Welche Themen interessieren euch, welche Studien fandet ihr besonders interessant in der Woche, welche Neuigkeiten gibt es, die interessant für eine Diskussion wären und was beschäftigt euch gerade?
Welche interessanten Artikel gibt es auf euren Blogs? (Schamlose Eigenwerbung ist gerne gesehen!)
Welche Artikel fandet ihr in anderen Blogs besonders lesenswert?
Welches Thema sollte noch im Blog diskutiert werden?
Für das Flüchtlingsthema oder für Israel etc gibt es andere Blogs
Zwischen einem Kommentar, der nur einen Link oder einen Tweet ohne Besprechung des dort gesagten enthält, sollten mindestens 5 Kommentare anderer liegen, damit noch eine Diskussion erfolgen kann.
Ich erinnere auch noch mal an Alles Evolution auf Twitter und auf Facebook.
Wer mal einen Gastartikel schreiben möchte, auch gerne einen feministischen oder sonst zu hier geäußerten Ansichten kritischen, der ist dazu herzlich eingeladen
Es wäre nett, wenn ihr Artikel auf den sozialen Netzwerken verbreiten würdet.
Auf Reddit habe ich diesen interessanten Beitrag gefunden:
It’s a common misconception that men and women’s gender differences are just socialized and caused by the „patriarchy“, but that is false. Many people, particularly woke people, will deny that men and women are inherently different.
In der Tat, der Streit um Nature versus nurture wird gerade hier mit am heftigsten ausgetragen.
Men experience scored lower on fear, anxiety and emotional dependence than women, and the reason had to do with differences in physical strength.
Two studies found that differences in physical strength accounted for why men are less fearful or anxious than women. This study by Nicholas Kerry and Damian Murray found that because women score higher than men on neuroticism (a big 5 personality trait), it was due to differences in grip strength between men and women. They found that gender differences between men and women on the anxiety facet of Neuroticism was explained by differences in grip strength. This means that it did not account for differences in overall neuroticism, but the anxiety facet of neuroticism. This other study also found that the gender differences between men and women in anxiety were explained by grip strength differences.
Ein Zusammenhang, auf den ich nicht ohne weiteres gekommen wäre. Griffstärke und damit zusammenhängende Persönlichkeitsmerkmale.
Aber wenn man vermuten darf, dass die Griffstärke in Verbindung mit (prä- oder postnatalen) Testostern steht dann wäre sie ein gewisser Indikator. Interessanterweise haben selbst sehr trainierte Frauen oft weniger Griffstärke als ein Mann.
Zur Studie:
Individuals vary in physical size, strength, and overall physical formidability, and this variation has potential consequences for the relative costs and benefits of certain types of social interactions. For example, dispositional vigilance towards potential ecological or social threats may be more beneficial for less formidable (relative to more formidable) individuals. However, previous research has only begun to elucidate the relationship between formidability and broad personality traits. In the current research we explored the relationships between hand-grip strength and Big Five personality traits, and found relationships that were partly – but not entirely – consistent with previous research. Across two samples of American undergraduates (N > 500), we found negative correlations between grip strength and neuroticism in both men and women, but no correlation between grip strength and other Big Five traits. In Study 2, we also extended previous research by examining self-reported perceived formidability. Perceived formidability correlated negatively with neuroticism and positively with extraversion in both sexes. Importantly, perceived formidability also mediated the relationship between grip strength and neuroticism. Finally, exploratory analyses revealed that differences in grip strength also fully accounted for sex differences in neuroticism.
Comparing means in our combined sample replicated the established finding that women score higher on neuroticism than men.
However, this sex difference disappeared when accounting for variation in grip strength. We performed a multiple regression entering grip strength, sex, and a grip strength*sex interaction predicting neuroticism. Results of this regression showed that only grip strength uniquely predicted neuroticism (β = −0.29, p < .001), but not sex (β = −0.01, p = .86) nor the grip strength*sex interaction (β = 0.03, p = .56). A model using the same three predictors with extraversion as the dependent variable yielded no significant effects for any of the three predictors (all ps > .14). Thus, in our combined sample, sex differences in neuroticism were fully explained by variation in physical strength.
Also daraus werde ich noch nicht so recht schlau. Zumal die Unterschiede gering zu seien scheinen.
Cross-national research has shown that women in all countries scored higher than men on all 4 facets of emotionality, and the gender difference was bigger in rich, egalitarian countries except the honesty-humility facet. In a study of 1,399 undergraduates at 4 universities, the researchers found that grip strength accounted for more than half of the gender difference in fearfulness. In fact, the 8% of women who were stronger than the average man were less fearful than the 22% most fearful men. In two of the 5 samples, grip strength completely explained the gender experience, and when controlling for it, the gender difference was entirely gone. It did not explain the difference in sentimentality, but explained a considerable portion of the gender difference in anxiety and emotional dependence.
Ich sehe schon, ich muss demnächst einiges über Griffstärke lesen. Da scheint es ja einiges an Forschung zu geben.
Handgrip strength tends to be evolutionarily beneficial for men.
