61–70 of 101 posts
My guess is that most things---good and bad---have a disproportionate effect on boys.
Makes sense. Consistent with a greater prevalence of men than women at both of society's extremes. Evolutionary strategy suggests taking higher-risk paths for male phenotypes than female phenotypes.
Boys have trouble being ready for kindergarten and having self discipline. But those that do make it, even though they are fewer, tend to do better than their female counterparts in later life. Kindergarten activities and society's ideas of self discipline aren't really the conditions human life evolved under. Maybe fighting and looking for action/excitement are the same qualities that make boys successful later (if…
Evopsyche is pseudo-science. EDIT: To expand - it is useless to speculate on psychology in an evolutionary context, because we have precisely 0 observation supported models of what anything was like many thousands of years ago. We do however have plenty of evidence that a lot of modern narrative was constructed to suit the current gender roles. For example, "hunter-gatherer" is a complete misnomer. It should "gathere…
Really? I thought that anthropologists studied remote tribe in e.g. the Amazon basin in order to gather exactly this type of data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes sense. Consistent with a greater prevalence of men than women at both of society's extremes. Evolutionary strategy suggests taking higher-risk paths for male phenotypes than female phenotypes.
Maybe it's just cultural. I don't see why risk taking favors men millions of years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes sense. Consistent with a greater prevalence of men than women at both of society's extremes. Evolutionary strategy suggests taking higher-risk paths for male phenotypes than female phenotypes.
Maybe it's just cultural. I don't see why risk taking favors men millions of years ago.
But in terms of genetics the female upside is limited by the very high costs of child bearing & the limited number of children they can physically have. The male genetic upside to risk is limited by the number of women they can have sex with.
1 / 200 men are apparently descended from Genghis Khan! This feat would simply be impossible for any woman of that era.
What a sexist comment. In this world where equality for men means "avoid the crimes they commit and their languishing in jails", does equality for women means that they will start take a job and not just spend the money of men? Is the discussion so infected that we can't simply share a goal that every person should be equal in worth, be able to pursue their passion in life, and to have liberty. If we can't agree to s…
You're punching air mate. I think the point was just that if we don't help these boys - then they are more likely to fall into patterns of crime and violence - which is a cost everyone in society would like to avoid. What is there to disagree with here?
Likewise there's a very big difference in helping children because we want to maximise their potential and it being the right thing to do, versus helping them because they're effectively holding society hostage by otherwise becoming criminals later in life. You're probably not going to put your best into helping a group you feel holds you hostage and certain solutions, like guaranteed employment in a physically draining but low paying job, might eliminate the threat for society while wasting the potential of the kids involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If we don't help these girls - then they are more likely to fall into patterns of parasitic behavior - which is a cost everyone in society would like to avoid. What is there to disagree with here?" You don't see a problem with phrasing equality in that way?
Are you suggesting there are zero behavioural differences between boys and girls?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(1) doesn't apply to the actual results of the study reported, which finds the (oft-found) effect that boys from low socioeconomic groups (not the middle class) are disproportionately disadvantaged compared to their female peers. The usual explanation tends to be that the outs in progression to university-level education are much more available to young men than women overall, as well as the worst excesses of lost po…
Evidence? Mostly personal experience of my own teaching along with my parents who both taught. > (2) demands actual evidence, since the implication that male teachers will, what? allow things to escalate to physical violence? Hardly belies any real improvement in teaching outcomes. There are two pieces to this. One is physical and one is social. As for physical: if I'm managing a classroom, I have a lot of authority…
This was middle school, so maybe the effect was exaggerated, but he could stop fights like no other.
To your point about trying to gain the approval of students, the dynamic definitely makes a big difference. Teachers that tried to be the 'fun' teacher were taken advantage of time and time again. I wish this wasn't the case, but an authoritarian role was the best way to provide consistency, stability, and true opportunity for learning in these types of classrooms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's just cultural. I don't see why risk taking favors men millions of years ago.
Large risks imply large potential rewards (otherwise you're just being dumb). But in terms of genetics the female upside is limited by the very high costs of child bearing & the limited number of children they can physically have. The male genetic upside to risk is limited by the number of women they can have sex with. 1 / 200 men are apparently descended from Genghis Khan! This feat would simply be impossible for an…
Having many low investments into offspring can be effective, but it is also risky. The more champion based a race is (one male per many females), the more energy is going to be spent on competition. The offspring will also have to depend solely on the mother, since each child is just one of many from a single male and has thus less individual investment value.
The alternative strategy is to focus on a smaller number of children, making sure that that the reproductive investment has a higher chance to be successful. Children gets the value of having two parents that are invested in the offspring, but there are issues of "cheating" (an observed behavior in many animals).
Of course, I am only describing male strategy here and naturally it can not exist in a vacuum. Female strategy often has higher initial cost, but it does not dictate the outcome. In the case of humans also, the observed strategy in both sexes is normally said to be a mix strategy, so it is far more complex than just saying that the male genetic upside to risk is limited by the number of women they can have sex with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Evopsyche is pseudo-science. All of psychology is pseudo-science. I mean, two sigma. I can't even...
Don't hyperbolize. It's not all . It's something around 95-99% of "soft science" research done in the last 50 decades. The older research was better, back before we turned the fields into a mix of signalling games and money pumps. But don't worry. In the recent years we've seen that apparently 90% of medical research from last few decades is likely bullshit too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting there are zero behavioural differences between boys and girls?
Calling boys for future criminals and girls for future parasites is not going to help creating equality. It has nothing to do with "behavioural" differences from genes, and everything to do about sexism.