6 ms·

Maybe it's just cultural. I don't see why risk taking favors men millions of years ago.

corin_ 11y ago
If a man gets a woman pregnant and then the male takes risks then even if the risk results in death he still has offspring on the way, if the woman dies while pregnant then not so - could that be a reason?
Super_Jambo 11y ago
Large risks imply large potential rewards (otherwise you're just being dumb). But in terms of genetics the female upside is limited by the very high costs of child bearing & the limited number of children they can physically have. The male genetic upside to risk is limited by the number of women they can have sex with. 1 / 200 men are apparently descended from Genghis Khan! This feat would simply be impossible for any woman of that era.
- belorn 11y ago
  You are describing one reproductive strategy used by males, which is not true for all men, and is defently not true when looking beyond humans. Having many low investments into offspring can be effective, but it is also risky. The more champion based a race is (one male per many females), the more energy is going to be spent on competition. The offspring will also have to depend solely on the mother, since each child is just one of many from a single male and has thus less individual investment value. The alternative strategy is to focus on a smaller number of children, making sure that that the reproductive investment has a higher chance to be successful. Children gets the value of having two parents that are invested in the offspring, but there are issues of "cheating" (an observed behavior in many animals). Of course, I am only describing male strategy here and naturally it can not exist in a vacuum. Female strategy often has higher initial cost, but it does not dictate the outcome. In the case of humans also, the observed strategy in both sexes is normally said to be a mix strategy, so it is far more complex than just saying that the male genetic upside to risk is limited by the number of women they can have sex with.
  - Super_Jambo 11y ago
    So you would argue that men (particularly young men) do not exhibit greater risk taking behaviour than women? Or do you have some other explanation for this propensity? Non-humans do not I think enter into the discussion, and a strategy doesn't have to be universal to have a big enough effect on our psychology to be worth worrying about at the level of education policy.
    - belorn 11y ago
      Im saying that the conclusion will never be correct if we try categorize men, particularly young men, as having a reproductive strategy which research has shown as not true for humans. Risk behavior is complex concept, goes well beyond reproductive strategies. Behavior is significant more effected by culture than genes, and culture is effected by gender identification rather than sex. Would you be surprised if transgenders has a identical risk taking behavior in relation to the gender which they identify themselves as? Would you be surprised if sexual presence has no impact at all? In both cases it would strongly imply that reproductive strategy has no impact on risk taking behavior. Some explanation for the claimed propensity of men taking higher risk would be that being successful is more rewarded socially for men then women, while averageness and failure is generally socially more for men than women. Finding root causes for that social pressure is harder, but my guess is that it has both biological reasons and historical ones.
  - _wo6a 11y ago
    Side note: quick research seems to indicate that it may not actually be Genghis Khan who is the male-line ancestor of all those men, but a common ancestor of his and the rest of his tribe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khereid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khereid Even if so, I'm not sure if he would actually be an example of the low-investment male mating strategy. He was the ruler of a large empire, so he would be able to invest in his children. Even those who weren't recognized would have advantages from being rumored to be his offspring. Groups which allow the low-investment strategy are outcompeted because they don't incentivize any males to invest in the group, while the Mongol empire had plenty of conquered people available to the Mongol men who were excluded by elites' polygamy.
- mwhite 11y ago
  1 in 200 men are direct male-line descendants of Genghis Khan. Many more are descended from Genghis Khan in any path (probably all Mongolians, and large fractions, quite possibly majorities, of many Asian groups). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor
- mherkender 11y ago
  Calling me dumb is out of line. You're making a lot of assumptions that could also be explained by saying that risk-taking is the logical choice for men, for those exact same reasons. We didn't evolve big brains so our genes could decide everything. Civilization is very recent in human history, and without civilization you can't have Genghis Kahn so I don't see how he is relevant. I feel like people used to say God made people a certain way. Now that I basically only interact with nerds, they just replace God with evolution. I'd prefer some citations, since all I hear are the same assumptions.