Another finding is that differences in handgrip strength was correlated with promiscuity, shoulder-to-hip ratio, age at first intercourse, and aggressive behavior in men but not women when studying college students. In a meta-analysis, handgrip strength in men was correlated positively with facial attractiveness, self-perceived mate value, walking style attractiveness, dance quality attractiveness, hunting reputation (among hunter gatherers), number of sex partners, male typical body morphology (shoulder-to-hip ratio), self-reported popularity, number of children, self-reported aggression, self-perceived fighting ability and facial dominance/facial aggression. Handgrip strength in men was negatively correlated with being victimized by others and handgrip strength was associated with earlier age of first intercourse.
Ich vermute das ist diese Studie hier:
In this paper we study associations between objective morphological measures of
masculinity/femininity and physical strength (handgrip strength) in relation to developmental instability (as measured by fluctuating asymmetry, FA), attractiveness and sexual behaviour. In spite of the relatively small sample sizes, we were able to detect associations between FA and sexual behaviour (further discussed in Van Dongen et al., 2009), yet not with our measures of masculinity. We next focussed on a relatively recently studied measure of masculinity/femininity, namely physical strength expressed as handgrip strength (HGS). We reviewed results from the recent literature and demonstrated a robust association between HGS and other measures of masculinity/femininity. In addition, we were able to detect some sources of variation. On the one hand, HGS related to morphological features of bodily masculinity (and to a lesser extent but still significantly so to 2D:4D ratios) equally strong in both males and females. However, associations between HGS and either attractiveness, (self-)ratings of dominance, masculinity and popularity and sexual behaviour were weaker or absent in females compared to males. Thus, based on the available literature we conclude that physical strength is determined by circulating hormones affecting morphologically dimorphic structures, yet affects behaviour and the physical expression of it in males only. Physical strength and masculinity is thus likely to play a role in male-male competition and as a signal of mate value in sexual selection.
Quelle: Hand grip strength in relation to morphological measures of masculinity, fluctuating asymmetry and sexual behaviour in males and females
This study found among Spanish teens that fighting ability and physical aggression were associated with each other for boys, but this relationship decreased with age. By late adolescence, fighting ability and anger become linked together for boys, which means their aggression strategy shifted from physical to nonphysical with age. Among late adolescent girls (ages 17/18), fighting ability and aggression have no association together.
Women are as likely to be angry as men, but men and women express it differently, but not necessarily due to social norms.
Men and women are just as likely to experience anger, but women’s anger, on average, lasts longer. Men are more likely to be aggressive, passive aggressive or coercive when dealing with anger, but women are more likely to cut off contact with someone ever again. It’s not because of socialization, but because men are more likely to be aggressive, even in the most „egalitarian“ countries and among other species, and women engage in more relational aggression, like gossiping and character assassination. This is how women express their anger, and, as a result, they seem less angry. It’s not because of socialization. In fact, although the gender differences in how anger manifests still existed after age 50, the difference decreased after that age.
Es könnte diese Studie sein (wenn jemand weiß, wie die Redditlinks funktionieren, dann gerne mitteilen, ich bekomme da nichts funktionierendes)
Evidence is mixed regarding differences in prevalence of aggressive behavior, with many (though not all) studies suggesting that men are more aggressive than women. Furthermore, while aggression often occurs in response to provocation-induced anger, this relationship may be stronger for men; women may be more likely to engage in non-aggressive (e.g., affiliative) behaviors in response to provocation, particularly at low-level provocation. This study examined gender differences in aggression as well as differences in the relationship between anger and aggression for men and women. Adults (N = 424) participated in a behavioral aggression task, and a subset of participants (n = 304) completed a questionnaire assessing trait levels of anger as part of a larger study at a large midwestern university. Results indicated that while men and women aggressed at similar levels, aggression was significantly associated with trait anger for men only, at low levels of provocation, with only a trending relationship for high provocation. This suggests that while men and women may be equally aggressive in certain situations, this behavior may be differentially associated with anger.
Quelle: Gender Differences in the Relationship between Anger and Aggressive Behavior
Risk
This review of the literature shows that women and men’s overlap in riskiness exceeds 80% and they’re similar, with little difference. Nonetheless, men tend to be riskier under stress whereas women are less risky under stress: „These gender differences in behavior are associated with differences in activity in the insula and dorsal striatum, brain regions involved in computing risk and preparing to take action.“
It could be women engage in other risk behaviors like pregnancy or cosmetic surgery whereas men engage in more obvious ones, like drinking and driving or getting in fights. As a result, this leads to research men are riskier. They’re riskier in a different way. They get in more fights, drink and drive more, etc. Historically, men were stronger and had to risk their lives to protect others or hunt large game for food. Women will take risks that don’t result in those types of injuries as much.
