Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Sep 19, 2019 03:48 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 19, 2019 02:31 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]#MeToo

Women who maliciously attempt to ruin a man's career (livelihood) and life without any corroborating evidence. It can happen to any guy.

I agree that women who maliciously attempt to ruin a man's career without evidence (and of course, if it's a false claim) are deplorable. But, wearing make up to work doesn't have much of a motive, for healthy minded women. 

The problem is that guys have no idea which women might be malicious...until it's too late. Considering what's at risk, it's safer to consider all women in the workplace potential hazards. The fact remains that makeup makes most women more attractive...and they know this. That implies either motive or obliviousness, the latter being a case for infantilizing women.

Quote:

Quote:And why would you feel Peterson just questioning women at work in makeup as "judging" anyway?

I guess because I've never thought much about wearing make up to work, or heels; it's just something I've done. I dress modest yet feminine, and never really thought of any motives behind it. It just seems pretty innocuous, from my point of view. Of course, there will always be women (and men) who dress and act a certain way around the opposite sex at work, to gain attention, or even a promotion.

So you're oblivious to any possible affect of making yourself more attractive in the workplace? O_o

Quote:

Quote:Maybe you're somewhat aware of your underlying motives for doing so?

Nah, there's no motives...although, I've had a few coworkers tell me when a male coworker finds me attractive, etc but I don't take offense. Nor do I play it up. I think it's okay to compliment someone at work, and not have it turn into a drama fest, claiming it's sexual harassment. 

So you're just so accustom to being oblivious that you don't even question it? O_o

Quote:

Quote:Maybe you're somewhat aware of the affect women can have on men, at work or otherwise?

I am. 

But you don't care if that's appropriate or has consequences in the workplace?

Quote:

Quote:Maybe you're somewhat aware that pretending that there's zero sexual tension between the sex is a pipe dream?

But, regardless if there is sexual tension...we all have a job to do when we enter the workplace, and we need to act in a civilized way. I'm not a believer in dating people one works with, for example. For men, I think that it could be riskier because if there's a break up, it will be very easy for a woman to claim she was pressured, or sexually harassed, especially if the guy was in a position of authority, even slightly. 

Does your job require makeup and heels? If not, you are not "just doing your job". You're injecting an unnecessary element into the workplace. And it's a social element that in any other situation tends to invite attention from men. But your "female privilege" is being oblivious to the fact that you can behave as you would outside of work and men are expected to curtail their normal behavior on your account.

Quote:

Quote:Refusing to play nice is an inherently masculine trait, as opposed to female agreeableness.

Interesting you mention this. I was reading an article a few days ago actually, about how many women don't get promoted because they are seen as ''too agreeable,'' whilst men are willing to take chances, and risks...go out on a limb and say the unpopular thing, in the middle of a meeting. It's a sad reality that we women face in the workplace at times - we speak up and are judged for being too bold, we don't speak up and we are seen as too agreeable. How many times have we heard the double standard of a female CEO being seen as a ''bitch'' when she has a commanding voice with her staff, but a male CEO will be viewed as ''strong and capable?'' Happens a lot, these double standards.

Women simply don't ask for raises/promotions. Men do. You don't have to "be bold" during a meeting to ask for a promotion, and women who think they do likely overcompensate when they try to "act like a guy". Women shouldn't "act" like men. That is just as off-putting as a straight man trying to act like a woman. A man who is too agreeable seems creepy, like he has an ulterior motive, and a woman who acts too confrontational seems try-hard. People judge men and women when it seems like they aren't being themselves.

Some double standards exist because there are natural differences between the sexes. You simply cannot treat women like men, or vice versa.

(Sep 18, 2019 11:42 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And? That literally correlates monogamy and less crime and violence. Less crime and violence is objectively good for society.

Uh, no. It suggested that marriage reduces male aggression for reasons other than monogamous commitment.

"The pro-social effect of marriage was not explained by changes in sexual behavior however, which suggests that marriage reduces male aggression for reasons other than monogamous commitment."

