4 ms·

"Sex differences in motor vehicle accidents among teenagers skew heavily male along with other not fully thought through risk taking look at me behaviours." I'

by avazhi 2y ago

"Sex differences in motor vehicle accidents among teenagers skew heavily male along with other not fully thought through risk taking look at me behaviours." I'm glad you agree with me that certain male behaviours and thought processes are unique to males, implying there are cognitive and behavioural differences between males and females which exist as a function of sex. "Therefore, one key difference between males and females in these studies is that males actually show a toy preference while females do not!" This is further evidence - which you've adduced multiple times now - that innate differences between males and females exist (in this case, we have a difference in the existence of toy preferences as a function solely of sex). Now that we agree about this, you can see why one might reasonably conclude that boys, as a function of being boys, prefer certain activities and topics over others (and, mutatis mutandis, girls). I have nothing further to add.

defrost 2y ago
> boys, as a function of being boys, prefer certain activities and topics over others. As per the aticle this includes leering, drink spiking, date rape, etc. And, fails to address why women avoid male heavy domains despite no evidence that should they dive in they'd be any worse than boys. > I have nothing further to add. You've studiously avoided the innate bad behaviour aspects over several comments now.
- avazhi 2y ago
  My apologies. I'm more than happy to admit that men exhibit 'innate bad behaviour' more often than women do. The fact that they do so is a function of them being men, and men and women are very different, as we've seen. I suppose you think that by admitting this, I must then admit that women are scared off by such 'innate bad behaviour' and so don't go into STEM fields. But once again the evidence is that the sex differences are significant from at least the time infants begin playing with toys and that they are not functions of human culture or learned social behaviour. Or are you suggesting that 1 year old infants are capable of making sex-based inferences? Maybe that monkey infants have divined the intricacies of human gender norms? Those differences in behaviours based on sex are conserved across a range of primate species, as we've seen. If the cognitive and behavioural differences arise before girls (or infant female monkeys) have ever been exposed to those big bad mean boys and their bad behaviours, then naturally you can't blame women being underrepresented in STEM fields on the boys, and you'll have to look for other (antecedent) causes. As we've seen, those cognitive and behavioural differences DO arise far earlier than you can explain based on some learned response to male behaviour. The differences can only be explained by the genetic distinctions between the two sexes. I wasn't 'studiously' avoiding anything, it's just that bad male behaviours are completely irrelevant.
BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
Wait of all things why do you take “look at me behavior” as something that must be based on innate differences? Being a social phenomenon in itself, wouldn’t it be completely reasonable to blame this on different socialization? I also want to nitpick your language because I think it implies something about your worldview. You said that “certain male behaviors and thought processes are unique to males,” key word there being unique. Given the broad crossover between the sexes in physiology (albeit when examining rare cases), we should, imo, expect absolutely nothing to be a uniquely male/female thought process, just one more likely to be found in one sex than the other. The article provides no argument for uniqueness. To me this seems a very important distinction because the existence of uniquely sexed psychological behavior could be used to justify all manner of political ideas that a higher probability of finding said behavior could not. Just to be clear, I make no claims about the argument that large populations will exhibit sex-based skews in behavior, just that this is entirely probabilistic and many, many outliers will exist.
- me_me_me 2y ago
  Males being more agressive, risk-taking etc is a result of being biologically disposable. Tribes would have much lower survivability if female hunter were off dying to wild beasts. That is just evolutionary trait reinforced over thousand of years. Sexual dimorphism is a fact, you can argue how much impact it has on the final behaviours. But dismissing nature from 'nature vs nurture' is outright silly at this point (I think you are trying to argue for that, correct me if I am wrong)
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    I apologize if I didn’t make it clear, I’m not trying to dismiss nature. There are certainly at least some sex-based psychological differences. My point was that sex, being bimodal, would only affect psychology in a probabilistic sense, and that any psychological trait you isolated would be found in some individuals from either sex. I would argue that it’s possible small sex differences often reinforce themselves socially in a feedback loop, so even a small difference in, for example, risk taking behavior could be amplified through nurture to the extent we see. We also clearly raise boys to believe that risk-taking behavior will increase their chances with women (see action movies). You’d need to show me studies on infants to convince me that’s meaningfully based on nature, because unsubstantiated evopsych arguments are notoriously easy to make.

