81–90 of 256 posts
What sort of men? Cisgender men? Heterosexual men? Arabic men? There's no such thing as a man -- "man" an abstract concept that needs definition before any useful statement can be made about people in that category.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you need "men" defined for you, you're going to have trouble participating in useful communication. Use a bit of intuition.
It's absurd to group half the population into one group, and then try to work out what makes that group as a whole tick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you need "men" defined for you, you're going to have trouble participating in useful communication. Use a bit of intuition.
It's absurd to group half the population into one group, and then try to work out what makes that group as a whole tick.
My bet is that men tend not to have emotional support or positive attention in their lives, unless it's from a mate, hence they value it more.
Also, (since we're speculating) from an evolutionary perspective it's advantageous for men to have positive view of and attraction to as many women as possible, while at the same time it's advantageous for women to be as sceptical and critical of men as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sexes, not genders. Sexes are biological: chromosomes, hormones, body morphology. Genders are social: baby boys and girls have definite sexes, but their gender identifies are not the same as of grown-up straight men and women, to say nothing of genderqueer people, etc My hope is that the biological aspects are still in the realm of science.
Yes. Gender is arcane, fuzzy, some inscrutable configuration of the brain. Sex is concrete, logical, your allosome configuration. Phew. A bastion of sense in this crazy w-- >Genetic women with Turner syndrome have only one X chromosome; they often display less-developed female sexual characteristics than other women. And people with a genetic mosaic possess XX chromosomes in some cells and XY in others. So how do we…
Social Psychology has one of the worst reproducibility problems in all of academia. Claims like this make is easy to see why. Simple scientific inquiry into this claim leads me to the question, “Okay, but why? That women potentially harbor worse feelings of their ex partners on average than men is one of the most interesting but useless things I’ve heard. The confounding explanations for this type of research are min…
It's perfectly okay science to simply observe a phenomenon. If they did try to provide causal explanations as you say, they'd then be open to being lambasted for overreaching based on shaky social science research.
What sort of men? Cisgender men? Heterosexual men? Arabic men? There's no such thing as a man -- "man" an abstract concept that needs definition before any useful statement can be made about people in that category.
The article says they only looked at heterosexual relationships, so there's that.
Social Psychology has one of the worst reproducibility problems in all of academia. Claims like this make is easy to see why. Simple scientific inquiry into this claim leads me to the question, “Okay, but why? That women potentially harbor worse feelings of their ex partners on average than men is one of the most interesting but useless things I’ve heard. The confounding explanations for this type of research are min…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's sociology and psychology research, not biology. Biological explanation in this article is speculation not backed by the study.
> Biological explanation You can't study that these days. The orthodoxy insists that any differences in outcomes are solely due to environment, power structures, implicit and explicit biases.