4 ms·

You seem to be aware that you are just navel gazing here. You've based your analysis on a comedy you saw in the 2000s that in turn based itself on the experien

by lkey 5y ago

You seem to be aware that you are just navel gazing here. You've based your analysis on a comedy you saw in the 2000s that in turn based itself on the experiences of white affluent American teenagers. The second leg of your analysis is not grounded in an understanding of actual female biology. The one 'fact' you cite is wrong, 'young girls' are not the most fertile, the range for peak fertility for women is from their very late teens (18-19) to late 20s. The majority peaks in their early to mid 20s (~24 years old). If you want to comment about how women and men function 'evolutionarily', please at least understand a bit about how human biology works right now.

everdrive 5y ago
>You seem to be aware that you are just navel gazing here. I like to think of it more as "presenting the details of my argument clearly so that they can be discredited if I've made an error.," rather than "navel gazing." Of course, there is nothing wrong with criticizing ideas, and so thank you for your response. I don't know that I have a direct counterpoint to your claim, and it might be that my argument is irreparably harmed. I might still wonder that this is still wrapped up in evolutionary psychology, as it seems to be related to the onset of puberty. So, perhaps my idea still plays a role in what's going on here, even if it is not the primary role. (ie, perhaps it's one of many factors at play. Women could still be quite invested their sexual prospects shortly before they hit their peak fertility.) I suppose my question for you would be, what do you think about all this? Do you believe that young girls are affected differently than young boys by social media? If so, do you believe this relies on a psychological tendency which existed prior to social media? If so, do you believe there's any evolutionary component to it, or do you believe there's some other explanation?
- saltminer 5y ago
  > Do you believe that young girls are affected differently than young boys by social media? Yes. Women are taught from a young age how they must act, dress, etc. What they should look like, that they should fit into a size 0, be <100 lbs, start counting calories when they hit puberty, etc. Keep in mind that every attempt at a teenage boy's magazine has flopped, while teenage girl's magazines (at least until the decline of magazines and print media more generally) were quite popular. And this is in large part because there are a lot of expectations placed on girls that were never placed on guys, so these magazines helped guide a lot of young women through puberty (whether they guided them well is a matter for another discussion entirely, but they certainly did hold a lot of influence). While there certainly are images of the ideal man that societies have held up over time, they don't have the same weight as expectations for women. If you have a dad bod, nobody is going to be glaring at you at the beach for showing it off, whispering about how "un-masculine" you look, that you need to show a little modesty, but a woman who goes to the beach with hairy legs will absolutely be subject to comments about how un-ladylike you are and that you look "masculine," even though body hair is entirely natural. But it's not just when you're at the beach, and it's not just leg hair - it's everywhere, about everything, and it starts very early on. It's your parents telling you, advertisements and Hollywood reinforcing it, being told by your teachers you should be more feminine, your pastor saying that your outfit isn't "appropriate" for Sunday school (because it's not a dress), random men saying you should lose some weight... it never ends. So while men are definitely having more body issues these days, it's nowhere near the same extent. Social media helps to reinforce societal beauty standards that have been taught to us all our lives. > If so, do you believe this relies on a psychological tendency which existed prior to social media? If so, do you believe there's any evolutionary component to it, or do you believe there's some other explanation? Not any innate tendency but just being beaten down until you conform. The advent of social media didn't magically erase the expectations we place on women, instead it became another place for reinforcing them. > Women could still be quite invested their sexual prospects shortly before they hit their peak fertility. I am single and have no desire to have kids despite being in "peak fertility." I am also not actively seeking out a partner. I'm not opposed to dating, it's just more convenient for me not to at the moment. This is entirely anecdotal, but of my friends who do want kids, they don't really think about "oh god gotta find a mate and have kids I'm about to turn 26." They're more interested in finding the right person first, especially since we have so many fertility treatment options today (and having kids has gotten more expensive than ever). Having kids when you're not ready is generally a bad idea, and I hope I don't have to explain why.
- lkey 5y ago
  I wrote and thought better of a too long response to this. Instead of trying to stay under the TL;DR word limit, I think instead you should focus on answering why you believe this: "I might still wonder that this is still wrapped up in evolutionary psychology" is a more useful frame of reference than, say, a model of addiction: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28936/w28936.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28936/w289... Do we gain any explanatory power by adding untestable hypotheses to the existing body of work about how society constructs /impossible to realize/ standards for both boys and girls. To your question, yes, girls and boys are socialized differently in our culture, and thus they will be exposed to different social media, pressures, and expectations from the moment they are born. However, I don't think you need to immediately reach for evolutionary psychology to explain this. The underlying pressure, in my view, is the pressure to sell objects that relieve the dissonance that 'influencers' and ad writers amplify. Evolution certainly made us (regardless of gender) susceptible to this kind of influence, but culture determines which of our insecurities weaponized and how. See also: brain pills, protein, and cars for predominantly male audiences. Would these same kinds of pressures have existed in the tribal circumstances under which we evolved? Sure, but they'd have been way way way less potent. I also don't think evo psych tells us that our current societal structures are pre-determined or inevitable. If anything, we've been taught again that human brains are remarkably flexible and even relatively light social pressure from social media can cut against the grain of other fundamental biological tendencies, like self-preservation.