In fact, there’s evolutionary reasons for why men might engage in a lot of risk behaviors more than women, such as unsafe sexual practices, drinking and driving, getting in fights, substance use, etc. This study elaborates on how it’s linked to faster life history strategies, which is defined by low parental investment, high mating effort, criminality, high mating effort, low group altruism, and short-term mating. Slow life history strategy is characterized by long-term mating, high parental investment, low criminality, high group altruism and low risk-taking:
The present study analyzed the direct effect of LHS on risk-taking behaviors moderated by gender, and the mediating effect of evolu- tionary domain-specific risks between LHS and risk-taking behaviors. Results showed a moderating effect of gender over rule breaking, with fast LHS males expressing the highest levels of rule breaking and slow LHS males the lowest. However, there were no differences in rule breaking between slow LHS and fast LHS females. Strikingly, males showed higher variability in rule breaking compared to females, with slow LHS males engaging in less rule breaking in comparison with slow LHS females, and fast LHS males engaging in more rule breaking in comparison with fast LHS females. In addition to rule breaking, there were specific conditional direct effects in males over global risk-taking behaviors, unsafe sexual practices, and substance use, with fast LHS scoring higher than slow LHS.
Slow LHS men might increase reproductive success through offspring survival by avoiding risk, whereas fast LHS men engage in risk behaviors for mate attraction. Some men are better suited for parental effort and some are better for reproductive effort. Risks in fast LHS men is a form of intrasexual competition against other men. Women engaged in less risk behaviors because they focus more on parental investment for reproductive success:
More specifically, results have shown that fast LHS is related to higher risk propensity in mate attraction, which in turn increases global risk-taking behaviors, unsafe sexual practices, rule breaking, dangerous, destructive and illegal behaviors, self-injurious behaviors and substance use.
Furthermore, slow LHS women’s involvement in breaking rules with kinship is due to obtaining benefits for relatives because their survival and reproductive success was about kin care. Extended family often took care of children historically, too.:
Finally, kinship also mediated the effect between LHS and rule breaking. As it was expected, slow LHS related to high risk propensity in kinship, as it has been previously seen; by contrast, and quite surprisingly, kinship predicted positively rule breaking. If we look at Fig. 3, we can see that slow LHS females showed higher levels of rule breaking compared to slow LHS males, contrary to LHT predictions. Both slow LHS and females are related to greater investment in kinship compared to fast LHS and males. We therefore suggest that slow LHS females’ involvement in rule breaking through kinship could be partially due to being a mean of obtaining benefits for their relatives, given their survival and reproductive success depend mainly on kin care.
In conclusion, men might engage in certain risk behaviors more because of mate attraction and reproductive success, and it could be because they engaged in more large-game hunting and were stronger, and could protect others. Men with fast life history strategies engage in these risks more. This is all in line withresearch showing dark triad traits like psychopathy and, to an extent, Machiavellianism are linked to faster life history strategies whereas narcissism is linked to slower ones. This study instead found that, after reviewing literature and conducting its own research, fast life history strategy was linked to certain facets of psychopathy (impulsive antisociality) and narcissism (entitlement/exploitativeness), and was linked to Machiavellianism, unrestricted sociosexuality, and aggression. The slow life history strategy was linked to the fearless dominance facet of psychopathy and the leadership/authority and grandiose exhibitionism of narcissism. Dark triad traits are more common in men than they are in women.
Das wäre dann wohl diese Studie:
Traditionally, risk-taking behaviors in young adulthood have been analyzed from a psychopathological approach, thus only assessing their negative consequences. Nevertheless, it is key to study the potential benefits that risk-taking provides to young adults. The present study follows the evolutionary approach of life history theory, which suggests that risk-taking is part of an adaptive fast-life history strategy. The main objective was to analyze the moderation role of gender between life history strategy and risk-taking behaviors. Based on a sample of young adult Spaniards, Mini-K was applied to measure K-factor as an index for life history strategy, and the Risky Behavior Questionnaire to measure the participation in a series of risk-taking behaviors. Results show that gender moderated the effect of life history strategy on risk-taking behaviors. Specifically, males with a fast-life history strategy showed higher participation in risk-taking behaviors compared to males with slow-life history strategy. In females, there was no difference in risk-taking behaviors based on life history strategy. Results support the life history approach of risk-taking behaviors as a pattern of integrated behavior in a fast-life strategy in young adult males. These findings can be applied to improve intervention programs aimed at reducing risk-taking behaviors in young adult males.
Quelle: A Life History Approach on Risk-taking Behaviors Moderated by Gender in Young Adult Spaniards
Sex differences in emotional expression are not necessarily socialized, and can actually be biological instead.
Men do cry less than women. So many studies across the world and time periods have found this almost consistently. In the 1980s, it was found that women cry an average of 5.3 times per month and men cry an average of 1.3 times per month, with crying defined as anything from moist eyes to outright sobbing. Later research in the 2010s found that these averages stayed the same. A study of people in 37 countries found consistently that women cry more than men. The difference is more pronounced in countries that allow more freedom of expression and social resources, like the United States, Chile and Sweden. Countries like Nepal, Ghana, and Nigeria reported higher rates of crying for women, but the difference was less pronounced despite being still pronounced. This is because even though people in these poorer countries have more to cry about, people in those countries repress the tears more because they’re frowned upon in these countries more for expressing emotions. In countries that are considered more egalitarian, the gender gap is bigger. As a result, socialization does not cause the gender gap.
