Women and daredevils

[belgareth]

I'm not really

surprised. More than anything I think we, as young men, used the excuse of impressing the women to justify the dumb

things we did.



http:

//story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=5&u=/nm/20050414/od_nm/science_risk_dc (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=5&u=/nm/20050414/od_nm/science_risk_dc)

[Pancho1188]

After reading this article,

one may conclude that the person who wrote this article doesn't know much about psychology. He's saying that

risk-taking doesn't get the girls. He contradicts himself at the end of the article by saying that high status is

more important than risks.

What he should have said is that it's smart risk-taking that gets the girls. Bungee

jumping or whatever is a stupid risk (when using it to impress women). High status is associated with people who

take smart business or social risks to earn that status (exception: people born into high standing can remain there,

but unlike older times of Noble vs. Peasant, you have to try harder to keep the high standing...best example: Paris

Hilton - Her antics to keep on the front page are rival to Death Valley Scotty (aka Walter Scott) in the

1800-1900s).

Male peacocks have beatiful plumage, many male birds make music as sweet as any musical

instrument...animals show prowess through hunting, competition, or any other means to prove themselves as

respectable mates. High status in this society shows that you are willing to pay the cost to be the boss. Women

like that. Bungee jumping shows that you are willing to risk your lives for nothing but the thrill. That may or

may not be attractive.

This article is basically implying that Donald Trump is not as much of a risk-taker as

someone who decides to jump off a cliff. He's not any less of a risk-taker...he's just a much smarter

risk-taker.

[belgareth]

I can accept that with one

minor reservation. You said the author doesn't know much about psychology then you hold him to exact meaning on his

closing comment. I doubted he understood the full meaning of his statement and ignored it.

[Pancho1188]

Very true. That's what I

meant by not knowing much about it because he said that women like more conservative men, but what he really meant

was they like men who are risk-taking but not stupid or reckless. He didn't get that high status was a result of

risk-taking, just a different, more intelligent form. Therefore, I believe his statement that women like

conservative men is misleading, so I wanted to make that clarification. You're right about him having the right

idea, but I believe it wasn't written with preciseness (which in my opinion is essential to his conclusion).

In

any society, you have to stand out from others if you're going to get a mate. Some go too far.

[belgareth]

In any

society, you have to stand out from others if you're going to get a mate. Some go too far.
Which is why

we have a thread about the Darwin Awards. :rofl:

[Pancho1188]

Brilliant tie-in.

[belgareth]

:lol: I'm just trying to give

some of them the benefit of the doubt for their efforts. Some of those people had to really work hard to win their

award.

[culturalblonde]

We (not speaking for all

women) don't base our attaction on risk-taking. Risk-taking may be a part of envy. Most women still have a fear

of failure and that is one of the reasons women are not as much a risk-taker as men and risk-taking is not as

important to us. Until women start believing in themselves and stop relying on men for their self-worth, we will

not be able to compete in a male dominated society. We must also support each other (women that is) when we do

achieve our goals. In time, we (women) will be the risk-takers.

That's all I had to say... good day...

carry on... :wave:

[Pancho1188]

We (not

speaking for all women) don't base our attaction on risk-taking. Risk-taking may be a part of envy. Most women

still have a fear of failure and that is one of the reasons women are not as much a risk-taker as men and

risk-taking is not as important to us. Until women start believing in themselves and stop relying on men for their

self-worth, we will not be able to compete in a male dominated society. We must also support each other (women that

is) when we do achieve our goals. In time, we (women) will be the risk-takers.

That's all I had to say... good

day... carry on... :wave:
It's a good thing I don't work at Harvard University, or I'd be fired for

what I'm about to say. :rofl:

Men and women are inherently different when it comes to taking risks. Men

naturally are more prone to risk-taking than women. The proof is in the studies. To use your explanation, CB, I

will give you the studies on Wall Street analyses. You would have to say that women on Wall Street are just as

confident as the men on Wall Street and have no need to rely on anyone but themselves. I've met the first woman

who ever laid a foot on Wall Street, and she was tough as nails. She was so confident in her own abilities that she

said that what we were learning in Finance was irrelevant, and you have to learn for yourself how the market works.

That said, study after study shows that women perform better than men in the stock market because they takes less

risks. Men are more cocky in their beliefs, make more transactions, and take bigger gambles. They also perform

worse than women. Why is this true? Men are genetically programmed to take more risks. Why? To get, support, and

protect women. Yes, it is that simple.