The Darwin-Bateman paradigm suggests that males are typically eager to copulate while females are more choosy. Fair enough, but according to evolutionary psychologists, female promiscuity is advantageous in that it allows females to choose fathers for their children who have better genes.

From an evolutionary perspective, warding off poachers and limiting a woman's potential sexual contact with other men would have increased a man's paternity probability. The link between male possessiveness and violent inclinations has been selected for because violence and threat work to deter sexual rivals and limit female autonomy.

According to Syne, though, females maintain sexual autonomy through hidden estrus. He seems to favor the ole cuckoldry hypothesis, but according to Wikipedia the paternal investment hypothesis is the one that’s strongly supported by many evolutionary biologists.

So, as the story goes, violence is a direct result of male-male competition and by-product of female choice. Female choice contributes to male violence because we prefer strong men with high self-esteem and these qualities correlate with aggressive behavior. How convenient is that?

Interestingly, though, there are tons of studies indicating that it’s not necessarily high self-esteem that contributes to violence, but over inflated self-esteem, which is sort of funny, in light of Peterson’s recent reactions to criticism. This theory runs counter to the widely held belief that low self-esteem is the cause of violent behavior.

"As compared with other cultures and other historical eras, modern America has been unusually fond of the notion that elevating the self-esteem of each individual will be best for society. America is also, perhaps not coincidentally, one of the world's most violent societies, with rates of violent crime that far exceed even those of other modern, industrialized nations. The hope that raising everyone's self-esteem will prove to be a panacea for both individual and societal problems continues unabated today and indeed the allusions in the mass media to the desirability of self-esteem suggest that it may even be gaining in force. In this context, the notion that low self-esteem causes violence may have been widely appealing as one more reason to raise self-esteem. Our review has indicated, however, that it is threatened egotism rather than low self-esteem that leads to violence. Moreover, certain forms of high self-esteem seem to increase one's proneness to violence. An uncritical endorsement of the cultural value of high self-esteem may therefore be counterproductive and even dangerous. In principle it might become possible to inflate everyone's self-esteem, but it will almost certainly be impossible to insulate everyone against ego threats. In fact, as we have suggested, the higher (and especially the more inflated) the self-esteem, the greater the vulnerability to ego threats. Viewed in this light, the societal pursuit of high self-esteem for everyone may literally end up doing considerable harm."

I repeat, threatened egotism, rather than low self-esteem, is the most explosive recipe for violence.

Does Violence Result From Low Self-Esteem or From Threatened Egotism?

Additional Sources:
The study that Peterson linked suggested that the pro-social effect of marriage was not explained by changes in sexual behavior. 

"Sexually active men, who are not in a monogamous relationship, may be at a greater risk for violence than men who are sexually active within monogamous relationships and men who are not sexually active."

If that’s the case, if it’s not the sexual behavior, what is the exact mechanism that produces these results? Why does marriage reduce violence, if it has nothing to do with monogamous behavior?

Syne thinks that monogamy does not "redistribute sex". It simply allows more men to feel they have value, if not as the most studly alpha male then as a good and honorable provider for his family...which used to be more valued by society.

If violent behavior was linked to self-value as Syne would have it, people with low self-esteem would be more prone to violence and that’s just not the case. As previously shown, research has found that individuals with inflated self-esteem are more prone to anger and are highly aggressive when their self-image is threatened.

The study Peterson linked proposed another interesting question; why does the crime reducing effects vary with age? If competition for access to a mate is the leading cause of violence, why don’t we see the same effects in males between the ages of 25-32, who marry at a later date? Some of the studies simply suggest that old habits die hard, stressing the importance of an early change in criminogenic environments. Desistence from criminal behavior typically begins in mid to late adolescence.

While "early" marriages may indeed reduce involvement in crime and violence, given that the median age for men is 28-30, coupled with the rapidly declining marriage rates and rising divorce rates, we should see a rise in crime rates but in the face of these social trends, violent crime rates are dropping.

So, what now? A push for the traditional early marriages?

Let’s not forget about the obvious relationship between self-control and violence along with the neuropsychological aspects of brain development relating to emotional maturity.

Oh, and BTW, most men could care less about makeup and high heels and lots of women are beautiful with or without it.