Die Studie zu Weinen in 37 Ländern müsste diese hier sein:
Results of a cross-cultural study of adult crying across 37 countries are presented. Analyses focused on country differences in recency of last crying episode and crying proneness and relationships with country characteristics. Three hypotheses on the nature of country differences in crying were evaluated: (a) distress due to exposure to taxing conditions, (b) norms regarding emotional expressiveness, and (c) personality (at country level).
Individuals living in more affluent, democratic, extraverted, and individualistic countries tend to report to cry more often. These indicators relate to freedom of expression rather than to suffering; therefore, our data provide support for a model that views country differences in crying as being connected with country differences in expressiveness and personality rather than in distress. Gender differences in crying proneness were larger in wealthier, more democratic, and feminine countries. Differences in the meaning of crying at individual level (usually viewed as a sign of distress) and country level (as a sign of expressiveness and personality) are discussed.
Ich habe eine Grafik zum Geschlechterunterschied in den Ländern mal (teilweise) herausgezogen:
Weinen Männer Frauen
Men’s testosterone may inhibit crying, whereas the hormone prolactin (which women have more of) tends to increase crying. This explains why it’s possible that men cry more as they get to older ages after young adulthood when testosterone lowers. Furthermore, up until age 11, boys and girls cry equally often, but then boys gain more testosterone, and certain prostate cancer treatments that lower testosterone tend to lower crying rates among men.
Das hätte mich durchaus interessiert, aber es ist gar nicht so einfach da etwas zu finden, was wirklich ein Nachweis ist. Der erste Satz findet sich so ähnlich hier. Die genaue Wirkung von Prolactin und Testosteron scheint aber noch unklar zu sein.
Until now, it is unclear at what age the difference in (reported) crying frequency between men and women emerges. Frey and Langseth (1985) claims that girls cry more than boys from about age 13 onwards, due to menarche and its associated hormonal changes. More specifically, this author attributes the more frequent crying of girls to increases in the levels of the hormone prolactin. However, this notion is seriously challenged by some recent research findings. A Dutch study comparing the crying frequency of same age, menstruating and non-menstruating, girls failed to demonstrate the predicted differences in crying proneness and frequency (Van Tilburg et al. 2002). In addition, although there is some evidence suggesting that, in infancy boys may cry more often than girls (USA; Landreth 1941), this difference does not necessarily imply that boy infants also have a lower threshold for crying than girls. Perhaps, male infants have a stronger exploratory drive and put themselves more often in daring situations which may result in experiencing pain and frustration, both key antecedents of child crying.
Some support for this assumption is found by a Canadian study of Campbell and Eaton (1999) that showed that male infants have a higher activity level than female infants. Interestingly, in support of this speculation and inconsistent with the idea that boys cry more readily, exposing 11-month old babies to a standardized arm restraint procedure elicited crying in girls more quickly than in boys in European American, Chinese, and Japanese infants (Camras et al. 1998). In other words, maybe the genderdifferences in crying proneness (or crying threshold) do exist from birth on. However, more important is that these findings highlight that a seemingly simple outcome measure like the frequency of crying is not easy and unambiguously to interpret. Rather it may reflect a joint function of innate reactivity (or crying threshold), frequency of exposure to stressful situations, and self-regulatory capacity (Rottenberg and Vingerhoets in press).
Additionally, fathers are more responsive to infants‘ cries when the father had lower testosterone or higher prolactin.
Das wäre wohl diese hier:
To determine the responsiveness of new fathers and non-fathers toward infant cues, we exposed fathers and non-fathers to infant cries and to control stimuli and we measured affective, heart-rate, and endocrine responses, including salivary testosterone and cortisol and plasma prolactin concentrations prior to and after cry presentations. We found that (1) fathers hearing the cry stimuli felt more sympathetic and more alert compared to groups who did not hear the cries or to non-fathers who heard the cries; (2) fathers and non-fathers with lower testosterone levels had higher sympathy and/or need to respond to the infant cries than fathers with higher testosterone levels; (3) fathers with higher, as opposed to lower, prolactin levels were also more alert and more positive in response to the cries; (4) fathers hearing the cry stimuli showed greater percentage increase in testosterone than fathers not hearing the cry stimuli; (5) experienced fathers hearing the cries showed a greater percentage increase in prolactin levels compared to first-time fathers or to any group of fathers hearing control stimuli; finally, (6) partial correlations with parity and experience entered as a covariates indicated that both experience and testosterone contributed to the variance in fathers‘ affective responses to infant cries. Taken together, these results indicate that, as with a number of other biparental species, human fathers are more responsive to infant cues than are non-fathers and fathers‘ responses to infant cues are related to both hormones and to caregiving experience.
