5 ms·

GENTLEMEN: we are the ones with the weird brains. Testosterone, even in the womb, rewires us for dominance, hierarchy, focus (obsession), spacial acuity, etc.,

by russell 16y ago

GENTLEMEN: we are the ones with the weird brains. Testosterone, even in the womb, rewires us for dominance, hierarchy, focus (obsession), spacial acuity, etc., so we dominate in executives, generals, Nobel prize winners, and hackers. On the other end of the spectrum we pretty much own the social failure space: homelessness, severe mental illness, prison occupancy, murder, drug dealing, financial malfeasance, war, corruption, and on and on. Take a look at "The Red Queen"; it's a good read.

ahoyhere 16y ago
And, if you find this line interesting, read this excellent speech, "Is there anything good about men?" (of course, the answer is definitely yes.) http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
- neutronicus 16y ago
  Thanks for that; great read.
- russell 16y ago
  Excellent paper. The real evolutionary feedback loop in play here is sexual selection, not natural selection. Women evolved men and men evolved women. Women select for status, because that provides for better children and better care for their children. That means the chief has more wives because he has more status and resources. Half the men die because they are feeble or in adventures. Men select for fertility, hence beauty and youth. I suppose all this worked pretty well in a tribal society, but we now have a serious imbalance as a civilization. As I said above, men in jails and unchecked aggression and greed in our leaders. It is now up to the women to do a little directed social evolution to get us a more equitable civilization. I think we men have done quite well in evolving out women, so I have great faith if the future of civilization.
dkarl 16y ago
Our obsession with aggregate differences between the sexes is pointless and probably counterproductive since we spend our days dealing with individuals, not aggregates.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  I need some people to do some heavy lifting work - I don't have long to establish suitability, time is money and all, what rough sieve should I apply to a list to get the most strong/fit people? I'm going with 20 something males. We often deal with groups and have to make decisions without full information or without a long time to ruminate. "Which babysitter will be better?" The grandmother or the young single male teen? Snap decision, I think I know who most would choose. Such choices are based on prejudice developed through group behavioural observation; it's a shortcut that mostly works.
  - dkarl 16y ago
    First, if you read the threads where this stuff comes up, you'll see that most of these discussions are in the context of work and dating, both situations where personal exposure goes way, way beyond what you can learn from stereotypes. In particular, the desire to abstractly characterize women reflects a sad attempt to depersonalize, out of fear, what should be a very personal, individual relationship. (Don't try to tell me that the guys driving these discussions are all dealing with aggregates of women -- they wish they were dealing with aggregates of women, because dealing with individual women is too confusing and distressing for them.) Second, hiring a babysitter is a terrible example of making a snap decision based on age and sex. I've never heard of parents hiring a babysitter without personal familiarity or references. Lots of grandmothers are incredibly ignorant about child care, even downright irresponsible. Hell, in areas where meth is popular, I bet grandmothers do a lot more meth than 13-year-old boys. Hiring guys to do heavy lifting is actually a decent example, but I've never seen any discussions on the internet about how to pick good workers from the crowd of day laborers hanging out near Home Depot. Do you take the young, wiry guy or the gray-haired guy who's built like a tank? Are tattoos a bad sign? You haven't read any discussions like that on HN. No, instead, people talk about how to have a deep understanding of women's sexual desires (scary and bad) and moral scruples (even more scary and bad) without actually knowing a woman.

by russell 16y ago

ahoyhere 16y ago

And, if you find this line interesting, read this excellent speech, "Is there anything good about men?" (of course, the answer is definitely yes.) http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

neutronicus 16y ago
Thanks for that; great read.
russell 16y ago
Excellent paper. The real evolutionary feedback loop in play here is sexual selection, not natural selection. Women evolved men and men evolved women. Women select for status, because that provides for better children and better care for their children. That means the chief has more wives because he has more status and resources. Half the men die because they are feeble or in adventures. Men select for fertility, hence beauty and youth. I suppose all this worked pretty well in a tribal society, but we now have a serious imbalance as a civilization. As I said above, men in jails and unchecked aggression and greed in our leaders. It is now up to the women to do a little directed social evolution to get us a more equitable civilization. I think we men have done quite well in evolving out women, so I have great faith if the future of civilization.

dkarl 16y ago

Our obsession with aggregate differences between the sexes is pointless and probably counterproductive since we spend our days dealing with individuals, not aggregates.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
I need some people to do some heavy lifting work - I don't have long to establish suitability, time is money and all, what rough sieve should I apply to a list to get the most strong/fit people? I'm going with 20 something males. We often deal with groups and have to make decisions without full information or without a long time to ruminate. "Which babysitter will be better?" The grandmother or the young single male teen? Snap decision, I think I know who most would choose. Such choices are based on prejudice developed through group behavioural observation; it's a shortcut that mostly works.
- dkarl 16y ago
  First, if you read the threads where this stuff comes up, you'll see that most of these discussions are in the context of work and dating, both situations where personal exposure goes way, way beyond what you can learn from stereotypes. In particular, the desire to abstractly characterize women reflects a sad attempt to depersonalize, out of fear, what should be a very personal, individual relationship. (Don't try to tell me that the guys driving these discussions are all dealing with aggregates of women -- they wish they were dealing with aggregates of women, because dealing with individual women is too confusing and distressing for them.) Second, hiring a babysitter is a terrible example of making a snap decision based on age and sex. I've never heard of parents hiring a babysitter without personal familiarity or references. Lots of grandmothers are incredibly ignorant about child care, even downright irresponsible. Hell, in areas where meth is popular, I bet grandmothers do a lot more meth than 13-year-old boys. Hiring guys to do heavy lifting is actually a decent example, but I've never seen any discussions on the internet about how to pick good workers from the crowd of day laborers hanging out near Home Depot. Do you take the young, wiry guy or the gray-haired guy who's built like a tank? Are tattoos a bad sign? You haven't read any discussions like that on HN. No, instead, people talk about how to have a deep understanding of women's sexual desires (scary and bad) and moral scruples (even more scary and bad) without actually knowing a woman.