by avazhi 2y ago

defrost 2y ago

> boys, as a function of being boys, prefer certain activities and topics over others. As per the aticle this includes leering, drink spiking, date rape, etc. And, fails to address why women avoid male heavy domains despite no evidence that should they dive in they'd be any worse than boys. > I have nothing further to add. You've studiously avoided the innate bad behaviour aspects over several comments now.

avazhi 2y ago
My apologies. I'm more than happy to admit that men exhibit 'innate bad behaviour' more often than women do. The fact that they do so is a function of them being men, and men and women are very different, as we've seen. I suppose you think that by admitting this, I must then admit that women are scared off by such 'innate bad behaviour' and so don't go into STEM fields. But once again the evidence is that the sex differences are significant from at least the time infants begin playing with toys and that they are not functions of human culture or learned social behaviour. Or are you suggesting that 1 year old infants are capable of making sex-based inferences? Maybe that monkey infants have divined the intricacies of human gender norms? Those differences in behaviours based on sex are conserved across a range of primate species, as we've seen. If the cognitive and behavioural differences arise before girls (or infant female monkeys) have ever been exposed to those big bad mean boys and their bad behaviours, then naturally you can't blame women being underrepresented in STEM fields on the boys, and you'll have to look for other (antecedent) causes. As we've seen, those cognitive and behavioural differences DO arise far earlier than you can explain based on some learned response to male behaviour. The differences can only be explained by the genetic distinctions between the two sexes. I wasn't 'studiously' avoiding anything, it's just that bad male behaviours are completely irrelevant.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago

Wait of all things why do you take “look at me behavior” as something that must be based on innate differences? Being a social phenomenon in itself, wouldn’t it be completely reasonable to blame this on different socialization? I also want to nitpick your language because I think it implies something about your worldview. You said that “certain male behaviors and thought processes are unique to males,” key word there being unique. Given the broad crossover between the sexes in physiology (albeit when examining rare cases), we should, imo, expect absolutely nothing to be a uniquely male/female thought process, just one more likely to be found in one sex than the other. The article provides no argument for uniqueness. To me this seems a very important distinction because the existence of uniquely sexed psychological behavior could be used to justify all manner of political ideas that a higher probability of finding said behavior could not. Just to be clear, I make no claims about the argument that large populations will exhibit sex-based skews in behavior, just that this is entirely probabilistic and many, many outliers will exist.

me_me_me 2y ago
Males being more agressive, risk-taking etc is a result of being biologically disposable. Tribes would have much lower survivability if female hunter were off dying to wild beasts. That is just evolutionary trait reinforced over thousand of years. Sexual dimorphism is a fact, you can argue how much impact it has on the final behaviours. But dismissing nature from 'nature vs nurture' is outright silly at this point (I think you are trying to argue for that, correct me if I am wrong)
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  I apologize if I didn’t make it clear, I’m not trying to dismiss nature. There are certainly at least some sex-based psychological differences. My point was that sex, being bimodal, would only affect psychology in a probabilistic sense, and that any psychological trait you isolated would be found in some individuals from either sex. I would argue that it’s possible small sex differences often reinforce themselves socially in a feedback loop, so even a small difference in, for example, risk taking behavior could be amplified through nurture to the extent we see. We also clearly raise boys to believe that risk-taking behavior will increase their chances with women (see action movies). You’d need to show me studies on infants to convince me that’s meaningfully based on nature, because unsubstantiated evopsych arguments are notoriously easy to make.