Geez, where are we headed here, burkas? 

Sorry, but no matter how you spin Peterson, he still sounds like an idiot. 

Aww... poor little fella says that his tendency to get riled up is being exploited.

Jordan Peterson on his VICE Interview

(Sep 22, 2019 09:34 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 18, 2019 11:42 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And? That literally correlates monogamy and less crime and violence. Less crime and violence is objectively good for society.

Uh, no. It suggested that marriage reduces male aggression for reasons other than monogamous commitment.

"The pro-social effect of marriage was not explained by changes in sexual behavior however, which suggests that marriage reduces male aggression for reasons other than monogamous commitment."

Aw, you really think a "monogamous commitment" is only "sexual behavior"? Well, I guess plenty of people do suffer loveless marriages, in which case, the only real expression of their monogamous commitment is sexual abstinence. That's a very limited view of marriage though. That same study also says:

The current study is limited in several respects, foremost by the ambiguity introduced when attempting to interpret changes in sexual behavior. While changes in sexual behavior were shown to have a statistically significant influence on changes in violence, the data cannot say for sure that sexual competition is the reason why. For a male to accumulate a relatively high number of sexual partners in a short time suggests competition—fighting and wrangling with other men—although the same outcome could be achieved with little to no violence. Further, a growing body of research suggests that, rather than marriage and monogamous unions affecting violence, the relationship may also work the other way around, with crime and antisocial behavior affecting union formation and stability.

Quote:The Darwin-Bateman paradigm suggests that males are typically eager to copulate while females are more choosy. Fair enough, but according to evolutionary psychologists, female promiscuity is advantageous in that it allows females to choose fathers for their children who have better genes.

No, cheating on a spouse for better genes is still choosing, not general promiscuity, like in men. And benefits of real, generalized female promiscuity in other species has not, to my awareness, been shown to hold in humans.

Quote:From an evolutionary perspective, warding off poachers and limiting a woman's potential sexual contact with other men would have increased a man's paternity probability. The link between male possessiveness and violent inclinations has been selected for because violence and threat work to deter sexual rivals and limit female autonomy.

You need to read the study you posted:

Findings also indicate that violent men tend to have more sexual partners than men who are less aggressive, which suggests that female choice, in addition to male competition, plays a role in linking sexual behavior to violence.

It actually says women select for violent genes. And that would make sense, especially of women controlled by possessive men, where a more violent man could hold the promise of freedom.

Quote:According to Syne, though, females maintain sexual autonomy through hidden estrus. He seems to favor the ole cuckoldry hypothesis, but according to Wikipedia the paternal investment hypothesis is the one that’s strongly supported by many evolutionary biologists.

Lol! You mean this Wikipedia:

The paternal investment hypothesis is strongly supported by many evolutionary biologists.[14] Several hypotheses regarding human evolution integrate the idea that women increasingly required supplemental paternal investment in their offspring. The shared reliance on this idea across several hypotheses concerning human evolution increases its significance in terms of this specific phenomenon.

This hypothesis suggests that women concealed ovulation to obtain men's aid in rearing offspring.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_...hypothesis

Seems like you directly lifted the "strongly supported by many evolutionary biologists" without reading any further than confirming your own bias.

Quote:So, as the story goes, violence is a direct result of male-male competition and by-product of female choice. Female choice contributes to male violence because we prefer strong men with high self-esteem and these qualities correlate with aggressive behavior. How convenient is that?

Interestingly, though, there are tons of studies indicating that it’s not necessarily high self-esteem that contributes to violence, but over inflated self-esteem, which is sort of funny, in light of Peterson’s recent reactions to criticism. This theory runs counter to the widely held belief that low self-esteem is the cause of violent behavior.

Evolutionary psychology doesn't have anything to say about high or over-inflated self-esteem. Violence was a way of life and a brute fact of the bulk of our evolutionary past. As such, women simply sought survival for themselves and their offspring from the strongest men, hence choosing to promote the most violent genes.