As for your comment on not basing your attraction on risk-taking...I'm

sure you would take a successful businessman over a freeloader, ceteris paribus. I'm sure you would find a man who

approached you and tried to ask you out more attractive than a man who didn't have the courage to speak to you,

ceteris paribus. I'm not saying you look at a man and say, "Wow, he takes a lot of risks. He's sexy." I'm

saying that risk-taking is part of that "perfect guy" every woman on this forum seems to agree on to some extent

about being confident, witty, strong but kind, etc. (forgive me if I left anything out). The guy with the guts gets

the girl. (a little alliteration for you ;) )

A guy who approaches women is always more likely to get women than

a guy who doesn't. That's risk-taking in its most basic form. Sure, you can get shot down, but the only way to

win is to play. The guy with the BMW (his own...not daddy's) took risks to get it...the guy with the good job had

to take risks to get where he is...the guy who attracts women puts himself out there in some way somehow every day,

whether it's fighting fires, protecting our country, trading stocks, or owning his own business (shout-out Bel

:thumbsup: ). Just like you don't want money itself but the things money buys (money doesn't give you shelter or

keep you clothed or fill your stomach; your house, clothes, and food do), you don't want risk-taking but the things

that come as a result of it or cause it: confidence, success, strength, etc.


Watch the In-Action Heroes

commercials...what's their philosophy again?

"Dull Co. is dedicated to fighting the forces of stress by

avoiding risk altogether. As a first step to fulfilling this mission, we have developed the In-Action Heroes.

Mama's Boy, the Suck-Up, and the Wuss embody our belief in living a life free of challenge and risk."



http://www.in-actionheroes.com/home.aspx

I'm sure

you'll find these men to be very attractive since you don't base your attraction on risk-taking, CB... :run:




(PS: You know I love you, CB! :kiss: )

[Mtnjim]

It's a good

thing I don't work at Harvard University, or I'd be fired for what I'm about to say. :rofl:

Men and women

are inherently different when it comes to taking risks. Men naturally are more prone to risk-taking than women.

...
This whole "risk taking" goes way back to the days our ancestors were running around in animal skins.

Back then men and women divided up the chores. There was no men are better than women (or visa versa), there was

just survival. Women were the gatherers of roots and berries (and inventing "civilization" at the same time) and

this involved very little risk if you don't count getting eaten by a saber tooth cat. Meanwhile, men were out

hunting and taking the risks associated with this activity. Turns out that the "risk takers" were the more

successful hunters. While the men were taking risks, there was no bungi jumping, they weren't taking "stupid

risks". This tends to explain the differences in risk taking between men and women, and I'm sorry C. B. but 30

years of "political correctness" is not going to change 100,000 years of evolution despite what the Femanazies tell

us. (And NO, I don't feel men are "better" than women--or visa versa!)

just my .02 cents!:angel:

[a.k.a.]

This whole "risk

taking" goes way back to the days our ancestors were running around in animal skins. Back then men and women divided

up the chores. There was no men are better than women (or visa versa), there was just survival. Women were the

gatherers of roots and berries (and inventing "civilization" at the same time) and this involved very little risk if

you don't count getting eaten by a saber tooth cat. Meanwhile, men were out hunting and taking the risks associated

with this activity. Turns out that the "risk takers" were the more successful hunters.

This has

been the ASSUMPTION for hundreds of years, but there is no fossil or archaeological evidence to back it up.


There IS evidence to the contrary. See for example the following article about female hunters in Ice Age

Europe:
http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-98/features/newwomenoftheice1430/

Judging from

texts written during the early Minoan civilization, sex roles “evolved” with the growth of urbanization and

imperialism. Men were conscripted into conquering armies that went out to raid competing city states while women

stayed at home to raise the kids.
Don’t know if this proves we are bigger risk takers or more easily

manipulated.

“Urbanization also produces a split in human experience; life is divided into a public and a

domestic sphere. In small tribal societies, this split is non-existent or barely evident, but urbanization produces

a marked distinction between these two spheres. Almost universally, men dominate the newly formed public sphere:

administration, regulation, and military organizations. Social inequality, then, gets established along sexual lines

as well as economic function. This is a dramatic and traumatic change for any society to go through; literally, the

entire world view has to adapt dramatically to account for this new inequality. For instance, most religions

probably began as goddess religions; the new urbanized societies, however, develop god religions in their

place.”

“Crete, so singular in everything else, seems to have avoided this. Not only does Crete seem to be

a class-based society where there is little class inequality, archaeological evidence suggests that women never

ceased playing an important role in the public life of the cities. They served as priestesses, as functionaries and

administrators, and participated in all the sports that Cretan males participated in. These were not backyard

sports, either, like croquet. The most popular sports in Crete were incredibly violent and dangerous: boxing and

bull-jumping. In bull-jumping, as near as we can tell from the representations of it, a bull would charge headlong

into a line of jumpers. Each jumper, when the bull was right on top of them, would grab the horns of the bull and

vault over the bull in a somersault to land feet first behind the bull. This is not a sport for the squeamish. All

the representations of this sport show young women participating as well as men.”

