Women and daredevils

[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."

[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.