Quote:"As compared with other cultures and other historical eras, modern America has been unusually fond of the notion that elevating the self-esteem of each individual will be best for society. America is also, perhaps not coincidentally, one of the world's most violent societies, with rates of violent crime that far exceed even those of other modern, industrialized nations. The hope that raising everyone's self-esteem will prove to be a panacea for both individual and societal problems continues unabated today and indeed the allusions in the mass media to the desirability of self-esteem suggest that it may even be gaining in force. In this context, the notion that low self-esteem causes violence may have been widely appealing as one more reason to raise self-esteem. Our review has indicated, however, that it is threatened egotism rather than low self-esteem that leads to violence. Moreover, certain forms of high self-esteem seem to increase one's proneness to violence. An uncritical endorsement of the cultural value of high self-esteem may therefore be counterproductive and even dangerous. In principle it might become possible to inflate everyone's self-esteem, but it will almost certainly be impossible to insulate everyone against ego threats. In fact, as we have suggested, the higher (and especially the more inflated) the self-esteem, the greater the vulnerability to ego threats. Viewed in this light, the societal pursuit of high self-esteem for everyone may literally end up doing considerable harm."

I repeat, threatened egotism, rather than low self-esteem, is the most explosive recipe for violence.

Self-esteem is only inflated when it is mock self-esteem that compensates for actual insecurity. IOW, over-inflated self-esteem is not self-esteem at all. It is just a cover for low self-esteem, meaning it's still just low self-esteem that leads to violence. You know, parsimony. Not finding "self-reported" low self-esteem in narcissists is kind of their defining feature. The problem is that, like happiness, you cannot instill self-esteem in someone else, it must be earned by the individual. The fact that "[p]eople with manic depression, for example, tend to be more aggressive and violent during their manic stage" and "[a]lcohol intoxication has been shown to boost self-esteem temporarily, and it also boosts aggressive tendencies" is evidence that inflated self-esteem is artificial.

Aside from the fact that the uncited study that quote comes from also says:

A more subtle line of reasoning might propose that the super- ficially favorable self-views of conceited and other violent indi- viduals are actually defensive reactions that are designed to con- ceal unfavorable self-appraisals. Possibly these are defensive versions of high self-esteem, underneath which lies a hidden but truly low self-esteem. Theorists wishing to make this argument might be encouraged by the evidence we have reviewed suggest- ing that not all people with high self-esteem are violent. If only a subset of people with high self-esteem are violent, might this subset consist of people for whom high self-esteem is a false ve- neer to cover up low self-esteem? If so, then one might yet find a way to argue that low self-esteem is a cause of violence. In other words, perhaps some people who regard themselves unfa- vorably become self-assertive and violent as a result, possibly as a way of compensating for this sense of inferiority. Because this theory enjoys the luxury of being able to interpret contrary evi- dence as meaning the opposite of what it literally signifies, it is difficult to disprove. In other words, if favorable self-assertions are taken as signs of low self-esteem, then the hypothesis of low self-esteem is difficult to falsify.
- http://homepages.se.edu/cvonbergen/files...esteem.pdf

And it's falsifiable by any psychometric testing better than "self-report". Although I agree that those with admitted low self-esteem are usually less violent. It makes sense that a conflict between inner and outer self-evaluation could lead to expressed conflict.

Again, you simply quit reading once your bias is confirmed.

Quote:The study that Peterson linked suggested that the pro-social effect of marriage was not explained by changes in sexual behavior. 

"Sexually active men, who are not in a monogamous relationship, may be at a greater risk for violence than men who are sexually active within monogamous relationships and men who are not sexually active."

If that’s the case, if it’s not the sexual behavior, what is the exact mechanism that produces these results? Why does marriage reduce violence, if it has nothing to do with monogamous behavior?

I've already told you...a sense of value. A guy can be sexually promiscuous without any sense of accomplishment beyond the temporary and superficial, whereas someone agreeing to marry you, or even have your children, is an accomplishment. Does that study also compare married men who cheat? If not, it's likely the stabilizing affect of commitment itself that reduces violent behavior.

Quote:Syne thinks that monogamy does not "redistribute sex". It simply allows more men to feel they have value, if not as the most studly alpha male then as a good and honorable provider for his family...which used to be more valued by society.

