belief in God ... or any other such thing. It carries ... only ... information about the physical structure of man.
It must be then that these differences arise from the physical structure of the brain and chemical production, etc. which serve as a passive "guide" to thinking.
A computer analogy ...
There can be any number of different "central processors" used in a computer. They may be made in infinite variety and yet still perform the same fundamental tasks. Schematically, we can represent them in the following way.
Above-left, an Intel chip presents a distinctly different interface to the "world" than AMD below-left.
Microsoft conforms to those interfaces with, in this case, WinXP. Their job is to present a uniform interface to the world so that programs can be written which will work on any system (not just Intel and AMD ... any system). If someone other than Microsoft creates such an interface, programmers will have to write another form of their program to work with that system, e.g. one for Windows, one for OS10 and one for Linux.
For man, that interface with the world is similiar. Our fundamental programs are dictated by the "form of the world". That is, whatever programs we wish to develop must conform to that interface in order to be operationally usable, i.e. effective in dealing with the given world. In our case, our set of developed programs is our operating system. And ... in our case, a faulty program doesn't usually freeze up if ill constructed ... it just doesn't further our goals. We can run non-conformal programs but they work on the dimmer-switch principle rather than on-off ... there are gradations of workability.
Now, the above picture is as one would expect from a strictly tabula rasa development, i.e. each individual, given the same physical brain setup and observing the same world might be expected to develop very similar minds. But this is not the case. Manifestly, the female is dramatically different ... and ... variations from race to race, though not as prominent, are observed.
This is because the genetic conformation to the conditions of the world (the physical environment and the requirements of the body) is imperfect and approaches perfect conformity asymtotically. Thus, when a niche in the environment opens up, new animal forms will fill it rapidly but take far longer to perfect themselves. This slower rate of development is due to the adaptability of an animal to slight differences from conformity (a slight difference means less environmental pressure to evolve).
Then wherein lies the difference?
The drastic male-female differences in psychological development are due to the differences in the female body which alter the reality to which genetic information (related to brain construction) attempts to conform. The world of the female is different from the male by reproductive necessity.
And ... There is another element.
The female brain is genetically designed to conform to the male's conformity to reality. Thus, whatever the male becomes ... the female reflects genetically. Her DNA develops to conform to the same environment, a different body and the male's conformity to the environment. To some extent this is a two way street and the male's reality is altered by the female's development in a secondary order round of conformation.
When the individual develops ...
The DNA of the male and female form a different base upon which experience falls. Our genetic makeup causes information to be stored in a slightly different manner, integrated in a slightly different way, interacting internally in a different way ... all sufficient to produce the observed psychological differences.
Experiences tend to conform to
the shape of the pot into which they fall.
Can these differences be overcome by training?
No ... only by continuous genetic alteration (since any willed change would be in non-conformity which evolution would try to return to).
Yes ... if the difference is purely cultural (but more often it is part cultural and part genetic).
Yes ... if the male is trained to ignore breast size as a reproductive attraction, the female's breasts will gradually become smaller. Do you think you can train them? If the male can be trained to accept aggressive females, more aggressive females will be brought forth. Conversely, if the female accepts more wimpy sex partners, more wimpy men will result ... in general.
We are not, however, at the complete mercy of our genetic structure
Any aspect of our psychological makeup can be overcome for a time. We can put our hand in a fire and deliberately burn it off. So, anything whatsoever is possible in the way of willed actions. Men can act like women and women can act like men ... if the situation warrants it. But to keep it up ... against genetic conformity ... requires that one go against one's nature on a permanent basis. Do you think you can do this?
I doubt it.