4 ms·

Some amount of social anxiety has to be a pre-modern survival trait. Strangers from another tribe or clan were often extremely dangerous. Even travel used to be

Some amount of social anxiety has to be a pre-modern survival trait. Strangers from another tribe or clan were often extremely dangerous. Even travel used to be fraught with bandits and highway robbery. Many modern activities will put someone in close proximity to lots of strangers. Airports, public transit, busy streets, college parties, even big grocery stores all have lots of strangers. A person who doesn't want to be surrounded by strangers is probably feeling an ancient survival instinct. Now, if that feeling prevents them from visiting family, living a happy life, or accomplishing their goals, it's a problem. But I don't think feeling uneasy in a location filled with strangers is inherently unhealthy. Likewise introversion isn't a bad thing. Some people would just prefer to be alone, and that's okay. Maybe it's a muscle they could strengthen, but I've known enough introverted folks who constantly practice social skills but never increase their inbuilt number of "social hours". They love people, love entertaining and meeting people, but as soon as that number is hit they go off into their room and don't come out for a few days. I don't think this is an issue, they've got a fixed amount of social energy and that's that.

jl6 2y ago
It’s a modern survival trait too, particularly for women, from whom we are all descended.
- blueflow 2y ago
  This is repeated often, but recently i found out that men lead all categories (except sexual assault and domestic violence) of being the victims of crime. You are safer if you are a woman.
  - jl6 2y ago
    That’s a pretty big exception. And do your stats control for risk-taking behavior, which is higher in men? [0] For example, do we see a higher rate of violent crime against men because that rate includes gang violence and men are much more likely to be involved in gangs than women? Or because it includes car theft, when car ownership is higher amongst men than women? Or because men are more likely to be employed outside the home where crime is more likely? None of this helps women who have to decide whether to cross the street to avoid a group coming towards them. The GP point about a form of social anxiety being a survival instinct is absolutely plausible. [0] https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/news/16315-men-are-more-likely-to-commit-violent-crimes.-why-is-this-so-and-how-do-we-change-it%3F https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/news/16315-men-are-more-...
    - blueflow 2y ago
      > risk-taking behavior, which is higher in men? My point, be a woman and you'll be safer. Being a woman helps because then you don't have the risk factors you just listed.
      - jl6 2y ago
        My point is that when you normalize for risk-taking behavior, women will come out worse. When a woman goes out at 3am in her Chrysler 300 to sling dope through a bad neighborhood, she will face additional risks than the ones she chose.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    If you take all men and all women, that's probably true. By the same token, men are also more likely to die on the front lines of a war, but that doesn't mean that you're safer there as a woman, it means there are far fewer of them there! In order to come to your conclusion ("you are safer if you are a woman"), you'd have to control for where the crime takes place, who committed it, and why. For just one example: gang-related violence is a large category of crime that affects mostly men because mostly men are involved in gangs. But that category of violence does not contribute to the risk of most of us here falling victims to crimes because most of us here are not involved with gangs, so that falsely skews the numbers towards men as victims. The real question you have to answer to come to your conclusion is if the typical woman on HN is safer than the typical man on HN.
    - blueflow 2y ago
      > By the same token, men are also more likely to die on the front lines of a war, but that doesn't mean that you're safer there as a woman, it means there are far fewer of them there! And this is why? Women don't get drafted. Proving my point. The rest of your post is victim blaming.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        > The rest of your post is victim blaming. Nonsense. It's simply stating the reality that HN users (the "you" in your comment) are not average males and average females—in fact, no one is. For the vast majority of audiences, gang violence should be excluded from tallies when trying to judge whether men or women are safer, and you're not doing so, which leads to an inaccurate judgement of relative risks for the people on this forum. It's not victim blaming, it's pointing out that you're applying stats wrong.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - psd1 2y ago
        Have you considered the possibility that you're conflating populations with independent variables?

jl6 2y ago

It’s a modern survival trait too, particularly for women, from whom we are all descended.

blueflow 2y ago
This is repeated often, but recently i found out that men lead all categories (except sexual assault and domestic violence) of being the victims of crime. You are safer if you are a woman.
- jl6 2y ago
  That’s a pretty big exception. And do your stats control for risk-taking behavior, which is higher in men? [0] For example, do we see a higher rate of violent crime against men because that rate includes gang violence and men are much more likely to be involved in gangs than women? Or because it includes car theft, when car ownership is higher amongst men than women? Or because men are more likely to be employed outside the home where crime is more likely? None of this helps women who have to decide whether to cross the street to avoid a group coming towards them. The GP point about a form of social anxiety being a survival instinct is absolutely plausible. [0] https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/news/16315-men-are-more-likely-to-commit-violent-crimes.-why-is-this-so-and-how-do-we-change-it%3F https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/news/16315-men-are-more-...
  - blueflow 2y ago
    > risk-taking behavior, which is higher in men? My point, be a woman and you'll be safer. Being a woman helps because then you don't have the risk factors you just listed.
    - jl6 2y ago
      My point is that when you normalize for risk-taking behavior, women will come out worse. When a woman goes out at 3am in her Chrysler 300 to sling dope through a bad neighborhood, she will face additional risks than the ones she chose.
- lolinder 2y ago
  If you take all men and all women, that's probably true. By the same token, men are also more likely to die on the front lines of a war, but that doesn't mean that you're safer there as a woman, it means there are far fewer of them there! In order to come to your conclusion ("you are safer if you are a woman"), you'd have to control for where the crime takes place, who committed it, and why. For just one example: gang-related violence is a large category of crime that affects mostly men because mostly men are involved in gangs. But that category of violence does not contribute to the risk of most of us here falling victims to crimes because most of us here are not involved with gangs, so that falsely skews the numbers towards men as victims. The real question you have to answer to come to your conclusion is if the typical woman on HN is safer than the typical man on HN.
  - blueflow 2y ago
    > By the same token, men are also more likely to die on the front lines of a war, but that doesn't mean that you're safer there as a woman, it means there are far fewer of them there! And this is why? Women don't get drafted. Proving my point. The rest of your post is victim blaming.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > The rest of your post is victim blaming. Nonsense. It's simply stating the reality that HN users (the "you" in your comment) are not average males and average females—in fact, no one is. For the vast majority of audiences, gang violence should be excluded from tallies when trying to judge whether men or women are safer, and you're not doing so, which leads to an inaccurate judgement of relative risks for the people on this forum. It's not victim blaming, it's pointing out that you're applying stats wrong.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - psd1 2y ago
      Have you considered the possibility that you're conflating populations with independent variables?