If violent behavior was linked to self-value as Syne would have it, people with low self-esteem would be more prone to violence and that’s just not the case. As previously shown, research has found that individuals with inflated self-esteem are more prone to anger and are highly aggressive when their self-image is threatened.

Again, I agree that the conflict between inner and apparent self-esteem is probably highly correlated with violence. The simple low self-esteem/violence hypothesis is, here, a straw man.

Quote:The study Peterson linked proposed another interesting question; why does the crime reducing effects vary with age? If competition for access to a mate is the leading cause of violence, why don’t we see the same effects in males between the ages of 25-32, who marry at a later date? Some of the studies simply suggest that old habits die hard, stressing the importance of an early change in criminogenic environments. Desistence from criminal behavior typically begins in mid to late adolescence.

While "early" marriages may indeed reduce involvement in crime and violence, given that the median age for men is 28-30, coupled with the rapidly declining marriage rates and rising divorce rates, we should see a rise in crime rates but in the face of these social trends, violent crime rates are dropping.

Human brains do not take on the characteristics of adult brains until around age 25, so the most imprudent behavior is often prior to that. And violent crime rates can be generally dropping while they rise for specific demographics.

Quote:So, what now? A push for the traditional early marriages?

No, just a society that values marriage and a man's contribution.

Quote:Oh, and BTW, most men could care less about makeup and high heels and lots of women are beautiful with or without it.

Do you have any evidence of that...that doesn't apply only to young women? O_o

Quote:Geez, where are we headed here, burkas? 

Sorry, but no matter how you spin Peterson, he still sounds like an idiot. 

Only idiots would think anything Peterson says would suggest burkas.
Which makes your evaluation of his work highly suspect of being a product of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Here's a good video from Peterson, explaining how to measure self-esteem:


Aside from it being a female fan, which you don't seem to think exists, she says: "you said you don't believe in the existence of self-esteem the way to teach children they're all special you think you boost their confidence but the only result is that some get narcissistic". To which Peterson replies: "there's a problem with the measurement of self-esteem and that actually matters because self-esteem is a psychological concept a scientific concept if you like and you have to get the measurement right and you can predict self-esteem almost perfectly by measuring someone's extraversion and subtracting from that their negative emotionality or neuroticism so it's actually just a combination of big five traits and so people who are extroverted who feel a lot of positive emotion and who are and who don't feel a lot of negative emotion score high on scales of self-esteem okay so conceptually it's a non-starter because you're not going to move people's levels of neuroticism let's say by trying to get them to feel good about themselves."

And even though I seriously doubt this will make a dent with SS:

(Sep 29, 2019 03:10 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]although the same outcome could be achieved with little to no violence. Further, a growing body of research suggests that, rather than marriage and monogamous unions affecting violence, the relationship may also work the other way around, with crime and antisocial behavior affecting union formation and stability.

That clashes with what Peterson is suggesting.

Syne Wrote:And benefits of real, generalized female promiscuity in other species has not, to my awareness, been shown to hold in humans.

Data should smash the biological myth of promiscuous males and sexually coy females

"Bateman’s and Trivers’ ideas had their origins in Darwin’s writings, which were greatly influenced by the cultural beliefs of the Victorian era. Victorian social attitudes and science were closely intertwined. The common belief was that males and females were radically different. Moreover, attitudes about Victorian women influenced beliefs about nonhuman females. Males were considered to be active, combative, more variable, and more evolved and complex. Females were deemed to be passive, nurturing; less variable, with arrested development equivalent to that of a child. “True women” were expected to be pure, submissive to men, sexually restrained and uninterested in sex – and this representation was also seamlessly applied to female animals.

Although these ideas may now seem quaint, most scholars of the time embraced them as scientific truths. These stereotypes of men and women survived through the 20th century and influenced research on male-female sexual differences in animal behavior.

Unconscious biases and expectations can influence the questions scientists ask and also their interpretations of data."

Syne Wrote:It actually says women select for violent genes. And that would make sense, especially of women controlled by possessive men, where a more violent man could hold the promise of freedom.