Quelle: Testosterone and Prolactin Are Associated with Emotional Responses to Infant Cries in New Fathers
Ich nehme an hier ist das SRY-Gen gemeint. Dann könnte es diese Studie sein, die aber auch mehr eine These aufzustellen scheint
As for expressing emotions, research shows men are as emotional as women. Nonetheless, research showing psychological similarity between men and women tends to have poor methodology in how it measures sex differences, and generally, there’s a lot of psychological difference between men and women. In a meta-analysis of sex differences in feeling moral emotions, women tend to experience more guilt, shame, and to a lesser extent, embarrassment. Similar results were found in a study of children’s emotions. In a cross-cultural study of 37 nations, women tended to report more negative emotionality. In more egalitarian countries, sex differences were found in the intensity of sadness, fear, shame and guilt. Sex differences in social anxiety across cultures found universally that women score higher than men, as do studies of test anxiety among high school students. Most of these negative emotions were small though, but sex differences with larger d values are not more real than ones with smaller d values, nor are they more attributable to biology or less attributable to socialization. Not all men have to be taller than women for a sex difference to be real. In studies measuring emotionality with observer reports or clinical evaluations, sex differences in negative emotionality are not always, but usually, found. Women experience more cognitive rumination and seek social support more, and react more negatively to unpleasant experiences in experimental settings. Women also reacted more sadly to sad films, reacted with more fear-disgust to fear-disgust films, and differed in their brain activation in response to negative slides. Women also had shorter reaction times and fewer atypical responses. Men, on the other hand, reacted more happily to happy films. Women responded more to negative, but not positive, emotion-inducing slides. Studies also constantly find that women score much higher than men on neuroticism and anxiety. Women scored higher on neuroticism compared to men across many nations and cultures. In fact, this sex difference was bigger in more egalitarian countries than less egalitarian ones.
They even looked at 70 nations and found that women valued benevolence and universalism values more than men and this sex difference was larger in more egalitarian countries. In fact, in more egalitarian countries, there were larger sex differences in cognitive ability and physical size (i.e.: height). This important article elaborates more on this.
Da gibt es einige Studien. Durchaus ein interessantes Feld, vielleicht muss ich mich da mal umschauen.
This study found that women smile a bit more than men, and these sex differences peak in the teens but decrease with age. However, when being watched or when in similar roles or positions in society, these differences disappear. They also found the differences exists among white people but not among black people, and the difference is slight, with some studies showing men smile more even if most studies show women do. This large analysis found women do not universally tend to be more express than men across all facial actions, nor are they more expressive in all positive valence actions or less so in all negative valence actions. Women do often express actions more, especially positive valence, „however, expressiveness is not greater in women for all negative valence actions and is dependent on the discrete emotional state“. Women express angry actions less and sad or fearful actions more than men. Additionally:
The general pattern of findings was consistent across the five countries (US, Germany, UK, China, France) included in the study. Although the magnitude of the sex differences varied somewhat across cultures (e.g., women smiled reliably more than men in Germany, the UK and the US but not France or China), the directionality of the data were the same regardless of the country.
Ich vermute mal diese Studie ist da ganz interessant:
There exists a stereotype that women are more expressive than men; however, research has almost exclusively focused on a single facial behavior, smiling. A large-scale study examines whether women are consistently more expressive than men or whether the effects are dependent on the emotion expressed. Studies of gender differences in expressivity have been somewhat restricted to data collected in lab settings or which required labor-intensive manual coding. In the present study, we analyze gender differences in facial behaviors as over 2,000 viewers watch a set of video advertisements in their home environments. The facial responses were recorded using participants’ own webcams. Using a new automated facial coding technology we coded facial activity. We find that women are not universally more expressive across all facial actions. Nor are they more expressive in all positive valence actions and less expressive in all negative valence actions. It appears that generally women express actions more frequently than men, and in particular express more positive valence actions. However, expressiveness is not greater in women for all negative valence actions and is dependent on the discrete emotional state.
Quelle: A large-scale analysis of sex differences in facial expressions
As an example, the locus coeruleus (LC) is one of the stress centers in the brain. A study out of the Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia found that in response to a blood pressure stress test, female LC neurons fire faster than those of males. Female rats also have more receptors for stress-related neurotransmitters than male rats, and their neurons don’t clear the neurotransmitters as quickly from the synapses as males do, meaning a stress reaction lasts longer in females than males.
Sex hormones also play a role. Testosterone inhibits stress response whereas estrogen sensitizes the stress system. This study, however, finds that testosterone affects stress depending on social context, and that it is in line with research showing that testosterone can reduce social anxiety and modulate the effects of stress in socially challenging situations. In fact, a study had found that among prepubescent boys and girls, there is no difference in anxiety disorder prevalence, but by puberty and beyond, the difference appears more among women than men. They found that among adult mice, females were far more likely than males to avoid new, different mice after encounters with aggressive mice, whereas males acted the same around unfamiliar mice even after dealing with aggressive mice. However, among younger mice, males and females acted equally wary after dealing with aggressive mice. Something changed in puberty. Additionally, when they removed the testes of the male mice before puberty began, the male mice grew up without exposure to sex hormones like testosterone, and these mice showed the same response to stress in the experiment as adult female mice. The most noteworthy part of the study is when the study used an implant that only used dihydrotestosterone, a strong version of testosterone, in male mice that had testes removed before puberty. The team also gave these implants of dihydrotestosterone to female mice during puberty to see their results:
On its own, the dihydrotestosterone implants caused no immediate behavioral changes in males or females. However, after exposure to the social stress of an aggressive mouse, the effect was clear: Mice that had received the dihydrotestosterone implants showed almost no effect of stress. With the implants, both males and females behaved just like adult males that had gone through puberty. “Dihydrotestosterone by itself does nothing,” said Wright. “But once placed in a stressful situation the effect became clear.”
