Close

Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 34
  1. #1
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7625

    Default Women and daredevils

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    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
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7052

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7625

    Default

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7052

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancho1188
    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7052

    Default

    Brilliant tie-in.

  7. #7
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7625

    Default

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Full Member culturalblonde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    183
    Rep Power
    6662

    Default

    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...

  9. #9
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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...
    It's a good thing I don't work at Harvard University, or I'd be fired for

    what I'm about to say.

    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

    ). 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...




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

  10. #10
    Moderator Mtnjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    7443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancho1188
    It's a good

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

    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!
    Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
    --Lazarus Long

  11. #11
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    7673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mtnjim
    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-9...noftheice1430/

    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.
    Give truth a chance.

  12. #12
    Moderator Mtnjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    7443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a.k.a.
    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/


    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.
    Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
    --Lazarus Long

  13. #13
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7052

    Default

    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.

  14. #14
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7625

    Default

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  15. #15
    Moderator Mtnjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    7443

    Default

    Ponch & Bel:

    YUP!!
    I agree!

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


    Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
    --Lazarus Long

  16. #16
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7052

    Default

    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.

  17. #17
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7625

    Default

    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?
    Last edited by belgareth; 04-19-2005 at 03:33 AM.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  18. #18
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    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".

  19. #19
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7625

    Default

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  20. #20
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7052

    Default

    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


    "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'


    Gender gap in toys:



    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).

  21. #21
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7625

    Default

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  22. #22
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  23. #23
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7625

    Default

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  24. #24
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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...

  25. #25
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7052

    Default

    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


    Are Women More Risk Averse?



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

    20-30.html



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

    because of these studies.

  26. #26
    Full Member wood elf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    158
    Rep Power
    6150

    Default

    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.

  27. #27
    Full Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    105
    Rep Power
    6148

    Default

    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.

  28. #28
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7625

    Default

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  29. #29
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7052

    Default

    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.

  30. #30
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7052

    Default

    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.

Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •