3 ms·

Did the authors take into account that humans have 'culture' (and structures of (male-dominated) power associated with it) whereas other species don't to any gr

Did the authors take into account that humans have 'culture' (and structures of (male-dominated) power associated with it) whereas other species don't to any great extent?

jinnert 1y ago
[flagged]
- IX-103 1y ago
  If we do, it won't be a new phenomenon. They've been around practically forever.
- soco 1y ago
  "matriarchal model" quote please? Maybe I'm not in the west enough (Switzerland) but I definitely see pretty much the same power structure as ever, just with a few female managers and a few whining males. But I do see indeed a few trophy husbands - ordered in the same mail catalogue where the thousand times more brides are ordered.
- watwut 1y ago
  How are they pursuing look "at the cost of career, wealth"? In other studies, good looking men earn more and are more successful in negotiations.
  - jinnert 1y ago
    I shouldn't have made the two seem mutually exclusive. I think physical attractiveness is becoming a far higher priority for each successive generation of men while hard work, loyalty, dedication, etc are declining in perceived value, to the extent that these may even be viewed as the traits of a loser. We have abandoned the benefits of meritocracy, and young men are adapting to that. Rather than looksmaxxing in lieu of pursuing success, young men are looksmaxxing as it has become essential to success.
    - watwut 1y ago
      But "hard work, loyalty, dedication" are literally in opposition against career and wealth as goals and were for years. Modern business environment is not rewarding these properties and people who want to have a good career or wealth can not prioritize them. Loyalty especially directly makes you less successful and basically a sucker. And it has nothing to do with gender or women, it is business no valuing. Hard work is only loosely related. Hard work and dedication on itself are not what makes your salary go up or makes you promoted. Understanding office politics does a lot more. My point is, this is not the case of young men not valuing career and wealth. People who value career and wealth cant afford to be loyal.
- BoxFour 1y ago
  There’s a lot of incorrect assumptions packed into one sentence, but one point in particular stands out: > we are seeing a lot of young men optimising purely for physical attractiveness at the cost of success in fields we might traditionally identify with male success This doesn't align with observable trends: Consider the sustained growth in MMA’s popularity or the emergence of figures like Andrew Tate as clear counterexamples.
  - anonym29 1y ago
    Your counterexamples aren't mutually exclusive with a long-term shift in either mean or median male appearance expression overall.
    - BoxFour 1y ago
      What was said: > we are seeing a lot of young men optimising purely for physical attractiveness at the cost of success in fields we might traditionally identify with male success (career, wealth, sporting excellence, etc) That doesn’t reflect reality. Those fields (wealth, competitive sport) aren’t in decline among young men. Interest in them has grown considerably compared to previous generations, as evidenced by those counterexamples.
      - anonym29 1y ago
        I understand that wealth and income are not the same, but unmarried women under 30 in major metro areas have been outearning their male counterparts since at least 2014 - over a decade now. Necessarily, this means income competitiveness must be declining among unmarried young men in major metro areas, which is a noteworthy chunk.
        BoxFour 1y ago
        Ignore comparing to women for a second: The OP suggested that men were focused on their appearance at the cost of traditional “male focuses” like wealth. Is your argument that men stopped focusing on their income because they started focusing on their physical appearance more? Why that and not the plethora of other reasons that women might earn more than men now, almost none of which have to do with men focusing on their appearance at the cost of wealth-building?
- yawpitch 1y ago
  Not sure what an actual matriarchy would look like, but I have a feeling it wouldn’t leave a casual rapist and sex offender — and noted friend of at least one pedophile — in charge of dropping his penis envy on Iran.
  - beeflet 1y ago
    How would a "true matriarchy" in your perspective handle the iranian nuclear situation then? Use some sort of Bene Gesserit mind control? Trump is exactly the type of figure that the GP is saying would succeed in a matriarchy. He is pretty, charismatic, and says all the right things despite being inadequate in the fields of male-dominated competition. The "grab em by the pussy" comment is just a demonstration of his ability to woo women, hence "they let you do it". In contrast, I would say that iran is patriarchal because men don't woo women directly, but control women through their relations with other men. The institution of marriage is regulated through the state.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      > He is pretty Ick.
      - beeflet 1y ago
        I was watching HyperNormalization last night with my boyfriend (great movie btw), and we both remarked how good looking he used to be compared to today. I mean, he's old now. A lot of comparisons are made to regan.
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      > says all the right things Seriously? Charismatic I will give you. The actual content of what he says, though, is at best a very mixed bag.
      - 1y ago
- im3w1l 1y ago
  My guess is that online dating in general and tinder in particular are key drivers of this. Predicting whether the trend will last is thus roughly synonymous with predicting the survival and evolution of these services.
4ndrewl 1y ago
Not sure I understand the downvotes. We demonstrably have culture, including higher function language. The "other species" they mention as being the comparator don't.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- JimDabell 1y ago
  > Did the authors take into account You could read the study to determine answers to questions like this. Instead you want somebody else to read the study and explain it to you. You should expect questions like this to be downvoted.
  - 4ndrewl 1y ago
    I mean, it was a rhetorical question, but ok.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- meinersbur 1y ago
  Right from the abstract: > Our findings confirm the existence of a robust “Gender Attractiveness Gap” (GAP), with female faces rated significantly more attractive than male faces across rater genders, cultural backgrounds, and portrayed ethnicities.
  - 4ndrewl 1y ago
    That's a different thing. They are asserting this pattern exists in all human cultures, not that it's a feature of human cultures (vs other species, also as per the abstract)
- jappgar 1y ago
  Downvotes because HN is essentially a knowitall collective and these types are very resistant to anything being "cultural" and not universal.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
trosi 1y ago
They are not discounting the possibility that sociocultural factors play a role: > What explains the GAP? While evolutionary frameworks have traditionally been the dominant lens through which the GAP has been viewed— assuming its existence without direct empirical evidence—these theories focus exclusively on opposite-sex attraction, mate selection, and reproductive success. Within these theoretical boundaries, explaining the variation in same-sex ratings and the cultural differences in the GAP becomes challenging, suggesting that factors beyond biological predispositions also play a role. Given these limitations, sociocultural factors and norms merit further consideration. As noted earlier, female beauty is idealized in many cultures and reinforced by media, advertising, and societal expectations. Internalized beauty standards may foster unconscious biases, leading to, or amplifying, the observed difference. But the study is mainly concerned with verifying the existence of the gap. Btw, a lot of animal hierarchies are also male-dominated.

Did the authors take into account that humans have 'culture' (and structures of (male-dominated) power associated with it) whereas other species don't to any great extent?

jinnert 1y ago

[flagged]

IX-103 1y ago
If we do, it won't be a new phenomenon. They've been around practically forever.
soco 1y ago
"matriarchal model" quote please? Maybe I'm not in the west enough (Switzerland) but I definitely see pretty much the same power structure as ever, just with a few female managers and a few whining males. But I do see indeed a few trophy husbands - ordered in the same mail catalogue where the thousand times more brides are ordered.
watwut 1y ago
How are they pursuing look "at the cost of career, wealth"? In other studies, good looking men earn more and are more successful in negotiations.
- jinnert 1y ago
  I shouldn't have made the two seem mutually exclusive. I think physical attractiveness is becoming a far higher priority for each successive generation of men while hard work, loyalty, dedication, etc are declining in perceived value, to the extent that these may even be viewed as the traits of a loser. We have abandoned the benefits of meritocracy, and young men are adapting to that. Rather than looksmaxxing in lieu of pursuing success, young men are looksmaxxing as it has become essential to success.
  - watwut 1y ago
    But "hard work, loyalty, dedication" are literally in opposition against career and wealth as goals and were for years. Modern business environment is not rewarding these properties and people who want to have a good career or wealth can not prioritize them. Loyalty especially directly makes you less successful and basically a sucker. And it has nothing to do with gender or women, it is business no valuing. Hard work is only loosely related. Hard work and dedication on itself are not what makes your salary go up or makes you promoted. Understanding office politics does a lot more. My point is, this is not the case of young men not valuing career and wealth. People who value career and wealth cant afford to be loyal.
BoxFour 1y ago
There’s a lot of incorrect assumptions packed into one sentence, but one point in particular stands out: > we are seeing a lot of young men optimising purely for physical attractiveness at the cost of success in fields we might traditionally identify with male success This doesn't align with observable trends: Consider the sustained growth in MMA’s popularity or the emergence of figures like Andrew Tate as clear counterexamples.
- anonym29 1y ago
  Your counterexamples aren't mutually exclusive with a long-term shift in either mean or median male appearance expression overall.
  - BoxFour 1y ago
    What was said: > we are seeing a lot of young men optimising purely for physical attractiveness at the cost of success in fields we might traditionally identify with male success (career, wealth, sporting excellence, etc) That doesn’t reflect reality. Those fields (wealth, competitive sport) aren’t in decline among young men. Interest in them has grown considerably compared to previous generations, as evidenced by those counterexamples.
    - anonym29 1y ago
      I understand that wealth and income are not the same, but unmarried women under 30 in major metro areas have been outearning their male counterparts since at least 2014 - over a decade now. Necessarily, this means income competitiveness must be declining among unmarried young men in major metro areas, which is a noteworthy chunk.
      - BoxFour 1y ago
        Ignore comparing to women for a second: The OP suggested that men were focused on their appearance at the cost of traditional “male focuses” like wealth. Is your argument that men stopped focusing on their income because they started focusing on their physical appearance more? Why that and not the plethora of other reasons that women might earn more than men now, almost none of which have to do with men focusing on their appearance at the cost of wealth-building?
yawpitch 1y ago
Not sure what an actual matriarchy would look like, but I have a feeling it wouldn’t leave a casual rapist and sex offender — and noted friend of at least one pedophile — in charge of dropping his penis envy on Iran.
- beeflet 1y ago
  How would a "true matriarchy" in your perspective handle the iranian nuclear situation then? Use some sort of Bene Gesserit mind control? Trump is exactly the type of figure that the GP is saying would succeed in a matriarchy. He is pretty, charismatic, and says all the right things despite being inadequate in the fields of male-dominated competition. The "grab em by the pussy" comment is just a demonstration of his ability to woo women, hence "they let you do it". In contrast, I would say that iran is patriarchal because men don't woo women directly, but control women through their relations with other men. The institution of marriage is regulated through the state.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    > He is pretty Ick.
    - beeflet 1y ago
      I was watching HyperNormalization last night with my boyfriend (great movie btw), and we both remarked how good looking he used to be compared to today. I mean, he's old now. A lot of comparisons are made to regan.
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    > says all the right things Seriously? Charismatic I will give you. The actual content of what he says, though, is at best a very mixed bag.
    - 1y ago
im3w1l 1y ago
My guess is that online dating in general and tinder in particular are key drivers of this. Predicting whether the trend will last is thus roughly synonymous with predicting the survival and evolution of these services.

4ndrewl 1y ago

Not sure I understand the downvotes. We demonstrably have culture, including higher function language. The "other species" they mention as being the comparator don't.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
JimDabell 1y ago
> Did the authors take into account You could read the study to determine answers to questions like this. Instead you want somebody else to read the study and explain it to you. You should expect questions like this to be downvoted.
- 4ndrewl 1y ago
  I mean, it was a rhetorical question, but ok.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
meinersbur 1y ago
Right from the abstract: > Our findings confirm the existence of a robust “Gender Attractiveness Gap” (GAP), with female faces rated significantly more attractive than male faces across rater genders, cultural backgrounds, and portrayed ethnicities.
- 4ndrewl 1y ago
  That's a different thing. They are asserting this pattern exists in all human cultures, not that it's a feature of human cultures (vs other species, also as per the abstract)
jappgar 1y ago
Downvotes because HN is essentially a knowitall collective and these types are very resistant to anything being "cultural" and not universal.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

trosi 1y ago

They are not discounting the possibility that sociocultural factors play a role: > What explains the GAP? While evolutionary frameworks have traditionally been the dominant lens through which the GAP has been viewed— assuming its existence without direct empirical evidence—these theories focus exclusively on opposite-sex attraction, mate selection, and reproductive success. Within these theoretical boundaries, explaining the variation in same-sex ratings and the cultural differences in the GAP becomes challenging, suggesting that factors beyond biological predispositions also play a role. Given these limitations, sociocultural factors and norms merit further consideration. As noted earlier, female beauty is idealized in many cultures and reinforced by media, advertising, and societal expectations. Internalized beauty standards may foster unconscious biases, leading to, or amplifying, the observed difference. But the study is mainly concerned with verifying the existence of the gap. Btw, a lot of animal hierarchies are also male-dominated.