A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls • Hacker News Board

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#81

Post by Lawtonfogle » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 2:19 PM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #42

jqm wrote: post #19

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…

>Evopsyche is pseudo-science.

No, it is just wildly abused. Take all the arm chair physicists running around talking about spooky interaction. Same problem, except misunderstand and misusing the principle of spooky interaction doesn't lend itself well to issues that have nearly as much emotional involvement.

Psychology as a whole has a problem of being used by armchair psychologists and applied to all sorts of issues in society and things like chemistry and physics does not. Evolutionary psychology has an even greater problem with it, but this is an issue with how society consume science, not with the science that is consumed.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#82

Post by belorn » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 2:29 PM UTC

Super_Jambo wrote: post #76

belorn wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are describing one reproductive strategy used by males, which is not true for all men, and is defently not true when looking beyond humans. 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…

So you would argue that men (particularly young men) do not exhibit greater risk taking behaviour than women? Or do you have some other explanation for this propensity? Non-humans do not I think enter into the discussion, and a strategy doesn't have to be universal to have a big enough effect on our psychology to be worth worrying about at the level of education policy.

Im saying that the conclusion will never be correct if we try categorize men, particularly young men, as having a reproductive strategy which research has shown as not true for humans.

Risk behavior is complex concept, goes well beyond reproductive strategies. Behavior is significant more effected by culture than genes, and culture is effected by gender identification rather than sex.

Would you be surprised if transgenders has a identical risk taking behavior in relation to the gender which they identify themselves as? Would you be surprised if sexual presence has no impact at all? In both cases it would strongly imply that reproductive strategy has no impact on risk taking behavior.

Some explanation for the claimed propensity of men taking higher risk would be that being successful is more rewarded socially for men then women, while averageness and failure is generally socially more for men than women. Finding root causes for that social pressure is harder, but my guess is that it has both biological reasons and historical ones.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#83

Post by dang » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 2:45 PM UTC

politicallines wrote: post #53

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…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10436439 and marked it off-topic.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#84

Post by copsarebastards » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 2:49 PM UTC

At a very basic level, when I was volunteering helping the homeless, I saw a great deal of disparity. There are many homeless shelters and programs that only take in women and children, and many shelters which accept people of all genders but have limited space will make men wait to gain entrance, while letting in women and children, so that if someone doesn't get in, it's always men. Donations are frequently given under the condition that they go to help homeless women and children.

I do understand some of the legitimate reasons for this: women are at higher risk to be raped and experience more medical issues related to homelessness. But this only accounts for some of the disparity.

Part of the issue here is that there's a belief that adult males should be able to support themselves. This is evident in the programs that do serve men: while homeless programs that target women provide food, shelter, medical care, and childcare, the few homeless programs which target men almost universally focus on helping homeless men get jobs. Men do experience privilege in employment when they're actually employed, but this idea is inapplicable to the homeless. Most homeless people are mentally ill, and a mentally ill man is no more employable than a mentally ill woman.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#85

Post by vlehto » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 2:50 PM UTC

tajen wrote: post #45

lambdapie wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think this also implies that men have more incentive to become successful in their careers, if they choose the socially acceptable route? And if so, do you think this might partly explain why we see more men in high prestige/pay professions (e.g. tech)?

Should we really keep using the word "incentive"? It keeps presenting any success as something that doesn't belong to them. If they've worked hard for it, it's theirs, whatever the incentives.

My native language somewhat lacks this word. The translation exists but is mostly too clumsy for use.

Our nation is also infamous for lacking ambition and fostering perverce incentives. I think all of these things are connected. Wittgenstein would probably agree.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#86

Post by mwhite » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 2:58 PM UTC

Super_Jambo wrote: post #64

mherkender wrote: post #61

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…

1 in 200 men are direct male-line descendants of Genghis Khan. Many more are descended from Genghis Khan in any path (probably all Mongolians, and large fractions, quite possibly majorities, of many Asian groups).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#87

Post by vlehto » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 3:02 PM UTC

JPKab wrote: post #71

pmalynin wrote: post #13

Where to even begin, Part of this issue I feel is, as mentioned in the article, is that boys are taught from the young age to take care of their problems, which leads to more isolation. Another important reason I feel is the rising amount of "girls-only" opportunities that systematically make boys feel inadequate and since they are not able to participate for whatever reason (e.g. "its only for girls") they continue…

"Whats the deal with gender issues anyway in North America? I've immigrated from an Eastern-Block country as a teenager to NA and I've never seen these problems because communism required that all members of the society do essentially the same jobs" The problem in this country is that we have identity politics, which helped to address real discrimination, but all too often is misused as a tool to obtain power and sup…

I had similar suspicions about women's studies. But I didn't really believe it.

Then I read Judith Butlers Gender Trouble to about halfway. It's a book that's canonical in womens studies these days. Holy shit it reads like political manifesto, with sciency stuff only to mask it little bit.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#88

Post by _wo6a » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 3:15 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #68

Super_Jambo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are describing one reproductive strategy used by males, which is not true for all men, and is defently not true when looking beyond humans. 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…

Side note: quick research seems to indicate that it may not actually be Genghis Khan who is the male-line ancestor of all those men, but a common ancestor of his and the rest of his tribe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khereid

Even if so, I'm not sure if he would actually be an example of the low-investment male mating strategy. He was the ruler of a large empire, so he would be able to invest in his children. Even those who weren't recognized would have advantages from being rumored to be his offspring.

Groups which allow the low-investment strategy are outcompeted because they don't incentivize any males to invest in the group, while the Mongol empire had plenty of conquered people available to the Mongol men who were excluded by elites' polygamy.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#89

Post by vlehto » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 3:20 PM UTC

pmalynin wrote: post #13

Where to even begin, Part of this issue I feel is, as mentioned in the article, is that boys are taught from the young age to take care of their problems, which leads to more isolation. Another important reason I feel is the rising amount of "girls-only" opportunities that systematically make boys feel inadequate and since they are not able to participate for whatever reason (e.g. "its only for girls") they continue…

I was a scout and this really frustrated me. There is currently situation here in Finland "boys are fleeing from scouting". Your choises are to play counter strike at home or knit a pot coaster with girls in scout meeting. What are you going to do?

In 1910 your choised were playing capture the flag with boys in scout meeting. Or stay at home with mom and help her. What are you going to do?

This used to be movement that helped poor boys more than any other single thing. Boys have not changed, scouting has.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#90

Post by wcummings » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 3:25 PM UTC

nv-vn wrote: post #35

wcummings wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Another important reason I feel is the rising amount of "girls-only" opportunities that systematically make boys feel inadequate and since they are not able to participate for whatever reason (e.g. "its only for girls") they continue to lag behind. I even have a perfect example of this, my city has a "Girls Learning Code" meetup / lecture series that while advertises being gender neutral is clearly not so, the quest…

You're making the assumption that every single male has experienced the exact same thing and that every single female has experienced the exact same thing. While it may not make sense to create these types of programs in terms of number of people they could cater to (although these could be a great idea in low income neighbourhoods as something for both boys and girls), that doesn't make them ethically/morally wrong.…

There's adequate support and encouragement for young men interested in science and technology, comments like the parent only serve to undermine and attack efforts to include women, you'd have to be intentionally daft (or have a massive persecution complex) not to see why it annoys people.