“Women also seem to have

participated in every occupation and trade available to men. The rapid growth of industry on Crete included skilled

craftswomen and entrepreneurs, and the large, top-heavy bureaucracy and priesthood seems to have been equally

staffed with women.”
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MINOA/WOMEN.HTM

Here in Colorado, I run into

lots of women that are into rock climbing. And they’re all about the thrill of literally holding their life in their

own hands.

[Mtnjim]

This has been the

ASSUMPTION for hundreds of years, but there is no fossil or archaeological evidence to back it up.
There IS

evidence to the contrary. See for example the following article about female hunters in Ice Age Europe:


http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-98/fe

atures/newwomenoftheice1430/ (http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-98/features/newwomenoftheice1430/)

Judging from texts written during the early Minoan civilization, sex roles

“evolved” with the growth of urbanization and imperialism. ... I agree that my statements are based on

assumptions a hundred, not hundreds of years old. These assumptions are based on modern isolated H/G societies. And

yes there is room for exceptions as evidenced by the female hunters.

Also, the Minoan and later societies are

much later than the period I was refering to. Yes, the later societies started to change the relationship, by

concentrating larger numbers of individules into cities rather than tribes of related people required a change in

the rules of conduct .
In the whole, I agree with most of what you wrote, but stand by what I wrote. We were just

citing different eras.:thumbsup:

[Pancho1188]

I agree with most of the

information in the above posts (I consider the "hunter/gatherer roles" to be a chicken-or-the-egg thing - is Mtnjim

right and the roles made the genetics or did the genetics make the roles?). That said, I believe the cause is based

on the roles of men and women based on genetics more than the roles of society.

Females bear children.

Therefore, they are equipped to be selective in their mates, give birth, and nurture and protect their offspring

into adulthood. It's just natural to give all of these matching traits to one gender. Men do not give birth to

children, and therefore have the ability to always be ready to maintain survival of the family: getting food for the

family and protecting it. They don't have as much of a "natural" (defined as not being the key part of developing

the child) role in child-bearing and child-rearing, so they have other responsibilities. Additional responsibilities

include trying to search for prospective mates and acquiring mates. Since the women are the selective ones due to

the responsibility of the child-bearing process, the only way the species will live on is if somebody takes

the initiative...and this aggressive sexual demeanor was given to males. The combination of the active search for

both sex and food requires a more aggressive nature, which leads to more risk-taking. The female is just as

instinctively ready to kick ass if anyone comes near their child or if they need to hunt for food.

Obviously,

today's society allows us to do or be anything we want. I know of a lot of women who are more aggressive than I am.

These rules no longer dominate us, but they are the basis by which nature defines the genders. There is nothing

wrong with this system, and their is also nothing that binds us to it. Nature is efficient (e.g. natural selection),

and therefore distributed the genetic predisposition to succeed at certain processes in the most appropriate and

logical way. However, the needs of survival have changed, and we will adapt to these new challenges just as easily

as we adapted to those initial roles.

[belgareth]

There is plenty of good

evidence and even residual behaviors in the modern world to indicate that child bearing had little relevence in the

primitive world. As soon as a woman was back on her feet she was back to work both hunting and gathering. About the

only real concession was the women were often required to tote the child along until they were strong enough to walk

on their own. In slightly later societies children were cared for by a small group while most of the women still

help to bring home the bacon.

[Mtnjim]

Ponch & Bel:

YUP!!
I agree!

And we're still not going to change 100,000 years of development in 30 years of "political correctness".


:cheers:

[Pancho1188]

There's always the basis of

differences: testosterone levels vs. estrogen levels. These hormones are integral in the reproductive

process...which one has more of which? What happens when you shoot anyone up with steroids? They become more

aggressive (I think we can associate aggression with risk-taking)...

I never said for a second that women

didn't hunt...I said that the reproductive system is an integral part of the differences between men and women.

Wouldn't it be ridiculous if the woman had the child, but the man had breasts and fed the baby? Wouldn't it be

ridiculous for a pregnant woman to be doing all of the work while men sit around and wait for the baby to come so

they can take care of them? It doesn't make sense. Neither does giving men more testosterone and the roles of being

aggressive in many activities (sexual, social, survival, etc.) and not expecting them to take more risks.