The researchers also measured amygdala responses in mice and found that mice with testosterone exposure did not experience increases in that neural activity whereas mice without testosterone did, and this part of the brain does cause stress response. The researchers concludethat testosterone is why men and women respond differently to social stress. This probably explains why male victims of violent crime experience less socio-emotional problems than female victims. Furthermore, a study found that women tend to prefer stoic men as long-term mates compared to other men, and that men, consciously or subconsciously, downplay their health problems to attract women as a long-term relationship partner, presumably because it shows that these men will take lots of risks to protect their own family or engage in large-game hunting.
Der letzte Punkt ist ganz interessant:
Abstract Men consistently report that they are healthier than women but have higher mortality rates. We hypothesized that men were sexually selected to present themselves as healthy to possible mates, according to predictions from health selection theory. The present study tested this theory by contrasting known influences of female mate choice with male’s reactions to a health problem (flu symptoms, reaction to vog (air pollution associated with volcanic emissions in
the Hawaiian islands) or a headache). Participants viewed three sets of slides contrasting male facial symmetry, physique, and status with stoicism (defined as ignoring a health problem) and were asked to choose which male they preferred as a long-term or a short-term mate. Participants preferred stoic men who worked even though they were experiencing health problems as long-term mates, disregarding the male’s facial symmetry and physique. Status also significantly affected long-term mate choice. In short-term mate choice, participants shifted their preferences to symmetrical faces and mesomorphic bodies, signals of attractiveness, disregarding stoicism. In conclusion, our data provide support for health selection theory. Additionally, preventive health measures directed at men should recognize their reluctance to recognize minor health problems and focus on techniques that enhance men’s perception of their health symptom
Das wäre quasi „toxische Männlichkeit“ durch sexuelle Selektion in Männer hinein gezüchtet.
Women are not as interested in casual sex, masturbation, etc. as men unless they’re ovulating and can get pregnant.
Many feminists believe women are just as into casual sex, masturbation, etc. as men or have just as much of a libido as men, but aren’t as likely to admit it or are socialized not to. This is false. An article here provides lots of evidence that shows women are genuinely not as interested in casual sex as men, regardless of sexual orientation. Across all regions, research found that lesbians were no more interested or engaged in it than straight women, and gay men were just as likely to be into it as straight men. Gay men do have casual sex more than straight men because they search for men, not women. In fact, the gap between men vs. women’s interest in casual sex was bigger in gender-egalitarian countries like the Nordic countries. Additionally, even when women were confirmed that they would be safe with a stranger, they were still not as interested in casual sex as men. The research found women’s smaller interest in casual sex was not due to concerns about safety, pregnancy, STDs, contraception, etc.
What should be noted is that women become much more interested in casual sex when they ovulate, and they also tend to be more into relationships when ovulating. Contrary to popular belief, they don’t find masculine faces more attractive when ovulating. They always find masculine faces or attractive men more attractive, but and they prefer them both for both long and short-term relationships. However, when ovulating, women find men in general more attractive. The fact that men using dating apps more (even gay men use it more than lesbians) is because men get aroused or attracted to someone more quickly, including by just looking at a photo of a person. Women’s libidos are more likely to be responsive than men’s, often based on what is happening, and women’s libidos tend to be like men’s or more spontaneous when women ovulate. This is why there’s some anecdotal evidence online that women use dating apps more when ovulating, and they probably swipe right more when ovulating.
In fact, a study that measured ovulation more correctly found that women’s mate preferences did not change when ovulating but they had better body images and heightened sexual desire when ovulating. Their sociosexual orientation did not change either. Their interest in casual sex increases when ovulating, but their interest in long-term relationships increases just as much, and, therefore, the gap between their interest in short-term vs. long-term relationships (they’re more interested in the latter, even when ovulating) stays the same (see chart below, provided by this article). Nonetheless, women had more interest in long-term relationships and casual sex when ovulating. During ovulation, they also perceived themselves as far more sexually attractive, had far more sexual fantasies and desires and more intense sexual fantasies and desires, had more sex with a partner, had their partner initiate sex more, initiated sex themselves more, mutually initiated sex more, masturbated far more, and perceived their partner as far more well-toned.
Women’s libidos are not as high as men’s unless they’re ovulating. When ovulating, they masturbate, think about sex frequently, want to have sex and even casual sex alongside long-term relationships, have spontaneous sexual desire, etc. just as much as men. Men can regularly have the ability to impregnate a woman, but women cannot get pregnant easily unless they’re ovulating. That’s why women are not as sexual as men unless they’re ovulating. That’s all.