Should we blame all the captain save a hoes for choosing more promiscuous females? Are you breeding more whores, Syne? 

Syne Wrote:Evolutionary psychology doesn't have anything to say about high or over-inflated self-esteem. Violence was a way of life and a brute fact of the bulk of our evolutionary past. As such, women simply sought survival for themselves and their offspring from the strongest men, hence choosing to promote the most violent genes.

***Self-esteem is only inflated when it is mock self-esteem that compensates for actual insecurity. IOW, over-inflated self-esteem is not self-esteem at all. It is just a cover for low self-esteem, meaning it's still just low self-esteem that leads to violence.

Keep reading.

The favorable self-appraisal would thus still be the cause of violence, even if it did coexist with some hidden, unfavorable self-appraisal.

Syne Wrote:I've already told you...a sense of value. A guy can be sexually promiscuous without any sense of accomplishment beyond the temporary and superficial, whereas someone agreeing to marry you, or even have your children, is an accomplishment. Does that study also compare married men who cheat? If not, it's likely the stabilizing affect of commitment itself that reduces violent behavior.

That's not what the studies are suggesting, Syne.  They're stressing the importance of an early change in criminogenic environments.

Syne Wrote:Do you have any evidence of that...that doesn't apply only to young women? O_o

Do you like it? It's a status symbol just like our shoes, dresses, and handbags. Some women where brown, black, and even blue lipstick. Sexual arousal can increase the redness of our lips but it's not the lips on our face.

Syne Wrote:Only idiots would think anything Peterson says would suggest burkas. Rolleyes

Which makes your evaluation of his work highly suspect of being a product of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I wasn't talking about Peterson, Deary. I was talking about you.

Funny thing is, though, Netflix didn't ban it. It was a sexual harassment training course.

"To be sure, it's not a hard and fast rule, a company spokesperson told Quartz. But it's a "recommendation" that was "in fact, discussed in an anti-harassment training session."

"I frequently meet with clients and there are always women present. Do I comment on their appearance? Do I compliment them on their clothes, their hairstyle, their makeup? Do I talk about anything that could remotely be considered sexual, inappropriate or demeaning? Do I touch? Do I leer? Do I gaze? Do I stare? When a woman walks out of the room do I make comments to my male colleagues about her physical appearance?

No, I don't do any of this stuff. Is it because I underwent extensive training on sexual harassment or that I’m immune to others’ appearances? No, it's because I have a daughter. I have a wife. I've worked with women for more than 30 years. Like most men, I simply know how to behave in a work environment. This is not just a matter of respect and professionalism. It's…um...common sense?

Apparently common sense is in short supply."

Is It Sexual Harassment to Stare at Another Employee for More Than 5 Seconds?

I liked his advice. Shut up and do your work.

Syne Wrote:No, just a society that values marriage and a man's contribution.

Do you live in a society that doesn't value a man's contribution?

His whole spiel sounds like a bad case of victim mentality to me.

We're not that different. We want the same things.

Simone de Beauvoir

"Whereas boys were brought up to believe that they could value their own independence and creativity and have flourishing personal relationships, on Beauvoir’s analysis, a woman’s education too often led her to feel ‘torn’ between choosing freedom and choosing love. ‘Woman’, she wrote, is ‘doomed’ to feelings of failure and guilt, because if she succeeded at conforming to mythical ideals of femininity she would be a mirage, not a person. She was expected to embody ‘an inhuman entity: the strong woman, the admirable mother, the virtuous woman, and so on’. Because femininity is so closely associated with prioritising the needs of others, with being likeable and giving, when a woman ‘thinks, dreams, sleeps, desires, and aspires’ for herself, she becomes less feminine – which, in the social currency of 1949 at least, meant she became a worse woman."

(Sep 29, 2019 04:25 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And even though I seriously doubt this will make a dent with SS:

Virtue signaling, big whoop. It's all about him.

And even though I seriously doubt this will make a dent with you.