They

conducted a study where they had boys and girls who from what I remember somehow had no predisposition for what

types of toys they played with. When putting them in a room with male and female toys mixed together (toy tools,

guns, dolls, balls, etc.), the boys started playing with the tools and the girls started playing with the dolls.

When playing "let's pretend", boys were more likely to use whatever toy in a physical way, whereas girls were more

likely to play in a nurturing way.

You cannot convince me that who has the child has no relevance on the genetic

predisposition of the genders. You're absolutely right, however, when you say that either gender can do either job

and the normal fluctuation and mutation in human genetics allow women to be just as good as men at some things and

men just as good as women at others.

[belgareth]

How old were the kids and what

was there previous experience. I'd imagine that these kids were at least 4 and likely older than that. If so, they

cannot claim no predisposition, whatever they were previously exposed too would eliminate that claim.

If you

carefully consider it, you'll realize that the terms of the study prove previous knowledge beyond any doubt.

Otherwise, how would the boys know what the tools and guns did?

[Pancho1188]

If you

carefully consider it, you'll realize that the terms of the study prove previous knowledge beyond any doubt.

Otherwise, how would the boys know what the tools and guns did?You support the study's point. Kids don't

know what any toys are "supposed" to do...they just know what they want to do with them. Boys pick up a truck and

bang it against something and run it into things. You're not "supposed" to bang it, but that's what boys tend to

do with it. If boys and girls knew what they were "supposed" to do with things, then cardboard boxes would be pretty

boring. Boys generally pick the objects they can use to bang around or whatever (aggressive). Even if parents give

boys and girls different toys, they don't tell them what to do with them. The boys use their toys in more

aggressive ways, whether or not you believe the toys are unbiased. However, if I were a boy and wanted to bang

something, I'd find a tool that looked fun to use rather than a small object that resembled a person or that seemed

to have other functions.

The part of the sexual revolution that involved 'boys' versus 'girls' toys is

ironic...people think that it's the fact that parents give boys and girls different toys that make them different

when nobody wanted to believe that maybe it was the differences between girls and boys that caused the differences

in the toys. It's a "chicken or the egg" problem.


There was a study done about a boy who had an accident

when he was circumsized. Doctors accidentally cut off most of his penis. There was a psychologist that believed in

the "clean slate" theory that he could shape anyone into whatever he wanted. In other words, he could make a boy a

girl if taught to be one. The parents listened to him and had doctors remove the rest of the baby's penis. They

raised him as a girl. During her whole life, she felt like she should have been a boy. They gave her all feminine

things and tried to get her to wear girl clothes, hairstyles, and even makeup. They also injected her with female

hormones for years to develop feminine traits. No matter what they did, the child still felt wrong. The parents

finally told the child that he was really a boy, and despite the anger for being lied to for his whole life, he felt

so relieved because he knew he was supposed to be a boy...and we're talking more than just being a "tomboy".

[belgareth]

From the way you originally

described it, the results more seem to prove they had previous experience than anything else. Again, what was their

previous experience/exposure? Until that is answered, my statement does not support the study.

All my kids are

girls, they are pretty good at banging things. My youngest actually asked for tools one year for Christmas because

she likes to take things apart and build things. She built an articulated robotic arm kit when she was 10. All of

them are agressive (Got it from their mother :) )

Watch my 2 grandkids. The girl is ornery, rowdy and agressive,

the boy hides behind his mother. In both examples, it has nothing to do with their gender. It has to do with what

they are taught and their personal tendencies.

[Pancho1188]

As an aside, I believe that

any gender gap in math and science is a social and not biological issue, just like the racial gap. Also, gender

roles are as much (or more, although no matter what my parents told me, I won't be able to give birth ;) ) social

as they are biological.

An article that refers to the story I mentioned above (and evidence that I don't just

go around making stuff up):



http://www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?Artic

leID=592 (http://www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=592)

"Journalist John Colapinto also offers evidence that human sexual identity is not a social

construct. Indeed, Tom Wolfe has said that Colapinto's shocking book, As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who was Raised

as a Girl (HarperCollins), "stands as exhibit A" against the idea that nurture is more important than nature. It

is the heartbreaking story of a baby boy whom an ambitious doctor changed into a girl."


Interesting

excerpt:

"This illustrates a point often made by the iconoclastic feminist Camille Paglia: that men are happy in

what Paglia calls "People Free Zones." Paglia speaks of the object-loving male mind. Males, young and old, are less

interested in talking about their feelings and personal relationships than are women and girls. In an experiment at

Northeastern University, the conversations of college students in the cafeteria were secretly recorded. Women were

found to be vastly more likely to talk about intimates, close friends, boyfriends, and family members than boys

were.