Hier mal zwei Studien dazu:
The menstrual cycle and women sexuality have long been an area of research to understand both evolutionary and hormonal influences. This study examined the relationship between menstrual cycle and libido in women with regular menstrual cycles. Two different studies were conducted for this purpose. In the first study, 489 women were surveyed and asked about the day of their menstrual cycle and their libido and sexual activities on the day of the survey. In the second study, 25 women provided a daily diary throughout their one menstrual cycle, and their daily libido scores, whether they masturbated, and rate of initiating sexual activity with their partner were determined. All data were analyzed before and after ovulation and sub-analyses made for periods close to ovulation. We found in both studies were that sexual libido and its behavioral reflections increased before and immediately after ovulation. However, the findings also reveal the complexity of the menstrual cycle and women sexuality.
Quelle: Relationship between the Menstrual Cycle and Sexual Activity: Maybe Women Do Not Lose Estrus
Und:
Imprecise measures of ovulation obscure the relationship between women’s sexuality and the menstrual cycle, as does studying women with different contraceptive goals in different social contexts. Here we present a novel noninvasive method to precisely pinpoint the preovulatory surge of Luteinizing Hormone (LH), demarcating hormonally distinct cycle phases with greater than 95% reliability. Women were more sexually active on days prior to and including the preovulatory (LH) surge. This pattern was evident only when women initiated sexual activity and not when their partners did, indicating an increase in women’s sexual motivation rather than attractiveness. A second study replicated the 6‐day increase in sexual activity beginning 3 days before the LH surge, accompanied by stronger sexual desire and more sexual fantasies. We propose the term “sexual phase” of the cycle, since follicular phase is over inclusive and ovulatory phase is not sufficient. These findings are striking because the women were avoiding pregnancy and were kept blind to the hypotheses, preventing expectation bias. The sexual phase was more robust in women with regular sexual partners, although the increase in sexual desire was just as great in nonpartnered women, who also reported feeling less lonely at this time. We use these results to evaluate potential neuroendocrine mechanisms underlying women’s sexual motivation and activity.
Quelle: Women’s sexual experience during the menstrual cycle: Identification of the sexual phase by noninvasive measurement of luteinizing hormone
Men are more likely to be aggressive than women, and it is for biological reasons. Women have evolutionary reasons for why when they commit crime, it’s more likely to be property crime compared to violent crime. Even other species have men being violent more than women.
This article elaborates more on this. Men are inherently more likely to be violent than women, and even among bonobos and chimpanzees, aggressive males have more mating success, and male bonobos actually are more aggressive than male chimpanzees.
Wirklich schade, dass die Links (für mich zumindest) nicht funktionieren. Das Bonobos nicht so friedlich sind, wie anfangs gedacht hatte ich auch schon gelesen. Wäre interessant inwieweit Aggression den Fortpflanzungserfolg steigert. Es wäre auch nicht unbedingt erstaunlich.
Also, a study of many nations found that sex differences in adolescent physical aggression tend to be bigger in countries with more gender equality and smaller in countries with less gender equality. Sex differences also did not vary according to societal rule of law or income inequality. In fact, in all countries, most murderers were men (although women who commit murder do get suspected less and use sneakier methods, getting away with it more). In fact, even among the youngest children before socialization, boys engage in rough and tumble play more than girls, and this difference appears in juvenile primates. In fact, among chimpanzees, 92% of chimps who kill are males and 73% of the victims are males. Even among very early childhood toddlers, boys were the majority of physically aggressive children, and the sex difference widened as childhood went on, but most perpetrators of indirect aggression (i.e.: relational aggression) were girls.
Auch wenig überraschend
In fact, boys are not taught to be violent. In fact, people perceived aggressive women more leniently than aggressive men, and saw women’s aggression as less aggressive. Male criminals get punished more harshly than female ones even when controlling for various factors. In fact, female criminals are overrepresented among property crime offenders compared to criminals in general. Research shows that resource scarcity might drive offending in women, and maternal survival is vital for female reproductive success, so women have a lower fear threshold than men when dealing with physical danger, which explains why women are much less likely to commit violent crime or engage in risky behaviors involving injury or death, and it explains why they engage in property crime instead or use low-risk or indirect tactics when dealing with direct confrontation. Women are just as likely to commit intimate partner violence as men, but not general violence, and this is probably due to women’s oxytocin and her tendency to attack her partner to engage in mate guarding to increase male investment, whereas men use it to mate guard in order to ensure paternity certainty.
Ich habe dazu mal das gefunden:
This study investigated sex-specific predictors of violent and nonviolent mate guarding used by men (n=399) and women (n=951) in heterosexual relationships, using both self-reports and reports on partners. We found, contrary to some previous evolutionary assumptions, that men and women showed similar degrees of controlling behavior, and that this predicted physical aggression to partners in both sexes. We also predicted from evolutionarily based studies that men’s and women’s control and aggression would vary as a function of female fecundity and mate value (relative to peer group and to partner). Fecundity was associated with men’s and women’s controlling behavior, but not their physical aggression: relationships where the woman was fecund showed higher rates of control. According to partners‘ reports, men and women who had lower mate values showed more controlling behavior and (to a lesser extent) more physical aggression. There was no support for the prediction that higher mate-value partners would be guarded more than lower mate-value ones. The following limitations are discussed: the sample and method of data collection, and the lack of information on the women’s hormonal status.
Women’s interest in STEM appears to be biological.
