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

51–60 of 83 posts

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#51

Post by RGamma »

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.

Your genetic influence will probably dilute over the generations and in response to environmental and cultural factors. Also, with randomness at play it may not make much of a difference after all. Properly assessing this empirically seems like a statistical nightmare.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#52

Post by BobaFloutist »

marcellus23 wrote: post #45
BobaFloutist wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's far more likely that thousands of years of human society have encouraged and rewarded risk-taking behavior in men, and discouraged and punished it in women. Remember, in any perspective on the differences of sexes, there's no control; no human being has ever been raised outside of human society and very few have ever been raised outside of male-dominated societies.

Why do you think it's more likely to be societal and not inherited?

Because we have easily observed societal norms that have to account for some percentage of the difference, without measuring differences absent those norms we have no conceivable way to know that hereditary traits contribute to any percentage of the differences.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#53

Post by BobaFloutist »

sjducb wrote: post #46
golemotron wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're lucky that we can look at other primates and mammals and see the same patterns.

Our closest relatives Chimpanzees are patriarchal. Humans are patriarchal. It’s probably genetic. One female can have about 10 babies. Regardless of how powerful she is. One male can father hundreds. The genetic rewards are there for males only. That’s why it’s only males that take crazy risks to get access to hundreds of women.

Our closest relatives Chimpanzees are not particularly close relatives. Most human societies tend to be patriarchal, but some have not been.

And who tends to hold positions of power isn't necessarily 1:1 with who tends to take the most risks, in fact, most of our leaders are usually prone to putting themselves in less danger than those they govern.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#54

Post by BobaFloutist »

golemotron wrote: post #35
BobaFloutist wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's far more likely that thousands of years of human society have encouraged and rewarded risk-taking behavior in men, and discouraged and punished it in women. Remember, in any perspective on the differences of sexes, there's no control; no human being has ever been raised outside of human society and very few have ever been raised outside of male-dominated societies.

We're lucky that we can look at other primates and mammals and see the same patterns.

Many mammals are matriarchal. Far more don't exhibit much in terms of gendered differences in leadership whatsoever.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#55

Post by marcellus23 »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #52
marcellus23 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think it's more likely to be societal and not inherited?

Because we have easily observed societal norms that have to account for some percentage of the difference, without measuring differences absent those norms we have no conceivable way to know that hereditary traits contribute to any percentage of the differences.

> we have no conceivable way to know that hereditary traits contribute to any percentage of the differences.

Right, that explains why we can't know what % heredity contributes. It doesn't explain why we should assume that % to be small.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#58

Post by bumby »

bell-cot wrote: post #40
bumby wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> Are you sure? No. But from a quick search, it sounds like there are ~~100 different genes believed to be involved in risk tolerance. Vs. the extremely simple A/B/O inheritance of blood types.

I think you're moving the goalposts here. The original claim was that high-risk behavior isn't reliably inherited. You gave blood type as an example of an inheritable factor, but there are many other inheritable factors beyond blood type. The fact that we can identify not just inheritable factors but specific genes related to risky behavior clearly undermines your point.

Whether or not the risky behavior is due to single alleles or complex interactions between multiple genes is a different argument than whether risky behavior is inheritable.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#59

Post by Log_out_ »

lupusreal wrote: post #50
Log_out_ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's more attractive cause with great risk comes great reward, thus men with breasts in leotards. (Forgive the marvel jib) Male risk taking behavior is more attractive to other males.

Men who are respected by many other men are more attractive to women than low status men.

Not necessarily .. We worship fearless idiots who jump in wingsuits into rocks. Death cult lifestyle defiantly is not selected for via social hierarchy.

Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour

#60

Post by golemotron »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #53
sjducb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our closest relatives Chimpanzees are patriarchal. Humans are patriarchal. It’s probably genetic. One female can have about 10 babies. Regardless of how powerful she is. One male can father hundreds. The genetic rewards are there for males only. That’s why it’s only males that take crazy risks to get access to hundreds of women.

Our closest relatives Chimpanzees are not particularly close relatives. Most human societies tend to be patriarchal, but some have not been. And who tends to hold positions of power isn't necessarily 1:1 with who tends to take the most risks, in fact, most of our leaders are usually prone to putting themselves in less danger than those they govern.

Historically they have always been at risk of losing their position. Often that means death or other severe personal cost. Leadership among primates is very risky.
Post reply on HN