In another study, researchers presented male and female students with two images simultaneously through a

stereoscope and asked them to say what they saw. The male subjects saw objects far more often than they saw people;

the reverse was true for the female students. Dozens of experiments confirm that women are much better than men at

judging emotions in a stranger's face. Men are slightly better at spatial reasoning. Females are better at verbal

skills. Well, why should this be the case?

A growing body of evidence confirms the experience of parents and

the wisdom of the ages that there are basic differences between the sexes, partic-ularly in preferences and

behavior, which are innate, hard-wired, and not the result of social conditioning. In the past few years, there have

been some exciting developments in neuroscience, genetics, endocrinology, and even evolutionary psychology,

pinpointing the biological correlates of some typical gender differences."





Interesting studies:



Gender gap in letters to Santa Claus:



http://people.morehead-st.edu/fs/s.reilley/Santa2.pdf#search='boys%20girls%20psychological%20 study%20toy

s%20gender' (http://people.morehead-st.edu/fs/s.reilley/Santa2.pdf#search='boys%20girls%20psychological%20 study%20toys%2

0gender')

Gender gap in toys:



http://www.stanford.edu/~zozo/gap/childhood/toys.html

(http://www.stanford.edu/~zozo/gap/childhood/toys.html)

Parental influence on gender roles:



http://gozips.uakron.edu/~susan8/parinf.htm

The

balancing act of nature vs. nurture:



http://reason.com/9903/fe.cy.sex.shtml




Again, I

would be the last to say that men and women are vastly different, but I'm not ignorant enough to say that they're

the same just because some activists forget the difference between equity and equality (aka being the same

(equality) vs. having equal rights, opportunities and potential (equity); I hope I have those correct).

[belgareth]

So Pancho. How does all that

impact on the evidence that men and women both hunted in the primitive world? We cannot even conclude from those

studies that men are the more agressive and I can cite a couple examples where the women are far more agressive.



You provide a good exaxmple for something we discussed numerous times when I was in school. Psychology has an

important place but under conditions like the study you first cited is not very good for cause and effect. You

simply cannot run your subjects back to zero and start with a clean slate. Any of the so called hard sciences you

can clearly isolate your subject components or processes and work from a clean environment. It makes it much easier

to reliably determine cause and effect. In studies of this sort you are trying to cope with incredible variables

both culteral and genetic dating back a million or more years. In the hard sciences you are expected to recreate

your results time after time with precision, a study like that would not be accepted as valid. Makes me think of the

fiasco of cold fussion from 10-15 years ago.

[Pancho1188]

So Pancho.

How does all that impact on the evidence that men and women both hunted in the primitive world? We cannot even

conclude from those studies that men are the more agressive and I can cite a couple examples where the women are far

more agressive.
I never said anything about women not hunting.


All I have been trying to

suggest is that men take more risks, of which aggressiveness is a part of that. Testosterone makes you more

aggressive as "proven" by 'roid rage (I haven't or have at least tried to avoid using the word proven because all

we can do in psychology is stongly suggest). As much as you can prove anything in psychology, anyone who is injected

with steroids for a period of time becomes more aggressive, irritable, and in some instances violent. Men naturally

have higher testosterone levels. That means, in general men will have the tendency to be more aggressive. It's not

rocket science.

I will use an example you can't disagree with to show how you should concede to the evidence.

Men are generally taller than women. Men are generally larger than women. You can list

hundreds...thousands...millions of examples where women are taller or larger than men. Female bodybuilders make me

look scrawny...but that doesn't automatically disprove the fact that men, in general, are taller and larger than

women. The average male height and weight are slightly higher than female height. That's a statistical fact.

It's the same with aggression/risk taking. Men are generally more aggressive than women (and take more risks). You

can list hundreds...thousands...or millions of examples of women who are more aggressive than men. I know a few

women who would have my testicles in a jar if we were in a relationship. That does not disprove, however, that

men, in general, are more aggressive than women. If you want to use real statistics to support this fact,

more men commit murder. More men commit theft. More men commit rape. More men commit almost every single type of

illegal activity. If you didn't notice, committing a crime is a serious risk. It is a risk like bungee jumping or

investing all of your money in Enron. Why do more men do this, then? Well, the statistics would suggest that

men, in general, are more aggressive and more likely to take risks.

I have tried not to use proven throughout my

argument. All I have said is that anyone who believes in strict equality ignores the overwhelming evidence that

suggests otherwise. I'm not saying it's impossible for some women to be more aggressive, take more risks, kill

more people, hunt more often, bet more of their money on the pass line in craps, jump out of an airplane without a

parachute more frequently, or take more risks than some men. That is ridiculous as any psychological study

shows that there is variation, and the ranges of both genders will overlap. I'm saying that if you take the entire

population of men versus the entire population of women, men will take risks more often statistically (the mean for

men will be higher than the mean for women), and you can support that with the numerous risky activities such as

stock market statistics, crime statistics, or psychological studies.

Instead of denying our differences, we

should embrace them and strive for equal opportunity and equity in social and professional settings.

[belgareth]

The examples of aggression I

would cite occur regularly in nature. Frankly I would rather deal with a hungry male bear than a mother squirrel

defending her young.

My point and the basis of the debate was cause and effect. Is it genetic or cultural? Your

discussion of that study taught us little because the children mentioned had some influence and experience prior to

that study which was not taken into account according to the statement about predisposition.

I don't deny

differences and sincerely appreciate the majority of them. Many are genetic but I do not believe agression is one of

them. Or should I say that the inability to control aggression is more likely to be found in the male. But that too

may be cultural as getting the crap knocked out of you by your mate tends to teach the smaller gender to be more

mindful of their aggressive instincts. No, I do not support striking your spouse but through the last million or so

years it has happened once or twice.

[Pancho1188]

The examples

of aggression I would cite occur regularly in nature. Frankly I would rather deal with a hungry male bear than a

mother squirrel defending her young.

My point and the basis of the debate was cause and effect. Is it genetic

or cultural? Your discussion of that study taught us little because the children mentioned had some influence and

experience prior to that study which was not taken into account according to the statement about predisposition.



I don't deny differences and sincerely appreciate the majority of them. Many are genetic but I do not believe

agression is one of them. Or should I say that the inability to control aggression is more likely to be found in the

male. But that too may be cultural as getting the crap knocked out of you by your mate tends to teach the smaller

gender to be more mindful of their aggressive instincts. No, I do not support striking your spouse but through the

last million or so years it has happened once or twice.
A male bear hunting for food vs. a woman defending

her young is not a fair comparison. A male fighting for his or his child's life vs. a woman fighting for her or

her child's life would be a fair comparison. In that case, both would have the same aggressiveness and danger

associated with it, but I would still rather fight the mean (aka statistical average) female than the mean male

because of the physical factor...if it were a muscular, aggressive woman and a weak male, I would take the male.

The latter example doesn't really reflect statistical averages, though.

Any error in the study is not in the

study but in my trying to explain it. You're right that it was useless because of my failure to find the study and

explain it properly. I know they had a control of some sort to account for outside factors as much as possible, but

my memory has failed me. I apologize. If I ever find it, I'll post it for clarification.

As for spousal abuse

having an effect on aggression, I could not speculate (nor will I touch it with a 20-ft. pole). What I do know is

that the gun is widely known as "the great equalizer" for its ability to give women as much killing power as men no

matter what the circumstances. That said, until women are shooting as many people as men, I'll believe that

risk-taking is stronger in men as a whole. Until women hold as risky portfolios or take more risks as men, I'll

believe that women are less aggressive...and yes, I do have evidence of that...

[Pancho1188]

I'll save you the trouble of

argument and say that this says nothing about whether it's nature or nurture...just that it exists. Maybe I'll

check the update 20 years from now and see if the gap lessens. However, there is nothing inherently preventing women

from being as risky (you could argue that professional female investors may be afraid to lose their jobs in a

male-dominated profession, but I believe this includes private, single (as in no nuclear family lessening

risk-taking) investors):


Boys Will Be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, And Common Stock

Investment



http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/qjecon/v116y2001i

1p261-292.html (http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/qjecon/v116y2001i1p261-292.html)

Are Women More Risk Averse?



http://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v36y1998i4p6

20-30.html (http://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v36y1998i4p620-30.html)


My Finance professor said that many investment firms try to hire women as much as possible

because of these studies.

[wood elf]

Pancho:

A gun is a poor

example as an equalizer. Firstly, most women do not wish to handle firearms. Belgareth would again ask if that is

cultural or genetic. I do not know. I learned to hunt birds with my father and can handle a small shotgun. I did not

use a hand gun until Belgareth taught me. He keeps one in the house and felt I needed to know how it functioned. It

is a nine millimeter and to large for my hands. I cannot even pull the slide back to arm it. He taught me to use a

smaller one and I can shoot, after a fashion.

Consider instead the woman dentist who recently was sent to prison

for running down her cheating husband with her car. Or the several incidences of women waiting until their man is

sleeping to mutilate him with a knife. How many of this countries laws are so biased in favor of women today?