by lkey 5y ago

everdrive 5y ago

>You seem to be aware that you are just navel gazing here. I like to think of it more as "presenting the details of my argument clearly so that they can be discredited if I've made an error.," rather than "navel gazing." Of course, there is nothing wrong with criticizing ideas, and so thank you for your response. I don't know that I have a direct counterpoint to your claim, and it might be that my argument is irreparably harmed. I might still wonder that this is still wrapped up in evolutionary psychology, as it seems to be related to the onset of puberty. So, perhaps my idea still plays a role in what's going on here, even if it is not the primary role. (ie, perhaps it's one of many factors at play. Women could still be quite invested their sexual prospects shortly before they hit their peak fertility.) I suppose my question for you would be, what do you think about all this? Do you believe that young girls are affected differently than young boys by social media? If so, do you believe this relies on a psychological tendency which existed prior to social media? If so, do you believe there's any evolutionary component to it, or do you believe there's some other explanation?

saltminer 5y ago
> Do you believe that young girls are affected differently than young boys by social media? Yes. Women are taught from a young age how they must act, dress, etc. What they should look like, that they should fit into a size 0, be <100 lbs, start counting calories when they hit puberty, etc. Keep in mind that every attempt at a teenage boy's magazine has flopped, while teenage girl's magazines (at least until the decline of magazines and print media more generally) were quite popular. And this is in large part because there are a lot of expectations placed on girls that were never placed on guys, so these magazines helped guide a lot of young women through puberty (whether they guided them well is a matter for another discussion entirely, but they certainly did hold a lot of influence). While there certainly are images of the ideal man that societies have held up over time, they don't have the same weight as expectations for women. If you have a dad bod, nobody is going to be glaring at you at the beach for showing it off, whispering about how "un-masculine" you look, that you need to show a little modesty, but a woman who goes to the beach with hairy legs will absolutely be subject to comments about how un-ladylike you are and that you look "masculine," even though body hair is entirely natural. But it's not just when you're at the beach, and it's not just leg hair - it's everywhere, about everything, and it starts very early on. It's your parents telling you, advertisements and Hollywood reinforcing it, being told by your teachers you should be more feminine, your pastor saying that your outfit isn't "appropriate" for Sunday school (because it's not a dress), random men saying you should lose some weight... it never ends. So while men are definitely having more body issues these days, it's nowhere near the same extent. Social media helps to reinforce societal beauty standards that have been taught to us all our lives. > If so, do you believe this relies on a psychological tendency which existed prior to social media? If so, do you believe there's any evolutionary component to it, or do you believe there's some other explanation? Not any innate tendency but just being beaten down until you conform. The advent of social media didn't magically erase the expectations we place on women, instead it became another place for reinforcing them. > Women could still be quite invested their sexual prospects shortly before they hit their peak fertility. I am single and have no desire to have kids despite being in "peak fertility." I am also not actively seeking out a partner. I'm not opposed to dating, it's just more convenient for me not to at the moment. This is entirely anecdotal, but of my friends who do want kids, they don't really think about "oh god gotta find a mate and have kids I'm about to turn 26." They're more interested in finding the right person first, especially since we have so many fertility treatment options today (and having kids has gotten more expensive than ever). Having kids when you're not ready is generally a bad idea, and I hope I don't have to explain why.
lkey 5y ago
I wrote and thought better of a too long response to this. Instead of trying to stay under the TL;DR word limit, I think instead you should focus on answering why you believe this: "I might still wonder that this is still wrapped up in evolutionary psychology" is a more useful frame of reference than, say, a model of addiction: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28936/w28936.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28936/w289... Do we gain any explanatory power by adding untestable hypotheses to the existing body of work about how society constructs /impossible to realize/ standards for both boys and girls. To your question, yes, girls and boys are socialized differently in our culture, and thus they will be exposed to different social media, pressures, and expectations from the moment they are born. However, I don't think you need to immediately reach for evolutionary psychology to explain this. The underlying pressure, in my view, is the pressure to sell objects that relieve the dissonance that 'influencers' and ad writers amplify. Evolution certainly made us (regardless of gender) susceptible to this kind of influence, but culture determines which of our insecurities weaponized and how. See also: brain pills, protein, and cars for predominantly male audiences. Would these same kinds of pressures have existed in the tribal circumstances under which we evolved? Sure, but they'd have been way way way less potent. I also don't think evo psych tells us that our current societal structures are pre-determined or inevitable. If anything, we've been taught again that human brains are remarkably flexible and even relatively light social pressure from social media can cut against the grain of other fundamental biological tendencies, like self-preservation.