If a man gets a woman pregnant and then the male takes risks then even if the risk results in death he still has offspring on the way, if the woman dies while pregnant then not so - could that be a reason?

Super_Jambo 11y ago

Large risks imply large potential rewards (otherwise you're just being dumb). But in terms of genetics the female upside is limited by the very high costs of child bearing & the limited number of children they can physically have. The male genetic upside to risk is limited by the number of women they can have sex with. 1 / 200 men are apparently descended from Genghis Khan! This feat would simply be impossible for any woman of that era.

belorn 11y ago
You are describing one reproductive strategy used by males, which is not true for all men, and is defently not true when looking beyond humans. Having many low investments into offspring can be effective, but it is also risky. The more champion based a race is (one male per many females), the more energy is going to be spent on competition. The offspring will also have to depend solely on the mother, since each child is just one of many from a single male and has thus less individual investment value. The alternative strategy is to focus on a smaller number of children, making sure that that the reproductive investment has a higher chance to be successful. Children gets the value of having two parents that are invested in the offspring, but there are issues of "cheating" (an observed behavior in many animals). Of course, I am only describing male strategy here and naturally it can not exist in a vacuum. Female strategy often has higher initial cost, but it does not dictate the outcome. In the case of humans also, the observed strategy in both sexes is normally said to be a mix strategy, so it is far more complex than just saying that the male genetic upside to risk is limited by the number of women they can have sex with.
- Super_Jambo 11y ago
  So you would argue that men (particularly young men) do not exhibit greater risk taking behaviour than women? Or do you have some other explanation for this propensity? Non-humans do not I think enter into the discussion, and a strategy doesn't have to be universal to have a big enough effect on our psychology to be worth worrying about at the level of education policy.
  - belorn 11y ago
    Im saying that the conclusion will never be correct if we try categorize men, particularly young men, as having a reproductive strategy which research has shown as not true for humans. Risk behavior is complex concept, goes well beyond reproductive strategies. Behavior is significant more effected by culture than genes, and culture is effected by gender identification rather than sex. Would you be surprised if transgenders has a identical risk taking behavior in relation to the gender which they identify themselves as? Would you be surprised if sexual presence has no impact at all? In both cases it would strongly imply that reproductive strategy has no impact on risk taking behavior. Some explanation for the claimed propensity of men taking higher risk would be that being successful is more rewarded socially for men then women, while averageness and failure is generally socially more for men than women. Finding root causes for that social pressure is harder, but my guess is that it has both biological reasons and historical ones.
- _wo6a 11y ago
  Side note: quick research seems to indicate that it may not actually be Genghis Khan who is the male-line ancestor of all those men, but a common ancestor of his and the rest of his tribe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khereid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khereid Even if so, I'm not sure if he would actually be an example of the low-investment male mating strategy. He was the ruler of a large empire, so he would be able to invest in his children. Even those who weren't recognized would have advantages from being rumored to be his offspring. Groups which allow the low-investment strategy are outcompeted because they don't incentivize any males to invest in the group, while the Mongol empire had plenty of conquered people available to the Mongol men who were excluded by elites' polygamy.
mwhite 11y ago
1 in 200 men are direct male-line descendants of Genghis Khan. Many more are descended from Genghis Khan in any path (probably all Mongolians, and large fractions, quite possibly majorities, of many Asian groups). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor
mherkender 11y ago
Calling me dumb is out of line. You're making a lot of assumptions that could also be explained by saying that risk-taking is the logical choice for men, for those exact same reasons. We didn't evolve big brains so our genes could decide everything. Civilization is very recent in human history, and without civilization you can't have Genghis Kahn so I don't see how he is relevant. I feel like people used to say God made people a certain way. Now that I basically only interact with nerds, they just replace God with evolution. I'd prefer some citations, since all I hear are the same assumptions.