Divorce, child custody and support are the primary examples I think of. Are they not weapons of far greater power

yet more circumspect? We do take fewer risks but that does not coincide with being less aggressive. As the weaker

gender we have learned to be more circumspect in our attacks.

We use the tools available to us to fight back.

To be honest most men would be driven to tears in minutes within a female group. Women can be brutal in their

aggression towards one another. It is not normally accomplish through direct confrontation but through sneak attacks

while the other is not aware. We have different limitations so use different tools.

[DumLuc]

You know, when I think of a "high

status" person, it puts me in mind of a well educated, competent individual who is successful in the endeavors they

attempt.

Some of the groups of people I think of are doctors, college professors and judges. None of these

groups seem to be very prone to risk taking.

Of course there are many "high status" people who do not belong to

these particular groups, but I feel that a lot of their acheivements are do to their caution and well thought out

planning before action rather than dumb luck.

[belgareth]

I used the bear and squirrel in

part for the mental image but since that doesn't work for you I'll use something else. Canines in general but

wolves specifically are a good example that also applies across much of the animal kingom. Ask any experienced dog

trainer for advice on the better protector and they will almost invariably tell you to get a female. The female will

be more agressive in defending you. There is a good reason police dogs are almost always male. Males are less likely

to do serious harm than the female.

In dealing with wolves I have had occaision to face down alpha males many

times. The only ones that ever gave me any real trouble were too young and needed a lesson. Generally, a female wolf

will be lighter and smaller than a male but there are few male wolves that will take on the female with pups. She

will kill you! The male will not. Her attack will be more vicious and she will go for the kill. Once you show

submission and back off the male will drop the attack. You will be lucky with a female to get away with running from

her.

A sociology prof once said that one of the most frightening thoughts was an all female army. Years later I

find that I agree with her. I think you equate aggression with risk taking. It doesn't work.

[Pancho1188]

GEORGE: He gave me a

wedgie.
JERRY: He got fired the next day.
ELAINE: (Questioning) Why do they call it a 'wedgie'?
GEORGE: Because

the underwear is pulled up from the back and.. it wedges in.
JERRY: (Explaining) They also have an atomic wedgie.

Now, the goal there is to actually get the waistband on top of the head.. Very rare.
ELAINE: Boys are sick.
JERRY:

Well what do girls do?
ELAINE: We just tease some one 'til they develop an eating disorder.


I didn't

equate aggression with risk taking, but they are correlated.

[Pancho1188]

http://pages.towson.edu/itrow/research/current%20research%20projects/gender&aggression.htm ("http://pages.towson.edu/itrow/research/current%20research%20projects/gender&aggression.htm"

)



"There are gender differences in the display of aggressive behavior, although the research findings on this point

are complex. Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) concluded from an extensive review of the research on gender differences

in aggression, that boys exhibited more aggressive behavior than girls from the age of two to 3 and continuing

through life. This gender difference is furthermore found across a variety of cultures. Hyde (1984) conducted a

meta-analytic survey a decade later, and found that gender differences in aggression are not large, but are well

established. Gender accounted for an average of five percent of the variance in aggression found in the

combined-sex populations of the 75 studies in her sample. The mean for males was on the average approximately a

half standard deviation higher than the mean for females. The gender difference tended to be larger for children

than for college students (accounting for 7 percent of the variance in studies of children and only 1 percent of the

variance in studies of college students). Hyde also noted that gender differences were larger when aggression was

measured by direct observation, projective methods, or peer reports than when measured by self-reports, parent, or

teacher reports. The consensus among reviewers was that male-female differences in aggression are largest and most

consistent for physical aggression (Hyde 1984; Maccoby and Jacklin 1974). However, Archer and Westeman (1981) found

that much of the apparent difference in physical aggression may stem from extremely aggressive behavior by a few

boys. And the research by Murray et al. (1998) reports that much of the gender difference in aggressive

behavior among younger students is due to the greater rates of boys’ physical destructive behavior. Since boys

gradually decrease their use of physical aggression over time, by the 6th grade the rates of aggression for boys and

girls are similar."

These 75 studies state that there is a higher rate of aggression within males across

cultures (meaning many different social influences). Also, the study suggests that boys are taught to become

less aggressive, which would balance the argument that society teaches women to be less aggressive. I won't

get started on how many people are giving boys ritalin because of their aggressive behaviors. I don't remember

anyone worrying about girls getting ritalin to calm them down. If you jumped to conclusions, you might even believe

that men are inherently more aggressive and yet the social aspect tries to suppress it. Obviously, the above study

shows that society tries to tame everyone's aggressiveness, yet boys are more difficult than girls.


