351–360 of 473 posts
I mostly don't see the point in these terms anymore. They were presumably created to categorize people but suck at it because nobody agrees where the boundaries of the category are, and the resolution on the term is so low for how many domains of personality it touches.
This is a general problem with language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a modern survival trait too, particularly for women, from whom we are all descended.
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.
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-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 outs…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a modern survival trait too, particularly for women, from whom we are all descended.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider this: you can’t read facial expressions, nor the tone of the voice. Moreover, most people you interact with misinterpret your face/voice, assuming you’re joking when you’re dead serious (and vice versa). So, you come up with strategies to cope with your deficiencies. Basically, playbooks of what to say if you hear/see so and so, filling the gaps in your sensorium. What’s handled by an “autopilot” for most, i…
You're mistaking introverts for autist. Introverts are not having any difficulties in social situations and they are not afraid of them. They'rte just not that interested.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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: gan…
And this is why? Women don't get drafted. Proving my point.
The rest of your post is victim blaming.
I think that people get attached to the introvert/extravert division because it's the most clearly defined by social relations. It takes less introspection to be able to look at social group and define one's self relative to one's peers in terms of how much others seem to enjoy spending time in shared company compared to one's self.
The reality is that somebody might crave a lot of human contact but be paralyzed by social anxiety (that's me). Or maybe they don't want to leave their comfort zone but once out there can engage in long deep conversations with others, even strangers. We also mix into that stew social lubricants like alcohol, drugs, and board games that can warp a social situation and reward different social behaviors.
Ultimately, I think people understand a lot less about themselves than they realize (and I include myself in that). We latch onto the simplest categories, and we especially love categories that depict us as victims of societal circumstance, or somehow superior to the people around us.
The reality is that if you pick one dimension of psychological categorization like a diagnosis or a trait like introversion, and then look at all the people who share that, I think they share less in common than they might assume.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 outs…
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely bizarre that you're being downvoted. Having panic attacks is not a normal reaction to any normal human situation, gp absolutely should look for medical and psychological help.
I have them, I'm autistic. It happens and I have support infrastructure in place to make it less intrusive. It's a disability, but I sorta reject the framing that I'm "not normal". Mostly because it feels a bit more culturally loaded? I can't articulate it effectively, but like, what I experience may actually be extremely normal ... for folks with autism. So, maybe "not neurotypical", maybe?