Disgust and Honor Yale University

(Sep 29, 2019 05:51 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 29, 2019 03:10 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]although the same outcome could be achieved with little to no violence. Further, a growing body of research suggests that, rather than marriage and monogamous unions affecting violence, the relationship may also work the other way around, with crime and antisocial behavior affecting union formation and stability.

That clashes with what Peterson is suggesting.

Not really. Because criminal behavior is well-linked to fatherless homes, so if society is promoting marriage, it addresses the cause, whether it's ultimately the parents or the individual (and likely a bit of both).

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And benefits of real, generalized female promiscuity in other species has not, to my awareness, been shown to hold in humans.

Data should smash the biological myth of promiscuous males and sexually coy females

"Bateman’s and Trivers’ ideas had their origins in Darwin’s writings, which were greatly influenced by the cultural beliefs of the Victorian era. Victorian social attitudes and science were closely intertwined. The common belief was that males and females were radically different. Moreover, attitudes about Victorian women influenced beliefs about nonhuman females. Males were considered to be active, combative, more variable, and more evolved and complex. Females were deemed to be passive, nurturing; less variable, with arrested development equivalent to that of a child. “True women” were expected to be pure, submissive to men, sexually restrained and uninterested in sex – and this representation was also seamlessly applied to female animals.

Although these ideas may now seem quaint, most scholars of the time embraced them as scientific truths. These stereotypes of men and women survived through the 20th century and influenced research on male-female sexual differences in animal behavior.

Unconscious biases and expectations can influence the questions scientists ask and also their interpretations of data."

That article does nothing to bridge the gap between female promiscuity in other species and female choosiness in humans. It also hinges it's argument about humans on gamete production costs when paternal investment theory (which you brought up but seem to have dropped like a hot potato...after making a fool of yourself) hinges on the cost of raising offspring, not of producing gametes. And citing cultural beliefs is a red herring, at best, as it does nothing to address the "data" mentioned in the title.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:It actually says women select for violent genes. And that would make sense, especially of women controlled by possessive men, where a more violent man could hold the promise of freedom.

Should we blame all the captain save a hoes for choosing more promiscuous females? Are you breeding more whores, Syne? 

We should blame supplicating guys for not being men. Are you in a loveless marriage, where your only monogamous commitment is just not cheating, SS?

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Evolutionary psychology doesn't have anything to say about high or over-inflated self-esteem. Violence was a way of life and a brute fact of the bulk of our evolutionary past. As such, women simply sought survival for themselves and their offspring from the strongest men, hence choosing to promote the most violent genes.

***Self-esteem is only inflated when it is mock self-esteem that compensates for actual insecurity. IOW, over-inflated self-esteem is not self-esteem at all. It is just a cover for low self-esteem, meaning it's still just low self-esteem that leads to violence.

Keep reading.

The favorable self-appraisal would thus still be the cause of violence, even if it did coexist with some hidden, unfavorable self-appraisal.

There is also a fundamental conceptual problem with the approach of saying that low self-esteem is often concealed beneath a veneer of high self-esteem. Even if one believes that some people who assert high self-esteem actually have low self-esteem, low self-esteem cannot be regarded as the true cause of violence. There are plenty of people who do clearly have low self-esteem, and as we have shown, they are generally less violent than others.

At best, one would have to concede that individuals with overt low self-esteem are nonviolent and therefore only those with covert low self-esteem are violent. But if one accepts that only the covert version of low self-esteem leads to violence, then seemingly one has already conceded the role of high self-esteem as decisive. In other words, the crucial distinction is between people who admit to having low self-esteem and those whose (putative) low self-esteem is concealed by some veneer of high self-esteem. Insofar as only the latter group are violent, then the decisive factor would be the veneer of high self-esteem. The favorable self-appraisal would thus still be the cause of violence, even if it did coexist with some hidden, unfavorable self-appraisal.

And? I already told you:
"I agree that the conflict between inner and apparent self-esteem is probably highly correlated with violence. The simple low self-esteem/violence hypothesis is, here, a straw man."