I should

not have argued against Bel's comments on other species and will not anymore. There are many species in which the

female is more aggressive. I am aware of this fact. Studies suggest, however, that the human race is one in which

the male tends to assert more aggression. I made the mistake of jumping to defend a point that was an

apples-oranges comparison.

[belgareth]

Maybe you have less experience

around little girls. Ritalin is common to calm and quiet them too. That is something I am strongly against except in

extreme cases where everything else has failed. It also opens a door to a whole new discussion.

I used canines

but could have as easily used human in every instance. You do not address a single point but just go back and cite

more studies. Studies are nice but frequently fall far short of real life. I'm not going to argue the point any

longer because it is the age old debate between textbook and experience. It cannot be won except by time and

experience.

[DrSmellThis]

The studies Pancho sites show

more agression by boys as an average regarding frequency of behavior.

Aggressive behaviors from boys is

generally acccepted, and physical behavior, including destructive behavior, is more often exhibited. Boys are the

physically dominant sex, and have more testosterone. It is also the male role in world culture to assume

responsibility for a society's "aggressive tasks". Situations where a mother must protect her children are an

exception to this. Women often need to establish practical dominance in domestic situations for this reason, and

do.

This is not inconsistent with Belgareth's point, though, if you "factor out the frequency variable".



In psychology, as I often point out, you have to look very closely to see exactly what some particular

research shows; before drawing general conclusions about human behavior from that research.

When you get to

subtle levels, where the research is scarce, you do well to look at personal experiences to form hypotheses.

My

personal and clinical experiences tell me that women can be as viscious and focused on doing maximum harm as men,

when they become aggressive, if not moreso. There is little research on this aspect.

For example, I used

to box and do martial arts. When I've watched women compete in full-contact situations, they were not as "calm" and

"cool" with their "violence", but tended to be more viscious and unrestrained with it. Often, the first time someone

hit the other person, the "buzzsaws would start flying", until a clear winner emerged.

Women also have seemed to

me to be more skilled at doing harm with emotional violence; again, when they have chosen to engage in

it. This type of aggression is often indirect, but is aggression none the less.

I think men are more used to

physical violence, due to the frequency issue Pancho highlighted; and ritualize it more. In this sense, they know

how to "handle" violent situations "better". As a result, for example, I suspect there are more functioning "codes

of honor" to male physical violence, on the average.

But these are just my testable hypotheses. The research

needs to "catch up to the life stories" a little bit on this one.

This "lag" is the typical situation in the

human sciences; the situation that Belgareth was alluding to.

[Pancho1188]

The studies

Pancho sites show more agression by boys as an average regarding frequency of behavior.

That's

all I was trying to suggest in the first place. My comment was that men take more risks (frequency) than women.

That's why all the studies I cite show that. Since risk-taking and aggressiveness are related (taking a risk often

involves having the aggressiveness to take that risk), I added that men show more aggressive behaviors than women as

well. Since everyone likes to throw in the "but it's socially acceptable for men to exert aggression", I showed

stock portfolios, which are unbiased to physical differences and social norms because it's as easy as sitting at a

computer and making a few mouse clicks today. It's just you and your portfolio, and your portfolio isn't talking.

Still, the evidence is that men have riskier stocks, which lead to riskier portfolios, which means more risks.




My only comment to Bel is a playful, "You must hang around with the top 1% of aggressive women in the world."

:hammer:

[DrSmellThis]

Cool. You cited some classic

studies and top psychologists from that field, to your credit. :) I was just showing how both your perspectives

could well be correct, as part of a bigger picture.

***
Mental health issues note (ignore if not interested

;)): Incidentally, Ritalin is useful for attention defecit, but not aggressive behaviors, unless the behaviors

are "secondary" (somehow a result of the ADD).

Regarding Bel's point, throwing Ritalin (or another med) at

someone at the first sign of trouble is indeed not the recommended route from a professional mental health point of

view. A family should try counseling first, and the counselor can then consult with the psychiatrist about whether a

trial of meds is clinically indicated. The most common mistake is to just go to the primary care physician and have

him or her prescribe some psychiatric meds, without really understanding the clinical mental health issues. I see

that in my practice all the time, and always intervene on the issue.

I won't even agree with an experienced

child psychiatrist prescribing anything without my input, since a psychiatrist will have a more superficial

understanding of the symptoms compared to the therapist working with the family, assuming everyone is equally

competent.

That said, ADD meds can really be a godsend when prescribed appropriately, and typically aren't

necessary for the long haul if other measures are taken.

And Pancho, ADD happens just as often with girls, but

is often misdiagnosed, due to differences in overt physical behavior.