Women are underrepresented in STEM fields like computer science or engineering, but it’s not because of discrimination. In fact, studiesfound that men tend to face more discrimination compared to women in the hiring process on STEM tenure track.
In fact, even among neonate infants, males showed more interest in the physical-mechanical mobile whereas female infants showed more interest in faces. Another study found that among infants ages 9 to 17 months (when infants can already play with toys independently), toddlers ages 18 to 23 months (when gender knowledge begins), and toddlers ages 24 to 32 months (when further knowledge happens), boys and girls both had a preference for toys suiting their gender’s roles. People weren’t socialized to be interested in it, especially when preferences with male-oriented toys increased for not just boys but even girls with age. Admittedly, in Lithuania, women tend to be overrepresented in this field because:
In the early 1990s, when Lithuania underwent an economic transition and a massive economic contraction, the prestige of scientific professions went down alongside academic salaries and social security in the field, and the number of women doctoral candidates started to go up.
Science research funding is low in Lithuania and the science jobs there are often part-time and open-ended, which makes men there pursue other fields instead.
Dazu hatten wir ja schon viel im Blog.
Sex differences are bigger in egalitarian countries vs. less egalitarian ones.
However, sex differences in many aspects of personality, sexuality, and cognition are actually much larger in cultures with more egalitarian sex role socialization and greater sociopolitical gender equity. This includes sex differences in extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, Machiavellianism, Narcissism, psychopathy, social dominance orientation, dismissing attachment, intimate partner violence, spatial location ability, spatial rotation ability, crying behavior, depression, benevolence values, love, empathetic occupational preferences, enjoying casual sex, mate preferences for attractiveness, self-esteem, and subjective well-being. Even sex differences in physical traits such as height, obesity, and blood pressure are conspicuously larger in cultures with more egalitarian sex role socialization and greater sociopolitical gender equity. This suggests it is unlikely that larger psychological sex differences are due to more traditional sex role socialization or patriarchy. Again, evolutionary theories involving life history strategies and ecological factors may be better at explaining the size of psychological sex differences, in this case how and why sizes vary across cultures.
Across various nations, sex differences did not shrink as gender equality increased. In fact, it remained stable or widened. The factors that shrunk the differences were religiosity and ecological stress, the latter of which hinders survival or reproduction. It’s not gender roles, sexism, patriarchy, socialization, etc. that causes sex differences between men and women. Otherresearch has also shown that in countries with more gender equality, sex differences in various traits, including personality traits, risk taking, revenge, altruism, trust, patience, etc. between men and women widen significantly. These findings were statistically significant, but the size of the effect is not that large because taking a random man or a woman in a country and knowing their gender will tell little about their preferences, but these are about sex differences that occur on average. There was enough variability across cultures to show people respond to the conditions they grow up in, so differences between men and women isn’t always biological, but can be, depending on the trait. This study finds that countries with better living conditions have greater sex differences in personality, verbal ability, episodic memory and negative emotions but smaller sex differences in partner preference, sexual behavior and math. This could be because these countries have more available contraception or condoms, have better sexual education, less stigma against premarital sex, and less concern about paternity certainty, making women more able to engage in premarital sex or casual sex. Furthermore, these countries have low child mortality rates and less poverty, so women don’t have to have many children or rely on a somewhat older or much wealthier man who can help support the family with her:
Taken together, results indicate that more sex differences are larger, rather than smaller, in countries with higher living conditions. It should therefore be expected that the magnitude of most psychological sex differences will remain unchanged or become more pronounced with improvements in living conditions, such as economy, gender equality, and education.
This study investigates whether gender equality itself causes the gender differences in values. They found that in more egalitarian countries, gender differences in values were more pronounced, with cohen’s d sizes being small, but this doesn’t actually suggest that sex differences are actually small. Researcher David P. Schmitt elaborates on this in an article.
The study found that in gender-equal countries, sex differences in values are bigger, but men and women’s values converged to some degree (although not a high degree) over time (from the 2002 to 2004 era to the 2014 to 2016 era). The researchers found no evidence that gender equality itself causes the gender difference in values. They say it’s important to research what else would cause it, and it appears that better living conditions cause gender differences to widen in more egalitarian countries because these countries have better living conditions. As a result, men and women have all the wealth and prosperity to have freedom to pursue their genuine goals in their life.
Das Gender Equality Paradox war auch schon mehrmals Thema:
This is not suggesting that there aren’t any harmful or unfair gender roles. This is not suggesting sex differences can never be socialized. This is not saying sex differences are always biological, but usually, they are biological in the vast majority of cases. Sex differences are usually biological, not caused by socialization or the „patriarchy“
Ich fand es als Nachweis für die Biologie der Geschlechterunterschiede etwas zu wenig auf Biologie bezogen, aber als Überblick über viele Themen und Thesen sehr interessant. Und im Einleitungssatz ist es ja auch nicht auf die Biologie, sondern auf das Patriarchat bezogen. Mir ist bewußt, dass es einige schon aufgrund der Masse an Themen und Text abschrecken wird, aber dennoch werden viele interessante Aspekte angesprochen. In welchen sollte ich noch mal tiefer einsteigen?
Alles Evolution 