Quote:

Syne Wrote:I've already told you...a sense of value. A guy can be sexually promiscuous without any sense of accomplishment beyond the temporary and superficial, whereas someone agreeing to marry you, or even have your children, is an accomplishment. Does that study also compare married men who cheat? If not, it's likely the stabilizing affect of commitment itself that reduces violent behavior.

That's not what the studies are suggesting, Syne.  They're stressing the importance of an early change in criminogenic environments.

Decreasing fatherless homes is directly addressing the early "criminogenic environments".

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Do you have any evidence of that...that doesn't apply only to young women? O_o

Do you like it? It's a status symbol just like our shoes, dresses, and handbags. Some women where brown, black, and even blue lipstick. Sexual arousal can increase the redness of our lips but it's not the lips on our face.

Youth is naturally beautiful, but many older women do need a hand.

Red lips have been considered attractive in women in geographically and temporally diverse cultures, possibly because they mimic vasodilation associated with sexual arousal. ... The association between lip colour contrast and attractiveness in women's faces may be attributable to its association with oxygenated blood perfusion indicating oestrogen levels, sexual arousal, and cardiac and respiratory health. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20942361

If you go around displaying your "other lips", that's you're business and TMI...ew.

So, I guess you have no evidence for your claim.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Only idiots would think anything Peterson says would suggest burkas. Rolleyes

Which makes your evaluation of his work highly suspect of being a product of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I wasn't talking about Peterson, Deary. I was talking about you.

Since you didn't quote anything from me to justify that comment, I can only guess that it's your misandrist Tourette's.

Quote:Funny thing is, though, Netflix didn't ban it. It was a sexual harassment training course.

Non sequitur.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:No, just a society that values marriage and a man's contribution.

Do you live in a society that doesn't value a man's contribution?

His whole spiel sounds like a bad case of victim mentality to me.

We're not that different. We want the same things.

Fathers are seen as unnecessary or portrayed as clueless fools.
A victim misandrist is bound to project victimhood on others.
Just because you wish you were a man does make us the same, deary.

Quote:

(Sep 29, 2019 04:25 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And even though I seriously doubt this will make a dent with SS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMo_20J1J1Y

Virtue signaling, big whoop.

As predicted.

His Netflix spiel was the reason that he came up with the whole makeup scenario. I think I've shown that the RationalWiki article was warranted. He says a lot of stupid shit, doesn't he?

Sorry but blaming women for all your faults is not a good look.

The violent crime rate is dropping, but at the same time, men are dropping out of school.

Perhaps, we prefer dumb ones. 

You're just embarrassed because Peterson was your smart person. 

Sorry, deary, but it is what it is.

Good day to you, little one. 

I've recently read that Jordan Peterson checked into a rehab for going ''cold turkey'' off an anti-anxiety drug. He had terrible withdrawals. From what I've read, he started taking the med to help with anxiety over his wife's cancer diagnosis. I hope he chooses to use his platform to discuss the effects of these drugs, and how he is overcoming his addiction.

(Sep 29, 2019 07:32 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]His Netflix spiel was the reason that he came up with the whole makeup scenario. I think I've shown that the RationalWiki article was warranted. He says a lot of stupid shit, doesn't he?

Sorry but blaming women for all your faults is not a good look.

The violent crime rate is dropping, but at the same time, men are dropping out of school.

Perhaps, we prefer dumb ones.

Making up shit he never said and then calling it stupid is a perfect indictment of yourself.

When college is offering more debt than opportunity, it might not be so dumb. And when have women ever prioritized smarts over the exciting bad boy or the moneyed provider? Never.

---

(Sep 29, 2019 07:57 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I've recently read that Jordan Peterson checked into a rehab for going ''cold turkey'' off an anti-anxiety drug. He had terrible withdrawals. From what I've read, he started taking the med to help with anxiety over his wife's cancer diagnosis. I hope he chooses to use his platform to discuss the effects of these drugs, and how he is overcoming his addiction.

Addiction might imply abuse, but dependency developed by prescribed use does not. His fault for trying to quit a drug too fast that should be gradually weened off, but no indication that his rehab implies abuse.

I didn’t say it did but you can become addicted to a drug without abusing it. Just hope he talks about it because that could help many who are going through similar things.