Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 83 posts

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#11

Post by dehrmann »

sjducb wrote: post #5

I feel like the paper lacks a discussion about why males are more likely to take risks. Typically extremely reproductively successful men like Chengis Khan take enormous risks to get the power and status that leads to high reproductive success. Unfortunately we are all descended from those men.

My theory is that because of the sperm/egg relationship, survival of men is less critical to the survival of the species, so men are programmed to do more risky things, and the ones that survive are more fit.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#12

Post by lelanthran »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #3
photon_lines wrote: post #2

Haha...I'm surprised to find this on HN. Just to comment on a note made in this study: "While MIT provides a parsimonious explanation of differences in idiotic behavior and may underlie sex differences in other risk seeking behaviors, it is puzzling that males are willing to take such unnecessary risks—simply as a rite of passage, in pursuit of male social esteem, or solely in exchange for “bragging rights.” Northcut…

There was at least one hypothesis floating around a while ago that males take more risks because they’re expendable to society, but females are not. If a society is decimated by a famine, disease, war, etc, it can be repopulated with just a few males, but requires many females. Thus males evolved to be more risk-taking and females more risk-averse. At an individual level, the incentive may be social esteem/bragging r…

> There was at least one hypothesis floating around a while ago that males take more risks because they’re expendable to society, but females are not.

That's not the hypothesis the way I heard it - men are more expendable to society, but it's really a stretch to conclude that because men are more expendable, they make decisions with this knowledge in mind.

I mean, really - there's no logic linking the two.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#13

Post by photon_lines »

lelanthran wrote: post #10
photon_lines wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't feel like there needs to be a discussion on 'why' they take more risks. Females expand way more energy in having and raising kids than males do (within the human species). In other species (like sea-horses) - the females actually compete for males since males are the ones that expand way more energy in raising / producing children... (i.e. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seahorse.html ).

> I don't feel like there needs to be a discussion on 'why' they take more risks. Why not? Do you think that this: > Females expand way more energy in having and raising kids than males do (within the human species) Is the only answer applicable to "Why to males take more risk than females?"

Yes, because they have more to gain from taking the risk. Think about it for a moment.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#14

Post by lelanthran »

photon_lines wrote: post #2

Haha...I'm surprised to find this on HN. Just to comment on a note made in this study: "While MIT provides a parsimonious explanation of differences in idiotic behavior and may underlie sex differences in other risk seeking behaviors, it is puzzling that males are willing to take such unnecessary risks—simply as a rite of passage, in pursuit of male social esteem, or solely in exchange for “bragging rights.” Northcut…

> It's absolutely ridiculous that someone would even suggest this, but meh.

It is, but note that someone suggested the very same thing below.

Anyone who has ever been out their front door knows why men take more risks - it's because riskier behaviour gets them laid more often, with more different women.

Being the top-dog amongst your male peers gets you more women. To get to the top-dog spot you need to take a ton of risks (challenging existing leaders, creating your own subgroup, learning new skills, etc).

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#15

Post by ozim »

dehrmann wrote: post #11
sjducb wrote: post #5

I feel like the paper lacks a discussion about why males are more likely to take risks. Typically extremely reproductively successful men like Chengis Khan take enormous risks to get the power and status that leads to high reproductive success. Unfortunately we are all descended from those men.

My theory is that because of the sperm/egg relationship, survival of men is less critical to the survival of the species, so men are programmed to do more risky things, and the ones that survive are more fit.

Little nitpick: ones that reproduce and their offspring survive are more fit.

Man is useful to protect the offspring but is not required.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#16

Post by Shish2k »

photon_lines wrote: post #13
lelanthran wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't feel like there needs to be a discussion on 'why' they take more risks. Why not? Do you think that this: > Females expand way more energy in having and raising kids than males do (within the human species) Is the only answer applicable to "Why to males take more risk than females?"

Yes, because they have more to gain from taking the risk. Think about it for a moment.

If you’re only thinking about it for long enough to come up with a single hypothesis, and then confidently declaring that you have the correct answer, I’d suggest maybe thinking about it for longer than a moment :)

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#17

Post by SkyMarshal »

lelanthran wrote: post #12
SkyMarshal wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was at least one hypothesis floating around a while ago that males take more risks because they’re expendable to society, but females are not. If a society is decimated by a famine, disease, war, etc, it can be repopulated with just a few males, but requires many females. Thus males evolved to be more risk-taking and females more risk-averse. At an individual level, the incentive may be social esteem/bragging r…

> There was at least one hypothesis floating around a while ago that males take more risks because they’re expendable to society, but females are not. That's not the hypothesis the way I heard it - men are more expendable to society, but it's really a stretch to conclude that because men are more expendable, they make decisions with this knowledge in mind. I mean, really - there's no logic linking the two.

The logic may work via negation or inversion. Eg there is individual disincentive for both women and men to engage in high-risk behavior. But societies still needed a class of people to go out and hunt game, defend society from lions or opposing armies, or other higher-risk ventures, despite the individual disincentive to do so.

Women are not expendable and thus society did not incentivize them to do these high-risk things. But men are, so societies created various social incentives to facilitate high-risk endeavors - honor, social esteem, medals, hierarchical rank, wealth, fame, etc. Many died doing so, but the ones that succeeded and survived reaped these various rewards and got to mate, producing heirs with similar risk-taking characteristics and capabilities from both nature and nurture.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#18

Post by bumby »

photon_lines wrote: post #13
lelanthran wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't feel like there needs to be a discussion on 'why' they take more risks. Why not? Do you think that this: > Females expand way more energy in having and raising kids than males do (within the human species) Is the only answer applicable to "Why to males take more risk than females?"

Yes, because they have more to gain from taking the risk. Think about it for a moment.

The article's main thrust is a focus on risks that have negligible gain. So in that context your argument reads, "they have more to gain from a risk that has negligible gain."

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#19

Post by bumby »

bell-cot wrote: post #9
sjducb wrote: post #5

I feel like the paper lacks a discussion about why males are more likely to take risks. Typically extremely reproductively successful men like Chengis Khan take enormous risks to get the power and status that leads to high reproductive success. Unfortunately we are all descended from those men.

Neither propensity to high-risk behaviors, nor high intelligence, are reliably inherited. (Vs., say, blood types.) Hence there are plenty of males who got the former, but not the latter.

Are you sure? A trivial search on Google scholar suggests scientists have identified specific genes that may be responsible for risky behavior. (A very cursory look seems to implicate genes that alter dopamine pathways, which, to a layperson, would make sense since dopamine is heavily involved with motivation.)

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#20

Post by jvalencia »

For those who didn't make it to the end, it's worth noting that there's a fair bit of tongue in cheek in there.

> We believe MIT deserves further investigation, and, with the festive season upon us, we intend to follow up with observational field studies and an experimental study—males and females, with and without alcohol—in a semi-naturalistic Christmas party setting.

Post reply on HN